REMINDER: In UK English, "a motion was tabled" means that it was put forward for consideration. In USAdian English, the phrase means the exact opposite: "we've given up on it; we're not going to try anymore".
When they used to have to refuel flying from Washington DC to Asia they would refuel at The Air Force Base but they would still clear the air space of commercial traffic.
Wherever it lands, there will be disruption. However, Stansted handled the disruption well by merely delaying a few departures and put a few arrivals in the hold so no major issues.
It helps that Stansted is probably the most secure civilian airport in the UK. It's even designated as the airport any hijacked planes would be instructed to land at.
I think it would be better if the leader of the free world landed at a military air base or Stansted, it's not far from London and is the airport where hijack aircraft go so it's easier to keep secure.
I'd say in the future if the AF1 and entourage wants to land at a commercial airport, they are on the hook for any compensation that would be due to passengers, airports and airlines for any other foreseeable disruption. So that'll probably be a couple million at least for Heathrow. Might make an RAF base a more attractive option.
While I don’t know why Heathrow was selected the UK officials are the ones on the hook. They either selected or at least authorized the landing, not the US. It’s not like AF1 just showed up out of nowhere and everything got canceled.
Unfortunately, Air Force One causes some sort of delay everywhere because all activity stops for taxi, takeoff, and landing. Around the summer of 2012, we were #22 in line to take off from ATL after a thunderstorm delay. Then, everything came to a standstill for about another 45 minutes for Air Force One to taxi and takeoff. I only was going to Tampa and arrived several hours late. ATL is always an adventure!
isn't that on the UK government... it's not like the US called and said... "Hey we're landing at Heathrow.. deal with it!!!" I'm sure they could have landed anywhere they were told to ??
I would worry more about how your sovereign is bilking your government every day rather than getting worked up over foreign dignitary landing every 2-3 years.
@@jerrynadler2883 Shut up and pay up, Yankee. The amount of tax money you give to defence companies for bs wars could pay for the sovereigns expenses 10x over 😂
@@alexmcewan7255 way to get off topic, but now that we're criticizing the worst things about each others' countries, how does paying 50% taxes to pay for people on the dole sound? how about the wait at NHS? boy do i love my private hospitals with no lines that i can pay for with less taxes taken out of my paycheck and a tax free HSA.
@@jerrynadler2883 Lmao you want to criticise healthcare now? Private hospitals exist here too if you want one badly enough. At least I dont have to worry about racking up a 6/7 figure debt should I need any life saving treatment. Its quite obvious to see why OP's comment touched a nerve with you, Americans cant stand when other people don't bow down to them or view their country as the peak of society. Anyways, I'm sure you'd be ok with the prime minister or queen blocking up JFK for a few hours...
Part of this falls on the authorities at Heathrow. This was a well planned trip. The planning for this trip would have pre planned arrival times. So the airport and British Airways should have been able to minimize the interruption with a little planning. And it's not the US's fault that Heathrow closed a runway "for practice" the day arrival.
Nobody said it was the fault of the US, least of all the motion tabled by the MPs. The UK or any other country hosting the president must accommodate what the president's usual travel pattern demands. The motion was proposing future disruption minimization planning, and not taking potshots at the US or its president.
It reminds me of a couple of years ago when former President Donald Trump had to leave Paris from Orly airport. There was a period of 30 minutes during which there was no departure nor any arrival scheduled. But the President took 30 mn too long to leave the city, so when he arrived at the airport, all the planes previously put on hold were coming in to land, but Air Traffic Control had to keep them away 30 more minutes to stick to the procedure, and programmed departures were delayed, you guessed it, 30 more minutes as well.
That's what I'm saying, it's obviously not the first time, and it's not like the 747 has some unique capabilities so they need to practice. They do it because they can.
Even our own royals don't cause that much havoc travelling through the VIP unit at LHR. Why should we tolerate such disruption at our busiest gateway in the UK? There's plenty of RAF and some USAF bases still operating in the UK that are capable of hosting such a fleet of aircraft and with their own military security to boot!
@@mariombrbovic8188 Other dignitaries do arrive there, as do the Royal family - but there's never that amount of chaos and cancellations just to accommodate the President. Why would he cause such commotion when others don't? The Americans have the facilities to accommodate the President and the fleet themselves elsewhere in the UK
@@SimpleFlyingNews No, Phillip's right. This sort of thing happens frequently. And as much as I disliked W at the time, it's hardly on him alone. If you'd done a story on how frequently it happens or about a world leader who has handled these situations in a much better fashion, that would have been a remarkably better choice.
everyone else pays a big pile of landing feesssssssssssss and other charges for services wanted/needed/required, simply put a price on it. The customer, "Air Force One" can make their choice.
As much as the 747 is undoubtedly an American icon, it might be better if the new Air Force One was a 787-10 or 777-9X for multiple reasons: both are more fuel efficient so they're probably cheaper to operate; both feature the latest technology the industry has to offer; neither are as much as a burden to airports as the 747; and both have better performance.
@@uriahlevi8640 plus the 747 has much larger space for security and other necessary facilities, on top of that the 747 has been around for over 50 years, if there’s any plane that’s easily the most recognizable, it’s the 747
They should land somewhere else or follow the traffic and go in holding patern like other planes. I really don't like people who gets prioritised. Same when politicians or high officials use blue lights and police cars to pass through the rush hour traffic. Let them stay in the queue like others so they see what it's like and hopefully make some useful changes. I'm just dreaming here.
Each country's national security concerns usually require the highest ranking officials to be escorted to keep the public away, and kept in constant motion for safety en route to their destination. This keeps their windows of vulnerability short and makes them much more difficult to target for assassinations.
I watched Airforce one at Teesside Airport in 2004. It was awesome. Even with all the security you could get relatively close to watch. The Black Stallions choppers reverberated through your body when they flew by.
I used to run a business on northern Virginia where at the time, presidents Bush and later Obama would go through right outside of my business to get to a community center nearby all the time. The police and secret service would not only close the street in front of my business, but I wasn’t even allowed to open the front door and get out to my own parking lot. The two of them cost me a lot of money as a small business because I list some clients because of being late.
I was in t5 the day he left and my memory of the day is 2 Qantas 747’s sitting at the end of the south runway for 30 minutes with engines running. This was long before the helicopters arrived. Having said that af1 was rolling in less than 5 minutes.
I was in in Orlando when President Trump was arriving there for a speech. The pilots were trying to get depart as soon as possible, because if airforce one landed before we took off, we would be waiting a while to take off. As we were nearing the end of the runway to take off, i saw a us airforce 757 taxiing past us and I was worried we were too late. Our flight ended up being the last one to take off before airforce one landed.
AF1 flies out of a military field, Andrews, going to and from DC. No reason to not have then fly into a military field everywhere they have one within a reasonable distance.
If it lands at a Commercial Airport, the services will be highly effected. If it lands at a Military Airport, it's havoc there as well. The airport should prepared before the landing.
Even if they wanted a long runway, London Gatwick is a way better choice than Heathrow because it doesn’t disrupt as much traffic and it has a runway that is almost 11,000 feet
This is why for something like Air Force 1 or its Russian equivalent, they need to fly into a long-runway military base if possible. That's why Air Force 1 often lands at Moffett Federal Airfield in Mountain View, CA on visits to the San Francisco Bay Area, which means no major interference with airport operations at the three major commercial airports in the region.
@@1ager Think about it: every time Vladimir Putin does a state visit to outside Russia, a large entourage of planes follows him. That's similar to what happens when the President of the USA travels overseas. Such an entourage of planes will substantially interfere with airport operations unless it's something like a military airfield.
"Forced the cancellation of over 60 flights affecting over 40,000 passengers" - Ah, yes I love seeing those 800 seat Boeing 747-1500s and A380-2000s at heathrow
I was in Las Vegas during the Bush years and was at the airport when the whole place closed down. Everyone had to walk away from the planes ( pilots, baggage handlers, the lot) BECAUSE......and this is ridiculous....the VICE presidents plane was in the airspace...not landing or taking off...it was flying overhead, probably at 40,000 feet. Wow, that's paranoia for you.
President Bush landed at LHR because he was going direct to Windsor to meet Liz on his farewell tour. Obviously it was quicker to helicopter to Windsor from LHR than it would be than say, Stansted. Just as Biden visited this year he did exactly the same thing.
I understand that the US president's arrival has certain amount of protocol that needs to be accomplished, but for heaven's sake do not fly into London Heathrow. Did the planners chose on the Heathrow on purpose to see how much disruption they can cause
Wonderful PR tactic by Bush. There’s no excuse for arriving at any busy commercial airport knowing that massive disruption will occur. That’s what military airbases are for.
What? Either land at an RAF base or at another airport, surely. If not, why is there a need for the airlines to cancel flights? There will just be delays to aircraft movements. Cancelling flights is much more of a logistical and reputational nightmare than delaying flights, passengers would understand especially since the disruption is beyond the airlines’ control.
I read in an aviation magazine years ago that author was flying and AF1 was going to Andrews AFB. He heard AF1 calling on the radio. AF1: Washington Center, AF1. Washington Center: AF1, stand by. AF1: Washington Center, AF1 request lower. Washington Center: AF1, unable.
The concern is valid, however you don't get to stop traffic for rehearsals and include that in exaggerating the amount of disruption caused by AF1. Most of the people signing on are just looking for attention. If they were concerned they would pass a requirement the arrival take place elsewhere and use a motorcade. IMO lawmakers have no right to complain.
I get the upset but these procedures are well documented. If there was actual concern over this and not a reactive *audible gasp, I did't realize that this completely documented item happened* Things would have been atleast been motioned to happen.
A second Air Force One is always sent on overseas trips because in the 1970s President Nixon was visiting Russia and he was riding on the Russian leader's plane and it broke down and they had to wait six hours for a replacement jet.
REMINDER: In UK English, "a motion was tabled" means that it was put forward for consideration.
In USAdian English, the phrase means the exact opposite: "we've given up on it; we're not going to try anymore".
You have to wonder why AF1 didn’t land at one of the many RAF bases.
When they used to have to refuel flying from Washington DC to Asia they would refuel at The Air Force Base but they would still clear the air space of commercial traffic.
Normally they land at London Stanstead
Wherever it lands, there will be disruption. However, Stansted handled the disruption well by merely delaying a few departures and put a few arrivals in the hold so no major issues.
why not use our own UK airbases ??
It helps that Stansted is probably the most secure civilian airport in the UK. It's even designated as the airport any hijacked planes would be instructed to land at.
I think it would be better if the leader of the free world landed at a military air base or Stansted, it's not far from London and is the airport where hijack aircraft go so it's easier to keep secure.
@@gooner72 Now if you plan to abscond with Biden I'm sure 80% if the USA would be willing to give you a helping hand
I'd say in the future if the AF1 and entourage wants to land at a commercial airport, they are on the hook for any compensation that would be due to passengers, airports and airlines for any other foreseeable disruption. So that'll probably be a couple million at least for Heathrow. Might make an RAF base a more attractive option.
US taxpayers pay and the cost is significantly more with the cargo flights bringing the motorcade, the security checks of routes and people.
As should all other countries that attended.
There are certainly large economic consequences to shutting out foreign heads of states, and economic benefits when they do visit
While I don’t know why Heathrow was selected the UK officials are the ones on the hook. They either selected or at least authorized the landing, not the US. It’s not like AF1 just showed up out of nowhere and everything got canceled.
Unfortunately, Air Force One causes some sort of delay everywhere because all activity stops for taxi, takeoff, and landing. Around the summer of 2012, we were #22 in line to take off from ATL after a thunderstorm delay. Then, everything came to a standstill for about another 45 minutes for Air Force One to taxi and takeoff. I only was going to Tampa and arrived several hours late. ATL is always an adventure!
isn't that on the UK government... it's not like the US called and said... "Hey we're landing at Heathrow.. deal with it!!!" I'm sure they could have landed anywhere they were told to ??
Honestly it’s weird that Air Force one would even fly in to Heathrow; usually presidential planes fly in to military bases or other smaller airports
The US government should pay for this. Understand disruptions will be made but this is not acceptable.
I would worry more about how your sovereign is bilking your government every day rather than getting worked up over foreign dignitary landing every 2-3 years.
@@jerrynadler2883 Shut up and pay up, Yankee. The amount of tax money you give to defence companies for bs wars could pay for the sovereigns expenses 10x over 😂
@@alexmcewan7255 way to get off topic, but now that we're criticizing the worst things about each others' countries, how does paying 50% taxes to pay for people on the dole sound? how about the wait at NHS? boy do i love my private hospitals with no lines that i can pay for with less taxes taken out of my paycheck and a tax free HSA.
@@jerrynadler2883 Lmao you want to criticise healthcare now? Private hospitals exist here too if you want one badly enough. At least I dont have to worry about racking up a 6/7 figure debt should I need any life saving treatment. Its quite obvious to see why OP's comment touched a nerve with you, Americans cant stand when other people don't bow down to them or view their country as the peak of society. Anyways, I'm sure you'd be ok with the prime minister or queen blocking up JFK for a few hours...
Part of this falls on the authorities at Heathrow. This was a well planned trip. The planning for this trip would have pre planned arrival times. So the airport and British Airways should have been able to minimize the interruption with a little planning. And it's not the US's fault that Heathrow closed a runway "for practice" the day arrival.
Nobody said it was the fault of the US, least of all the motion tabled by the MPs. The UK or any other country hosting the president must accommodate what the president's usual travel pattern demands. The motion was proposing future disruption minimization planning, and not taking potshots at the US or its president.
It reminds me of a couple of years ago when former President Donald Trump had to leave Paris from Orly airport.
There was a period of 30 minutes during which there was no departure nor any arrival scheduled. But the President took 30 mn too long to leave the city, so when he arrived at the airport, all the planes previously put on hold were coming in to land, but Air Traffic Control had to keep them away 30 more minutes to stick to the procedure, and programmed departures were delayed, you guessed it, 30 more minutes as well.
When Obama would land in HNL … oh lord , 4 hour traffic jams.
I think the measures around the arrival of a us president are going too far. Nobody is *that* important.
Could he not have landed at Heathrow without disrupting other aircraft?
Or land at say stansted where it wouldn’t disrupt aircraft
Oh god forbid. The US presidents poop smells like perfume.
That's what I'm saying, it's obviously not the first time, and it's not like the 747 has some unique capabilities so they need to practice. They do it because they can.
Unbelievable actually!
Even our own royals don't cause that much havoc travelling through the VIP unit at LHR. Why should we tolerate such disruption at our busiest gateway in the UK? There's plenty of RAF and some USAF bases still operating in the UK that are capable of hosting such a fleet of aircraft and with their own military security to boot!
Talk to your Government leaders ! Also I am sure most if not all other foreign dignitaries landed a Heathrow also?
Why just pick on AF1 ???
Publicity
Send the Queen to O'Hare then.
I agree. That was rude. I could see Trump doing it, but I am disappointed in hearing it of Bush.
@@mariombrbovic8188 Other dignitaries do arrive there, as do the Royal family - but there's never that amount of chaos and cancellations just to accommodate the President. Why would he cause such commotion when others don't? The Americans have the facilities to accommodate the President and the fleet themselves elsewhere in the UK
landed Heathrow again 13/06/2021. Was like a spotter's carnival!
Why would any President or world leader want to fly into a commercial airport?
Heathrow has Pret a Manger!
That’s was 13 years ago. Why post this now?
Hey there, we cover general interest topics as well as news. - TB
Why are you playing this now, this happened 13 years ago
my guy be livin in 2031.
edit: Ah he realised it's not 23 years ago lol
There is no real reason why they shouldn't have used a military strip!
13 years hindsight? Really? Slow news Monday?
Hey Phillip. We don't just cover news at Simple Flying. We also cover general aviation interest. - TB
@@SimpleFlyingNews No, Phillip's right. This sort of thing happens frequently. And as much as I disliked W at the time, it's hardly on him alone. If you'd done a story on how frequently it happens or about a world leader who has handled these situations in a much better fashion, that would have been a remarkably better choice.
I was one of the 40000, delayed 5 hours on my way to Germany. Cheers, Dubya!
I would be more excited about the 747 lol
but they won't let you get out and see it
@@alexm566 oh true but I could spot it landing from far away or something
everyone else pays a big pile of landing feesssssssssssss and other charges for services wanted/needed/required, simply put a price on it. The customer, "Air Force One" can make their choice.
As much as the 747 is undoubtedly an American icon, it might be better if the new Air Force One was a 787-10 or 777-9X for multiple reasons: both are more fuel efficient so they're probably cheaper to operate; both feature the latest technology the industry has to offer; neither are as much as a burden to airports as the 747; and both have better performance.
For safety purposes it is considered that 4-engine is better than 2, in case of one of multiple engine failures.
@@uriahlevi8640 plus the 747 has much larger space for security and other necessary facilities, on top of that the 747 has been around for over 50 years, if there’s any plane that’s easily the most recognizable, it’s the 747
The plane, itself, is not the issue.
So does the 747-8
I remember that day and the inforced delay at the terminal....
They should land somewhere else or follow the traffic and go in holding patern like other planes. I really don't like people who gets prioritised. Same when politicians or high officials use blue lights and police cars to pass through the rush hour traffic. Let them stay in the queue like others so they see what it's like and hopefully make some useful changes.
I'm just dreaming here.
I mean you’re not wrong but for some there are legit security concerns, especially in a post 9/11 world.
Each country's national security concerns usually require the highest ranking officials to be escorted to keep the public away, and kept in constant motion for safety en route to their destination. This keeps their windows of vulnerability short and makes them much more difficult to target for assassinations.
I watched Airforce one at Teesside Airport in 2004. It was awesome. Even with all the security you could get relatively close to watch. The Black Stallions choppers reverberated through your body when they flew by.
All those clips of Air Force one landing and taxiing are Schiphol and not Heathrow
He and Merica disrupted the entire world!
I used to run a business on northern Virginia where at the time, presidents Bush and later Obama would go through right outside of my business to get to a community center nearby all the time. The police and secret service would not only close the street in front of my business, but I wasn’t even allowed to open the front door and get out to my own parking lot.
The two of them cost me a lot of money as a small business because I list some clients because of being late.
I was in t5 the day he left and my memory of the day is 2 Qantas 747’s sitting at the end of the south runway for 30 minutes with engines running. This was long before the helicopters arrived. Having said that af1 was rolling in less than 5 minutes.
Also, President Trump frequently interrupted aircraft movement in Florida during his visits to Mara Largo.
Bill Clinton shut down two runways for an hour at LAX so he could get a haircut on AF1.
Sure
So parliament pretty much just went "Harrumph!" due to Dubya's visit
Is this a robot voice? I can't tell anymore
Hey, it is a real person. - TB
Ugh land at a raf airfield instead or even go to lakenheath
I was in in Orlando when President Trump was arriving there for a speech. The pilots were trying to get depart as soon as possible, because if airforce one landed before we took off, we would be waiting a while to take off. As we were nearing the end of the runway to take off, i saw a us airforce 757 taxiing past us and I was worried we were too late. Our flight ended up being the last one to take off before airforce one landed.
Air Force One always gets priority when it comes to land at an airport.
AF1 flies out of a military field, Andrews, going to and from DC. No reason to not have then fly into a military field everywhere they have one within a reasonable distance.
Could quite easily have landed at Brize Norton
Really? 2008? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
It should go to military bases to at least alleviate security concerns. Safer at a military base and a lot less expensive and way less disruptive.
The only head of state in the world disrupting our lives for a poor theatre play. Make them pay the damage.
Holy cow! This I gotta know
Bro same
Brize Norton? is not that far from London using the choppers.
what a beautiful act by the US government
Surprised the 2021 visit to Heathrow wasn't mentioned
If it lands at a Commercial Airport, the services will be highly effected. If it lands at a Military Airport, it's havoc there as well. The airport should prepared before the landing.
Maybe the British government shouldn’t have voted to host the conference!
Even if they wanted a long runway, London Gatwick is a way better choice than Heathrow because it doesn’t disrupt as much traffic and it has a runway that is almost 11,000 feet
This is why for something like Air Force 1 or its Russian equivalent, they need to fly into a long-runway military base if possible. That's why Air Force 1 often lands at Moffett Federal Airfield in Mountain View, CA on visits to the San Francisco Bay Area, which means no major interference with airport operations at the three major commercial airports in the region.
How did u get Russia involved in this? A down syndrome is visiting his obedient colony. Thats all.
@@1ager Think about it: every time Vladimir Putin does a state visit to outside Russia, a large entourage of planes follows him. That's similar to what happens when the President of the USA travels overseas. Such an entourage of planes will substantially interfere with airport operations unless it's something like a military airfield.
3:00 '... The pleasure of landing at London Stansted...'
Yeah, if that's what you want to call having to go through Stansted
40000/60 comes out 666 passengers per flight.... How is this possible?
"Forced the cancellation of over 60 flights affecting over 40,000 passengers" - Ah, yes I love seeing those 800 seat Boeing 747-1500s and A380-2000s at heathrow
Might have been other flights affected by delays not just cancellations tallying up to that number.
No one man (person) is worth all that hullabaloo!!
Me too
I was in Las Vegas during the Bush years and was at the airport when the whole place closed down. Everyone had to walk away from the planes ( pilots, baggage handlers, the lot) BECAUSE......and this is ridiculous....the VICE presidents plane was in the airspace...not landing or taking off...it was flying overhead, probably at 40,000 feet. Wow, that's paranoia for you.
Failed to mention the fact AF1 landed at Heathrow again this summer but great video.
President Bush landed at LHR because he was going direct to Windsor to meet Liz on his farewell tour. Obviously it was quicker to helicopter to Windsor from LHR than it would be than say, Stansted. Just as Biden visited this year he did exactly the same thing.
There needs to be an investigation
Why
I was severely pissed off when Barack Obama came into Ottawa during his presidency. Both the airport, and the traffic disruptions involved.
Correct any president on oficial visit has to land on private facility why run private citicens.
I understand that the US president's arrival has certain amount of protocol that needs to be accomplished, but for heaven's sake do not fly into London Heathrow. Did the planners chose on the Heathrow on purpose to see how much disruption they can cause
Its ashamed situation, Doesn't London has a military air bases to receive the worldest famous clown all over the world???
Wonderful PR tactic by Bush. There’s no excuse for arriving at any busy commercial airport knowing that massive disruption will occur. That’s what military airbases are for.
Can't we get them to land in France or something and drive up to London?
What? Either land at an RAF base or at another airport, surely. If not, why is there a need for the airlines to cancel flights? There will just be delays to aircraft movements. Cancelling flights is much more of a logistical and reputational nightmare than delaying flights, passengers would understand especially since the disruption is beyond the airlines’ control.
Crazy US President Planes
No resolution on the Queen shutting down major thoroughfares on a weekly basis to enjoy a stroll....
I will vote for VVIP flights to land on a military &/or an air force base.
President of the United States is the God, everyone should be pleased to give way to the President of the United States
I really hope you're being sarcastic
200,000 dead Iraqi civilians would have gladly settled for Dubya just delaying their flight.
Cool
It's bad mate, innit!
I read in an aviation magazine years ago that author was flying and AF1 was going to Andrews AFB. He heard AF1 calling
on the radio. AF1: Washington Center, AF1. Washington Center: AF1, stand by. AF1: Washington Center, AF1 request lower.
Washington Center: AF1, unable.
The concern is valid, however you don't get to stop traffic for rehearsals and include that in exaggerating the amount of disruption caused by AF1.
Most of the people signing on are just looking for attention. If they were concerned they would pass a requirement the arrival take place elsewhere and use a motorcade. IMO lawmakers have no right to complain.
I get the upset but these procedures are well documented. If there was actual concern over this and not a reactive *audible gasp, I did't realize that this completely documented item happened* Things would have been atleast been motioned to happen.
The president is a public servant
and? should he also take a public bus?
@@alexm566 No but he should have minimal impact on the public when he travels
@@edcameron safety first. He is very big assassination target
@@alexm566 Which is all the more reason for him not to fly into a civilian airport.
MERICA!
*thumbnail: shows HMS Belfast*
*Simple Flying: oh shoot not again Azur Lane*
YES ALL VP PLANES NEED TO GO TO MILITARY BASES
Imagined self-importance.
Military ofcourse
A second Air Force One is always sent on overseas trips because in the 1970s President Nixon was visiting Russia and he was riding on the Russian leader's plane and it broke down and they had to wait six hours for a replacement jet.
And just in case there is an attempt to hit the plane, there is 50/50 chance of failing even if one plane is taken down.
So much for the legendary British stiff upper lip.
Hosting counties are involved in logistics too, right? 🙄
They should have denied his arrival. He was useless as the US President.
Bill Clinton shut down two runways for an hour at LAX so he could get a haircut on AF1.
The British are just sour that they lost all those colonies