The day before yesterday, while travelling on the London Underground, I came across an interesting little news item in one of those free newspapers, about how a visit by President Bush to Britain caused disruption at Heathrow a week or two ago. Heathrow being near to Bush’s destination, which was Windsor Castle, he or someone decided that he would arrive there, rather than at a military base. Only last night did I remember to chase it up on the internet. Here is the original version of the story I encountered.
British Airways has criticised Heathrow owner BAA for allowing George Bush to fly into the UK’s biggest airport, forcing the cancellation of at least 69 flights and disrupting the travel plans of 40,000 passengers.
Willie Walsh, BA chief executive, said he was angry that the presidential entourage, which included two Boeing 747 jets and four helicopters, caused chaos 10 days ago as runways were closed and planes grounded. “The decision to allow President Bush and his fleet of aircraft to fly into Heathrow rather than a military base was one all of Heathrow’s users could have done without,” he said. “I am also angry that this was allowed.”
Walsh said the disruption began two days before the president’s visit on June 15 and lasted for the two days that his party stayed in the UK. Heathrow was reduced to one working runway for 30 minutes on June 15 and 16, after its other runway was closed temporarily for the arrival and departure of Air Force One.
I know, I know. If it had been any other President, the Guardian would not have been half so exercised. And had it been President Chavez causing all this fuss, they would have found a way of saying how splendid that was. But this time I happen to agree. Read the rest of the article to learn the full scale of the disruption.
I remember being shocked, in Edinburgh I think it was, when by chance I happened to observe the then Prime Minister John Major being driven past, in the midst of a huge fleet of black cars and police motorbikes. Ordinary motorists were swept from the road to make room for all this shinily mechanised pomposity. It is one thing to object to “statism” in an abstract sort of way, as I had long been doing even then. It’s quite another to observe the actual state in action, in a great flurry of self-importance such as this was. Nothing I was doing was deranged, luckily for me. But I know just how little all these people in their black cars and their blaring motorbikes would have cared if my plans and activities had been thus interrupted. And now these people are crashing through major airports and screwing them around, as if air travel wasn’t chaotic enough already. In the old USSR they used to have dedicated central lanes for the fat cats to be driven along in their convoys of fatcatmobiles. Now the whole world seems to be heading in that direction.
I am not an admirer of British Airways. From what I hear, the habit of BA’s senior management of shouting at anyone who tries to tell them bad news (they call this procedure, bizarrely: “NLP”) was a major cause of the recent Terminal 5 luggage catastrophe. Lots saw this disaster coming. They tried to tell their bosses. Instead of listening and taking the necessary corrective steps, the bosses simply shouted. But I like what BA’s top boss said about this more recent episode very much.
I guess it was all part of Bush’s plans to help out with the supposed oil crisis.
Disrupting public airways like that is just plain ludicrous. He may be the president of the United States, but that doesn’t entitle him to stepping on the common folk to do so.
You mean, Heathrow had a Visitation from the Leader of the Free World, appointed to the post by the Supreme Court, and they objected? What is happening to public servants these days? Where is the automatic deferrence to higher-ups? Why, Britain might end up a democracy if this awful egalitarianism keeps on spreading!
Agreed; it’s ridiculous. Question, though: did BAA really have any say in the matter, or were they simply ordered by the British government to accommodate Bush’s fleet? Could they really have simply refused to allow it to land? My suspicion is that to ask the question is to answer it.
The US President used to be about the only visitor (the Chinese also seem to have obtained that rank and power early by letting it known they’d be very offended if they aren’t granted the relevant obeisance) who got to dictate his own ‘security’ – really pomp and circumstance – arrangements. And it used to be he was sent to Brize Norton not Heathrow.
Generally speaking the traditional British approach was to move VIPs arround with the minimum of fuss. Someone like me who lived in very central London could witness two or three such movements a week: not an obtrusive motorcade, but two security cars providing the close protection and 4 Metropolitan Police motorcycle outriders leapfrogging from junction to junction silently stopping trafic for 20 to 30 seconds at each.
In the early 90s I did a number of events with the then Northern Ireland minister (who was a presumptive target for properly trained and armed assassins, not weird-beard numpties). The approach was even lower-key.
Hugely disruptive security arrangements are political bling, precisely equivalent to the huge (in number and size) entourages of rap stars. They are sending a signal: ‘I’m more important and powerful than you; I’m the Big Man.’
I don’t think it is entirely coincidental that this fashion for ostentation of power has blown up in western countries of late. The tradition of regally stupid splendour never died out in dicatorships where all personal wealth and preferement emanates from the incumbent political head. The modern world of rapid communications and global free markets makes huge wealth and freedom of movement accessible to people in mere trade. Even the common herd have easy access to communications and a lot of other things (such as airports).
It is no longer sufficient to exercise real power quietly. It has become necessary to establish in public symbol and practice who’s boss, exactly because the political elite are exposed as less necessary to the commonwealth than once supposed. (Cf. The inferiority complex exhibited in the hyper-conspicuous consumption as a substitute for taste that is bling.)
I detect the signs of a trend to deny some privileges to the merely rich, that are felt ought to be reserved to the politically protected. Privacy and anonymity in particular. Private flying, private banking, private residence(Link) and ownership of property(Link), are all under threat. The pretext, that wonderful universal pretext, is almost always terrorism and security.
I wonder why the President’s visit did not start at RAF Northolt. That’s as convenient for Windsor as Heathrow, and it’s where bigwigs usually land. Being an RAF base, it’s also much better in security terms. All very odd.
John K,
You will find the answer to that question and many more in this thread at airliners.net
Thanks Mid. I don’t think that the fact that RAF Northolt’s runway is deemed to be a bit short, or that Heathrow has a nice VIP suite really justifies the disruption caused by this visit.
Nor I.
If you think the travel of the US president is a problem in Europe, I did a quick search yesterday and found more than just Billy Jeff’s haircut at LAX for a problem here in the US. I found a case in Tennessee (?) where a rescue helicopter with a guy having a heart attack was diverted around AF1 in clear violation of ATC rules. The guy died two days later but ‘everybody’ says that the diversion didn’t make any difference in his outcome. What I was looking for when I found that was these orders, I couldn’t remember the name so I couldn’t find them, that restrict airspace every where AF1 etc go. Any pilots out there should know what I’m talking about.
Although, in this case I should add, I think the onus is on the UK to have a better way to handle VIPs wearing bullseyes in airplanes that need full length runways. He was there by invitation.
BTW, I found the rescue flight diversion article. It was also (golly gee) on Billy Jeff’s watch. With a small supporting role by Al Gore.
Geoge Bush probably has more people willing, able, even desperately eager, to kill him than any other person in human history, so security probably paid at least a small part in the decision to land him at Heathrow rather than somewhere else. At least they have some security in place there, and the trip down the M4 was probably easier to police than any longer jouney. There’s probably only twenty or thirty bridges to check for RPGs and only ten or so miles of banks to search.
Part of his entourage was the US and international press corps, so keeping their journey shorter and more comfortable figured in the calculation as well. (Not that they wouldn’t moan and bitch all the way whilst wining and dining at the taxpayer’s expense.)
BTW, did you wonder about the Dems capitulation on the NSA surveillance issue?
“Well Senator Obama, a large part of the NSA’s job is to keep track of all the assasination plots on the POTUS, but if you want us to have to get a FISA warrant every time we pick up a sniff of one when you’re President next year, and if you want the Telecoms companies to tell us to piss off when we ask to datamine their number dbs, then you go right ahead and vote your conscience.”
I was strolling along a street in New York City one Saturday morning when I saw a solitary limousine with darkened windows pass. It dutifully stopped at the red light then proceeded. To the U.N. It was Ronald Reagan.
But Kevin, no one will want to kill president Obama, because he will be so nice to everyone.