Talk:Air transports of heads of state and government

United Kingdom split debate
I believe the UK entry should be split to a new article (following the deletion of Blair Force One and merger into this article). Air transport of the Royal Family and executive of the United Kingdom is a clumsby title, but I can't think of anything better.

My reasons:
 * This article can never hold all the information. The new article should have a full discussion of early executive/royal air transports, the Queen's Flight, it's merger into 32 Squadron, the current fleet and the proposed new aircraft.
 * The UK entry should be similar to the USA entry, a short summary and a link.
 * Example summary: Air transport for the Royal Family and executive of the United Kingdom is currently provided by the Royal Air Force's No. 32 Squadron, chartered civilan aircraft and occasionally scheduled commerical flights. No. 32 Squadron's executive transport role is secondary to its principal function of providing communications and logistical support for military operations. Given that, the fact that the aircraft are increasingly unsuitable to an executive transport role and the security concerns of chartering commerical aircraft, the government plans to acquire two dedicated executive transports for the use of the Royal Family and executive.
 * The current aircraft (and the proposed aircraft) are used by both the Head of State (the Queen), the executive and the military. Therefore the aircraft are more than "Air transports of Heads of State". I'm going off on a tangent but in fact they're bought and run by the taxpayer, so while technically they're the Queen's aircraft (part of "her" airforce), the executive has more right to call them "their" aircraft. Mark83 21:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Reading the No. 32 Squadron RAF article, it sounds like that squadron is dedicated only to executive/royal transport. Why not expand the article and use that?  I would assume that any new aircraft that are acquired or leased would be operated by them, wouldn't it?  Just an opinion from a yank.  --rogerd 22:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * My understanding of some of the comments in the recent debate about the "Blair Force One" article was that the squadron's rôle is changing and in fact it will become less "dedicated" soon. So I'd be against merging with the squadron's article. I'm actually fairly happy with the current position. But if the UK section gets any longer, it will unbalance this present page, and I'd be in favour of the move to Air transport of the Royal Family and executive of the United Kingdom – a title which is indeed long and I apologise for because I came up with it in the AfD debate! Just a word of pause, though: all this stuff about Blair and Brown will be irrelevant and boring in a couple of years, at which point the section on the UK could be shrunk down to the actual facts about air transport. – Kieran T  ( talk  22:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm with Mark83 on this one. It needs its own article, it always has done, and quite honestly I think the consensus taken by the admin who closed the Blair Force One AFD was simply not present. I'm tempted to go to Deletion Review with the whole ordeal but if we can just shuffle it over to a dedicated UK dignatory air transport article that'll do in my book. Dignatorial air transport of the United Kingdom perhaps? Is dignatorial even a word? Erath 23:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As an aside, there was a consensus for "merge and redirect", but there was no consensus for the target. The options listed on Articles for deletion/Blair Force One included this article, a new article, the squadron article, and editors not suggesting a suitable targt for the merge. My decision to put it here was that approximately 80% of the material in the old "Blair Force One" article was here already, and the names suggested seemed artificial and overly cumbersome. That said, if y'all come to a consensus here to split the article off, by all means do so. -- Avi 05:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not, but dignitaries is, and it certainly forms a shorter suggestion; Dignitaries' air transport of the United Kingdom? However, we should be careful that the quest for a shorter title doesn't make the title hopelessly uninformative nor just plain inaccurate. – Kieran T  ( talk  23:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As noted above, I think the new title is long and cumbersome, and as long as this section remains approximately this size, I would feel it belongs here. However, as I said above, part of the reason for the merge here was the significant overlap (in my opinion). If the history and current events are fleshed out sufficiently that it would overbalance the article, then I would agree that at that point it would need to be split—hideous titles notwithstanding. -- Avi 05:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * But I intend to add the full history of UK executive/Royal air transport and as a few people have said above, this article will become totally overbalanced. I'm not sure about "dignitaries" – that's a very broad term which could include senior church figures etc. Regarding adding it all to the No. 32 Squadron article, that squadron's history is much more than just its current role. Also as I said in my initial comments, its primary function is support of the military with VIP duties a secondary function. Mark83 10:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Based on Mark83's intention to add more info, we've hit the "unbalancing the main article" stage. And since he's quite right that dignitaries is a very broad term... it really does look like we have to go with the long title. At the end of the day, why not? It's not as though people have to type it in anywhere; they'll be clicking on it either on another page, or in search results. If a title has to be long in order to be accurate, then that's the right thing to do. – Kieran T  ( talk  11:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Mark, if you enlarge/enhance the article as you state, then I would agree with you. At the time of the AfD close, however, I had to deal with what was in front of me. -- Avi 12:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It looks like you're having to defend yourself, however after reviewing the dicussion I don't think you did anything wrong. The article had to go and you moved it to a suitable place pending further discussion (and in absence of a consensus for a new name). You dealt with what was in front of you very well. Mark83 12:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Split made
I've removed the section and expanded it at Air transport of the Royal Family and executive of the United Kingdom. Mark83 16:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Ugh!
Anybody else think that this article could do with a revamp, each section is in a different style, each section has different content does not score high on a consistant approach. Not sure what the answer is though. MilborneOne 20:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am the one who started this article. It was originally a very large section of the Air Force One article called "Analogs in other countries" or something like that.  Some sections are quite small, consisting of a sentence or two and others are quite large.  Perhaps we should have an standard about what information each country's entry should have and a suggested format.  As a starting point, which country's entry do you think is the most well-written?  --rogerd 21:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Slovakia - short and direct ! If a section had more than a few lines it probably should have an article of its own. We should have - who uses the aircraft, who operates the aircraft, what are the aircraft. There is a lot of woffle in some of the others ! MilborneOne 21:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Pictures
Here are sources for some G8-planes: Canada CC-150 Polaris, France ACJ, France A340, Germany A310, Italy ACJ, Japan Boeing 747, Russia Il-96. 84.173.204.206 16:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. However, those photos are protected by copyright and can't be used on wikipedia. Links are perfectly OK though. --Nick Dowling 07:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

This article should be renamed
Not to be too pedantic, but prime ministers (such as of Canada, Germany, Italy, and Japan) are not heads of state; they are heads of government. Since they are perhaps the most frequent (or at least most notable) users of these air transports, the article title is too restrictive, even if the distinction is made in the first paragraph. "Air transports of heads of state and government" would be better, if slightly clunky. "Air transports of state leaders" would be better still, although it would probably confuse Americans; "national leaders" is incorrect political terminology. What about "Air transports of senior government officials?" Sacxpert 23:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, since I was the one who created this article and came up with the name, I too struggled with it. I knew at the time that PM's often weren't the head of state, but I couldn't think of anything better.  I agree that this or any name would be problematic.  Let's see if we can reach consensus on a new name.  --rogerd 01:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Heads of Government? The term is commonly used whenever there's a gathering of Commonwealth leaders. -- Htra0497 10:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that's because they all are "only" heads of government: the Commonwealth has Queen Elizabeth as their common head of state. For the purpose of this article, though, which covers the entire world, we should cover both cases: Air transport of heads of state and government (yes, minus the "s" in "transports"). Sandstein 11:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, you all can see my dilemma. I think that "Air transport of heads of state and government" is a little unwieldy. --rogerd 11:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it's certainly no worse than List of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft or List of accidents and incidents on commercial airliners grouped by airline. I'd vote for Air transports of heads of state and government, with the "s", since there are multiple transports. Sacxpert 11:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Head of state should be enough---the context makes it clear that its transport for dignitaries/other high-level officials that's being talked about. 118.90.113.2 (talk) 16:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Use of "Shepherd One" as a callsign?
I was just reading through the article and noticed that it states about the Papal flight that "The callsign used on international flights when carrying the pope is "Shepherd One"" but the linked article only states that "Shepherd One" is a nickname given by the American press. Is there other evidence uses "Shepherd One" as a callsign for the Papal flight? Davehoekst (talk) 21:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Original Research I know but I have heard the papal aircraft use "Shepherd One" twice, once when overflying the UK returning from the United States in the 1990s and on another occasion a chartered helicopter flying the pope in 1982. Just difficult to find a reliable source to prove it! MilborneOne (talk) 21:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Brazil section correction
the portuguese for one is "um", not "uno"(that is not used as number in the callsign) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edurigam (talk • contribs) 01:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Correct. But aviation call signs use the ICAO Phonetic Alphabet. The number 1 ("um") in the portuguese language ICAO Phonetic Alphabet is Uno. Manual de Fraseologia Aeronautica; page 5 Limongi (talk) 01:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok ill just change it to Força Aérea 01, just like in the main article, to avoid futher misunderstands —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edurigam (talk • contribs) 03:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thailand
I have no idea how to do it, but the Thailand picture needs a fix I think (at least in FF3, non-beta view). Janmarques (talk) 07:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thew information about 412 Squadron in the Canadain section is slightly out of date. This squadron has based its aircraft at Trenton for several years now, but maintains a VIP lounge at the Ottawa airport. The VIP CC-144s are overall white, the photo shows a "utility" CC-144 in dark blue paint. The utility aircraft have a mixed frieght and airline seating interior, and support lower level passengers, CF overseas detachments, and medivacs. The blue CC-144s are regular visitors to Afghanistan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.240.15.124 (talk) 00:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The Late Colonel Gadaffi's 340?
He did have one, it was luxouriously furnished...... --178.147.120.157 (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Ugh! II
In 2007 above I commented that this was a really badly presented article and in the following years it has got worse, any suggestions to make it in something worth reading rather than the joke it is at the moment. MilborneOne (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Still a really badly constructed article with loads of un encyclopedic info. MilborneOne (talk) 17:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Bizarre opinion
I have removed the strange unreferenced opinion twice now but an IP keeps adding it back without explanation. The statement is "The UK is bizarrely the only G20 nation not to have a dedicated long range Head of State/Government aircraft like France's A330 or Germany's two A340s." which is hardly bizzare it not compulsory and the fact that other countries spend money on large aircraft is not really relevant, the UK government has decided that it not needed, it has access to commercial aircraft and Royal Air Force aircraft if it needs it. Also note that other G20 countries dont have large aircraft (Italy only has A319s, South Africa only has a Boeing 737, ) I will remove it again soon unless anybody can find a reliable reference that this is indeed "bizarre" or even strange thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 10:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 one external links on Air transports of heads of state and government. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060206053945/http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca:80/equip/cc-150/intro_e.asp to http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/equip/cc-150/intro_e.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060206053934/http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca:80/equip/cc-144/intro_e.asp to http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/equip/cc-144/intro_e.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070929161310/http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=433616 to http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=433616
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111112201503/http://www.forsvarsmakten.se/sv/Materiel-och-teknik/Flyg/Flygplan-TP-102/ to http://www.forsvarsmakten.se/sv/Materiel-och-teknik/Flyg/Flygplan-TP-102/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090111184645/http://pausbenedictusxvi.web-log.nl:80/pausbenedictusxvi/2005/12/vliegende_paus_.html to http://pausbenedictusxvi.web-log.nl/pausbenedictusxvi/2005/12/vliegende_paus_.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Air transports of heads of state and government. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070928045131/http://www.ainonline.com/issues/09_00/sept_greek_1.html to http://www.ainonline.com/issues/09_00/sept_greek_1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Air transports of heads of state and government. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121127090048/http://www.af.mil:80/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=189 to http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=189

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Air transports of heads of state and government. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110401042702/http://www.mopo.de/news/politik---wirtschaft/das-ist-der-neue-airbus-fuer-die-kanzlerin/-/5066858/8278170/-/index.html to http://www.mopo.de/news/politik---wirtschaft/das-ist-der-neue-airbus-fuer-die-kanzlerin/-/5066858/8278170/-/index.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.defence24.com/472171%2Cpolish-ministry-of-defence-reveals-the-vip-aircraft-tender-offers
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://wiadomosci.onet.pl/kraj/36-pulk-specjalny-zostal-zlikwidowany%2C1%2C4813033%2Cwiadomosc.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=189

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Air transports of heads of state and government. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131103153712/http://www.mil.be/aircomp/units/index.asp?LAN=fr&FILE=&ID=645&PAGE=1&MENU=307 to http://www.mil.be/aircomp/units/index.asp?LAN=fr&FILE=&ID=645&PAGE=1&MENU=307

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Air transports of heads of state and government. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121114045026/http://www.planespotters.net/Airline/Yemen-Government to http://www.planespotters.net/Airline/Yemen-Government

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Sultan's Flight
personal planes are not an airline. Daiyusha (talk) 09:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * South Korean Presidential Helicopter landing.jpg

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:21, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Philippine Airlines Flight 1 (2016-09-05).jpg

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:21, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The Presidential Helicopter of South Korea.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 1 JS214180508.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Air India One Chennai.png

Left out Adolph Hitler
Hitler had a Focke Wolf 200 Condor as a personalized plane. 208.114.92.180 (talk) 02:37, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Latvia missing from the list
Just spotted that Latvia was missing from the list. Just wanted to point it out, dont have the sources to do it myself. 2001:A18:0:B23:0:0:0:6 (talk) 13:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Taiwan should be added
Taiwan is confirmed and considered as a nation. We should add one about ROC Air Force One. Tony kang peppy (talk) 08:22, 10 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Taiwan, or the Republic of China, was added in on 27 September 2006 in the section “”. It was then renamed “Republic of China” in  on 7 August 2007, and moved to the  according to that subsection name. It has been moved back to “T” and then back to “C” at least one more time each since then.
 * So, the short of it is, Taiwan is on the page. :) Mifield 03:00, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

clean up
Any country that has at least one main article link to from this page should not have more than a paragraph (more or less) of text on this page, in addition to at most one photo, in my opinion. For example, there’s no reason that the United States entry should have, as of the time of writing, four paragraphs and a table.

In comparison, the Japan entry is much more reasonable, though I do think it can still be trimmed down just a bit further.

As of the time of writing, entries that have at least one main article linked to from this page are: The number of asterisks indicates how much I personally think that that country’s entry should be trimmed down, relatively speaking. Folks are welcome to disagree!
 * Australia**
 * Brazil**
 * Canada
 * France*
 * Germany**
 * Honduras
 * India**
 * Indonesia***
 * Israel*
 * Italy
 * Japan*
 * South Korea**
 * Oman*
 * Qatar
 * Romania
 * Russia**
 * South Africa*
 * Spain*
 * United Kingdom***
 * United States***
 * Uruguay

split
There are a number of entries that I personally believe should be split off into their own articles. They may end up as stub-class articles if this is done, but I would argue that that would be better than them cluttering up this article. These include, I think: Question marks indicate ones that I’m less certain about.
 * Argentina
 * China, People's Republic of (mainland China)
 * China, Republic of (Taiwan)
 * Colombia
 * Egypt
 * Greece?
 * Iran
 * Kuwait
 * Mexico
 * Morocco
 * The Netherlands?
 * Pakistan
 * The Philippines
 * Poland
 * Portugal?
 * Saudi Arabia
 * Singapore?
 * Sweden
 * Switzerland
 * Tajikistan
 * Ukraine
 * United Arab Emirates
 * Uzbekistan
 * Vatican City
 * Vietnam

Any thoughts and questions welcome! Mifield 03:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)


 * A split is possible, but most of these simply aren't going to have enough information for their own article. An article can't just be a fleet table- it has to have descriptions, images, events, etc- things like these may be difficult to find and source, especially for Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, China, and Iran. SurferSquall (talk) 21:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Regarding your first section- the US has so much information because Air Force One is very well known. This article isn't meant as solely a list of links, it should have plenty of its own info. SurferSquall (talk) 21:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Turkey should be relocated
Turkey is a founding member of european council, member of european customs union. It has much more population on european continent than many other countries. Istanbul, the most populous city of Turkey (and one of the most populous cities of europe) is divided between asia and europe.

In very short it is regarded as a european state by eu and wikipedia itself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_area

So Turkey should be relocated into European section. 178.244.77.191 (talk) 08:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)