News

« Previous Story | Next Story »

| Submit Comments | View Comments (18)

Mile-high sex flights from Farnborough airport

By Tim Harris
March 12, 2013

ROMANTIC couples can ‘join the mile-high club’ by booking a sex flight from Farnborough Airport for around £5,000.

The offer has been launched by online company Wish.co.uk, and is called the Mile High Club Experience.

It can be booked from airports of the customer’s choice, including Farnborough’s private facility.

Wish confirmed the company has ‘a great relationship’ with a private jet provider, which handles the aviation side of things.

The Wish website read: “There is something sexy about air travel.

“Whether it is the shape of the fuselage, the legal fabric restraints or the complimentary sparkling wine, nothing gets our mojos working quite like it.

“Alas, acting on these urges while airborne can be problematic. Do so in ‘economy’ and you’re likely to elicit the most ferocious of frowns from fellow passengers.

“Worse, furtive trips to the bathroom with your beau can carry legal repercussions. “Good news: you may now fulfil those filthy flying fantasies. Yes, we are inviting you to join our luxury Mile High Club.”

While a spokesman for TAG Farnborough Airport said they had been made aware of the flight offer, it was ‘not the type of business TAG Farnborough Airport would welcome’.

Councillor Paul Taylor, who represents Knellwood ward at Rushmoor Borough Council and also sits on the Farnborough Aerodrome Consultative Committee, said he had not been aware of the Wish flights.

“It’s one of those things that’s going to be stirred up – it’s a high interest story in some places, but not in others.

“It’s a business decision for the company. Once the flight has taken off, what goes on during the flight is nothing to do with the airport.”

He added that he would not be surprised if there were some people who would fork out for the experience, but added: “I will not be booking a flight.”

Wish outlines how flights, which can be bought by any two consenting people aged 18 and over, will include champagne and chocolates.

Flights last one hour, although Wish points out that extended flight times can be arranged upon request.

Wish founder Richard Kershaw explained his vision for the Mile High Club Experience.

“If people dream of joining the mile high club then we can make it happen,” he said. “Our goal is to offer people the opportunity to that experience that they perhaps otherwise would not be able to do. I hope it will take off.”

When asked his response to anyone who might find this service ‘inappropriate’, he said: “I think people need to lighten up. If it is two consenting adults then I don’t see what there is to be upset about.”

Mr Kershaw said only one Mile High Club booking had been made so far since its launch shortly before Valentine’s Day.

This was for an airport outside of Rushmoor, but Mr Kershaw said there has been interest in bookings for Farnborough Airport.

| Submit Comments | View Comments (18)

« Previous Story | Next Story »

Most recent user comments 15 of 18

1 | 2 | Next Page Show 15 | 25 | 50 per page

pjt - there are people living in London who have to put up with urchins from nearby commuter towns, such as Farnborough, Woking and Guildford, using the various transport links into 'their' city. Some may even fly into Farnborough and then go to London. Perish the thought.

Likewise, those using the various BAe shuttle flights into Farnborough presumably commute to and from the BAe site in Farnborough. Of course, I'm not suggesting they buy their lunch from Greggs, stay at the Aviator Hotel, or frequent other sources of local employment.

Local jobs for local people. Everyone living just beyond the factory gates. An interesting concept, harking back to a time when large factories provided mass employment.

However, times have moved on.

Based on your comments about the nature of the flights, passenger volumes and disproportionate impact, logic would suggest that it would be preferable to have large commercial airliners flying in and out of Farnborough - high volumes, 1,000 jobs per million passengers = proportionate impact. You never know, it might even prevent the need for a third runway at Heathrow, or Boris Island. Job done!

As for the suggested use of the site for a mixed residential and industrial use, I've read with interest the concerns recently raised about other proposed (over) developments in the area (inadequate transport links, schools, hospitals, other public services, etc...).

Perhaps the site should become a wind farm, so that the densely-populated Farnborough area can produce the electricity it requires to meet its own needs, and prevents those living in mainly rural areas having dirty great nuclear and coal-fired power stations on their doorsteps. How unfair is that? A landfill site or a waste incinerator might be other options, to deal with all the lnon-recyclable waste generated in its midst.

On balance, I reckon a business airport might be the best of a 'bad bunch'.

Knapperdog, Surly
21/03/2013 at 14:14

"using airfields generally wish to visit urban areas rather than rural wildernesses."

By this logic, people visiting Farnborough want to visit the town. I doubt it!

My biggest issue with Farnborough is the nature of the flights. As I have argued before, the majority of traffic is for small passenger volume aircraft with a disproportionate impact. One movement at Gatwick could be the equivalent of a couple of hundred movements at Farnborough. In many cases its sky taxis for the self important.

And don't talk to me about benefit to the area. Even mixed residential and industrial use of the site would probably bring in more money and jobs per acre for the local economy than the airfield... jobs that the residents of AUE and QEB could benefit from. I am actually a fan of the Airshow but its only once every two years!

pjt
20/03/2013 at 16:11

Presumably those living close to the M3, whose use has increased significantly over the years, should be lobbying to have the use of these facilities restricted, closed, or relocated to outside someone elses' homes? Hopefully, no-one in Farnborough complaining about aircraft noise has the temerity to use these facilities, foistering their pollution on others. Or is that somehow different? Strangely enough, people using airfields generally wish to visit urban areas rather than rural wildernesses. Ergo, they tend to be located in or close to urban areas. Is it better to use the facilities and runway capacity already available, or start concreting over our beloved green bellt, so as to minimise noise pollution, but requiring all the additional infrastructure to link it to civilisation? I would suggest the former, both on the grounds of cost and environmental impact. I'm not suggesting unrestricted use of Farnborough, just a more realistic view of its potential and ongoing benefits to the local area. Presumably, you believe the latter to be negligible compared to your need for ear plugs.

Knapperdog, Surly
19/03/2013 at 22:10

Knapperdog. The area has been developed massively. The airfield is now working at a capcity way beyond anything it has seen in its past. It's a bit like buying a house on a quiet road and then finding it turned into a six lane motorway - then some silly twit says "daft old you for living near a road". Times have moved on, the airfield isn't in a locatiion suitable for the massive expansion we have seen. Just because there has been an airfield for many years does not mean that there has to be a busy commercial airport in the midst of a densly populated area.

pjt
19/03/2013 at 19:29

pjt - move your garden to a location away from an airfield that has been a major part of the locality since before World War I. From the balloon factory established in 1905, to the present day runway, built in the 1940s. You'll be pleased to know I have a similar degree of sympathy for 'townies' moving to villages and then complaining about the church bells (and the smell manure). House swap anyone?

Knapperdog, Surly
18/03/2013 at 08:56

Knapper dog. And how do I sound proof my garden? And no, ear plugs are not an acceptable solution

pjt
16/03/2013 at 11:17

Even the plane seats seem to be smiling at the idea!

Retired of Aldershot, Aldershot
14/03/2013 at 21:45

I was wondering how long it would be before the noise disturbance caused by aircraft would get a mention. Answer... not very.

Perhaps, if sound insulation standards were brought up to scratch, those in flimsily-built houses would have less to complain about.

Certainly, it would reduce the amount of sleep disturbance caused by next door's headboard banging wildly against the internal party wall. Rather annoyingly, this usually takes place at times when people are trying to sleep (10pm-7am weekdays, 8pm-8am weekends).

Knapperdog, Surly
14/03/2013 at 15:42

I'm not sure why you think it's disgusting decent citizen ? We all do it, it's not really much different to booking a penthouse suite for your honeymoon or valentines day.