Pelosi's abuse of power continues.

[Bungee Jumper]

Yeah, and by the time they're done the G-V will cost as much as F-35

 

Air Force buys them already, they don't cost that much.

 

And there's very practical separation-of-powers reasons for not having the Speaker of the House beholden to the White House for a private jet...or vice-versa. If it's an actual need, Congress should get their own.

 

And I think it's pretty clear that it's NOT a need, anyway...Congress did just fine flying commercial through 9/10/01.

[Alaska Darin]

Unfortuantely, all of this comes off looking like a perk, when I don't believe it is - it's simply a practical way to get the most out of high government officials.

[PastaJoe]

The need for a "bigger jet" is not the issue. Its the demands for 42 leather seats, staterooms, entertainment centers and a crew of 16, with a total cost of $300,000 PER ROUND TRIP FLIGHT.

 

Thats just plain old obscene. You know it, I know it.

 

I read today that the round trip cost was $30k, not $300k. Let's compare wasteful spending. Even at $300k, if the gov't found the $8 billion in "brinks of cash" that are unaccounted for in Iraq, it would pay for over 26,000 trips.

[The Avenger]

The need for a "bigger jet" is not the issue. Its the demands for 42 leather seats, staterooms, entertainment centers and a crew of 16, with a total cost of $300,000 PER ROUND TRIP FLIGHT.

 

Thats just plain old obscene. You know it, I know it.

 

Curious to know where you came across these "demands" - are these "facts"? This wasn't mentioned in the Wash Post or Wash Times stories, nor on the AP story that ran - Did I miss this on Rush?

[Bungee Jumper]

I read today that the round trip cost was $30k, not $300k. Let's compare wasteful spending. Even at $300k, if the gov't found the $8 billion in "brinks of cash" that are unaccounted for in Iraq, it would pay for over 26,000 trips.

 

 

In the absence of actual facts, I'd have to say that $300k per flight for a jet crewed by sixteen sounds more realistic than $30k.

[UConn James]

In the absence of actual facts, I'd have to say that $300k per flight for a jet crewed by sixteen sounds more realistic than $30k.

 

Well, let's be conservative and say that $200K goes to fueling, maintenence, etc. (the govt owns the plane so I would think renting it from themselves is pretty stup.... err.... better check on that.)

 

Even granted that, then the average hourly wage --- for what, 8 flight hours for a round trip, including preparation time --- would be $781 and change.

 

Christ, the way you estimate, I'd love to build your house.

[Johnny Coli]

In the absence of actual facts, I'd have to say that $300k per flight for a jet crewed by sixteen sounds more realistic than $30k.

 

 

You are correct , sir.

 

As per the ABC piece:

 

The C-32 can cost as much as $22,000 an hour to operate. It's normally used by the first lady ( ), the vice president, Cabinet officials and members of Congress upon request.

 

[...]

 

There is also the C-37A — a military version of the Gulf Stream 5, which is about the same size as the C-20, but is able to fly nonstop to California. One military source who asked not to be identified says that it may be that Pelosi and her aides were shown a C-37A and didn't understand that it was different and more potent than a C-20, since they look so similar.

 

 

Would Pelosi be willing to use a smaller plane than the lavish C-32 as long as it could fly coast to coast?

 

 

"Yes," said a Pelosi aide.

 

 

She doesn't care what the plane is. For once, I agree with the White House.

 

"This is a silly story and I think it's been unfair to the speaker," White House spokesman Tony Snow said.

 

Pelosi said she would be happy to fly on commercial airliners but said the House sergeant-at-arms office urged her to continue Hastert's practice of using Air Force transport. She said she was informed on her first trip home that her plane would not make it across the country.

 

"I said well, that's fine, I'm going commercial," she told Fox News. "I'm not asking to go on that plane. If you need to take me there for security purposes, you're going to have to get a plane that goes across the country, because I'm going home to my family."

 

[...]But Snow on Thursday said the negotiations over Pelosi's transport have been conducted solely by the House sergeant-at-arms and the Pentagon, with no direct involvement by the speaker or her office _ or the White House.

[Bungee Jumper]

Well, let's be conservative and say that $200K goes to fueling, maintenence, etc. (the govt owns the plane so I would think renting it from themselves is pretty stup.... err.... better check on that.)

 

Even granted that, then the average hourly wage --- for what, 8 flight hours for a round trip, including preparation time --- would be $781 and change.

 

Christ, the way you estimate, I'd love to build your house.

 

 

Conversely, $30k doesn't even cover fuel costs.

 

I wasn't providing an exact calculation, I was saying that from a basic order-of-magnitude estimate, I'd sooner believe $300k than I would $30k. I'd sooner still believe around $90k-120k.

[Bungee Jumper]

You are correct , sir.

 

As per the ABC piece:

 

 

 

 

She doesn't care what the plane is. For once, I agree with the White House.

 

"This is a silly story and I think it's been unfair to the speaker," White House spokesman Tony Snow said.

 

 

Wait...those look like facts. They have no place here.

 

Once again, it's the Great Media Conspiracy at work: not the liberal media conspiracy, not the conservative media conspiracy, but the media's penchant for digging into a story and making it as scandalous and salacious as they possibly can to pull a rating.

[UConn James]

Conversely, $30k doesn't even cover fuel costs.

 

I wasn't providing an exact calculation, I was saying that from a basic order-of-magnitude estimate, I'd sooner believe $300k than I would $30k. I'd sooner still believe around $90k-120k.

 

My brother did security in C-5s and C-130s all over the world. Point was understood that fuel bills are enough to boggle the mind, in particular when getting gouged in Turkey, SA, etc.

 

Another thing is, that's AF personnel. They're paid by DoD for duty time whether they sit at a desk playing computer solitare (Which does actually happen. A lot.) or flying.

 

I wouldn't be shocked by the 90-120K.

[Alaska Darin]

My brother did security in C-5s and C-130s all over the world. Point was understood that fuel bills are enough to boggle the mind, in particular when getting gouged in Turkey, SA, etc.

 

Another thing is, that's AF personnel. They're paid by DoD for duty time whether they sit at a desk playing computer solitare (Which does actually happen. A lot.) or flying.

 

I wouldn't be shocked by the 90-120K.

It's not their pay that's the problem. Trust me on that. Smallest part of the equation by far. In fact, for what would be required I'd venture a guess that a civilian crew would get 2 to 3 times as much. That's because "DoD get's paid for duty time whether they sit around playing solitaire". The difference is, you can also work them 24 hours a day for 30 days and their pay at the end of the month is EXACTLY the same as it would be if they worked one hour, one day.

 

$300K sounds right to me.

[Johnny Coli]

Wait...those look like facts. They have no place here.

 

Once again, it's the Great Media Conspiracy at work: not the liberal media conspiracy, not the conservative media conspiracy, but the media's penchant for digging into a story and making it as scandalous and salacious as they possibly can to pull a rating.

Well, you knew someone was going to start digging up some actual slime at some point, but I don't think it's what the GOP had in mind.

 

From The Hill...

 

But now that the conversation regarding a Speaker using military aircraft has begun, let me revive an episode I wrote about in my Chicago Sun-Times column last October.

 

On Sunday, Oct. 1, Hastert’s team was scrambling to contain the escalating fallout from the Foley page scandal.

 

That day, Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), then the chairman of the page board, had gotten an urgent phone call from Stokke. The Hastert team wanted Shimkus to return to Washington immediately from his home in southern Illinois in order to appear at a press conference on Monday with the Speaker, and they did not want to deal with commercial flight schedules.

 

So at 8 p.m. that day, Shimkus arrived at the military side of the Scott Air Force Base near Belleville to board the Speaker’s jet that had been dispatched for him.

 

The plane then headed to an airport near Aurora, Ill., to pick up Hastert, who had been weekending at his home in Plano, before flying on to Washington.

 

That Monday, Hastert and Shimkus headlined a press conference in the Capitol to talk about the Foley resignation.

 

At least he used the smaller plane.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Why? Evidently she or her mouthpeice is saying that they don't want to stop for "security reasons".

 

We are talking about U.A.S.F. planes...which don't normally stop at O'Hare Airport to refuel.

 

I believe U.S.A.F. bases are "secure" refueling sites. No delays, either...

 

Quite the bottom line Cincy... That was my line of thinking... Don't understand why nobody else commented on this?

[Bungee Jumper]

Well, you knew someone was going to start digging up some actual slime at some point, but I don't think it's what the GOP had in mind.

 

From The Hill...

 

 

 

At least he used the smaller plane.

 

You know, I'd feel better about all of this if they stopped calling it "the Speaker's plane". Better just to do it as your link above suggested: transportation is available to members of Congress on an as-needed emergency basis. Otherwise, fly Southwest like the rest of us have to.

 

And by "emergency basis", I mean sh-- like "An earthquake just levelled my congressional district" or "My spouse was just rushed to the ER after a freak bowling accident". A press conference related to the Foley idiocy does not constitute an emergency.

[Johnny Coli]

A press conference related to the Foley idiocy does not constitute an emergency.

I'm sure it was for Coach Hastert.

[Bungee Jumper]

I'm sure it was for Coach Hastert.

 

Well...yeah, sure. But I'm talking about reasonable, rational people. Not politicians.

[stuckincincy]

Quite the bottom line Cincy... That was my line of thinking... Don't understand why nobody else commented on this?

 

Because 95%+ of the commentators on this haven't done a lick of practical work in their lives.

[Movinon]

Air Force buys them already, they don't cost that much.

 

And there's very practical separation-of-powers reasons for not having the Speaker of the House beholden to the White House for a private jet...or vice-versa. If it's an actual need, Congress should get their own.

 

And I think it's pretty clear that it's NOT a need, anyway...Congress did just fine flying commercial through 9/10/01.

A Gulfsteam 550 costs 52 million dollars. It flies with a crew of 5. The average cost per flying hour amongst the services is 5K per hour.

 

Congress has been flying on government executive aircraft long before 9/11, although I will concede post 9/11 has increased their travel on service aircraft.

 

Oh, unbeknownst to most taxpayers. Whenever Congress flies on official travel, they fly first class on your dime…..automatic entitlement.

[DC Tom]

A Gulfsteam 550 costs 52 million dollars. It flies with a crew of 5. The average cost per flying hour amongst the services is 5K per hour.

 

Congress has been flying on government executive aircraft long before 9/11, although I will concede post 9/11 has increased their travel on service aircraft.

 

Oh, unbeknownst to most taxpayers. Whenever Congress flies on official travel, they fly first class on your dime…..automatic entitlement.

 

I know that...but if Congress wants to claim a given Air Force aircraft as the Speaker's own, that's another thing. Which, I hasten to add, seems to not be the case here. But I stand by the point, regardless.

 

Flying first class, I have little problem with. Rank has some privileges.

[Joey Balls]

I hadn't checked this forum in a week and I thought to myself before I logged on that I'm going to guess what the #1 topic of discussion will be over on PPP. I bet with more certainty than a Colts Superbowl win it will be the Pelosi airplane crap and sure enuff......

 

 

It's easy to figure out what's going to be discussed here (Pelosi, global warming debunking) and what's not (Libby trial, Iraq failure) without ever having to check the site. This forum is pretty much Fox Noise/Bill Orly driven or whatever else drives the screwball conservative right sect.