A couple things I don't understand about the charter plane controversy.
Military planes. It's bad it seems when cabinet secretaries etc. fly on military planes. Aren't those planes going to those places anyhow? I can't imagine the army or air force will send a plane just to taxi someone other then the so-called president or the vice-president somewhere. And if they're going there anyhow, it's good to save money on a ticket.
Charter planes. Price is going to reimburse the govt. 50,000 for his seat on several flights, but not for those who go with him. Is the problem that they have to take a bigger plane because of all his staff? I guess if it was just him they could take a 2-seater. So in what way is he and the others like him who arrange things like this not responsible for all of the cost minus what commercial tickets would cost, not just his seat?
If a cabinet secretary were simply hitching a ride on a C-17 or C-5 cargo plane that was already flying a mission, no one would bitch about it, in fact, that would be laudable as it would not be a cushy flight.
However, the USAF and USN own and operate several hundred C-37A and C-37B, twin engine business style aircraft. These are modified Gulfstream V and G550 business jets. It appears that a number of Trump's swamp dwellers ordered up these military aircraft for trips dedicated to them. It wasn't as if they were hitching a ride on a flight that was scheduled for other purposes.
See:
formatting link
They operate a variety of different passenger transport aircraft, but the C37A and C37B are quite desirable for a number of reasons.
Price just "resigned", so I would be surprised if he actually wrote that check for $52k.
In many cases they will charyer whatever plane is available (and n0, it will NOT be a Cessna 150!!!) to get somewhere on their own schedule instead of raking a commercial flight. Ever price out the operating cost of a Piper Aerostar, or a Cessna Caravann, or a Lear???
Like stormin said, they have a whole fleet of govt planes available from Gulfstremes all the way up to 757s. Wasn't Pelosi complaining and getting a 757 when she was speaker?
From pics I saw, looks like his trips were on relatively small corp jets.
I don't think any govt officials fly on 2 seat aircraft. And it looks like some of his flights were not govt planes, but chartered. If he's in some town in Iowa and needs to go to AZ, they just charter one, for example.
So in what way
That's a good question. The actual cost the govt is out is the charter cost minus what it would have cost for him and his staff to fly commercial and that's a lot more than just his portion.
As I remember, the jet they had originally assigned to her did not have adequate range to fly nonstop from Washington to San Francisco so, the USAF assigned her a C-32 which is the military variant of a Boeing 757.
She was a very high maintenance speaker. I was always concerned about her being third in the order of succession.
OMG, Stormin finally found something somewhat critical to say about a Democrat! I thought she had at least requested a 757, wasn't sure she actually was given access to one. But now that I'm thinking about it again, I remember that was the issue, that she claimed she needed a 757 for the cross country trip. What's up with that? Like you say, the AF has a bunch of Gulfstreams, they must have cross country range, nobody would buy them if they didn't. More likely it's that with the worst possible headwinds, with the worst weather, the worst holding delays, the G4 might have to land somewhere and take on extra fuel. Wonder what Micky thinks about her riding in a 757? Maybe she should pay back the taxpayers?
Get that from the Russians? Typical "conservative" fake news. That's why you should assume they're lying if their lips are moving. Price is just another "conservative" spouting "lock her up" and subsequently getting "locked up." What a putz.
formatting link
Pelosi will go down in history as one of the most effective Speakers of the House. After all, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid got the ACA passed. Dennis Hastert still locked up in the big house? "Conservative" values. LOL.
"Wasn't Pelosi complaining and getting a 757 when she was speaker? "
Stormin replied:
"As I remember, the jet they had originally assigned to her did not have adequate range to fly nonstop from Washington to San Francisco so, the USAF assigned her a C-32 which is the military variant of a Boeing 757. She was a very high maintenance speaker."
Which I took to mean that she had in fact been assigned and used a 757. So, you imply there is no truth to it, that it's all fake news and cite factcheck.org. I'll deal with them later, but first let's see what they say:
Q: Did Nancy Pelosi order up a 200-seat jet for her personal use?
A: The Democratic House speaker normally flies in a 12-seat Air Force jet, just as her Republican predecessor did. This rumor stems from a request by the House sergeant at arms, not Pelosi, for a jet large enough to reach Cal ifornia without refueling.
Wow, so "factcheck" wants us to believe that it was all the Sgt at Arms, not Pelosi, who wanted the 757. That he just put in that request, that' Pelosi had nothing to do with it, even though she had just come in as speaker at the time. Are you going to honestly tell us that you would swallow that BS?
Further down:
"Spokespeople for Pelosi and Andrews Air Force Base say that the speaker ha s used the big Air Force jet once, but she normally uses a much smaller pla ne, the same one used by the previous speaker of the House, Republican Denn is Hastert."
So, she has ridden on it at least once, from your own source that tries to deny the whole thing. So, it's not fake news.
Now factcheck denies that Pelosi was behind it, that it was all the sergeant at arms who requested it because she needed an airplane that could go from DC to SFO non-stop. Let's see what ABC News reported at the time. Not Fox News, not Breitbart, ABC News:
Feb 7, 2007 (Pelosi was now Speaker) Pentagon Rejects Speaker Pelosi's Request for Military Aircraft
"A source close to the controversy over the request made by House Speaker N ancy Pelosi, D-Calif., for use of a military plane that can fly to and from her home district in San Francisco without having to stop to refuel, told ABC News that the Pentagon has rebuffed Pelosi's request. "
Earlier today, Pelosi responded to Republican critics who have accused her of making unreasonable demands on the Pentagon for a luxurious airplane he r Republican predecessor never requested.
"I want an aircraft that will reach California," Pelosi told reporters Wedn esday afternoon, insisting that she doesn't care what kind of plane it is a s long as it can fly nonstop to her home district.
Pelosi said news reports suggesting that she seeks a lavish jet suggest a " misrepresentation that could only be coming from the administration. One wo uld wonder why the practice deemed to be necessary from a security standpoi nt would be mischaracterized in the press. I know that it's not coming from the president, because he impressed upon me the amount of security I need to have."
In a previous post, I pointed out that I would think that the C-20, which is a G3, must be able to do that trip non-stop or they would never be able to sell them to the corp market. Who would buy a higher end business jet that can't go across the country? I speculated that maybe with high headwinds, bad weather, long landing delays, it might need to stop to put on more fuel. I was wrong. The truth is the C-20 has a range of either 3,700 or 4,200 miles!
formatting link
So Pelosi and "factcheck" are full of BS. It's another example of the media not doing their job, to not have exposed this BS lie at the time. She could have used an intercontinental range jet, that seats 12, but that wasn't good enough for Nancy and coincidentally, the next step up was a 757. Did Nancy reconsider at that point, OMG, a 757? I can live with that G3 (C20). No.
So, the AF told Pelosi, no way Jose. They said she could use the same jet Hastert had used, the C-20. What was Pelosi's response? Did she say, that's good, I'm OK with that?
"In response to the Pentagon's offer, Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly told AB C News, "We appreciate the Defense Department's continuing concern for the speaker's security. We are reviewing their letter."
So, she still wasn't done with it. It's 100% clear that Pelosi was in fact trying to get a 757 as her routine ride.
No, it's typical leftist rewriting of the truth. Factcheck. What a nice name to take in rubes with that name. It was started and run by journalists. You know, those left leaning folks who infest most of America's media. And it's funded by libs. The facts in the above jet affair speak for themselves.
And then you throw in a good measure of partisan BS to top it all off. The issue was whether Pelosi requested a 757. It's obvious she did and it's also obvious that the C-20 has the range to get her ass from DC to SFO. And even if it were true that in the most extreme conditions it would have to land to refuel, so what? To claim that landing for fuel on the way across the country is a security risk to the speaker, is beyond absurd. The speaker should be riding commercial and they can go back to that mode with the current speaker.
So, she rode on that 757 at least once, when she should have been on a C-20. Should she reimburse the govt?
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.