- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 133,631
- Reaction score
- 30,937
- Location
- Bagdad, La.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Last year, lawmakers excoriated the CEOs of the Big Three automakers for traveling to Washington, D.C., by private jet to attend a hearing about a possible bailout of their companies.
But apparently Congress is not philosophically averse to private air travel: At the end of July, the House approved nearly $200 million for the Air Force to buy three elite Gulfstream jets for ferrying top government officials and Members of Congress.
RollCall.com
Is it just me, or does anyone else feel like they actaully living Animal Farm. I'm, "Boxer", of course.
No Biggie I would guess that they are finally getting around to retiring the four C-37A-I that have seen better days. I would guess that at least two of the 37A-I will be sent to AMARC very soon.
Since we do not have the flight hours or the repair records of the old planes we cannot prove that this was a case of replacement of worn out equipment or not. Yet I will tell you one thing and that is the two Congressmen who pushed for the inclusion of these aircraft into the budget happen to be from two Georgia districts where the vast majority of the components for these planes are made.
We also cannot blame one party over the other for this because one of the "experts" in aircraft additions needs is a Republican and guess what the other is from the Democratic party.
Maybe that is why we have not had a partisan bashing party yet.
No Biggie I would guess that they are finally getting around to retiring the four C-37A-I that have seen better days. I would guess that at least two of the 37A-I will be sent to AMARC very soon.
It is very likely true that some members of congress had ulterior motives.
I would bet that any and all bills brought up in congress are effected in some way by such things.
That does not necessarily mean that it was not a needed change. Although it might.
As you seem to be knowledgeable in this area, a few questions:
Why would the C-37A's be completely retired? Could they not be sold, recouping part of the monies spent on them previously?
Are the replacement planes better in most ways? Or are the replacements not an actual improvement on the ones replaced?
And a thought.
Is congress, perhaps, replacing their older business jets with less fuel-hungry ones in an attempt to deflect possible ridicule from those who support/oppose the theories on a carbon level:global warming relationship?
Do we know if these two new jobbies are replacements or additions?
RollCall.com said:The Air Force had asked for one Gulfstream 550 jet (price tag: about $65 million) as part of an ongoing upgrade of its passenger air service.
But the House Appropriations Committee, at its own initiative, added to the 2010 Defense appropriations bill another $132 million for two more airplanes and specified that they be assigned to the D.C.-area units that carry Members of Congress, military brass and top government officials.
RollCall.com said:Loren Thompson, defense analyst at the conservative Lexington Institute, said, “In the case of the VIP transport for the executive branch, you can easily explain the cost [of private travel] in terms of the risk of somebody being taken hostage or having their time wasted when a critical decision is pending.”
Thompson pointed out that the cost of the plane would be peanuts compared to the cost to the nation if a top official were taken hostage or harmed taking a commercial flight to a dangerous region of the world.
IMO, it is perfectly reasonable for private jets to be available for use by congress. They, after all, are tasked with overseeing the country as a whole and their respective states specifically. Rapid, immediate travel is a necessary part of that, I would think.
Now, using such taxpayer-funded transportation for personal use, such as going to a vacation resort, etc., is unacceptable.
I also see no real issue with business executives doing the same thing, within reason.
Example: A multi-national company uses private jets to transport it's key personnel to necessary locations.
Again, trips which are not business related should cause issue with their stockholders/whatever entity cares about unneeded costs.
As you seem to be knowledgeable in this area, a few questions:
Why would the C-37A's be completely retired? Could they not be sold, recouping part of the monies spent on them previously?
Are the replacement planes better in most ways? Or are the replacements not an actual improvement on the ones replaced?
And a thought.
Is congress, perhaps, replacing their older business jets with less fuel-hungry ones in an attempt to deflect possible ridicule from those who support/oppose the theories on a carbon level:global warming relationship?
Do we know if these two new jobies are replacemenets or additions?
I think members of Congress should arrange their own transportation; whether it be plane, train, bus, or automobile. They're in purdy much a recession proof job.
RollCall.com
So, it seems they may be replacements... Although the article is not clear
And:
Perhaps valid point. But is the performance of these new C-37B's enough of an improvement over the older C-37A's to be justified?
Except one item most of the time the C-37 Fleet is used by Active Duty folks. three of the aircraft are assigned tot the Joint Chiefs alone. Six are set aside for Presidental Duties this includes being Airforce 1 and 2 plus Sect. of State also use these aircraft.
Most of the time when the C-37 are used by members of Congress it's usually made up of 6-10 members of Congress that are using the aircraft.
oh come on Hillary can use her broom and save fuel and wear and tear on our aircraft.
Except one item most of the time the C-37 Fleet is used by Active Duty folks. three of the aircraft are assigned tot the Joint Chiefs alone. Six are set aside for Presidental Duties this includes being Airforce 1 and 2 plus Sect. of State also use these aircraft.
Most of the time when the C-37 are used by members of Congress it's usually made up of 6-10 members of Congress that are using the aircraft.
The JCS can go to Andrews and hop on a C-130, just like the rest of their soldiers. That or they can get a plane ticket through the government with 25 connections between BWX and Atlanta. The troops have to do it, so if it's good enough for them it's good enough for the JCS.
The JCS can go to Andrews and hop on a C-130, just like the rest of their soldiers. That or they can get a plane ticket through the government with 25 connections between BWX and Atlanta. The troops have to do it, so if it's good enough for them it's good enough for the JCS.
oh come on Hillary can use her broom and save fuel and wear and tear on our aircraft.
Sorry, the story fit and I just can't help taking a swipe at the Hillary!!!
Hey I got around on Herkys most of my time in the AirForce but the c-130 is a much higher capacity than the c37 so would not match the mission in most cases. Plus let's face it the Herky is not as comfortable either. Yet we could package up several Congressgeaks into a pallette and drop tem via paracute. We had loadmasters in the AirForce who could do that. I could just see feinstein, Lieberman, McConnell and Commedy Boy all strapped in a a palette going out the aft drop door!!! Too funny !!!
Let the bastards walk, that'll keep'em busy and our of Congress for a while. :lol:IMO, it is perfectly reasonable for private jets to be available for use by congress. They, after all, are tasked with overseeing the country as a whole and their respective states specifically. Rapid, immediate travel is a necessary part of that, I would think.
Now, using such taxpayer-funded transportation for personal use, such as going to a vacation resort, etc., is unacceptable.
I also see no real issue with business executives doing the same thing, within reason.
Example: A multi-national company uses private jets to transport it's key personnel to necessary locations.
Again, trips which are not business related should cause issue with their stockholders/whatever entity cares about unneeded costs.
IMO, it is perfectly reasonable for private jets to be available for use by congress. They, after all, are tasked with overseeing the country as a whole and their respective states specifically. Rapid, immediate travel is a necessary part of that, I would think.
Now, using such taxpayer-funded transportation for personal use, such as going to a vacation resort, etc., is unacceptable.
I also see no real issue with business executives doing the same thing, within reason.
Example: A multi-national company uses private jets to transport it's key personnel to necessary locations.
Again, trips which are not business related should cause issue with their stockholders/whatever entity cares about unneeded costs.
Do we know if these two new jobies are replacemenets or additions?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?