Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
House Approves $200 Million For Gulfstreams  
User currently offlineDtwclipper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (5 years 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2308 times:

First, let's put this disclaimer up.

The funding for the jets was pushed by two members of the Appropriations Committee, Democrat Sanford Bishop and Republican Jack Kingston.

It looks like a nice bipartisan effort.



http://abcnews.go.com/WN/story?id=8261754&page=1


So, congress slams GM/Ford/Chrysler for flying to DC in corporate jets, but then they turn around and do this!

High Flying Congress
House Approves Nearly $200 Million for Gulfstream Jets to Ferry Government Officials and Members of Congress

Call it Jets for Junkets. Congress is poised to spend $200 million to buy the Air Force three of the highest performing passenger jets in the world, including two planes that will be used for members of Congress and other government VIPs.

44 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineYOWza From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 4882 posts, RR: 15
Reply 1, posted (5 years 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2283 times:

Renditions flights are getting harder to do on private charters.

YOWza



12A whenever possible.
User currently offlineRFields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 2, posted (5 years 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2271 times:

The Congress has long been unhappy with the US Air Force and their limitations on using the small fleet of B737, B757, Lear 35 and Gulfstream III/IV aircraft for domestic travel by Congress.

Didn't a west coast senator get into a public battle with the USAF awhile back because they "needed" to travel non-stop to California and the jet the USAF provided did not have that range?

However in the past, most of these aircraft have been purchased used, not new. There is some modification work necessary.

There may well be a need for these planes - but this is pure pork barrell politics as usual - two members of Congress from Georgia getting a $200 million contract for work in Savannah Georgia.


User currently offlineJetBlueGuy2006 From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1658 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (5 years 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2260 times:



Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 2):
Didn't a west coast senator get into a public battle with the USAF awhile back because they "needed" to travel non-stop to California and the jet the USAF provided did not have that range?

That was Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Dennis Hastert used to be able to travel back to Illinois using the Gulfstream, but Nancy Pelosi wanted a bigger a/c to make sure that she could get there non-stop. But she also wanted to make sure there was enough room for others to travel with her (her staff, friends, family, but they would pay the Air Force for the flight.)

So she was granted the use of the C-32.



Home Airport: Capital Region International Airport (KLAN)
User currently offlineUH60FtRucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (5 years 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2262 times:

It's really pathetic, because it's turning the Air Force into a personal taxi service, not to mention adding to the widening gap between the life of a politician, and the life of the average constituent.

$200million? Christ, we could sure build one hell of a combat support hospital with that cash. Hell, or we could use that money to pay to send men and women home on mid-deployment leave.

The point being - that money could actually be used by the Air Force for the betterment of the lives of those in uniform. Flights out of DCA are perfectly capable of being to provide service for the vast majority of their travel needs.

Screw it. While they're at it, they ought to vote themselves yet another raise.  Yeah sure


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12138 posts, RR: 51
Reply 5, posted (5 years 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2256 times:



Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 4):
While they're at it, they ought to vote themselves yet another raise.

I totally agree with you. Actually, Congress wants to take control of all three G-550s. The original C-37A was being ordered for the new commander of the new Africa Command to stand up next FY.

They want these jets so they don't have to fly commerical, possibly having to sit next to someone who will ask them "embarassing questions".

The way Congress has their pay raises set up, they are automatic. Congress has to vote to NOT take a pay raise.


User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8135 posts, RR: 26
Reply 6, posted (5 years 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2238 times:



Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 4):
not to mention adding to the widening gap between the life of a politician, and the life of the average constituent.

As I've posted on numerous occasions, without a massive public referendum to freeze their lifetime pensions and medical benefits, none of the do-nothings who slip into so-called public service will ever give a flip about any such gap. Hit em where it hurts or they simply won't pay attention.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineFuturePilot16 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2035 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (5 years 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2236 times:



Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 4):
It's really pathetic, because it's turning the Air Force into a personal taxi service, not to mention adding to the widening gap between the life of a politician, and the life of the average constituent.

That's true, they shun the car company ceo's (who make way more money than they do btw) for spending money on jets, which it was reported the company would lose money on the jets if they didn't take the order. Congress wasn't even sure whether they used taxpayer dollars or not, the just HAD to make themselves heard. But now they are using actual taxpayer dollars to buy jets because they themselves think they're too good to fly on the ones right now or fly commercially. The Air Force is not a personal taxi service for the gov't, the only people who should get the use of these aircraft are the president, his closest advisors (i'll let you guys decide who) and their families. The public needs to make their voices heard because we need to tighten our belts as much as possible. I don't care if it is $200 million, this needless spending all throughout gov't needs to stop.



"The brave don't live forever, but the cautious don't live at all."
User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8135 posts, RR: 26
Reply 8, posted (5 years 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2230 times:



Quoting FuturePilot16 (Reply 7):
I don't care if it is $200 million, this needless spending all throughout gov't needs to stop.

But it's creating jobs in two Georgia counties!!  Yeah sure Same twisted logic used for the bloated stimulus.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11275 posts, RR: 52
Reply 9, posted (5 years 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2146 times:



Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 4):
Flights out of DCA are perfectly capable of being to provide service for the vast majority of their travel needs.

In fact, if I'm not mistaken, that was the biggest reason that DCA wasn't closed when IAD moved into full swing.

Oh and KC135, for once I agree with you 100%.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineEMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9364 posts, RR: 11
Reply 10, posted (5 years 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2104 times:

200 million is a lot of money... but it's not a lot of airplane. My guess would be 4 or 5


"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8961 posts, RR: 40
Reply 11, posted (5 years 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2099 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
They want these jets so they don't have to fly commerical

. . . and avoid the giant mess they've created at the airports.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineDXing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (5 years 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2072 times:



Quoting Dtwclipper (Thread starter):
The funding for the jets was pushed by two members of the Appropriations Committee, Democrat Sanford Bishop and Republican Jack Kingston.

It looks like a nice bipartisan effort.

Bipartisan had very little to do with it. From the link you provided:

The funding for the jets was pushed by two members of the Appropriations Committee, Democrat Sanford Bishop and Republican Jack Kingston.

Both are from Georgia, where the Gulfstream is made, and both have received more than $10,000 over the past two years in campaign contributions from General Dynamics, the parent company of Gulfstream.


Quoting Dtwclipper (Thread starter):
So, congress slams GM/Ford/Chrysler for flying to DC in corporate jets, but then they turn around and do this!

Hey, to the victor go the spoils. That's politics.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 4):
It's really pathetic, because it's turning the Air Force into a personal taxi service, not to mention adding to the widening gap between the life of a politician, and the life of the average constituent.

Unfortunately they (the AF) has been doing this for decades so its not really something new is it? I was surprised to read that Pelosi has actually started using commercial flights under certain circumstances so I will give her credit in this case since credit is obviously due.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090806/ap_on_go_co/us_congress_cushy_jets

But Pelosi generally flies commercial on political and personal travel such as a trip Thursday between San Francisco and Denver in which she flew first class, accompanied by a security agent.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 4):
$200million? Christ, we could sure build one hell of a combat support hospital with that cash. Hell, or we could use that money to pay to send men and women home on mid-deployment leave.

Well the Congress knocked $369 million from the budget when it cancelled further funding for F-22's so even if they were forced to spend an additional $130 million that leaves $239 million for what you are asking for. Where is it? Ask your Represenative. I think military men and women deserve both.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12138 posts, RR: 51
Reply 13, posted (5 years 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2064 times:



Quoting D L X (Reply 9):
In fact, if I'm not mistaken, that was the biggest reason that DCA wasn't closed when IAD moved into full swing.

 checkmark   checkmark   checkmark 

Quoting D L X (Reply 9):
Oh and KC135, for once I agree with you 100%.

 bigthumbsup   bigthumbsup   bigthumbsup 

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 10):
200 million is a lot of money... but it's not a lot of airplane. My guess would be 4 or 5


The list price for a G-550, with basic interior is $65M each. The USAF usually pays list prices. So The 3 C-37s are $195M, plus another $5M for extra plush toilet paper and barf bags for Congress.

 relieved   relieved   relieved   vomit   vomit   vomit 


User currently offlineFxramper From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 7277 posts, RR: 85
Reply 14, posted (5 years 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1974 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13):
plus another $5M for extra plush toilet paper and barf bags for Congress.

You left out what they pay the pilot that crawls in back and picks out the green M&Ms from the bowl cause Pelosi doesn't like those.  rotfl 


User currently offlinePellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2438 posts, RR: 8
Reply 15, posted (5 years 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1964 times:

Why shouldn't congresspeople ride on a Gulfstream? $200M is not much compared to the budget every single year. Better than spending it on more weapons I say. DD budget is already bloated to the max.


oh boy!!!
User currently offlineNWADC9 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 4897 posts, RR: 10
Reply 16, posted (5 years 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1959 times:



Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 15):
Why shouldn't congresspeople ride on a Gulfstream?

Because they can easily fly commercial. If they want to fly private jets, let them buy their own instead of wasting taxpayer dollars.



Flying an aeroplane with only a single propeller to keep you in the air. Can you imagine that? -Capt. Picard
User currently offlineBoeing4ever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (5 years 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1958 times:

The REAL reason for the cancellation of the F-22.  Yeah sure Oh, and notice that Obama may still get his Presidential choppers.

Yup, it's nice to see them fighting wasteful programs.  Yeah sure

I suppose it could be seen as an apology to the GA industry after Congress recklessly trashed that industry for personal gain after their grandstanding against the automaker CEOs, calling private jets a waste of money/making them political poison, and destroying the jobs of thousands of innocent Americans in Wichita, Duluth, Savannah, etc.

There's no other word for these people other than jackasses...greedy jackasses.

Congress hasn't served American in a meaningful way in years. We need to hand out serious punishments in the next election cycle. Question is, will America shun the evils of Democrat and Republican idealogy and vote based on the virtues of pragmatism?

 airplane B4e-Forever New Frontiers airplane 


User currently offlineBoeing4ever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (5 years 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1955 times:



Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 15):
Why shouldn't congresspeople ride on a Gulfstream? $200M is not much compared to the budget every single year. Better than spending it on more weapons I say. DD budget is already bloated to the max.

Are you serious!? The USAF is meant to defend the US...not be a taxi service to greedy and inept lawmakers!

An F-22 does far more to protect you and me than a G550 for Diane Feinstein.

These idiots can ride coach. Period.

 airplane B4e-Forever New Frontiers airplane 


User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8135 posts, RR: 26
Reply 19, posted (5 years 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1941 times:



Quoting NWADC9 (Reply 16):

Because they can easily fly commercial. If they want to fly private jets, let them buy their own instead of wasting taxpayer dollars.

Hear, hear.

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 15):
Why shouldn't congresspeople ride on a Gulfstream?

Why should they? They are tasked with representing the people who elected them, and that means mingling with them when they travel as well - not enjoying the frills of private air travel - which are usually earned by considerably more hard work in most cases.

Quoting Boeing4ever (Reply 18):

An F-22 does far more to protect you and me than a G550 for Diane Feinstein.

Well not really, considering our prime adversaries at this point in time are more dangerous as passengers and ground handlers than possessors of fighter aircraft, but that case has already been made.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12138 posts, RR: 51
Reply 20, posted (5 years 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1934 times:



Quoting DXing (Reply 12):
Well the Congress knocked $369 million from the budget when it cancelled further funding for F-22's so even if they were forced to spend an additional $130 million that leaves $239 million for what you are asking for. Where is it? Ask your Represenative. I think military men and women deserve both.

The "Congressional fleet" has now grown to 8 new airplanes, 5 G-550s (C-37As) and 3 new B-737-BBJ/-BBJ2s (C-40B/Cs). The new price tag is now over half a billion, at $550M.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124960404730212955.html

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 15):
Why shouldn't congresspeople ride on a Gulfstream? $200M is not much compared to the budget every single year. Better than spending it on more weapons I say.

First of all, Congressmen and Senators are not that important, you can replace anyone every 2 or 6 years. Second, defending the country is a Constitutional requirement, treating Congress like fat cats is not. Third, when you run a $1.5T deficet, this year alone, wasting another half billion dollars is not needed. Fourth, Congress, just last year, critisized the car makers for flying in corprate jets, but now it is okay for Congress? Not on MY dime, it isn't.

Quoting Boeing4ever (Reply 17):
Oh, and notice that Obama may still get his Presidential choppers.

Yup, it's nice to see them fighting wasteful programs.

Correct.

Quoting Boeing4ever (Reply 18):
These idiots can ride coach. Period.

Yeah, on a Greyhound Bus..........

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 19):
not enjoying the frills of private air travel - which are usually earned by considerably more hard work in most cases.

Correct, but those in Congress think they are 'entitled' to such a luxury. They have not 'earned' it. No other ligslature body in the world has their own fleet of private jets. What makes thim think they are spiecal?

Maybe they don't want to have to sit next to "joe six pack" on a commerical airplane because he might ask them questions they don't want to answer?


User currently offlineBoeing4ever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (5 years 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1932 times:



Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 19):
Well not really, considering our prime adversaries at this point in time are more dangerous as passengers and ground handlers than possessors of fighter aircraft, but that case has already been made.

An F-22 is not as useful in a theater like Afghanistan, but let's not forget that we still have potential adversaries that can field large air forces. Gulfstreams meant to shuttle members of Congress around do not aid in the mission of the USAF. An F-22 thus does more to protect you and me than an inept lawmaker tooling around in a G550.

 airplane B4e-Forever New Frontiers airplane 


User currently offlineDXing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (5 years 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1908 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 20):
The new price tag is now over half a billion, at $550M.

2 gulfstreams and 2 737's are above and beyond what was requested in the budget. At 66 mil and 70 mil a piece that comes to an additional 272 million above and beyond what was requested by the AF. Since the Raptor program was axed at 369 million there should still be an additional 99 million to get the troops home mid deployment and build a hospital.


User currently offlinePellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2438 posts, RR: 8
Reply 23, posted (5 years 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1893 times:



Quoting NWADC9 (Reply 16):
Because they can easily fly commercial. If they want to fly private jets, let them buy their own instead of wasting taxpayer dollars.

Ok.

Quoting Boeing4ever (Reply 18):
Are you serious!?

Yes. Big grin

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 19):
Why should they? They are tasked with representing the people who elected them, and that means mingling with them when they travel as well - not enjoying the frills of private air travel - which are usually earned by considerably more hard work in most cases.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 20):
First of all, Congressmen and Senators are not that important, you can replace anyone every 2 or 6 years. Second, defending the country is a Constitutional requirement, treating Congress like fat cats is not. Third, when you run a $1.5T deficet, this year alone, wasting another half billion dollars is not needed. Fourth, Congress, just last year, critisized the car makers for flying in corprate jets, but now it is okay for Congress? Not on MY dime, it isn't.

Jaja. I dunno, I can't really get worked up over $200M of taxpayer dollars. Just can't. There are so many billions of tax dollars wasted every year...with nothing to show for it... I do understand why it comes across as wasteful. I also think the military budget should be chopped by a good $100-150 billion pa by better spending and less of these F-22s and billion-dollar satellites/B-2s/black projects.



oh boy!!!
User currently offlineBoeing4ever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (5 years 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1884 times:



Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 23):
I also think the military budget should be chopped by a good $100-150 billion pa by better spending and less of these F-22s and billion-dollar satellites/B-2s/black projects.

And of course you support giving it to your dear leaders...

Items that keep you safe and preserve your freedom vs. bloated fat cats. And you choose fat cats.

What was that saying...Nero fiddled while Rome burned?

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 23):
Jaja. I dunno,

Exactly how our Congress works...and look how messed up our nation has become in the past 10 years.

 airplane B4e-Forever New Frontiers airplane 


25 Pellegrine : Haha. No I just think the military should be smaller but more capable. I don't believe it's America's responsibility to police the world. I am an ext
26 Post contains images Boeing4ever : Yes as a matter of fact I am. You're the only one who thinks that a bunch of political hacks who have plunged us into this deficit deserve to fly in
27 RFields5421 : As Everett Dirkson never said "A billion here, a billion there - pretty soon you're talking about real money." The nice thing is this proposal is dea
28 Pellegrine : I was about to post the SAME QUOTE, only I couldn't remember who said it, thanks. Slice them with the wingtip like the Embraer versus the GOL 737. (s
29 Post contains links FXramper : Gates and Defense Dept weighed in this morning; a good read with a lot of numbers. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124969431303416161.html
30 Boeing4ever : Yup, you tell jokes. You think this is a joke. And apparently so does Congress. So how about more of those "pilotless drone thingies"? (They're calle
31 Post contains links FXramper : They now want $550 mil for jets. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124986067095218079.html
32 LTBEWR : I suspect in part this is do to ethics laws passed I think last year that banned free travel by Members of Congress/Senate and staff members on corpor
33 RFields5421 : Remember, the USAF requested FOUR aircraft be purchased to replace older planes. There would be no increase in the fleet size. Members of Congress in
34 Pellegrine : You know these congresspeople are all jokes right? They never get anything substantive done. Look forgive my limited military terminology. I think I
35 Post contains links DXing : Looks like the planes are toast. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26000.html "After an uproar over a proposed purchase of new executive jets
36 Boeing4ever : About the first thing you've said right all thread... There is no more wasteful spending in the defense budget than in other budgets. I don't see you
37 L-188 : Gotta love the hyprocracy You may be right there. Murtha has really proven to be a worthless piece of work over the past few years.
38 Aaron747 : What a liar! Safety and maintenance issues? Examples please Mr. Murtha?? An accident involving Congressional executive transport...that'll be the day
39 Post contains links StasisLAX : The Congress has temporarily come back to reality and has canceled plans to purchase these executive jets. "House Democratic leaders said Monday that
40 FXramper : Did they think they were going to try and slip this by taxpayers? After all the grief they gave automaker and bank execs about travel and they try to
41 KC135TopBoom : This would be interesting to see what you would cot, government wide, not just the DOD. LOL You do know that 2 0f the 4 requested jets (both C-40Cs)
42 Slider : Exactly right- they are elected public servants, not royalty and not aristocracy. Maybe if more of them flew coach and saw the ATC bullshit they refu
43 Pellegrine : No I'd cut nonperforming social programs too, not just the DoD budget. :D I don't do politics, but maybe I should! You made me laugh, first laugh all
44 Boeing4ever : That's fine. Two more that the Pentagon actually wants and I have no problem. Adding four more just for a bunch of idiot congressmen to ride around i
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Oh My God $200 Million For Bush In 04 posted Tue Apr 22 2003 07:18:31 by Airworthy
A House A.netters Would Kill For posted Mon Mar 3 2008 14:17:56 by Bwest
The Cost Of The Hemel Blast... £200 Million posted Fri Jan 6 2006 06:01:40 by Pilot kaz
Study: Shortfall Of 200 Million Women In The World posted Tue Nov 22 2005 16:02:58 by Lumberton
South Africa Approves Name Change For Pretoria posted Sat May 28 2005 07:57:27 by Jetjack74
$200 Million Spent On "Dont Ask, Dont Tell" posted Mon Apr 11 2005 20:40:22 by Adam
US$100 Million For A Carrot! posted Mon Feb 10 2003 14:53:46 by Aviatsiya
Former US Airways CEO House For Sale - $12 Million posted Fri Oct 31 2003 08:42:13 by IndustrialPate
Ronaldo Set To Move To Real For £80 Million posted Thu Jun 11 2009 02:24:33 by Qantasistheway
Help In Looking For A House... posted Tue Mar 24 2009 10:22:48 by Confuscius