tjwgrr From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2533 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 10392 times:
Quoting max550 (Reply 5): These aircraft are usually used for DOJ transports if I'm not mistaken. Anyone know what the cabin configuration is? I'd imagine the cabins have been reconfigured for the campaign.
I don't think USA Jet does DOJ transports. JUS is their code, but they are not the 'justice' flights. Both campaign a/c are probably in exec config. In fact one of USA Jet's MD-83's was used by U2 during their tour.
max550 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 1166 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 10289 times:
Quoting tjwgrr (Reply 6): I don't think USA Jet does DOJ transports. JUS is their code, but they are not the 'justice' flights. Both campaign a/c are probably in exec config. In fact one of USA Jet's MD-83's was used by U2 during their tour.
You're right, I forgot JPATS uses their own aircraft.
These posts seem contradictory: one says the flight number for Romney's plane will be 100, but the other says 101. Which one is correct? And is Ryan's flight number always going to be 200? Also, does anyone know the N-numbers for these aircraft? I would think that would be the best way to track them on FlightAware.
wjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5404 posts, RR: 22
Reply 14, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 9199 times:
Actually, I think it is interesting how most presidential candidates and their minions (and Nancy Pelosi and her minions) all want something super-fancy. The media covered adoringly how Obama was given a special expensive chair on his campaign plane.
Looks like Mitt, who has been doing business travel a long time, just wants a basic, albeit comforable, plane.
Since folks have long since given up measuring actual pollution and instead now get exercised about CO2, i.e. the stuff we breathe out and which is produced by everything ever burned, I wonder how much CO2 a DC9-30 puts out vs Obama's 757 on his campaign. I suspect the DC9 is lower. Again, not pollutants, just CO2. Smaller plane, smaller engines, smaller "fire", maybe smaller CO2?
wjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5404 posts, RR: 22
Reply 16, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 8261 times:
One big issues with these things is dispatch reliability. Campaign use is pretty-demanding on airframes and crews, and often involves traveling to locations that are on the smaller side. Let's hope [purely ecumenically, as aviation enthusiasts] that when these things inevitably go tech, that USA Jet has a plan to get everyone to the next stop. Otherwise, there will be lots of grumbling from the traveling press about not even being able to run a campaign charter much less a country. USA Jet has 3 pax birds of each type. Miami Air has a reputation at being good at this kind of things, as did the late ATA; others, not so much.
thrufru From Marshall Islands, joined Feb 2009, 225 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 7715 times:
The 747's aren't the only aircraft available to the president to use, and in reality aren't the only ones that he does use. There are 757's, used by the Bushes to fly to Sanford Airport, near Kennebunkport in Maine, or even the government version of the DC-9, often used by Clinton to fly to Marha's Vineyard. The fleet of aircraft available to the president is varied and does change with the mission.
Conversely, saying that the use of a 747 by the current president for campaign travel leaves a greater carbon footprint than a pair of Mad-Dogs doesn't take into account the whole picture. How many additional aircraft are needed for support staff, security, press, etc. A 747 can carry a lot of those. An MD-93 doesn't have quite the uplift. Let's also not forget that a sitting president has vastly different security concerns than any other candidate. The choice of the type of transportation is not really up to him, anyway.
I sure hope that the choice of MD's doesn't end up posing a maintenance problem for them either. It's not always a good thing to go with the lowest bid. The Boston Bruins did that a few years ago when they left Miami Air. A broker gave then a great number and they jumped at it. The problem was, though, that they didn't do their own due diligence. Whereas Miami Air included every single conceivable item, their new company was effectively an empty, uncrewed, uncatered aircraft (no fuel, or deicing either). Here's hoping RR ensured that all the add-ons were considered!
Uh, he has an entire fleet available, he doesn't HAVE to take the 747.
Quoting jporterfi (Reply 14): These posts seem contradictory: one says the flight number for Romney's plane will be 100, but the other says 101. Which one is correct? And is Ryan's flight number always going to be 200?
airtanker From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 25 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 7217 times:
I can assure everyone that Andrews has several aircraft types that are easily configured to meet the "requirements" of flying the CIC. I know of no requiement that the CIC use only the VC-25, especially for CONUS travel. As discussed for several years, the VC-25 makes a big impression for CIC travel and that's why it's used many times when it really isn't necessary.
N62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4639 posts, RR: 8
Reply 21, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 7146 times:
Quoting milesrich (Reply 8): I do not think that Romney or Ryan care much about the "green" effect or fuel economy. Chartering gas guzzling obsolete aircraft because they are probably saving a few bucks goes right along with the "drill, baby, drill" energy policy of these two.
And judging by Obama's use of the 747 for all those campaign trips, neither does he. If Obama was truly "green" he would embrace what Al Gore has been preaching and do teleconferencing for at least some of his campaigning.
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 9): DC-9 is hell less wasteful and less costly to operate than the 747 Obama takes around the country campaigning.
cargolex From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1282 posts, RR: 8
Reply 22, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 6753 times:
Honestly, criticism of either side by either side is inappropriate given the choices, or relative lack thereof, available to both campaigns.
The Double R's might have been able to charter a 737 of some sort, but right now there are not many 757s or other larger aircraft available for this kind of charter.
North American's 757s were used by several campaigns over the years (including Obama's in 2008) and they were a favorite of political candidates from all sides of the spectrum. But North American no longer has those aircraft and the availability of aircraft for charter seems to be somewhat slim. Omni and Atlas don't have anything available and World/North American have parked many things. I don't think Ryan has much available either, and both Ryan and World/North American are in financial distress. As indicated above, Pace is gone and the other choices - Falcon Air Express, Ameristar, they're pretty much offering what USA Jet is offering.
This leaves either a 767 (or maybe an MD-11), which is bigger money all over and may not even be available, or a 737 from somebody else. I suppose they could have gotten a 757 from UA or DL, but this doesn't seem to be what Presidential candidates want to do and I don't know if they even have aircraft available for them.
USA Jet's product apparently fits the need of the Double R ticket, and so that's what they chartered. In some respects, it's what they could get rather than what they'd probably have chosen if more options were available. I don't believe they can use a non-US company for a variety of reasons, which rules out any available European 757 charters.
There are probably not too many other choices they could have made, most of which would have been 734/738 maybe, or other DC-9/MD-80 family products.
President Obama might be able to get away with the C-32 in some circumstances, but he's required to travel a certain way whether he wants to or not and that usually means the VC-25.
This year, I don't think either of the tickets really has many options open to them for "greener" transportation, whether they care about that or not. I don't really feel it's fair to criticize either of these tickets for their aircraft choices.