New Presidential Helicopter $400M Each!

FredBedard

FredBedard

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Dec 23, 2007
Messages
15
Location
Sutton, MA
Display Name
Display name:
LuckyShot
So with all the BS going on with the corporate ownership and use of BizJets I think the US Government should practice what they dictate!! It amazes me why in the hell the president needs a dam 747 to make domestic trips long-haul OK maybe. What’s wrong with a mid-size BizJet In & Out in a flash have local security meeting him at the airport and leave the stupid 50 person press corps home and let them take commercial flights like the rest of us! If Obama is preaching financial controls and not wasting taxpayers $$$ he should look in the mirror there is so much waste and misuse of aviation in the government it makes the Citigroup Falcon purchase look like chump change!

BizJets are business tools, Time is Money! The fact the people running our government do not understand this is a problem! Look what’s happening to our Aviation infrastructure because of their ridiculous actions its still about votes and popularity not about “Keeping it Real”; sorry Obama how do you justify flying Air Force One from DC to NY for a meeting I’d estimate it at a minimum of a $250K ride!

And it continues......


The Air Force is currently looking to replace some of the planes in the president's fleet. The larger Boeing 747s that the president usually flies on were put into service in 1990. Boeing is one of only two companies in the world that manufacture wide-body commercial jets large enough to serve as Air Force One. The other company is the European-based Airbus. Each of the current 747s came with a price tag of about $350-million. There's been no estimate for the cost of a new Air Force One, however, the new presidential helicopters now in development for the Marines cost around $400 million each. :yikes:


I think Citigroup have a few used jets for sale:smilewinkgrin:
 
A VLJ isn't going to have a lot of room for the countermeasures.
 
mikea said:
A VLJ isn't going to have a lot of room for the countermeasures.
Click to expand...
Not to mention all the communications and security that needs to be with him. It's a lot cheaper to have a couple of good planes that can carry everything, and bring in the helicopters if they need something into a smaller field, than it would be to maintain a larger fleet that would provide the most cost-effective flight. The cost can't be measured in terms of the efficiency of a single flight, but in the need to have 100% reliability at a moment's notice.

Now, as to the criticism that's been poured upon users of corporate aviation, I think that it's mostly unfounded.
 
Compared to other countries, the US spends an disproportionate amount of money on presidential security. Take a second and think about it. A billion dollars just to buy helicopters for the president?

Other countries with similarly high GNPs spend a tiny fraction. Makes one wonder what we're trying to prove.

-Felix
 
The point is EXCESS he's calling the use of GA (e.g. BizJets) over-the-top spending, just read the CitiGroup PR, they ordered this Jet years ago, disclosed it up front and are selling to older jets to cover its cost sounds like a reasonable plan.

He needs a $500-750M 747 (not including his backup) for counter measures and communications. Christ that's whay we have AWACS and Fighter Jets talk about Over The Top spending. :nono:

If he's wants to put things into prespective he first needs to consider those who live in Glass Houses should not throw rocks!

Personally other countries do it for way less and given our technology so can we. You can try to justify why he needs to spend Billions on Travel but the realiy of it is its wasted taxpayers $$$.
 
I would agree. There's no reason they need to spend that much money on his fleet. Sorry, he's just not that important, and there's no reason why he needs to haul his press crew around. We do spend way too much money on this one man who doesn't need it. Countermeasures? I just don't care.

I realize he's got a large number of people to take along, though, so I could potentially be alright with him flying around in a 737 (although I still think that's more than he needs). I'd rather see him in a Citation. I think that'd be far more appropriate. These individual people getting commercial jets for their "business" travel is a collosal waste of taxpayer dollars. They simply aren't that important, and it's all around wasteful. I'll say the same on the helicopters.

For once, I agree with Felix. :yikes:
 
LearDriver said:
How much do you suppose that ***** Force 1 (Pelosi's 757) costs the tax payers?
Click to expand...
The plane that is to fly a Spekaer of House, whether it be Pelosi or her Republican predecessor who was the first to have a government plane was a result of 9/11. Since the Speaker of House is the third in line for the presidency it was deemed a national security issue to have the Speaker always on board government aircraft for travel.

There are actually a fleet of government VIP aircraft from small bizjets to the 757 and 747's that serve as Executive branch. So in fact the Speaker does not have an assigned aircraft like POTUS. Speaker Pelosi uses the pooled aircraft most often requesting the 757 as she lives in California and the aircraft can make a non-stop flight with reduces security issues that would occur with an intermediate fuel stop.
 
smigaldi said:
The plane that is to fly a Spekaer of House, whether it be Pelosi or her Republican predecessor who was the first to have a government plane was a result of 9/11. Since the Speaker of House is the third in line for the presidency it was deemed a national security issue to have the Speaker always on board government aircraft for travel.

There are actually a fleet of government VIP aircraft from small bizjets to the 757 and 747's that serve as Executive branch. So in fact the Speaker does not have an assigned aircraft like POTUS. Speaker Pelosi uses the pooled aircraft most often requesting the 757 as she lives in California and the aircraft can make a non-stop flight with reduces security issues that would occur with an intermediate fuel stop.
Click to expand...

::YAWN::

I like the funny better...

:D
 
smigaldi said:
The plane that is to fly a Spekaer of House, whether it be Pelosi or her Republican predecessor who was the first to have a government plane was a result of 9/11. Since the Speaker of House is the third in line for the presidency it was deemed a national security issue to have the Speaker always on board government aircraft for travel.

There are actually a fleet of government VIP aircraft from small bizjets to the 757 and 747's that serve as Executive branch. So in fact the Speaker does not have an assigned aircraft like POTUS. Speaker Pelosi uses the pooled aircraft most often requesting the 757 as she lives in California and the aircraft can make a non-stop flight with reduces security issues that would occur with an intermediate fuel stop.
Click to expand...

It's insane that these people think they're that important that they can't risk an extra fuel stop due to security concerns, especially when most of them end up gathering in one place at one time on a routine basis and are otherwise in the public eye, making them open targets. If they're really so important, then just move them into bunkers where they'll never see the light of day and nobody can get to them.

The large Boeings should only be in use if everyone is going the same place at the same time and can plane-pool. Of course, they wouldn't do that because it's a national security risk. :rolleyes:
 
I can live with the couple of 747s for the prez, but have you ever noticed the FLEET of choppers they have for him. HOLY CR** Batman.:hairraise:
 
Ted DuPuis said:
It's insane that these people think they're that important that they can't risk an extra fuel stop due to security concerns,
Click to expand...
Security issues are not theirs to call -- that call comes from the security people, not the protectee.
 
Dave2 said:
I can live with the couple of 747s for the prez, but have you ever noticed the FLEET of choppers they have for him. HOLY CR** Batman.:hairraise:
Click to expand...
That fleet is not there just to move the president back and forth between WH, ADW, and CD. They need quite a few helos to move the man and his support/security team as well as providing decoys, cover, and backup. Also, that fleet has other, much more comprehensive commitments in event of national emergency, and they need them all for that.
 
Ron Levy said:
Security issues are not theirs to call -- that call comes from the security people, not the protectee.
Click to expand...

I find it hard to believe that they're complaining about getting shuttled around in that manner, though.

Either way, then I'll say that security people, or whoever makes the decisions, should realize that they aren't that important, and saving a couple million dollars of taxpayer dollars should be a priority.
 
dmccormack said:
::YAWN::

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=2858225&page=1

Not exactly Right Wing propoganda....
Click to expand...
Only problem was that is was the House's Seargent at Arms that requested the bigger aircraft no Pelosi's office.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/02/sergeant_at_arm.html
You'll note the date of this article is one day after the story you linked to. It is obvious that the article you linked to was corrected with the facts instead of the supposition that the author colored their reporting with.

"As the Sergeant at Arms, I have the responsibility to ensure the security of the members of the House of Representatives, to include the Speaker of the House. The Speaker requires additional precautions due to her responsibilities as the leader of the House and her Constitutional position as second in the line of succession to the presidency.
In a post 9/11 threat environment, it is reasonable and prudent to provide military aircraft to the Speaker for official travel between Washington and her district. The practice began with Speaker Hastert and I have recommended that it continue with Speaker Pelosi. The fact that Speaker Pelosi lives in California compelled me to request an aircraft that is capable of making non-stop flights for security purposes, unless such an aircraft is unavailable. This will ensure communications capabilities and also enhance security. I made the recommendation to use military aircraft based upon the need to provide necessary levels of security for ranking national leaders, such as the Speaker. I regret that an issue that is exclusively considered and decided in a security context has evolved into a political issue.
Click to expand...

Sorry if the truth bores you.
 
I can live with corporate execs having bizjets to maximize their productivity. I can't stomach politicians have 757's as they are counterproductive, no matter which party. Keep the politicians at home and away from passing new and stupid bills like the lates trillion dollar travesty.

What's wrong with the old Sikorsky's that every President has used since JFK? They are very classy.
 
smigaldi said:
There are actually a fleet of government VIP aircraft from small bizjets to the 757 and 747's that serve as Executive branch.
Click to expand...

Heck, is there a business jet that the military doesn't fly? I mean, they got: Gulfstream III's, IV's, V's and G100's, Lear 35's, Citations, and Falcon's 20s. I mean, really, they probably operate one of the biggest fleets of business jets in the world. Time to sell them all, I suppose.
 
FredBedard said:
He needs a $500-750M 747 (not including his backup) for counter measures and communications. Christ that's whay we have AWACS and Fighter Jets talk about Over The Top spending. :nono:

If he's wants to put things into prespective he first needs to consider those who live in Glass Houses should not throw rocks!
Click to expand...
So you'd have him in a $2+mil corporate jet that would still have to be retrofitted with com equipments, then be escorted everywhere by one or two $28-29mil fighters and a $270mil E-3? Plus whatever aircraft his staff needs. Plus whatever aircraft his security detail needs (you can bet the Secret Service isn't going to let a private security detail take over when the POTUS leaves DC; they aren't going along to see the sights). It's a nice thought, but why do with five aircraft what they can (and have for a couple decades) done with one?

Never mind the fact that the President doesn't ask for AF1, or define anything about how he travels or is protected; all of that is pretty well established.

Ted DuPuis said:
Either way, then I'll say that security people, or whoever makes the decisions, should realize that they aren't that important, and saving a couple million dollars of taxpayer dollars should be a priority.
Click to expand...

As Scott said, it's all up to the Secret Service. They have a zero-fail mission, so given the option when their budget comes out, you better believe they're going to go for the biggest and best when it comes to doing their job. Because if they fail, that usually means someone of some importance just died.
 
Teller1900 said:
So you'd have him in a $2+mil corporate jet that would still have to be retrofitted with com equipments, then be escorted everywhere by one or two $28-29mil fighters and a $270mil E-3? Plus whatever aircraft his staff needs. Plus whatever aircraft his security detail needs (you can bet the Secret Service isn't going to let a private security detail take over when the POTUS leaves DC; they aren't going along to see the sights). It's a nice thought, but why do with five aircraft what they can (and have for a couple decades) done with one?
...
As Scott said, it's all up to the Secret Service. They have a zero-fail mission, so given the option when their budget comes out, you better believe they're going to go for the biggest and best when it comes to doing their job. Because if they fail, that usually means someone of some importance just died.
Click to expand...

My point is they're not that important (I don't think any one person is that important), and don't need all those people with them.
 
I gotta think that considering the amount of electronics necessary for AF1 to be considered a mobile White House/Pentagon is probably where a lot of the cost comes into play.

After all, how many bizjets come with secure communication links with the nation's nuclear missile silos? :D
 
I heard somewhere that most flights on AF1 just about break even with the press corp aboard. They have to pay the equivalent of first class airfare, and most pony it up no problem. Not that the money coming in covers fixed expenses and mx, but at least the plane makes a little cash.

Now the helicopter, no. And Ron, I hate to dis you but no prez NEEDS to have a helicopter. It's just convenience. We got along for about 150 years in this country without ever having the prez move around in a helicopter. I'd like to see a lot of the return to the idea of 'public service' not the other way around.
 
docmirror said:
Now the helicopter, no. And Ron, I hate to dis you but no prez NEEDS to have a helicopter. It's just convenience. We got along for about 150 years in this country without ever having the prez move around in a helicopter. I'd like to see a lot of the return to the idea of 'public service' not the other way around.
Click to expand...

He may not need it to survive, but imagine how much time he's saving, not only for himself but for other travelers on the road, by taking to the sky instead of the highways. I've seen first hand what happens to DC when the motorcade rolls through...it sucks. If that happened every time he had to get across town, let alone to the next town over, it'd be constant gridlock!
 
Teller1900 said:
He may not need it to survive, but imagine how much time he's saving, not only for himself but for other travelers on the road, by taking to the sky instead of the highways. I've seen first hand what happens to DC when the motorcade rolls through...it sucks. If that happened every time he had to get across town, let alone to the next town over, it'd be constant gridlock!
Click to expand...

Is this a justification of a nearly half BILLION helicopter for a public servant? Cause, I'm not buying(well, in fact I am, I just can't do anything about it).

For my political position, I'd just as soon see the whole bumming stymied from doing any work regardless of position. Just sit and vegetate. Every time they do something, another liberty gets choked off.
 
Ron Levy said:
Security issues are not theirs to call -- that call comes from the security people, not the protectee.
Click to expand...

I've heard this a thousand times and it always strikes me as just as disingenuous each time.

A better way to say it is the protectee has decided to listen to the advice of people who are well meaning but have jumped the shark so to speak in the past few years when it comes to security, rather than making the personal and professional decision to forego these security measures. In other words it is a decision for the protectee to either go with the flow or buck the trend and bring the security professionals to heel, and most go with the flow. OTOH more than a few probably expect the perks.
 
docmirror said:
Now the helicopter, no. And Ron, I hate to dis you but no prez NEEDS to have a helicopter. It's just convenience. We got along for about 150 years in this country without ever having the prez move around in a helicopter. I'd like to see a lot of the return to the idea of 'public service' not the other way around.
Click to expand...
The idea of the helicopter probably pooped up durign the cold war when you may have to get POTUS out of the WH and into that air ASAP to avoid being nuked.

Today he still has it as a benefit not only for him but to the people of Washing DC. The security that now surrounds POTUS requires moving road blocks to get him around town. Without the helo everytime the president travels the streets of Washington DC would shut down and movement of regular people would come to a stop. This could occur each time POTUS travels too. I would rather that when Obama come to Chicago that he not shut down the Kennedy and Dan Ryan expressways as he motorcades to his south side home.
 
Hell BHO took Air Force 1 for the 150 mile hop to Virginia yesterday. Given the fuel costs, I think I would have prefered the helo.

It really gets me that he can do that, but on one calls him on it.
 
smigaldi said:
Call him on what?
Click to expand...

Well, a twin turbine helo ride to a 747 for a 150 mile jaunt to the country sounds juuuuuuuust a bit frivolous and anti-CO2 sensitive to me. Not what one would call a 'green' trip. Not much 'hope' or 'change' from the status quo if you ask me. He could've rented a Prius from Avis. There's a rental counter a few miles down the road, and a train that goes there.
 
docmirror said:
Well, a twin turbine helo ride to a 747 for a 150 mile jaunt to the country sounds juuuuuuuust a bit frivolous and anti-CO2 sensitive to me. Not what one would call a 'green' trip. Not much 'hope' or 'change' from the status quo if you ask me. He could've rented a Prius from Avis. There's a rental counter a few miles down the road, and a train that goes there.
Click to expand...

How long has it been since we've had a presidential yacht?


Trapper John
 
All that said, I'm having trouble figuring out how these 23 helos will cost $400M each -- just seems wrong. It's not the issue of having them, it's trying to understand why they each cost so much.
 
Ron Levy said:
All that said, I'm having trouble figuring out how these 23 helos will cost $400M each -- just seems wrong. It's not the issue of having them, it's trying to understand why they each cost so much.
Click to expand...

Because Lock-Mart underbid the original contract and SS/Navy changed the reqs. They are totally redesigning the helicopter.
 
I think they meant third in line as in 1.POTUS 2.VP 3. SoH
 
SNewlin06 said:
Hell BHO took Air Force 1 for the 150 mile hop to Virginia yesterday. Given the fuel costs, I think I would have prefered the helo.

It really gets me that he can do that, but on one calls him on it.
Click to expand...

Bush did it a week before Obama's inauguration, nobody called him on that either. This isn't a political thing, just to prove that this is the way it's done. Neither President needed the VC-25 to get from DC to S. Virginia, but if something had happened while they were here and they needed to get out quick and fly a long way, this allowed them to have their ride waiting. If something happens (act of God, terrorism, or otherwise) the Secret Service probably doesn't want to have to drive the POTUS back to DC to get him into his jet.
 
Teller1900 said:
Neither President needed the VC-25 to get from DC to S. Virginia, but if something had happened while they were here and they needed to get out quick and fly a long way, this allowed them to have their ride waiting. If something happens (act of God, terrorism, or otherwise) the Secret Service probably doesn't want to have to drive the POTUS back to DC to get him into his jet.
Click to expand...

Something did happen on 9/11 while the prez was away. What happened with the prez? He disappeared for a while. Real presidential. BTW, you should know that there's a guy(more than one) with nuke launch codes no more than 25 steps from the prez at all times. It's called the 'football' cause you don't what to drop or lose it. As for the act of god, we should only be so lucky.......
 
I don't know if anyone watched the documenty on airforce one on Nat Geo two weeks ago but it truely discusted me. Not only do they fly one 747 to haul the prez around, the fly a second one with it for back up. Not to forget the huge cargo jet to fly all the vehicals and the fleet of helis. I agee with the comment on here that he is not that important. The goverments ****es money out the window and then turns to the tax payers to bail them out. Here in Santa Barbara Ty Warner has a 737 that the girls take to vegas for lunch, an amazing waste of money but at least I am not paying my taxes for it.:mad3:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top