Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Hangar Talk' started by SkyDog58, Oct 15, 2018.
What taxpayer money should be used for is a huge can of worms.. I'm going to sit this one out lol
In before the lock.
Be awful expensive to outfit his own or leased aircraft with the required equipment. Then take it all out in a few years. Capital Hill types ride USAF all the time, mostly boondoggles, and some of them are quite wealthy. Whoever has the job gets the perks, and the headaches. And needs to be in touch. Could it be smaller, or done more efficiently? I'd guess so. . .
That depends entirely on whether or not said billionaire is entitled by law or regulation to the use of a government aircraft. The amount of wealth the person does or does not have is immaterial.
Nice try, though.
If you’re talking about the current occupant of the White House that would be a narrow minded question (no personal slant intended). The presidential aircraft is uniquely designed for more than simply transporting said billionaire.
If he's a billionaire.
Another thread that has the potential to get ugly.
I’ll leave this here...Ted or Austin may need to use a little bit of it.
@SkyDog58 appears to be pushing the envelope today.
Generally speaking it should only be allowed for official business. That said, the president is probably a special case due to all the security and communications requirements. I don't care for it but I can grudgingly see the need.
Here. We. Go.
The answer is yes
The short answer is yes. The position he's in requires it, and it exists for every president. His personal wealth in this case is irrelevant.
I think a better question would be, why are they still using a 4-engined airplane when they could cut costs by going to more efficient twin.
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
As I understand it the man only takes one dollar per year in compensation. Pelosi and her buddies flew a 777 back to the west coast many weekends for her breaks.
AFAIK US secret service still requires 4 engines for redundancy and electrical generation capability in the case of engine out. Whether or not that is really necessary is a different question, but that is the nominal reason.
Should a billionaire be allowed? Not unless that billionaire held an official office which involved the need to use a taxpayers aircraft. To my knowledge though, that situation does not currently exist.
If a billionaire was able to maga, then sure....why not?
You guys are right. John Kerry should never have been allowed on government owed airplanes.
Those damn rich people.
I'm not sure that's correct. POTUS flies on a C-32 (Boeing 757) when going to an airport not suitable for the VC-25. POTUS 44 arrived in Portland a few years ago on the VC-25, and left the next day on a C-32, since the next stop was Rapid City.
I don't understand the question.
OTOH, I do understand the question. And the phrase "There are no stupid questions" . . . is stupid.
Especially because he looked so......French!
No, French is the mustard. Kerry is the ketchup guy.
“There are newer two-engine commercial airliners than the 747, but a four-engine plane is required to meet the electrical power production, safety and aircraft size and weight needs of Air Force One, the [Air Force] official said.
Afaik whenever POTUS uses the C-32 to get into smaller fields they have the VC-25 in the nearest field that can take or in case they need to get POTUS on board.
The implication otherwise would be that someone who is rich should pay for their own travel when working for the government.
The answer is 1) someone that is billionaire rich really doesn't care about paying for air travel. You and I don't have their mindset and we can only kind of understand. 2) This would get into all kinds of legal entanglements over the legitimacy of the travel, insurance, coverage, etc, etc, etc, the least of which is when should it kick in.
If you're addressing the president specifically, it isn't really his choice. The Secret Service provides the travel budget as a mandatory "benefit".
The person in office should be able to, dependents should not be able to.
Is it biased to show the red, and not the blue?
With great power comes great....airplanes! It's just the way it is.
and some of those Billionaires give back their salaries to charity.....
Once the blue latches on, it never let’s go though. The part will break Before it releases. 242 will release if it needs to with a little pressure and heat.
Nope it’s bipartisan...notice the blue stripe in the middle that says ‘threadlocker’.
Ours! I don't think Miss Luberack (goggle it, nice pic) circa 1960's owns her own!
This thread has been locked and will remain locked. While we do have one ongoing thread that has largely stayed aviation related, this was not the case here. Warnings have been issued.