• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

House Orders Up Three Elite Jets

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,937
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Is it just me, or does anyone else feel like they actaully living Animal Farm. I'm, "Boxer", of course.

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.
 
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.
 
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 equiptment 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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.

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?
 
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.

Us on this forum have no way of proving whether the current planes nneded replacement or not. I just thought that this was funny that both of the Congressmen from those districts have pushed it. Hey my 'wonderful' Senator Dodd who usually could care less abot our military was upset over the F-22 cancelling by the DOD. Guess what the engines for the F-22 are made by Pratt & Whitney, yes right in our state, Connecticut.
 
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?
 
Do we know if these two new jobbies are replacements or additions?

RollCall.com

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.

So, it seems they may be replacements... Although the article is not clear

And:
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.

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?
 
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.

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.
 
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?

Thanks for asking a very the question Lets see if I can answer some of them for you.

As for the Four that will be retired I'm sure that Gulfstream put in a request for the Aircraft to be part of the bill for the new jets. They will bring them back to the factory and depending on how many Flight Hours are on the Airframe either rebuild them and send them back tot eh USAF or keep them outright for test airframes. I do know that two of the very first 37A-I have allot of Time on the Airframe and are getting close to critical time on the Wing and Main Airframe.

The new aircraft will be the C-37B which is the Military version of the Gulfstream G550 which has better engine and range then the 37As. Plus all of the 37B have New Updated Glass Cockpits and weather radar.

As for are they improvement yes the have a better fuel range burn less Fuel then the 37A and are little bit larger and have update cockpit systems.

As for your last question I think in these times of Hyprerpartisin Politics it is nice to know that sometime Congress does something that is the right thing to do. Will it deflect debate no but in the end it is the correct thing to do replace an older less efficent aircraft that has served the Country well with new and updated airframes that will serve the Country for a good 10 Year or more.

One item folks seem to forget is that these aircraft from the 87th Special transport Wing put in allot of Hours every year which adds up quickly on an airframe time in service.
 
Do we know if these two new jobies are replacemenets or additions?

They are replacement for aircraft that are going ot be retired do to Time Life on the Wings of one and Total Time on another as for the other two not sure I woul dhave to talk to one of my friends with the 87th ATW.

I know that one of the airframes basically has been being used as a Hanger Queen since it is over total airframe time and will need a special one way flight to where ever they decide to send it either Gulfstream or AMARC. My gut tells me that Gulfstream will come and pick it up and use it as an engine test bed bird.
 
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.

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.
 
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?

hEY THE PREZ DID A cash for klunkers jobiedo so why not cash for junketers !!!
 
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.

Sorry, the story fit and I just can't help taking a swipe at the Hillary!!!
 
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.
 
All I can say about this is...

Democratic Hope & Change baby! You asked for it, you got it.
 
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.

Wow you really don't understand what the JCS use these aircraft for huh. A C-130 so you would rather take a front Line Transport out of Duty and turn it into a VIP Bird huh. Hmm I recall a few years ago a certain USAF General got sacked for taking a C-141 and turning it into his personal VIP Bird. That was about the time it was decide to bring back the USAF VIP Wing which now is part of the 87th ATW.

Oh and the last tie I was at BWI Air Mobil Command had four World Airways MD-11-300 being used for oversea's transport of our Soldiers. As a matter of fact very few Soldiers go over in C-130sC-17s or C-5s anymore they use Contract Airlines like World Airways, American Airways,Trans Airways to name a few. The Transport Aircrfata re used for wll Transporting Gear and supplys.
 
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.

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 !!!
 
Last edited:
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!!!

Now that is:funny
 
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 !!!

Hey, I'm all for heavy dropping Congress members at their designated DZ's.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qc2ibjiCQ0g"]YouTube - Parachute drop gone bad.[/ame]
 
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.
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.

So I hope you see the hypocrisy in members of congress berating CEOs for using personal jets when they themselves need to use them.
 
Do we know if these two new jobies are replacemenets or additions?

The schedule was for one upgrade is what I heard. Congress added two more on their own.

They had an extra 130 million laying around doing nothing I guess.
 
Back
Top Bottom