Does That Flight Include The Peanut Snacks?
I get the concept that the Speaker of the House needs a bit of security. So I am not offended by her using a military flight to get back to San Fransisco when she needs to. However, given the Democratic Party's complaints over Member perks and Speaker Pelosi's promise to see that "...the taxpayer's money is handled appropriately.", it seems a bit odd that she is requesting such a large plane. You know, a C-32, the one that seats 42 passengers, takes 16 crew members to fly, has a fully equipped state room, including a bed, a complete home entertainment center, etc. Oh yeah, it costs about $300,000 to fly from Washington D.C. to San Fransisco.
That compares with the plane that Denny Hastert used. That plane (a C-21, essentially a Gulfstream jet [did you notice the Golden Gate Bridge in the picture?]) only requires 5 crew members and has room for 9-12 passengers. I am sure that it is also nicely equipped, but I don't see how it could have a full state room, etc. (I haven't been able to find out the round-trip cost for this plane, but it is safe to assume that it is substantially less. And don't get me started on the CO2 emission difference, I mean global warming and all.)
The Speaker is saying that the reason she wants the larger plane is so she can have a nonstop flight. Having to refuel in say, Chicago, is a bummer. Especially, if for security reasons, they don't let her deplane to buy something in the duty-free shops. Now having to refuel seems odd too, because the C-21 has a reported flight range of over 4,500 miles. I checked MapQuest for a trip by car from Washington D.C. to San Fransisco and the distance was 2,818.63 miles. I am sure there is a reasonable explanation.
Then there is Rep. John Murtha making veiled threats. Murtha is convinced the Pentagon has been leaking the possibility that Pelosi would use larger planes to make her look bad. But he said, "They're making a mistake when they leak it because she decides on allocations for them.'' I say, let's hear it for transparent government!
That compares with the plane that Denny Hastert used. That plane (a C-21, essentially a Gulfstream jet [did you notice the Golden Gate Bridge in the picture?]) only requires 5 crew members and has room for 9-12 passengers. I am sure that it is also nicely equipped, but I don't see how it could have a full state room, etc. (I haven't been able to find out the round-trip cost for this plane, but it is safe to assume that it is substantially less. And don't get me started on the CO2 emission difference, I mean global warming and all.)
The Speaker is saying that the reason she wants the larger plane is so she can have a nonstop flight. Having to refuel in say, Chicago, is a bummer. Especially, if for security reasons, they don't let her deplane to buy something in the duty-free shops. Now having to refuel seems odd too, because the C-21 has a reported flight range of over 4,500 miles. I checked MapQuest for a trip by car from Washington D.C. to San Fransisco and the distance was 2,818.63 miles. I am sure there is a reasonable explanation.
Then there is Rep. John Murtha making veiled threats. Murtha is convinced the Pentagon has been leaking the possibility that Pelosi would use larger planes to make her look bad. But he said, "They're making a mistake when they leak it because she decides on allocations for them.'' I say, let's hear it for transparent government!
posted by Carl at 6:46 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home