Pelosi: this plane isnt big enough for me!

miller8966

Pentagon limits Pelosi jet size
By Charles Hurt and Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
February 8, 2007


The Department of Defense yesterday sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that puts limits on the size of the plane she may use to travel across the country and restricts the guests she can bring, The Washington Times has learned.
A congressional source who read the letter signed by Assistant Secretary of Defense Robert Wilkie said it essentially limits her to the commuter plane used by former Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, which requires refueling to travel from Washington to Mrs. Pelosi's San Francisco district. A second source, in the Bush administration, confirmed the contents of the letter.
The Washington Times first reported last week that Mrs. Pelosi's staff was pressing the Department of Defense for an Air Force aircraft large enough to fly nonstop to San Francisco. She also has pressed to be able to include other members of the California congressional delegation, her family members and her staff on the plane.
"It's not a question of size. It's a question of distance," Mrs. Pelosi told reporters yesterday. "We want an aircraft that can reach California."
Earlier, Mrs. Pelosi did not comment on the matter but yesterday began a counteroffensive accusing the Bush administration of twisting the story.
These "misrepresentations could be coming from the administration," she told reporters yesterday.
"One would only have to wonder why," she said, though adding that she did not suspect President Bush "because he has impressed upon me over and over again the need for me to have the security that I need."
The letter from the Pentagon yesterday cites specific U.S. Code that government policy does not include the routine use of military aircraft for the speaker of the House.
"Nonstop service is not guaranteed, meaning she's getting Hastert's plane and nothing bigger," the congressional source said, referring to the commuter jet Mr. Hastert began using for security reasons after the September 11 terrorist attacks.
But the administration official said Mrs. Pelosi "wanted to be able to fly between Washington and the West Coast nonstop."
The letter leaves open the possibility that Mrs. Pelosi may get a larger plane that does not require refueling if one happens to be available in the 89th Airlift Wing at Andrews Air Force Base. But, generally, the larger military passenger jets are in high demand, especially due to the Iraq war.
In addition, the letter stipulates that the Air Force will only fly her between Washington and her San Francisco district and places limits on who can travel with her.

cincybearcat

It makes sense to me for her to have a plane that will reach San Fran non-stop...if she should have a plane at all that is.

As for who can travel on that plane, it needs to be spelled out specifically and for what purpose. It's our money they are traveling on.

Rushlimbo

Pssst. Hey Miller... read the article and you might learn she doesnt want a larger plane for grandness but rather to fly nonstop to SF.

cincybearcat

Rushlimbo wrote:

Pssst. Hey Miller... read the article and you might learn she doesnt want a larger plane for grandness but rather to fly nonstop to SF.

Here's the thing...does it save the taxpayer for her to have a plane versus flying commercial? My bet is yes.

What is she (and other politicans) using the planes for? Taxpayers are flipping the bill so we should know and it shoul dbe very limited to necessary trips. My guess is that it is abused by most.

Pacomc79

Rushlimbo wrote:

Pssst. Hey Miller... read the article and you might learn she doesnt want a larger plane for grandness but rather to fly nonstop to SF.

at a cost of 300 grand? What's wrong with flying commercial? Like the rest of us taxpayers. I fly coach hell.

I'll even grant her a first class ticket as a concession.

No one needs to travel with thier entire family entire staff and entire entourage all the time on the tax payers dime.. Yes that includes the campaigning president too. The presidents private jet has been over used for years.

This is exactly the type of wasteful government spending she said she wanted to get rid of.

blackredyellow

Pacomc79 wrote:

at a cost of 300 grand? What's wrong with flying commercial? Like the rest of us taxpayers. I fly coach hell.

I'll even grant her a first class ticket as a concession.

No one needs to travel with thier entire family entire staff and entire entourage all the time on the tax payers dime.. Yes that includes the campaigning president too. The presidents private jet has been over used for years.

This is exactly the type of wasteful government spending she said she wanted to get rid of.

Not saying that she isn't a hypocrite, but it wasn't her choice to fly on a military plane. The Bush administration (or homeland security, same thing) decided that post 9/11 the speaker of the house should fly in a military jet instead of flying commercial for security reasons (since that position is 3rd in the presidential succession).

I do find it funny that after 9/11 the gov't kept telling people to fly, and how safe it was, but then they make this decision.

Pacomc79

blackredyellow wrote:

Not saying that she isn't a hypocrite, but it wasn't her choice to fly on a military plane. The Bush administration (or homeland security, same thing) decided that post 9/11 the speaker of the house should fly in a military jet instead of flying commercial for security reasons (since that position is 3rd in the presidential succession).

I do find it funny that after 9/11 the gov't kept telling people to fly, and how safe it was, but then they make this decision.

she should have them recind that then. Hastert should never have been issued a plane. It's just another in the long line of wasteful Bush administration policies.

Hasterts plane was a lot smaller however.

VictoryGin

Pacomc79 wrote:

at a cost of 300 grand? What's wrong with flying commercial? Like the rest of us taxpayers. I fly coach hell.

I'll even grant her a first class ticket as a concession.

No one needs to travel with thier entire family entire staff and entire entourage all the time on the tax payers dime.. Yes that includes the campaigning president too. The presidents private jet has been over used for years.

This is exactly the type of wasteful government spending she said she wanted to get rid of.

i'm reading obama's audacity of hope and he mentions that he used to use a private jet, which is so much more convenient when you have to be in 4 cities in two days, etc. when you have to fly so much, traffic and missed connections and other airport messes impact you so much more. however, he didn't use the private jet for long and sticks with commerical.

i think pelosi is in a different position with security and being speaker. and if i can fly from nyc to portland, or nonstop, why can't she?

Pacomc79

VictoryGin wrote:

i'm reading obama's audacity of hope and he mentions that he used to use a private jet, which is so much more convenient when you have to be in 4 cities in two days, etc. when you have to fly so much, traffic and missed connections and other airport messes impact you so much more. however, he didn't use the private jet for long and sticks with commerical.

i think pelosi is in a different position with security and being speaker. and if i can fly from nyc to portland, or nonstop, why can't she?

She can. It just shouldn't cost us 300K when she does it. Rather $300 for a first class ticket and then we'll get her a blackberry so she can talk to her family and communicate with her staff. Absolutely no reason to foot the bill for that whole crowd.

No meeting she might have is that important even as speaker of the house. If it were she'd already be on some special government flight that we wouldn't hear about.

Commercial flights and thier problems are good enough for us poor taxpaying bastards so it should be good enough for the politicians too.

Politicians on military jets for essentially private purposes is ridiculous and 95-99% of all government matters can be taken care of commercially.

VictoryGin

Pacomc79 wrote:

She can. It just shouldn't cost us 300K when she does it. Rather $300 for a first class ticket and then we'll get her a blackberry so she can talk to her family and communicate with her staff. Absolutely no reason to foot the bill for that whole crowd.

No meeting she might have is that important even as speaker of the house. If it were she'd already be on some special government flight that we wouldn't hear about.

Commercial flights and thier problems are good enough for us poor taxpaying bastards so it should be good enough for the politicians too.

hey if it's good enough for barack obama, it's good enough for me!

seriously though, i can see the benefits of private jet travel for them and i think that if denny got to do that, she should too. however, this could be a good opportunity for her to call out the excesses of the administration and kick off a trend of not using private jets like that. i agree with you.

ledvedderman

Once again Miller fails to see that former Speaker Hastert had a plane that only had to go to Chicago. If a plane won't make it to all the way to San Francisco than she needs a plane that would make it that far, or like someone said-go first class.

inmytree

miller8966 wrote:

Pentagon limits Pelosi jet size
By Charles Hurt and Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
February 8, 2007


The Department of Defense yesterday sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that puts limits on the size of the plane she may use to travel across the country and restricts the guests she can bring, The Washington Times has learned.
A congressional source who read the letter signed by Assistant Secretary of Defense Robert Wilkie said it essentially limits her to the commuter plane used by former Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, which requires refueling to travel from Washington to Mrs. Pelosi's San Francisco district. A second source, in the Bush administration, confirmed the contents of the letter.
The Washington Times first reported last week that Mrs. Pelosi's staff was pressing the Department of Defense for an Air Force aircraft large enough to fly nonstop to San Francisco. She also has pressed to be able to include other members of the California congressional delegation, her family members and her staff on the plane.
"It's not a question of size. It's a question of distance," Mrs. Pelosi told reporters yesterday. "We want an aircraft that can reach California."
Earlier, Mrs. Pelosi did not comment on the matter but yesterday began a counteroffensive accusing the Bush administration of twisting the story.
These "misrepresentations could be coming from the administration," she told reporters yesterday.
"One would only have to wonder why," she said, though adding that she did not suspect President Bush "because he has impressed upon me over and over again the need for me to have the security that I need."
The letter from the Pentagon yesterday cites specific U.S. Code that government policy does not include the routine use of military aircraft for the speaker of the House.
"Nonstop service is not guaranteed, meaning she's getting Hastert's plane and nothing bigger," the congressional source said, referring to the commuter jet Mr. Hastert began using for security reasons after the September 11 terrorist attacks.
But the administration official said Mrs. Pelosi "wanted to be able to fly between Washington and the West Coast nonstop."
The letter leaves open the possibility that Mrs. Pelosi may get a larger plane that does not require refueling if one happens to be available in the 89th Airlift Wing at Andrews Air Force Base. But, generally, the larger military passenger jets are in high demand, especially due to the Iraq war.
In addition, the letter stipulates that the Air Force will only fly her between Washington and her San Francisco district and places limits on who can travel with her.

does anybody know if Pelosi is the only one who flies around on our dime...? I'm guessing "no"...

I think it's bullshit that we pay for any and all members of gov't travel...it's their job, and I feel they should pay their own travel expenses, just like you and me...

RainDog

inmytree wrote:

does anybody know if Pelosi is the only one who flies around on our dime...? I'm guessing "no"...

I think it's bullshit that we pay for any and all members of gov't travel...it's their job, and I feel they should pay their own travel expenses, just like you and me...

Most companies pay their employees' travel expenses.

VictoryGin

RainDog wrote:

Most companies pay their employees' travel expenses.

that's what i was thinking. if it's business travel, then it wouldn't be unreasonable for taxpayers to pay for travel since we pay their salary.

hippiemom

cincybearcat wrote:

Here's the thing...does it save the taxpayer for her to have a plane versus flying commercial? My bet is yes.

What is she (and other politicans) using the planes for? Taxpayers are flipping the bill so we should know and it shoul dbe very limited to necessary trips. My guess is that it is abused by most.

I agree with this. Buying commercial tickets for her and even one or two staff members and one or two security agents would add up to $300K pretty quickly, and I think those are legitimate expenses. Her family, on the other hand, should be traveling on their own dime. And yes, obviously, she should be able to fly non-stop to her district.

inmytree

RainDog wrote:

Most companies pay their employees' travel expenses.

to and from work...?

RainDog

VictoryGin wrote:

that's what i was thinking. if it's business travel, then it wouldn't be unreasonable for taxpayers to pay for travel since we pay their salary.

Exactly. It's reasonable to debate their means of travel, but to say they have to pay for it all themselves is a bit much.

RainDog

inmytree wrote:

to and from work...?

If the work isn't local, yeah, usually they do.

even flow?

cincybearcat wrote:

Here's the thing...does it save the taxpayer for her to have a plane versus flying commercial? My bet is yes.

What is she (and other politicans) using the planes for? Taxpayers are flipping the bill so we should know and it shoul dbe very limited to necessary trips. My guess is that it is abused by most.

Hey if the higher ups decided not to fly commercial just before Sept. 11/01. Why should they start now when the threat is that much more real. Real according to some.

After seeing Miller post this I thought that Pelosi would have had her hair stylist, make-up artist, personal groomer for her and any pets that would be flying, etc.

inmytree

RainDog wrote:

If the work isn't local, yeah, usually they do.

ok, I must be missing something...

ingore me...:)

rearviewmiror

3rd in line, it makes sense for her to fly private.

A non-stop flight isnt too much of a request.

When the President (Bush or Clinton) flies to a campaign stop using AFone he re-pays the government. The leader of the free world can't just charter a jet. The President should be protected and ferried about in a manner that is most secure. That is AFone.