Pelosi Demands Use of Larger Air Force Jet

[Matt Molnar]

Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20070207-123706-5963r.htm):

Pelosi's push for jet remains up in air

By Rowan Scarborough and Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
February 7, 2007
The Bush administration has agreed to provide House Speaker Nancy Pelosi with regular access to an Air Force passenger jet, but the two sides are negotiating whether she will get the big aircraft she wants and who she may take as passengers, according to congressional and administration sources.

A congressional source said that Rep. John P. Murtha, chairman of House Appropriations subcommittee on defense, which controls the Pentagon's spending, has telephoned administration officials to urge them to give the speaker what she wants.

The congressional source said Pentagon officials complained that Mr. Murtha, Pennsylvania Democrat, is accusing them of sexism for not immediately heeding her request.

[RDU-JFK]

Give her a Fairchild Metro

[hiss srq]

This bitch gets on my nerves to the last bit. Give her a effing PA-31-300 Mojave so shes got pressureization and tell her to play leap frog with a damn pourcipine already. She makes me sick.

[moose135]

Since we've had the radical right-wing version from the Washington Times, here is what the Washington Post had to report:


Pelosi Catches Nonstop Flights Home

Tuesday, February 6, 2007; Page A15

Amid rumblings from conservatives that she is seeking special treatment, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D) will receive use of an Air Force jet larger than the one used by her predecessor, Rep. J. Dennis Hastert, so she can fly nonstop to her home in San Francisco.

Ever since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the speaker, who is next in line for the presidency after the vice president, has been given use of a government plane for security reasons. Hastert (R-Ill.), who had flown commercially before the attacks, was the first to have use of a plane. But the one he traveled in was too small to make it to California without refueling.

Yesterday, the House sergeant-at-arms issued a statement saying that the leadership is awaiting word from the Air Force on the rules for using the plane. It is unclear, for example, who can travel with Pelosi and whether she can return home from a political event on the taxpayer-funded plane. Pelosi's office requested the guidelines, triggering a story in the Washington Times in which sources questioned whether she was asking for more than the former speaker received.

Democratic aides sputtered about a "right-wing hatchet job" to make Pelosi look bad. But, said one involved in the negotiations, "this is about security, not about convenience."

An aide in Hastert's office said yesterday that the former speaker used the plane for official business but not for political travel. He did at times transport his wife and staff when he was flying to and from Illinois.

Brendan Daley, a spokesman for Pelosi, said that she will not use the plane for political travel

And from
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/05/pel ... -aircraft/ (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/05/pelosi-military-aircraft/)


1) The House Sergeant at Arms, not Pelosi, initiated inquiries into the use of military aircraft. House Sergeant at Arms Wilson Livingood, who has served in his position since 1995, released a statement today clarifying the facts. He writes, “In December 2006, I advised Speaker Pelosi that the US Air Force had made an airplane available to Speaker Hastert for security and communications purposes following September 11, 2001.” Additionally, Livingood writes, “I offered to call the U.S. Air Force and Department of Defense to seek clarification of the guidelines [which governed Speaker Hastert’s use of a plane].”

2) A larger plane was requested because Hastert’s plane required refueling to travel cross-country. The Washington Times says a larger plane was requested to accomodate Pelosi, “her staff, other Members and supporters.” That’s not true. In fact, the plane used by Speaker Hastert was too small for Pelosi since it “needs to refuel every 2,000 miles and could not make the nonstop haul to California. ‘The Air Force determined that [Pelosi’s] safety would be best ensured by using a plane that has the fuel capacity to go coast-to-coast,’” a Pelosi spokesperson said.

[Tom_Turner]

Hey Moose...

Stop confusing us with the facts all the time... :)

Tom

[Mateo]

The only difference between the former Speaker and the current speaker is that Hastert's district is just outside of Chicago, and thus could make the ADW-ARR (Aurora, IL - probably his home airport) trip in a C-21/Lear 35. Pelosi lives in San Francisco, and to make the trip non-stop (not an unreasonable request) from Andrews requires a C-20/G-III. Regardless of who the Speaker is, it's a matter of getting the right plane for the right mission. The Washington Times, a notoriously conservative newspaper, decided to run a story about it, which was picked up on Drudge, which was picked up by Fox News, and you get the drift... This is a complete non-story.

[Nonstop2AUH]

Give the lady a Gulfstream for heaven's sake, the government blows enough money on other useless endeavors that the cost to transport #3 in the chain of command (whether red or blue) is probably immaterial. Besides, if she wanted to fly transcon with a fuel stop she could buy a ticket on Jetblue!

[Midnight Mike]

Like everything else, it was the way this was handled. As Speaker of the House, Rep. Pelosi is entitled to access, but, these request take time. The Democrats decided to charge through with the request & getting Rep. Murtha involved made things worse.

This should have been handled internally, but, both sides elected to leak the information to the press.

[moose135]

Hey Moose...

Stop confusing us with the facts all the time... :)

Tom

Sorry Tom, must be all that newsprint that's rubbed off on me :D

[Matt Molnar]

PWN3D!

Washington Times (http://washtimes.com/national/20070208-121345-5680r.htm):

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.

[Midnight Mike]

Hey Moose...

Stop confusing us with the facts all the time... :)

Tom

Sorry Tom, must be all that newsprint that's rubbed off on me :D

I did some more research on the Pelosi thingy, she is after a C32, which is a 757 size aircraft, that is a little to much of an airplane for her requirements... I thought that maybe she would have gone after the Military Gulfstreams, but no, she opted to go for the biggest jet after Air Force 1, little to greedy for my taste.

[Midnight Mike]

There is also the C-37A — a military version of the Gulf Stream 5, which is about the same size as the C-20, but is able to fly nonstop to California. One military source who asked not to be identified says that it may be that Pelosi and her aides were shown a C-37A and didn't understand that it was different and more potent than a C-20, since they look so similar.

Would Pelosi be willing to use a smaller plane than the lavish C-32 as long as it could fly coast to coast?

"Yes," said a Pelosi aide.

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

Maybe, I can see a civilian not being able to tell the difference between a C-37 & a C-20, but, since Rep. Pelosi is a member of Congress in line to assume the role of the President, I would expect her to under the aircraft that are assigned to the Military.

[moose135]

Maybe, I can see a civilian not being able to tell the difference between a C-37 & a C-20, but, since Rep. Pelosi is a member of Congress in line to assume the role of the President, I would expect her to under the aircraft that are assigned to the Military.

I'm an Air Force veteran and an airplane geek, and I have a hard time telling these two apart. Without knowing the specs, I wouldn't know that one has transcontinental range and the other doesn't.

http://jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=5769644
http://jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=5700558

[USAF Pilot 07]

I dunno, I think a 757 is a little excessive for travel back and forth between San Francisco and D.C.

I'm no range expert, but I would imagine the C-37 would be able to make it non-stop between ADW and San Fran with few problems. I believe many large corporations and individual aircraft owners fly this aircraft type non-stop coast-to-coast.

It sounds like Mrs. Pelosi wants to the have the luxuries of a full-size airliner, and doesn't want the "cramped" space of a G-V flying coast-to-coast.

Besides the G-V is a really, really nice place. I think it may be what the USSPACECOM Commander flies around in, since I've seen it over at Peterson AFB quite a few times, and it is a sharp looking aircraft!

[moose135]

Today's LA Times* is reporting Pelosi's staff inquired about the use of a C-40 (the military 737) which has the range to reach California non-stop.

I can't find the link right now, but yesterday, one of the stories I read said that while the House Sergeant at Arms made inquiries about use of a military aircraft for security purposes, and before any determination had been made, Congressman Jeb Hensarling, of Texas, the chairman of the Republican Study Committee sent out a news release from his group with a photo of a C-32, sparking the uproar.

Hell, the funny part about this - the White House is supporting Pelosi!


* - In the interest of openness, the LA Times is owned by the same folks who own my company.

[Midnight Mike]

Today's LA Times* is reporting Pelosi's staff inquired about the use of a C-40 (the military 737) which has the range to reach California non-stop.

I can't find the link right now, but yesterday, one of the stories I read said that while the House Sergeant at Arms made inquiries about use of a military aircraft for security purposes, and before any determination had been made, Congressman Jeb Hensarling, of Texas, the chairman of the Republican Study Committee sent out a news release from his group with a photo of a C-32, sparking the uproar.

Hell, the funny part about this - the White House is supporting Pelosi!


* - In the interest of openness, the LA Times is owned by the same folks who own my company.

The White House is supporting Rep. Pelosi's request for an aircraft & not for her request for a C-32.

Once again, a C-40 is to much of an aircraft for her needs.

Rep. Murtha threatened the Pentagon to give Rep. Pelosi what she wants as she controls the purse strings...

[Midnight Mike]

Maybe, I can see a civilian not being able to tell the difference between a C-37 & a C-20, but, since Rep. Pelosi is a member of Congress in line to assume the role of the President, I would expect her to under the aircraft that are assigned to the Military.

I'm an Air Force veteran and an airplane geek, and I have a hard time telling these two apart. Without knowing the specs, I wouldn't know that one has transcontinental range and the other doesn't.

http://jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=5769644
http://jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=5700558

Nancy Pelosi is 3rd in line for the President of the United States, I would expect her to know what options are available to her.

Rep. Murtha has been advising her, & he damn well knows what aircraft would be suitable for Rep. Pelosi's needs.

They tried to get an aircraft that was more than what she required, media found out and exposed her, she made a mistake, just fess up to it, & the story will go away.


Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., the Pelosi ally who chairs the House military appropriations subcommittee, said he has spoken to Pentagon officials about the need to provide Pelosi with a bigger plane that can fly passengers coast to coast in comfort.

[MORS-AB-ALTO]

With a 5000+ mile range the C-37A, or Gulfstream V in civvie terms, is more than adequate for Pelosi. Perhaps her advises were unaware of the C-37A which when regards to size sits between the C-20B(GIV) and the larger C-32(757) & C-40(737). Of particular note is the fact that the C-37A has a longer range than C-32 & C-40.

Sure it's the the right wing media exploiting a left wing mistake, a possibly arrogant one at that. But, the real blame here is with the Pelosi camp. It just seems that every time the Democrats make some sort of headway one pf them always makes a political blunder that stays in the public mind and erases any hard fought gains. I guess you could say that about politicians as a whole. That's why I'll stay Independent.

Ok...less politics and more airplanes.

[Matt Molnar]

Pelosi says "Screw you guys, I'll just fly commercial." Sort of.

Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20670001&refer=&sid=a7xm.LC1Hsro):

Pelosi May Decline Air Force Flights Over Plane Issue
By Laura Litvan

Feb. 8 (Bloomberg) -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she might decline the use of Air Force planes to travel from Washington to her San Francisco district because the Pentagon won't guarantee her an aircraft that can make the trip non-stop.

``I have said that I am happy to ride commercial if the plane they have doesn't go coast to coast,'' Pelosi said today.

Republicans seized on the issue in speeches on the House floor, criticizing Pelosi's ``extravagant'' request. Pelosi said Pentagon officials may be ``feeding the flames,'' of the issue in response to her criticism of the strategy in the war in Iraq.

Sounds good to me. I think the security concerns are overblown and unfounded. Think of all the world's actual heads of state that fly commercial. Flying commercial should also make the environmentalists happy.