Posted on 02/07/2007 5:42:02 PM PST by Hadean
A source close to the controversy over the request made by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., for use of a military plane that can fly to and from her home district in San Francisco, Calif., without having to stop to refuel, tells ABC News that the Pentagon has rebuffed Pelosi's request.
The source says that Pentagon officials and the Bush administration have instead offered Pelosi use of the same plane made available to former Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Illinois: a C-20, which seats about 12 passengers and five crew members.
A C-20 can make the 700-mile flight to Hastert's Aurora, Ill., district easily but would generally have to stop to refuel to complete the 2,800-mile trip from Washington D.C. to the San Francisco Bay Area, depending on the headwinds.
Pelosi has expressed concern about having to stop and refuel, primarily for security reasons, her office says. Since 9/11, the Speaker of the House — second in line behind the Vice President in the line of presidential succession — has been able to use a military plane for travel, for security reasons.
In response to the Pentagon offer, Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly tells ABC News, "We appreciate the Defense Department's continuing concern for the Speaker's security. We are reviewing their letter."
They usually do, but not always. Certainly landing at Whiteman AFB, home of the B-2, is going to be pretty darn safe. (Knob Noster Missouri is not exactly a hot bed of terrorists. ) It's also quite close to the great circle route between Andrews AFB, and San Francisco.
Why couldn't she fly commercial? In fact, why did Hastert need a personal airplane? Did they think something was going to happen to Cheney? Why can't they just buy a ticket for their entourage and fly commercial on a non-stop flight? Who set this precedent? If she is so concerned about defense dollars, pay for her and her group a ticket. probably cheaper. It would be a good show of faith for a leaner government.
The military needs their planes and fuel.
A 757 is not larger than a 747, which is what "Air Force One" is. I'm sort of surprised they didn't offer her a G-V, aka C-37A. That would have plenty of legs ( 6,300 miles) , but wouldn't be excessive (12 pax) , and they have more of them than C-20s anyway. C-20 has range of 4,250 miles, and also 12 pax. Andrews to San Francisco is 2,452 miles, so even with a headwind it can probably do the trick.
C-20B is good enough for the Speaker.
Unless things have changed, Ft. Riley does not have an airport. They have an airfield for helicopters, but no runways long enough for a jet.
She wanted the same plane Condi takes to the Middle East; 42 passengers, a bedroom, entertainment system, communications top notch.
As somebody else said, she wants it so she and Murtha can tour the world without having to ask.
The plane she wanted would cost $300,000 RT to SFO.
On the repeat of H&C, I just heard Alan Colmes say that it was not Pelosi that requested this plane but it was the Sargant at Arms who did. LOL
Yes, 757 is big. It's the same type that was rammed into the Pentagon and that was Flight 93, targeted on the Capital or White House, but taken down by the militia of flight 93.
I find that spooky every time I fly on one, which I will on Friday morning. The other two aircraft were 767s, which, while still smaller than a 747, are bigger than the 757. 757 is a single aisle aircraft, 3 seats on each side in coach. 767 is a wide body with two aisles.
I didn't know that the 757 is out of production, but learned it from the Boeing site when I looked up both it and the 757 to refresh myself as to which is larger.
>a small plane that wasn't in big demand and didn't cost too much.<
At $4,250 per hour that works out to about $25,000 for a round trip. If she goes home on the weekend, that's roughly 100K per month.
Whats wrong with the broom? Not enough range in those tanks?
Dont ruin a perfectly good connie for the likes of that woman, get her an airbust.Kinda fitting dontcha think?
She can use the same plane that Hastert used. I'm sick of the RATs' B.S. already, and this is only the beginning.
You need to reread the 20th Amendment to the Constitution. It clearly gives Congress the authority to make the Speaker of the House the successor to the Vice President. The Supreme Court has no say.
bitch bump
WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE PENTEGON?
They are missing out on a golden opportunity!
Say, "Why yes, Speaker Pelosi, we would be happy to provide you with a bigass, overthetop airplane, but you will have to provide your own crew members. And by the way, we aren't the least bit upset that you and Murtha threatened to cut our funding."
Then give her the plane. Just make sure the paint job includes concentric circles and conveniently misplace a crate of surface-to-air missiles.
She told him to request it...so she could hide ....
She can always borrow Hitlery's if she needs to take more than on aide with her.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.