There is more to the story. She wants the bigger plane so that it can fly non-stop to the west coast. The former speaker received non-stop flights to his home. A plane of the size Hastert used could fly to Michigan, but not the west coast. I think the speaker would be wise to take the smaller plane and drop the issue. It will be used as an efffort to embarass her and all Democrats. I don't have problem with filling up the plane, as long as it is a flight that is being done for the Speakers benefit. I have no objection when the President gives Laura a ride home to Texas when he goes there on vacation. I also don't mind when the President gives the local congressman a ride home on Air Force 1 when he is on his way there. It shouldn't be an issue, but that's politics.

 

 

In the interest of telling the whole story here's some information about the smaller of the two aircraft in question. The range of the aircraft is greater than 3600 nmi and the distance between San Fran and Wash, DC is about 2500 nmi so from that fact sheets it would appear that the aircraft could make the trip non-stop. However, when going from DC to San Fran sometimes (typically in the winter) you have to fight against a strong jet stream so you would have to refuel. When going from San Fran to DC the jet stream would work in your favor (presummably half of the flights) or when going from DC to San Fran on the occaisions when the jet stream isn't as strong you could make it without refueling. This also assumes that you have a full tank when you take-off. (A good assumption if the plane is dedicated to the speaker.) I think it's fair to say that most flights that Pelosi would make with the C-20 would not require refueling but there would be some that would.

Seems the speaker was more than willing to travel by commercial airlines but there was security insistance by the government, including the Bush Administration. Will the hard right please stand up to be corrected for assuming the arguments in the article.

 

What arguments in the article are incorrect?

Here's the fact sheet on the larger plane.

Denny Hassert apparently had the same problem. I don't have a problem with the Speaker using a scheduled military flight to get home, or using military transportation for necessary trips to other places, which should be few and far between. However, these VIP flights need to stop. If she needs to get home for something, use the regular airlines. They're a heck of a lot cheaper than a VIP military flight, even if she flies first class.

 

Not really. Hastert flew in a small commuter type jet. Pelosi wants a Jet that rivals the president, with 46 business class seats, board room, and entertainment centers, and a staff of 16.

 

IMO, any speaker of the house or any other top official probably needs to fly private, strictly for security reasons.

 

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/02/07/gop_bristles_at_pelosi_plane_request/

I think I'd be ecstatic with the G5 they offered her.

Here's the inside of a G4 (not the exact plane we're talking about but you'll get the idea).

The Pentagon has agreed to give Nancy a plane but it isn't as big as she would like and the Pentagon has put restrictions on who can fly with her.

 

She needs the extra room in order to fit her ego into it.

I don't get her argument about refueling to get home. Even the short range G5 will take her 5800 nautical miles. That'll get her to Hawaii with plenty of fuel left over. The longer range G5 will put her easily on the Asian coast.

I don't get her argument about refueling to get home. Even the short range G5 will take her 5800 nautical miles. That'll get her to Hawaii with plenty of fuel left over. The longer range G5 will put her easily on the Asian coast.

 

Maybe she is referring to her home in Nepal?

 

 

Frances

Why can't these guys just fly commercial? Even if it's on the government's (our) money? There probably isn't an area that the government (them) has regulated more than the airlines. There probably isn't a more protected area of our country than our airports and our airspace. Wouldn't this also be extra income for the airlines that need bailing out anyway?

Why can't these guys just fly commercial? Even if it's on the government's (our) money? There probably isn't an area that the government (them) has regulated more than the airlines. There probably isn't a more protected area of our country than our airports and our airspace. Wouldn't this also be extra income for the airlines that need bailing out anyway?

 

Can't say I agree with you here.

Here's the inside of a G4 (not the exact plane we're talking about but you'll get the idea).

 

I told those guys to wash it and put it into my hanger, not take pictures of it!

Correction: Pelosi was not offered a G5. She was offered Haserts old G3.

 

I think it would be ok to upgrade her to a G5, but the Flying Lincoln Bedroom she wants is out of the question. The converted 757-200 would cost $15 million a year and produces 10,000 pounds of carbon dioxide an hour, way more than a Gulfstream.

Not really. Hastert flew in a small commuter type jet. Pelosi wants a Jet that rivals the president, with 46 business class seats, board room, and entertainment centers, and a staff of 16.

 

IMO, any speaker of the house or any other top official probably needs to fly private, strictly for security reasons.

 

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/02/07/gop_bristles_at_pelosi_plane_request/

Saw an interview in which Ms. Pelosi made the claim that the this "scandal" (for lack of a better term) DID NOT COME FROM THE PRESIDENT. That in conversations she claimed that he was supportive of her getting the bigger plane.

 

Now, I know those of you who are Bush bashers will say upfront it is not him but his cronies are working behind the scenes to do it. I am just telling you the viewpoint put on national television by the SOH. She came out and cleared him so why can't you?

Why can't these guys just fly commercial? Even if it's on the government's (our) money? There probably isn't an area that the government (them) has regulated more than the airlines. There probably isn't a more protected area of our country than our airports and our airspace. Wouldn't this also be extra income for the airlines that need bailing out anyway?

Just after 9/11 the government decided that the Speaker (two hearts beats away from the presidency) should travel by planes only provided by the military, I agree with this. If I am not mistaken Hassert used a plane close to 40 times in his last full year, which I have no problem with since the speaker could be a target.

 

She did say if she couldn't get a bigger plane that she would fly commercial but was strongly advised against going commercial. Maybe she doesn't like small planes?

 

Our airports are not as secure as one might think. Plus with our borders being wide open it's hard to say what has been smuggled into this country that could bring down a plane.