Pelosi's aircraft fiasco is Hastert's folly

I find it interesting that the Air Force is complaining that the Speaker of the House wants to use the Speakers aircraft.

We did not hear a peep out of the Air Force when Speaker Hastert inserted an earmark in the FY 2003 Air Force appropriation requiring them to lease 4 large aircraft to support the Congress. The lease provision was inserted the year before the Air Force initiated its cockamamie program to lease 100 large tanker aircraft. It would appear that the initial 4 were a stalking horse for how far credulity could be stretched in the name of pork and support for the Defense contractor who had recently moved their headquarters to the Speakers home state.

The only reason for the earmark-directed lease was to ensure that they would not be visible in the appropriated budget. As a lease cost, they were lost in the amorphous Operations and Maintenance appropriation. The lease rationalization for these aircraft was even more specious than that attempted for the tankers in as much as 2 of the large aircraft were sitting in the desert and could have been purchased for a fraction of the ultimate lease cost.

One is left with the impression that the Air Force is trying to play Politics.

-- Ron Garant
Former Director of Investment Appropriations,
DoD Office of the Comptroller

Comments

[aircraft parts]

I think that air force should not play as like the politics and should be fair at all in the matter of aircraft, their operations and maintenance appropriation.

[Juno888]

The whole lease deal was a bailout for Boeing and a precursor to the stupid tanker lease proposal. An in neither instance did the air force make any noise that the whole process was wasteful. Now that someone from Pelosi’s office asked for a non-stop flight to California, the Air Force is objecting. Where were they in 2003 when they were being forced to lease aircraft that they didn't need?

POGO is doing a wonderful job in every aspect. Keep up the good work.

[Ron Garant]

It is obvious that the responses to my comment on the Air Force going political don't appreciate the point that I was trying to make.
I do not contend that Hastert few large aircraft when he went home to Chicago. My point is that he forced the air force to lease 4 large aircraft to fly congressional delegations around the world. He didn't add them to the budget; he included legislation that required that they be leased.
The difference in lease cost over outright procurement would more than cover the cost of Pelosi's travel to California throughout here tenure as speaker.
The whole lease deal was a bailout for Boeing and a precursor to the stupid tanker lease proposal. An in neither instance did the air force make any noise that the whole process was wasteful. Now that someone from Pelosi’s office asked for a non-stop flight to California, the Air Force is objecting. Where were they in 2003 when they were being forced to lease aircraft that they didn't need?

[KStretBuddyRedux]

er, POGO, given the above, would you like to modify your position, or is this a White House-style, stay-the-course position on Pelosi's plane?

[Joseph]

Hastert primarily flew the C-20 or C-21, not the C-37. The C-20 carries up to 12 passengers and has a maximum range around 4,000 nmi. The C-21 is smaller with a range of just 2,000 nmi. Neither can reliably cross the country without refueling during part of the year because of strong headwinds common in the winter. Pelosi's staff requested the C-32. There are only four C-32s in the fleet and these are primarily used by the Vice President and First Lady. When these two are travelling, all four aircraft will be unavailable since one is the primary and one is staged nearby as a backup if needed. Once the controversy began, Pelosi backed off and asked for the C-40 instead. These are more of these available than the C-32 but they can carry a small army, far more than one member of Congress and a few family or staff members would ever need. In the end, she'll end up with the C-37. It is the perfect aircraft for her needs--essentially the same aircraft Hastert used but with greater range (5,500 nmi maximum) to reach the West Coast at any time of year. If she had asked for this from the start, there would never have been a controversy.

By the way, I am an aerospace engineer, former Air Force pilot, and current Air Force reservist. I flew the KC-135 and C-21 between 1990 and 1998.

[Joseph]

I believe the issue is the size and operating cost of the aircraft that Pelosi has proposed using. Hastert flew aboard a small 12-passenger business jet (the C-20) while Pelosi has requested an extravagant VIP model based on the Boeing 737 (the C-40) or Boeing 757 (the C-32). These costs anywhere from twice to ten times as much per hour to operate as the C-20, depending on which source you read. She claims she needs this sized aircraft because of the greater distance to reach California as opposed to Illinois. However, the Air Force also has a business jet (the C-37) about the same size and cost as the one Hastert used that does have more than enough range to reach California from DC. I guess that's not sufficient for our illustrious speaker.

[Steve]

Pelosi was offered the same aircraft as her predecessor from the beginning of this "controversy". That aircraft is a C37A. We all know this as it has been widely reported. For some reason, you are stuck in the positioning instead of the facts. She wanted a larger aircraft, one that could go coast to coast, without refueling. The only problem with this request is that a C37A can travel 5500 kmiles without refueling. Coast to coast is 2500 kmiles. So, what you are saying makes no sense...