Government Charter Aircraft - Why Biz Jets?

labbadabba

labbadabba

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Aug 12, 2014
Messages
2,391
Location
Lawrence, KS
Display Name
Display name:
labbadabba
This is not a rant against our government nor is it intended to be political.

So, a number of Trump administration officials have gotten into hot water lately for their private air travel. I'm not interested in debating the merits of private vs. air carrier travel for administration officials. My question is, so many flights that got Price busted were fairly close to DC; a couple flights to Philly, New York and other East Coast cities. Why a large business jet when a King Air or PC12 may be just as fast and at a fraction of the cost? I don't think most reasonable voters (and I speak for myself as a liberal-leaning guy) begrudge the legit needs of officials to be on-site to perform their job but I think the $30,000 per hour jet is where the extravagance rubs people the wrong way.

Are there options to use turboprops or even large piston aircraft as an alternative or are they all turbofan all the time?
 
Last edited:
A jet from DC to Philly does seem rather excessive. I personally do not see the need for it unless it is to project power and prestige which all DC folks love to do regardless of party.
 
My guess is they already had memberships to larger charter firms (that don't use props and fly much longer legs too) which have more convenient websites/booking services.
 
labbadabba said:
This is not a rant against our government nor is it intended to be political.

So, a number of Trump administration officials have gotten into hot water lately for their private air travel. I'm not interested in debating the merits of private vs. air carrier travel for administration officials. My question is, so many flights that got Price busted were fairly close to DC; a couple flights to Philly, New York and other East Coast cities. Why a large business jet when a King Air or PC12 may be just as fast and at a fraction of the cost? I don't think most reasonable voters (and I speak for myself as a liberal-leaning guy) that we begrudge the legit needs of officials to be on-site to perform their job but I think the $30,000 per hour jet is where the extravagance rubs people the wrong way.

Are there options to use turboprops or even large piston aircraft as an alternative or are they all turbofan all the time?
Click to expand...
When a guy from the Interior Department was traveling to a meeting in Durango they did use a King Air to get from Denver to Durango. The charter apparently wasn't planned ahead of time and was supposedly necessary because of delays in getting to Denver via airline. The outfit they chartered from prolly had a jet or three available...
 
Clark1961 said:
When a guy from the Interior Department was traveling to a meeting in Durango they did use a King Air to get from Denver to Durango. The charter apparently wasn't planned ahead of time and was supposedly necessary because of delays in getting to Denver via airline. The outfit they chartered from prolly had a jet or three available...
Click to expand...

Zinke. Also famous for riding a horse to Capitol Hill on his first day in congress...
 
labbadabba said:
Zinke. Also famous for riding a horse to Capitol Hill on his first day in congress...
Click to expand...
The funny thing is that the King Air they prolly used belongs to an oil company and was used for employee commuter runs in the region. It was a little ragged on the inside. The jets they have around are much, much nicer...
 
Why not use an ANG or Air Force or Navy plane where someone needs to fly for currency anyway? Or Army helicopter for those trips to Philadelphia, NYC, and other places close to DC. I realize there may be different types of currency (although I don't know what those might be...day VFR, IFR, combat?). I do see ANG (Air Force too) aircraft practicing touch & goes at the local airport here and I wouldn't begrudge someone using the same time and fuel (or a bit more) to actually go someplace. The training or currency may even be improved since they need to do some navigation as well as the T&G.
 
A single engine airplane is out of the question.
Something such as a King Air is still pushing it for cabinet level. Not just the airplane, but quite often (certainly not always) pilot experience matches the equipment.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Why not use an ANG or Air Force or Navy plane where someone needs to fly for currency anyway? Or Army helicopter for those trips to Philadelphia, NYC, and other places close to DC. I realize there may be different types of currency (although I don't know what those might be...day VFR, IFR, combat?). I do see ANG (Air Force too) aircraft practicing touch & goes at the local airport here and I wouldn't begrudge someone using the same time and fuel (or a bit more) to actually go someplace. The training or currency may even be improved since they need to do some navigation as well as the T&G.
Click to expand...

All of them are AIr Force, Marines, or Army aircraft.

Here's what the USAF has for VIP transport:

http://www.jba.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/336383/89th-airlift-wing/

Here's what the Air Force has
 
Last edited:
A lot of it probably depends on how they're set up for charters. Absolutely, a turboprop would be almost as fast for a significantly lower cost, far more efficient. But if you have a membership with NetJets or some other fractional then it becomes a lot quicker and easier to go with that vs. trying to find a separate charter outfit with a King Air to save a few bucks. Without more information it's hard to say.

Kritchlow is also correct that you have safety aspects to consider. Jets are safer than turboprops, and the pilots are typically more experienced. That's how you justify a lot of expensive travel. That's how we justify AF1 being a 747.

Personally I think that such "justifications" are overblown, but that's what's used and many people agree with it.
 
mscard88 said:
All of them are AIr Force, Marines, or Army aircraft.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the correction, but it didn't answer the question of why they couldn't be used to move those people around if they are going to be flown anyway.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Thanks for the correction, but it didn't answer the question of why they couldn't be used to move those people around if they are going to be flown anyway.
Click to expand...

They are the planes they use. For instance, Air Force, a 747, is an Air Force crewed by Air Force crews. All of the others are too. Same with Army and Marine aircraft.
 
I'd be willing to bet that Charter operators can move people around a hell of a lot cheaper and more efficiently than the military does. Everything has exceptions tho.
 
bnt83 said:
I'd be willing to bet that Charter operators can move people around a hell of a lot cheaper and more efficiently than the military does. Everything has exceptions tho.
Click to expand...

Sure they can, but these aircraft are loaded w/ communication gear and other classified gear. Air Force 1 I believe is even refuelable (the 747s).
 
mscard88 said:
They are the planes they use. For instance, Air Force, a 747, is an Air Force crewed by Air Force crews. All of the others are too. Same with Army and Marine aircraft.
Click to expand...
You still didn't answer why they couldn't take a politician someplace as part of some training mission that they would have flown anyway except for the destination.

Also, I'm pretty sure the KC-135s I see flying around here, and parked across the field, have crews from the Air National Guard.

I know the charter operators are cheaper, but the military is flying someplace anyway. Why not just fly to a destination with a politician aboard? The cost of the military plane is unchanged (it was flying anyway), we save the cost of a charter or a commercial plane ticket, we get to see cool planes at more places, and the politician feels important stepping off a military plane. Everyone wins!
 
I'm just providing you info. As for why they don't do it as you say I have no idea, but I'd guess security and scheduling ( availability) have a lot to do with it. Plus these dedicated planes are equipped w/ comm gear and such while regular military planes may not be.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
You still didn't answer why they couldn't take a politician someplace as part of some training mission that they would have flown anyway except for the destination.

Also, I'm pretty sure the KC-135s I see flying around here, and parked across the field, have crews from the Air National Guard.

I know the charter operators are cheaper, but the military is flying someplace anyway. Why not just fly to a destination with a politician aboard? The cost of the military plane is unchanged (it was flying anyway), we save the cost of a charter or a commercial plane ticket, we get to see cool planes at more places, and the politician feels important stepping off a military plane. Everyone wins!
Click to expand...
A lot of logistics/planning are involved in transporting VIPs. I don't think they would ever allow a training event be used to carry someone of importance. Politicians get special treatment when they visit and interact with the military, I think most people would be surprised. I believe that carrying cabinet level and above VIPs is a special mission in the Air Force, and not flown but just any airframe/aircrew doing a day to day mission.
 
tspear said:
Actually no. Fed's generally use regular commercial charter for domestic. Military airlift is contracted primarily only for international travel.

Tim
Click to expand...
Do you have a source for that?
 
tspear said:
Actually no. Fed's generally use regular commercial charter for domestic. Military airlift is contracted primarily only for international travel.

Tim
Click to expand...

I'm referring to Special Air Missions, which is what the 89th above does. From AF 1, carrying the President, to other VIPs like Congress, Cabinets heads etc. on down the line.
 
mscard88 said:
I'm referring to Special Air Missions, which is what the 89th above does. From AF 1, carrying the President, to other VIPs like Congress, Cabinets heads etc. on down the line.
Click to expand...

Except all the recent press on the Cabinet members has been domestic commercial charter augmented by military for international....

Tim
 
tspear said:
Except all the recent press on the Cabinet members has been domestic commercial charter augmented by military for international....

Tim
Click to expand...

I don't know what they actually flew on. You sure it wasn't a jet from the 89th?
 
I am a political news junkie. :D
So this has been in the political press a fair amount; including on how the agencies do a lot of the contracting for it.

Tim[/QUOTE]
Thanks. A bit of advice, if I may: Don't believe everything you read on the internet.
 
mscard88 said:
I don't know what they actually flew on. You sure it wasn't a jet from the 89th?
Click to expand...

Yes, in the Politico article I linked above, and others that have been in the press. They actually submitted FOI requests to get the contracts and invoices; plus back tracing the owners of the planes.

Tim
 
AWACSEng said:
I am a political news junkie. :D
So this has been in the political press a fair amount; including on how the agencies do a lot of the contracting for it.

Tim
Click to expand...
Thanks. A bit of advice, if I may: Don't believe everything you read on the internet.[/QUOTE]

believe what? :D
I actually read from multiple sources across the spectrum. So I have a pretty jaundiced view...

Tim
 
mscard88 said:
I don't know what they actually flew on. You sure it wasn't a jet from the 89th?
Click to expand...
The article Tim quoted specifies a contract company. I have flown 89AW aircraft for 7 years and counting. I will tell you there is much more than meets the eye regarding the aircraft and missions flown. Much more than the tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorists here (and elsewhere on the internet) will listen to or accept.
 
AWACSEng said:
The article Tim quoted specifies a contract company. I have flown 89AW aircraft for 7 years and counting. I will tell you there is much more than meets the eye regarding the aircraft and missions flown. Much more than the tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorists here (and elsewhere on the internet) will listen to or accept.
Click to expand...

I know, I'm retired AF and know a little but nowhere as much as you. I even put links and people still wanna argue. lol
 
AWACSEng said:
The article Tim quoted specifies a contract company. I have flown 89AW aircraft for 7 years and counting. I will tell you there is much more than meets the eye regarding the aircraft and missions flown. Much more than the tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorists here (and elsewhere on the internet) will listen to or accept.
Click to expand...
Anything unclass which you can point too or tell?
I am always amazed by how the government uses resources (as a former government IT contractor, I saw a fair amount).

Tim
 
DC to Philly, Amtrak business class seems the best option. I would hazard a guess it would take less time than flying and certainly cost less. If it was good enough for Biden...........
 
Norman said:
DC to Philly, Amtrak business class seems the best option. I would hazard a guess it would take less time than flying and certainly cost less. If it was good enough for Biden...........
Click to expand...

If it stays on the tracks. :eek:
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Why not use an ANG or Air Force or Navy plane where someone needs to fly for currency anyway? Or Army helicopter for those trips to Philadelphia, NYC, and other places close to DC.
Click to expand...

There are some issues with the military being restricted from competing with the private sector. If there is a 'national security' angle to it like transporting the potus or the secretary of defense those rules don't apply. Also if some 'exigency' applies military aircraft can be used.
 
Norman said:
DC to Philly, Amtrak business class seems the best option. I would hazard a guess it would take less time than flying and certainly cost less. If it was good enough for Biden...........
Click to expand...

I would love to see a cabinet secretary in the 45min line to get on board of Amtrak on a Friday afternoon.
 
labbadabba said:
This is not a rant against our government nor is it intended to be political.

So, a number of Trump administration officials have gotten into hot water lately for their private air travel. I'm not interested in debating the merits of private vs. air carrier travel for administration officials. My question is, so many flights that got Price busted were fairly close to DC; a couple flights to Philly, New York and other East Coast cities. Why a large business jet when a King Air or PC12 may be just as fast and at a fraction of the cost? I don't think most reasonable voters (and I speak for myself as a liberal-leaning guy) begrudge the legit needs of officials to be on-site to perform their job but I think the $30,000 per hour jet is where the extravagance rubs people the wrong way.

Are there options to use turboprops or even large piston aircraft as an alternative or are they all turbofan all the time?
Click to expand...

I'm sure there are plenty of other options for travel, but it's more fun to spend money from an essentially-bottomless bank account that isn't your own. The could probably get from DC to Philly in a C310 faster and much cheaper than NetJets, or Commercial Airlines, but then they'd have to deal with the noise of a piston-twin for an hour. Those inside the beltway have little regard for the value of a dollar when they aren't the ones footing the bill.
 
SoonerAviator said:
I'm sure there are plenty of other options for travel, but it's more fun to spend money from an essentially-bottomless bank account that isn't your own. The could probably get from DC to Philly in a C310 faster and much cheaper than NetJets, or Commercial Airlines, but then they'd have to deal with the noise of a piston-twin for an hour. Those inside the beltway have little regard for the value of a dollar when they aren't the ones footing the bill.
Click to expand...
A cabinet member flying in a 310??

I love 310's, but we need to be realistic here.
And I don't mean the snooty factor. I'm talking safety factor.
 
tspear said:
Actually no. Fed's generally use regular commercial charter for domestic. Military airlift is contracted primarily only for international travel.

Tim
Click to expand...

All branches of the military, minus CG, have their own FW and RW aircraft that are assigned transport duties. The Joint Operational Suppirt Arlift Center receives the requests and assigns them to each branch. I've flown on several in CONUS flights with AF C-21s, Marine and Army C-12s. Their primary customers are military and DOD civilians but they can fly govt officials as well.

The Feds might be using the services for international travel but the aircraft are available for CONUS as well.
 
Cooter said:
A lot of logistics/planning are involved in transporting VIPs. I don't think they would ever allow a training event be used to carry someone of importance. Politicians get special treatment when they visit and interact with the military, I think most people would be surprised. I believe that carrying cabinet level and above VIPs is a special mission in the Air Force, and not flown but just any airframe/aircrew doing a day to day mission.
Click to expand...
Planning? As opposed to flying a business jet or commercial jet? If I had the bucks, it's little more than picking up a phone and the plane is there. If the flight is merely flying to keep current, as I seem to see around here frequently, I don't see the problem. I wouldn't expect them to fly a low-level tactical route with one of those passengers. I agree it is a major hassle now for the military but it doesn't need to be. The flight schedules for currency are known and they can use the same software to set up a "ride sharing service".
 
weilke said:
There are some issues with the military being restricted from competing with the private sector. If there is a 'national security' angle to it like transporting the potus or the secretary of defense those rules don't apply. Also if some 'exigency' applies military aircraft can be used.
Click to expand...
Finally, an answer that isn't "we can't do that". But the law can be changed...
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Planning? As opposed to flying a business jet or commercial jet? If I had the bucks, it's little more than picking up a phone and the plane is there. If the flight is merely flying to keep current, as I seem to see around here frequently, I don't see the problem. I wouldn't expect them to fly a low-level tactical route with one of those passengers. I agree it is a major hassle now for the military but it doesn't need to be. The flight schedules for currency are known and they can use the same software to set up a "ride sharing service".
Click to expand...

The pilots that fly VIP travel don't need the flights for currency. I have friends flying C-12s and UC-35s in the Army and they're always flying. It's not a training flight for them. It's their mission.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top