Government Charter Aircraft - Why Biz Jets?

Cap'n Jack said:
Finally, an answer that isn't "we can't do that". But the law can be changed...
Click to expand...

Why would you want to change the law (or regulation) ?

You don't want the DoD run a trucking business or the Ag department buying up farms.
 
Velocity173 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I spent to long as a govt contractor. Feds is civilian only.... :)

Tim

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk
 
weilke said:
Why would you want to change the law (or regulation) ?

You don't want the DoD run a trucking business or the Ag department buying up farms.
Click to expand...
Why change the law? To potentially save money. As for the gov't getting into other businesses, you're the only one taking it that far. Just let them fly elected officials, if there is a flight which could be used.
 
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...
What do you see training, KC-135s? Training missions aren't suitable for transporting VIPs. There are usually several working pieces, that would create an inefficiency instead of saving the way you intend. You can ask the poster above about what's required when flying a Cabinet level politician or above. I see what you're saying and I don't have a problem treating them less like Royalty. But with the policies currently in place, it probably wouldn't save much money unless they made some big changes.
 
Velocity173 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I wasn't thinking about those who normally handle VIPs. I'm thinking about putting them into the back of C-130, KC-135, or whatever pilot/crew needs currency. What do you consider a VIP?
I'd suggest any of those in the news because they flew charters are NOT VIPs. Nor are congress critters (upper or lower house).
 
tspear said:
I spent to long as a govt contractor. Feds is civilian only.... :)

Tim

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Well I was active Army and we flew plenty of civilian govt personnel around while CONUS. We weren't even part of OSA either.
 
Last edited:
Cooter said:
What do you see training, KC-135s? Training missions aren't suitable for transporting VIPs. There are usually several working pieces, that would create an inefficiency instead of saving the way you intend. You can ask the poster above about what's required when flying a Cabinet level politician or above. I see what you're saying and I don't have a problem treating them less like Royalty. But with the policies currently in place, it probably wouldn't save much money unless they made some big changes.
Click to expand...
What is wrong with putting them in the back of a KC-135 or C-130? It's probably more space than flying commercial. I don't know that I see them training, but rather it looks like they for doing currency flights. Don't you fly sometimes for currency? I don't consider them VIPs either. If they can get grief for calling up a charter plane, they aren't a VIP to me. So let's look if there could be savings, and make the changes if money could be saved or we do no worse than break even.
 
labbadabba said:
Zinke. Also famous for riding a horse to Capitol Hill on his first day in congress...
Click to expand...
He also flys his flag over the building when he's in the office - and doesn't fly it when he's out.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
I wasn't thinking about those who normally handle VIPs. I'm thinking about putting them into the back of C-130, KC-135, or whatever pilot/crew needs currency. What do you consider a VIP?
I'd suggest any of those in the news because they flew charters are NOT VIPs. Nor are congress critters (upper or lower house).
Click to expand...

Well I doubt you're going to see anyone in cabinet or Congress flying on those types of aircraft. That's why the military has separate VIP aircraft assigned for those duties. Now, why charter over them? Who knows.
 
Last edited:
Velocity173 said:
Well I doubt you're going to see anyone in cabinet or Congress flying on those types of aircraft. That's why the military has separate VIP aircraft assigned for those duties. Now, why charter over them? Who knows.
Click to expand...
Well, let them fly coach if they don't like the military planes. Or Amtrak as suggested earlier.
 
Kritchlow said:
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.
Click to expand...

Pfft. They change 'em out every few years. It's not like they're that irreplaceable.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Well, let them fly coach if they don't like the military planes. Or Amtrak as suggested earlier.
Click to expand...

No argument from me there. But, the fact of the matter is they are (as well as Congress) VIPs, "code 2" to be exact. They won't be hitching a ride "Space A" on a C-130 or KC-135. Plenty of military aircraft (Lear, King Air, Gulfstream) specifically designed for on call type of travel that they can take.
 
Last edited:
The argument for putting them on an otherwise scheduled training mission is an attractive one (to some), but in reality, would take training away from the crews. For example, put a congressman in a KC-135 from their home state to DC, and you eliminate the A/R training for the Boom Operator, or the dozen or so touch and goes for the pilots they would have gotten with no pax aboard. Put them in the back of a C-130 and you eliminate the low-level or air drop training they would have gotten. Not to mention, the per hour cost of a -135, -17, or -130 is multiples higher than that of a G-V/550 which is in the inventory for this exact purpose.

Also, there is a hierarchy to who is able to fly aboard Mil DV airlift. This hierarchy starts at the very top (at VPOTUS, since POTUS has dedicated assets) and works its way down. Since assets are limited and travel requests are numerous, C2 must decide who gets what airplane based on several factors.

The question was asked earlier about why they can't fly on something smaller. There are several ways to answer this, but in the simplest form, keeping the fleets standardized is actually a cost savings measure. Speaking for the composition of the 89th fleet, its cheeper to maintain and operate a fleet of identical aircraft (mx, parts supply, crew training, etc) than to have a diverse fleet for every mission. Yes, there are times when it doesn't make sense to fly a G-V from DC to Philly, but it pays for itself when we fly that same airplane around the world with 11 pax burning 4k lbs per hour vs. the KC-135 or C-17 burning 15k+ per hour.

Of course this doesn't answer the question of why they must travel like this at all, but that is way above my pay grade!
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Well, let them fly coach if they don't like the military planes. Or Amtrak as suggested earlier.
Click to expand...
One company I flew for got rid of their jet and travel,costs increased 10%...not to mention the hours of nonproductive time turning into days.

But it's what the shareholders wanted. :rolleyes:
 
MauleSkinner said:
One company I flew for got rid of their jet and travel,costs increased 10%...not to mention the hours of nonproductive time turning into days.

But it's what the shareholders wanted. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Some companies, losing their jet would have the effects you mention above. The place I work would need a number of jets to fly a bunch of lower-paid employees around and I don't think the numbers would add up to fly some of us around. Even the number of trips I took/will take this year, I wouldn't rate the cost of a corporate aircraft. I'm not saying you were wrong for the company you mentioned, as each one is different.
 
AWACSEng said:
The argument for putting them on an otherwise scheduled training mission is an attractive one (to some), but in reality, would take training away from the crews. For example, put a congressman in a KC-135 from their home state to DC, and you eliminate the A/R training for the Boom Operator, or the dozen or so touch and goes for the pilots they would have gotten with no pax aboard. Put them in the back of a C-130 and you eliminate the low-level or air drop training they would have gotten. Not to mention, the per hour cost of a -135, -17, or -130 is multiples higher than that of a G-V/550 which is in the inventory for this exact purpose.

Also, there is a hierarchy to who is able to fly aboard Mil DV airlift. This hierarchy starts at the very top (at VPOTUS, since POTUS has dedicated assets) and works its way down. Since assets are limited and travel requests are numerous, C2 must decide who gets what airplane based on several factors.

The question was asked earlier about why they can't fly on something smaller. There are several ways to answer this, but in the simplest form, keeping the fleets standardized is actually a cost savings measure. Speaking for the composition of the 89th fleet, its cheeper to maintain and operate a fleet of identical aircraft (mx, parts supply, crew training, etc) than to have a diverse fleet for every mission. Yes, there are times when it doesn't make sense to fly a G-V from DC to Philly, but it pays for itself when we fly that same airplane around the world with 11 pax burning 4k lbs per hour vs. the KC-135 or C-17 burning 15k+ per hour.

Of course this doesn't answer the question of why they must travel like this at all, but that is way above my pay grade!
Click to expand...
Thank you for your reply- my suggestion wasn't anymore than an idea that was half-baked since I didn't know all the details that you have provided. I will note that the size (and cost) of the plane doesn't matter if it is flying anyway, and there would be no more cost incurred if someone else could be carried. As for the touch-and goes, those could still be done on the way to/from DC. Earlier this year, I flew to an airshow in Tarkio, and did a landing at another airport on my route and maintained currency. I likewise flew to an EAA breakfast with a friend and we stopped at KCEK on the way back from KBIE to give me 3 take offs and landing.

I do read in your reply that there are some (most?) flights that are totally unsuitable for carrying passengers, and there are few that are suitable, so few that it probably isn't worth the effort to align them. Though I'd have to resist the temptation to involve many politicians in an airdrop sans parachute.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
As for the touch-and goes, those could still be done on the way to/from DC. Earlier this year, I flew to an airshow in Tarkio, and did a landing at another airport on my route and maintained currency.
Click to expand...

Most, if not all, USAF aircraft are prohibited from conducting any type of training with pax aboard, to include touch and goes.
 
AWACSEng said:
Most, if not all, USAF aircraft are prohibited from conducting any type of training with pax aboard, to include touch and goes.
Click to expand...

I've gone on tanker and low level KC-135 / C-130 flights as a PAX. Friend sent me a Space A pic last year from a KC-10 with an E-3 refueling. Thought that was a bit odd for Space A though.

Army policy allows PAX on training flights but EPs can't be done. Since most training flights require EPs, generally we didn't take PAX.
 
Velocity173 said:
I've gone on tanker and low level KC-135 / C-130 flights as a PAX. Friend sent me a Space A pic last year from a KC-10 with an E-3 refueling. Thought that was a bit odd for Space A though.

Army policy allows PAX on training flights but EPs can't be done. Since most training flights require EPs, generally we didn't take PAX.
Click to expand...
Like most everything in this business, there are waivers. In the platforms I have operated, those waivers were few and far between. Doing a bit of research, things like A/R are allowed with pax as long as they are briefed, but T&Gs seem to be universally no-no's.
Regarding the -130 LL flights, not knowing the circumstance that put you there, my guess would be you were duty pax, or blessed as MEP, which means all bets are off. I've flown plenty with pax that the DO determined were MEPs. Lot of airsickness those days!
 
AWACSEng said:
Like most everything in this business, there are waivers. In the platforms I have operated, those waivers were few and far between. Doing a bit of research, things like A/R are allowed with pax as long as they are briefed, but T&Gs seem to be universally no-no's.
Regarding the -130 LL flights, not knowing the circumstance that put you there, my guess would be you were duty pax, or blessed as MEP, which means all bets are off. I've flown plenty with pax that the DO determined were MEPs. Lot of airsickness those days!
Click to expand...

Oh you got the airsickness right! Flew with "King" out of SAV on a low level. Walking from the back to the front while yanking and banking did me in. I strapped in the jump seat up front and prayed we'd land soon...unfortunately it was like a 4 hour flight.:(
 
deonb said:
Let them fly couch and go through TSA just like the rest of us. Nothing would fix screwed up regulations quicker than if it applies to the leadership as well.
Click to expand...
Why fly coach? Plenty cabinet members have the financial ability to fly privately, and except in certain situations, it is perfectly fine for them to do so. Furthermore, some of them have their own jets, anyway. (Betsy DeVoss)
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Some companies, losing their jet would have the effects you mention above. The place I work would need a number of jets to fly a bunch of lower-paid employees around and I don't think the numbers would add up to fly some of us around. Even the number of trips I took/will take this year, I wouldn't rate the cost of a corporate aircraft. I'm not saying you were wrong for the company you mentioned, as each one is different.
Click to expand...
As you noted in your following post, it's making decisions to do these without large portions of the information that makes them half-baked.

I don't know the economics of transporting public servants (I use that term with tongue firmly in cheek), nor do I know the security or other issues involved. I agree with @Kritchlow in that a cheaper option often involves a less-qualified crew. There are a LOT of operators that I wouldn't allow my family to fly, and regardless of political viewpoint, I don't expect congress critters to make safety a distant second to cost.

I do agree, however, that there needs to be some accountability. But getting that from anyone involved in government becomes less and less likely all the time.
 
deonb said:
Let them fly couch and go through TSA just like the rest of us. Nothing would fix screwed up regulations quicker than if it applies to the leadership as well.
Click to expand...

The congress critters have a dedicated parking lot at DCA. Comes with a valet attendant who stacks the cars based on travel schedule. The lot is 100ft from the terminal door. I see them on the flights, I never seem to see them at the TSA checkpoint. Supreme Court judges and cabinet folks just pop up in the terminal with some MWAA cops, I don't think they have to do TSA. Royalty has its privileges.
 
Last edited:
spiderweb said:
Why fly coach? Plenty cabinet members have the financial ability to fly privately, and except in certain situations, it is perfectly fine for them to do so. Furthermore, some of them have their own jets, anyway. (Betsy DeVoss)
Click to expand...

If they paid for the charter out of their own pocket there would be no argument. Price and Mnuchin used government money for travel with questionable justification.
 
weilke said:
If they paid for the charter out of their own pocket there would be no argument. Price and Mnuchin used government money for travel with questionable justification.
Click to expand...
Agree. The thing that bothers me about that is that they could have afforded their own transport.
 
I was a USAF Reservist at Andrews, in C-130Es at the time; we did mostly tactical airdrop, but on rare occasion we'd haul trash and self loading ballast for congress and other Fed agencies. Thing is, they had to pay; the rules were that one Fed agency couldn't subsidize another, to avoid skirting the budget intent of congress: If The Department of Redundancy Department got free airlift, then the USAF would be "subsidizing" their budget.

It wasn't enforced with extremely tight rigor; if we were really going somewhere already, we'd stuff something in the back for the Navy or NASA or whoever.
 
weilke said:
If they paid for the charter out of their own pocket there would be no argument. Price and Mnuchin used government money for travel with questionable justification.
Click to expand...

They did nothing that their predecessors didn’t do, with zero scrutiny, many times before them. They just received the scrutiny because they’re “Rs” and the guy they report to is a self-induced magnet for controversy.

On a scale of government waste, charter flights on 747s for everyone in the cabinet wouldn’t even appear as significant. It may not be “fake news,” but it’s rather inconsequential and is only “reported” for the purpose of creating controversy where none should reasonably exist. Most of the agencies these guys lead waste billions on completely nonsensical projects, grants, and other asinine endeavors. If these genius “reporters” are concerned with wasteful spending, those are the things they should be working to uncover. Then we can talk about the charter flights.


JKG
 
JGoodish said:
They did nothing that their predecessors didn’t do, with zero scrutiny, many times before them. They just received the scrutiny because they’re “Rs” and the guy they report to is a self-induced magnet for controversy.
JKG
Click to expand...

Regardless of your opinion of the current and former office holders. Never taunt the press and then do what you accused your predecessors or anything which you rail against and then do. The current cabinet members went after the previous administration for wasteful spending on travel. Then.....
You will notice that the same reporters investigated Cabinet DeVos also, but they gave her cudos for matching her actions against her words.

Tim
 
JGoodish said:
They did nothing that their predecessors didn’t do, with zero scrutiny, many times before them. They just received the scrutiny because they’re “Rs” and the guy they report to is a self-induced magnet for controversy.
Click to expand...

Prices immediate predecessors used mostly commercial air travel. He attracted attention because he is an idiot who forgot that he was railing against politicians using private aircraft just two years ago.

The tragedy of the Price resignation is that he was able to resign over such petty BS rather than his incompetence in making progress toward the one objective the 'Rs' have been elected to achieve since 2010.
 
weilke said:
If they paid for the charter out of their own pocket there would be no argument. Price and Mnuchin used government money for travel with questionable justification.
Click to expand...

Betsy DeVos, Secretary of Education, travels in her own plane and at her own expense yet some criticize her for doing so.
 
Seems to me that anyone who's not the President or within about 5 spots on the succession list needs to travel commercial. Maybe they travel with some level of security. But they need to act like citizens elected to office, not members of the Royal Family..
 
all the money ,the govt. spends on amtrak,you would think, for short trips like wash. to philly and Ny it would be a viable alternative.
 
Norman said:
Betsy DeVos, Secretary of Education, travels in her own plane and at her own expense yet some criticize her for doing so.
Click to expand...

Never seen any critique of her flying on her own plane. I have read a dozen or more stories that contrasted her behavior to the others; always in a positive manor.

Tim
 
frfly172 said:
all the money ,the govt. spends on amtrak,you would think, for short trips like wash. to philly and Ny it would be a viable alternative.
Click to expand...
Crazy Uncle Joe used to take the Amtrak before he was Veep.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top