wmw999 2,442 #176 February 9, 2007 I like your sigline -- that's a class act there As far as your contention about whether or not she's entitled to a C32, well, I think you guys just like to argue . She didn't ask for the Queen Mary either, and I'm sure we could argue for its appropriateness Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #177 February 9, 2007 QuoteI like your sigline -- that's a class act there Mine too? Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #178 February 9, 2007 QuoteI like your sigline -- that's a class act there Of course, it does occassionally come back to bite me in the ass. QuoteAs far as your contention about whether or not she's entitled to a C32, well, I think you guys just like to argue . You cut me to the quick. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #179 February 9, 2007 Quote[Aside from my cut and paste in the original post (and one other post) my participation in this thread has been about her not being "entitled" to a C32. Actually, you missed an important bit: the title of the thread where you maliciously made up a quote out of thin air. Not only didn't she say those words, it wasn't her that sought the airplane. It was a republican appointee! Wouldn't we all love to see you apologize without qualification for lying and misleading everyone? That would be a real eye-opener. Completely unlikely too. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #180 February 9, 2007 Quote Hey Kallend, Do you still think she's completely entitled to a C-32? Livendive, I'd change the title to "Another tempest in a teacup" if I could. The C32 and C40 were both appropriated for the purpose of flying senior govt. officials around. She clearly qualifies on that score. I think she's entitled to whatever the House security people decide. I see her as more deserving than Laura Bush commuting back to Crawford.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #181 February 9, 2007 QuoteActually, you missed an important bit: the title of the thread where you maliciously made up a quote out of thin air. Not only didn't she say those words, it wasn't her that sought the airplane. It was a republican appointee! But is was an eyecatching title, don't you think? QuoteWouldn't we all love to see you apologize without qualification for lying and misleading everyone? That would be a real eye-opener. Completely unlikely too. Lighten up, Frances. Are you really crying about thread titles being misleading, in Speakers Corner??? Tissue? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #182 February 9, 2007 QuoteLighten up, Frances. Are you really crying about thread titles being misleading, in Speakers Corner??? Tissue? Clearly, you are the first to do such a thing...you're a bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, person. How do you feel now?! So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #183 February 9, 2007 Wowsers - is 'bad' the word of the week? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #184 February 9, 2007 QuoteQuoteLighten up, Frances. Are you really crying about thread titles being misleading, in Speakers Corner??? Tissue? Clearly, you are the first to do such a thing...you're a bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, person. How do you feel now?! I feel bad. I think I'll go have myself a good cry. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #185 February 9, 2007 QuoteQuoteLighten up, Frances. Are you really crying about thread titles being misleading, in Speakers Corner??? Tissue? Clearly, you are the first to do such a thing...you're a bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, person. How do you feel now?! Before you offer to spank him, please remember that we didn't ask! Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #186 February 10, 2007 Because the press has to pay as if they were buying an airline ticket, maybe it is good for her to have a larger plane - as long as she's enough of a news item to have 50 or so paying members of the press following her around. Overall taxpayer cost might be lower than just her in a gulfstream jet. People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GQ_jumper 4 #187 February 10, 2007 Unless this particular jet falls under a different command than basically every other military flight, buying a seat on it will only cost a few bucks. I can take leave and hop an Air Force bird to Germany for about $7, and I even get a Jimmy Dean lunch to go along with itHistory does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #188 February 10, 2007 QuoteUnless this particular jet falls under a different command than basically every other military flight, buying a seat on it will only cost a few bucks. I can take leave and hop an Air Force bird to Germany for about $7, and I even get a Jimmy Dean lunch to go along with it The press is treated differently when they fly with the president on Air Force 1, they have some standard, normal fare typical for an airline.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GQ_jumper 4 #189 February 10, 2007 they have some standard, normal fare typical for an airline.Quote And ya learn something new every dayHistory does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #190 February 10, 2007 From the last article posted: QuoteMeanwhile, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pennsylvania, chairman of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, said on Thursday that he's planning hearings this spring on executive and congressional travel on military aircraft. Murtha said he's requested from the Defense Department records on travel and logistics from the past two years. He asked the Defense Department to hand those over within a month. Some House Republicans on Thursday were pressing for an amendment on the floor on Pelosi's use of a military plane, according to Murtha. Murtha predicted that Pelosi would end up getting a plane that would be able to fly across country without stopping to refuel. "I'm seldom wrong on these kinds of predictions," he said. Ah, retaliation... gotta love it!Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #191 February 10, 2007 Just a clarification here. A Gulfstream V (aka C-37A), is able to fly to Hawaii from DC without refueling -- easily. SAM has been increasingly using these for overseas diplomatic travel where the B757 and B737 variants used to be used exclusively. My friend, a Lt. Col. Pilot with SAM, said the issues they are fielding in this whole fiasco is simply the number of people the Speaker desires to travel with. A C-37 can carry twelve, in comfort. Why would the Speaker have an entourage larger than that? Again, I have no issue of the Speaker having a plane. However, it was pointed out to me that Speaker Hastert rarely had such a large entourage (he also didn't use a C-37), and if it exceeded the capacity of the plane, he didn't ask for a bigger vehicle. If Speaker Pelosi really needs a couple dozen people to travel with her, it would be cheaper to do so commercially, utilizing First and Business Class, especially compared to the C-32 (B757).So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,026 #192 February 10, 2007 QuoteJust a clarification here. A Gulfstream V (aka C-37A), is able to fly to Hawaii from DC without refueling -- easily. SAM has been increasingly using these for overseas diplomatic travel where the B757 and B737 variants used to be used exclusively. My friend, a Lt. Col. Pilot with SAM, said the issues they are fielding in this whole fiasco is simply the number of people the Speaker desires to travel with. A C-37 can carry twelve, in comfort. Why would the Speaker have an entourage larger than that? Again, I have no issue of the Speaker having a plane. However, it was pointed out to me that Speaker Hastert rarely had such a large entourage (he also didn't use a C-37), and if it exceeded the capacity of the plane, he didn't ask for a bigger vehicle. If Speaker Pelosi really needs a couple dozen people to travel with her, it would be cheaper to do so commercially, utilizing First and Business Class, especially compared to the C-32 (B757). I guess you weren't paying attention when it was revealed that the request came from the sergeant-at arms, not Pelosi, and you weren't paying attention when the US Air Force (not some friend of yours) said they can't guarantee a non stop on the smaller planes, and you weren't paying attention when the sergeant-at arms AND the White House both said the Speaker needs a military plane for security reasons.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #193 February 10, 2007 QuoteQuoteJust a clarification here. A Gulfstream V (aka C-37A), is able to fly to Hawaii from DC without refueling -- easily. SAM has been increasingly using these for overseas diplomatic travel where the B757 and B737 variants used to be used exclusively. My friend, a Lt. Col. Pilot with SAM, said the issues they are fielding in this whole fiasco is simply the number of people the Speaker desires to travel with. A C-37 can carry twelve, in comfort. Why would the Speaker have an entourage larger than that? Again, I have no issue of the Speaker having a plane. However, it was pointed out to me that Speaker Hastert rarely had such a large entourage (he also didn't use a C-37), and if it exceeded the capacity of the plane, he didn't ask for a bigger vehicle. If Speaker Pelosi really needs a couple dozen people to travel with her, it would be cheaper to do so commercially, utilizing First and Business Class, especially compared to the C-32 (B757). I guess you weren't paying attention when it was revealed that the request came from the sergeant-at arms, not Pelosi, and you weren't paying attention when the US Air Force (not some friend of yours) said they can't guarantee a non stop on the smaller planes, and you weren't paying attention when the sergeant-at arms AND the White House both said the Speaker needs a military plane for security reasons. I guess you weren't paying attention when I said I didn't care about her having a plane, or the fact that I've not cared about who requested what, or when I cited the article that said that SAM can't guarantee non-stop service based on plane availability at the time of the Speaker's requests, etc... Security can still be maintained on a commercial liner. A one or two man detail is all that is needed. That's more than what the President's Chief of Staff gets. You have a habit of poo-pooing on those of us in the service. My friend with SAM has a better line than anything you're reading in the press. If you want, I'll PM you his name and you can vet the credibility yourself.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,026 #194 February 10, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteJust a clarification here. A Gulfstream V (aka C-37A), is able to fly to Hawaii from DC without refueling -- easily. SAM has been increasingly using these for overseas diplomatic travel where the B757 and B737 variants used to be used exclusively. My friend, a Lt. Col. Pilot with SAM, said the issues they are fielding in this whole fiasco is simply the number of people the Speaker desires to travel with. A C-37 can carry twelve, in comfort. Why would the Speaker have an entourage larger than that? Again, I have no issue of the Speaker having a plane. However, it was pointed out to me that Speaker Hastert rarely had such a large entourage (he also didn't use a C-37), and if it exceeded the capacity of the plane, he didn't ask for a bigger vehicle. If Speaker Pelosi really needs a couple dozen people to travel with her, it would be cheaper to do so commercially, utilizing First and Business Class, especially compared to the C-32 (B757). I guess you weren't paying attention when it was revealed that the request came from the sergeant-at arms, not Pelosi, and you weren't paying attention when the US Air Force (not some friend of yours) said they can't guarantee a non stop on the smaller planes, and you weren't paying attention when the sergeant-at arms AND the White House both said the Speaker needs a military plane for security reasons. I guess you weren't paying attention when I said I didn't care about her having a plane, or the fact that I've not cared about who requested what, or when I cited the article that said that SAM can't guarantee non-stop service based on plane availability at the time of the Speaker's requests, etc... You have a habit of poo-pooing on those of us in the service. My friend with SAM has a better line than anything you're reading in the press. If you want, I'll PM you his name and you can vet the credibility yourself. Ooooh - pulling rank. I can do that too. I was just running with an AF Lt.Col. on Thurday, and a USN Captain the week before. QuoteSecurity can still be maintained on a commercial liner. A one or two man detail is all that is needed. That's more than what the President's Chief of Staff gets. If the White House and House Sergeant at Arms make a rule that the Speaker should fly on military planes for reasons of security, by what authority are you second guessing them? Being a little arrogant there, Gawain. The Speaker is the third highest elected official of the US government. Your comparison to an unelected political hack is inappropriate and silly, just like the rest of this non-issue.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DaVinci 0 #195 February 10, 2007 QuoteThe previous speaker was given acces to USAF supplied non-stop travel to his riding. The new speaker should be given the same, USAF supplied non-stop travel to her riding. Why does non stop trump economy? Also why should she be allowed to carry more people than the last speaker? Just cause she has a bigger plane? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DaVinci 0 #196 February 10, 2007 QuoteI don't know about you, but the longer the trip is that I'm taking, the more interested I become in comfort. Then it becomes an "I want", not an "I need". The other aircraft will perform the same function, just not in the same amount of style of carry as many people. I wonder how many saying she should get it would be crying if it was a Republican and claiming excess waste? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DaVinci 0 #197 February 10, 2007 QuoteAnd the AF cannot guarantee non-stop service in a G20. So she stops for gas on the way west and on the way east no problem. QuoteAnd you now want her to fly one way in one plane, and send a different plane out to bring her back? How will that save any money? You think they have the plane just sit at the airport till she is ready to fly home? The planes move around quite a bit between flights carrying other VIPS. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,990 #198 February 10, 2007 >Why should one Speaker get something another Speaker was not allowed? Exactly! They wouldn't even give Frederick Muhlenberg a prop plane! All speakers should get what he got - a coach-and-four. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DaVinci 0 #199 February 10, 2007 QuoteI find it kinda idiotic that skydivers (at least us who actually skydive) would be arguing about fuel waste, considering the vast amount of fuel that is wasted soley to jump out of an airplane when we all can easily become BASE jumpers and save the fuel for better use It is not fuel waste, but COST that is my issue. If I could get to Altitude for 10 bucks with the right sized door vs 20. I would choose 10 that might climb slower. Even if I choose the 20 buck ride I would be paying for it myself, not making YOU pay for my jump. I have no issue flying the speaker around. I just want it to be done in the most economical way possible. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,026 #200 February 10, 2007 QuoteQuoteThe previous speaker was given acces to USAF supplied non-stop travel to his riding. The new speaker should be given the same, USAF supplied non-stop travel to her riding. Why does non stop trump economy? Right, Hastert should have gone back to Illinois on a moped.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next Page 8 of 14 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
mnealtx 0 #190 February 10, 2007 From the last article posted: QuoteMeanwhile, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pennsylvania, chairman of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, said on Thursday that he's planning hearings this spring on executive and congressional travel on military aircraft. Murtha said he's requested from the Defense Department records on travel and logistics from the past two years. He asked the Defense Department to hand those over within a month. Some House Republicans on Thursday were pressing for an amendment on the floor on Pelosi's use of a military plane, according to Murtha. Murtha predicted that Pelosi would end up getting a plane that would be able to fly across country without stopping to refuel. "I'm seldom wrong on these kinds of predictions," he said. Ah, retaliation... gotta love it!Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #191 February 10, 2007 Just a clarification here. A Gulfstream V (aka C-37A), is able to fly to Hawaii from DC without refueling -- easily. SAM has been increasingly using these for overseas diplomatic travel where the B757 and B737 variants used to be used exclusively. My friend, a Lt. Col. Pilot with SAM, said the issues they are fielding in this whole fiasco is simply the number of people the Speaker desires to travel with. A C-37 can carry twelve, in comfort. Why would the Speaker have an entourage larger than that? Again, I have no issue of the Speaker having a plane. However, it was pointed out to me that Speaker Hastert rarely had such a large entourage (he also didn't use a C-37), and if it exceeded the capacity of the plane, he didn't ask for a bigger vehicle. If Speaker Pelosi really needs a couple dozen people to travel with her, it would be cheaper to do so commercially, utilizing First and Business Class, especially compared to the C-32 (B757).So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #192 February 10, 2007 QuoteJust a clarification here. A Gulfstream V (aka C-37A), is able to fly to Hawaii from DC without refueling -- easily. SAM has been increasingly using these for overseas diplomatic travel where the B757 and B737 variants used to be used exclusively. My friend, a Lt. Col. Pilot with SAM, said the issues they are fielding in this whole fiasco is simply the number of people the Speaker desires to travel with. A C-37 can carry twelve, in comfort. Why would the Speaker have an entourage larger than that? Again, I have no issue of the Speaker having a plane. However, it was pointed out to me that Speaker Hastert rarely had such a large entourage (he also didn't use a C-37), and if it exceeded the capacity of the plane, he didn't ask for a bigger vehicle. If Speaker Pelosi really needs a couple dozen people to travel with her, it would be cheaper to do so commercially, utilizing First and Business Class, especially compared to the C-32 (B757). I guess you weren't paying attention when it was revealed that the request came from the sergeant-at arms, not Pelosi, and you weren't paying attention when the US Air Force (not some friend of yours) said they can't guarantee a non stop on the smaller planes, and you weren't paying attention when the sergeant-at arms AND the White House both said the Speaker needs a military plane for security reasons.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #193 February 10, 2007 QuoteQuoteJust a clarification here. A Gulfstream V (aka C-37A), is able to fly to Hawaii from DC without refueling -- easily. SAM has been increasingly using these for overseas diplomatic travel where the B757 and B737 variants used to be used exclusively. My friend, a Lt. Col. Pilot with SAM, said the issues they are fielding in this whole fiasco is simply the number of people the Speaker desires to travel with. A C-37 can carry twelve, in comfort. Why would the Speaker have an entourage larger than that? Again, I have no issue of the Speaker having a plane. However, it was pointed out to me that Speaker Hastert rarely had such a large entourage (he also didn't use a C-37), and if it exceeded the capacity of the plane, he didn't ask for a bigger vehicle. If Speaker Pelosi really needs a couple dozen people to travel with her, it would be cheaper to do so commercially, utilizing First and Business Class, especially compared to the C-32 (B757). I guess you weren't paying attention when it was revealed that the request came from the sergeant-at arms, not Pelosi, and you weren't paying attention when the US Air Force (not some friend of yours) said they can't guarantee a non stop on the smaller planes, and you weren't paying attention when the sergeant-at arms AND the White House both said the Speaker needs a military plane for security reasons. I guess you weren't paying attention when I said I didn't care about her having a plane, or the fact that I've not cared about who requested what, or when I cited the article that said that SAM can't guarantee non-stop service based on plane availability at the time of the Speaker's requests, etc... Security can still be maintained on a commercial liner. A one or two man detail is all that is needed. That's more than what the President's Chief of Staff gets. You have a habit of poo-pooing on those of us in the service. My friend with SAM has a better line than anything you're reading in the press. If you want, I'll PM you his name and you can vet the credibility yourself.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #194 February 10, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteJust a clarification here. A Gulfstream V (aka C-37A), is able to fly to Hawaii from DC without refueling -- easily. SAM has been increasingly using these for overseas diplomatic travel where the B757 and B737 variants used to be used exclusively. My friend, a Lt. Col. Pilot with SAM, said the issues they are fielding in this whole fiasco is simply the number of people the Speaker desires to travel with. A C-37 can carry twelve, in comfort. Why would the Speaker have an entourage larger than that? Again, I have no issue of the Speaker having a plane. However, it was pointed out to me that Speaker Hastert rarely had such a large entourage (he also didn't use a C-37), and if it exceeded the capacity of the plane, he didn't ask for a bigger vehicle. If Speaker Pelosi really needs a couple dozen people to travel with her, it would be cheaper to do so commercially, utilizing First and Business Class, especially compared to the C-32 (B757). I guess you weren't paying attention when it was revealed that the request came from the sergeant-at arms, not Pelosi, and you weren't paying attention when the US Air Force (not some friend of yours) said they can't guarantee a non stop on the smaller planes, and you weren't paying attention when the sergeant-at arms AND the White House both said the Speaker needs a military plane for security reasons. I guess you weren't paying attention when I said I didn't care about her having a plane, or the fact that I've not cared about who requested what, or when I cited the article that said that SAM can't guarantee non-stop service based on plane availability at the time of the Speaker's requests, etc... You have a habit of poo-pooing on those of us in the service. My friend with SAM has a better line than anything you're reading in the press. If you want, I'll PM you his name and you can vet the credibility yourself. Ooooh - pulling rank. I can do that too. I was just running with an AF Lt.Col. on Thurday, and a USN Captain the week before. QuoteSecurity can still be maintained on a commercial liner. A one or two man detail is all that is needed. That's more than what the President's Chief of Staff gets. If the White House and House Sergeant at Arms make a rule that the Speaker should fly on military planes for reasons of security, by what authority are you second guessing them? Being a little arrogant there, Gawain. The Speaker is the third highest elected official of the US government. Your comparison to an unelected political hack is inappropriate and silly, just like the rest of this non-issue.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #195 February 10, 2007 QuoteThe previous speaker was given acces to USAF supplied non-stop travel to his riding. The new speaker should be given the same, USAF supplied non-stop travel to her riding. Why does non stop trump economy? Also why should she be allowed to carry more people than the last speaker? Just cause she has a bigger plane? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #196 February 10, 2007 QuoteI don't know about you, but the longer the trip is that I'm taking, the more interested I become in comfort. Then it becomes an "I want", not an "I need". The other aircraft will perform the same function, just not in the same amount of style of carry as many people. I wonder how many saying she should get it would be crying if it was a Republican and claiming excess waste? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #197 February 10, 2007 QuoteAnd the AF cannot guarantee non-stop service in a G20. So she stops for gas on the way west and on the way east no problem. QuoteAnd you now want her to fly one way in one plane, and send a different plane out to bring her back? How will that save any money? You think they have the plane just sit at the airport till she is ready to fly home? The planes move around quite a bit between flights carrying other VIPS. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #198 February 10, 2007 >Why should one Speaker get something another Speaker was not allowed? Exactly! They wouldn't even give Frederick Muhlenberg a prop plane! All speakers should get what he got - a coach-and-four. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #199 February 10, 2007 QuoteI find it kinda idiotic that skydivers (at least us who actually skydive) would be arguing about fuel waste, considering the vast amount of fuel that is wasted soley to jump out of an airplane when we all can easily become BASE jumpers and save the fuel for better use It is not fuel waste, but COST that is my issue. If I could get to Altitude for 10 bucks with the right sized door vs 20. I would choose 10 that might climb slower. Even if I choose the 20 buck ride I would be paying for it myself, not making YOU pay for my jump. I have no issue flying the speaker around. I just want it to be done in the most economical way possible. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #200 February 10, 2007 QuoteQuoteThe previous speaker was given acces to USAF supplied non-stop travel to his riding. The new speaker should be given the same, USAF supplied non-stop travel to her riding. Why does non stop trump economy? Right, Hastert should have gone back to Illinois on a moped.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
