The order was placed between 2001 and 2006 you cherry picking idiot... READ the article in its whole.
total republican control during those years. the order was for all NEW planes (so as not to tax your brain... every plane comes in different configurations for various base uses) 1 corporate idiot spending 20k in fuel for a flight is a LOT different than the people who will use these jets in their jobs.. all of congress, the joint chiefs and the cabinet have sole access to THREE planes, there are 4 others that are shared on a broader basis. It is very easy to picture all seven in the air all at once headed in all different directions to accomplish different goals, to limit our top officials is ludicrous... even the republicans that actually nordered these planes knew that. NONE are scheduled for the "Pentagon" the three in question will be used for executive and legislative branch to include Joint chiefs use and not shared with the pentagon (doing so makes going when needed impossible) further you lied about the price.... that makes you a liar. On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Sage2 <[email protected]> wrote: > > There were no overhauls on these three new planes they > were " new " . By your links in the years 2006 to 2008; > who's in charge of congress in those two years . Still you miss the > point ! If corporate officials are asked to not use jets for business > and the Pentagon only needed One" new jet instead of three ,why could > the orders not be cancelled to save taxpayers money?Just as the > corporate officials were aked to save why didn't the democrats show > any initiative to save taxpayer dollars. You do see the hypocracy of > the dems here don't you. Practice what you preach kind of thing. > > > > > ***************************************************************************************** > > On Aug 7, 9:17 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > No let me make it simpler for YOU...... Your whole premise is a fucking > lie > > because you do not check sources or their veracity... > > > > These planes in various configurations were ordered in unlimited > quantities > > for the Navy under your butt buddy georgie girl. > > > > *Dec 15/08:* Boeing receives a $136.1 million firm-fixed-price contract > from > > the US Navy for 2 *C-40A > > Clipper*<http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/c40/index.html > >aircraft, > > which would bring the Navy’s C-40A fleet to 11 aircraft. These > > aircraft will use the Navy’s new configuration, with turned-up winglets > on > > the ends of the wings. > > where do get off saying the price per plane is 600 million each.... LIAR > > > > It is quite different from flying from detroit to washington dc than it > is > > to california... one is a day trip, the other is a 4 day trip. > > > > further I really do not want the cabinet, joint chiefs and congressional > > delegations on commercial flights. Not in todays world. Rregardless of > how > > worthless they are you must respect someone that is a heartbeat and a > breath > > from the moval office. you can bet AQ ande the taliban (among many > others) > > do. > > > > Further, rant all you fucking want but EVERY commitee that passes these > > things has representation from BOTH parties... where are the republican > > voices against this purchase ??? I am still waiting for a single name... > It > > is an expansion from 3 planes to 7 in a fleet that was ordered updated > > during the BUSH administration.... Why didn't you bitch when The > republicans > > gave Boeing the open ended order in 2006 and several before that. > > > > *Nov 2/06:* L-3 Communications Corp., Arlington, Texas, is being awarded > an > > $18.2 million modification to a previously awarded indefinite-delivery, > > indefinite-quantity contract (N00019-04-D-0110) to exercise an option for > > logistics support services for the Navy’s C-40A aircraft fleet. Work will > be > > performed in Fort Worth, TX (22%); Jacksonville, FL (22%); North Island, > CA > > (22%); Oklahoma City, OK (20%); Arlington, TX (8%); and Tulsa, OK (6%), > and > > is expected to be complete in November 2006. The Naval Air Systems > Command > > in Patuxent River, MD issued the contract. > > > > Services to be provided include site activation; site support; inventory > > management and support; depot level support (scheduled and unscheduled); > > drop-in maintenance; component repair and overhaul of government and > > contractor-owned inventory; contractor field teams; replacement of > > government and contractor-owned inventory; and engine condition > monitoring. > > [image: C-40A departs]< > http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_C-40A_VP-4_Goodbye_Haw...> > > HI, > > Bye: VP-4 Departs > > (click to view full) > > > > *May 25/06:* Boeing never announced the Navy’s order of a 9th C-40A > Clipper > > transport aircraft, but the plane is delivered to Squadron VR-57 of the > > Naval Reserve’s Fleet Logistics Support Wing, 36 days ahead of schedule. > The > > plane is the first C-40A to be built with turned-up winglets on the ends > of > > its wings. > > > > *March 10/06:* Boeing in Seattle, WA received a $76.4 million > > firm-fixed-price contract modification to fund the annual C-40 and C-32 > > contractor integrated fleet support contract through calendar year 2006. > At > > this time, $30.6 million has been committed. The Headquarters > Aeronautical > > Systems Center at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH manages this > contract > > (F33657-01-D-0013/ no modification # announced). > > > > *Nov 29/05:* L-3 Communications Corp. in Arlington, TX receives a $20 > > million modification to a previously awarded indefinite-delivery/ > > indefinite-quantity contract (N00019-04-D-0110), exercising an option for > > logistics support services to the US Naval Reserve’s C-40A Clipper > aircraft > > fleet. > > > > Services to be provided under L-3’s most recent C-40A support contract > > include site activation; site support; inventory management and support; > > depot level support (scheduled and unscheduled); drop-in maintenance; > > component repair and overhaul of government and contractor-owned > inventory; > > contractor field teams; replacement of government and contractor-owned > > inventory; and engine condition monitoring. > > > > Work will be performed in Fort Worth, TX (22%); Jacksonville, FL (22%); > > North Island, CA (22%); Oklahoma City, OK (20%); Arlington, TX (8%); and > > Tulsa, OK (6%), and is expected to be complete in November 2006. The > Naval > > Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD issued the contract. > > [image: C-9 and > > C-40]< > http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_C-40C_and_C-9C_lg.jpg> > > C-9C > > and C-40C > > (click to view full) > > > > *Feb 14/05:* *GovExec > > reports*<http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0205/021405g1.htm>that the > > USAF’s C-40 lease contracts have been referred to the Investigator > > General as part of the Darlene Druyun influence-peddling scandal. > > > > *Dec 4/04:* L-3 Communications Corp. in Arlington, TX receives a $20.4 > > million indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract > > (N00019-04-D-0110), exercising an option for logistics support services > to > > the US Naval Reserve’s C-40A Clipper aircraft fleet. Work will be > performed > > in Fort Worth, TX (33%); Jacksonville, FL (33%); Oklahoma City, OK (20%); > > Arlington, TX (8%); and Tulsa, OK (6%), and is expected to be complete in > > November 2006. The Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD issued > > the contract. > > > > Services to be provided include site activation; site support; inventory > > management and support; depot level support (scheduled and unscheduled); > > drop-in maintenance; component repair and overhaul of government and > > contractor-owned inventory; contractor field teams; replacement of > > government and contractor-owned inventory; and engine condition > monitoring. > > > > *Nov 22/04:* *The 7th C-40A Clipper aircraft is > > delivered*<http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2004/q4/nr_041122o.html > >to > > the US Navy. > > > > *July 23/04:* A *2004 > > release*<http://costello.house.gov/press/2004/jul23-2.shtml>by Sen. > > Richard Durbin [D-IL] and Congressmen Jerry Costello [D-IL] and John > > Shimkus [R-IL] touts their success in securing money for C-40s at a local > > air base, in order to keep it open. > > > > The letter illustrates some of the ongoing issues around C-40 fleet size, > > funding, local interest, et. al. with hard dollar figures. > > > > *Nov 24/03:* Boeing announces that the U.S. Navy has ordered an 8th C-40A > > Clipper for its Unique Fleet Essential Airlift Replacement Aircraft > program. > > > > Boeing’s release adds that the US Naval Reserve provides line maintenance > on > > the C-40A aircraft, while Boeing and its industry partner Delta Air Lines > > are on contract for 3 years of initial logistics support providing site > > support, spares management and heavy maintenance. > > > > *Sept 17/02:* Boeing received a $217.7 million firm-fixed-price contract > > from the Headquarters Aeronautical Systems Center at Wright-Patterson Air > > Force Base, OH to lease up to 4 C-40 aircraft (F33657-02-C-0017). > > > > It also received a $52.6 million firm-fixed-price contract modification > that > > added ordering provisions for Contractor Logistics Support for up to 4 > C-40 > > series leased aircraft (F33657-01-D-0013, P00014). Total: $270.3 million. > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Sage2 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Mark, > > > > > Let me make it simpler for you, The Pentagon > > > DID NOT request the planes, the Repubs do not have the votes to stop > > > the Dems, some one in the Dem Congress approved the purchase of the > > > 'not needed' planes, committee level or higher ( Pelosi ? ) . Pelosi > > > and her ilk railed against Corporate types utilizing their jets not > > > the Defense Dept. In this economy why would Pelosi and her ilk have > > > more legitimate reasons to buy three new $600,000,000 planes than the > > > corporate types. The Pentagon said only one to do their job and meet > > > commitments not three , " security " or otherwise ! > > > > > > ************************************************************************************************************************************** > > > > > On Aug 7, 1:34 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > So terrorism is not a problem and our representatives have nothing to > > > worry > > > > about as a passenger aboard a commercial flight landing or taking off > > > from > > > > Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, and countless other areas of the globe > and > > > > transportation for their missions should be dictated by the very > limited > > > > number of choices now available. > > > > > > That is EXACTLY what you are saying. > > > > > > And I am still waiting for a name from EITHER side of the aisle that > > > > objected to the purchase... where is that Republican list of names > ??? > > > > > > If they didn't object... they are complicit in the purchase. > > > > > > As to need there are presently only four distance capable jets > > > available... > > > > this purchase raises that to a whopping seven. > > > > > > Air Force officials say at least 21 people can theoretically request > to > > > use > > > > the C-40s and there are only four of the planes. The 89th Airlift > Wing at > > > > Andrews Air Force Base has two; the Air National Guard also has two. > > > > > > Those who can ask for the planes include the chairman of the Joint > Chiefs > > > of > > > > Staff, the Cabinet secretaries and seven commanders who oversee > military > > > > operations around the world. In addition, the planes are regularly > used > > > to > > > > fly congressional delegations to military theaters. > > > > > > The Air Force's descriptions of the C-40 perhaps make the plane sound > > > more > > > > elegant than it is. The seats are similar to those in commercial > > > first-class > > > > cabins, and most have electrical outlets and Internet access. > > > > > > Hastert flew in the military's smaller jets: the C-20, a version of a > > > > 12-seat Gulfstream; the C-21, a version of a six-seat Learjet; and > the > > > C-37, > > > > a version of a 12-seat Gulfstream. Hastert, according to a military > > > > official, usually traveled with up to three staff members and two > members > > > of > > > > the Capitol Police. > > > > ... > > > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > -- Mark M. Kahle, , www.filacoffee.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
