Forum: Air Force Life

This little photo Op cost the tax payers $300,000!!!!!!!!!! Nice to know my tax money is being waisting on this kind of crap. What BS.

F-16.net Sponsor

Quote:

This little photo Op cost the tax payers $300,000!!!!!!!!!! Nice to know my tax money is being waisting on this kind of crap. What BS.

You just know this type of event is going to bring on this type of obvious first reaction. If soldiers march in a parade, do people go around saying "Gee, what did that cost?" "Hmm, salary, food, clothes, razors for shaving that morning, etc...." When all these things would have cost money any way. When photo ops are done like this, it is OFTEN done at the end of a training mission. The $300,000 cost is reflecting the entire training mission and makes it really hard to separate the TRUE cost of taking a photo such as this. And yes, all aircraft involved were on training missions prior to the photo op.

So please, no more comments like the one above. I can read such intelligent comments on any forum, this is F-16.net, we expect more!

Okay Jon,

What about the massive panic that this so-called "training mission" caused?
Was the NYC air-traffic control disrupted because the jet is also used (though not at the time) for Presidential transportation?

Some of Mav's comments may stem from (like you said) the first reaction. I know it costs a pretty penny just to taxi a jet like a VC-25, after I realized that they probably did multitask, I set aside how much it cost to fly the jet. Still, a leader of a country that was attacked using airplanes to take down buildings should not then turn around and say "let's fly a bigger airplane on a similar flightpath and scare the living daylights out of a few million people just for a photo op"

Whatever your opinion of him, you never saw the previous POTUS do that ^^, and believe me, if he had, the media would have hanged him from the White House flagpole and yes the media would have blamed him.

It's different with US soldiers on parade--our citizens (for the most part) know that we've got a powerful military, they don't need to march the M1s around like China or North Korea does. How often do you see the US pulling big military shindigs on like those two countries?

Regarding airshows, do the Armed Forces get reimbursed for their expenses?

Forum Veteran Joined: Dec 15, 2006 - 12:28 AM Posts: 760

Jon wrote:

Mavrck wrote:

This little photo Op cost the tax payers $300,000!!!!!!!!!! Nice to know my tax money is being waisting on this kind of crap. What BS.

You just know this type of event is going to bring on this type of obvious first reaction. If soldiers march in a parade, do people go around saying "Gee, what did that cost?" "Hmm, salary, food, clothes, razors for shaving that morning, etc...." When all these things would have cost money any way. When photo ops are done like this, it is OFTEN done at the end of a training mission. The $300,000 cost is reflecting the entire training mission and makes it really hard to separate the TRUE cost of taking a photo such as this. And yes, all aircraft involved were on training missions prior to the photo op.

So please, no more comments like the one above. I can read such intelligent comments on any forum, this is F-16.net, we expect more!

Hypocrisy. From all the reports I have seen, the stated reason for this mission was a photo op; not a training mission. As I said if they just wanted a photo op they could’ve done it with a warning and in conjunction with their normal operations; and they could’ve done it in a way without terrorizing New Yorkers.

Many of us are suspicious that this may be some sort of test/probe homeland security under the Obama administration to see how New Yorkers react to another simulated attack. Because many of us and apparently even some of the reporters had these suspicions the White House was asked what the intent of this mission was; we were not told it was a training mission for homeland security or some other type of training mission; we have been told that this was a photo op. I wouldn’t be surprised if that is a cover story.

Whatever the reason it seems quite reckless.

I would also disagree with Mavrck; because I feel he is greatly underestimating the costs of such a stunt. I feel he is just estimating the costs of operating the aircraft itself but not the collateral costs to the public and the businesses. I suspect the collateral costs may run as high as a billion or more. From what I understand businesses were shut down and were evacuated. There may have even been the physical injuries during evacuations and there certainly was psychological trama to many New Yorkers. This stunt will likely cause many New Yorkers to have psychosis ( flashbacks, panic attacks, anxiety, etc…) that will result in loss of work efficiency and reduced physical and mental health. Some people will likely lose their jobs because they will become so psychotic that they will be less productive at work. The stunt will result in increased health costs whether it be from physical injuries from the evacuations or from psychiatric counseling and medications.

It’s much like in the case of Clinton’s “haircut” ( that was suspiciously like a front for an encounter with a prostitute). The cost of the “haircut” itself was trivial. The cost to the taxpayers to operate the aircraft on the ground while getting his “haircut” was likely hundreds of thousands of dollars which was significant to the taxpayer; however it is probably minor compared to the collateral damage that was done to businesses that had to suffer delays and have their flights rerouted. Companies probably lost business deals and probably had to pay penalties for being late. People probably had to pay more for many things like day care, lodging, etc… because of delays incurred from Clinton’s “haircut”.

Let’s take a few hypothetical situations. Let’s say your aircraft is waiting for a part that is on a Delta Dash delivery and your aircraft is grounded until the part is received and installed, if the flight for your part is delayed than your company is hemorrhaging money. Let’s say there is a blackout; and the local utility is waiting on a part or a service specialist to be flown in; but they are delayed resulting in more costs to the utility company and to the public. Let’s say you’re having a transplant and waiting on a replacement heart; but you end up dying because the heart is delayed and is useless by the time it arrives.

Often the collateral costs are much higher than the obvious costs. Think a little deeper.

The White House said that the reason for the flyby was a photo op mission; they didn’t say anything about training or give and other excuse such as testing/probing our suitability and reaction to a perceived terrorist attack (if they did I didn't hear it). Either way the White House seems extremely reckless, callous and inept. If this was some sort of training mission test and probe for homeland defense; then the Obama and the White House is not living up to their campaign promises of openness. One of the many campaign promises that Obama already has broken many times.

ptplauthor wrote:

How often do you see the US pulling big military shindigs on like those two countries?

I can think of two presently going on as we post.

OL

Elite 1K Joined: May 26, 2005 - 08:39 PM Posts: 1496

*deleted*

This is a site about F-16s, not friggin' politics. I don't want to even get into it.

Didn't mean to ruffle any feathers guys. I was just going off the news bulletins on the cost of the phot op. They reall needed to just rethink what they did before they did it. To me the biggest problem was the panic it caused. Lot's of folks don't know what airforce 1's colors are and they didn't realize it as well or what was going on.

Crash, crash........I can guarantee you LAX wouldn't close down two of its four runways for a prostitute.

One maybe, yes.

OL

Forum Veteran Joined: Dec 15, 2006 - 12:28 AM Posts: 760

outlaw162 wrote:

Crash, crash........I can guarantee you LAX wouldn't close down two of its four runways for a prostitute.

One maybe, yes.

OL

From what I understand considering the circumstances they were obligated to Shut down the airport. From what I understand it was policy at the time that essentially all air traffic be shut down locally whenever the president is on Air Force One, whether it be in the air or on the tarmac. So from what I understand if the president is being serviced by a prostitute while on Air Force One; the local air-traffic would be halted, stacked or rerouted. The fact is that the runways were shut down for Clinton’s “haircut”.

(I take it what you said was a joke and taking artistic license, but I felt it should be said that your premise is incorrect)

I feel that Obama’s administration low pass over New York was reckless, incompetent, and arrogant; whether it be for a photo op or a psych op ( where New Yorkers are used as guinea pigs to evaluate their reaction to a perceived terrorist attack).

Quote:

I can think of two presently going on as we post.

I was only talking about military parades that have no purpose other than to show the citizens that the leaders have a trump card in case the Joe Sixpacks get out of hand. Y'know like the big ones Ivan used to throw on May Day....

Quote:

Let’s say you’re having a transplant and waiting on a replacement heart; but you end up dying because the heart is delayed and is useless by the time it arrives.

Someone posted a story somewhere about a National Guard F-4 pilot that did a shuttle mission with a donor heart from North Dakota to California after the Lear they were going to take went TU.

Quote:

The poor, innocent, pure-as-the-wind-driven-snow New Yorkers. Won't SOMEONE think of the New Yorkers? Pssst, ATFS: They're DEMOCRAPS!!1! You should hate them at least as much as you hate the President.

If I was any more Republican, I'd be growing a trunk, but I still think some New Yorkers were adversely affected by this event, especially any that worked at the World Trade Center. I probably would have felt the same way if I saw a low flying jet. You'd think the new Freedom Tower would be a ripe target on al-Qaeda's hitlist--just because we've shown resilleince and rebuilt. Yes I am aware it is no longer called that, but IDGAF, since it is probably due to Chinese lobbying.

Forum Veteran Joined: Dec 15, 2006 - 12:28 AM Posts: 760

Quote:

The poor, innocent, pure-as-the-wind-driven-snow New Yorkers. Won't SOMEONE think of the New Yorkers? Pssst, ATFS: They're DEMOCRAPS!!1! You should hate them at least as much as you hate the President.

While they are largely Democrats and I largely disagree with their politics they are still humans and Americans and most of them deserve to be treated with a certain amount of respect. Just because I disrespect someone’s politics; doesn’t necessarily mean I disrespect them as a person on a whole. One of my best friends is a Democrat and we often get into heated debates about politics we still are friends and have respect for each other in other aspects.

I feel that Obama and his administration is the one that is showing unreasonable disrespect to New Yorkers with this pathetic flyby. I feel that Obama and his administration is showing disrespect for the military and his political opponents because he seems to be unfairly trying to redirect this controversy toward them as part of a witchhunt to use them as scapegoats.

I don’t think it’s normally right to terrorize someone for a photo op or a psych op as guinea pigs.

If it was some sort of psych ops; I think that Obama should come clean. I can’t think of any good reason that this type of psych ops should be kept secret if that’s what it is in fact. other than the bad reason to keep Obama from being politically embarrassed. There are some sort of psych ops that need to be kept secret; but if this was a psych op I don’t see any reason to keep it secret other than the political embarrassment. I don’t think political embarrassment is a good reason to infringe the freedom of information act.

ptplauthor wrote:

Someone posted a story somewhere about a National Guard F-4 pilot that did a shuttle mission with a donor heart from North Dakota to California after the Lear they were going to take went TU.

Yes I remember that. That was a great story and effort. However I think there’s been many circumstances where transportation was delayed and organs were deemed unusable. The sooner and organ can be used the more likely it will be viable. So some of the failed transplants may be in part due to delays.

ATFS_Crash wrote:

From what I understand considering the circumstances they were obligated to Shut down the airport. From what I understand it was policy at the time that essentially all air traffic be shut down locally whenever the president is on Air Force One, whether it be in the air or on the tarmac.

They close the runways at military airfields some period of time prior to the President's arrival or departure also. Some bases only have one.

The airport (LAX) was not "Shut" down. 2 of 4 runways were open continuously.

All air traffic was not shutdown. The FAA recorded no abnormal delays of any scheduled flight in or out of LAX that day. The controller workload WAS increased as a result of having to intersperse departing and arriving traffic on two adjacent runways. During peak traffic periods they normally use one on each side (25R & 24L) for departures and one on each side for arrivals (25L & 24R). But they're well, if not over, paid, and they can handle it.

If it was me, I would have gotten my haircut some other time, but regardless, some of your premises are incorrect to the extent of being innuendo. This is not a joke.

OL

(By the way, they don't do brain transplants)

Forum Veteran Joined: Dec 15, 2006 - 12:28 AM Posts: 760

outlaw162 wrote:

The FAA recorded no abnormal delays of any scheduled flight in or out of LAX that day.

Clinton assured us that he did not have ***** with Monica Lewinsky, Gennifer Flowers or use state police to round up women for “dates”. However the evidence seems to suggest otherwise.

I seem to remember that several pilots came forward and stated that they were delayed so long that the aircraft nearly ran out of fuel. I’m not sure if they were scheduled flights but I seem to remember one or more pilots saying one or more aircraft were diverted.

outlaw162 wrote:

some of your premises are incorrect to the extent of being innuendo.

So using your “reasoning“, if Monica hadn’t saved and disclosed the semen stained dress; you would be asserting that my premise that Clinton possibly had ***** with Monica was incorrect.

I supposed you believed the Democrat party line claiming that Clinton didn’t have ***** with Monica Lewinsky. I suppose you believed Clinton’s innuendo that Monica was just lying about the ***** because Clintons innuendo that she was mentally ill. Hypocrisy.

outlaw162 wrote:

(By the way, they don't do brain transplants)

Not necessarily.

There may be hope for you yet. Wink

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdJGlYOL0r4

Guys, guys, let's settle down here.
We can all agree to disagree on the facts regarding Clinton, but that's not the scope of this thread.

Ah, adult supervision.

Settling.

OL

Forum: Air Force Life

NYC fly over photo-op