Plosi One

On Fri, 9 Feb 2007 17:24:36 -0500, "John T"
wrote in
:

"In its commercial configuration the 757-200 usually
seats 175-190 passengers."

Lets call it 180 seats.

Given the OP's assertion:

CNN reports that Nancy's B757 operating costs are $22,000.00 an
hour.

That works out to $122.22 per hour at what, 500 knots?

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 00:43:20 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote:

That works out to $122.22 per hour at what, 500 knots?

Cheaper than a Cessna 172 ....


--
Dallas

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 00:50:47 GMT, Dallas
wrote in
:

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 00:43:20 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote:

That works out to $122.22 per hour at what, 500 knots?

Cheaper than a Cessna 172 ....

If you look at from the cost per seat mile perspective, yes.

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 00:50:47 GMT, Dallas
wrote:

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 00:43:20 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote:

That works out to $122.22 per hour at what, 500 knots?

Cheaper than a Cessna 172 ....


It it's always full.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


"In its commercial configuration the 757-200 usually
seats 175-190 passengers."

Lets call it 180 seats.

No, let's call it 42 since that's the number of business class seats on the
plane she (or whomever) was talking about. The plane in question is not the
commercial 757, but a customized version with far fewer seats.

Given the OP's assertion:

CNN reports that Nancy's B757 operating costs are $22,000.00 an
hour.

That works out to $122.22 per hour at what, 500 knots?

$523.81/hour/seat each way.

Regardless, it seems this story has been made to be larger than it really
is. The Speaker is second in line to succeed the President and is entitled
to more security than most other public servants. While the use of the C-32
was apparently an option, it appears she didn't specifically request it, but
rather a plane with transcontinental range.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://openspf.org
____________________

John T wrote:

Regardless, it seems this story has been made to be larger than it really
is. The Speaker is second in line to succeed the President and is entitled
to more security than most other public servants. While the use of the C-32
was apparently an option, it appears she didn't specifically request it, but
rather a plane with transcontinental range.

Let's get real here for a moment. Speaker Hastert utilized a C-20B,
which was wasteful enough to give to a Congressman. Why isn't that good
enough for Pelosi? If she uses the "transcontinental range" excuse
because she doesn't feel like stopping, it's pure baloney. The C-20 is
a Gulfstream III, which has more than enough range to get from
Washington DC to San Fransisco. Unless Washington has floated out to
sea on all of this hot air.

Good grief, the government types need to cut this crap out with our
money! A first class ticket and security detail would be cheap.

John T writes:

The Speaker is second in line to succeed the President and is entitled
to more security than most other public servants.

Why?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:
John T writes:

The Speaker is second in line to succeed the President and is entitled
to more security than most other public servants.

Why?

Because

John Theune writes:

Because

Because why?

One of the advantages of a democracy is that nobody is indispensable, and if
someone high in the government is lost, the government continues to operate
normally. If this ceases to be true, you no longer have a democracy.

High-ranking officials often have heavy security because (1) they are cowards;
(2) it makes them seem more important; or (3) they like the special treatment
(essentially just a power play). Security teams often cannot prevent bad
things, anyway, and at the same time, the world will continue to turn if a
politician in a democracy is lost, no matter how nominally important he may
be.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.