Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
Obama very bad for MDW
- Thread starter siucavflight
- Start date
- Watchers 23
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
siucavflight
Back from the forsaken
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2003
- Posts
- 3,512
siucavflight
Back from the forsaken
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2003
- Posts
- 3,512
LR, I do not have time to respond to all of your comments, this was not intended as a political post, rather trying to show what impact Obama is having on MDW.
And I am well aware of the wavier. Have you ever looked at what goes into getting the waiver? Before even getting the waiver every person aboard the aircraft has to get TSA approval through a background check, and finger print processing which takes approximately 7 days.
Once the waiver is processed every passenger and bag has to be screened by TSA prior to departure, and then coming back into MDW every flight has a to land at either SBN, RFD, or PIA and be pre screened by TSA. With the type of operationt that we are running these requirements are un realistic.
And I was speaking with TSA, there are a few numbers that were listed on that page, I called them to see if there was anything that we could do to speed up the slow government process of getting the waiver, espically since they just informed us of this TFR only four days before his arrival. And when I was talking to TSA the woman named Ada Johnson said that there office has been informed that Obama will be coming to Chicago every four to five weeks.
You may have missed the part where I said that it is ridiculous that Bush traveled to his ranch 149 time during his presidency. I understand that security is a requirement for the president and rightfully so, but the President has to be mindful of what goes into his trips, he has to understand that him coming to Chicago is directly affecting thousands of people, and indirectly the entire country, this wasteful spending has to stop.
And if everyone on this thread could please get away from turning this into something about race I would appriciate it.
And I am well aware of the wavier. Have you ever looked at what goes into getting the waiver? Before even getting the waiver every person aboard the aircraft has to get TSA approval through a background check, and finger print processing which takes approximately 7 days.
Once the waiver is processed every passenger and bag has to be screened by TSA prior to departure, and then coming back into MDW every flight has a to land at either SBN, RFD, or PIA and be pre screened by TSA. With the type of operationt that we are running these requirements are un realistic.
And I was speaking with TSA, there are a few numbers that were listed on that page, I called them to see if there was anything that we could do to speed up the slow government process of getting the waiver, espically since they just informed us of this TFR only four days before his arrival. And when I was talking to TSA the woman named Ada Johnson said that there office has been informed that Obama will be coming to Chicago every four to five weeks.
You may have missed the part where I said that it is ridiculous that Bush traveled to his ranch 149 time during his presidency. I understand that security is a requirement for the president and rightfully so, but the President has to be mindful of what goes into his trips, he has to understand that him coming to Chicago is directly affecting thousands of people, and indirectly the entire country, this wasteful spending has to stop.
And if everyone on this thread could please get away from turning this into something about race I would appriciate it.
fu69atacafyeah
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2005
- Posts
- 157
run with this!!! get it out there!!!
I have to say that, while some valid point were made by LR, they weren't all that constructive. No need to belittle what was a good first effort. At least someone is doing something about the attacks on our profession.
We can point fingers all day at whose administration is at fault for the current economic mess, and most of the blame would be valid. However, the current administration is picking up the crap that the MEDIA is churning the public up with, and blowing it further out of proportion, at the cost of jobs they are saying they're trying to save. You guys that are getting all sanctimonious about who got TARP funds and shouldn't be flying airplanes need to back off with the big brush. The TARP program is a tool to keep the financial situation from getting worse, which could take away YOUR ability to work. Alot of banks (with and without airplanes) did nothing wrong, yet are taking the hit on the stock markets and in the coffers because there isn't money available to lend to make fees on. When you account for increases in reserves due to new regulations, the enormous number of people who got stung in the ARM web (which I was almost caught by) who can't pay that have to be subsidized, and the approaching number of ones who won't be able to because they just got blasted out of their jobs, money is getting tight. But to say it's all the banks fault for falling off the cliff is laughable. And now you think on top of it all, they should throw away money by dumping the tools to do business more effectively, and to try to generate new income streams is short sighted. There is no market for aircraft right now, so any sale will either not happen, or be at a huge loss. What happens to the rest of that lease or note? LOSS! Citi's purchase of the new airplane would have nothing to do with TARP funds, most of it would have been paid for in deposits, and the rest from the sale of old aircraft. But some of you think that throwing away all that money and making a business as far flung as Citi do it on airlines is a money-maker? And you think SIU has it all wrong? I'm not saying that Citi did it all right, but should it be a case of throwing more away in times of trouble?
This misguided, inaccurate media attention is causing the loss of jobs in the aviation industry. Not just pilots and mechanics, but it will swell and affect the OEMs, parts suppliers, etc., just like the auto manufacturers. SIU shouldn't be belittled for his efforts, but lent a hand with better info to pass on, should the opportunity arrive. It's fueling so much attention, that jobs are being lost in the industry because companies are caving in to pressure caused only by perception.
And if the above sounds personal, it is. Cuts were announced for our department day before yesterday. One of the two aircraft and personnel accordingly. The bad part is, we won't know who is going for 3 weeks. Exit plans weren't finished when the public announcement was going to be made. So we wait.
Good luck.
Chris
We can point fingers all day at whose administration is at fault for the current economic mess, and most of the blame would be valid. However, the current administration is picking up the crap that the MEDIA is churning the public up with, and blowing it further out of proportion, at the cost of jobs they are saying they're trying to save. You guys that are getting all sanctimonious about who got TARP funds and shouldn't be flying airplanes need to back off with the big brush. The TARP program is a tool to keep the financial situation from getting worse, which could take away YOUR ability to work. Alot of banks (with and without airplanes) did nothing wrong, yet are taking the hit on the stock markets and in the coffers because there isn't money available to lend to make fees on. When you account for increases in reserves due to new regulations, the enormous number of people who got stung in the ARM web (which I was almost caught by) who can't pay that have to be subsidized, and the approaching number of ones who won't be able to because they just got blasted out of their jobs, money is getting tight. But to say it's all the banks fault for falling off the cliff is laughable. And now you think on top of it all, they should throw away money by dumping the tools to do business more effectively, and to try to generate new income streams is short sighted. There is no market for aircraft right now, so any sale will either not happen, or be at a huge loss. What happens to the rest of that lease or note? LOSS! Citi's purchase of the new airplane would have nothing to do with TARP funds, most of it would have been paid for in deposits, and the rest from the sale of old aircraft. But some of you think that throwing away all that money and making a business as far flung as Citi do it on airlines is a money-maker? And you think SIU has it all wrong? I'm not saying that Citi did it all right, but should it be a case of throwing more away in times of trouble?
This misguided, inaccurate media attention is causing the loss of jobs in the aviation industry. Not just pilots and mechanics, but it will swell and affect the OEMs, parts suppliers, etc., just like the auto manufacturers. SIU shouldn't be belittled for his efforts, but lent a hand with better info to pass on, should the opportunity arrive. It's fueling so much attention, that jobs are being lost in the industry because companies are caving in to pressure caused only by perception.
And if the above sounds personal, it is. Cuts were announced for our department day before yesterday. One of the two aircraft and personnel accordingly. The bad part is, we won't know who is going for 3 weeks. Exit plans weren't finished when the public announcement was going to be made. So we wait.
Good luck.
Chris
Last edited:
siucavflight
Back from the forsaken
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2003
- Posts
- 3,512
mx, great post, and wish you luck, hopefully you will keep your job.
After another email it does sound like one of our local stations her in Chicago is going to do a report on this after Obama leaves town, and they are going to be calling on me to help them with some of the details when it comes to aviation, any input would be appriciated. Their reporters are going to find and research the cost to the actual city of Chicago, and they have some contacts in the Secret Service to get even more numbers, but what they are looking for is advice on numbers for the operations of the 747's, along with all of the support aircraft, and the reporter that emailed me back has gotten the impression from some of his inside sources that my estimate of 3.5 million was low, low by a factor of about 5, meaning that this four day visit may cost about 17 million.
After another email it does sound like one of our local stations her in Chicago is going to do a report on this after Obama leaves town, and they are going to be calling on me to help them with some of the details when it comes to aviation, any input would be appriciated. Their reporters are going to find and research the cost to the actual city of Chicago, and they have some contacts in the Secret Service to get even more numbers, but what they are looking for is advice on numbers for the operations of the 747's, along with all of the support aircraft, and the reporter that emailed me back has gotten the impression from some of his inside sources that my estimate of 3.5 million was low, low by a factor of about 5, meaning that this four day visit may cost about 17 million.
Last edited:
Thanks for the good wishes, if I get to stay, it wil be at the expense of some fine people that are good friends.
Good going with the media, SIU. I will caution you on something I learned from one of my friends whose former boss is a news director....
They only have a small time window to fill, so don't expect that everything you say will make it to the TV. And very likely, some important items will end up on the "cutting room floor".
With that said, make sure to get the real meat out that's pertinent to what they're asking. Be careful if they try to engage you in conversation on camera, as the information gets lost in anecdotal talking. Get them to ask direct questions, and answer them with short facts, not opinions, and don't divert to a different area to try to make a point. That would appear that you're ducking the issue or have another agenda. I'd definitely try to get the questions they want answers to off-camera, so that the most factual answer is given.
Good luck!
Chris
Good going with the media, SIU. I will caution you on something I learned from one of my friends whose former boss is a news director....
They only have a small time window to fill, so don't expect that everything you say will make it to the TV. And very likely, some important items will end up on the "cutting room floor".
With that said, make sure to get the real meat out that's pertinent to what they're asking. Be careful if they try to engage you in conversation on camera, as the information gets lost in anecdotal talking. Get them to ask direct questions, and answer them with short facts, not opinions, and don't divert to a different area to try to make a point. That would appear that you're ducking the issue or have another agenda. I'd definitely try to get the questions they want answers to off-camera, so that the most factual answer is given.
Good luck!
Chris
Last edited:
siucavflight
Back from the forsaken
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2003
- Posts
- 3,512
Hugh Johnson
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2004
- Posts
- 684
Thats one and a half trips per month. Sounds like every he went every few weeks also.
svcta
"Kids these days"-AAflyer
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2004
- Posts
- 1,767
My understanding is that there is always a second 747 either in high hold or parked at a satellite airport within short flying time of the primary airport. So it's two 747s, fighter escort, support a/c (a C-17 last time I saw AF1), staff, etc. I was pretty ticked when PrezBo took AF1 100 miles from Andrews AFB for the Dem retreat last weekend. Couldn't he have just ridden on Marine 1? He was already on it from teh White house and it would have been quicker and probably safer than a whole other set of takeoffs and landings.
LRvsH25B
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2005
- Posts
- 249
It's my understanding the retreat was 150 miles away, and Marine 1 only has a range of 100 Miles with all the Mods. Made sense to fly straight wing. 747 is a bit much for a trip like that, but you have to remember, the AF is also paid to fly the media, so something like a G4/5 is not big enough, and I understand the 757s do not have the communication equipment to support POTUS, as the VP does not have to sign off on missle launches, etc.
macdu
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Posts
- 276
My friend you need to put the coffee cup down and chill out.
timmay
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2003
- Posts
- 227
It is funny that you brought this up now. I watched inside AF1 and M1 on discovery last week and I was amazed at the money we spend to support the prez. Not that I think it is totally overblown but they definitely spare no expense. The part that ticked me off however, was when the narrator started gloating about how we are the only country in the world who supports their leader in such fashion. I found myself talking to the TV saying this is part of the reason we have no money. At some point we need to start cutting expenses rather than borrowing more money from China.
LJ45
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2005
- Posts
- 1,080
Bingo!!! no one man is worth that much BS and $$$
LRvsH25B
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2005
- Posts
- 249
No Sir, I do not. I was brought up to respect others, and in my father's home, racist comments were met with swift punishment, as they are in my home today. It's something I will not tolerate, and there is no room for ambiguity there. I fail to see where it has any relevance on this forum, and if the original poster is black, then I guess Uncle Tom is in the world of aviation as well. He looks like a fool on the 'Porch' and in the 'House'.
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
