82 replies to this topic

[Cactus]

Independence76, on Jul 23 2008, 01:24 AM, said:

You're Canadian.

Edited by Duke, 23 July 2008 - 12:32 AM.

[aviatordom]

Do senators get the "watered down" version of the stupid flying red carpet treatment that Bush recieves....

i.e, causing hundreds of flights to be cancelled and for no plane to go within a 5 mile radius in the air?

[Faucett]

Duke, on Jul 23 2008, 01:30 AM, said:

Independence76, on Jul 23 2008, 01:24 AM, said:

You're Canadian.

Nice.

[likebernie4]

McCain was in Buffalo the other day.

Edited by BurgerKing, 23 July 2008 - 08:04 AM.

[Max.]

I wonder what purks Obama will give the Airline for this "kind" gesture if he gets in office.

[Chief_Bean]

I don't see the point in having a dedicated aircraft + livery for each candidate.

They might aswell just charter any old plane out -- it's not like they're the president yet

[Awesumus Pwntius]

aviatordom, on Jul 22 2008, 10:52 PM, said:

Do senators get the "watered down" version of the stupid flying red carpet treatment that Bush recieves....

i.e, causing hundreds of flights to be cancelled and for no plane to go within a 5 mile radius in the air?

Those are called TFR s, or Temporary Flight Restrictions. Usually, no, but depending on the size of the event then yes they will set them in place. Events like the Super Bowl, or World Series, or when the President is giving  a speech, etc, TFR s are set in place and they pretty much block off the Class B/C airspace within the vicinity for safety/security reasons. I believe only military and regularly scheduled commercial flights are the only ones allowed in the air at that time.

And these aren't cause the Senators or the President wants them , its the FAA that sets them in place.

[FlightSimPaints]

Chief_Bean, on Jul 23 2008, 02:08 PM, said:

They might aswell just charter any old plane out -- it's not like they're the president yet

Seems I have to repeat myself! That's exactly what they've done.

A livery is absolutely appropriate because the candidates can't be seen to favour certain businesses over others e.g. Obama can't be seen to have some kind of partnership with North American, plus the PR power that comes with a branded aircraft is huge.

Makes absolute sense!

Let's look at it this way. The candidate plus his entourage of up to 100 people need to travel all over the place, often last minute. If you're definitely in need of almost daily travel like this, the cheapest option is to have a dedicated aircraft. Nothing is cheaper. Scheduled airline tickets, even if you forgot for a second the logistical nightmare of trying to get all 100 people booked within 2 hours of departure, will work out more expensive in the long run.

[Cactus]

Max., on Jul 23 2008, 09:05 AM, said:

I wonder what purks Obama will give the Airline for this "kind" gesture if he gets in office.

What did Bush/Cheney give North American Airlines for using their airplane for the 2000 election?

The answer is NOTHING. It's a stupid plane. They'd use Greyhound if it was fast enough.

[Mark_39C]

Duke, on Jul 23 2008, 06:08 AM, said:

Marky the Jew, on Jul 22 2008, 11:27 PM, said:

Obama's looks like he found a teenager who knows photoshop... looks good but I don't like it for someone who is running for President of the US..

I think every American should vote based entirely on the paint job of the candidate's aircraft.

Did I say I was...? Mate, my candidate isn't running...

[Alaska_MD-83]

Time to paint me up a pretty Posky!

[Independence76]

Alaska MD-83, on Jul 23 2008, 10:37 PM, said:

Time to paint me up a pretty Posky!

Meh.

I would start a political debate/argument, but I favor my reputation on these forums.

[Alaska_MD-83]

Just wait till Bushy is gone... then we'll go to town.

[Independence76]

And watch our allies fall? I wouldn't support him any day.

[Cactus]

Independence76, on Jul 24 2008, 01:13 PM, said:

And watch our allies fall? I wouldn't support him any day.

Don't forget the Polish!

[MrCargo]

Actually, you forgot Po-

Duke, on Jul 24 2008, 04:33 PM, said:

Independence76, on Jul 24 2008, 01:13 PM, said:

And watch our allies fall? I wouldn't support him any day.

Don't forget the Polish!

DEFEATED AGAIN.

[Cactus]

MrCargo, on Jul 24 2008, 07:45 PM, said:

Actually, you forgot Po-

Duke, on Jul 24 2008, 04:33 PM, said:

Independence76, on Jul 24 2008, 01:13 PM, said:

And watch our allies fall? I wouldn't support him any day.

Don't forget the Polish!

DEFEATED AGAIN.

This calls for a rickroll

[Alaska_MD-83]

Independence76, on Jul 24 2008, 10:13 AM, said:

And watch our allies fall? I wouldn't support him any day.

Meaning.......

[Independence76]

Alaska MD-83, on Jul 24 2008, 07:33 PM, said:

Meaning.......

Must I spell it out for you? He wants to be nice to the terrorists, like any other Democrat. We are also friends with the highly conservative and successful nation of Israel. They also hate the terrorists. Think about this:

Letting terrorists run loose in the middle east once we pull out, they'll give all they got to destroy Israel. So, basically, we leave our allies as sitting ducks, and then the Democrats will be blaming Bush for it.  

[Alaska_MD-83]

And Israel is just a sitting duck.....

Edit: The only reason we are there in the first place is because of the WMDs that were supposedly In Iraq and Afghanistan/
The only ones who might want to do anything to Israel would be Iran, and Isreal would knock out Iran easily. (remember the 6 day war)

Edited by Alaska MD-83, 24 July 2008 - 07:58 PM.