Skip to comments.
Alaska's Governor Gets Sleek Jet Critics Say $2.6 Million Aircraft Is Unusable on Many Airstrips
http://articles.news.aol.com ^
| 11 12 05
| reuters
Posted on 11/12/2005 1:52:53 PM PST by freepatriot32
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-55 next last
To: albertp; Allosaurs_r_us; Abram; AlexandriaDuke; Americanwolf; Annie03; Baby Bear; bassmaner; ...

Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
2
posted on
11/12/2005 1:53:50 PM PST
by
freepatriot32
(Holding you head high & voting Libertarian is better then holding your nose and voting republican)
To: freepatriot32
Meanwhile, most officials in the British government, fly British Airways.
Regards, Ivan
3
posted on
11/12/2005 1:54:51 PM PST
by
MadIvan
(You underestimate the power of the Dark Side - http://www.sithorder.com/)
To: MadIvan
Oh, I would imagine that the Gov. of Alaska has had planes before this one. It'd be essential because the state is so large and regular commercial flights won't go to most places.
4
posted on
11/12/2005 1:57:44 PM PST
by
AmishDude
(Amishdude, the one and only.)
To: AmishDude
I suggest it would be more cost effective to charter a plane for those occasional trips, rather than buy this.
Regards, Ivan
5
posted on
11/12/2005 1:58:48 PM PST
by
MadIvan
(You underestimate the power of the Dark Side - http://www.sithorder.com/)
To: freepatriot32
Dump the Westwind for a Caravan or Super Cub.
To: AmishDude
They have a perfectly good turbo-prop that was capable of short-field operations. Word in the bars in Ketchikan was that it was ALL about ego.
/john
7
posted on
11/12/2005 2:01:16 PM PST
by
JRandomFreeper
(D@mit! I'm just a cook. Don't make me come over there and prove it!)
To: freepatriot32
Well the out of the way location of the capital actually means this purchase makes some sense, doesn't it? Maybe they should have got a different plane that can land on shorter runways, but a plane of some kind has got to be justified for the governor.
To: freepatriot32
I wonder if it can land on their bridge to no where.
9
posted on
11/12/2005 2:02:41 PM PST
by
Mark was here
(How can they be called "Homeless" if their home is a field?.)
To: freepatriot32
Can't Alaska do better than Murkowskies (I'm guessing that's the plural of Murkowski)
10
posted on
11/12/2005 2:02:47 PM PST
by
NeoCaveman
(ANWR is national security, RINO's keep us dependent on foreign oil, aiding our enemies)
To: dubyaismypresident
If Alaska can afford it and doesn't have a problem with it, I don't either.
To: CindyDawg
Sounds like they may have a prolem with it.
Polls show him to be the nation's second-most-unpopular governor, topped only by Ohio Republican Gov. Robert Taft.
And it is not very fiscally conservative, even if the state is flush with money.
12
posted on
11/12/2005 2:10:06 PM PST
by
NeoCaveman
(ANWR is national security, RINO's keep us dependent on foreign oil, aiding our enemies)
Hey, Alaska's Governor is just trying to 'keep up with the Richardsons'...
NM's governor had to have the state taxpayers buy him a big jet...
Not really useful for State business, but he will need it for his 2008 campaign for President (or VP)....
To: Mrs Mark
Looks like Ted Stevens will be getting some Federal money soon to build new runways.
14
posted on
11/12/2005 2:18:48 PM PST
by
byteback
To: freepatriot32
Can't they put floats on it?
To: JRandomFreeper; MadIvan
I'd disagree with you, Ivan. It's probably cost-effective for the governor's office to own a plane as opposed to always chargering one.
I agree with you JRF, it is probably too expensive and elaborate, but a turbo prop makes for a looooong trip from Juneau to Point Barrow.
16
posted on
11/12/2005 2:22:19 PM PST
by
AmishDude
(Amishdude, the one and only.)
To: MadIvan
I'll betcha he could have had a head installed in the turboprop for about $25,000. Better yet, a funnel, a hose and a curtain for $50.
17
posted on
11/12/2005 2:22:40 PM PST
by
kylaka
To: freepatriot32
Alaska has $30 billion in savings, yet the entire US tax base has to pay for the bridge to nowhere?
18
posted on
11/12/2005 2:22:55 PM PST
by
sharkhawk
(Play me a dirge matey)
To: freepatriot32; Jeremiah Jr; aculeus; dighton; Charles Henrickson; Lijahsbubbe
Critics say Murkowski's jet is unusable in much of rural Alaska, where runways are too short and made of gravel or nonexistent. That's some scary runway material. Can fault anyone for refusing to land on nonexistent runways.
19
posted on
11/12/2005 2:29:31 PM PST
by
Thinkin' Gal
(As it was in the days of NO...)
To: freepatriot32
More practical:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-55 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson