Jump to content
Baseops Forums
Sign in to follow this  
uhhello

Airlift stops

Recommended Posts

Uh.  No.  But it doesn’t have the free managers special at the embassy or free Hilton breakfast, so pocket extra money there, buy breakfast at trump with your own money.  We both know the rules.  Thanks for playing tho


No sweat. I’m sure the American public will deduce though your brilliant writing that by “pocket the extra cash” you obviously meant that because the “cheap motel down the road” has free waffles in the lobby so they can pocket the $2.99 in per diem they would have spent on an egg mcmuffin. That was crystal clear. Not sure how I missed it the first time.

Your article was (mostly) spot on. That particular point was very poorly made. Don’t get all sensitive about it. It wasn’t a personal shot at you. I’m just telling you how it read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/9/2019 at 9:14 PM, torqued said:

I stayed at the Turnberry last year.  I've been stopping in Prestwick to/from deployments since 2002. We just tell the FBO when and how many people, and they make the arrangements. Last year we arrived right after a snow/ice storm that shut most of the major freeways for days. All of the hotels in Ayre (our usual location) and Glasgow were booked. The Turnberry, an hour drive away,  had enthusiastically agreed to give us the government rate. The hotel itself was absolutely incredible and the staff thanked us profusely for our service. The bartender let us sample some of the local Scotch whiskeys. It was too cold for golf, but we toured the course which was an old WWII pilot training base, and some of the old runways/taxiways still exist on the course. The hotel called in a bagpiper to play us out the door as we departed for the sandbox at 5am. It was one of the best deployment sendoffs ever. There was nothing to it other than it was the only place with rooms available at the government rate, and the FBO was proud to have found a place that they thought we would enjoy. The media and politicians are idiots.

The issue in question isn't really about the President or the resort (though, of course, that's all anyone cares about). My wild guess as to the hustle going on is that the airport is paying for the rooms/hospitality at Turnberry in the hopes of attracting big-ticket fuel purchases. If the fuel cost an extra $.50 a gallon over what DoD would have paid at a different airport, a good deal for the aircrew turns into a $25,000 hit to the taxpayers. It's kind of similar to the Fat Leonard scandal the Navy just put a bunch of folks in prison for (but likely a lot harder to prove any wrongdoing on the Air Force's part, because we can just say "operational necessity").

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Stoker said:

The issue in question isn't really about the President or the resort (though, of course, that's all anyone cares about). My wild guess as to the hustle going on is that the airport is paying for the rooms/hospitality at Turnberry in the hopes of attracting big-ticket fuel purchases. If the fuel cost an extra $.50 a gallon over what DoD would have paid at a different airport, a good deal for the aircrew turns into a $25,000 hit to the taxpayers. It's kind of similar to the Fat Leonard scandal the Navy just put a bunch of folks in prison for (but likely a lot harder to prove any wrongdoing on the Air Force's part, because we can just say "operational necessity").

They have a government contract fuel rate, and when I went through there a year ago there was no mention of Turnberry.  This is simply people in the media who have to idea how the system works trying to make a hit piece on Trump.

Edited by Wendell
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/11/2019 at 6:09 PM, Danny Noonin said:

What do you mean by some “preferred to pocket the extra money”?

 

Are you implying that you think you can get a room at less than the government rate and legally claim the full rate (not actual cost) and pocket the difference? Because that’s what it looks like you’re implying.

 

 

There was a period of time in the 80s where you were paid the full per diem no matter what you spent.  One example I remember was New Orleans, 87ish I think. Per Diem was $75 a day. Stayed at the west bank sheraton and with the military discount and sharing a room it was $12 a night. Big bucks for a SSgt back then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Stoker said:

The issue in question isn't really about the President or the resort (though, of course, that's all anyone cares about). My wild guess as to the hustle going on is that the airport is paying for the rooms/hospitality at Turnberry in the hopes of attracting big-ticket fuel purchases. If the fuel cost an extra $.50 a gallon over what DoD would have paid at a different airport, a good deal for the aircrew turns into a $25,000 hit to the taxpayers. It's kind of similar to the Fat Leonard scandal the Navy just put a bunch of folks in prison for (but likely a lot harder to prove any wrongdoing on the Air Force's part, because we can just say "operational necessity").

That is a wild guess, and wildly inaccurate. As I've said, I've been visiting Prestwick Aviation for 17 years and those folks are on the up and up. Contract fuel prices are set. Lodging and perdiem rates are set. The Turnberry was only offered when it was the only accommodation available. Do you know of an alternative airport that meets all the requirements of transiting military aircraft, crew, and pax with fuel prices 50 cents less? I challenge you to find it. There's quite a bit more to RON planning than the price of fuel. If you've ever been deployed and are looking to save $25K of taxpayer money in Scotland, you're looking in the wrong place.

If an FBO/hotel provides a great experience while conducting business within the government rules and government rates, how is that a hustle? That's just good business. This is no Fat Leonard, just another instance of politicians throwing shit against the White House walls hoping something sticks.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The conspiracy theories are strong with this one.  You don't have to have worked for the military/government, more specifically with contracts, to know they don't give a shit about saving the tax payers money.  Have you ever tried to do construction to a current building to adjust for a new requirement?  We recently had to do that and the easiest/cheapest (by far) option was to simply raise the roof.  Nope, sorry that is considered X type construction and apparently the money we were given was for Y type construction.  So instead of simply raising the roof, they're knocking down a massive wall, breaking up the concrete floor, digging down a few feet, pouring a new floor, then rebuilding the massive wall.  Apparently, when this building was built a few years back we knew that this future requirement was likely coming down the pike and knew this building wouldn't work, but we were told you can't build based on future expectations...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/13/2019 at 10:11 AM, SocialD said:

The conspiracy theories are strong with this one.  You don't have to have worked for the military/government, more specifically with contracts, to know they don't give a shit about saving the tax payers money.  Have you ever tried to do construction to a current building to adjust for a new requirement?  We recently had to do that and the easiest/cheapest (by far) option was to simply raise the roof.  Nope, sorry that is considered X type construction and apparently the money we were given was for Y type construction.  So instead of simply raising the roof, they're knocking down a massive wall, breaking up the concrete floor, digging down a few feet, pouring a new floor, then rebuilding the massive wall.  Apparently, when this building was built a few years back we knew that this future requirement was likely coming down the pike and knew this building wouldn't work, but we were told you can't build based on future expectations...

 

Reminds me of how they build aircraft carriers. Contracts are written so long ago that by the time the carriers get built, a lot of shit is outdated. 

One ludicrous example, the old school cork push pin boards. All the ready rooms were written to have them. Fast forward to today, and dry-erase boards are what we need and works so much better. 

Cant just have the cork boards replaced during construction. Gotta finish the build then write an entirely new contract for the dry-erase boards. Ends up costing several grand per board for a $100 dry erase board. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/12/2019 at 5:18 PM, Stoker said:

 It's kind of similar to the Fat Leonard scandal the Navy just put a bunch of folks in prison for...

Fat Leonard scandal?  WTF?  One paragraph executive summary please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Stitch said:

Fat Leonard scandal?  WTF?  One paragraph executive summary please.

Cliff notes -

When a contractor literally throws hookers through your door and wines and dines you at Michelin 5 star restaurants for financial favor on contracts, etc, it usually doesn't end well.

Lots of O-6 and Flag level dudes in the Navy got axed for it. Some even went to prison.

Edited by Bigred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Air Force Concludes Investigation into Aircrew Trump Resort Stays;

""The [investigation] will show that the policies or procedures we had in place for both using civil airfields and lodging, and the crews [decisions] aligned with [current] policy," Gen. Maryanne Miller, head of Air Mobility Command, told Military.com Wednesday."

"Miller continued, "There was no violation of anything. There was nothing that was out of alignment with all of that; and we even looked at the perception side of things, and the crews just did exactly what they were supposed to do."

"If you look at Prestwick and you look at the rules for lodging that our crews abide by, 77% of the crews stayed right around there," Miller said during an interview here. The Air Force reviewed records and travel vouchers between 2015 and 2019. Another 17% stayed near Glasgow, about 30 miles away; and 6% of other crews stayed at the Trump Turnberry Luxury Collection Resort, roughly 20 miles away, she said."

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/10/10/air-force-concludes-investigation-aircrew-trump-resort-stays.html

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/16/2019 at 9:14 PM, Bigred said:

Cliff notes -

When a contractor literally throws hookers through your door and wines and dines you at Michelin 5 star restaurants for financial favor on contracts, etc, it usually doesn't end well.

Lots of O-6 and Flag level dudes in the Navy got axed for it. Some even went to prison.

Yep, know one personally who got rolled up in Fat Leonard (pun intended, as he's most like gonna get fucked because of it!).

As for this non-existent story, had anyone other than Trump owned the place, it would be a non-issue.  It's just the media's constant barrage against the man.  I am not the biggest fan of his, but he was the best option and is doing a better job than any of the other candidates, plus I doubt he plays much of a role in running his businesses these days much less this one particular hotel. 

 

Much like the old adage of "if the minimums weren't good enough, they wouldn't be the minimums;" doesn't "if it's under the max allowable, then it's allowable" make the same sense?

As a per diem hound these days, the vast majority of the hotels I stay at have a government rate which is the max allowable before taxes.  There's no fucking way I am staying at some flea-ridden roach motel because it saves the gubbermint some pocket change.  After 38 years of seeing what it wastes its money on, it doesn't bother me one bit...

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/10/2019 at 12:36 AM, nsplayr said:

Pending further investigations, the problem here almost certainly isn't what anyone in the Air Force did, it's that the President has not divested his personal financial stake in and control of numerous businesses.

While serving as President, he personally benefits from these businesses that both create the perception of corruption as well as break what I think is pretty clear language in the constitution & subsequent court cases and DOJ guidelines about the President taking money/gifts/etc. from foreign powers (i.e. emoluments). Jimmy Carter put his family peanut farm in a blind trust when he was elected, and DJT should have done the same with his businesses.

The fact that the President has made millions off of stays and events at his hotels that very likely would not have taken place were he not President is the issue - this stuff with the USAF is another (small) straw on this particular camel's back. A couple dozen airmen staying at Turnberry pales in comparison to what takes place at the President's DC hotel on a weekly basis.

Curious as to how many lawmakers (who create the NDAA and associated directives) receive monetary benefits from their non-government business endeavors as a result of legislation they create.  If people in glass houses want to throw stones...

Edited by war007afa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a big fan of tightening ethics rules for lawmakers as well as for executive branch officials. The latest example of what you mentioned is here, Rep. Chris Collins (R-NY) pleading guilty to insider trading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Majestik Møøse said:

Start here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_members_of_the_United_States_Congress_by_wealth

Lots of career government employees on this list.

Bernie has never done anything other than be an elected official. Dude has what, 3 houses? Oh, but let’s tax the “rich” and stunt investment potential thereby closing upward mobility and cementing the elite class. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't agree with many of Bernie's positions, but I don't know how you can make an intellectual integrity argument against the guy. Not only is he not on the list that you cited, but if you open up the full list past the top 50, it shows him in 423rd place in terms of net wealth amongst Congressmen.

Some quick Googling puts his current net worth at $2-2.5 million. How could he have amassed such a fortune as a career elected official? Keep in mind, this dude is 78 years old. If we assume he started saving when he was 28 and earned the market's 10% nominal return over the past 50 years, you know how much he'd have to put away every month to have $2.5M today? ....$172

 

snip.PNG.6ff5a946608571d5e16ed9aaf60425e4.PNG

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, mcbush said:

I don't agree with many of Bernie's positions, but I don't know how you can make an intellectual integrity argument against the guy. Not only is he not on the list that you cited, but if you open up the full list past the top 50, it shows him in 423rd place in terms of net wealth amongst Congressmen.

Some quick Googling puts his current net worth at $2-2.5 million. How could he have amassed such a fortune as a career elected official? Keep in mind, this dude is 78 years old. If we assume he started saving when he was 28 and earned the market's 10% nominal return over the past 50 years, you know how much he'd have to put away every month to have $2.5M today? ....$172

 

snip.PNG.6ff5a946608571d5e16ed9aaf60425e4.PNG

So you think that making it as an elite and then enacting socialism to cut out everyone else from having the chance to make said status is honest?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which of his policies do you think will prevent "everyone else from having the chance" to make $2M? Higher taxes? The top federal tax rate in 1969, at the start of those 50 years that I mentioned, was 70%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, mcbush said:

Which of his policies do you think will prevent "everyone else from having the chance" to make $2M? Higher taxes? The top federal tax rate in 1969, at the start of those 50 years that I mentioned, was 70%.

It’s not just higher taxes. If you think that’s his only step towards full blown socialism, you’re not listening to what he’s saying. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SurelySerious said:

It’s not just higher taxes. If you think that’s his only step towards full blown socialism, you’re not listening to what he’s saying. 

Could you share some of the specifics that you're referring to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dmginc said:

Could you share some of the specifics that you're referring to?

“Medicare for all” which is not actually Medicare in the least. 
 

Penchant for “wealth inequality” and “wealth transfer” along with demonizing any success in that realm. I’m not going to list his whole campaign rhetoric, there’s plenty of it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, mcbush said:

I don't agree with many of Bernie's positions, but I don't know how you can make an intellectual integrity argument against the guy. Not only is he not on the list that you cited, but if you open up the full list past the top 50, it shows him in 423rd place in terms of net wealth amongst Congressmen.

Some quick Googling puts his current net worth at $2-2.5 million. How could he have amassed such a fortune as a career elected official? Keep in mind, this dude is 78 years old. If we assume he started saving when he was 28 and earned the market's 10% nominal return over the past 50 years, you know how much he'd have to put away every month to have $2.5M today? ....$172

 

snip.PNG.6ff5a946608571d5e16ed9aaf60425e4.PNG

Bernie Sanders is total shit when it comes to money, and I’ll explain why. When I heard his net worth was over $2 million I started looking at his history because he’s a pretty dang wealthy socialist. Turns out others did the research for me. 
 

He has been in public office since around 1990, and has made at least $100,000 since around 1990. Fast forward to the 2016 elections and he started writing books, which is reported to have made him at least $1.7 million. 
 

So, if had been investing like you said, he should have a helluva lot more than $2.5 million. 
 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chasewithorn/2019/04/12/how-bernie-sanders-the-socialist-senator-amassed-a-25-million-fortune/amp/

 

https://www.politico.com/magazine/amp/story/2019/05/24/bernie-sanders-millionaires-226982

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

😆Yea my financial critique of some long-time political leaders like Bernie and Biden is that they're not wealthier given their job history. 30+ years making 6-figures with tons of perks and all you got is like a mil or maybe two? Y'all gotta save dat $$ haha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/19/2019 at 1:21 PM, SurelySerious said:

“Medicare for all” which is not actually Medicare in the least. 
 

Penchant for “wealth inequality” and “wealth transfer” along with demonizing any success in that realm. I’m not going to list his whole campaign rhetoric, there’s plenty of it. 

I already know this is gonna rub some people the wrong way, but what the heck?

Well I think you kinda have to list the campaign rhetoric and talk about it.  Wealth inequality is a real thing that has gotten exponentially worse in the last 30 years.  Think the last stat I saw was the top 50% lost about $1T, while the top 1% gained $30T.  It’s not useful to just call it “socialism” and not discuss any of the merits (even if there are only some).  I’m not voting for Bernie, but I can intellectually wrap my mind around some of the bases of his ideas.

Many major companies including Amazon paid no taxes in a year we had a good economy.  WTF over?

Capitalism as it stands, with no other policies, is currently executing one of the biggest transfers of wealth on its own - from workers to the ruling class.  What policies will help curb that?  Are there any policies that will help protect the rest of Americans that weren’t born into that world?  And I’m not talking about the slightly above average airline pilot pulling in close to $500k a year.  That’s not the problem - the level of wealth that is the problem I guarantee is incomprehensible to anyone on this forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...