http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20070207-123706-5963r.htm
I don’t disagree with the security argument*. However, I don’t think it is the taxpayer or military’s responsibility to foot the bill for her family and friends’ travel. The Speaker should receive the aircraft that fits the mission based on availablity. Is this a luxurious perk or a security issue?
*I wouldn’t feel safe on a commercial flight with her and her family. 
I find it ironic that one of the most anti-military politicians in government, wants to use military aircraft for personal use.
Sorry, but even a cursory glance at her voting record would prove that simply isn’t true.
(86)
My question is why a 757? Are there not plenty of other aircraft in the fleet that could reach the west coast? G-III, G-IV or heck I am sure there is a left over G-I that the Coast Gaurd used to use 
. But really when you see pictures of Andrews there are always a fleet of other aircraft? What is the cost difference between the aircraft mentioned in this article? (G-V, 737, 757) Does her office have to pay anything, or is it totally a gift thing? I am sure there are a list of rules and regulations on who can fly on it with here.
Does anyone know what type of aircraft the previous speaker used?
Hastert used a C-20 (Gulfstream III), but the DoD says it can’t make WAS-SFO nonstop.
Personally I’d rather take a G3 with a fuel stop than fly commercially nonstop.
The figure I heard (if you’re inclined to trust the general media) is that it’s about $15,000 less to fly the Gulfstream coast to coast than the 757, or whatever the military variant is called.
Then again, this same media source said that Hastert’s Gulfstream III COULD make a transcontinental flight without a fuel stop…maybe they meant W to E… 
Looks like this is been overblown…
CNN is now reporting the plane type requested was made by the House Security Chief and not Pelosi at all!!
It reads:
WASHINGTON (CNN) – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi did not request a larger plane for personal use to travel cross-country without stopping, Bill Livingood, the House sergeant at arms, said Thursday.
Livingood said the request was his, and he made it for security reasons.
“The fact that Speaker Pelosi lives in California compelled me to request an aircraft that is capable of making non-stop flights for security purposes, unless such an aircraft is unavailable,” Livingood, who has been at his post for 11 years, said in a written statement.
“I regret that an issue that is exclusively considered and decided in a security context has evolved into a political issue,” the statement said…
i hate politicians, I mean a 757!! comone who is she the king of saudi arabia, she can get it done with a CJ1. Save some money give to the poor or for better intelligence. She just wants to be a rockstar and since her personality is most likely as dull as plywood she does this… 
Looks like spin to me. Pelosi wanted this and she told Livngood about it. He told the Air Force.
Were you there to witness this?
Dave, your endless partisan and ignorant bashing of any and all democrats is making this a less and less desirable place to be.
Obviously you don’t live in California. Pelosi is always out for the common man, pro-union, and all that crap. Yet, she refuses to allow her businesses (actually, her husband’s businesses" to have unions.
I have no idea what brain dead moron in the DoD said a G3 can’t go East Coast to West Coast nonstop but that is not true. Conservative range in a G3 is just under 4000 miles. Distance across the USA? 2500 miles. I know for a fact a G3 can go nonstop as I do it all the time nonstop and I never top the tanks off prior to departure East or West bound.
Remember, everything becomes less efficient when it’s in the government, and that must include the planes also. 
Yes but it would be nice if Govt. service did not make their brains less efficient. If only.
Government does not need to make a profit like real businesses do. If they need more money, they just raise taxes (or fees - same thing!) to cover the short fall.
Or issue more bonds, putting themselves in more debt.
Uh, that’s putting the citizen into more debt. Don’t forget that this is suppose to be a country by, for, and of the people.
It really amazes me how many gullible people there are out there. They actually believe the crap about a bond not costing money because it doesn’t raise taxes. Yea, right!
Not to take this any further off topic, but just remember: If our “fearless leaders” knew what they were doing with business/money issues, they’d be making money in the private sector instead of digging around in the public’s money. You’d be amazed how many of them have run business after business into the ground…and we keep electing them, and they continue to spend…
Yeah, like Michael Bloomberg. And Mitt Romney. And John Edwards. I could go on.
Uh, either way, it’s still putting itself in debt.
I thought we talk about planes here…
can we move on…