Obama Faces Tough Decision On Pricey Presidential Helicopters

WASHINGTON - President Obama has slammed high-flying executives traveling in cushy jets at a time of economic turmoil. But soon he will have to decide whether to proceed with some of the priciest aircraft in the world - a new fleet of 28 Marine One helicopters that will each cost more than the last Air Force One.

A six-year-old project to build state-of-the-art presidential helicopters has bogged down in a contracting quagmire that will challenge Mr. Obama's desire to rein in military contracting expenses. The price tag has nearly doubled, production has fallen years behind schedule and much of the program has been frozen until the new administration figures out what to do about it.

Read the whole story here.

Comments

[evekendall]

I am 100% in favor of protecting our president, his staff, and equipment they would need if we were under attack. 28 Marine Ones does not sound like a big number for the Commander-in-Chief and needed personnel. If that is expensive, so be it. It is not a political issue. Future presidents (presumably of both parties) will be using this equipment for many years. Comparing the President of the U. S. to a bunch of failed CEOs with their hands out because they didn't do their jobs is ridiculous.

If we eliminated some of our wasteful defense spending, we could afford a lot of things. For instance, we have 761 military bases all over the world. That number does not include the bases located within the U. S. There are about 194 countries in the world. (194 countries, 761 bases ... kind of puts things in perspective, huh?) If we closed down some of those bases, we could probably afford it. In fact, most of them should be closed down. Do Russia or China have 761 military bases scattered all over the planet? No. And if they tried, the U. S. would have a fit. It seems we think we can do whatever we want, but every other country should do as we say, but I digress.

What I do object to is that the Bush administration gave the contract to a company that had no experience building helicopters and bypassed the company that did have the experience.

[evekendall]

"The US Has 761 Military Bases Across the Planet, and We Simply Never Talk About It"
September 8, 2008

http://www.alternet.org/story/97913/

[texanna]

Sheeesh! Didn't we just get him a brand new car? Can't he just drive to Andrews? As for those trips to Camp David, does he really need a fleet of helicopters to get there? I say, if it's so perilous for him to be riding around in a helicopter that we need to make it effectively an attack weapon, maybe he shouldn't be riding around in it! Save some money, Mr. Pres, tighten your belt a bit and show us how it's done.

[LeftRight]

First, it's SAFER in the Helicopter than it is on the ground.

Second, it's CHEAPER in the Helicopter for trips outside Washington than it is on the ground.

Third, this is something that started during CLINTON'S term, and has been placed in a boondoggle under BUSH'S term, which means that it's NOT Obama's fault, so learn to read please!

[texanna]

Data, please to validate your first and second assertions. As to third, I don't care where the boondoggle started, I'd like some of that changey stuff to happen here and for it to stop.

[sheikwil4]

Wait just one got dang minute. Where was all this out cry when other Presidents were getting new cars or new helicopters, there wasn't this great out cry. Now that we have the first AA President, everyone wants to watch our spending, but President Obama has gotten 3 times the death threats than any other President in history because the U.S. is filled with so many crazy people and total idiots, that we need to do everything possible to keep our President safe. You see how many people were stupid enough to vote for John McCain even though he picked that idiot Sarah Palin as VP when he is a 3 time cancer survivor, this goes to show who stupid a lot of Americans are, but we are a free country so only in America would an idiot pick John McCain and Sarah Palin. They better do whatever it takes to keep President Obama and his family safe because if anythings happens to him, they will find out what hell breaking lose really means.

[texanna]

I couldn't care less if Pres Obama were polka-dotted; I really just don't think that we should be outfitting the Executive Branch with a helicopter that could be used in combat if it were painted different colors. If they really need helicopters, cancel the current contract and get back together with Sikorsky and at least buy American!

[swlewis57]

Scrap the program, start bidding again with AMERICAN companies, build the damn copters.

Gezz, how blasted hard is that? Idiots. I am sick of this bull that is going on with weapons systems in the Pentagon.

[MarcInCA]

Good lord...28? Why do they need so many? I understand 6 or 8, but 28???

[Seven7s]

Sorry but the President's (especially this one) safety is paramount and should be insured at any expense. That should be a no-brainer.

Why this is even a story is proof that there is still a double standard and an undercurrent of jealousy among those in media.

[Ramirez]

It's a lot of money and it's a bloated cost overrun. Still, it's time for an upgrade and the helicopter fleet will most likely be in service for 20-25 years. Just get it done.

[frantaylor]

There doesn't exist a helicopter that isn't a lot of money and a cost overrun. They are maintenance nightmares, they need hours and hours of maintenance for each hour in the air. I have engineer friends at Boeing who will not set foot in a helicopter, they think that helicopters are too complex and cannot be made reliable.

[SouthernBlueBelle]

Sounds like a win-win. Obama and future presidents will be safer (always a +) and it will be an added stimulus to the economy.

[olamide90]

Why the double standard when it comes to Obama! What is going on with these media. Why do you people make something out of nothing.

Very soon, the media are going to be telling him when and how to sleep with his wife.

I mean God! this is sick, please stop. You, the media are becoming less and less valuable. The media just don't get it! People don't believe what is coming out your tube anymore.

When will the GOP and the media learn!

[destruct1]

"Very soon, the media are going to be telling him when and how to sleep with his wife."....­This is what O'bobo wants. Not the media.

[Soulsurfer]

Nice moniker, very positive.

[ChiGuy]

"A six-year-old project to build state-of-the-art presidential helicopter­s..."
__________­__________­__________­__________­__________­__________­_

This project was started by your M'oron-in-Chief, six years ago.

Save your r_acist name calling for your weekly cross b'urnings.

[kathy001]

I'm not understanding why so many journalists are referring to President Obama as Mr. Obama. I thought that it was inapproproate to call the President of the U.S. by Mr. Am I wrong or is this another sign of the state of our educational system - or is it an intended swipe at the President?

[Ramirez]

This is not unusual. Presidents are routinely referred to as "Mr." It is an accepted alternate form of respectful address.

[All57States]

But this isn't any President, he is.....The One.

[rhettisha]

The etiquette is to use, President Obama, in the first reference and Mr. Obama in subsequent references, as they did in this NYT article.

[kathy001]

Ah! Thank you!

[jade7243]

On first reference, one should refer to the President with his title and first and last names, on subsequent references one should either use "Mr. Obama," or "President Obama." In person, you say "Good morning, Mr. President (or President Obama)" and on subsequent acknowledgments you call him "Sir."

If you sent Mr. Obama a St. Valentine's Day card, it might read, "To Sir, With Love."

[kathy001]

LOL! Thanks.

[Seven7s]

You are wrong. Mr. is acceptable as far as journalism goes. Actually just saying his last name is correct.

Now as far as simple respect goes....th­ats a personal decision really. I say President Obama myself.

[BlueBoomer]

I've noticed that too...I had assumed when I heard them say "Mr. Bush" during Bush's administration, especially in the later months, that it was a subtle dis...

I don't see why they don't say "President Obama"...Y­ou would think that the way they like to hear the sound of their own voices they would go for that extra syllable!

And while we're on the subject of journalistic protocol, in a recent story on Cheney, the talking head (I don't remember now who/where it was), kept referring to him as "the vice president", suggesting to the casual listener that they were referring to the CURRENT VP, Joe Biden.

So, this note to journalists everywhere: When referring to Dick CHeney, if you are using his title instead of his name, it's THE FORMER VICE PRESIDENT.­..or of course, SATAN.

[youngat80]

I'm relying on my memory again -- I understand that the title President or Vice President is retained when the person no longer holds the office. So it is proper to refer to President Bush, President Carter, Vice President Gore or Senator Dole. Of course, in a written article it may be necessary to use the term 'former' when several persons are included in the article.

[957]

Oh but it would create jobs, who cares what it costs,

[hortonhearsawho2]

CheeseWhiz­er...

[Opt1musPr1me]

Besides the program being so expensive and off schedule, i don't think this is something that should be up for debate. The current fleet of helicopters are old and have many mechanical problems. If you ask me I think they have been in service too long and need to be replaced ASAP. Obama should go see it through. The country's current economic crisis should not trump the safety of the President. The sea kings are outdated is probably not very secure. Get those new helicopters in. In a few more years maybe they will turn a A380 into the new air force one.

[Just2stressed]

If he's going to take any of them, it should not be 10. 10 choppers is way too many, concerning the economic state the country is in.

[hortonhearsawho2]

Based on ?

[jcwtts1]

Of course it should be 10. They aren't all stationed at the white house and they are needed in the case of disaster for continuity of government. Look, some idiot wrote that Obama should be flying commercial right after the election when he was going to Hawaii. The reality is he travels with an army. 20 30 guys with tons of weapons and electronics. He travels in a helicopter because it is safer and faster and the President should be exempt from some of these rules. It doesn't make him a hypocrite. He is the President. His safety is of paramount importance.

[reliant1]

As it stands now - choppers are loaded up and flown to almost every Presidential location. Our President doesn't fly in other countries craft - for obvious reasons. Every lengthy trip - across America or overseas - involves multiple choppers being shipped ahead of time and all the crew needed to maintain them and fly them and then back up crews for all of them.

There will always be 3 to 4 Marine 1's shipped ahead of time to where ever any President is destined.

Given the globe spanning and globe hopping nature of the American Presidency today - 28 is not an excessive number.

The costs and over runs and bloated budgets and favoritism and use of the cheapest bidder - is the fault of no one - except the US Congress.

What a friend we have in Congress..­.

[jade7243]

Congress loves me, this I know....

[HonorJusticeTruth]

The discussion shouldn't be centered around whether we want the President, whoever he or she is, to be safe, but as to why the program is so expensive and off schedule.

Doesn't matter who's building the things, the way the DOD and their contractors do business is a sham. If anyone believes that the bidding process results in realistic bids, I have some land in Florida... Next, the design/build process is chaotic and loaded with redundancies. Doesn't matter how many times a radio installation is done, the next time a new one is contemplated, it's back to step one. (Don't tell me about antennas, please, I do this stuff for a living). And there is no end to threat management and the number of scenarios that can be evoked. Do we worry about aliens? Bush probably did.

The suppliers have the ability to figure out how to do things right, but they never find the incentive to do so. Not even when contracts are pulled. Blame it on something other than corporate incompetence. These things aren't simple. Air Force One wasn't, but it was done in a much more cost effective manner than much of what is done today, which isn't saying much (I was there). Air Force Two is worse. (There on that one, too).

By the way, aren't these Lockheed/Martin aircraft also being pushed for search and rescue?

[Tom Joad]

correct. I do wonder why there is a need for 28 of these aircraft - don't we have transport planes large enough to move these around the world if they are needed? It also seems that the individual costs of these helicopters is rather high. I am all for protecting Our President, but there has to be a sense of reason accompanying that desire.

[jcwtts1]

One of the things I think hampers accurate bidding is the lowest bidder rule. Sometimes you have to pay for quality. Now I understand the system is open for abuse but is this system working any better. How about not going with the lowest bid, but the most accurate one and no cost over runs. If they over run the cost they eat it.

[wagthedog1001]

This comparison doesn't fly. Comparing the President of the United States to a Wall Street CEO?

Come on, the Captains of the Universe are far more important!

[hortonhearsawho2]

the agrument Fly's with Pigs...

[widestancepinkelephants]

There's is no money in the kitty so scrap them. The military will bankrupt this nation eventually.
Less bombs more books. We are becoming a military welfare state.

[discourse jockey]

"becoming"? You pretty well know we've been for decades.