Was a Superbowl Flyover Worth the $
 

Discuss

[url=http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=yhoo-ept_sports_nfl_experts-319475]The Super Bowl flyover may have cost $450,000. Was it worth it? - NFL - Yahoo! Sports[/url]

[url=http://www.khou.com/news/texas-news/Super-Bowl-flyover-costs-taxpayers-450000-115109249.html]Super Bowl flyover costs taxpayers $450,000 | khou.com | khou.com Texas News[/url]

re: Was a Superbowl Flyover Worth the $
 

I am not sure how I feel about this. More to follow

re: Was a Superbowl Flyover Worth the $
 

Not over a domed stadium. Navy justifying the $$$ as a recruiting tool....c'mon man.

re: Was a Superbowl Flyover Worth the $
 

It really makes you wonder how much all the other flyovers and demonstrations the military makes add up to.

To fly over a closed roof, no it wasn't.

Re: Was a Superbowl Flyover Worth the $
 

Of course it was worth it! The economy is in the tank and people are losing their jobs and houses. It's the perfect time to blow half a million dollars on planes which no one sees.

Re: Was a Superbowl Flyover Worth the $
 

This encapsulates the problem with the US economy, and the government running a multi-trillion dollar economy. When you look at numbers that are huge, somehow the details get lost, and any one budget item doesn't look like that big a deal. BUT when you look at a 450,000 for a specific item you just know that that was a waste, and that flyover was a waste.

Re: Was a Superbowl Flyover Worth the $
 

As was said in the article(s), the pilots and the planes are going to get their air time one way or another. I don't see it as a big deal.

Re: Was a Superbowl Flyover Worth the $
 

I'm guessing when it was planned they figure the dome would have been open. With the cold weather they decided to close the dome but they did not cancel the fly over. Now we know why they charged people $200 to stand in the parking lot to watch the game/fly over.

I'd like to know why it cost us $450,000 to fly 4 jets. We own the Jets, pilots are salary, and fuel alone cannot be that much. If it did cost that much then I'm floored to think what it cost us a day here as navy jets are flying non stop. Just ask anyone who lives by a base.

Re: Was a Superbowl Flyover Worth the $
 

[quote=firstdown;783985]I'm guessing when it was planned they figure the dome would have been open. With the cold weather they decided to close the dome but they did not cancel the fly over. Now we know why they charged people $200 to stand in the parking lot to watch the game/fly over.

I'd like to know why it cost us $450,000 to fly 4 jets. We own the Jets, pilots are salary, and fuel alone cannot be that much. If it did cost that much then I'm floored to think what it cost us a day here as navy jets are flying non stop. Just ask anyone who lives by a base.[/quote]

Well, the report says:
[quote]A [B]Dallas TV reporter [/B]estimated that the flyover cost the Navy a total of $450,000. His total includes gas, operational costs and air time for the four F-18s, which traveled from Virginia to Texas for the event. The Navy told CNBC that its official records only [B]tallies the amount spent on gas, which came out to $109,000 for the Super Bowl flights.[/B][/quote]

IF that's true.....damn that's a lot of money. IF.

Re: Was a Superbowl Flyover Worth the $
 

I don't get operational cost and air time when we are flying jets 24/7 out of Va Beach. The $109,000 for gas makes sense which the NFL sould pay back to the tax payers. Other then that its pretty much just another practice run.

Re: Was a Superbowl Flyover Worth the $
 

I hired this plane and crew once upon a time at $1000 for about an hour ride.....good value

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s12JNAWsATc&feature=player_embedded#at=82"]YouTube - B-17 Bomber, TEXAS RAIDERS, Flight 2001[/URL]

Re: Was a Superbowl Flyover Worth the $
 

Houston, we have a [URL="http://wallstats.com/deathandtaxes/"]problem[/URL]. 150 million million for naval recruiting and advertising...not a bad deal in light of other defense expenditures.

Re: Was a Superbowl Flyover Worth the $
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;783976]This encapsulates the problem with the US economy, and the government running a multi-trillion dollar economy. When you look at numbers that are huge, somehow the details get lost, and any one budget item doesn't look like that big a deal. BUT when you look at a 450,000 for a specific item you just know that that was a waste, and that flyover was a waste.[/quote]

[quote=saden1;784032]Houston, we have a problem. 150 million million for naval recruiting and advertising...not a bad deal in light of other defense expenditures. [/quote]

Only idiots quote themselves, and yes I am a confirmed idiot.

This is the exact scenario I was talking about. Anyone can look at a flyover of a closed stadium (regardless of cost) and say that's an idiotic move (heck if it's a recruiting tool put an awesome video together and play it at that same instant on the big screens). But then you put it against a 150,000,000 naval recruiting budget, and you say "gee, that's not too bad". In fact, the question/comment should be what else are we paying for redundant or meaningless actions in that 150,000,000 budget, and could we maybe cut some of them, and still have an effective recruiting campaign.

I had never looked at recruiting budgets before, but you are telling me we need 150 million just to recruit for the navy? I mean, you already have a loyal base, name recognition, pride of service and we still need to put that much into it? I am a little shocked.

Re: Was a Superbowl Flyover Worth the $
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;784068]I had never looked at recruiting budgets before, but you are telling me we need 150 million just to recruit for the navy? I mean, you already have a loyal base, name recognition, pride of service and we still need to put that much into it? I am a little shocked.[/quote]Well, just throwing some rough numbers out there; divide the 150M by 50 states = 3M per state. Now figure 5 recruiting offices per state and you're at $ 600K / yr. per office. That includes all operating expenses and most likely personnel expenses. Could there be more efficiencies, probably, but it doesn't seem a gross over-expediture to me.

Shall we look at some of the other items on the Chart?
- 788M for DoL "One Stop Career" Centers
- 9.4B for HUD's Project Based Rental Assistance...I'm sure there's no fraud there
- 19.5B for HUD's Tenant Based Rental Assistance...ditto
- and how about (drum roll please) $ 251B for Interest on the National Debt, at an increase of 34% year over year.

Re: Was a Superbowl Flyover Worth the $
 

SS33, I, for one, think that the other areas you always mention make perfect sense in reducing the size and scope of government, but we need to also look at all the big guys; medicare, ss, and defense. But this topic was specifically about a (in my opinion) gross misuse of federal funds and something that the defense dept should re-evaluate. Pointing out non-defense issues just reinforces the perceptions that military spending should be off-limits - and it shouldn't

Re: Was a Superbowl Flyover Worth the $
 

Uh, what part of the flyover cost $450,000? I'm just pulling excrement out of my butt, .... but I'd like to think every time the Navy fly's a plane it does not cost $450,000. Plus the pilots have to get a certain number of day and night hours in flying a month. So why would it cost that much.

Oh wait I forgot, the Navy is apart of the government and the government likes to spend and or bill for 3 to 4 times what the actual price should be. The most the NFL should have to pay for is the gas for each plane.

Re: Was a Superbowl Flyover Worth the $
 

[quote=SBXVII;784097]Uh, what part of the flyover cost $450,000? I'm just pulling excrement out of my butt, .... but I'd like to think every time the Navy fly's a plane it does not cost $450,000. Plus the pilots have to get a certain number of day and night hours in flying a month. So why would it cost that much.

Oh wait I forgot, the Navy is a[B] part of the government and the government likes to spend and or bill for 3 to 4 times what the actual price should be.[/B] The most the NFL should have to pay for is the gas for each plane.[/quote]
It should make the new....Health Care Plan quite entertaining?

Re: Was a Superbowl Flyover Worth the $
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;784096]SS33, I, for one, think that the other areas you always mention make perfect sense in reducing the size and scope of government, but [B]we need to also look at all the big guys; medicare, ss,[/B] and defense[B].[/B] But this topic was specifically about a (in my opinion) gross misuse of federal funds and something that the defense dept should re-evaluate. Pointing out non-defense issues just reinforces the perceptions that military spending should be off-limits - and it shouldn't[/quote]Medicare, SS and Interest on the Debt are key. Defense is already being cut, I do a bunch of work with DoD and live in Hampton Roads...trust me the Obama Admin is doing a fine job of cutting defense.

Re: Was a Superbowl Flyover Worth the $
 

A little something to reinforce my point.....

[url=http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/14/obama-sends-trillion-budget-congress/]Obama Sends $3.7 Trillion Budget to Congress - FoxNews.com[/url]

From the link:
"While Obama's budget avoided painful choices in entitlement programs, it did call for $78 billion in reductions to Pentagon spending over the next decade by trimming what it views as unnecessary weapons programs such as the C-17 aircraft, the alternative engine for the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft and the Marine expeditionary vehicle."

Re: Was a Superbowl Flyover Worth the $
 

Obviously, Pres Obama won't set a call for the necessary cuts in Medicare/Medicaid/SS because his constituency would yell "cut Defense not us ", likewise the Republicans will attempt to cut medicare/medicaid/obamacare and hold off cutting defense because their constituency will yell "cut services not security". The key will be if both sides accept the cuts the other side puts forth, without bitter rhetoric: ie, a dem saying a republican wants to kill your kid, or a republican saying that a dem wants to leave the country open to terrorism).

It can't be an either/or when the final budget is signed, it needs to be across the board for there to be significant cuts.

Re: Was a Superbowl Flyover Worth the $
 

I have a problem with this, and every single military flyover. It has always been a huge waste of money.

If you are having the topic expenditure reduction, you can't make too many relative comparisons. That type of logic ultimately leads to no cuts.

450k or 100k, is money no matter how you look at it.

Re: Was a Superbowl Flyover Worth the $
 

I don't have a problem with the fly over I have a problem of why the NFL would not have to pay for the fly over.

Re: Was a Superbowl Flyover Worth the $
 

[quote=hooskins;784306]I have a problem with this, and every single military flyover. It has always been a huge waste of money.

If you are having the topic expenditure reduction, you can't make too many relative comparisons. That type of logic ultimately leads to no cuts.

[B]450k or 100k, is money no matter how you look at it[/B].[/quote]

EXACTLY....,that money could be better served purchasing to or three military extension ladders, or perhaps 4 hammers........at current
Federal bargain pricing???

Re: Was a Superbowl Flyover Worth the $
 

Well obviously, first. That doesn't need to be stated.

Re: Was a Superbowl Flyover Worth the $
 

[quote=Hog1;784313]EXACTLY....,that money could be better served purchasing to or three military extension ladders, or perhaps 4 hammers........at current
Federal bargain pricing???[/quote]Not saying there aren't instances of fraud, but in general those days are over. I can't speak to all areas of Fed contracting, but at least in IT procurement the Fed has gotten a lot smarter (go figure). For the most part the Fed is getting aggressive pricing on what they buy. The problem that increases costs are the many regulations that require compliance.

Re: Was a Superbowl Flyover Worth the $
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;784293]Obviously, Pres Obama won't set a call for the necessary cuts in Medicare/Medicaid/SS because his constituency would yell "cut Defense not us ", likewise the Republicans will attempt to cut medicare/medicaid/obamacare and hold off cutting defense because their constituency will yell "cut services not security". The key will be if both sides accept the cuts the other side puts forth, without bitter rhetoric: ie, a dem saying a republican wants to kill your kid, or a republican saying that a dem wants to leave the country open to terrorism).

It can't be an either/or when the final budget is signed, it needs to be across the board for there to be significant cuts.[/quote]I agree with you in theory, however of the "elephants in the room" you mention (let's throw in interest on the debt) defense spending is comparatively about 25% of the total $$$ that need to be looked at. Obama and the Dems have mostly ignored the recommendations of his own bi-partisan defecit reduction panel. Having control in the House is great, but we all know not much will get done without the Senate and WH committed to cost cutting. So we add another $ 3T to the National Debt (21%) for at least the next two years?

Also, just checked the National Debt Clock, our National Debt is almost at the level of GDP. Can you imagine having as much unsecured debt hanging over your head as your yearly income......and then adding 21% to that amount with no major increase in income on the horizon. It's f-ing insane.

Re: Was a Superbowl Flyover Worth the $
 

[quote=cpayne5;783979]As was said in the article(s), the pilots and the planes are going to get their air time one way or another. I don't see it as a big deal.[/quote]

This is true. I was in the Marine Corps as an Ordnancemen working on F/A-18's. I agree that they could have probably been doing something more productive with their flight... such as training.... but still the pilots do require a certain amount of flight time for certifications etc... Why not do it on something thats as much of a tradition in the NFL as singing the National Anthem... I'd have to ask is the money spent on that performance was worth it as well... with that said I believe that if at all possible (which I dont know if it even is) they should have opened the dome for long enough to do the flyover and then closed it again...

Re: Was a Superbowl Flyover Worth the $
 

I don't think you can throw interest on the debt into the mix of what should be cut, because we can't cut that. That has to be paid.

So, Defense([URL="http://useconomy.about.com/od/fiscalpolicy/p/US_Debt.htm"]$890 billion[/URL]), SS($730 billion), and Medicare/Medicaid($490 billion) are where we could really make a HUGE dent in the deficit/debt. And, I know you and I disagree, but Defense is the one area where we could literally stop all but the basics, ie freeze r & d, stop all but bare necessity recruiting (since the 450,000 flyover is the impetus for this conversation), and reduce oversea tours for Europe, and let the EU take up it's own defense. Without harming one US citizen, or putting the country in immediate risk, we could easily make a major dent in the deficit/debt. Put in provisions that re-fund R&D once we hit certain set points, and maybe put in automatic across the board cuts in Medicare/Medicaid/SS if deficit targets aren't reached. Of course, if you cut SS, medicare, medicaid, that is hurting fellow citizens, I agree it needs to be done, but I go back to the fact that we outspend [U]all[/U] the other nations combined in defense spending.

What if we simply agreed to set our Defense spending to whatever the top 2 potential adversaries are spending +10%.

Re: Was a Superbowl Flyover Worth the $
 

Chinese defense budget is listed at $60billion, and the Russian defense budget is listed at $75 billion, so maybe we set our defense spending at 2 times the sum of China and Russia. or $270 billion. That would be a savings of $620 Billion,or nearly half the deficit.

Re: Was a Superbowl Flyover Worth the $
 

[quote]Only idiots quote themselves, and yes I am a confirmed idiot.

This is the exact scenario I was talking about. Anyone can look at a flyover of a closed stadium (regardless of cost) and say that's an idiotic move (heck if it's a recruiting tool put an awesome video together and play it at that same instant on the big screens). But then you put it against a 150,000,000 naval recruiting budget, and you say "gee, that's not too bad". In fact, the question/comment should be what else are we paying for redundant or meaningless actions in that 150,000,000 budget, and could we maybe cut some of them, and still have an effective recruiting campaign.
[/quote]

I stand corrected, the Air Force spends 150 million, the Navy spends 260 million (army 545 million and the marines spend 1 billion). Not sure exactly how much they spend on recruiting vs advertising but I do know that they have a ton of commercials on TV. Honestly though, these guys aren't in the business of spending money wisely and why should they? No one holds them accountable and [URL="http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-02-14-budgetinside14_ST_N.htm"]the more you spend the more you get[/URL].

[quote]
I had never looked at recruiting budgets before, but you are telling me we need 150 million just to recruit for the navy? [B] I mean, you already have a loyal base, name recognition, pride of service and we still need to put that much into it?[/B] I am a little shocked.[/quote]

You overestimate the desire of the current generation to serve.

Re: Was a Superbowl Flyover Worth the $
 

[quote=saden1;784347]You overestimate the desire of the current generation to serve.[/quote]I know you have to consider personnel cost cuts in the DoD & USCG and the real effects on Main St. USA of the current economy, but all services are meeting their recruiting goals. There are also some forced separations upcoming in the USAF officer ranks. I don't think there's any less desire to serve by the current generation.

[url=http://www.military.com/news/article/services-exceed-2010-recruiting-goals.html]Services Exceed 2010 Recruiting Goals[/url]

Re: Was a Superbowl Flyover Worth the $
 

(army 545 million and the marines spend 1 billion).

Saden1 where did you get that information? I have to say I am a bit shocked to see someone say that the Marines, who have a history of doing more with less, would out spend the Army two times just for advertising. Also the Marines are the "Few and the Proud" because we are the smallest of all four branches of service. Not everyone can be a Marine.. Also their numbers have stayed steady at 212,000 since 2004. My son went to the recruiting office in August of 2009 to enlist. He spent 4 yrs Marine Corps option ROTC at his high school. They told him then because of being over filled that he had to wait until Feb. 2010 to go to MEPS (Military Enlistment Processing Station- for those who didnt know) and it was June 2010 before he would have been allowed to go to Parris Island. He was eventually disqualified because of a corrective knee surgery he had in 2006 that is/was by all accounts healed 100%. The boy runs 6 to 7 minute miles on a regular basis but wasnt allowed to join.. All that said it doesnt sound like the Marines are overly pressed to recruit anyone..

Re: Was a Superbowl Flyover Worth the $
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;784334]Chinese defense budget is listed at $60billion, and the Russian defense budget is listed at $75 billion, so maybe we set our defense spending at 2 times the sum of China and Russia. or $270 billion. That would be a savings of $620 Billion,or nearly half the deficit.[/quote]Keep in mind the Chinese and Russian military folks aren't getting paid anywhere near their US counterparts. I would love to see their budget numbers if their personnel were paid at even 50% what ours are. Keep in mind the US military expenditures are roughly as follows:

Personnel: $ 138B (up 2.6% from FY '10)
Operations & Maint: $ 200B (up 8.5% from FY '10)
Family Housing: $ 1.8B (down 19% from FY '10)

MILCON: $ 16.9B (down 20% from FY '10)
R & D: $ 76.1 (down 5% from FY '10)
Procurement: $ 112B (up 8% from FY '10)

Iraq & Afghanistan: Approx $ 159B, can we scale back there. At this point probably yes. But Obama could make that happen on his own, and he hasn't shown much desire to do that.

You mention cutting the defense budget wouldn't hurt a single US citizen, how about the US citizens that serve in the military. I would argue that fixing SS/Medicare/Medicaid would be far less painful to its recipients than involuntarily separating a large chunk of the military personnel or forcing existing personnel to work with equipment that is not properly maintained.

We can't just shut our bases overseas, how will we project force if necessary? What message would this send to our allies around the world?

On the National Debt, if we stop defecit spending the debt goes down and so does the interest on the debt. And we better get moving on that before interest rates start creeping back up.

Re: Was a Superbowl Flyover Worth the $
 

[quote=Tiggwin;784362](army 545 million and the marines spend 1 billion).

Saden1 where did you get that information? I have to say I am a bit shocked to see someone say that the Marines, who have a history of doing more with less, would out spend the Army two times just for advertising. Also the Marines are the "Few and the Proud" because we are the smallest of all four branches of service. Not everyone can be a Marine.. Also their numbers have stayed steady at 212,000 since 2004. My son went to the recruiting office in August of 2009 to enlist. He spent 4 yrs Marine Corps option ROTC at his high school. They told him then because of being over filled that he had to wait until Feb. 2010 to go to MEPS (Military Enlistment Processing Station- for those who didnt know) and it was June 2010 before he would have been allowed to go to Parris Island. He was eventually disqualified because of a corrective knee surgery he had in 2006 that is/was by all accounts healed 100%. The boy runs 6 to 7 minute miles on a regular basis but wasnt allowed to join.. All that said it doesnt sound like the Marines are overly pressed to recruit anyone..[/quote]I think USMC recuiting budget is approximately $ 290M, not sure on the Army. saden may have been including re-enlistment bonus numbers in the USMC or something like that.

Re: Was a Superbowl Flyover Worth the $
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;784369]I think USMC recuiting budget is approximately $ 290M, not sure on the Army. saden may have been including re-enlistment bonus numbers in the USMC or something like that.[/quote]

Well that sounds a little more like the Marine Corps I was in but still thats high when they arent letting kids who do enlist even go to basic training for about 10 months after they enlist. When I joined in 1987 I enlisted in June and was through MEPS and into Boot Camp by August 13th. Didnt take barely more than 2 months... now the time it takes to get in is 5 times that amount? Why spend more money...

Re: Was a Superbowl Flyover Worth the $
 

I would argue that fixing SS/Medicare/Medicaid....

Slinging Sammy I agree and I think I have a perfect as well as simple solution to fixing at least SS and Medicare. Take all of the politicians both past and present and instead of giving them the current "Golden Parachute" retirement plan and health benefits they have... put their a$$es on Social Security and Medicare.. those programs would be fixed faster than a cat could lick his A$$ with his tail up and tongue out!! haha excuse teh colorful colloquialism but in my opinion thats a fact!!

Re: Was a Superbowl Flyover Worth the $
 

[quote=Tiggwin;784382]I would argue that fixing SS/Medicare/Medicaid....

Slinging Sammy I agree and I think I have a perfect as well as simple solution to fixing at least SS and Medicare. Take all of the politicians both past and present and instead of giving them the current "Golden Parachute" retirement plan and health benefits they have... put their a$$es on Social Security and Medicare.. those programs would be fixed faster than a cat could lick his A$$ with his tail up and tongue out!! haha excuse teh colorful colloquialism but in my opinion thats a fact!![/quote]:food-smil

Re: Was a Superbowl Flyover Worth the $
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;784366]Keep in mind the Chinese and Russian military folks aren't getting paid anywhere near their US counterparts. I would love to see their budget numbers if their personnel were paid at even 50% what ours are. Keep in mind the US military expenditures are roughly as follows:

Personnel: $ 138B (up 2.6% from FY '10)
Operations & Maint: $ 200B (up 8.5% from FY '10)
Family Housing: $ 1.8B (down 19% from FY '10)

MILCON: $ 16.9B (down 20% from FY '10)
R & D: $ 76.1 (down 5% from FY '10)
Procurement: $ 112B (up 8% from FY '10)

Iraq & Afghanistan: Approx $ 159B, can we scale back there. At this point probably yes. But Obama could make that happen on his own, and he hasn't shown much desire to do that.

You mention cutting the defense budget wouldn't hurt a single US citizen, how about the US citizens that serve in the military. I would argue that fixing SS/Medicare/Medicaid would be far less painful to its recipients than involuntarily separating a large chunk of the military personnel or forcing existing personnel to work with equipment that is not properly maintained.

We can't just shut our bases overseas, how will we project force if necessary? What message would this send to our allies around the world?

On the National Debt, if we stop defecit spending the debt goes down and so does the interest on the debt. And we better get moving on that before interest rates start creeping back up.[/quote]

I guess I thought that it would be clear I wasn't really suggesting an immediate 670 Billion dollar reduction in defense spending, but I was trying to show that our expenditures in defense are far above the rest of the world's. If we were to cut that deep that fast yes the pain would be unbearable for the economy, as well as world stability. We can though take a step back, take a breath and put a hold on R&D, look at other ways to cut back. As we should with Medicare/Medicaid/SS.

This country is going to be in for a major shock if we think we can spend 1Trillion more than we take in, and if we don't act responsibly now, even the military will take the types of hits you say it can't afford.

Re: Was a Superbowl Flyover Worth the $
 

Much less than a trip to India with battleships.

Re: Was a Superbowl Flyover Worth the $
 

The cool thing is they probably left Va Beach around 5:30 and were back home by 7:30 and also includes doing the fly over. Man I'd love to fly in one of those jets.