The Fleet Liveth On
The Asian Badger has been doing some digging and found...
Nice to know our taxes dollars are being spent for important stuff….Like THREE! Pilatus aircraft going to Muncie, Indiana today.
Want to track the flights yourself? Take a look.
Go to Flight Aware.
Go to where it says airport code and type in KUES. That’s the airport code for Waukesha County (Crites Field). When the page comes up, look on the right where it says Departures. The page should look like this.
Look at the tail numbers for N387W, N395W and N389W. Just roll your cursor over those tail numbers. You will see they all went to Muncie, Indiana today. You will also see the above tail numbers are registered to the State of Wisconsin. WTF? Why are 18 people from what I assume is the governor’s office going to Muncie, Indiana?
You can also use Flight Aware to track any of the planes by typing in the above tail number into the area where it says “tail number” and see just where that plane is going as well as the flight history of that plane.
Now, the Pilatus PC-12 is an excellent aircraft. A new one goes for around $5.0 million I would guess. Fitted out for executive transport, it seats six. Plus a pilot and co-pilot. Here’s a nice view of a used PC-12 on ASO.com. As you can see, that little number is going for $3.4 million.
Now, here’s my questions for the Morons in Madistan. (Note…I don’t have a problem with the governor having access to a plane but……..)
Why are the taxpayers paying for three of these? I thought Pol Pot Doyle was selling off the fleet.
Why did the State buy a plane made in Switzerland? Piper aircraft aren’t good enough? Hell, the Meridian or Mirage is the same plane, essentially.
Why are 18 people going to Muncie, Indiana? It looks like at least two are staying overnight, too since I only see one scheduled departure from Muncie back to Truax.
Is it any wonder this state is a tax hell? Why are taxpayers paying for THREE PILATUS PC-12s???????????????????
I’d kind of like to know myself.
Hmmm. I’d like to know as well. Could maintaining such a fleet possibly be cheaper than using commercial airlines? At what point would it be, and could the amount of travel necessary to reach that point possibly be justified for a government?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 13, 2007 at 2255 hrs
It must be top secret. There’s nothing happening in Muncie today.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 13, 2007 at 2314 hrs
Let’s evaluate some of the numbers.
The Asian Badger is the airplane expert around here, so hopefully he’ll come over and fix my numbers.
One of those planes is $5 million. Let’s say that it has a 10 year depreciation schedule, so $500k per year.
What does a private pilot and co-pilot make? Maybe $150,000 together? That’s probably a bit low, but we’ll use it.
Storage? Airport fees? Etc.? Maybe $10,000 per year.
Operating costs? Fuel? Maintenance? Spare parts? Cleaning? Maybe $50,000 per year?
We’re at about $710,000 per year. At an average price of $500 per commercial ticket, that’s 1,420 flights per year. Divided by 6 people (assuming that the private plane always flies full), that’s just under 237 commercial flights per year per person. You’d have to be a traveling salesman to make that many flights in a year.
I can buy having one plane handy for when the governor has to run out for a natural disaster or something, but it seems that the fleet is a bit extravagant. At least, that’s what Doyle said when he was campaigning against McCallum.
Posted by Owen on November 13, 2007 at 2316 hrs
Think $1MM per year for the corporate-type aircraft….
That’s a lot of coach fares.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 14, 2007 at 0020 hrs
The writer says that it’s an “assumption” that it’s the governor.
Then, suddenly, it IS the governor. No proof that I can see (unless it was found in a copying machine!).
It certainly could be someone from the governor’s office. But couldn’t it be legislators? And of either party? Let’s get facts—and then, agreed, get answers as to the alleged sale of the fleet.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 14, 2007 at 0054 hrs
I agree that this isn’t right.
But I also find it despicable to call Doyle Pol Pot. Doyle maybe sleazy, dishonest and a scum bag , but Pol Pot- Doyle hasn’t killed millions of people, he just forces them to leave WI. because of the tax increases.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 14, 2007 at 0346 hrs
Just a question, does this have anything to do with the UWM mens’ basketball team playing Ball State tonight (in Muncie, Ind)? It is the right amount of people, and I am not sure why else anyone would be traveling to Muncie…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 14, 2007 at 0924 hrs
Kudos, Dan. Thank you for a voice of reason.
And kudos to Keld! Bet that’s it. Hmmmm, did the Asian Badger think, in all its rodent-like digging, to check athletic schedules? Or perhaps check on the Badgers’ schedule and forget that there are many other state basketball teams? And that one in Milwaukee is a lot closer to Crites Field than, oh, let’s say . . . the governor’s office?
Did the Asian Animal ask, at least, if a lot of those people flying out of Crites Field were really, really tall? Even taller than our lieutenant governor—but of the other gender?
If this it, I look forward to Owen’s attack on the cost of college athletics—especially those money-sucking Aggies. Oh, and West Point, too?!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 14, 2007 at 1418 hrs
He doesn’t care as much about who’s ON the planes. The bigger point of Asian Badger’s post is pretty clear in the last line:
Why are taxpayers paying for THREE PILATUS PC-12s???????????????????
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 14, 2007 at 1504 hrs
Exactly… I don’t see why the taxpayers should pay for private planes for college basketball players either. That might be even less justifiable than Doyle using the planes.
Posted by Owen on November 14, 2007 at 1616 hrs
Seems you could underwrite the cost of these planes by leasing their services to, say, college basketball teams. Is your argument that state universities should not have athletic teams that travel?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 14, 2007 at 1648 hrs
Do tax payers pay a significant portion of the UW-M athletic department expenses? That’s been a pretty good bball team the last few seasons. I’m betting they bring more revenue to UW-M than they take away.
I think the larger point, though, is that it makes you look like a tool to get all apoplectic about an issue before you have any facts whatsoever.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 14, 2007 at 1655 hrs
Hmmm…my little post created quite a stir. Here’s a a bulk reply to the above.
Owen…your numbers are close enough (#3). At approx. $2.1MM per year, the state could buy about 350 hours from a charter service and not have to worry about benefits for pilots and mechanics.
It appears UWM did charter the planes. I don’t care how UWM spends its athletic budget. Since that program, to the best of my knowledge, is NOT self supporting, it comes out of our pockets, too. It’s just a transfer of funds. I’m OK with that but I’d be happier if UWM was self sufficient in athletics.
Tracker (#11) I have no problem with travel. Hell, the Badgers charter planes all the time. But UW is self supporting and not a drain from my pocket. Come to think of it, Marquette is self-supporting, too. Sometimes, flying is the most efficient way to get there.
Kay, in your obtuseness (#5 & #8)...I assumed it was the governor inasmuch as it was HE who made a big deal about fleet when running for office. I didn’t know the state was in the business of chartering to itself. Sweet gig if you can get it.
Who cares what the cost of college athletics is? If the program is self supporting, I say go for it and travel in style. AFAIK, UW Madison is the only athletic department that is self-supporting.
I don’t have any trouble with a plane or two to get around if needed. According to the State DOA web page, they show that in addition to the PC-12, they also have a King Air. So what? Private planes if used correctly are great time management tools. I don’t begrudge Pol Pot, or any governor, or legislator if necessary, the use of a state-owned aircraft if it’s the most efficient and cost-effective way to do the state’s business.
Adamski (#9) EXACTLY!!!! Why do we need to pay for three of these (really nice) aircraft?
Posted by The Asian Badger on November 14, 2007 at 1805 hrs
Forgot to add…I wasn’t digging around for anything.
I was checking the arrival status of a friend of mine and saw the three PC-12s all leaving within a few minutes of each other. I was surprised to see we’re paying for them.
Posted by The Asian Badger on November 14, 2007 at 1807 hrs
Hardly any athletic programs are self-supporting.
You and I, the taxpayers, pay a considerable part of their costs. There have been superb studies of this—but to summarize, the programs’ statements of costs are great examples of creative accounting. They rarely include costs of, oh, buildings (capital costs) and many operating costs such as heat, light, water (LOTS of water), etc.
If you’re gonna presume the worst of the governor, you really wanna presume the worst on the cost of college athletic programs. So you really ought to care about the cost of them, as you’re paying a lot for them—and at UW-Madison, too.
Clearly, the only answer is: No more away games!
p.s. Look up the definition of obtuse. It applies, but not to me in this thread. . . .
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 14, 2007 at 1833 hrs
Every major school across the country is self supporting in athletics, Kay. So are all the private schools, big and small. Think Marquette gets taxpayer dollars? Think again.
Your comment about no away games is moronic. If you bother to read my post, I don’t really have a problem with tax dollars going to smaller schools.
If travel for athletics for men’s and women’s teams is part of the deal, well, so what? Just do what we as households and businesses do…stay within the budget and don’t get greedy with money you didn’t earn, but rather took from the taxpayers.
Posted by The Asian Badger on November 14, 2007 at 1905 hrs
Your record in reporting here is not convincing to me—and not compared, again, to the many, many studies of the real costs of athletic programs. You could look them up, easily googling to many studies, news stories (check the Chronicle, for one, as well as New York Times), etc.
As you say, what we and households do is count our overhead and all other operating costs in our budgets. Athletic programs don’t.
They just reap their revenue, their alumni donations, and the like, and allot it all to (increasingly huge) salaries, perks (travel!), etc.—and the overhead for all their facilities, utilities, etc., is charged off to general budgets of campuses. That is, those costs come out of tuition and tax-paid budgets and come at the cost of academic and other programs—the programs that are educating and serving their players to keep them on the roster to accrue all that revenue to athletic programs.
Btw, the most expensive by far, of course, are football programs, particularly at the level of Big Ten programs. And the real costs come in the bad years, when many programs still have to maintain all those costs when crowds are down, with far less revenue. That puts them in the red, in debt, badly—and that’s when they’re rescued by other parts of campus budgets, from your tax dollars and mine as well as other students’ tuition. Then those students get fewer and larger classes. . . .
Campus programs are farm teams for the pros. We all would be far better off if pro teams just set up farm teams—the soaring costs of higher ed would ease, the studies show. Think of only the astronomical salaries of the coaches, much higher than those of even the highest-paid administrators.
There is much discussion here (Dad29, are you here?) of cutting administrative costs in the UW. Start with athletics program administrators. They hardly teach, anyway—so what they earn, in good years, for the campus only goes back to their programs and not into teaching students, not into other programs teaching their students, to ease our taxes. Anything “extra” that they earn in good years with bigger crowds just goes to hike their salaries even more.
By that measure, for example, all the extra tuition revenue at some UW campuses with soaring enrollments—say, UWM, while Madison has cut back its enrollment—ought to go to the salaries of the faculty at those campuses, while Madison’s get cut. . . .
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 14, 2007 at 2154 hrs
Kay…in the spirit of the New Year, let me say this.
You are a fucking idiot.
Posted by The Asian Badger on December 29, 2007 at 0034 hrs
Total Entries: 19642
Total Comments: 129728
Most Recent Entry: 02/07/2012 09:25 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/08/2012 10:29 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 128
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/08/2012 12:03 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).