This is certainly a poor decision. To use the aircraft to fly over a football field is not spending taxpayer funds wisely. This is more like "How to foolishly spends taxpayer funds". What was the whole purpose of this?
It's a show of U.S. airpower and patriotism. They don't just randomly charter these fighters to do flyovers, the planes generally fly a training mission the same day and the flyover is just a brief diversion from that mission. Like bchewlett1 said, the money would have been spent regardless of if they had done the flyover
Please do not just believe what you hear and read put out by the media. My husband did this flyover after returning from 2 back to back deployments in afghanistan protecting our freedoms here at home. It did cost the Navy 109,000 in fuel cost but that is all beside the room and board for one night for the pilots to stay over in Navy barracks, not a fancy hotel. The journalist somehow came up with the number 450,00 to make the story sell.The money spent on the flyover would have been spent anyhow
Well, all well and good...however, Defense Dept. Form 2535, Request for Aerial Support, specifically states on Pg. 4, Section 3 that military flyovers cannot be furnished at events which will earn a profit for the sponsors. With Super Bowl ticket receipts being $200 million+, I'm sure the team owners made a hefty take on Feb. 6. --and the teams, not taxpayers, should have footed the $109,000 fuel bill as well as associated costs.
This is certainly a poor decision. To use the aircraft to fly over a football field is not spending taxpayer funds wisely. This is more like "How to foolishly spends taxpayer funds". What was the whole purpose of this?
allentusvany 4 months ago
@allentusvany
It's a show of U.S. airpower and patriotism. They don't just randomly charter these fighters to do flyovers, the planes generally fly a training mission the same day and the flyover is just a brief diversion from that mission. Like bchewlett1 said, the money would have been spent regardless of if they had done the flyover
flight1510 4 months ago
@allentusvany "spends" Love it
tommylentz 4 months ago
This costed U.S. taxpayers $450,000. There are better ways to spend taxpayer dollars and flying over the superbowl is not one of them.
claytungsten 1 year ago
@claytungsten and how do you know that?
gab1105 9 months ago
@claytungsten the real kicker was that they had the roof closed, so nobody saw them fly over...FAIL.
sfboy714 5 months ago
@claytungsten
apparently we need to spend that on education to help people, such as yourself, out more.
"this cost" not "this costed"
And by the way these types of procedures are very relevant as Combat pilots need a certain amount of training hours, and this count as those.
You're a fucking idiot. Get off the internet.
BC1Dan 5 months ago
Please do not just believe what you hear and read put out by the media. My husband did this flyover after returning from 2 back to back deployments in afghanistan protecting our freedoms here at home. It did cost the Navy 109,000 in fuel cost but that is all beside the room and board for one night for the pilots to stay over in Navy barracks, not a fancy hotel. The journalist somehow came up with the number 450,00 to make the story sell.The money spent on the flyover would have been spent anyhow
bchewlett1 1 year ago 2
Well, all well and good...however, Defense Dept. Form 2535, Request for Aerial Support, specifically states on Pg. 4, Section 3 that military flyovers cannot be furnished at events which will earn a profit for the sponsors. With Super Bowl ticket receipts being $200 million+, I'm sure the team owners made a hefty take on Feb. 6. --and the teams, not taxpayers, should have footed the $109,000 fuel bill as well as associated costs.
Keyease 1 year ago
@Keyease lies
sp00l 1 year ago