Was a Superbowl Flyover Worth the $

[KLHJ2]

Discuss

The Super Bowl flyover may have cost $450,000. Was it worth it? - NFL - Yahoo! Sports

Super Bowl flyover costs taxpayers $450,000 | khou.com | khou.com Texas News

[KLHJ2]

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

[Slingin Sammy 33]

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

[CRedskinsRule]

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.

[Lotus]

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.

[CRedskinsRule]

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.

[cpayne5]

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.

[firstdown]

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.

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by firstdown

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.

Well, the report says:

A Dallas TV reporter 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 tallies the amount spent on gas, which came out to $109,000 for the Super Bowl flights.

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

[firstdown]

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.

[Hog1]

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

YouTube - B-17 Bomber, TEXAS RAIDERS, Flight 2001

[saden1]

Houston, we have a problem. 150 million million for naval recruiting and advertising...not a bad deal in light of other defense expenditures.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

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.

Originally Posted by saden1

Houston, we have a problem. 150 million million for naval recruiting and advertising...not a bad deal in light of other defense expenditures.

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.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

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.

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.

[CRedskinsRule]

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