Alaskan senators get 500K in federal funds to paint a fish on a plane?

[MissCatholic]

Alaska Airlines takes flying fish to a whole new level
$500,000 grant from federal funding pays for custom paint job on company's passenger jet

By WESLEY LOY
Anchorage Daily News

So, you landed a big king salmon this summer? It can't compare to the colossal king Alaska Airlines plans to land this morning in Anchorage.

The Seattle-based carrier has painted nearly the full length of a Boeing 737-400 passenger jet as a wild Alaska king, or chinook, salmon. The airline has dubbed its flying fish the "Salmon-Thirty-Salmon."

It's a bold promotional move to celebrate wild Alaska seafood and also the carrier's role in hauling millions of pounds of fresh salmon, halibut, crab, shrimp and other seafood out of the state each year.

The fishy paint job was done on a grand scale, company spokesmen said. A team of 30 painters and airbrush artists used more than 140 gallons of paint and took 24 days to render the lifelike chinook -- triple the time normally needed to coat an airliner.

"There's no question, at least in my mind, that this is the finest airline art ever conceived," said Bill MacKay, the company's Anchorage-based senior vice president. "People will just be amazed at the detail."

A local nonprofit agency, the Alaska Fisheries Marketing Board, gave Alaska Airlines a $500,000 grant to paint the jet. The money came out of about $29 million in federal funding U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska and his congressional colleagues have appropriated to the marketing board, created in 2003, to promote and enhance the value of Alaska seafood. The senator's son, state Sen. Ben Stevens, is chairman of the agency's board of directors.

The state's commercial salmon industry has struggled for years due to competition from foreign, farm-raised salmon, but the promotional dollars are helping the industry make a comeback, said Bill Hines, the marketing board's executive director.

Many commercial fishermen and industry boosters have dreamed of seeing an Alaska Airlines jet emblazoned with a fish, Hines said. Alaska Airlines approached the marketing board with the idea, and the board awarded the grant.

"I thought the concept was absolutely right on," Hines said. "You have a flying billboard going all over the West Coast as well as places like Chicago, Denver, Dallas and Mexico."

Alaska Airlines spokesmen say the salmon jet will be part of the carrier's regular passenger fleet, which will take it across more of the country than the combination passenger-cargo jets that serve rural Alaska and carry much of the state's prodigious seafood harvest.

The jet isn't the airline's only plane with a themed paint job. It also has two jets bearing Walt Disney characters such as Mickey Mouse and Tinker Bell.

The salmon jet will fly four or five years before it needs new paint, and it's possible the chinook will get another tour, airline spokeswoman Amanda Tobin said.

Matt Yerbic, managing director of cargo, said Alaska Airlines will carry between 30 and 40 million pounds of seafood this year.

"That should be an all-time record for us," he said.

The salmon jet will call attention to the state's wild fish and the seafood industry's close partnership with Alaska Airlines, which serves many important Alaska fishing ports, airline executives said.

"We're hopeful this is going to create quite a stir," MacKay said. Hines is sure of that.

The jetliner is about 120 feet long, with the speckled blue and silver chinook running from just behind the pilot's window all the way back along the fuselage and, swish, up the tail fin.

"I mean, this thing is going to turn heads," Hines said. "It's a very visible symbol."

[CheeseWhiz]

Okay, so the Federal Government is using our money to paint fish on airplanes, or did I read this wrong?

[MODU]

No, a non-profit funding with federal funding paid to have the plane painted as a fish.  Of course, I would take back a matching dollar amount for wasted use of funds, so it would cost the non-profit $1Mill for the paint job when all is said and done. 

On the flip side, it'll be one heck of an advertising platform.  hahaha

[MissCatholic]

Okay, so the Federal Government is using our money to paint fish on airplanes, or did I read this wrong?

CORRECT

No wonder my friends on the right are jumping ship this is a total waste of money. also stevens got money to build a bridge for 50 people. cant remember what the cost is but its expensive.

[MODU]

I can support the bridge spending, but not this one.  And the only way to punish spending like this is to take away matching funding.  That would get their attention.  Of course, you'll begin to create a larger government to monitor all spending of federal funds if go down this road, which might end up costing more money than a $500K paint job.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The worst thing is, shouldn't this have cost at most $50k?

[MODU]

The worst thing is, shouldn't this have cost at most $50k?

From the sounds of the man power that went into it, probably not.  I would say $300K easily.  To airbrush such a large jet takes a lot of paint and a lot of time, especially when you read that they tried to get very detailed and life-like. 

If there is a picture, I'd like to see it.

[MissCatholic]

I can support the bridge spending, but not this one.  And the only way to punish spending like this is to take away matching funding.  That would get their attention.  Of course, you'll begin to create a larger government to monitor all spending of federal funds if go down this road, which might end up costing more money than a $500K paint job.

no the best way is to kick him out of office.

[MODU]

I can support the bridge spending, but not this one.  And the only way to punish spending like this is to take away matching funding.  That would get their attention.  Of course, you'll begin to create a larger government to monitor all spending of federal funds if go down this road, which might end up costing more money than a $500K paint job.

no the best way is to kick him out of office.

That is what elections are for.  However, until that time comes, you can recall funding.

[MissCatholic]

I can support the bridge spending, but not this one.  And the only way to punish spending like this is to take away matching funding.  That would get their attention.  Of course, you'll begin to create a larger government to monitor all spending of federal funds if go down this road, which might end up costing more money than a $500K paint job.

no the best way is to kick him out of office.

That is what elections are for.  However, until that time comes, you can recall funding.

not going to happen. have to qait for the republicans to pick a decent nominee to take him on. the democrats have a huge opportunity in the state but we have nobody

[MODU]

no the best way is to kick him out of office.

That is what elections are for.  However, until that time comes, you can recall funding.

not going to happen. have to qait for the republicans to pick a decent nominee to take him on. the democrats have a huge opportunity in the state but we have nobody

Then the people in Alaska are making their point by keeping him in office.  So, that goes back to what I said earlier.  Mis-use the funds, and we'll take some of it away from you.  Of course, is this a misuse of funds? 

[MaC]

Hmm, the abolition of the 16th amendment doesn't sound totally crazy when you consider that as long as it exists, government will continue to do stupid crap like this.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I always find it funny how people can work em selves up into fits of rage about tiny amounts of money (from a govt. point of view) being spent in ways they don't like, as if stopping all this will magically make the deficit disapper.

[Platypus]

giving me a tiny proportion of that money would do a lot more good then painting a fish did (or will ever do).

[Filuwaúrdjan]

giving me a tiny proportion of that money would do a lot more good then painting a fish did (or will ever do).

Maybe true but my point still stands

[MODU]

I saw the plane on tv last night.  It's actually quite cool looking.  hehehe

[John Dibble]

I always find it funny how people can work em selves up into fits of rage about tiny amounts of money (from a govt. point of view) being spent in ways they don't like, as if stopping all this will magically make the deficit disapper.

Well, do consider that those tiny amounts add up - one pork barrell project might only cost a million dollars, but get enough of them and it can cost billions.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Well, do consider that those tiny amounts add up - one pork barrell project might only cost a million dollars, but get enough of them and it can cost billions.

But (from a Govt. point of view) that's still not much money

What I find very funny actually, is people who favour big increases in spending in some areas (defense, education, etc, etc, etc) getting enraged and hysterical about this sort of thing

[John Dibble]

Well, do consider that those tiny amounts add up - one pork barrell project might only cost a million dollars, but get enough of them and it can cost billions.

But (from a Govt. point of view) that's still not much money

True enough, but if you allow such waste in these areas it tends to make waste elsewhere easier.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, it is a bit funny, though I guess such people think that the big things are actually useful and worth the extra expense.

[MODU]

that's all true, but the question comes back down to this:  Was the money spent wisely?  Will $500K to paint a plane increase demand for Alaskan fish?  Or would the $500K put into marketing and advertising on tv or in newspapers do more to boost demand?  Additionally, $500K would have gone a long way to pay for 4 employees (at roughly $60K in salary each) for a full years worth of work, rather than 30 painters for 3 weeks.  It's these type of things we need to consider.

[jimrtex]

If there is a picture, I'd like to see it.

Big  Fish Story

[MaC]

Well, do consider that those tiny amounts add up - one pork barrell project might only cost a million dollars, but get enough of them and it can cost billions.

But (from a Govt. point of view) that's still not much money

What I find very funny actually, is people who favour big increases in spending in some areas (defense, education, etc, etc, etc) getting enraged and hysterical about this sort of thing

Thing is (from a government point of veiw     )  there's a difference between a pet project and something important.  Dibble makes a great point.  $500,000 for a fish-waste of money.  $500,000 for fixing the highways-money put to better use.

But I say cut 90% of spending.  Cut 90% of taxing.

[CheeseWhiz]

Well, do consider that those tiny amounts add up - one pork barrell project might only cost a million dollars, but get enough of them and it can cost billions.

But (from a Govt. point of view) that's still not much money

What I find very funny actually, is people who favour big increases in spending in some areas (defense, education, etc, etc, etc) getting enraged and hysterical about this sort of thing

Well, I oppose more money into education or defense, I'm strongly in support of smarter spending for these things, fyi.

I also agree with Dibble, these things add up.  Even if it doesn't add up to too much, (from the Governments POV,) it still is a waste of money.

[David S]

$500,000 is a drop in the bucket compared to the $2 trillion  that the federal government blows every year, but this incident does demonstrate how careless government is with your tax dollars. The proper solution is to force the federal government to spend money only on those items specifically identified in article I section 8 of the constitution. Any congressmen who do otherwise should get the boot.