especially UP’s Heritage SD70ACes. At least UP did not have to persuade their senator or congressional rep to include taxpayer money in some congressional spending bill for the heritage paint jobs, unlike Alaska Airlines’ recently unveiled 737, the “Salmon Three Salmon”, which costed around $500,000 to paint at taxpayers expense, though the fishy paint scheme is kind of attractive.
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=553691
QUOTE: Originally posted by Lyon_Wonder
especially UP’s Heritage SD70ACes. At least UP did not have to persuade their senator or congressional rep to include taxpayer money in some congressional spending bill for the heritage paint jobs*, unlike Alaska Airlines’ recently unveiled 737, the “Salmon Three Salmon”, which costed around $500,000 to paint at taxpayers expense, though the fishy paint scheme is kind of attractive.
*Or the hotly-contested-by-uninformed-people presidential engine! [}:)]
ericsp
October 8, 2005, 12:03am
3
QUOTE: Originally posted by Lyon_Wonder
especially UP’s Heritage SD70ACes. At least UP did not have to persuade their senator or congressional rep to include taxpayer money in some congressional spending bill for the heritage paint jobs, unlike Alaska Airlines’ recently unveiled 737, the “Salmon Three Salmon”, which costed around $500,000 to paint at taxpayers expense, though the fishy paint scheme is kind of attractive.
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=553691
I think they should have painted a pig or a strip of bacon on that 737.
The UP 1982 used 52 gallons, the 1983, 54 gallons.
