The U.S. Air Force is looking at replacing the Boeing 747-200B "VC-25A" aircraft which serve as Air Force One when the President is on board. The acquisition program was authorized late last week by Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition Frank Kendall. The authorization also reportedly includes new Marine One helicopters as well. (www.aero-news.net) More...
Lets face facts here. The present pair of Aircraft while they may not travel everyday with the president the y do fly almost daily for pilot training. This means the airframes do have a large number of hours on them. It is also true that the two aircraft are the best maintained planes in the world and are kept in almost showroom condition. Still they are old and parts for this 747-200 are hard to come by. It is time to replace then just as was done with the 707 aircraft which were replaced more often.
Now there are only two manufactures who can supply the type of four engine aircraft that is required for Presidential Conveyance. They would be the Boeing 747-8 and the Airbus A380.
I for one would not want the President of the United States being transported in an Aircraft built buy a totally foreign country. When the AF one aircraft lands it is a symbol of the United State regardless if the president is on board or not. It would not be much of a symbol if it was built by Airbus. That and the fact that the A380 is way to much aircraft for Presidential travel. The A380 cannot go into many of the airports the present 747-200 or the 747-8 can operate from.
To ask a manufacturer to design a new aircraft or to retrofit an existing aircraft with four engines is cost prohibitive. So contrary to the article stating the Joints Chiefs have sourcing choice they do not. The new twins for AF one have to a Boeing and they have to be the 747-8.
I know this is nitpicking, but in your 3rd para you state "When the AF one aircraft lands it is a symbol of the United States regardless if the president is on board or not." Well, whatever plane the President is on is designated as "Air Force One" but not until he's actually on board. (yeah, yeah - picky, picky, picky, but fact.) But I get your point and agree, it would seem unpatriotic to transport the President of the United States in a plane built elsewhere...Boeing all the way - go America!
The only problem is all the conveyances that travel along with the President. You have press, secret service, munitions (for SS), etc. That just simply wouldn't fit on a Lear.
If they stuck with the original configuration thats on the 200, there is no way they could stuff all of the equipment into a twin, hospital, dual APU's, etc. There is no other 747's maintained like these two, re-engine is the answer.
That would be the common sense approach but you are talking about the government here. They are going to be looking at the cost, but I'll bet nobody will look at the cost of pulling all that equipment or buying new stuff. They projected 30 years on that Airframe but I'll bet it doesn't have near the cycles that were originall projected and there is no better maintained aircraft in the world. I'm like you, hang new engines, and maybe upgrade some avionics if need and fly it.
Preacher, you are so right on..Boeing basically bought and payed for the airplane, because of cost over-runs. When I was picked to go to Witchita, I seen so much waste, all the interior seats, wall panels sitting on the hangar floor waiting to be installed, and one of Reagan's staff members came down and said "we don't like the colors" it had to be changed to desert hues, Boeing ate that. I can't even imagine what a new airplane would cost...
Don't overlook the fact the Air Force One serves as an aerial presidential command center. In the event of a national emergency, all functions of the President (and his/her cabinet and staff) must be able to be carried out on board that a/c. A 777 could work possibly, but a 747 is a much better option, given it's size, endurance, speed, and 4 engines. Plus, we're talking about AIR FORCE ONE...what other U.S. made a/c is befitting of the title? If you want the a/c size downgraded, you might as well have the President move out of the White House and into a townhouse. There are just some perks that come with being President of the United States, and lets face it, without those perks who the hell would even want the job??
Agreed. The Whale turns heads and garners respect worldwide. The Arrival of AF One anywhere is an *event*. It should be. Stick with Boeing, four engines, and the magnificent 747.
I'd take the job and fly myself in a light jet. Who wouldn't want a job that puts you in a position to sell favors to your friends and lobbyists for millions of dollars. Hell I'd buy the jet myself with all of the under the table money the president/congress is making.
A lot of times when Clinton was president, he would come in on AF1, into Little Rock AFB, at Jacksonville, about 20 miles out of LIT, but many other times, they got a grumman of some type up there(seems like it was a G5 but I can't remember, and it became AF1 when he was on board and he came into Central Flying Service at KLIT. I know they couldn't cram all that stuff into that plane
It's true that any a/c the President flies in is considered to be Air Force One (or Marine One if it's a copter)...but my point is that there still needs to be an aircraft that can serve as an airborne Executive command center (a flying White House) during normal times and times of a national emergency...a G5 is not that a/c.
Almost true, AF1 is any air force a/c the president is on, not any generic fixed wing, and marine 1 for any us marines a/c not just choppers, he is executive 1 on civil airplanes, army 1 on us army, etc.
I am not in favor of it at all. I am just saying that he did, and on a fairly regular basis during his first time. Now what the did with all that other stuff and whether AF1 was sitting out at LRAFB, I don't know.
I don't think any one of us knows precisely what is or is not required on board to bring the plane up to the standards required for it to become a flying White House, so that's pretty much a moot point.
All that command center stuff is overrated anyhow. A citation should do nicely. Now if somebody could just load that teleprompter with something other than bs. Lol
I think the appropriate presidential aircraft should be a simple private jet such as a Learjet or Citation. Anything large would just be a massive waste of money....
The President flies in Marine One more than any other aircraft. Obviously this rotorcraft is not capable of long international flights but it serves as the shuttle of choice and does save money and public inconvenience vs. deploying a ground based motorcade. A motorcade requires a great deal of planning, halts traffic along the entire route, and requires the use of many special purpose vehicles and personnel. As far as a new AF 1 is concerned, we would make a stronger statement to the world by refitting the existing aircraft and demonstrating we can be 'green' by conserving. Or in American Style, build a few more Bad-Ass Pompous Bigger –is-better SUV planes and ask China to finance them like everything else we buy. Can AF1 serve as a flying command center, absolutely? But so can a 737-900. Eisenhower and JFK didn’t seem to have any problems with the earlier N25000. Nixon made it to China and back on the aircraft. A 747 doesn’t make any better of a flying White House than any other aircraft. Our massive fleet of “Executive” aircraft can serve just as well and there are many of them in stock to choose from.
The plane need to match the passenger, in this case it's the leader of the free world, so a 747-800 converted for Air Force 1 capabilities is appropriate.
The president is not royalty. I know you have a hard time embracing that concept. And just how many of your tax dollars will be invested in this purchase?
LOL-not to bring up a sensitive subject, but I'd rather see our tax dollar spent on putting our President in a new plane and ensuring his safety than developing new technology to land on Mars. But that's just me - and I love spending money.
I was just pointing out that it's easy for James to say because he is from UK. I love to spend money. I just don't like how the government is spending my tax dollars. Besides, they will have to borrow the money. I'm paying cash for my plane after giving them and the state 41 percent. If they bought the planes and balanced the budget at the same time I would not bitch. Just me too.
Just more bureaucratic BS. If you can fly B-52's that are 50 years old, the President can certainly fly in a -200. Just a waste of a pot full of our tax dollars. Now when he takes a vacation with his family - tell me why he doesn't just put the VP in charge and take a Gulfstream? Save us a few of our hard-earned bucks.
There have been a lot of good comments and some fun, light-hearted ones. Bringing this ALL back in to perspective...
How many jets will have the capacity to have the following defense systems crammed in AND allow for the other things I will mention later?
Defenses: chaffing, laser, missiles,guns,EMP shielding,Nuclear shielding,radar "cloaking", not to mention what we don't know about.
Capacity: On board secure, and non secure, communications bay, kitchens, sleeping quarters, offices, meeting rooms, Secret Service, armory, surgical bay, spare parts for the aircraft, the "select" media pool (the others get to fly in another aircraft), Airborne Command Capabilities, and lest we forget, THE PRESIDENT and HIS FAMILY (at times). I am sure I left a few out.
Location accessibility: Personally, I would LOVE a C-5 fitted for the needs of the President, but not very realistic. Most airports in the world can easily handle a 747-200. A 47-8 is able to get in to even smaller airports, is more fuel efficient, much less of a sound wake, and as previously mentioned in the forum, AF-1 arriving, sitting there, and taking off are truly "EVENTS". I have had the honor of seeing AF-1 on several occasions. Beautiful! It makes me PROUD to be an American. THAT is OUR Aircraft!
Finally there is the SEVERE stress the "twins" are put under on a routine basis. They are out training for the most horrific events they can think of. Those aircraft are not just performing flights for the President. I once saw one, in the steepest climb, then roll to starboard, do an exceptionally tight turn, then OMG NOSE DIVE (okay my heart is back in my throat as I am writing this) and suddenly. after coming down to I would guess no more than 2,000, pull back up in another incredibly steep climb! I thought the President was going to dye right in front of me! (Obviously they were training.) That was scary and awesome to see. I hope I NEVER see it again! Once is enough for me. IF any of you have seen any of the footage of AF-1 on 9-11 you have a little insight as to what this aircraft may be called upon to provide at ANY point in time.
The air-frame, skin, engines, and body are put under MORE STRESS than the "normal" 47. It IS time to consider a NEW set. Yes there are a lot of different aircraft in the PAW. A 77-3, or above, still would not be able to provide what is needed in this case. I want OUR President to arrive safely, when traveling, period.
I have truly enjoyed all of the comments in here on this one.
Thank you for letting me lay out MY observations as to WHY it needs to be done. Take from this what you will. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. We need to make sure we respect that when people post. I will say this forum tends to be pretty darn good about that!
The first things to be replaced will be the rotary aircraft. THAT is coming right around the corner! The fixed wing is still a way off.
They should just use a tricked-out C-17. Lots of space, already in the inventory (spares, parts, etc.), and already proven. I the C-17 is too small, use a C-5.
I totally concur with toolguy105's assessment. The 47-8 is MUCH more fuel efficient, has a GREAT payload capability, and a greatly reduced sound wake. It can use a SHORTER runway (allowing easier access to smaller runway countries) and it still has the WORLD RECOGNIZED grandeur associated with the POTUS. I, for one, do NOT want AMERICA'S JET to be made MAINLY by a multi-country, EU, company. As it IS America's jet it should be American made.
The A380 would allow for a LOT more capacity. That is a given. It would not be able to land in Des Moines, Iowa or Houston, Hobby etc. It needs to be an aircraft which get's the JOB done. That includes visiting MANY smaller airports here at home and abroad.
Yes, these are the two absolutely best kept 47-2's in the WORLD, they need replaced. They do NOT operate under the "normal" tolerances of any other 47-2. These two beautiful aircraft have been, an continue to be, pushed to every possible scenario therefore putting EXTREME stress upon EVERY SINGLE ELEMENT of the aircraft.
When it comes down to it... whatever WE think just doesn't matter!
Oh, it matters. But that attitude is why half the people don't vote and why we got what we got. You may be happy with these jackweeds being treated like royalty but I am not. My ancestors fought and died to get rid of bluebloods.
Not really, the 800 is the logical choice, I doubt they would look at any twin engined machines. Although the 777 and maybe even 787 would be a pretty cool air force "1"
Although they should look at a twin, you are probably correct, which will only leave the 747. One must remember that the previous AF1 was a 707. That said, there are couple of things that may come out here. I noticed in that same requisition, there was also one for Marine 1. We all rember the flap a year or 2 back when the chopper replacement was proposed. From a 707 to a 747, regardless of the model, do they need that much extra room? As far as the twins, isn't the rest of the Andrews fleet all twins of various types. Personally, they are out there for the general public and the lesser importants in the administration. Pres out to fly them as well. I think as they delve into the cost, that is going to need to be a separate budget item as that is one USAF really has no power over as well as getting the scrutiny that Marine 1 got a while back.
Looking at the shape our leadership has put us in, I think some SWA 737's hand me downs ought to be just right.lol Really, I see nothing wrong with what they have. They can't be houred up and they can do a lot of upgrading for a fraction of the cost of new. Whatever!
Much like the government (and many US citizens), it's time to downsize and improve efficiency. I would think the 787 would suffice for the space needed, even if they go with the -900, or whatever numeric assignment denotes the largest Dreamliner series. If that's too small, let the press outlets pay to fly their reporters around. Why should the citizens continue to foot the bill for them?
This is the 2nd or 3rd comment about the press corp and all, as I, seem to be of the same opinion. Why should we foot the bill?????????? Without them taking up space we probably wouldn't need all that extra room.
Absolutely. Just because we hauled them around in the past is no reason to say it has to always be that way. No matter who wins this election or the next they need to be riding in what we got. They are not exactly junk. I would be interested to know the real hours on these birds. I find it hard to beleive they have anything close to what airlines fly.
It's not an A300, its an A310, and it is painted grey, not dark green. Also, the only CRJ's in use by the Canadian gov't are being used for airways calibration, and not used as a transport at all.
Mboette's right, is is an A310, operated 437 Squadron. Jon was probably confusing 412 squadron's Challenger CL601's with CRJs. Small correction mboette though. The CRJ's you are talking about are operated/owned by NavCanada, which is quite separate from the government really. It's a private 'non-profit' corporation.
Regardless of which side of this debate you are on, it is ironic that this comes out a few days after another FA squawk about USAF going out of business, especially with the possible funding sequestration looming on the horizon. Either they don't believe it will happen or they are just totally impervious to the the shape of everbody's pocketbook right now.
Its all obsolete no need to travel by airplane On my planet we chat by telecom. Just another way to piss taxpayer money away. Another 25 years this county will be a dictatorship They just keep chipping away at our rights in the name of national security Tap our phones strip us half naked to travel and build billion dollar bombers to bomb a hut up in the hills of who knows where Its out of control people We are lemmings going over a cliff They need a new airplane like I need a hemorrhoid
At estimated cost of $47000.00 an hour to fly airforce one the plane should not be used for puddle jumping nor does another 747 need to follow the first " wasting money "
I looked at the Air Force and Boeing web sites and they say that Airbus is not participating in the bid. They are now looking at the 747-8 or the 787. Personally I think the president traveling in a Dreamliner would show the world superior American ingenuity and engineering.
Presidents are replaceable. But we have B-52s and 707 generation tankers defending our country that are three or more decades lokder and hawe far more hours.
Let's get those who go in harms way to defend our nation some up to date aircraft before we get the president a new toy.
The current 747-200 "Air force One" is one pampered thoroughbred and should not be put out to pasture anytime soon. Although, I would like to correct the "Operating Cost" of the a/c, that was posted earlier. The Operating Cost for "Air Force 1 is $181,000.00 per hour. As far as "Cycles", she has been thru the ringer....no doubt...but that just shows you the "integrity" of a Boeing built aircraft...like the B-52. Just a little F.Y.I., The current AF-1 went thru 154 cycles alone...just flying George Sr. Home to Texas and back to D.C. 77 times within his term in office! You do the math at $181,000.00 per hour!
707's and B52's rock! I bet you ask the brave airmen and women who fly them and they tell you they not part with the beloved birds for all the tea in China...
I read on Wikipedia that Boeing will be offering the 787 Dreamliner for the project, did not say exclusively the 787 but it will be proposed. Boeing appears to agree with most of us, 787 is a good size, and the 787-800 is just too much
James, you can take what I said and blow it out your "APU"! I'm just giving you info on AirForce One. Don't understand why you think my post has "Zero Substance"! I'm just giving you my opinion, along with facts and research. The govenment is going to do what they are going to do, whether we like it or not.! We...the people, once again, don't have the control over the issue. I was giving my opinion. Isn't what this "Forum" is all about?
I don't see the Air Force and the Secret Service going for a twin engined replacement, as much as I like the 777 and the 787. And there is no way in hell they're buying Airbuses for this, so it's got to be the 747-8.
FYI... In 1939 President Franklin Roosevelt proclaimed August 19 to be National Aviation Day. The day coincides with the birthday of Orville Wright, who piloted the Wright Flyer. He and his brother Wilbur are given credit for building the world’s first successful airplane with aircraft controls that enabled them to steer the plane. Orville Wright made the first flight for 12 seconds and 120 feet around the site of Wright Brothers National Memorial on December 17, 1903. They were not the first to build and fly experimental aircraft but they are the first to invent aircraft controls that made fixed wing flight possible. The Wright brothers' status as inventors of the airplane has been an issue of debate, particularly as there were competing claims regarding other early aviators. Another national observation in the United States is Wright Brothers Day on December 17 each year.
Each year the president may issue a proclamation to: designate August 19 as National Aviation Day; call on government officials to display the flag of the United States on all government buildings on the day; and invite people living in the United States to observe the day with appropriate exercises to further stimulate interest in aviation in the United States.
Being a part of the Boeing Dreamliner Design Team I will say this about the 87... there is SOME potential there. While we ALL agree money is an issue this has been put in to budgets for quite some time now. Another member, I apologize for NOT having the exact name, made the Achilles heel point of the 87... TWO ENGINES. Pretty darn good safety records from the advent of the LR, 2 engine, Wide body aircraft. I HIGHLY doubt they would EVER trust the life of the POTUS to a mere 2 engines. They are GREAT engines just not enough of them!
At this point in time it is just a RFP to be issued, and even at that, in a few years from now. Who knows what will be the final DELIVERY date! Heck, the POTUS could be flying from DC to London in under an hour by then! ROTFL. :-)
(If the Pres. decides to fly in a CESSNA 152 it IS AF-1!) Wouldn't THAT be a sight!
I am still for the 47-8. THEY will do whatever THEY want. This HAS been a fun forum, there have been some GREAT ideas, and some VERY funny one's too. Thanks for launching this forum!
Happy flying everyone!
BTW... United is announcing a where they are planning on flying their initial 87's. I can't wait to give her the good ole' try!
At the risk of revealing my naivete, I ask the question: Does it actually matter that we know there is a plan for a new Air Force One either before the fact or even after the fact? Do "we" have the power or the privilege of waggling our finger and saying no, no, no, you can't buy that just yet?
Donna, you are always saying, change makes the world go 'round. I agree, too a certain point. There is nobody in office that I would consider a "Hero"! Neal Armstrong was a "Hero" in my eyes. And thankyou God for giving him life to experience and witness "Curiosity" and the amazing and unbelievable sights that he and the rest of the world saw on Mars. It's not a "dead planet"...it's just taking a time out. Neal Armsrong is a true hero to me. Maybe, it might behoove you to go to the conventions...not as a delgate but a USA commoner and voice your opinion. Can't hurt! This is not a polital forum. Let's stick with the subject on hand.
Well, that didn't hurt me a bit! And I was never on "Your Back"! I'm pleased, and I hope you are as well, to have had the chance to met Neal Armstrom. He was truely a great man with integrity and he was humble at the same time. I admire people like that! And maybe the most imortant thing of all...is that he loved the space program and the possibilies that would create in "space". And what we on Earth would, can and will do in the future.
The Fact Is, We are Now a Bankrupt Nation and Yes the 747's need to be parked so that our Elected Officials, who were Supposed to be Guiding Our Nation to Prosperity and the Pursuit Of Happiness, can travel in the mode they DESERVE ! My Vote is Cast for the Next Air Force One, A Beech 18!! Appropriate because Beech has been driven into Bankruptcy by these SAME LAME Gov't Officials who keep giving our DOD Contracts to FOREIGN Mfg.s Wake Up Americans! Stop rewarding people who are Taking Your Hard Earned Dollars and giving them to Foreigners!!
The reporters, aids and equipment ake a great deal of room. Besides even if Obama wins in November he would likely even fly on the new plane, if so it would toward the end of his terms. Thus, making quips about Obama is ridiculous.
YES! It DOES matter! Most people have NO IDEA the government is even paying attention to THIS! The outcry, over the new helicopters, caused THAT issue to be placed on the back burner. Look at it this way, if you will please, for every person whom states they are against something the candidate's staff members, and the government, see VOTES! Yes, YOUR opinion does matter! (It just doesn't matter all that much. :-p LOL!)
As a side bar, there is this little issue about TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. I have LITERALLY cut & pasted comments, on various issues, and sen them to MY Representatives. I have ALWAYS received a response. (Surprised the HE...double hockey sticks out of me!)
(But fyi, I said change makes the world go 'round ONCE.) Nor did I say anyone in office was a hero, but rather tongue in cheek, I alluded to how after they've left office and someone else has taken over, we then consider them the heroes. Now, I'm sure your advice is well intended (well, not really sure, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt) but it might behoove you to just GET OFF MY BACK.
PS-I personally knew Neil (not Neal) Armstrong ... he worked at Orbital Sciences and I had the pleasure of working with him many years ago.
Dee, I'm not sure which James you are responding to. You certainly are entitled to your opinion. I think the no substance remark was directed at me by a UK er who doesn't have a dog in the hunt. Those of us that pay US taxes certainly have a vested interest no matter which way you lean on the subject.
I guess I could have actually read the report… TWO F-22's cost that… So whatever - your argument of flight cost per hour is still kind of thin in my opinion!
Good to know. I asked because the following quote from the article raised the question for me: "The acquisition program was authorized late last week by Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition Frank Kendall" Many a slip 'twixt the cup and the lip, huh? (PS-re your "rolling in dough" jibe it's comforting to know that optimism still exists...funny man! lol)
You ain't gonna sell that to this administration. They want 4 bucks a gallon and more. And they used to bitch about Bush and Cheny being oil men. I don't exactly see the oil profits dwindling. Duh
That means 62.2% are lazy sheep being lead by the 37.8%. The elections are binding even if 1% turn out. That is why they want the goverent to take care of them. Sheep always need a keeper.
I didn't mean the get it as a smart Alec comment. I'll bet either presidential candidate would use a Cessna if it meant they could get 51% of those that do vote. Lol
I clearly misunderstood it. Thanks for explaining. 51% of the votes could sway a lot of choices I imagine...but I'll bet that Cessna would go the way of all campaign promises faster than a speeding bullet. Up up and away.
I know, and rightly so. That was a knee-jerk reaction to a prior post to me from someone else. I lean toward sarcasm which I need to keep on a shorter leash. mea culpa
I knew that-read the post. On so many of these posts it's hard not to get political because the politics are intertwined with the subject. Just proves to me the government is in too many things.lol
Good point. Both Obama and Romney went to Harvard, so it looks like we'll have a Harvard man in the White House no matter which one wins. I mean, assuming that some Lyndon LaRouche type doesn't win it lol.
It's funny to me that so many of the FAB 535 have made hundreds of millions of dollars for their personal wealth but they can't make the federal government break even. Go figure!
Yeah, it is crazy that with all the brilliant minds we have in this country that we can't come up with something better. Right now it seems that the only thing our elected officials (from both the major parties) can come up with are attack ads. I don't know whether to laugh or cry sometimes.
Don't forget there are (and likely will be) 2 of these bad boys built, likely at a cost of 450-500 million each, that if it is fully kitted like the existing planes are, half the cost of a B2 bomber. I think the plane that carries the leader of the most powerful country on earth deserves some latitude on getting a total kick butt 747-800, not too mention its only in proposal phase and likely 4 years away at best, and once in service will likely be around for 25-30 years. Let the Man have his plane....
In the view of the financial health of the US and Europe, now is not the time for a new Presidential conveyance. There is no good reason to replace the current (2) Air Force One. Since they don't rotate the same as a commercial 747, they're must be plenty of airframe time left on them.
Mr. Kendall needs to be replaced with a newer version.
I agree, Obama should kick in half as they never shut the engines down he travels so much. I really wish they actually had to pay to use it on campaigns. I guess they really could not afford to. The costs for him to run around to campaign is astronomical. All the planes, cars, hotels, staff etc. I bet if we really knew, the tax payers would demand he limit his activities. Much cheaper to put up jumbotrons in several locations while he stays in Washington and maybe work!! He needs to go anyway.
Everyone has raised some good points here. This issue kind of hits a raw nerve due to the many bail outs and wholesale rape of public money that have come squarely off the backs of mostly middle class Americans.
There is no good reason why this or any future administration deserve to have the hundreds of millions of dollars made available for luxury travel...with their friends on ANY aircraft whilst there is so much poverty and loss of jobs right here in our own backyard.
Don't get me wrong, I'm pro technology and love aviation technology, but now is just not the time for such a huge expenditure. Put the money where it's needed, into the hands of the jobless Americans HERE so we can start to rebuild all the industry and technology, (built off the backs of hard working Americans), that the government has so freely given away.
Remember they always fly with AF cargo planes as well, often a C5-A or a few C-17's to carry the vehicles. They bring two of the full size Prez limos we've all seen, a WH mobile comm van, a bunch of Suburbans and there's more. If they need a helicopter, they bring at least two of them. They don't use local rides, everything is hauled in from DC. Don't forget the advance teams of Secret Service agents in and out, on the smaller AF planes. And the protection teams on travel day.
I know on some overseas trips, they bring both 747's and a cargo plane of spare parts. They even bring equipment to test local Jet-A although the AF 747's can do mid air refueling which means more those aircraft need to be deployed.
Don't worry, for political campaign trips, his party reimburses the cost to the gov't. But only equal to the cost of a commercial ticket for each political person on board. Oh I almost forgot they separately fly a medical team around too. Some of this might be dated but you get the idea.
you make a good point however rather than just charge the pres. you need to see how much the senators and cabinet members spend a year for travel and expences, and mostly on wemen and eats. it is a lot of money at least this spends the money every four years these people spends every day and weekend
It's a shame the 747 cannot follow in the footsteps of the B-52. Upgrade, strengthen, upgrade and get every penny out of the 747 that may be squeezed out of it. I'm not saying keep the 747's for fifty-plus years, but why not use it as long as it may be used?
Save us all a buck. First make it illegal for him to us AF1 for re-election and fund raising trips. Second, keep current AF 1 but cut way back on its usage. Only for approved for trips over 1,000 miles, international travel, and strategic command situations. Third, for shorter trips, use a smaller business class jet. Heck, if they cut out the fund raising, reelection trips might get another 10 years out of AF1.
Lastly, let the guy fly commercial coach once in awhile like the rest of us normal folks. Be good for his attitude, and humility.
Planes are not like cars. Pilots have to actually fly them to stay current. There is only so much you can do in the simulator. Also planes that sit on the ground actually cost more money to maintain as they tend to develop certain problems that do not develop if flown regularly. I saw this with B52s that sat on alert for 45 days. It was lucky we got them off the ground after being on alert.
As for the President flying on a different aircraft. Sorry only the AF1 planes have the communications suite and equipment the President has to have when he travels. President Nixon during the oil embargo of the 70's flew commercial to California one time. What no one told anyone is that both AF1 and the spare were right behind the United flight the President was on. In case of an Emergency all three planes were to land at the nearest airport so the President could transfer to AF1.
James, I wish he could. I would love to ground AF1 and the entire 95th Squadron as a Perk the President and Congressional members, as well as certain Cabinet Secretaries and Military flag Officers do not warrant. Unfortunately In today's fast paced world commercial flights do not go where these people need to be when they need to be there or offer the security the need to have. Until we can find away around those problems the 95th Squadron will be alive an well living at Joint Base Andrews.
I strongly believe that if the Air Force looks into the 748, the gov't should be able to save in fuel costs in the long run. Besides, the 748 is almost comparable to the 742 with better engines, and can fly faster.
why not a 747-8 for international trips and a smaller, say 767/787 for western hemispheres trips.... frankly, I'd like to see "the chief" use a much smaller, more economical plane... makes me sick to see Bush/Obama fly all over the U.S. in the big, expensive 747... costs us, that's us taxpayers millions to operate the 747.. and it's unnecessary for trips in the U.S.
As was previously stated, it isn't about the luxury. It's about the capability. AF1 is a flying White House with all of the communications ability to let the president and other leadership run the government from aloft. When the president travels one never knows what crisis may come up. Lesser officials can and do use smaller aircraft but for the president there is no other option but Air Force One.
Just look at the capability of the iPhone. If they can put that level of technology into an iPhone, the they can fit whatever they need into a 787. Electronics have gotton so much smaller since the current 747-200's were built, that I am sure that the 787 will work just fine.
I get your point, but isn't that a bit like saying...hey, I have this new modern stove and we're moving into a smaller house, but surely it will fit because of its level of technology. Not much of an argument.
There's no way that the incremental operating cost of a 747 (vs a 767/787) for the extremely limited usage of the planes is more expensive than maintaining a completely separate, smaller fleet.
Just a note to all those whose comments make it clear they're fuming at the thought of the current president flying around in a newer, shinier, more expensive plane:
The article (read it!) says that the plan is to get an RFP out to the industry in 2015, with a contract possibly as early as 2016. This thing ain't gonna see Obama, even with his win this coming November.
I never thought that many of the airports that the current fleet goes into could accomodate them (Asheville Regional for example). They would find a way to make them work considering I doubt that the planes are ever at full gross.
The Obama gang does not care, look what Pelosi, when she was speaker of the House of Rep's raped the American taxpayers with her use of govt. airplane use
Was this not on the helicopter flap over Marine 1, or was it the original looking around USAF did a few years ago when they first took a look at an AF1 replacement? Reason for asking is that one of their divisions has a big helicopter plant in Columbus MS
On the heals of the NASA $$$$ waste .. our tax money to be wasted again ? What the heck is wrong with the numerous helo's and two AF-1 aircraft they have now ? I suppose, it will be be a new limo next, too .. With the current Presidential contest, some one at teh Pentagon, must of tought we'd miss this one as they attempt to sneak it in "under the radar" ...
They ALREADY have purchased a couple of new "Beast's"! So, the limo comes before the hilo's, which comes before the plane. Kind of reminds me of which came first...? :-)
I stand corrected on the A310 and color, my apologies. I do know the P.M will use a smaller aircraft for the ottawa-Toronto trip, not sure what it is though, either way, certainly no hospital or electronic nuclear command controls on board, maybe Obama and future American Presidents won't need that making the 747-800 a more economical of the rack "VIP" jet which boeing already manufactures.
