Back to Squawk list

Trump Wanted a Cheaper Air Force One. So the USAF Is Buying a Bankrupt Russian Firm’s Undelivered 747s

Submitted
President Donald Trump said the projected cost of new Air Force One aircraft was too high, so the U.S. Air Force found a way to lower it: by buying a pair of Boeing 747 jetliners abandoned by a bankrupt Russian airline. (www.govexec.com) More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


usrepeaters
Rob Palmer 11
Used to work for Boeing, Seattle. I noted while there that the plane stays in the U.S. until after the bank cashier's check is received in hand. Since unable to pay, these planes have never left the country.
rwf01001
Robert Fleming 0
I don't see how the Government would be "WASTING" money. AIR FORCE ONE needs an upgrade and new jets.....as long as the Government can pay for these planes, how is it a "WASTE of $$$"?????
bettiem
bettiem 9
The words, "Bankrupt Russian Firm's" catch the eye but actually that's totally irrelevant. It's the word "Undelivered" that matters. So, ownership legalities and aircraft condition all being well, the USAF have been clever. That leaves the dangling question though about how long will it be before Air Force One will have to move on from 747s - and to what?
SoNic67
SoNic67 7
If 787 had four engines, it had better comfort (cabin pressure/humidity). But for reliability (and even cruise speed), there is nothing like 747-8.
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 2
The military has lots of 4 engined transports that could be adapted. Maybe I don't understand the engineering but pick one with the needed cubic feet of space and adapt it from there. If it's to be built there isn't much that can't be added or taken out including needed pressurization throughout. A custom design/build is always an option but is probably the most expensive. All things considered, Boeing will always have the ability to build the 747 as custom pieces. Even now they are planning to shut down the "assembly line" for the 747 series. No doubt something(s) will come along to change the thinking and design just like when they retired the 707, but don't think they threw away the plans.
birtsjoe
Joe Birts 2
The airframe is the least of the costs, it's the "customization" that involves the really big bucks.
fireftr
Dale Ballok 18
I'm all for anything government related where it saves money, instead of always hearing about govt wasting our money!
vicki500
vicki krieg 18
Please, can we keep politics out of this interesting article?!
chemexaz
che mex 10
agreed
PWAGSTAFF
PATTY WAGSTAFF -3
Simply, this is politics
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 3
Are you the one?
monalisa75
monalisa75 -1
It doesn't have to be politic. The topic is about this administration is saving money by by buying a reduced cost aircraft. just as if you bought a new car cheaper than your neighbor, no one give a damn what your political stanch are...coz we're not commenting on that, but the object itself, and everyone agree saving money is the best way to do it. It's not too hard to understand, isn't it?
joelwiley
joel wiley 0
I would agree with you, iff this was a private party transaction. With government purchases, politics is involved even down to filling potholes in the streets. If you don't believe that, check to see which pot holes get filled first.
Politics and government is an objective condition.
monalisa75
monalisa75 5
Understood. BUT, this article and was started to ONLY discuss from our industry, w/o politics getting involved. Simple as that.
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
Uh, not wanting to stray from the topic, but please notice that the article source is Government Executive Media Group. This report is not from the aviation industry per se.
AABABY
AABABY 14
After reading the article, I feel that it's a really good deal. 2 brand new A/C at a great price to build on. And, it helps Boeing's finances as well.
Please: no politically motivated remarks. I get all of the political rhetoric from facebook. No room for that here.

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

ilikerio
ilikerio 4
Looks like someone has yet to grow up..
RECOR10
RECOR10 -2
It was a joke - some have not grown up, many have no sense of humor, tense, tone or reality. Typical arrogant internet hero's.
chemexaz
che mex 2
and it was a good joke too....
gccooley
gary mitchell 0
Two Sun guy?
ssobol
Stefan Sobol 9
The problem is that modifying already built aircraft to the AF1 standards is probably going to be more expensive than building it that way in the first place. Adding A-A refueling system to an already completed airframe ain't going to be cheap or easy. Lots of wiring changes will be required, etc., etc.

As one mechanic once told me, the cheapest thing about owning an airplane is buying it.
w7psk
Ricky Scott 8
you do know that the 747 AF1s we have now were built to Civilian standards and then modified at Wichita don you?
Highflyer1950
Highflyer1950 1
Good point, however back then you could get one for $150mil or so., today not so much. Also, were the a/c delivered green without an interior? cheers.
w7psk
Ricky Scott 2
Yes, but that is about it, it was stripped and then rebuilt (I worked on it in Wichita) to engineering plans. So these would be stripped as well.
w7psk
Ricky Scott 1
Oh yea, due to many contractual constraints it was built as a Civilian model and SOLD to the Military side. If I remember it was only missing seats.
joelwiley
joel wiley 4
That depends on the discount obtained on the mothballed planes. The initial cost plus modifications may be less than on built from the ground up (including change orders during construction). I'd like to see the cost-benefit analysis done for the project, assuming one was done and this is not a political grandstand stunt.
AABABY
AABABY 1
Good point.
lroscioli
I bought a Cessna 150. Just about the cheapest airplane an individual can own. It cost me 30% of the purchase price every year in just maintenance... you are so right!!
annellandfrank
John Taylor -1
Yep Stefan;you're so right! Mine was only a Piper PA-28. And although I got it at a bargain price; between the insurance, hangar,maintenance, annuals etc.,the fixed expenses just became ridiculous. An old IP once told me never,never,ever own an airplane unless your in a business where it pays it's own way. Lesson learned; the hard way!:)
breadley
b oloughlin 1
Try owning an a/c and a boat at the same time. LMAO!!!!
annellandfrank
John Taylor 1
Intiendo absolutamente!! "Been there done that" Cheers...JFT
yakc130
Doug Zalud 12
My God! Can't we just discuss the airplanes? Take the political crap elsewhere.

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

fireftr
Dale Ballok 2
Put a lid on it
SoNic67
SoNic67 -3
I have lived in a totalitarian regime and you have zero clue what's like. Shut up...
chemexaz
che mex 2
I guess that the "shut up" comes from your respect of freedom of speech....
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 3
You got him on that one!!!
paultrubits
paul trubits 7
Is the USAF buying the 747's from the Russian airline or Boeing? It sounds like that they are buying them "off the lot" and not a special order.
Neatair
Edw Sanderson 7
It states, never delivered
scott8733
scott8733 6
Purchased from Boeing. They're at SoCal Logistics in the Mojave.
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 1
I am assuming from Boeing as the Russian airline went bankrupt and never took delivery and so I'm guessing are still Boeing's. That takes care of the base airplane, who is going to do the security upgrades, Boeing, a subcontractor? These articles are always short on information.

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

canuck44
canuck44 21
You might want to go back and read the article. They were never delivered and only flight tested.
It looks like Trump and the Air Force got two new airframes with only a few hours on them and even fewer cycles.
joelwiley
joel wiley 5
And they're not even showroom demo test drive units.
ReverendLee
Scott Lee 5
Still have the full factory warranty!
And that New Plane Smell™.
breadley
b oloughlin 2
I don't think he can read.
fireftr
Dale Ballok 5
I'm done here.
Tired of reading so much unrelated, political, opinionated dribble.
scott8733
scott8733 8
As Canuck44 alludes to below, the cost isn't so much the printer, as it is the ink. From this standpoint, the machine itself is less of an expense, compared to the component parts which need to be installed- in order to make AF-1 what it is. So, whether the A/C is a new 74 off the production line, a 74 in the Mojave, a shiny new 76, or a raggedy decades old B-52 for that matter....the machine expense pales in comparison to the costs of outfitting.

Sigh, this seems less about real cost savings realized than it does scoring political points.
ReverendLee
Scott Lee 1
Full list price of the airframes is somewhere near $780 million, and the reported budget request is north of $3.2 billion. Even if they get them as a 2-fer, the outfitting costs are far and away the greater amount. A savings of $390 million is nice and all (it's about 12% off the total amount reportedly budgeted), but yeah. It's politics.
SoNic67
SoNic67 2
That's a good deal!
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
For someone.
Highflyer1950
Highflyer1950 5
Now that's how you get the government to repay your debt for you?
allench1
allench1 1
which means us....gotta love these politicians! NOT
CHBHA
CB HARDY 2
The media is gonna have fun with this one(Trump-Russia-Air Force).
fireftr
Dale Ballok 1
Wowza!
timzah
Трамп молодец!
Есть ещё Ил-86/Ил-96. Надо попробовать
monalisa75
monalisa75 1
Was just wondering...anyone knows the actual number of $$$$ saved and how much the estimated cost to custom it?
Zaphod58
Steven Fortson 1
No. Under the terms of the contract and the department it falls under they don't have to release the cost of any of it until later.
iaincmaciver
Iain Maciver 1
So what happens to the current AF1 craft?? Scrapped or stripped and sold off?
Ruger9X19
Ruger9X19 7
Probably removal of sensitive equipment and a home in the Smithsonian or another museum.
jbsimms
James Simms 3
NUSAFM @ WPAFB wants one of the current AF1's. The Franklin Exhibits CEO wants to turn an ex-Evergreen International Airlines 747 into an Air Force One exhibit to allow th general public to see what AF1 looks like.

https://thepointsguy.com/2017/07/tour-air-force-one-747/
fireftr
Dale Ballok 1
James Simms:
Can you put that in English, so the rest of us can understand what you're referring to?
Zaphod58
Steven Fortson 2
The National Museum of t the Air Force at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base wants one of the current VC-25s for their Presidential gallery.
RECOR10
RECOR10 0
That story ticks me off. Does not take an airplane person to know what "Air Force One" is - "Marine One" maybe I give a pass to. People are so dumb.
Zaphod58
Steven Fortson 1
Probably flown for a little while under the Special Air Missions callsign, then sent to museums.
Highflyer1950
Highflyer1950 1
I wonder what the airframe times on both these VC 25's are?
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 2
Since they were never delivered to the customer it's the time the manufacturer pot on them in post production testing and the time for attempted delivery. Did you bother to read the article??
172s8460
Robert Fort 1
Some of the comments are stupid beyond any hope of redemption. Hope the imbeciles who posted them will eat crow if (as is likely) this turns out to be a good business move.
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 1
This batch of people are shopping product and price like I do every day. It remains to see if Boeing or the Air Force can make the necessary adaptions that make AF1 AF1 and not just a another B747. I guess we'll see. I suspect this president will never fly in it.
Zaphod58
Steven Fortson 2
He won't. The modifications start in 2019, and they won't reach IOC until 2024.
gccooley
gary mitchell 0
Refreshing to witness common sense again.
rjduwors
Robert DuWors 1
No, the origin of the plane is not irrelevant. How did this come to be known. Who else benefits from this "deal". What did they know in advance, when did they know it and how did they know it. What is the cash flow and where did it come. Which other "business associates" benefit. We the tax payers have the right to know. It is raw "politics" not be concerned about these questions.

Since Air Force One is a highly modified plane with a its own R&D plus production staff - will tearing this one apart and reconstructing it really be cheaper building one than from the ground up. About the only thing a Posieden P8 has in common with 737 Max that I see coming out the factory every day is the rough shape of the fuselage minus windows but even the wings are of totally different design.

Given the propensity to issue a stream of false statements, let's see the cost benefit before accepting this at proclaimed face value. If not - what do you have to hide? Apparently if not, there is always something to hide as spoken by the very same source.
AlanBDahl
Alan Dahl 3
Most likely if new aircraft had been constructed they would have been built as bare “green tail” aircraft and then modded so there’s likely little difference there. Since this aircraft was intended for a specific customer there are likely modifications that will need to be reversed and amenities that will need to be removed (like did they ever have seats installed). Likely this option will be cheaper both to the US Government and to Boeing but it won’t be an earth-shattering cost savings.

What this choice *will* do however is accelerate the delivery schedule for the aircraft. Articles I’ve seen indicate that they could come on-line 2-3 years earlier with this option. Since the -200s now in service cost a lot more to run and maintain than new -8s that’s where I suspect the bulk of the cost savings will come from, the operational side. Sounds like a win-win and I appluad the deal.
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 2
You may well be right and operationally, I suspect is where most of the potential savings are but President Trump complained about the build and acquisition costs when he "cancelled " the order. I'm not even sure if cancellation was the President's original intent, but it made 'America aware of the fleet of air traffic that is involved with each movement of Air Force One. I for one had no idea that when the two 747s moved several other aircraft convoyed with them. I saw it mentioned here that no less than 5 C17s tagged along and I suppose a short field capable airplane along with them. I'm sure there are more. I"m sorry to say, it makes the argument about separate transport for Obama's dog a bit spurious.
FedExCargoPilot
They could also just order a 767? It would be a lot cheaper.
ToddBaldwin3
Todd Baldwin 14
The USAF specifies four engines. Given the nature of the mission, those four engines make sense.
FedExCargoPilot
Interesting I did not know this..is that just for redundancies?
30west
30west 1
A FedEx Pilot asking "is that just for redundancies?" I think not.

FedExCargoPilot
Do you have an answer for it?
Ruger9X19
Ruger9X19 1
Simple answer is yes. Longer answer is that as a flying communications center, command and control post, TV studio, conference center, hospital, executive kitchen, nuclear harbinger of death and destruction, etc., Air Force One has massive electrical power requirements. It is also at some risk to receive potential battle damage (think GW Bush's flight into Iraq, operations like this aren't without risk), and the same risks as any other aircraft on trans oceanic flights, so the Air Force determined the minimum mission requirements require 4 engines.

Reference for four engine requirement quote:"Analyses of the capability requirements conclude a four-engine, wide body aircraft is required to meet the needs of the Air Force One mission." http://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/562748/af-identifies-boeing-747-8-platform-for-next-air-force-one/

Reference for power requirement quote: "In March 2017, following a series of requirements reviews, the White House reaffirmed the minimum set of requirements necessary to meet presidential mission needs. The modifications to the aircraft will include incorporating a mission communications system, electrical power upgrades, a medical facility, an executive interior, a self-defense system and autonomous ground operations capabilities." http://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1269250/air-force-awards-contract-for-two-747-8s-to-be-modified-as-future-air-force-one/
alpha12125
Marcel Alesi 3
Just for ETOPS, there are still places in the world where you cant fly with 2 engines. I would most likely assume that one of the main checklist items of the AF1 is being able to fly everywhere in the world.

Another thing is redundancy, you can always have a engine failure but 2 is highly unlikely and even with 2 engines failed the 747 can fly, with a 3 engine failure you can at least slow your descent significantly so you can hope you can make it to an airport. Thats pretty much the reason of 4 engines.
scott8733
scott8733 -4
Can't help but think- if my memory serves correct, the DC-10 (utilizing 3 engines) came out right around the time of the 74. Given McDonnell-Douglas was a rival to Boeing at that time, what type of backroom grease job went on between Boeing and the USAF to get that 4 engine requirement written in. Makes ya wonder.....
rjduwors
Robert DuWors 3
747 was by far the first wide bodied jet upon which Boeing bet the company. The DC-10 had a bad service record and disappeared from passenger service for good reason. It also failed to have redundant control networks which killed people on more than one occasion.
SoNic67
SoNic67 1
Actually it wasn't USAF. At that time every flight over ocean had to have 4 engines for redundancy. Requirement dropped to 3 later and now, for economy it seems that 2 is enough. I still buy tickets on 747 when I fly to Europe (Lufthansa).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS
THRUSTT
THRUSTT -5
Must've been a really good grease job in the back!!!!
tbpera
Tom Pera 7
should use a 767 for western hemisphere trips... why they need a 747-800 to whiz press around US...I don't know... 767 could easily accommodate all necessary security and comm gear
ReverendLee
Scott Lee 2
Typically, for a CONUS flight, AF1 is a C-32 (757). Only if it's a photo op, or a diplomatic mission do they take the VC-25.
tbpera
Tom Pera 2
you sure? AF1 is simple call sign of any plane press is in, but does he take a 757?
yakc130
Doug Zalud 1
You mean President, not press, right?
30west
30west 3
I think it's a typo with the extra "s", pres.
rjduwors
Robert DuWors 1
It is a call. A Cessna with the President on-board is Air Force One. Didn't you see the Harrison Ford movie? :-)
usrepeaters
Rob Palmer 1
Agreed, if I were wealthy I would not want to have a 747 as a private plane. I would feel over-patronized.
bizprop
Roy Troughton 1
Unfortunately the Air Force requirements are for a four engine aircraft. Gives them very limited options.
Zaphod58
Steven Fortson 1
ETOPS is irrelevant if the Air Force requirements are four engines.
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell -1
I'm so glad you understand all the costs of labor and materials and have done an in depth accounting of the costs of both aircraft. If Sparkie would have given an answer like that I may tend to take it more seriously.
gccooley
gary mitchell 1
Refreshing to witness some common sense in Govt.
RECOR10
RECOR10 1
One guy did have a good point. Is it "cheaper" but more? I mean, there has GOT to be holes, wiring harness' and all kinds of things that would be "production" that will not be "alteration".
w7psk
Ricky Scott 4
The original 747 AF1s were factory A/C that then were taken to Wichita and modified. This would be no different.
ed7778
Better strip the interior down to the frame like the Chinese do. There will be bugs.
Zaphod58
Steven Fortson 1
They have been stored in California. I'd be impressed if they were bugged considering they went from Paine Field to California into storage.
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 1
Lotta Chinese in CA.
ed7778
The anti-Trump, open-borders Democratic People's Republic of Mexifornia. I stand by my statement.
Gordo412
Gordon Musch 1
Having watched AF 1 perform full power ultra steep climbs in Virginia over the James River I do not see those plans being all able to protect. They look like they perform an almost verticle climb. Well maybe 60 degree climb. Something only a Dreamliner can do these days.
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 1
I don't understand, why wouldn't they be able to?
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 1
Part of the AF1 upgrades is bigger power and mil spec engines
Ruger9X19
Ruger9X19 1
So these are new 747-8's that if the contract is awarded will be sold to the Air Force at presumably market value for a 747-8. So where are the "savings" coming in at? Is it just these planes are already built so will be delivered quickly, and time is money. Not saying that a faster timetable to delivery is a bad thing but is that really a savings?
allench1
allench1 6
ordered airplanes had deposits that would have been forfeited. They had no takers until now so would indicate a substantial markdown.
canuck44
canuck44 7
They would have gotten these at bottom prices for Boeing does not have a lot of folks looking for 748's and they were sitting in the desert and on their books. This is most likely like buying a printer...the initial purchase is cheap but the ink is expensive. Boeing will have a second deal for spares and some maintenance down the road.
paultrubits
paul trubits 2
The Pratt and Whitney CEO was on TV a few weeks ago stating the they pretty much give their engines away knowing that they are going to make a boatload of $$$$ on parts and repairs.
rjduwors
Robert DuWors 1
GE too. This has been the business model for decades.
allench1
allench1 -1
That makes sense. seems like some bad business decisions to me.
tbpera
Tom Pera 2
bad decisions? buying two new 748s at bargain prices?
allench1
allench1 2
We are talking about BOEING!!!
tbpera
Tom Pera 2
oops...right!
canuck44
canuck44 2
This is probably making the best of a risky initial investment in an airline that had a high probability to default. Better to get them off the books than run up costs trying to keep them in shape in the desert.
AlanBDahl
Alan Dahl 2
If they come online 2-3 years earlier there should be substantial operational savings by retiring the -200s early (see my comment above).
Zaphod58
Steven Fortson 2
No plane is ever sold for market value. Boeing has already said they'll take a loss on the new aircraft, but the marketing value makes up for it.

There will almost certainly be a pretty significant discount on the airframe cost, simply because they've been sitting parked for two years now with no interest in them. They need to get them off the books.
fireftr
Dale Ballok 1
Exactly!
fedexman2
Eric Schmaltz 1
148 member comments? Pretty sad. Thought you guys were above this kind of drivel.
harrydanik
harrydanik -3
This is another "business pr" decision for consumption by the public/customer.
The Trumpstar does these kind of deals all the time.
By the time all the newest electro-armament is installed, these puppies will cost a small fortune.
fireftr
Dale Ballok 1
AF1's have ALWAYS cost a small fortune! What's so different now?

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

alexa320
alex hidveghy 2
and you seem to have a speech impediment! Must be a you-know-what......

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

THRUSTT
THRUSTT 1
I'm not affiliated with the Democratic Party, but does being one really make you cynical and angry???
gosports1
Will the New 747-800 have a Portrait of President Trump on the Tail instead of a U S Flag.
E1craZ4life
Edward Bardes -2
I can smell CNN getting wind of this and blowing this out of proportion.
chemexaz
che mex -2
Trump has changed his name...
rwf01001
Robert Fleming -8
What does Trump care about the NEW AF-1, because he won't even be in office when those planes are delivered!
Cadefoster
Cade foster 2
He cares about them because he wants to SAVE taxpayers money. Prior President wanted to spend more of OUR money on new 747-8's so this is a WIN for taxpayers.
carlosalvarez
CARLOS ALVAREZ 2
This will not save us anything, you will still be paying the same taxes and the savings will go to some other bullshit Govt spending.
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 3
That has little to do with saving money on two 747 airplanes. Looks to me like if you want to save money and get anything done you're going to have to stop believing you have an honest congressman or senator and consider replacing them at election day.
fireftr
Dale Ballok 1
Thanks for your enlightening addition to this forum on AF1😩
jrodriguezpr
Joel Rodriguez -3
Keep drinking that cool aid
bentwing60
bentwing60 -4
5 years huh? 1 squawk huh. Take a hike!

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

chemexaz
che mex -9
really...Trump doesn't care about anyone but himself..
mm9135
Marty Miller -6
Been watching CNN, again? Sigh!
chemexaz
che mex -3
you should watch CNN too and stop watching the FOX propaganda machine...
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 4
Now now. We all have our own propaganda that we follow whether it comes from CNN, ABC, Fox or some other single source. I don't want to hear about it here in an flight forum. Go find some other place.
tbpera
Tom Pera 8
watch both...and then make up your own mind..if you can
joelwiley
joel wiley -6
He cares about them because he thinks this will make him look good.

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

davidhwells
David Wells 6
Donald Trump's regular jaunts to his Mar-a-Lago club in Florida appear to be costing taxpayers a small fortune. The president's three trips have probably cost the federal Treasury about $10 million, the Washington Post estimates, based on an October 2016 Government Accountability Office analysis of White House travel.

By comparison, Barack Obama's travel expenses averaged just $12.1 million during each year of his presidency. In total, Obama's eight year travel bill came to $97 million and unbelievably, Donald Trump is on pace to outspend him in less than one year. The Washington Post says "the elaborate lifestyle of America’s first family is straining the Secret Service and security officials, stirring financial and logistical concerns in several local communities, and costing far beyond what has been typical for previous presidents."
jagerardi
jagerardi -4
Kinda a dumb remark when you figure that President Trump pays for the stay at Mar-a-Lago out of his own pocket. That means it's just the transportation and security, and that's pretty much the same regardless of WHO'S in the oval office.

..Joe
ReverendLee
Scott Lee 7
And you think that the security detail stays at Mar-A-Lago for free? How about the fact that the Secret Service has been forced to move out of their Trump Tower suites and relocate to a mobile command post (a trailer) on the street in New York City because Trump was charging them for the use of the space for his family's protection?

It's not the President's lodgings that are the waste in this equation. It's the total number of trips that's the cost killer. Trump stays a Mar-A-Lago for free. But he sure charges everyone else. Every trip to Mar-A-Lago that Trump has made is a profit for him, and cost the U.S. taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars.

And those trips to 'Safe States' (like West Virginia) for those pep rallies where he says things like "the Russia thing is a hoax" and "investigate Hillary's 33,000 emails" cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars each.
rjduwors
Robert DuWors 7
Bull. He makes money on every SS gulf cart ride, bedroom, dinner, etc. etc. The Man lines his pocket with government expenses that he generates for himself. Did the same thing to shmucks who contributed to his campaign. Grow up. After this orgy of exploitation, laws will be enforced and the Constitution followed.
Highflyer1950
Highflyer1950 1
joelwiley
joel wiley 5
That 'pays for the stay at Mar-a-Lago out of his own pocket' has a nice ring to it. However, you must realize that it also goes INTO his own pocket as well.
birtsjoe
Joe Birts 1
Doubt if they actually send him a bill; but they probably bill the WH for his greens fee.
fireftr
Dale Ballok -1
What does the vacation travel costs of our Presidents have to do with the cost of a new AF1??????

Oh, ya, YOU can draw a parallel between the two, right?
Very sad
alexa320
alex hidveghy 3
In your dreams! How many golfing trips already? Far more than O and it's only 6 months. Do the math. If you can.....
chemexaz
che mex -1
Get your memory checked.... Trump is actually the first clown to become President...he makes G"W"Bush look good....incredible

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

Neatair
Edw Sanderson 3
He Mex. get off of here,and your snarky comments, How old are you.?Hey fellow airman, if it is stupid poliical , report it .
chemexaz
che mex -2
How old are you?.....older than your age....probably
jkcooney
Joseph Cooney 0
Great...love it !
lsharpe69
lsharpe69 0
Anyone who voted for this boob to be President? You got who you voted for. Our entire nation is in serious danger We've elected a man with no experience as a AFPP Mech to service a 787. Do you feel safe on this aircraft? I don't!
rwf01001
Robert Fleming 0
Imagine that....Trump doesn't want Boeing to handle the AIR FORCE ONE deal, but a BANKRUPT RUSSIAN FIRM'S PLANES!!!!!
ViperPilot1
Alan Nakamura -5
Price for the Airframes? Cost to concert over to VC-25 Specification? Will BLOTUS accept them since they're ... Old?
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 0
I had to Google BLOTUS...
Jaime1949
Jaime Terrassa -1
it's call greed
paulomurteira
Paulo Murteira -1
trump is an international joke. it's funny that the replacement of the AF1 came when he is in the WH, so he can brag (tweet a little more) about cuts and so on. History will tell (if not already) what a jerk and liar this man (is he?) is. he has no saying on the President's security or airplane choosing. that's for the protocol. we outsiders every day go to the news to find out what joke did trump did or do yesterday... it's a daily laugh this joke... USA what have you become under this guy?
bovineone
Jeff Lawson 0
(Duplicate Squawk Submitted)

New Air Force One to be converted Russian airliners

In an effort to cut some cost off the next presidential transport, the Air Force is reportedly in talks with Boeing to buy two 747s that had been produced for the now-bankrupt Russian airline, Transaero. The two jumbo jets were ordered by the airline in 2013, but Transaero went bankrupt in 2015, before it could pay for and take delivery of the airplanes, which are now sitting in the Mojave Desert awaiting a bargain shopper.

https://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/New-Air-Force-One-to-be-White-Tailed-747s-229449-1.html
Mikehartner06
Mike Hartner 0
(Duplicate Squawk Submitted)

Pentagon may turn Russian airline’s 747s into Air Force One

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Air Force, which has been looking for ways to lower the cost of new planes for Air Force One, is talking to Boeing about buying two jumbo jets that were ordered but never delivered to a now-defunct Russian airline.

The Air Force and Boeing confirmed Tuesday that they are working on a deal involving Boeing 747s but declined to disclose further details.

http://www.aviationfigure.com/pentagon-may-turn-russian-airlines-747s-air-force-one/

Login

Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!