DEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 5126 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (8 years 10 months 9 hours ago) and read 12427 times:
Quoting PanAm_DC10 (Reply 3): Actually as these frames are now listed under Boeing Business Jets all BBJs are listed as North American as BBJ is in effect the customer and are based in North America
LOL! You got me there, friend. To throw in something crazier - maybe Canada took pity on Boeing and tried to help jumpstart 748i production by replacing their A310s. Or Putin took umbrage at being rebuffed by Airbus and decided to improve relations with the US instead and swap his Ilyushin for a 748i. Or 10 Downing finally convicing the Minister of the Exchequer that leasing a BBJ was rather demeaning and that an Intercontinental is more beffitting for the Royals.
747hogg From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 10 months 8 hours ago) and read 12307 times:
Yes, I felt with the poor service and endless hassels involved in flying these days, I'd buy a pair of pimped out '47's for me and my fellow A.net pals to fly around and spot in. Hope to have um' in a few months..... I'll let you now. Cheers Mate! Tyrone Rock-a-fella
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21910 posts, RR: 59
Reply 10, posted (8 years 10 months 6 hours ago) and read 11224 times:
Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 5): They'll be around for 30 more years. Even then, they'll have low hours/low cycles.
Keep hearing this, but there's no basis in fact to support it. Low cycles doesn't matter here. It's technology and safety, and they aren't going to retrofit the VC25s they have. They'll get new jets and spend the 2 years to appoint them. The old VC25s would remain in the Air Force fleet for other purposes, once stripped.
As the first VC25 approaches 20 years old, replacement will be planned. Further, if they want a quad, they better get the 748i before it's too late, as it's the last quad America will produce.
Once the government 757s get too old (many years off), wonder what will be around to replace them?
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Flyabunch From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 518 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (8 years 10 months 5 hours ago) and read 10552 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 10): As the first VC25 approaches 20 years old, replacement will be planned. Further, if they want a quad, they better get the 748i before it's too late, as it's the last quad America will produce.
At the time the VC25's were ordered, I seem to remember that even though the 744 was in the pipeline, they went with the 742 because it was a "proven technology". If that is correct, wouldn' the same thing apply here?
I personally think they should order it for the very reason you suggest. If they do not, they will not be able to ever get a quad again.
Wjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5624 posts, RR: 22
Reply 14, posted (8 years 10 months 5 hours ago) and read 10046 times:
You guys are kidding, right? The Air Force is going to order new Presidential aircraft without a competitive bid and in secret? Does anybody remember the Marine One presidential helicopter competition within the past couple of years? It was hard-fought and very public. So would be the VC-25 replacement.
To say that these aircraft might somehow need to be replaced anytime soon is just beyond cavil. Until very recently, they still flew the same airframes that took Nixon home after his impeachment, and nobody complained. The Air Force still flies C-5s and B-52s and old, old DC9s. There is a culture in military procurement of upgrading and refining existing equipment before just buying new. And believe me, those VC-25s are basically new.
Boeing Nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 10 months 3 hours ago) and read 9393 times:
Quoting Gary2880 (Reply 15): What about the "flying pentagons"? They are getting fairly old. Maybe it´s time to replace a couple.
did you read 1 single word of this thread appart from the first post?
The VC-25's have been discussed frequently, the E4-B's have not.
Quoting Wjcandee (Reply 14): The Air Force is going to order new Presidential aircraft without a competitive bid and in secret?
True, but there were other competitors around for the last bid (MD) and do you really think with all the political storms around A vs B lately that Airbus would be in contention? That just leaves one possiblility. A lot of other deals have been done in secret for the military you know.
Molykote From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 1343 posts, RR: 15
Reply 19, posted (8 years 10 months 3 hours ago) and read 9082 times:
Quoting Flyabunch (Reply 11): At the time the VC25's were ordered, I seem to remember that even though the 744 was in the pipeline, they went with the 742 because it was a "proven technology". If that is correct, wouldn' the same thing apply here?
Quoting Bohica (Reply 16): If I recall correctly, the VC25 has the 744 cockpit.
Quoting Boeing Nut (Reply 18): Don't believe so, it's based on the -200 platform. -400 engines yes.
My understanding was that the USAF insisted on having a flight engineer. This ruled out the 744 but didn't prohibit the implementation of some of the lessons learned.
I don't remember where I heard this (some TV show perhaps).
Wjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5624 posts, RR: 22
Reply 21, posted (8 years 10 months 3 hours ago) and read 8900 times:
Quoting Boeing Nut (Reply 17): do you really think with all the political storms around A vs B lately that Airbus would be in contention?
Yes, I absolutely do think that it would be in contention, and, moreso, that it would at least have an opportunity to bid. The 767 Tanker fiasco resulted in a positively Orwellian situation where the Japanese and Italians will be flying Boeing 767 tankers probably before there's even a decision on whether the US will take an Airbus or Boeing tanker. And, of course, what would happen is that a company like Lockheed or Northrop Grumman would be either the prime contractor or a significantly-involved contractor, just as with the tanker procurement.
"All the political storms", as you say, are precisely the things that mean that Boeing will not see a high-profile sole-source contract for many years to come. Boeing will not live down the Darlene Druyun disaster (which was stupid, stupid, stupid and completely unnecessary for Boeing to have done) anytime soon.
Pmk From United States of America, joined May 1999, 664 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (8 years 10 months 2 hours ago) and read 8706 times:
Well this is a guess, and just a guess, but with the mega mergers in Las Vegas with MGM/Mirage/Mandalay and Harrah's there is a need for large VIP jets. The Venetian which is only 4500 rooms purchased a 767 as did Wynn which is 2200 rooms. With MGM and Harrah's between they control about 15,000 hotel rooms each.
Just a thought.
: Why not? The USAF ordered the C-40B/Cs from BBJ (except the 2 C-40Cs they bought used). First, the USAF VC-25As are not full B-747-200Bs, they have t
: The liklihood of the US Government purchasing an Airbus aircraft for it's "Commander in Chief" has about as much chance as the A380 program failing..
: MAYBE SO. However, my point was that the Air Force is not going to buy two new planes for the President without at least giving the APPEARANCE of bid
: Or the Google guys decided that they didn't want to share a 767. However, private 747s would generally be considered too ostentatious for an American
: With all the Billionaires these days it could be Larry Elision from Oracle Corp. Paul Allen of Microsoft just built a Yact 400 feet long, has a 757, s
: Although unlikely, it's not inconceivable. Mere mention of "national security" would diffuse most opposition. Besides, with the A380 in the mess it's
: Not trying to be tacky here, but who are they going to compete against? Airbus? Illyushin? McDonnell Douglas is gone as an airliner builder and Lockh
: Ok, here is another wild guess. It's British Air. Here is my logic (or lack of), for years BA had been flying the Concorde between NY and London, char
: That is what I thought at first, but then AirforceOne will be around for a long time... remember the B707 based how long they lasted!! May be one is
: Again, I didn't say that Boeing wouldn't *win*; I said that there was no way that the Air Force was going to have a *secret* contract with Boeing for