SCAT15F From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 402 posts, RR: 0 Posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 11908 times:
The European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. and its Airbus commercial aircraft manufacturing subsidiary is not planning to compete against Boeing for the prestigious contract to supply three planes to transport future U.S. presidents, according to company officials.
"EADS North America's strategy for growth in the U.S. is based on bringing value to the U.S. warfighter; making industrial investments in the U.S. and in-sourcing high-technology defense and aerospace jobs," says Guy Hicks, the company's spokesman in Washington. "After careful review, we've determined that participation in the Air Force One program will not help us meet these business objectives."
Responses to a request for information from the U.S. Air Force are due today. This leaves Boeing as the only provider for an Air Force One platform. Boeing is exploring the 747-8 and 787 as candidates, according to a company official...
Art From Lebanon, joined Feb 2005, 2974 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 11865 times:
Quoting SCAT15F (Thread starter): Responses to a request for information from the U.S. Air Force are due today. This leaves Boeing as the only provider for an Air Force One platform.
Good. Boeing knows how to build Air Force One's. 3 more sales for the 748-I at super good margins?
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10569 posts, RR: 21 Reply 4, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 11790 times:
Quoting AC788 (Reply 2): wouldn't the 787 be lacking in size as a contender for Air Force One?
It's inferior in almost every way except cost.
Given the valuable cargo, I see "4 engines 4 ever" winning here.
PDXCessna206 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 11772 times:
You could see, for example, two 747-8Is and one 787.
You never know.
Maybe they are ordering three 747s for mission backups. Because when the two 747s are flying overseas, there is no complete backup that can take the place of one when one of the two used on those missions is being maintained.
It would make sense if they indeed needed a third as a backup since the current backup is not always there to backup.
N328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6226 posts, RR: 3 Reply 6, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 11692 times:
Would they be considering three newer aircraft (presumably 747-8I) to replace the two VC-25s and the E-4s with one type?
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6302 posts, RR: 39 Reply 7, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 11634 times:
I think the 787 is just smokescreen. AF1 will be a 748, period. And I think Airbus was smart to back out; the political fallout were they to win would make the tanker fuss look like a squabble in a kid's sandbox. For just three planes it wouldn't be worth it.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
Charles79 From Puerto Rico, joined Mar 2007, 1309 posts, RR: 5 Reply 8, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 11582 times:
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 7): the political fallout were they to win would make the tanker fuss look like a squabble in a kid's sandbox. For just three planes it wouldn't be worth it.
The unfortunate truth. Looks like my tax dollars won't be spent on the "best alternative" as chosen by a source selection board. Single source is seldom good news, nothing to keep the source's pricing honest. Sad.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26956 posts, RR: 83 Reply 9, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 11576 times:
Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 3): Why bid for a contract that you can not win.
Or it could be a case of why bid on a contract that even if you win, will cost you more to fulfill then you're being paid?
Airbus doesn't need to lose money just to fly POTUS around. I doubt the prestige is that great. Having him flying in a 747-200 certainly hasn't help 747-400 or 747-8I sales, has it?
I still would not count out alternatives. New president, new wind, new rationality.
As I suggested as example in another thread. Say NG or Lockheed buys 2-3 QF 747-400ER's and contracts Spirit to rebuild them to AF1 standard using basic mods from the current aircraft (doors, refuel, APU etc).
Low risk upgrade meeting all the specs, more range, more room, the QF machines are so new they haven't even had their first HMV yet.
Bennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 6392 posts, RR: 1 Reply 11, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 11545 times:
Firstly are they for sale.
Secondly if the USAF were interested in the B747-400ER, they could have bought them new rather than buying S/H and then gut them.
AirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2530 posts, RR: 6 Reply 12, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 11518 times:
Quoting Art (Reply 1): Good. Boeing knows how to build Air Force One's. 3 more sales for the 748-I at super good margins?
Let's just hope that Boeing doesn't let it go to their head and get lazy on the project - how about at least adding head's up guidance displays from the 737NG and 787 to the 748i flight deck which will otherwise resemble the current 744 flight but with LCD displays rather than CRT's; in that regard, how about special one-off flight decks for AF1 using larger LCD's from the 787 while their at it?
Quoting AC788 (Reply 2): I have a question though, wouldn't the 787 be lacking in size as a contender for Air Force One?
The 787 will replace the C-32 someday, but that isn't part of this deal.
QF reduces their 747-400 fleet while replacing them with A380's. I don't know the AF's original budget for this project, but I guess they could work something out.
Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 11): Secondly if the USAF were interested in the B747-400ER, they could have bought them new rather than buying S/H and then gut them.
They could have bought them a yrs ago. The RFI went out recently, Boeing stopped 747 production to reconfigure the assembly line (did they?).
It would mean much less uncertainty (the 747-8 / GENX will not be certified for a while). Contrary to the other QF 747-400s (Rolls Royce) the -400ER's have GE CF6-80C2 engines.
Moose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2020 posts, RR: 12 Reply 14, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 11508 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 10): As I suggested as example in another thread. Say NG or Lockheed buys 2-3 QF 747-400ER's and contracts Spirit to rebuild them to AF1 standard using basic mods from the current aircraft (doors, refuel, APU etc).
The request specifically states "The PAR aircraft will be a new-build, commercial derivative, wide-body aircraft..." A refurbished 744 is a non-starter.
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 11488 times:
Quoting Moose135 (Reply 14): The request specifically states "The PAR aircraft will be a new-build, commercial derivative, wide-body aircraft..." A refurbished 744 is a non-starter.
If e.g. Boeing cans the 747-8i or DOD wants some competition they'll simply adjust their request.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26956 posts, RR: 83 Reply 17, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 11434 times:
One of the reasons the VC-25 (and E-4) fleet is being replaced is the unavailability of spare parts. The same problem is going to affect the 747-400, eventually.
Also, with the amount of modifications that need to be made, it is likely easier with a new-build plane then a "previously flown" frame.
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6302 posts, RR: 39 Reply 19, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 11207 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 10): As I suggested as example in another thread. Say NG or Lockheed buys 2-3 QF 747-400ER's and contracts Spirit to rebuild them to AF1 standard using basic mods from the current aircraft (doors, refuel, APU etc).
Not a chance. The AF maintains the VC-25's like no other 747's in the world; they are just as interested in buying someone else's problems as you are in investing in real estate on Pluto.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 17): One of the reasons the VC-25 (and E-4) fleet is being replaced is the unavailability of spare parts. The same problem is going to affect the 747-400, eventually.
Also, with the amount of modifications that need to be made, it is likely easier with a new-build plane then a "previously flown" frame.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
DL767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 11022 times:
two 748s and one 788 would be interesting, use the 748s when the president goes out of the country and the 787 when he's traveling between states. But who knows. Maybe some 787/777 to replace the 757s. All i know is the 748 will be carrying the president and will look amazing!
AirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2530 posts, RR: 6 Reply 23, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 10906 times:
Quoting DL767captain (Reply 20): All i know is the 748 will be carrying the president and will look amazing!
Not if they continue to pass $850 Billion dollar spending bills, there won't be a country left to preside over!
Quoting Blackbird (Reply 21): I think the government needs to structure the program for the AF-1 replacement such so that only Boeing can win it.
AWACSooner From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1492 posts, RR: 1 Reply 24, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 10817 times:
Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 3): Why bid for a contract that you can not win.
Because, tanker politics aside...the US is pretty stringent as to USA manufacturing for all of its military equipment.
25 ZBBYLW: All this talk about the 748, would the US consider getting the 77W? It is probably comparative size with the 742s that they use now. The 748 is bigger
26 Bennett123: AWACsooner I was referring to Airbus, and repeat "Why bid for a contract that you can not win" ZBBYLW I see the point that you are making, but suspect
27 SEPilot: I think they want a four engined aircraft, not for safety but to avoid diversions. On a twin you have to divert to the nearest suitable airport in th
28 Keesje: Yes, but that is exactly what they would do by going for a 747-8i. By the time a 747-8i is in service for 2 yrs (2013) and the dod can order it, they
29 Par13del: Lets look at a couple things here: 1. Airbus builds cockpit commonality in the a/c as a main selling point, so unless Boeing uses Airbus type ratings
30 SEPilot: They are not looking for the first one until 2016. By that time the 748 should have plenty of experience. And they do not want a previously used airf
31 Zeke: Seen almost the exact same words before for the KC-X being used before, the changed the terms of the competition, NG and EADS/Airbus submit a bit, an
32 RedFlyer: I think even a quad with the POTUS on board would divert in the event of an engine out. A quad does make sense from a safety standpoint because if a
33 SEPilot: You have a point about missiles; however, on the National Geographic program just aired they made a point about not having to divert if they lost an
34 Zeke: Red, you cannot have it both ways, either the people who were claiming ETOPS is safer than a quad are right, or ETOPS is for accountants, and Boeing
35 Stitch: All I have said on the subject of the VC-25A is that I didn't see a reason to replace them in the near term (i.e. - the next few years) as some have
36 SEPilot: Well, if your family is an equal target for missiles as POTUS I congratulate you. Actually, I suspect there is far more attention paid to avoiding an
37 Zeke: That would be every EL-Al flight, and every aircraft in and out of war zones, e.g. the DLH A300 @ SDA. Why are those people less important ? Yes, tha
38 Par13del: Good points which some may not have thought of, but as it relates to the current B-747 that the US Air Force use, are they FAA certified and is it re
39 SEPilot: Good point. However, the risks here are known, and everybody flying in and out of these areas should be aware of them. AF1, however, has got to be ne
40 SEPilot: The 747 that is used for AF1 is technically not a 747 at all, but an Air Force VC-25. As such it is not subject to FAA regulations at all, AFAIK. How
41 Zeke: No AF1 is military VC-25 (USAF i.e. state aircraft), it is not FAA registered, the USAF does not need to follow any FAA regulations. Double standards
42 SEPilot: Why? As I said in my earlier post, I fly single engine planes, but I do not expect the AF to fly the president in them. Same with war zones; if peopl
43 RedFlyer: Ah, Zeke, my old friend, then if you expect your family to fly by the same standards as the POTUS then you better book them on an airline that has pl
44 Lexy: As far as I remember, the aerial refueling capability on both AF1's is gone. The "hump" is still there but it has since been covered up and determined
45 KC135TopBoom: They would give their left nut to get to build the next AF-1. But, they also know they have no chance of winning this contract, even if they offered
47 Revelation: I'm not sure I'd go that far, but clearly, an A380 flying as Air Force 1 would be worth a lot to Airbus. It'd lift their prestige even more that it a
48 Lexy: Correct, but they are not as easy to target as one would think.
49 KC135TopBoom: The USAF VC-25As are still air refuelable. The president's pilots still maintane their currency in air refueling, and the VC-25s each must refuel ave
50 SEPilot: Not according to the accident statistics. According to the research that I have done, exactly the same number of twins have crashed due to engine iss
51 RedFlyer: In any commercial venture the bean counters will always rule. That is why so many things are done the way they are. It doesn't mean it is necessarily
52 KC135TopBoom: That is true when you include the early B-707 and DC-8 operations, of the 1960s and late 1950s. It was also true in the early days of the B-737-100/-
53 SEPilot: Actually, the accidents I found were all in the late 70's, 80's and 90's, and none were early jets. I have forgotten the exact number, but I believe
54 MadameConcorde: The POTUS new limo is nicknamed "The Beast". I wonder what nickame they will find for the new AF1(s). Also I wonder if these new aircrafts will be as
56 Keesje: In another thread I did a quick & dirty VIP machine based on the 747-8F. Maybe an option for AF1 and the VIP's if Boeing deffers the -8i. Nett more s
57 Revelation: Too bad "WhaleJet" is already taken!
58 Stitch: I think such a thing would be perfectly viable for those roles. The USAF birds put the communications gear on the upper deck so they certainly don't
59 LMP737: With companies catching heat for taking delivery of corporate jets I don't think the decision ona new AF1 is going to happen very soon. In fact I woul
60 SEPilot: I don't think it will become an issue unless the economy really tanks. Then all bets are off. Besides, if they're smart, they'll pitch it as part of
61 LMP737: It would be an issue, just look at the heat those companies took over the issue of corporate jets. A new AF1 is the ultimate in corporate jets. Those
62 SEPilot: I don't think anyone disputes the need for the President to travel by "private jet." Do you really expect him to travel on the airlines like the rest
63 LMP737: No and I never said he should. What I have said is given the way companies have caught heat over corprate jets I think the President would be a bit h
64 Moose135: They will - based on the RFI, they do not anticipate bringing the new aircraft into service for nearly 10 years. The current VC-25s will be pushing 3
65 Dw747400: You see, private jets are a corporate excess, a new presidential transport is economic stimulus.
66 Stitch: The CEOs should have flown in on brand new jets. Starbucks, for example, is taking stick for preparing to acquire a new Gulfstream IV after laying of
67 SEPilot: Why? The president is trying to fling money in every direction possible; why not in this one? Of course they can. But the 748 will be more efficient
68 KC135TopBoom: Al Presidential Limos, since the Kennedy assasination have been called the beast. But, no one objects to Nancy Pelosi demanding, and getting a USAF C
69 Moose135: I'm surprised at you Boom, I thought you would know better than to repeat that old, misinformed, long-debunked story. At no time did she demand a C-3
70 FlyingClrs727: How many airports in the US can handle an A380 anyway? Even major airports like LAX that have handled 747's for four decades require upgrades to taxi
71 ThePointblank: Doesn't matter if the airport get shut down because a A380 arrives; if POTUS is arriving, the airport is shut down anyways for security reasons.
72 DocLightning: Please list the conditions that can cause two of four engines on a quad to fail without affecting the other two. I can only think of a spectacularly
73 Euclid: Sorry, but no. The very last 747-200 off the assembly line was a freighter for I think JAL. The SAA 747-200 Helderberg, that later crashed into the I
74 Stitch: My comment was referring to the 747-200B since the VC-25A does not use a freighter frame.
75 DocLightning: And had it been a twin, then the other engine would have been unaffected. So that doesn't count. I still can't imagine a situation other than a repea
76 Euclid: Oh, sorry. Thought I may have misunderstood your post but posted the reply just in case.
77 SEPilot: Not to belittle the British PM, but he does not have the same role in the world as does the POTUS. And if I were a Brit, I would think it appropriate
78 KC135TopBoom: Correct. IIRC, the El Al B-747-200F that crashed into and apartment complex in Amsterdam several years ago had a two engine failure on departure. A W
79 Stitch: Well an uncontained engine failure on one engine of a twin is unlikely to make it all the way through the fuselage to take out the other engine. And t
80 KC135TopBoom: It really depends on how the engine comes aprat in the uncontaimed failure. Those are unpredictable. All engines mounted in pods below the wing are d
81 Revelation: And BA demonstrated how one can fly from LA to MAN with one engine out on the 747. That's a pretty nice capability to have A twin can get 3-4 hour ETO
82 SEPilot: There have been at least two 737's (and one 727) that have had engines fall off in flight. They all landed safely.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 402 posts, 
From Lebanon, joined Feb 2005, 2974 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 69 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 6392 posts, 
From Puerto Rico, joined Mar 2007, 1309 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Spain, joined Sep 2005, 1426 posts, 
From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4450 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
