BALHRWWCC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3057 times:
Ok Both the 747 aicraft used are now 18 years old and to say the least fuel burners.
So why has the US goverment not ordered for instance 2 x 773 aircraft to replace them. The fuel saving alone will be massive. Especially when he is doing 25min sectors from Paris to London on it.
Also the use the 757 and 737 aircraft. Does anyone know there variant?. What is the average age of the fleet?? Is there plans to replace them?
With the HUGE increase in gas/petrol prices shouldn't the president and the administration be seen to do what is best for the tax payers pocket. After all taxes is what fuels these aircarft!!
I know that in the UK there has been alot a publicity when Blair used BA's 777. However that was on longer sectors and the 777 is more fuel efficent than a 747-200!! On shorter flights such as to the US he used a Titan 757.
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 15281 posts, RR: 55 Reply 1, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3029 times:
Quoting BALHRWWCC (Thread starter): So why has the US goverment not ordered for instance 2 x 773 aircraft to replace them. The fuel saving alone will be massive
It's not in daily use, the airframe hours are so low why go for the expense of new aircraft. The acquisition costs of a new 777-300ER would be greater than the fuel savings vs the current Air Force 1.
Quoting BALHRWWCC (Thread starter): Especially when he is doing 25min sectors from Paris to London on it.
That's why he should use the 757 or BBJ for short hops.
Columba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 6505 posts, RR: 5 Reply 2, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3015 times:
Quoting BALHRWWCC (Thread starter): With the HUGE increase in gas/petrol prices shouldn't the president and the administration be seen to do what is best for the tax payers pocket. After all taxes is what fuels these aircarft!!
If I recall correctly the engines the VC 25A (AF1) uses are the same as on a 747-400.
Also the aircraft are paid for and since they are not used like a standard airliner fuel costs are not that important.
To order a brand new 77W and install all the equipment needed the costs would be too high as fuel savings would cover them.
But I agree on some routes the use of a Gulfstream, 737 or 757 would have been better. Especially within the US when the president does not need to bring all of his entourage.
Maybe this will change with a new president and we will see Obama or McCain using the 757 more often.
Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans - John Lennon
Sprout5199 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1673 posts, RR: 2 Reply 3, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2974 times:
Quoting Columba (Reply 2): But I agree on some routes the use of a Gulfstream, 737 or 757 would have been better. Especially within the US when the president does not need to bring all of his entourage.
It's not the "President" that brings the entourage, its the USSS that brings it. The amount of fuel the the VC-25's us is little to the amount of fuel that the C-17's use or the C-5's use to bring Marine 1, all the USSS vans,cars and trucks.
Quoting BALHRWWCC (Thread starter): So why has the US goverment not ordered for instance 2 x 773 aircraft to replace them. The fuel saving alone will be massive. Especially when he is doing 25min sectors from Paris to London on it.
But what about the 4 engines VS 2 engines in case of missile damage? Most of what is used/brought when the Pres is overseas is worst case. I don't think the 757's or the 737 have anywhere near the capability of the VC-25's as far as Comms and so forth.
Dw747400 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 1238 posts, RR: 1 Reply 4, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2973 times:
Quoting STT757 (Reply 1): The acquisition costs of a new 777-300ER would be greater than the fuel savings vs the current Air Force 1.
Especially when one considers the cost of outfitting the aircraft. Given the demands placed on the airframe in terms of survivability and command and control, its possible each airframe would run in the $1 billion range.
Quoting Columba (Reply 2): But I agree on some routes the use of a Gulfstream, 737 or 757 would have been better. Especially within the US when the president does not need to bring all of his entourage.
The VC-25As are equipped with command and control systems, as well as an array of defensive equipment, not found on the smaller airframes. I'm not privy to the the exact details, but I'd imagine these added capabilities make the pentagon, secret service, etc. favor the larger aircraft when possible.
Of course, the status aspect figures in too, but there are other legitimate reasons.
Columba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 6505 posts, RR: 5 Reply 5, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2956 times:
Quoting Sprout5199 (Reply 3): But what about the 4 engines VS 2 engines in case of missile damage? Most of what is used/brought when the Pres is overseas is worst case. I don't think the 757's or the 737 have anywhere near the capability of the VC-25's as far as Comms and so forth.
That is why I said within the US, for state visits the VC 25 seems to be the right aircraft but I have seen many pictures of the VC 25 within the US and asked myself if that is really needed.
Quoting Dw747400 (Reply 4): The VC-25As are equipped with command and control systems, as well as an array of defensive equipment, not found on the smaller airframes. I'm not privy to the the exact details, but I'd imagine these added capabilities make the pentagon, secret service, etc. favor the larger aircraft when possible.
The 757 is used mainly by the Vice President the Secretary of State and will also have a very good equipment, I guess good enough for non priority flights within the US of A.
I read a very interesting article about the VC 25A a few years ago. It said that George H. Bush was not too fund of the aircraft and did not like to use it as much. He thought he would give a bad example using it and used the train as much as possible.
I don' t think Obama or Mc Cain will switch to a train - after 9-11 I doubt that the president will ever be allowed to travel by train for security reasons but with high gas prices and all the talk of C02 emissions, global warming etc in the American media they will likely switch to a smaller aircraft whenever it is possible.
Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans - John Lennon
Gsosbee From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 825 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2944 times:
Quoting Columba (Reply 2): Maybe this will change with a new president and we will see Obama or McCain using the 757 more often.
Not likely either way. The airplane is a part of the overall security. Same issue as with the new helicopter. (For example, the aircraft has to be capable of EMP protection. I do not believe the smaller airplanes have that capability.)
Also, remember the just completed intra-Europe trips were a part of a larger trip.
Columba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 6505 posts, RR: 5 Reply 7, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2932 times:
Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 6): Also, remember the just completed intra-Europe trips were a part of a larger trip.
I know, I mainly talked about flights within the US. I have seen Bush flying to NY using the VC 25 and I thought if that is really necessary. The VC 25A for trips to Europe, Asia is absolutely understandable. Germany gets a A340 for their long haul flights so we should not complain about the US president using a 747 when traveling abroad.
I think for many flights within the US the 757 is a very good aircraft to use and it would give a good example especially with these high fuel prices. As I said above for these reasons George H. Bush used a train within the USA.
Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans - John Lennon
DfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 755 posts, RR: 54 Reply 8, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2858 times:
Quoting BALHRWWCC (Thread starter): Especially when he is doing 25min sectors from Paris to London on it.
Quoting STT757 (Reply 1): That's why he should use the 757 or BBJ for short hops.
You're not going to save any fuel flying both the VC-25 and a C-32/BBJ to London so you can leave the VC-25 parked in the UK and take a smaller aircraft to France.
Quoting BALHRWWCC (Thread starter): With the HUGE increase in gas/petrol prices shouldn't the president and the administration be seen to do what is best for the tax payers pocket. After all taxes is what fuels these aircarft!!
Executive travel expenses are not significant when you have a government with expenditures of approx $2.3 trillion dollars and an economy of $13 trillion dollars. If we want to hold the federal government to use our funds more efficiently, there's way more low-hanging fruit than the fuel bill for Air Force One.
DL767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2846 times:
A big reason the 742s are used instead of the 737s or 757s is because the 742s allow the president to bring his motorcade with him. Also the planes, while an older variant of the 747 family, is not a standard 747-200. If i recall correctly the dimensions are different, longer and slightly stronger, not to mention all the upgrades the plane has gotten in avionics, 744 engines etc. While i would love to see a 787,777, or 748 to replace the 742s they are so well maintained and upgraded with few cycles on them they will be around for a very long time. Plus there is something about the 747 carrying the president that is so much cooler than a 777, and environmentalists who complain it is a waste need to get over it, he's the president he can fly in whatever he wants, it's so much cooler than Tony Blair coming over in a British Airways 777, it's just kind of lame not to have your own cool private presidential jet.
Dw747400 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 1238 posts, RR: 1 Reply 10, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 2812 times:
Quoting Columba (Reply 5): The 757 is used mainly by the Vice President the Secretary of State and will also have a very good equipment, I guess good enough for non priority flights within the US of A.
They capabilities are limited compared to the VC-25A. The VC-25A is a fully equipped airborne command post, with capabilities rivaling the E-4B, The C-32 and other transports are just that--transports. Obviously there are additional capabilities on aircraft that carry the most senior us officials, but nothing like the VC-25A. In addition, the aircraft's loitering abilities and defensive systems are important considerations with the increased threat of terrorist attacks. Even on domestic flights, the President needs to be secure and connected.
Quoting DL767captain (Reply 9): A big reason the 742s are used instead of the 737s or 757s is because the 742s allow the president to bring his motorcade with him
The motorcade and other support equipment is flown on several transport aircraft, often C-17s. The type of aircraft the president is on has nothing to do with it.
BlackProjects From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 754 posts, RR: 4 Reply 11, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 2808 times:
The VC-25 externally is a 747-200 with -400 engines so its rearly a 747-400F with out the freighter mods and minus the Winglets.
It has a Fully Glass Cockpit and is state of the Art in side having a Constant upgrade in Equipment from the day they enterd service.
They do Several long haul fSectors a year unlike normal 747s which do several Long haul sectors a day so the machines are Rearly low hours for 18 years of Service to the US Airforce.
It would be stupid to replace the VC-25s now as they have years of service left in them.
Just look how long the VC-137Cs lasted before beeing replace by the VC-25s and VC-32s
 Â
Go and watch the National Geographic video on Air force one it has a lot of Info on just what the aircraft are all about.
The Hangar at Andrews has a Floor you can see your face in.
Venus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1369 posts, RR: 1 Reply 12, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2742 times:
Quoting BlackProjects (Reply 11): Just look how long the VC-137Cs lasted before beeing replace by the VC-25s and VC-32s
62-6000 and 72-7000 had under 20000 flt hours on them before they were thrown into museums, if they were not such historical airplanes they would have turned into E-8C's just like 85-6973 or used as trainers for E-3 pilots to bounce around the pattern.
DL767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2732 times:
Quoting Dw747400 (Reply 10): The motorcade and other support equipment is flown on several transport aircraft, often C-17s. The type of aircraft the president is on has nothing to do with it.
I remember watching, i think on the discovery or national geographic channel, something about AF1 and at least the president's limo can be driven into the cargo hold (maybe not the whole motorcade) but definitely the limo. But yes other transport aircraft are also used
EMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9177 posts, RR: 14 Reply 14, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2720 times:
I guess my question is why does this question keep coming up over and over and over and over again...?
Quoting STT757 (Reply 1): That's why he should use the 757 or BBJ for short hops.
Have you ever seen how many people come off the aircraft....??? It's not just him. Easy hundred or more... Traveling Secret Service, Aids, Staff, Press Corps.....
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
ZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 2991 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2715 times:
Quoting DL767captain (Reply 13): I remember watching, i think on the discovery or national geographic channel, something about AF1 and at least the president's limo can be driven into the cargo hold (maybe not the whole motorcade) but definitely the limo. But yes other transport aircraft are also used
Having worked closely with these aircraft on many occasions I can assure you that there is NO capability to haul a limo in the hold. The limos, USSS SUVs, helos, and all the other gear go on the C-17s & C-5s.
For the OP: Why retire a couple of very low time 742s? The gov't would easily spend a billion to replace them. With the ridiculously low ute rate of these aircraft you'd never recover, on reduced fuel burn, what you spent for the new aircraft....
Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
EMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9177 posts, RR: 14 Reply 16, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2712 times:
Quoting DL767captain (Reply 13): something about AF1 and at least the president's limo can be driven into the cargo hold
Aaah No. There really is no 'Cargo Hold' on the VC-25. Much of that space is taken up by the forward and aft airstairs.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
Dw747400 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 1238 posts, RR: 1 Reply 17, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2687 times:
Quoting DL767captain (Reply 13): I remember watching, i think on the discovery or national geographic channel, something about AF1 and at least the president's limo can be driven into the cargo hold (maybe not the whole motorcade) but definitely the limo. But yes other transport aircraft are also used
Even if there were sufficient space, the limo could not be driven in. You must have seen the vehicles being loaded on a C-5 or C-17 (or perhaps C-141 depending on the age of the footage).
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11025 posts, RR: 53 Reply 18, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2663 times:
Quoting Columba (Reply 5): Quoting Sprout5199 (Reply 3):
But what about the 4 engines VS 2 engines in case of missile damage? Most of what is used/brought when the Pres is overseas is worst case. I don't think the 757's or the 737 have anywhere near the capability of the VC-25's as far as Comms and so forth.
That is why I said within the US, for state visits the VC 25 seems to be the right aircraft but I have seen many pictures of the VC 25 within the US and asked myself if that is really needed.
The VC-25A is also known as the "Flying White House". It has unique capabilities the VC-32A/B, VC-40B, or C-32A don't have. On 09/11/01, the POTUS was in Florida, visiting a school. After he was informed of the attacks on US soil, the USSS put the Presidential Evacuation Plan into play. AF-1 departed FL and flew (escorted) to BAD (it was considered unsafe for President Bush to return to Washington, at that time), where they uploaded commissary stores,supplies, a relief crew (flown in from ADW), and other needed equipment in case AF-1 had to remain airborne for an extended period of time. KC-135 tankers were scheduled, if needed.
After AF-1 launched from BAD, again with F-16 escorts, it really did not have a destination. Only after conferring with Vice President Chaney, the USSS, and the remainder of the POTUS staff at the WH was a decission made to fly to OFF, and use (what was once) the SAC HQ Under Ground CP.
If President Bush had used the VC-32A that morning, his options, and those of protection from the Secret Service would have been very limited.
Gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 15616 posts, RR: 90 Reply 19, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2621 times:
The American public is perfectly happy to support this infrastructure as well... I for one would never sleep well with a President touring the world on a 2 engine aircraft.
We don't hate our political leaders quite like Europeans universally seem to hate theirs... I disagree with literally every single word that has ever come out of GWB's mouth, but he's the leader of the free world and needs the best support available.
YWG747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 20, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 2501 times:
Quoting BALHRWWCC (Thread starter): With the HUGE increase in gas/petrol prices shouldn't the president and the administration be seen to do what is best for the tax payers pocket. After all taxes is what fuels these aircarft!!
Someone is very naive... They are wasting money on far worse things at the moment.
BlackProjects From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 754 posts, RR: 4 Reply 21, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2407 times:
The US Military Spends BILLIONS of Dollars a year Not Millions But Thousands of Millions of Dollars a year and not all of it is out in the Public eye.
A lot of it is out of Sight and will only be known about long after most of us reach Zimmer Frame age.
So wasting a few Million to keep Air Force 1 looking Spotless and Flying for a few more years is a good Bargin.
As a Freind once Said if it Aint Broke Dont FIX IT!
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 15281 posts, 
From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 6505 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 754 posts, 
 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
