SCAT15F
Topic Author
Posts: 403
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:34 am

Boeing Only Contender For New Air Force One

Wed Jan 28, 2009 5:22 pm

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...


From Aviation Week online Jan 28, 2009
 
art
Posts: 2680
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

RE: Boeing Only Contender For New Air Force One

Wed Jan 28, 2009 6:08 pm



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?
 
ac788
Posts: 39
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 4:57 am

RE: Boeing Only Contender For New Air Force One

Wed Jan 28, 2009 6:19 pm



Quoting SCAT15F (Thread starter):
Boeing is exploring the 747-8 and 787 as candidates

Wow I would love to see a B747-8 as Air Force One. This aircraft is such an icon and it would be great to see keep it in the 747 family.

I have a question though, wouldn't the 787 be lacking in size as a contender for Air Force One?
 
bennett123
Posts: 7461
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Boeing Only Contender For New Air Force One

Wed Jan 28, 2009 7:16 pm

Why bid for a contract that you can not win.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 14004
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Boeing Only Contender For New Air Force One

Wed Jan 28, 2009 7:33 pm



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.
Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
PDXCessna206
Posts: 24
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 8:55 pm

RE: Boeing Only Contender For New Air Force One

Wed Jan 28, 2009 7:43 pm

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.
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5810
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: Boeing Only Contender For New Air Force One

Wed Jan 28, 2009 9:05 pm

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.' -Theodore Roosevelt
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 4970
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Boeing Only Contender For New Air Force One

Wed Jan 28, 2009 10:10 pm

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
Posts: 1117
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 12:35 pm

RE: Boeing Only Contender For New Air Force One

Wed Jan 28, 2009 10:57 pm



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.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23209
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing Only Contender For New Air Force One

Wed Jan 28, 2009 11:02 pm



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?  Wink
 
keesje
Posts: 8864
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Boeing Only Contender For New Air Force One

Wed Jan 28, 2009 11:30 pm

Quoting SCAT15F (Thread starter):
Boeing Only Contender For New Air Force One

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.



[Edited 2009-01-28 15:32:48]
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
bennett123
Posts: 7461
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Boeing Only Contender For New Air Force One

Wed Jan 28, 2009 11:40 pm

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
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Boeing Only Contender For New Air Force One

Thu Jan 29, 2009 12:08 am



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.
 
keesje
Posts: 8864
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Boeing Only Contender For New Air Force One

Thu Jan 29, 2009 12:15 am



Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 11):
Firstly are they for sale.

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.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Moose135
Posts: 2579
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:27 pm

RE: Boeing Only Contender For New Air Force One

Thu Jan 29, 2009 12:20 am

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.

[Edited 2009-01-28 16:22:55]
KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
 
keesje
Posts: 8864
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Boeing Only Contender For New Air Force One

Thu Jan 29, 2009 12:47 am



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.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Acheron
Posts: 1835
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 1:14 am

RE: Boeing Only Contender For New Air Force One

Thu Jan 29, 2009 1:07 am



Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 3):
Why bid for a contract that you can not win.

Pretty much.

Atleast Airbus won't play along with another sham for a RFP that is pretty much decided from the start.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23209
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing Only Contender For New Air Force One

Thu Jan 29, 2009 1:53 am

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.
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5259
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: Boeing Only Contender For New Air Force One

Thu Jan 29, 2009 1:54 am



Quoting AirRyan (Reply 12):
The 787 will replace the C-32 someday, but that isn't part of this deal.

With 15 787s cancelled, that could be sooner than we think.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...cently-cancelled-data-reveals.html

Who knows --- the RAF might even pick up one or two of those?  bigthumbsup   crossfingers 
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 4970
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Boeing Only Contender For New Air Force One

Thu Jan 29, 2009 2:24 pm



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.

 checkmark 
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
dl767captain
Posts: 1206
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:51 am

RE: Boeing Only Contender For New Air Force One

Thu Jan 29, 2009 9:00 pm

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!
 
Blackbird
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: Boeing Only Contender For New Air Force One

Thu Jan 29, 2009 10:51 pm

I think the government needs to structure the program for the AF-1 replacement such so that only Boeing can win it.

Either that or just exploit the fact that the DoD doesn't have to have a bidding and can pick whatever they want.


Blackbird
 
bennett123
Posts: 7461
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Boeing Only Contender For New Air Force One

Thu Jan 29, 2009 10:57 pm

Did you read the initial message.

Given that EADS/Airbus are not bidding I have no doubt that the DoD can structure the RFP to ensure a Boeing win.
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Boeing Only Contender For New Air Force One

Thu Jan 29, 2009 11:36 pm



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.

Done.
 
AWACSooner
Posts: 1791
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:35 am

RE: Boeing Only Contender For New Air Force One

Fri Jan 30, 2009 3:09 am



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.
 
ZBBYLW
Posts: 1612
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:17 am

RE: Boeing Only Contender For New Air Force One

Fri Jan 30, 2009 3:54 am

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, and as far as I am aware alot of the equiment in AF1 is outdated and can be fit into a much smaller area.
Keep the shinny side up!
 
bennett123
Posts: 7461
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Boeing Only Contender For New Air Force One

Fri Jan 30, 2009 9:30 am

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 that your govt will want to have a more capable rather than a more compact AF1,

Besides some other govt have B747 and in time A380. IMO, there is no way that AF1 will be a B777/B787.

Size counts.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 4970
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Boeing Only Contender For New Air Force One

Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:13 am



Quoting ZBBYLW (Reply 25):
All this talk about the 748, would the US consider getting the 77W?

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 the event of an engine failure; on a quad you don't. I think this factor alone will dictate that if a quad is available AF1 will be a quad. It has nothing to do with the relative safety of twins vs. quads.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
keesje
Posts: 8864
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Boeing Only Contender For New Air Force One

Fri Jan 30, 2009 1:11 pm



Quoting SEPilot (Reply 19):
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.

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 could have a rebuild 747-400ER in the sky.

I think for the AF1 it's more about the modifications then the original airframe anyway.

Boeing still has 8 unfilled 747-400ERF orders, are they converted ? has -400 assembly really stopped?

"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6692
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Boeing Only Contender For New Air Force One

Fri Jan 30, 2009 4:13 pm



Quoting Charles79 (Reply 8):
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.

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, you are going sole supplier. Airbus has done pretty well with that strategy, getting more and more airlines to have single OEM fleets or at least much greater than 50%, price gouging does not seem to be a problem, as they became the largest OEM in short order. Unless you think only Boeing is capable of such practices?  Smile

2. You are heading out to buy a new Honda, the list price is say $20,000.00, how exactly are they going to get you to spend $50,000.00?

A lot of the customizations required by the US Air Force may have to be done after the a/c is built, possible by other sub-contractors, their cost will not be included in Boeing's, so for the purchaser to get "hosed", a conspiracy will have to be created. Remember Boeing will build the a/c, engines by another company, avionics, comminications, security, etc. etc. etc. this might be one case where the a/c builder is not the main contractor in terms of cost and installation, the basic air frame may be the simpliest part of the deal.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 4970
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Boeing Only Contender For New Air Force One

Fri Jan 30, 2009 4:16 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 28):

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 could have a rebuild 747-400ER in the sky.

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 airframe, period. I can't say that I blame them; doesn't everyone prefer a new car if they can afford it, with the sole exception being if you really want a model that is no longer in production? And I cannot see any reason on earth why the AF would prefer a 744 in any variation over a 748. You must also figure that since one of the reasons they give for replacing the two they have is spare parts price and availability, and the reason for that is the model they bought was at the tail end of its production run (in fact they were the last -200 models delivered); the AF clearly does not want to do the same thing again. With the 748 they will be close to the beginning of the model run, not at the end of it. Remember that these planes will probably still be flying after almost all 744's will be parked.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9939
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Boeing Only Contender For New Air Force One

Fri Jan 30, 2009 5:01 pm



Quoting SCAT15F (Thread starter):
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.

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, and everyone cries fowl when Boeing does not win.

I hope in this case the USAF does not change their mind, US tax payer is set to pay for the most expensive 747s in history. I hope this is the bone Boeing needs, and NG gets the tanker.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 17):
One of the reasons the VC-25 (and E-4) fleet is being replaced is the unavailability of spare parts.

Will keep that in mind next time you contribute to a tanker thread, such a "young" 747 to be replaced with an aircraft that supposedly has a high parts commonality with the new 747-8.

I remember you saying they have high part commonality with earlier 747 models, and those aircraft hardly every fly, what spare parts do they need ?
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
redflyer
Posts: 3882
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Boeing Only Contender For New Air Force One

Fri Jan 30, 2009 5:08 pm



Quoting SEPilot (Reply 27):
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 the event of an engine failure; on a quad you don't.

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 small missile finds its target, one engine out on a quad is still probably better than one engine out on a twin, at least one with the POTUS on board.
My other home is in the sky inside my Piper Cherokee 180.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 4970
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Boeing Only Contender For New Air Force One

Fri Jan 30, 2009 5:16 pm



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 32):
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 small missile finds its target, one engine out on a quad is still probably better than one engine out on a twin, at least one with the POTUS on board.

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 engine. They take extraordinary care of the plane, though, and replace or overhaul the engines at the slightest sign of wear or problems. So I suspect that they very, very seldom have an engine failure. One of the points made on the program was that diversion was very much a last resort, and once they take off they intend to land at the planned destination.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9939
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Boeing Only Contender For New Air Force One

Fri Jan 30, 2009 5:18 pm



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 32):
A quad does make sense from a safety standpoint because if a small missile finds its target, one engine out on a quad is still probably better than one engine out on a twin, at least one with the POTUS on board.

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 mainly builds for "affordable" safety. The passengers on board should not determine FAA safety standards, if a quad is only safe enough for POTUS, I would ask for the same standard for my family, nothing less.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23209
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing Only Contender For New Air Force One

Fri Jan 30, 2009 5:37 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 31):
I remember you saying they have high part commonality with earlier 747 models, and those aircraft hardly every fly, what spare parts do they need ?

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 advocated because both frames have both low hours and low cycles on them. I've never brought up the subject of spares because it wasn't one that occurred to me.

They have, however, evidently occurred to the USAF and the Presidential Airlift Group. And they appear to have come to the opinion that even though both VA-25A's are structurally good for a significant period of time, the fact that Boeing last assembled a 747-200 was in 1990 and those two frames were VC-25As, the supply of spares will have the largest impact on continued VC-25A (and E-4B) operations. *shrug*
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 4970
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Boeing Only Contender For New Air Force One

Fri Jan 30, 2009 6:08 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 34):
The passengers on board should not determine FAA safety standards, if a quad is only safe enough for POTUS, I would ask for the same standard for my family, nothing less.

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 and counteracting missiles than just adding engines. And my issue is not safety (I actually think twins are safer) but the ability to continue the mission without diversion. If I am flying somewhere and the plane has to divert it is an inconvenience, but to the POTUS it may be far more, and the AF has decided that they don't want it to happen.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9939
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Boeing Only Contender For New Air Force One

Fri Jan 30, 2009 6:36 pm



Quoting SEPilot (Reply 36):
Well, if your family is an equal target for missiles as POTUS I congratulate you.

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 ?

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 36):
Actually, I suspect there is far more attention paid to avoiding and counteracting missiles than just adding engines

Yes, that is the dummy AF1 and all the ground work that is out in.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 36):
And my issue is not safety (I actually think twins are safer) but the ability to continue the mission without diversion.

Why would AF1 NEED to divert if it was a twin ? AF1 is not an airline. it is a state aircraft, it does not operate under an AOC, it would not follow FAA ETOPS requirements. If a twin AF1 would not need to divert for safety reasons (as you "actually think twins are safer"), what reasons would it need to divert for that quad would not ?
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6692
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Boeing Only Contender For New Air Force One

Fri Jan 30, 2009 6:47 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 37):
Why would AF1 NEED to divert if it was a twin ? AF1 is not an airline. it is a state aircraft, it does not operate under an AOC, it would not follow FAA ETOPS requirements. If a twin AF1 would not need to divert for safety reasons (as you "actually think twins are safer"), what reasons would it need to divert for that quad would not ?

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 required? If FAA certification is required, would the normal ETOPS requirement have to be applied?
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 4970
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Boeing Only Contender For New Air Force One

Fri Jan 30, 2009 6:56 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 37):
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 ?

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 near the top of any terrorist's "dream target list," and as such is a potential target just about anywhere. While as long as there is terrorism every airliner is a potential target, I for one have no problem with providing the president with every safety measure that can reasonably be implemented, even when economic considerations deny me and my family the same protection.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 37):
Why would AF1 NEED to divert if it was a twin ?

For the same reason that airlines do. I certainly expect that the POTUS be granted AT LEAST the same safety considerations that I receive. I fly single engine aircraft by choice, knowing the risks involved; I do not expect to carry the POTUS as a passenger. A twin with one engine out is now a single engined airliner, and while I think the current ETOPS regulations are good and prudent, they DO require landing at the first suitable place. When the authorities decide that ETOPS flights can continue to the destination on one engine then I will consider the possibilities of having AF1 be a twin.

[Edited 2009-01-30 10:57:17]
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 4970
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Boeing Only Contender For New Air Force One

Fri Jan 30, 2009 7:01 pm



Quoting Par13del (Reply 38):
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 required? If FAA certification is required, would the normal ETOPS requirement have to be applied?

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. However, I would think that they follow the FAA procedures at a very minimum.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9939
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Boeing Only Contender For New Air Force One

Fri Jan 30, 2009 7:08 pm



Quoting Par13del (Reply 38):
the current B-747 that the US Air Force use, are they FAA certified and is it required?

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.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 39):
However, the risks here are known, and everybody flying in and out of these areas should be aware of them

Double standards

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 39):
however, has got to be near the top of any terrorist's "dream target list

Depends on your background.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 39):
For the same reason that airlines do.

AF1 is not an airline, AF1, marine 1 etc are military aircraft.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 39):
A twin with one engine out is now a single engined airliner, and while I think the current ETOPS regulations are good and prudent, they DO require landing at the first suitable place.

Not in the military.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 4970
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Boeing Only Contender For New Air Force One

Fri Jan 30, 2009 7:31 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 41):
Double standards

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 people choose to fly there for whatever reason, good for them. But that is no justification for ignoring threats to the president. Perhaps you feel that the head of state of any country is just any other citizen and should not be getting special treatment; I disagree strongly. I feel that the president is deserving of every protection that can be reasonably devised; after all, being the POTUS is more dangerous than being a soldier in most of the wars that we have fought. Out of 44 presidents 4 have been assassinated; that is a fatality rate of 9%. That qualifies it as one of the most dangerous jobs on the planet.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 41):

Depends on your background.

What target do you think they would prefer?

Quoting Zeke (Reply 41):
AF1 is not an airline, AF1, marine 1 etc are military aircraft.

Granted; however, when flying the president I would expect them to follow airline procedures that have been written in the blood of many, many crash victims at the very least.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 41):
Not in the military.

See above reply. I am not arguing about what they are REQUIRED to do, but rather what is prudent considering the mission.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
redflyer
Posts: 3882
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Boeing Only Contender For New Air Force One

Fri Jan 30, 2009 10:56 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 34):
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 mainly builds for "affordable" safety. The passengers on board should not determine FAA safety standards, if a quad is only safe enough for POTUS, I would ask for the same standard for my family, nothing less.

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 planes equipped with an on-board medical pharmacy and medical facilities, including an operating table; a on-call staff doctor skilled in treating trauma patients; shielding to protect against EMP from a nuclear blast; in-flight refueling capabilities; secure communications capabilities; a communications network designed to enable the plane to act as a combat operations center for all-out nuclear war; flares for counter-measures against incoming heat-seeking missiles; ECM capabilities for jamming radar; and a self-loading baggage system.

But, more to the point, commercial airliners are at far less risk of being hit by a heat-seeking missile than is a high-profile target such as AF-1. Airlines need only concern themselves with an occasional in-flight engine shut down and nothing worse. If a missile strike were a very real and every day threat for commercial airliners, then I'm sure your beloved quad argument would win the day. But if you want to rehash for the millionth time the quad vs. twin argument then let's head over to CivAv and bring up some of the old threads.

Best regards,

R~
My other home is in the sky inside my Piper Cherokee 180.
 
Lexy
Posts: 1265
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2006 10:05 am

RE: Boeing Only Contender For New Air Force One

Sat Jan 31, 2009 2:04 am

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 too risky to undertake.

Am I wrong in that thinking?
Nashville, Tennessee KBNA
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing Only Contender For New Air Force One

Sat Jan 31, 2009 2:12 am



Quoting Stitch (Reply 9):
Airbus doesn't need to lose money just to fly POTUS around. I doubt the prestige is that great.

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 three A-340-600s, or A-380-800s for free.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 17):
One of the reasons the VC-25 (and E-4) fleet is being replaced is the unavailability of spare parts.

Not true at all. There are still plenty of sourses for B-747-200/-400 parts, including from Boeing. Additionally, why does the USAF still fly the B-52H (production ended in 1963) or KC-135R/T (production ended in 1965)? No one is building spares for the basic airframes.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 23):
Not if they continue to pass $850 Billion dollar spending bills, there won't be a country left to preside over!

 checkmark   checkmark   checkmark 

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 26):
IMO, there is no way that AF1 will be a B777/B787.

Why? The C-20A/B/C, C-32A/B, C-37A, and C-40B have all flown as Air Force-1. The C-32A did it over a long strech of the Pacific Ocean last year when the VC-25A had a flat tire.

Quoting Par13del (Reply 29):
Airbus builds cockpit commonality in the a/c as a main selling point, so unless Boeing uses Airbus type ratings, you are going sole supplier. Airbus has done pretty well with that strategy

So does Boeing. The B-757 and B-767 have the same type rating. The B-737-700/ER, -800, and -900ER all have the same type rating. The A-318, -319, -320, and -321 all have the same type rating, as does the A-330 and A-340.

Quoting Par13del (Reply 29):
A lot of the customizations required by the US Air Force may have to be done after the a/c is built, possible by other sub-contractors, their cost will not be included in Boeing's, so for the purchaser to get "hosed", a conspiracy will have to be created.

It still comes under the same contract. The sub-contractors are accountable to the prime-contractor. In the case of the VC-135C and VC-25A, the basic airframes were built in Renton and modified in Witcha.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 31):
hope in this case the USAF does not change their mind, US tax payer is set to pay for the most expensive 747s in history.

We already own the 7 most expensive B-747s ever built, four E-4Bs, two VC-25As, and the YAL-1A. But, you are correct, these next three USAF B-747s will cost more than the current E-4Bs and VC-25s, perhaps even more than the AL-1. The two VC-25s were ordered in 1987 at a total cost of $500M

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 32):
A quad does make sense from a safety standpoint because if a small missile finds its target,

Air Force-1, which ever aircraft it is is equipped with missile defense systems.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 34):
ETOPS is safer than a quad are right, or ETOPS is for accountants,

Mathamaticly, a quad is safer than a twin. And you are right, Zeke, ETOPS is for the accountants. It was the bean counters (in the form of airline execs) that wanted it back in the early 1980s. The bean counters were the ones who proposed it to the FAA to adjaust (change) their rules. IIRC, the first change was the 120 minute ETOPS, followed by less than a year later by the 180 minute ETOPS.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 34):
The passengers on board should not determine FAA safety standards, if a quad is only safe enough for POTUS, I would ask for the same standard for my family, nothing less.

I agree with you on this one, Zeke.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 41):
Quoting Par13del (Reply 38):
the current B-747 that the US Air Force use, are they FAA certified and is it required?

No AF1 is military VC-25

Well, yes, and no. The B-747-200 airframe is a FAA certified airframe, but it never received a supplemential certification because the VC-25 has the same GE engines that only come on the B-747-400 (as far as B-747s go), not the B-747-200. The VC-25A is equipped with GE CF-6-80C2B1 engines, it also has duel APUs that airline B-747s of any model do not have, and the landing gear of the heavier B-747-300.
 
redflyer
Posts: 3882
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Boeing Only Contender For New Air Force One

Sat Jan 31, 2009 5:40 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 45):
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 32):
A quad does make sense from a safety standpoint because if a small missile finds its target,

Air Force-1, which ever aircraft it is is equipped with missile defense systems.

True, but they are not infallible.
My other home is in the sky inside my Piper Cherokee 180.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 14004
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Boeing Only Contender For New Air Force One

Sat Jan 31, 2009 2:18 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 45):
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 three A-340-600s, or A-380-800s for free.

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 already is, and would be a heck of an advertisement for A380. Pretty much every time it arrives somewhere with POTUS on-board it ends up on dozens of newscasts.
Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
Lexy
Posts: 1265
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2006 10:05 am

RE: Boeing Only Contender For New Air Force One

Sat Jan 31, 2009 4:40 pm



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 46):
True, but they are not infallible.

Correct, but they are not as easy to target as one would think.
Nashville, Tennessee KBNA
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing Only Contender For New Air Force One

Sun Feb 01, 2009 3:26 am



Quoting Lexy (Reply 44):
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 too risky to undertake.

Am I wrong in that thinking?

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 aver so often to maintane system reliability.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests