This story regarding Boeing’s subcontract for interior work of the two VC-25Bs is layered with foreign nationals that go to some of the highest levels of the Saudi government. I have yet to see whom Boeing chose to complete the interior work of the jets.

https://jqpublicblog.com/boeing-outsour ... jUnsRrnN60

Buckeyetech wrote:

I have yet to see whom Boeing chose to complete the interior work of the jets.

Boeing chose GDC to perform the work, but eventually decided to cancel the contract and sue GDC for breach when they failed to meet their contractual obligations.

Boeing lost $660 million on the program so far:

BREAKING: Boeing CEO David Calhoun says company executives should not have agreed to former President Trump’s terms for the new Air Force One. The company today announced it lost $660M building the two planes

https://twitter.com/MarcusReports/statu ... 6797918208

CEO: Boeing Should Have Rejected Trump’s Air Force One Deal

PepeTheFrog wrote:

Boeing lost $660 million on the program so far:

BREAKING: Boeing CEO David Calhoun says company executives should not have agreed to former President Trump’s terms for the new Air Force One. The company today announced it lost $660M building the two planes

https://twitter.com/MarcusReports/statu ... 6797918208

CEO: Boeing Should Have Rejected Trump’s Air Force One Deal

Ouch.

The article said the cost was $5.3 billion so Boeing is going to spend roughly $6bn on 2 aircraft!!

As with the KC-46, signing a fixed price contract has come back to bite them in the ass.

"Boeing blamed the most recent $660 million loss on 'higher supplier costs, higher costs to finalize technical requirements and schedule delays.'"

Stitch wrote:

As with the KC-46, signing a fixed price contract has come back to bite them in the ass.

"Boeing blamed the most recent $660 million loss on 'higher supplier costs, higher costs to finalize technical requirements and schedule delays.'"

Is there any confidence that this is the end of it, or will we see further charges?

scbriml wrote:

Is there any confidence that this is the end of it, or will we see further charges?

Until Boeing formally hands both frames over to the USAF, I would not feel confident this is the last of the write-downs for this program.

The thing to remember is these aircraft will serve for decades. and Boeing will be the maintenance & support supplier. So it will take time, but they will make up this loss in service, support, & upgrade contracts. Like the KC-46, they lose money on the initial development, but the program is worth at least 10 times that over its lifetime.

I have zero sympathy for any "defense contractor" supposedly losing money on a contract, given how egregiously inflated anything to do with "defense" is. Yes, I'm talking about the fabled $5,000 toilet seats and $10,000 hammers, or whatever the fabled items/amounts were. There's always excuses as to why things cost what they say they do, and as far as I'm concerned, most of it is BS. But whenever the Pentagon, or Federal Govt. at large, is paying the bills, nobody questions costs...not really. Boeing nowadays is just another corrupt, greedy big corp. like all the others.

cathay747 wrote:

I have zero sympathy for any "defense contractor" supposedly losing money on a contract, given how egregiously inflated anything to do with "defense" is. Yes, I'm talking about the fabled $5,000 toilet seats and $10,000 hammers, or whatever the fabled items/amounts were. There's always excuses as to why things cost what they say they do, and as far as I'm concerned, most of it is BS. But whenever the Pentagon, or Federal Govt. at large, is paying the bills, nobody questions costs...not really. Boeing nowadays is just another corrupt, greedy big corp. like all the others.

Don't forget that anything that is bolted to an aircraft needs certifying to meet standards like flammability etc.
This just ups the price.

Years ago I heard of a VIP a/c where they installed a Playstation. In the end it cost shedloads more than the usual PS.

ReverseFlow wrote:

Don't forget that anything that is bolted to an aircraft needs certifying to meet standards like flammability etc.

You can find the same thing in the consumer hardware as well, though not in the 100X the cost.

You can easily find high end camping gear at REI that are at least 10 times more expensive than their Walmart equivalent.

bt

I have never understood why AF1 isn’t just a souped up C-5. Upper deck has plenty of space, main deck can haul the cars/logistics crap just fine.

texl1649 wrote:

I have never understood why AF1 isn’t just a souped up C-5. Upper deck has plenty of space, main deck can haul the cars/logistics crap just fine.

reliability... I'm sure the C5M's are better but the OG C5's weren't built like an airliner (then again AF1 doesn't fly all that often)

nycbjr wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

I have never understood why AF1 isn’t just a souped up C-5. Upper deck has plenty of space, main deck can haul the cars/logistics crap just fine.

reliability... I'm sure the C5M's are better but the OG C5's weren't built like an airliner (then again AF1 doesn't fly all that often)

Agreed. They would not use something that doesn't meet civilian aircraft safety standards, and have civilian certification. In the UK, the MRTT tanker - transport derivative which became the Voyager, had to undergo special civilian certification before it could become their Air Force One.

It's much easier to do that starting from a civilian airframe, than from military.

It sure would be interesting to find out how this lost money was spent. The 2 747s were originally build for a Russian airline which went bankrupt (Transaero) before they could be delivered and at least in one case before the passenger interior was installed and all Boeing had to do was modify them so that the airframe and extra systems would be good for Air Force 1 and maybe install a few AF1 specific systems. Most of the other work is done by other contracters.

There's also a fair argument that the head of state should not be flying into a country on an aircraft initially created for war. Part of why most nations that have aircraft for government use tend to avoid camouflage paint jobs on them. The visuals are important for setting the ground in discussions.

And yes, I know nations like the US will send government representatives like the Secretary of State on transports like the C-17. Head of State is different.

CanukinUSA wrote:

It sure would be interesting to find out how this lost money was spent. The 2 747s were originally build for a Russian airline which went bankrupt (Transaero) before they could be delivered and at least in one case before the passenger interior was installed and all Boeing had to do was modify them so that the airframe and extra systems would be good for Air Force 1 and maybe install a few AF1 specific systems. Most of the other work is done by other contracters.

The documentary that was linked above claims that the 2 airframes had virtually all their internal systems stripped out and completely rebuilt, so much so that it would have been more practical to have ordered new build aircraft and have the systems incorporated in as the airframes were assembled.

The upper management then was not doing it's job as they should have been aware of that when they made the proposal for the VC-25s. That's why they are paid the big bucks to watch for basic things like that. The current CEO was on the board of directors at the time. Where was he asleep?

CanukinUSA wrote:

The upper management then was not doing it's job as they should have been aware of that when they made the proposal for the VC-25s. That's why they are paid the big bucks to watch for basic things like that. The current CEO was on the board of directors at the time. Where was he asleep?

The reason was to lower costs for the US government by using existing airframes. That's also why the fixed cost contract, which Trump altered. Had things gone according to plan, it would have worked out for Boeing. But they had repeated contractor problems, and struggled to keep the project staffed due to security clearances during COVID.

Lockheed has had the same problem on the Joint Simulation Environment (JSE). The workforce with both coding skills and top clearance is already limited. With COVID they tried to work from home but that was a security nightmare. So ended up isolating people on site and having them work in very small groups. But progress tanked in the meantime.

NASA also had the same problem on the Artemis program. When you have specialized skills or requirements for clearance, and those people can't work, it gets very expensive very fast.

The reason was to lower costs for Boeing so they could make more profit. If you look into the details Trump really did not change the cost contract very much as there are now only 2 airplanes instead of the 3 in the original contract. That is where the savings happened that Trump made such a big deal about. It is very questionable that it was not much more than a PR stunt to make both Trump and upper Boeing management look good. it looks like it is coming back to haunt them although the personnel involved have already looted the Boeing treasury at the expense of the US taxpayer, Boeing shareholders and Boeing Employees and are long gone with their money. The few that remain have set up their compensation so that they will get their bonus paid no matter how badly it goes for the Boeing company.
As far as staffing goes the bean counters in charge at Boeing wanted to get rid of the more expensive personnel in any fashion in a hurry to make the numbers look good. In particular the older ones who more likely had security clearances without a plan for getting security clearances for the remaining personnel. Another thing to keep in mind is that security clearances are not required in the stages that Boeing is involved. Boeing only builds the aircraft. The security clearances become an issue once the electronics and other items start getting installed which is not done at Boeing but at sub-contracters after the aircraft leaves Boeing.

Boeing faces increased costs from delays in the program, regardless of the cause, and regardless of whether the issue occurs at the subcontractor level. Boeing is still responsible for the aircraft. The COVID issues were reported earlier and were consistent with the board's statements.

scbriml wrote:

Stitch wrote:

As with the KC-46, signing a fixed price contract has come back to bite them in the ass.

"Boeing blamed the most recent $660 million loss on 'higher supplier costs, higher costs to finalize technical requirements and schedule delays.'"

Is there any confidence that this is the end of it, or will we see further charges?

Leeham believes more charges will follow:

https://leehamnews.com/2022/05/02/ponti ... r-results/

Boeing took a charge of more than $600m on the Air Force One program. AF One is a two-airplane order for the conversion of two 747-8 whitetails from civilian-passenger configuration to the militarized-VIP AF One specifications. LNA is told by multiple sources more sizable charges will be forthcoming.

Looks like the Trump Force One idea is finally dead. The Air Force gave some justification for the move, but we all knew it was going nowhere.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/1 ... e-00038775

Meh, I like both paint schemes, and while I doubt dark paint on the underside really would have driven additional cooling needs downstairs, it’s not a hill to die on, and none of us expected the current administration to support that anyway.

texl1649 wrote:

Meh, I like both paint schemes, and while I doubt dark paint on the underside really would have driven additional cooling needs downstairs,

The problem is when the plane is on the ground and need to run the electronics full tilt. Ground cart and skin heat exchanger will not provide sufficient cooling on a hot day.

Even aircrafts like the P-8A with the lighter paint scheme can not supply sufficient cooling air to run all the systems on the ground.

While the lighter vs the darker paint scheme may not give you much, it may be enough to provide additional cooling margins for a few more systems.

It is also a decent excuse to change the paint scheme.

bt

Was there any updates on whether the -8s skin are unable to have bare metal that is on the current VC-25s?

Buckeyetech wrote:

Was there any updates on whether the -8s skin are unable to have bare metal that is on the current VC-25s?

Don't have an answer, but here are some technical stuff to consider.

External skins will be clad aluminum. So in theory, you can go with a polish skin until the clad layer wears out.

There is the increased use of titanium fasteners at barrel joints. In the past, if you use aluminum fasteners, you can polish the fastener heads and it will blend in with the skin. The titanium heads will stand out a little more. Not sure if it would make a difference though.

The wing to body area would still needed to be painted because the wing to body fairing, maybe gear doors, and the wings are composite. So how the polish finish transitions to the rest of the paint scheme need careful consideration.

bt

Buckeyetech wrote:

Was there any updates on whether the -8s skin are unable to have bare metal that is on the current VC-25s?

Changed materials from 744 >>>>> 748 series

Wing skins : Aluminum 7150 and 2324T39, type 1 >>>>>>> Aluminum 7055 and 2324T39, type 2
Flaps : Fiberglass Composite >>>>> Carbon Composite
Flaps supports : Stainless Steel >>>>> Custom 465 Steel
Ailerons, Spoilers Rudders : Fiberglass Composite >>>> Carbon Composite
Fuselage Skins : 2024 and 7075 Aluminum >>>>> 2524 and 7055 Aluminum
Floors : 7075 Aluminum >>>>>> 7150 Aluminum

This is the thread i was looking for originally about lifts (elevators) in the interest of for mobility impaired individuals. Thanks for updating.

Saw someone posted a lift would be an option on the other thread but i think the implications were for internal transit rather than external to the tarmac, like was an option for FDR. I would really hate anyone to trip up and go tumbling down all those stairs to the ground and get injured as the 747 clone entry doors are a very long way to the tarmac.

Especially for tumbling small children. Shouldn’t we being using Air Force One with a JetBridge in the interest of safety yet if not a lift?

This link may be what you are looking for.

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/ques ... exit-doors

Of course, it is more dramatic exiting from the main deck.

Still no lift though. I guess if you need wheel chair access, you'll need those elevated busses I've seen at some airport.

bt

Buckeyetech wrote:

Was there any updates on whether the -8s skin are unable to have bare metal that is on the current VC-25s?

Considering the lengths that all the airlines who have done 747 retro schemes (or even 737 retro schemes for that matter) have gone to in order to avoid bare metal finish, I'm expecting to be disappointed.

bikerthai wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

Meh, I like both paint schemes, and while I doubt dark paint on the underside really would have driven additional cooling needs downstairs,

The problem is when the plane is on the ground and need to run the electronics full tilt. Ground cart and skin heat exchanger will not provide sufficient cooling on a hot day.

Is this specifically an issue for the VC25 because of special onboard systems? UA and a few airlines had dark underbellies on their 744s.

744SPX wrote:

Buckeyetech wrote:

Was there any updates on whether the -8s skin are unable to have bare metal that is on the current VC-25s?

Considering the lengths that all the airlines who have done 747 retro schemes (or even 737 retro schemes for that matter) have gone to in order to avoid bare metal finish, I'm expecting to be disappointed.

So I guess that’ll be the million dollar question. If bare metal is a no-go, and the amount of carbon fiber on the 8s…how do the engineers reconcile with what the DoD wants the paint scheme to look like? From what I’ve read, they’re still over 4 years away from even being close to making this decision.

I’m pretty sure they’re just using that as justification rather than “we are changing it because it’s from Trump”

The USAF confirmed that a study showed that a very small number of components could see some excursion of their temperature limits, with the darker paint. My guess would be the issue occurs within the engine nacelles.

DocLightning wrote:

Is this specifically an issue for the VC25 because of special onboard systems? UA and a few airlines had dark underbellies on their 744s.

Right. Consider a typical airline. They have a set of electronic racks under the cockpit to handle all the airplane functions. Then you have a set of servers to handle the IFE. Even with with all the seats etc, I don't think the IFE would take up more than one of those rack you see on a server farm. I'm not familiar with airplane IFE, so someone will have to chime in on this.

Typically on the ground they don't usually run IFE before engine start and while taking off (that may be more of electrical power requirement as opposed to cooling).

Now imagine the whole forward lower lobe full of electronic racks. Even on the ground, you may need several racks to handle communications, and computing.

Now when you are on the ground, the typical airline gets ECS air from the airport or ground cart. It would be enough to provide cooling air for the passengers and the electronic racks.

Now if you are E-4B or VC-25B sitting on the hot tarmac without ground cart and the out side air is 120 F degrees, and your equipment max inlet cooling air is 150 F or so . There may not enough of a delta F to get enough mass flow to cool all those racks in the forward lower lobe. You then have to ration. So every one or two degrees you can reduce the over all temperature of that lower lobe, the more systems you can turn on while on the ground.

I understand VC-25B have at least one good size freezer. Imagine the cooling requirement for that monster.

bt

The airconditioning system of the 747-8 series is already improved from the previous 747 series (including the VC-25A), but still contains 3 A/C packs.
See : https://www.boeing.com/commercial/aerom ... 2012_q1/4/
If more cooling cooling demand is needed at the VC-25B or a future E-4B successor , a fourth airconditioning pack can be installed. Space is available for an installation identical with the four (4) packs lay-out at the E-4B aircraft.

747classic wrote:

Space is available for an installation identical with the four (4) packs lay-out at the E-4B aircraft.

Nice.

I forgot we were talking about the paint scheme of VC-25B. E-4B wouldn't have a paint controversy and I don't see they needing to run the electronics full tilt when on the ground.

bt

texl1649 wrote:

I have never understood why AF1 isn’t just a souped up C-5. Upper deck has plenty of space, main deck can haul the cars/logistics crap just fine.

With 1,000s of hours in C-5a there is little room upper deck, just 73 economy seats fill it up.

KlimaBXsst wrote:

This is the thread i was looking for originally about lifts (elevators) in the interest of for mobility impaired individuals. Thanks for updating.

Saw someone posted a lift would be an option on the other thread but i think the implications were for internal transit rather than external to the tarmac, like was an option for FDR. I would really hate anyone to trip up and go tumbling down all those stairs to the ground and get injured as the 747 clone entry doors are a very long way to the tarmac.

Especially for tumbling small children. Shouldn’t we being using Air Force One with a JetBridge in the interest of safety yet if not a lift?

They’re not installing jet bridges at every airport it might transit and they’re not parking at a terminal. High Lifts could be flown in.

Also no president is going to turn down the opportunity to turn and wave for the cameras, that's hard to do from a jet bridge.

VC-25B officially delayed.

The Pentagon has officially approved a new schedule for the next-generation Air Force One planes, with the government now projecting that Boeing will deliver the first new VC-25B aircraft by September 2026 at earliest — a full two years behind its originally scheduled date.

The rebaselined schedule, which was approved by Pentagon acquisition czar Bill LaPlante on June 28, also includes a later September 2027 “threshold” date for the first delivery, the Air Force said in a statement. Meanwhile, the second and final aircraft could be delivered anywhere between February 2027 and February 2028.

See : https://breakingdefense.com/2022/07/new ... ears-late/

texl1649 wrote:

I have never understood why AF1 isn’t just a souped up C-5. Upper deck has plenty of space, main deck can haul the cars/logistics crap just fine.

747classic wrote:

VC-25B officially delayed.

Meanwhile, the second and final aircraft could be delivered anywhere between February 2027 and February 2028.

These gave me an idea. Would it be 'feasible' to have a 778X as the second AF1 if most of the critical equipment in the VC-25B version could be integrated into it They could use the second 'green' 748 frame for the next E-4B.


https://www.ch-aviation.com/images/stoc ... a80f45.jpg

Would double the research and test efforts and undoubtedly increase costs. Which might be offset by using the latest (least disturbed?) prototype. More updated and allows size flexibility - plus a definite 'cool' factor with those huge winglets folded!

Devilfish wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

I have never understood why AF1 isn’t just a souped up C-5. Upper deck has plenty of space, main deck can haul the cars/logistics crap just fine.

747classic wrote:

VC-25B officially delayed.

Meanwhile, the second and final aircraft could be delivered anywhere between February 2027 and February 2028.

These gave me an idea. Would it be 'feasible' to have a 778X as the second AF1 if most of the critical equipment in the VC-25B version could be integrated into it They could use the second 'green' 748 frame for the next E-4B.


https://www.ch-aviation.com/images/stoc ... a80f45.jpg

Would double the research and test efforts and undoubtedly increase costs. Which might be offset by using the latest (least disturbed?) prototype. More updated and allows size flexibility - plus a definite 'cool' factor with those huge winglets folded!

No, because the AF1s need to be identical for safety reasons. they also need 4 engines for redundancy.

LOL, there aren’t any 778 prototypes, either. There will be no new roles for 747’s, however.

Cardude2 wrote:

No, because the AF1s need to be identical for safety reasons. they also need 4 engines for redundancy.

Hmmn...does that mean the crew would be less adept with different planes and systems...or that it'd be easier to figure out in which aircraft the VIP is flying - thus making it a security nightmare for the Secret Service? Also, wasn't it Boeing who pitched twin engines to be as safe, if not more so than quads?

texl1649 wrote:

LOL, there aren’t any 778 prototypes, either.

Are you saying Boeing is not expecting further airline interest in pax 778s...and the airframer would just be extrapolating test results from the 779X even for the 778F -- so there won't be any future need for a 778X prototype anymore

Devilfish wrote:

Also, wasn't it Boeing who pitched twin engines to be as safe, if not more so than quads?

That pitch was related to ETOPs operation with respect to FAA rules. VC-25 operates in conditions beyond FAA requirements.

Devilfish wrote:

and the airframer would just be extrapolating test results from the 779X even for the 778F -

Extrapolating only gets you so far. The consensus here is that the Secret Service also insists on a proven aircraft with at least sone service experience.

The cost question goes beyond the day to day operation of two different airframes. VC-25B will get continuous upgrades over the life time. You are talking about millions of dollars of engineering just to upgrade one electronic box. If you have two different frames, you now just double the cost of your upgrade.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

The consensus here is that the Secret Service also insists on a proven aircraft with at least sone service experience

bt

For the same reason the VC-25A has been based on the service proven 747-300 and not on the 747-400, that was already in development, but not yet certified.

Cardude2 wrote:

No, because the AF1s need to be identical for safety reasons. they also need 4 engines for redundancy.

Devilfish wrote:

Hmmn...does that mean the crew would be less adept with different planes and systems...or that it'd be easier to figure out in which aircraft the VIP is flying - thus making it a security nightmare for the Secret Service? Also, wasn't it Boeing who pitched twin engines to be as safe, if not more so than quads?

The USAF set the requirements for the Presidential Fleet and they mandated that the plane have four engines. They also want identical frames so that if one of them goes tech on a deployment, equipment swaps are seamless.

texl1649 wrote:

LOL, there aren’t any 778 prototypes, either.

Devilfish wrote:

Are you saying Boeing is not expecting further airline interest in pax 778s...and the airframer would just be extrapolating test results from the 779X even for the 778F -- so there won't be any future need for a 778X prototype anymore

Boeing will not build a 777-8 passenger airframe unless there is a firm order for one.

The 777-8F certification program will use the first few customer frames, as is Boeing custom. Once certification and flight-test is completed, those customer frames will be reconditioned for commercial use and delivered.

747classic wrote:

For the same reason the VC-25A has been based on the service proven 747-300 and not on the 747-400, that was already in development, but not yet certified.

Pretty sure the VC-25A uses the 747-200B airframe, not the 747-300. Boeing's O&D for the VC-25A also show the models as 747-200s.