Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Buckeyetech wrote:I have yet to see whom Boeing chose to complete the interior work of the jets.
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
PepeTheFrog wrote:Ouch.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
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.'"
scbriml wrote:Is there any confidence that this is the end of it, or will we see further charges?
cathay747 wrote:Don't forget that anything that is bolted to an aircraft needs certifying to meet standards like flammability etc.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.
ReverseFlow wrote:Don't forget that anything that is bolted to an aircraft needs certifying to meet standards like flammability etc.
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.
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)
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.
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?
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?
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.
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,
Buckeyetech wrote: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?
Buckeyetech wrote:Was there any updates on whether the -8s skin are unable to have bare metal that is on the current VC-25s?
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.
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.
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.
747classic wrote:Space is available for an installation identical with the four (4) packs lay-out at the E-4B aircraft.
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.
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?
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.
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!
Cardude2 wrote:No, because the AF1s need to be identical for safety reasons. they also need 4 engines for redundancy.
texl1649 wrote:LOL, there aren’t any 778 prototypes, either.
Devilfish wrote:Also, wasn't it Boeing who pitched twin engines to be as safe, if not more so than quads?
Devilfish wrote:and the airframer would just be extrapolating test results from the 779X even for the 778F -
bikerthai wrote:
The consensus here is that the Secret Service also insists on a proven aircraft with at least sone service experience
bt
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?
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
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.