OA940 wrote:

Sad, but predictable.

*Cue Titanic song here*

Yes, you'll be in my heart
From this day on
Now and forever more

As soon as forever is through
I'll be over you

Remembering times gone by
Promises Boeing once made
What are the reasons why
Nothing stays the same

Stitch wrote:

DocLightning wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

I thought they were going to order 4

Looks like just 2. The original projection of 3 or more was factoring in direct replacement for the E-4B fleet, which IMO is unnecessary.

Dutchy wrote:

Don't these items come off other planes when they go to the scrapper? I would imagine that it is quite expensive to have a wear house full of parts, which might be needed in the future.

Dutchy wrote:

And with the advent of 3d printing, it might become easier to just print the desired piece, instead of keeping large amount of stocks.

enzo011 wrote:

It wont be that big of an impact as the A380, but it surely will still need to be felt by the company in the next few years as they haven't taken a charge on all outstanding deferred cost yet.

enzo011 wrote:

The accounting block is also for the total 747 sales from the initial sale to now. So they have reduced the block to 1 555.

Finn350 wrote:

It is the 747 program, there is no separate 747-8 program. Boeing has delivered 1,522 frames and there are 33 frames left in the program accounting quantity of which 21 are under firm orders.

DTWPurserBoy wrote:

The Secret Service and USAF will not allow a twin to be used as AF1. If they bought an A380 the American people would go bananas.

DTWPurserBoy wrote:

I am sure that two frames are dedicated to be the new VC-25B but you will never know where they are or if they have been built

giblets wrote:

the only reason for Airbus to enter it would be to drive down the price.

PacificBeach88 wrote:

The 747-200s that the VC-25 are based on were the very last frames of that model off the line last time too, if I remember correctly.

global2 wrote:

Just wondering if the USAF couldn't use some as large transports. Don't they still have C-5's? They must pretty long in the tooth by now.

Aesma wrote:

When talking about a future product, Boeing is very affirmative. Launch will be that date, weight will be this, CASM that, etc. Then it doesn't happen like announced.

Here it's conditional conditional conditional.

Interesting.

CARST wrote:

SEPilot wrote:

What are they going to do next time 30 years from now? I am quite sure that the only airliners being built then will be twins. Will they demand a specially designed and built plane just for AF1? THAT will be expensive.

Okay, I'll bite. In 30 years everyone will be flying on blended wing bodies with 8-10 engines mounted on the tail of these game-changing designs.

Electric engines.

Or the planet will be a wasteland and we'll all be living underground and doing lots of virtual conferencing, no need to move.

United787 wrote:

I am glad I got to see the 747 being built at Everett before it is all done... The good news is that we will these flying for at least another 20-30 years...

anfromme wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Don't these items come off other planes when they go to the scrapper? I would imagine that it is quite expensive to have a wear house full of parts, which might be needed in the future.

If you imagine production ending in 2019/2020, there won't be too many 747s gone to the scrapper yet.
But all of that is why I was referring to Boeing's extensive experience in the field of long-term parts supply. They'll have a pretty good idea of the demand for different parts to expect over the lifetime of all frames delivered.

Even for larger parts, it's going to be much easier and cheaper to simply produce a few spares (how many spare rudders will be needed over 30 years for a grand total fleet of maybe 200?) than to keep the relevant production facilities in place.

Dutchy wrote:

And with the advent of 3d printing, it might become easier to just print the desired piece, instead of keeping large amount of stocks.

As soon as 3D printing is good enough to actually produce airplane parts, that is, because any spare parts would have to be up to production (i.e. certification) standards.

enzo011 wrote:

It wont be that big of an impact as the A380, but it surely will still need to be felt by the company in the next few years as they haven't taken a charge on all outstanding deferred cost yet.

I think you misunderstood me, as your point was exactly my point - Airbus has effectively no deferred development cost for the A380, while Boeing still has most of it deferred, hence the combined $1.3bn charges they took against the programme in the last few quarters.

enzo011 wrote:

The accounting block is also for the total 747 sales from the initial sale to now. So they have reduced the block to 1 555.

Finn350 wrote:

It is the 747 program, there is no separate 747-8 program. Boeing has delivered 1,522 frames and there are 33 frames left in the program accounting quantity of which 21 are under firm orders.

Ah - my bad, I thought this was for the 747-8.

DTWPurserBoy wrote:

The Secret Service and USAF will not allow a twin to be used as AF1. If they bought an A380 the American people would go bananas.

Airbus aren't even bidding, so you can relax
As for four engines... like many things before, that's a requirement that's definitely going to change at some point. Once the next replacement cycle comes up and the 747 is out of production, there's not going to be any other option. They won't custom-design a four-engine long-haul plane for AF1.

DTWPurserBoy wrote:

I am sure that two frames are dedicated to be the new VC-25B but you will never know where they are or if they have been built

Uhm - those the VC-25s are LN 679 and 685 and we know their exact first flight dates.
Equally, there's a pretty good record of every 747-8 built or under construction, along with assigned customer (if any).

I think you missed my point. Those frames are the current VC-25's--no frames have been allocated to the new AF1.

It takes a lot of work to turn a 748 into a presidential aircraft. It has to be hardened against EMP, updated communications, refueling capability (even if it never has been used), various not-to-be-discussed anti-missile and anti-aircraft devices and I would not be surprised to see a full operating suite on board. It is not just tricking out a VIP interior. From the time it is flown "green" quietly from Paine Field to Wichita it will be several years before it goes into service. It would cost more to rebuild an existing 748 into a VC25B than to build one from scratch. Plus the frames are under guard 24/7 while being built.

Eventually a large twin will have to be used--I'll be dead by then--and the two present aircraft just went through a complete interior refitting just a year or two ago. So they are good for a while yet. After 9/11 both airplanes were outfitted with equipment for the president to address the nation on television.
See here: http://747-8.blogspot.com
Looking at that info it's not going to be that hard to deduce which planes are candidates for VC-25 replacement. Currently, there's none that springs to mind considering there are only four 747-8i built but not allocated - LH's rejected frame, Transaero's two birds, and one BBJ, in storage for over two years now.
I'm willing to bet none of them are going to be the next presidential transport.
As things stand, Boeing only this year got the contract to evaluate and design the planes' specifications, so chances are the VC-25 successors are still a couple of years away from having their first metal cut.

giblets wrote:

the only reason for Airbus to enter it would be to drive down the price.

Especially in this case, that wouldn't come cheap, though. Once you decide to enter you have to abide by the rules, provide info and put in a lot of work to make and present proposals. Quite a costly undertaking. Nah, I would have passed on that one as well.

PacificBeach88 wrote:

The 747-200s that the VC-25 are based on were the very last frames of that model off the line last time too, if I remember correctly.

Not quite, but close - but it's a bit more complicated anyway.
The two VC-25s first flew in May and October 1987. However, they weren't delivered until August and December 1990, i.e. the extra work required took over three years on each of them. And yet - the very last 747-200 didn't get delivered for about a year after that. In total, another two dozen 747-200 were built after the second VC-25.
That said, the VC-25s were actually the last pax-only 747-200s built.

Dutchy wrote:

hayzel777 wrote:

YAY! The 747 has done nothing but suck money away from other programs just to keep it alive. It's sad to see it go but everything must go at some point.

And the 748i program has kept the A380 price down. The 747 was without competition, so it really was the money maker for Boeing in its day.

hongkongflyer wrote:

AF1s are so specific that it may even not technically possible to build a standard 748 first and then modificy it into AF1 standard.

What is so specific about the basic plane? I understand that there is a great need for a lot of electronic toys to play with, but if you have a green plane it should be possible to build this kind of stuff in. Perhaps the two AF1 planes are already build to the standard, Boeing must feel that this is a contract that they can't loose, so it must make some sense to build them as white tail, according to the specs of the secret service and waiting for government approval to destinate them as VC-25B at a later date.
If they are going to replace the E-4's as well, 6 frames in total, that is one years production right there

DocLightning wrote:

Have the two AF1 replacements been formally ordered?

Finn350 wrote:

Boeing wrote off all the deferred production cost of around $1.2 billion related to the 747 program. There is still $369 million of unamortized tooling costs to be recovered. As this was not written off, Boeing still expects to generate a profit of around $369 / 33 = $11 million per frame average profit of the remaining frames in the accounting quantity. Should they determine this is not feasible the maximum reach-forward loss would be basically around this figure. Additionally, there probably are ramp-down costs related to the production line.

CARST wrote:

In 30 years everyone will be flying on blended wing bodies with 8-10 engines mounted on the tail of these game-changing designs.

hayzel777 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

hayzel777 wrote:

YAY! The 747 has done nothing but suck money away from other programs just to keep it alive. It's sad to see it go but everything must go at some point.

And the 748i program has kept the A380 price down. The 747 was without competition, so it really was the money maker for Boeing in its day.

hongkongflyer wrote:

AF1s are so specific that it may even not technically possible to build a standard 748 first and then modificy it into AF1 standard.

What is so specific about the basic plane? I understand that there is a great need for a lot of electronic toys to play with, but if you have a green plane it should be possible to build this kind of stuff in. Perhaps the two AF1 planes are already build to the standard, Boeing must feel that this is a contract that they can't loose, so it must make some sense to build them as white tail, according to the specs of the secret service and waiting for government approval to destinate them as VC-25B at a later date.
If they are going to replace the E-4's as well, 6 frames in total, that is one years production right there

Keeping the price of the A380 down does not benefit Boeing in anyway. It may have earned money before, but it no longer earns money for them. There comes a time when you must cut ur losses and move on and now is the time. Boeing just posted there first lost since 2009.

Dutchy wrote:

Yes it does, especially in a duopoli. Those extra profits can be allocated to other programs in order to get a bigger marked share.

You and your mate encounter a bear in the woods. Your mate stands there and notices that you remove your shoes and putting on running shows. His remarks, "you cannot outrun a bear", you replay "I don't need to outrun the bear, I only need to outrun you

global2 wrote:

Just wondering if the USAF couldn't use some as large transports. Don't they still have C-5's? They must pretty long in the tooth by now.

7BOEING7 wrote:

Since Boeing no longer keeps a presence in Wichita except for Dreamlifter ops it won't be Wichita.

Channex757 wrote:

Beats me why the brass hats and neurotics can't be overruled...A suitable rework of the reliable 773ER with the GE90 powerplant (proven in service) could be built to handle all the needs of the Presidency. All it would take that's hard work would be that need for redundancy in power systems. Other nations with similar aircraft have made the decision (Japan and possibly Korea...?) so why not the USAF?

Stitch wrote:

I am guessing the fixation on four engines is not a fear of reliability, but that if you lose an engine you do not need to divert. With a twin, the Secret Service would need to be pre-positioned at each diversion point to meet Air Force One and secure it. That is going to add complexity and cost to each Presidential trip.

CARST wrote:

SEPilot wrote:

What are they going to do next time 30 years from now? I am quite sure that the only airliners being built then will be twins. Will they demand a specially designed and built plane just for AF1? THAT will be expensive.

Okay, I'll bite. In 30 years everyone will be flying on blended wing bodies with 8-10 engines mounted on the tail of these game-changing designs.

DTWPurserBoy wrote:

From the time it is flown "green" quietly from Paine Field to Wichita it will be several years before it goes into service.

But in some respects, the 747 is also becoming the victim of its own success. It created the traffic base that justified efforts by Airbus and Boeing to develop smaller widebodies. Initially, they could compete with a 747 on a unit-cost basis, but the latest generation of these aircraft—the 787, 777X, A350 and A330neo—is at least comparable or even better in terms of seat-mile costs. Airlines no longer have an argument to opt for big aircraft to drive down costs; in fact, they have instead chosen to reduce the risk of having to fly with empty seats. Even congested airports that would in theory force airlines to use bigger aircraft have not been a factor important enough to sustain a larger number of orders for the 747 or A380.

It is an irony that Airbus felt compelled to launch the A380 as late as 2000 to counter the 747. Only a few years later, and before the A380 entered commercial service in 2007, deliveries of the 747 started to decline. Airbus has since argued that is because the “jumbo” jet is now being superseded by the “super-jumbo” or “the flagship of the 21st century” that will pick up essentially all of the demand in the segment. But the A380 now appears to have more or less the same problem as the aircraft it was intended to replace.