Air Force One order - resolved. 747-8

MikeD

Administrator
Staff member
USAF to purchase two defaulted-on brand new 747-8s that never saw service and are stored at VCV.


Trump Wanted a Cheaper Air Force One. So the USAF Is Buying a Bankrupt Russian Airline Undelivered 747s

President Donald Trump said the projected cost of new Air Force One aircraft was too high, so the U.S. Air Force found a way to lower it: by buying a pair of Boeing 747 jetliners abandoned by a bankrupt Russian airline.

Air Force officials are now finalizing a contract with Boeing for the two planes, according to three defense officials with knowledge of the deal. The Pentagon could publicly announce the deal as soon as this week

“We’re working through the final stages of coordination to purchase two commercial 747-8 aircraft and expect to award a contract soon,” Air Force spokeswoman Ann Stefanek said in a statement.

The Air Force is not expected to disclose the specific value of the contract, but officials said that the military is getting a good deal on the planes. Boeing lists the average sticker price of a 747-8 as $386.8 million; the actual amount paid by airlines and other customers varies with quantities, configurations, and so forth.

“We’re still working toward a deal to provide two 747-8s to the Air Force — this deal is focused on providing a great value for the Air Force and the best price for the taxpayer,” Boeing spokeswoman Caroline Hutcheson said in a statement.

The 747s that will be transformed for Presidential transport were originally ordered in 2013 by Transaero, which was Russia’s second-largest airline until it went bankrupt in 2015. Boeing built two of the four jets in the order, but the airline never took ownership of them.

Typically, an airline makes a 1 percent down payment when it orders a plane, then pays the balance in installments. Transaero did not fulfill its scheduled payments, according to an industry source.

“Aeroflot absorbed most of Transaero’s existing fleet, but declined to pick up Transaero’s 747-8I orders worth $1.5 billion at list prices,” FlightGlobal reported last month.

So Boeing flight-tested the two completed jets and put them in storage. Flight tracking data shows that the aircraft, numbered N894BA and N895BA, were last flown in February, to the Southern California Logistics Airport in Victorville, a sprawling facility in the Mojave Desert whose hot, dry air prevents corrosion. This “boneyard” is largely occupied by retired commercial jets that still bear the liveries of Delta, FedEx, British Airways, and Cathay Pacific. Other planes, unmarked, sit with their engines shrinkwrapped in anticipation of one day returning to flight.

Boeing has been paying to store the two 747s in new condition while searching for a buyer, which allowed the Air Force to negotiate a good deal for them, sources said. It’s similar to the way car dealers discount new vehicles from the previous year when new models hit the lot.

Turning a standard 747 into a flying White House requires more than a blue-and-white paint job. After the Air Force takes ownership of the planes, contractors will give them a state-of-the-art communications system, defensive countermeasures, and hardening to withstand an electromagnetic pulse caused by a nuclear explosion. New custom interiors will have conference rooms, offices and seating for White House staff, guests and journalists.

The Pentagon’s 2018 budget request, sent to Congress in February, shows that the Air Force plans to spend nearly $3.2 billion between 2018 and 2022 on two new Air Force One jets. Trump would likely fly on the new planes if he is elected to a second term.

The 747s currently flown as Air Force One are 747-200s, older models that started flying presidents in the early 1990s.


http://www.defenseone.com/business/2017/08/russian-air-force-one-boeing-trump-747/139872/
 
I could be wrong and thinking about some other 8's sitting in the desert, but my understanding is that these two jets came off the line so heavy that no one would take them. I feel like that'd be an issue even with AF1.
 
I could be wrong and thinking about some other 8's sitting in the desert, but my understanding is that these two jets came off the line so heavy that no one would take them. I feel like that'd be an issue even with AF1.

I could understand that effecting an airline or freight company's bottom line, but this is the AF we're talking about. Whatever weight is available until max gross on a military aircraft we will find a mod or upgrade that consumes it. Probably save the tax payer money in the long run if these are a few thousand lbs fatter than the rest of the fleet.
 
I could be wrong and thinking about some other 8's sitting in the desert, but my understanding is that these two jets came off the line so heavy that no one would take them. I feel like that'd be an issue even with AF1.
Those were freighters...
 
There's no way this ends up cheaper than new build aircraft.

My money is on Boeing having to drill apart these jets to make the needed mods.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
 
  • Like
Reactions: s60
I suppose you're right about that.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

The other part of that is while the program management ran the acquisition contract there would be lots of time to "integrate" new technology from requirement creep.

With a MOD aircraft you pay more in individual component integration, but you have more oversight and limited ability to just continuously pile on new requirements because PM can't hide the bloat under program development.
 
That woulda been done either way. They aren’t going to retool the line for AF1. Mods will be done elsewhere.


So true


When we were building the first 767 tankers for Italy and Japan we (Boeing defense) purchased green aircraft from commercial (BCAG) as 767-200ERs. They were flown to Wichita where we pulled off the 48 section and replaced with a new one that would accommodate a boom, cut a freighter door in it, removed the floor and replaced with a brand new freighter floor.

Seattle wouldn't touch any ITAR related work unless there was enough for a whole line (P8). The onesy twosy stuff went to Wichita.

The ABL 747 got even more torn down as with the chemical laser components the lower skin needed to be completely changed
 
So true


When we were building the first 767 tankers for Italy and Japan we (Boeing defense) purchased green aircraft from commercial (BCAG) as 767-200ERs. They were flown to Wichita where we pulled off the 48 section and replaced with a new one that would accommodate a boom, cut a freighter door in it, removed the floor and replaced with a brand new freighter floor.

Seattle wouldn't touch any ITAR related work unless there was enough for a whole line (P8). The onesy twosy stuff went to Wichita.

The ABL 747 got even more torn down as with the chemical laser components the lower skin needed to be completely changed

Curious with the P-8 Poseidon. I see them parked in Seattle, is there enough demand for them to get a full line being 737's or is that just the dumping ground till the Aussies come and get them?
 
Betcha Airbus does the same thing with their one offs and military mods.

Well they've always been big fans of overcomplicating the manufacturing process for the sake of job creation. It's probably seen as a benefit to them.


There is a funny irony though that in the case of Boeing you have a company whose commercial jet success grew off of the back of one of the most successful "military mod" programs of all time. Had the KC-135 requirement not pumped a whole lot of money into the 707 program office there is a good chance it would have been one of the other company's to crush all competitors for the next 30 years.
 
Every manufacturer does this because of the massive pain in the butt that is that the FFA. ANY change in the production process would result in a change to the production certification. It is MUCH easier to build them as certificated and STC the hell out of them than to try to make changes to the production authorization. I've seen aircraft signed for/accepted in one building, towed to another building, and modified before the customer takes it.

Unless the AF got a huge price break in THIS case, the cost to strip down the used aircraft and remove all the previously installed equipment will far exceed the cost of new planes......NO savings to the tax payers!!
 
Back
Top