Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Air Force Selects Boeing 747-8 To Replace Air Force One

Posted by timothy on from the the-privileged-few dept.

Tyketto writes Following up on a previous story about its replacement, the US Air Force has selected the Boeing 747-8 to replace the aging Presidential fleet of two VC-25s, which are converted B747-200s. With the only other suitable aircraft being the Airbus A380, the USAF cited Boeing's 50-year history of building presidential aircraft as their reason to skip competition and opt directly for the aircraft, which due to dwindling sales and prospects, may be the last 747s to be produced.

9 of 293 comments (clear)

  1. track record by ganjadude · · Score: 4, Interesting

    which due to dwindling sales and prospects, may be the last 747s to be produced.

    the 747 has been around forever, with many upgrades over that time. it has a proven track record. Now, generally im against no bid contracts, but this one makes sense.

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    1. Re:track record by ganjadude · · Score: 5, Interesting

      why would you think it will be their last plane? the article notes that the 747 and the airbus are the only 2 quad engine planes available at this point in time. the replacement planes are intended to last 30+ years, as such why dont you think boeing will be able to compete again in 30 years??

      And yes, because america, I think the president should rock american made transportation, and if the 747 is the only american made option, so be it

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    2. Re:track record by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Also, Airbus refused to submit a proposal for this when approached several years ago (while there was no bidding process, basic proposals were requested from both Airbus and Boeing) because they knew it was a no contest decision.

    3. Re:track record by alexander_686 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      747 is the only american made option, so be it

      Airbus, oddly enough, would be another "American" option - maybe even more American than Boeing.

      When the US was looking at replacing it current generation of aerial refueling aircraft, Airbus' bid was more American based on "value". Both companies subcontract much of the work and not all of the subcontractor are in America or Europe. (I don't think the Mobile Alabama can produce the 380, but you never know what type of modifications they would make to win the contract.)

      If we Americans want to be the "best" and on the cutting edge we can rest on our laurels and hid behind "Buy American". Let the Europeans come and I will be happy – as long as we can bid on their president's plan. (or prime misters, or whatever)

    4. Re:track record by Solandri · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If the two-engine planes are such a risk, how the hell have they got air safety certificates?

      Because the certification for twin-engine planes only looks at engine reliability and environmental factors like rain and hail. It doesn't consider being shot at with missiles and small arms fire, which is a required safety criteria for Air Force One.

    5. Re:track record by Richard_at_work · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That entirely depends on the use you have for the aircraft - high oil price or not, no aircraft has the CASM of the A380 (not even the proposed 777X), which puts it in a league of its own. Consequently, the 747-8 falls foul to the 777 so the sole VLA competitor to the A380 would be killed by its own sibling...

      Oil can go through the roof, but if you can fill an A380 then thats the aircraft you need for the job. You can't shoehorn 600 into a 777 no matter how hard you try.

  2. Not going to disappear quickly.... by outlander · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Even if Boeing stopped building 747 variants tomorrow, they'd be around for ages. They're the mainstay for long-haul travel, and dwindling sales probably are more related to market saturation - as in, there are enough in the air now to meet current demand - than any inherent shortcoming in the design.

    I suspect that there are more refinements to come - it's just too useful an airframe to discard. It may take Boeing a bit to roll in some of the working dreamliner tech but it seems reasonable that they'd try to do that when time and demand permit.

    --
    "Truth is what works" -- William James "It works!!" -- o-dark-AM comment
    1. Re:Not going to disappear quickly.... by Hadlock · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Old 747s have terrible fuel economy which is their highest operating cost, plus they have to be completely torn down (seats out, overhead bins out) for a complete airframe inspection, engines rebuilt etc every 6 years or so and it costs millions of dollars to do this "frame off restoration" with qualified FAA certified mechanics. After the fourth or so complete restoration the cost-benefit ratio slips in favor of buying a whole new airplane. This isn't like buying a pickup truck for personal use which you can just drive until the wheels fall off, swap in a new rear axle and drive it another 500,000 miles without ever doing a proper inspection of the frame, wheel bearings, etc.
       
      In addition to the major overhauls, they do slightly less major overhauls every 4 years, and they still do a full 2 day inspection every 18 months or so.
       
      Eventually these old 747s get sold for a song because the maintenance to keep them flying isn't worth it. There's a 747 in the background at the Top Gear test track (which is a converted airfield) that is parked most of the time or used as a prop for movies but is still airworthy when someone needs an extra cargo jet, or needs to fly a football team to Australia or something for top dollar. But they're not economical for daily use by major commercial airliners anymore.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    2. Re:Not going to disappear quickly.... by Solandri · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Even if Boeing stopped building 747 variants tomorrow, they'd be around for ages. They're the mainstay for long-haul travel, and dwindling sales probably are more related to market saturation - as in, there are enough in the air now to meet current demand - than any inherent shortcoming in the design.

      An individual airframe is typically retired before 100,000 pressurization cycles. This is a limitation of the aluminum used to make the skin, which unlike other ferrous metals does not have a fatigue limit. In other words, aluminum always grows weaker with use. As you get closer to 100,000 cycles, you increase the odds of a catastrophic fatigue failure where the aluminum literally unzips like plastic shrinkwrap after you've cut a notch in it. (Aloha 243 had nearly 90,000 cycles due to its short-duration island-hopping history.)

      The 747 is typically used on long-haul overseas flights lasting 10+ hours. This drastically reduces the rate at which airlines can rack up pressurization cycles. Even if one were flown 2x a day every day, it would take over 130 years to reach 100,000 cycles. By comparison, a 737 used for the 40-minute LAX to Las Vegas route may fly 10x a day and reach 100,000 cycles in a little over 25 years. This is why 747s are hanging around - their skins simply have less wear and tear on them despite being in service for more years and logging more flight hours than other planes.

      The 747-8 was always a bit dodgy. When Boeing made the original 747, they weren't planning to make it with a partial second deck. It was supposed to be a stepping stone to future models with a full second deck (designing the 747 nearly bankrupted the company). Boeing pitched the full two-decker model to the airlines for decades but could never get enough interest to justify actually building it. Then Airbus came with its "who cares if we'll sell enough to make money, our governments will pay for it if it doesn't so let's build it" A380, and Boeing threw together the 747-8 as a possible alternative.

      The slow rate of A380 sales (nearly 10 years old, 318 orders, 147 deliveries) seems to substantiate Boeing's marketing research that there just wasn't sufficient demand (yet) for such a large plane. By comparison, the 747-400 had 465 deliveries in its first 10 years. The 747-8 has 119 orders, 83 deliveries in the same timeframe as the A380. As you state, in the 400-525 passenger category, the market is pretty well-saturated by older 747s which are still airworthy.

      I suspect that there are more refinements to come - it's just too useful an airframe to discard. It may take Boeing a bit to roll in some of the working dreamliner tech but it seems reasonable that they'd try to do that when time and demand permit.

      In terms of airline operating economics, the number of passenger per flight nearly always has a larger magnitude of effect than efficiency gains for new technology. For an airline you are almost always nearly best-off flying a plane with slightly more capacity than the number of passengers. Airbus tried to claim the A380 would be so efficient this wouldn't matter, and you could fly a 747-sized number of passengers on a A380 for cheaper than a 747. I was very skeptical, and the fact that airlines aren't tripping over themselves to replace their old 747s with A380s is a pretty good indication that it's still cheaper to fly a 747 for 747-sized passenger capacities.

      The next place to watch is to see if Airbus will roll out a twin-engine competitor to the 777 (maybe a longer A350-1000?). Airbus' competitor to the 777 had been the A340 (both are in the 300-450 passenger range). But the A340 is a 4-engine plane which uses much more fuel. Consequently, the 777 beat the A340 into a bloody pulp in the market. The 777 has had 1827 orders in 20 years, vs 379 orders