Slashdot Mirror
US Air Force Selects Boeing 747-8 To Replace Air Force One
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.
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
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
The entire point in using a massively successful commercial platform for this kind of thing is that spare parts will continue to be in production for decades to support the huge customer base. Even if the -8 has a limited run compared to other 747s, it's not like they've dropped support for the SP even though it too was only built in limited numbers.
As for why the 747 could be discontinued, at least for awhile; there's an upper limit on the number of superjumbos needed on the planet, and I expect that we're probably not far from that point. So long as the current fleet continues to operate safely then there's simply no need to produce more planes. As the current fleet wears though, eventually new replacements will be needed for those routes where moving this many passengers makes sense, especially if the manufacturers can get the efficiency up. That's part of what's eating into the superjumbos; the ability for multiple flights a day with smaller planes to get equal fuel economy per passenger and at the same time offer more flexibility (ie more than one flight per day) due to the use of smaller planes.
My wife used to fly fifteen times a year. There was one city that she flew to the most, and she chose the airline with the most daily flights because airlines will often move one up to an earlier flight or two that same day if there's empty space, because they can sell the seats on the later flights to last-minute purchasers. She could come home four or eight hours early if she was done early and didn't need to be there anymore. An airline flying two or three 777s or A320s per day offers her more flexibility than one flying one 747 or one A380, and that's worth something.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
So they could whine about all the protectionism in the US, to justify their own protectionism.
Learn to love Alaska
There will be hundreds of 747s flying for the next three to four decades, so parts are not an issue - Boeing makes the majority of its money on aftermarket care and parts, they won't close those lines down fast.
So...$1.65 billion to buy the planes from Boeing, and how many millions per year to have Boeing keep a tooling line up for spare parts?
Since airlines were still ordering new 747-8s (the platform on which the new Air Force One(s) would be built) in 2014 - and might still continue to do so - this isn't exactly an obsolete aircraft. I mean, the first 747-8s weren't delivered to customers until 2011. There are still-flying 747-variant fuselages in commercial (passenger and freight) service that have been in the air since the late 1970s and early 1980s. Based on that history, it seems likely that Boeing will need to support its commercial customers through to at least 2045 or so.
~Idarubicin
I don't think any other country is unduly concerned about us not opening up bids on a project like AF1. It's one or two planes. The symbolic value of the plane is significant, and honestly, isn't really what is beggaring the country.
No foreign corporation is going to seriously complain that they didn't get to build the one plane for the head of state for another country over a local builder.
The symbolic requirement isn't good enough to force the rest of the government to buy all Boeing, but unless the 747-8 was a complete pile of shit or twice the price of the comparable Airbus model, that one plane is not really a big deal.
And, 2 engines are actually more reliable than 4 - less that can go wrong.
No.
Let p be the probability of one engine failing during a typical flight. We can assume p is a very small number, because the engines are designed and maintained well.
The probability of both engines failing on a 2-engine aircraft is p^2, an even smaller number. The probability of all 4 engines failing on a 4-engine aircraft is p^4, a number that is even smaller still than p^2. So, having 4 engines instead of 2 reduces the probability of all engines failing, and makes the plane more reliable.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Planes last pretty much forever if you want them to. I'm part owner of a 1957 DeHavilland DHC-1 Beaver. It's only three years newer than I am. It's much easier to buy replacement parts for the it than me.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Your Beaver is NOT pressurized. Airliners have airframes whose service lives are based in part on the number of pressurizations/depressurizations. Every time the airliner ascends it inflates a bit like a balloon and when it descends it contracts again, and each of these cycles not only stresses the Aluminum skin generally but it specifically stresses any area around a hole (like around rivet holes and large holes like doors and windows).
This is why a B-25, for example, can be kept flying forever but a pressurized airliner will eventually be scrapped. Again, this is not based on airfarme age in years, but rather in cycles. There are still 727's flying today - but they are ones that flew infrequent long flights rather than lots of short hops (those airframes becale razor blades long ago). These pressure cycles can lead to a relatively young (in years) airframe failing if that airframe makes lots of short hops, like between Hawaiian islands as with Aloha 243