Back to Squawk list
  • 42

Donald Trump wants to cancel a government order for a new Air Force One

The president-elect said in a tweet early Tuesday that the new Boeing (BA) 747 jet that's being built to carry "future presidents" already costs more than $4 billion, and that he wants to cancel the order. ( Plus d'info...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

Just curious from someone who knows more about it than me. Is the current set of VC-25s more maintenance hogs than a new set of 747-8s would be? Are parts a problem to obtain? I know the airframe is no longer being produced, but surely parts should be out there. Is it a question of costing more to retrofit the current airframes over a new one?
Quidnon 9
Thats the just of it. Getting really expensive to maintain and fly and they were never that economical from a fuel burn standpoint. This article has a lot more explanation:
Thanks, that is kinda what I figured, but wanted to see it in print somewhere. Shame that they didn't show some cost comparisons in that article though. That would have been interesting to see and to show others.
Steve Dietrich 3
$4 billion at 4% is $160 million or $80 million per year per airplane ...... That will buy a lot of maintenance.

Also note that the kitchen on the new planes is supposed to feed 100 gourmet meals. Why? Let the press eat MRE's like the troops do.
Greg Zelna 1
I LIKE it. Its about time the party is no longer on us, the taxpayers. In fact Press Corp's respective employers should pay first class airfare equivalent rates, to ride AF1 to defray costs.
James Simms 0
Though I voted for him, he just wants to keep riding his 757 (which is 20-odd years old anyway) & keep his guys employed. It doesn't have the defensive & communication gear AF1 has which makes it a liability in today's environment, so I doubt the SS will allow him to use his personal plane for much longer anyway. Every new platform is going to have teething pains. They can either go ahead & buy a new AF1 now & get the latest & greatest gear later or wait to get everything ironed out then buy a new AF1. There aren't that many 747-200 platforms left anyway
drdek -3
Keep his guys employed? Get real! This guy has no loyalty to anyone, his wives, his contractors, nor his fellow Americans. Case in point, he won't even attend security briefings! Just shows, he doesn't give a rats ass about the security of the American people... only himself.
drdek 1
BTW, he is flying his plane because of the free advertising he gets when the press takes a picture of him next to his plane!
Alan Yates 6
He's flying "his" a/c because he isn't president yet and is not allowed the use of any official planes/staff. The decision to cancel the inflated $4 billion contract is a business decision in spite of those among us who would be delighted if they can make it political. He's doing what WE elected him to do. And, in case you missed the point. WE WON. HE WON. Elections have consequences, and "he won".
Mark Lansdell 2
I'll be interested to hear how he arrives in Baltimore this afternoon. BWI is a mere 4-5 miles from M&T Bank Stadium. The FBO is Signature and great access to Baltimore's Stadiums off Russel Street/ B.W. Parkway
drdek -1
Yes, he his flying his a/c because he is not yet president. He isn't his plane to keep his employees as James Simms asserted above.

A business decision? You and I must live on different planets.

As far as the election is concerned, with all due respect, he did not win the popular vote, not by a long shot. Moreover, at least 8 members of the electoral college are becoming "faithless electors" and 3 from Washington state alone! Maybe that is why DJS is Tweeting at Boeing?
BaronG58 6
The United States is not a direct democracy, it is a republic. Presidents are not elected by the masses but by the electorate. Our Forefathers were genius. State representatives are elected by the masses. The fact 8 member are faithless and Trump did not win the popular vote is a moot point. Regardless who any of us voted for, Trump will be the next President. Not the first not to win the popular vote and will not be the last.
Steve Dietrich 3
Winning the "popular vote" is like gaining the most yards in a football game, interesting but irrelevant to winning .

The framers of the Constitution were smart enough to realize the risk of small pockets of highly partisan and perhaps disloyal people and corruption affecting the outcome.

My guess is that his family will make more use of the Trump airplane when he is not with them. We will not have the situation where Obama left Hawaii one or two days apart and the taxpayers had to send another flight out to get her.
Randy Marco -4
First the framers created the electoral college as a precaution so "the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” Most people were highly uneducated at the time and most common people did not vote; therefore, the electoral college was to ensure someone without "the requisite qualifications" never became president should total control be left to the unintellectual chaff.

Clearly, it's time for the constitution to be amended given the recent election and more importantly the unforeseen forces like the interweb of fake news and cable faux news readily spreading lies and oligarchy agenda to the masses.

Finally, losing the popular vote is TOTALLY RELEVANT because in the instant case, the Fraudster has far LESS political capital to get the backing from the Senate and the House because those elected know they will be answering to the voter and the voters clearly did not want the conman with the exception of the non-educated white plebs.
Mark Lansdell 5
I disagree. The electoral collage exists for all the reasons it was set up in the first place, to protect the small and the agrarian states with more acres and less population than some of the other states with huge populations.
Exactly. That is why we are a Republic and not a Democracy.
bbabis 4
We are the United States. He won the vote of the states 30-20, a clear mandate that a change of course was called for by the electorate. A rising tide raises all boats and after 8 years of drought there is hope for the harbor again.
joel wiley 4
According to the OED,
Mandate:The authority to carry out a policy, regarded as given by the electorate to a party or candidate that wins an election. 271 to 269 electoral votes is a mandate. The 2000 election mandate was decided by a 5/4 SCOTUS decision Florida's electoral votes. Neither 2000 nor 2016 expressed an opinion of an overwhelming percentage of the voters favoring either candidate.

The thread has gone from a trumpian tweet on a 747 contract to discussing the merits of the electoral college. The electoral college is what we have folks, it is what it is.

The bigger Monday morning quarterback question to me is, out of 350,000,000 Americans, were these two turkeys the best we could do? The mandate was the question, "for which one do I have to hold my nose harder when casting a ballot?".
As with opinions, YMMV.
Steve Dietrich 2
Being President is about being a leader, not another policy wonk. Being a leader is about leadership and character, something that nobody ever accused Hillary of hoarding .,

We heard the same whines about Reagan - outsider, unqualified ,

Boeing needs some tough love and Trump and his team are likely to provide just that. Boeing has been the darling of the Obama/Hillary/Emauel team for too long. Their business practices are not in question - they have top executives who have pled guilty to multiple felonies related to government contracting with respect to the tankers and missile work. They are still a great company and hopefully they will see that their future is in performance not doing favors.

Tom Sherer 1
So, where is the leadership??
As to your concluding paragraph, Trump has no idea what he is talking about. Something must have gone wrong or someone was trying to steal the silver, so he had to pop off to create a distraction or diversion. That is his MO.
Tom Sherer -2
Yes, Gore only won the popular vote by 500+K votes as well as the FL vote. HRC appears to have won by 2.7+M votes - 2+% is considered close to a landslide.
Randy Marco -1
Losing by the BIGGEST popular vote in history and by a combine vote of less than 80,000 in 4 rust belt states of insignificance is certainly NOT a mandate!
Steve Dietrich 2
Another looser who wants to rewrite the game rules after the game is over.

Had the rules been different Trump would have campaigned differently .

It's also important to note that the present system provides an important firewall against localized election fraud. Hillary did very well in California where she finished 3 million votes ahead. California is in head to head competition with Chicago in the corruption race . Hillary's margin in the Southern CA and Chicago accounted for any margin in the popular vote.

What frustrates the left is that they thought they were getting away with GTE (grand theft election) but they failed. They failed because the people had alternate sources for the news.

If you want to educate yourself about what's happening there are few sources better than Sharyl Attkinson - former liberal investigative reporter with CBS until she embarrassed Obama with the truth. Then the white house reached out brother to brother to silence her. But she is still out there.
joel wiley -3
Do you mean this Sharyl Anderson:

You could gone with Mr. Trump's chief of staff for examples at:

Loser: noun; person or thing that loses or has lost something, especially a game or contest:
looser: Adjective;comparative form of loose: more loose
Tom Sherer -1
States are largely irrelevant in the 21st Century - have been since shortly after WW II, the Interstate Highway System and 707s & DC-8s.

You've been in the harbor for 8 years - just watch.
Jesse Carroll -1
Are you referring to Nobama, Muchelle or the Trumpeter? Sounds just like Nobama to me!
Actually I bet Trump would want to take a train, seeing how he has one rolling over Liberals, Democrats and sore losers right now
Er.A.K. Mittal -3
I kinda disagree on 'loyalty' issue.
He's loyal to himself, to his enterprise.
So I belieeve !
Mark Lansdell 6
OK, can we get back to aviation topics now? Time to terminate this interlude and speak of airplanes and how to operate them or not.
Er.A.K. Mittal -2
Notice how discussion is acquiring the constitutional level with pilots trying to become experts of constitutional law and political science.
Talking of direct / indirect democracy n republic vis-a-vis federation et al .
And I'm being 'down voted' for managemental quips !
ha ... ha ...
Steve Dietrich -3
There is no doubt that when Obama returns AF-1 from his n'teenth vacation Trump will start flying it . The problem is that Boeing has had a "special relationship" with the Obama administration. They are far behind and over budget on the AF tankers. A deal that they won through corrupt practices ( felony pleas and folks did time ), northrop was awarded the deal but later Boeing got Obama to reconsider. The fact that Boeing moved its HQ to Chicago probably assured better treatment in court the next time and helped Obama

What does AF-1 do - for the most part they sit on the ground and then do missions on occasion. Of course with Obama's fundraising and vacations they have been piling up the hours. However, while these hangar queens have been fling for 25 years some of our B-52s have been flying for 55 years.

The solution - have boeing bid two green airplanes ( probably 20% of the contract )
Allow Northrop, Lockheed and others to bid the finishing.

There is a lot of attention paid to the communications needs of the airplane but we have a number of air force aircraft which serve as flying command posts with equal technology requirements. This part is really beyond Boeing's strong suits.
Michael Davis 6
To put Obama's use of Air Force One into context, the travel data for his predecessor, President George W. Bush. Bush took 89 missions and 259 sorties in 2002, his second year as president, according to the airlift group. And in his first two years, Bush took 148 missions with 416 sorties, compared with 126 missions with 324 sorties for Obama over two years. Once Obama's is final day in office is over we can run the number for all 8 years, which by the way is showing less travel than either of the Bush's Presidency and Clition's even with Michelle's travels. Though I guess FACTs are not what you need.

[This poster has been suspended.]

William Barrow 1
Gee, Wilbur, that's the first time THAT's ever happened (NOT)! As the feds get bigger, so does the largess, even to the point of having to make up reasons (excuses) for passing taxpayer money out to cronies and relatives. Geez, I'm starting to sound like Trump now.
Mark Lansdell 9
Who knows what Mr. Trump really wants to do He'll be President of these United States in January and we'll find out then. So far I think he's demonstrating the head fake
drdek -5
Only the fake!
Mark Lansdell 6
It seems the way you're handling things it will be a looong 4 years for you , possibly 8.
John Rumble 7
I'm hoping they won't start a war
I'm hoping they don't crash the economy
I'm hoping they don't privatize Medicare
I'm hoping they don't turn SS over to Wall St
I'm hoping they don't dismantle Obamacare
I'm hoping they don't dismantle the EPA
I'm hoping they don't make abortion illegal

Not much hope is there?
Mark Lansdell 4
There is always hope, I suppose. Fact is you are but one man and we all don't think alike nor fear the same things. I like a decentralized system. But there again this isn't the proper forum to discuss it. this is a forum to talk about airplanes, airplane laws, pilots who run them out of fuel and kill everyone on board, you know, that kind of stuff.There is nothing to be done about a past election
joel wiley 16
A new one is proposed which will be a much better deal from the firm Ivanka Aerospace.
drdek 8
I think those who think he is saving the taxpayers money are missing the larger point. The Post ran an article the other day about the Defense Business Board's recommendation on saving $125 Billion from the DOD budget ( If he really wanted to save the taxpayers some money, he would follow those recommendations. The planes are simply a distraction.
John Clarke 4
The one fact that seems to be lost in all this (and especially by DJT) is that the primary role for Air Force 1 is not providing transport to POTUS but being able to act as the ultimate flying command post in the event of the unthinkable (or perhaps not so unthinkable - to quote - "I do War well"). To this end it has to have both civilian and military communications & NAV Aids, be fully hardened against EMP (which requires complete rewiring as a start), inflight refueling, defensive measures and so on. Compared to that, a quarter century old 757 is a joke as is any unreliable, fuel-guzzling airlifter.
He's a known grifter, and we really have no idea of his true financial condition, so having the taxpayers paying (and we are currently) for an aging, thirsty 757, as well as his other jet and helicopter, is a sweet deal.
John Rumble 1
And the first time someone launches a Stinger or some other ManPad at the defenseless 757...
With that many people gunning for you Donald I would be very careful what you ask for.
There are people just waiting to take advantage of your stupidity
Jackson Franco -5
Are you daft? Trump is CANCELLING the new plane to SAVE taxpayers money.
joel wiley 10
Is he actually cancelling it, or is he just pulling everyone's collective chain again? His 'strategy' of making wild assertions all over the map keeps people chasing their tails and got him elected. Nobody knows what he is going to do next, maybe not even himself. Would you like someone like him flying your airplane? Next month, he is going to be flying your country.
John Rumble 10
Donald Lie?
I'm shocked , Shocked I tell you

Oh and BTW:
Trump's statements were awarded PolitiFact's 2015 Lie of the Year
Just look at the chart
joel wiley 7
The late columnist Art Hoppe had a number of fictional characters with which he populated his columns. One during the Vietnam War was Pvt Oliver Drab. Another was an African dictator named Amin Idi Ot who he quoted as "It isn't necessary to be crazy, as long as you convince your opponents you are."
Pileits 6
I have to agree, 4 BILLION for two 747-8s seems like crazy money for those two airplanes, but I think that cost is because of the "add-ons" that the government wants.
So I would say Boeing is NOT over charging for the basic airframe, it's the extra cost "OPTIONS" that are being ordered.
This is no different then high end Germany cars. The basic models of any one of the BIG Germany car manufacturers are not terribly expensive but start adding on options and the prices skyrockets.
josh homer 8
It's not 4 billion. Trump lied because Boeing said something he didn't like, then 2 hours later he threw his 5 year old Twitter tantrum in retaliation which lowered Boeing's stock. The ACTUAL figure is 1.3 billion.
Tom Bruce -2
$3 billion now...$4 billion later...and probably $5+ billion after the politicians add stuff from their districts, the Air Force gold plates everything, and Boeing suggests more and more
When is the last time you saw an actual figure out of D.C.? That is an oxymoron.
Greg Zelna 1
I've seen lots of figures out of DC. They are never held to them (ie: overruns) however............
paul gilpin 3
why not just fly around in a B-52? they've been flying for over 50 years.
jeff slack 8
As we watch the destruction of the United States by this Conman; one can only sit back and marvel that 57% of Americans did NOT vote for the clown and yet here he is.

Read the detail of the base price of these new 747-8s, 380 mil.
Then there are the add ons to protect it and its contents from a nuclear blast and it is able to refuel in ordinary just start with.

These 2 new girls replace 747-200s that cost truckloads to maintain and because of lack of parts can take a year (read the facts Newsweek) to do the major tear down maintenance.

These new girls are for future Presidents as well as Trump.

Amortise the cost Donald and stay away from twitter..................

Did I mention this clown has missed 17 out of 20 security briefings since being elected?
Maybe he does not care about his security or the Nations.

Vlad elected him maybe Vlad will save him too?
John Rumble 1
Ukraine’s aircraft maker Antonov has offered one of its planes to US President-elect Donald Trump for use as Air Force One instead of Boeing.

Read more:
Greg Zelna -2
I suggest you seek professional help.............
douglas fryar 3
The DOD is out of control ,, the reaction to Boeing by Trump is what we all do when we buy a plane or car negotiations. the first thing you do is start to walk away !! We have got to get smarter with our tax dollars!!!
joel wiley 3
PSST, Hey Donald. Think F-35
bbabis 3
I don't think that he WANTS to cancel the order. It is a shot across the bow to Boeing that the procurement game of the past is over and that costs must better reflect what is delivered. All government contractors should heed the warning. 20 years ago in an interview Trump made the statement that if we could save only what we waste the government could operate at a surplus. I don't think his views have changed.
ToddBaldwin3 14
Or is it Trump lashing out at a Boeing, because one of their executives questioned his trade policies?
Marc Futoran 6
It seems he says things as a gut response, without thinking. Then, when he gets more information, he steps it back. This can make for some very awkward situations initially.
ToddBaldwin3 12
That's a bit scary, since it seems he sometimes gets his news from less than reputable sources.

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

ToddBaldwin3 4
I could be tempted to agree with you, but there are a few I trust more than others. There are many that are less reputable than others.
James Carlson 4
Since the election, he's had the opportunity to get daily briefings direct from the source, and hasn't bothered to avail himself of them. He's too busy tweeting about Alec Baldwin, apparently.

What makes you think things will change in a month?
John Rumble 4
Ah yes the Donald with the emotional maturity of an eight year old boy.
That was the exact reason
Boeing’s Conner hits back against Trump on trade, jobs (From 9-16)

From the Seattle Times
The fact is that Trump has no alternative to Boeing as an Air Force One supplier, unless he plans to make Airbus great again, or Ukraine’s Antonov. They are the only other plane makers in the world that make jets big enough.

A significant number of Boeing machinists voted for Trump, despite his hard-line stance on restricting international trade, which could hit Boeing’s foreign sales.

On Tuesday, a Boeing machinist and Trump supporter said he was “disappointed” by the president-elect’s tweet because it signaled a move that would directly hit jobs at his workplace in Everett.

“One reason we voted for him was hoping he’d bring a lot of the Boeing jobs back to the U.S.,” said the machinist, who asked not to be identified because he spoke without company permission.

“He needs to stop tweeting,” the machinist added

You got conned .
No there are no do overs and no you don't get your money back
Randy Marco 4
Oh John you are giving trump waaaaaay too much credit, his emotional level is more on the level of a 4 year old.

Trump is not bringing any jobs back, it's just more hyperbole and lies for the ignoramuses that voted to allow this conman in office. It is clearly indicative via this election that America's collective I.Q. is below the short bus level.
John Rumble 3
Then there's this . What happens when this lands on Trumps desk
Republicans apparently aren't going to be satisfied with phasing out Medicare. They're going to try to pass huge cuts to Social Security this year too. Not Bush-style partial phaseout but just big, big cuts. And you're out of luck even if you're a current beneficiary.

If you've been working for any number of years, but especially if you've been working for two or three decades, you've been paying in not only money for current beneficiaries but additional money which was invested in US government bonds to make it possible for Social Security to pay benefits of Baby Boomers and Gen-Xers. The additional money was required since there will be more seniors relative to the working age population.

This plan appears to foresee the government never paying that back to Social Security. In other words, your payroll taxes have been socking away additional money to cover the growing senior population. But this bill says too bad. That money goes for high income tax cuts.
Randy Marco 3
Yes, it's called the oligarchy takes over and the uneducated white guy that was/is and has been duped by the Repugnant's will become a fully entrenched working slave, with no hope to extricate himself from his cycle of purchases on credit, car leases (car rental in reality) and wages that barely keep abreast with his payments; only to have things wear out which becomes the rinse and repeat cycle, not to mention taking away his medical insurance unless he keeps working et al.

The complete and total ignorance of people voting for those that are enslaving them, all while the 1% wealth is exploding to obscene levels truly astounds me or more accurately put, the rate of denigration of intellect is appalling.

In hindsight Lincoln is turning out to be the worst President of all time... by not only not allowing every state south of the Mason Dixon line to sucede but by not purging the Union of the Red States which contain the least literate people and are a collective fiscal drain on our economy, the Red States annually take more money from the government than they contribute AND keep voting the Repugnant's in, furthering the rise of the oligarchy. If only....
You mean the white guys are working slaves and the non-working others are not?ha ha.
canuck44 0
Agree. Boeing were up to their eyeballs in ending the Iranian sanctions and Clinton's efforts to sell to the Russians. Two weeks after that deal went down the Clinton Crime Foundation received $995,000 from Boeing.and good old Bill got $250,000 from the Russians for a speech,.I suspect Trump has other issues with Boeing which he will put aside after he beats them up for a while...this is right out of The Art of the Deal.
Once he becomes President he will not be allowed to use his own aircraft. The 74's have all kinds of security and counter defenses that wouldn't even fit on the 75, not to mention the "Sick Bay" etc.
ToddBaldwin3 8
Of equal or greater importance is the communication suite on the A/C.
And John, maybe Trump thinks its overkill also. Do the planes really need to be this sofisticated? It's the president not God. There is succession. Remember Lincoln and Kennedy? We're still here.
joel wiley 1
Not to mention Garfield, and McKinley. Those got us Johnson, Arthur, Roosevelt (Teddy) and Johnson (Lyndon). Interesting to reflect on what those followers got us. What can we expect from Pence?
The unknown keeps us on our toes. Makes life interesting.
As far as Pense; hell, we don't even know what we got with Trump yet! But we do know what we don't have. Lol
Steve Dietrich 2
Let me see if I understand this correctly - we are still sending crews out in B-52's that are three decades older than the AF-1 aircraft, have many hours flying low level , high speed (for them) missions in turbulent air. All of this while the AF-1 aircraft are pampered and flown only occasionally .

Boeing has has major problems with the replacement tanker deal and relied a lot on political muscle to take the deal away from Northrop . Northrop had won the award after the original award was set aside based on multiple felonies committed by both Boeing top execs and a civilian at the top of DOD procurement. The tanker program is also far over budget and behind schedule. F-18s never met the performance promises

The solution is to re-evaluate the need, rebid the package in two parts a) deliver green airplanes b) complete airplane ( avionics, special equipment, interiors , protective systems)
John Clarke 5
There is no point in bidding & delivering green aircraft. Almost none of the original wiring harness would meet the EMP requirements so would first have to be stripped out. Similarly there are significant additional structural & mechanical systems that could only be economically installed during construction.
Tom Bruce 2
stop the political rhetoric please... Obama canceled Marine Helicopters because they were too expensive.. . Obama said, "these helicopters look fine to me"... Trump looking at $4 billion for 2 airplanes and thinks that's excessive... that's all there is to this story....
Jackson Franco 2
GOOD! Reduce spending, get the USA out of fiscal debt. Drain the swamp.
Randy Marco 1
Sad just how uninformed you are..... the swamp is being filled as I type with Billionaires and Wall Street criminals that are going to rape and pillage this country like has never been seen before.
You could be right, however the previous administrations have no valid reasons why we are 20 tril in debt. That applies to both sides of the isle. So if you are right nothing has changed.
Randy Marco 3
Wrong, the unwarranted Iraq war cost north of 6 Trillion and the Repugnant's refused to pass ANYTHING Obama wanted, including raising taxes on the 1% which would easily resolve the deficit over 10 years. Obama LOWERED spending every year he was in office... look it up.

The Repugnant's have CONSISTENTLY and REPEATEDLY irresponsibly lowered taxes on the upper end causing those deficits... look it up.

Clinton is the only President to not run a deficit in recent years but sadly people are ignorant to those facts and are snookered by the Repugnant lies over and over... look it up.
The war only cost that much because we stayed to try and nation build. That's GW's bad. Obama campaigned to leave Iraq and Afghanistan. Didn't do it. That is his bad. Both sides of the isle failed. Thus we still have no valid reason for the debt. Failure all around. Why? War today is not about national security. It's about $. The contractors line their pockets and the pass thru goes to the politicos. What have we gained in the Middle East after 15 years? Nothing. I am a war monger. Kill who you want to kill. Make your point. Leave. GH did it right. Kill to win. Leave as soon as you win. AIRBONE!
BaronG58 2
Obama did raise taxes on the top 1%....almost 6%. Increases were part of ACA act. Look it up. Balancing the deficit in 10 years by just raising taxes on the top 1% is a pipe dream. Any chance of doing that would require raising the top two income brackets from 39.6% to 102% to even get close. Look it up.
drdek 0
You are talking about income tax. What about taxing capital gains? What about penalties (taxes) for offshoring wealth? Lots of ways to get the crooked 1% to pay their fair share.
BaronG58 3
Capital gains are taxed. Capital gains are income. High income earners pay 39.6% for short term gains, 20% for long term gains. This tax rate is reduced for lower incomes. Depending on ones income bracket it can be as low as 10% to 0%. Why so many people in this country have disdain for success is mind-boggling to me. Sounds like envy to me. Trust me, if someone making $50,00/yr and complaining all of a sudden made 500,00/yr, they would not complain. Corporations and high income earners apply legal tax reduction methods that are in the tax code. If one has problems with this stop taking ones personal tax exemption (dependents).This deduction is phased out for high income earners. So if one is against using the tax code as written...stop taking your deductions.Why do you call 1 Percenters crooked? Are you saying 10%,20% 50% etc.etc. are not? There are bad apples at all levels but I believe as a whole we are honest people in this country. Offshore money structured properly is legal. Do I believe this needs to be changed? Yes. Trump has proposed a 10% tax/penalty along with other tax changes to bring this money back. Corporations and high income people will jump on this. Believe it or not Corporations and high income earners would love for everyone to be successful. Walmart and Target would love to have their customers walk through their doors with extra money in their pockets. It benefits us all. Well theses are my thoughts for the day.....Later.
Randy Marco 0
You are so clueless as to economics it's epic. I know FACTS are inconvenient but here they are nonetheless.

I would think sane people would agree lying is crooked but maybe not, because they elected a pathological liar but I won't digress.

The 1% are crooked because they have lobbyists that lie to the uneducated, uninformed which pretty much encompasses most people, about trickle down economics to get and keep their tax rate lowered.

Most people agree the 50's and 60's were the most prosperous in our country's history and yet the top tax rate was 91% and corporate tax rates were ~40%.... amazing isn't it. That without question proves that the 1% are current raping society and have TOTALLY snookered most people.

No one is condemning success; however, given that successful people were still able to acquire great wealth in the 50's and 60's and it's an economic fact trickle down economics is a complete lie and nothing more than a transfer of wealth as never seen before in our history and the top .1% has more wealth than the TOTAL wealth of ALL of the bottom 90% combined and that 99% of new wealth is going to the top 1%. I think that pretty much proves the system is more than crooked to sane people.
One thing is for sure. The US government doesn't have the money to pay for the new planes without borrowing it. Reminds of people who run out and buy a new car when gas prices escalate; but come home with a payment book 84 pages thick. Lol
AAaviator 1
Some folks in this forum seem to be over-analyzing, coming up with tangled conjecture when trying to figure out what the "play" is here with Boeing - all the while forgetting who wrote "The Art of The Deal".
John Rumble 8
You mean Tony Schwartz?
He wrote "Art of the Deal"
Another Trump Lie
AAaviator 1
So you're choosing to miss the point in order to make a snarky comment?
Ghost writers are very common in publishing. Maybe you didn't know that. And then you want to legitimize the spin on the ghost writing by citing one of the most liberal rags out there? The New Yorker! I don't know if that is more funny or pathetic. I think what we have is yet another whimpering sore loser liberal with a perfect crybaby name, John "Grumble" Rumble. Can I get you a tissue?
drdek 2
"Many celebrities have ghost writers who do the bulk of the work on a book, but Mr. Schwartz said he was struck by how Mr. Trump took all of the credit but did practically none of the work. After reviewing the manuscript on which Mr. Schwartz had spent more than a year, Mr. Trump returned it with a few scribbles of a red marker..." -NYT (JULY 18, 2016).
joel wiley 4
Mr. Schwartz also mentioned that he thinks Trump now believes he wrote it himself, and is concerned about what that says about Mr. Trump's grasp on reality.
John Rumble 0
No snark there bub
Just the facts jack
Your boy Donald has some manner of mental issues
AAaviator 1
- not my "boy" Grumble, you presumptuous moron.
I supported Ted Cruz, and voted 3rd party. Trump is on probation with me, but at least I'm giving him a chance to prove himself unlike your bigoted ass.
Any other foolish comments you want to make to highlight your ignorance?
drdek 3
You know your arguments are baseless and without merit when you resort to insulting your opponent.
Randy Marco -2
Sorry AA but you are the moron, a vote for ANY ONE but Hillary WAS a vote for the Fraudster, as even you should be able to comprehend the end result. Just more empirical evidence of the sad state of intellect in our country.
Mark Lansdell 3
I agree. Some folks get too wrapped up in politics forgetting it's a 4 year "gig". We don't normally face the disaster we've contended with for the past 8. I projected to be worse under Hillery the next 4. Sorry to hurt anyone's feelings, but it's too late to change things now. Enough people figured Mr. Trump to be the lesser of the two evils.
William Mihok 1
In an official statement, Boeing said that its current contract allows it "to help determine the capabilities of these complex military aircraft that serve the unique requirements of the President of the United States. Yes to drive up the price. Suggest use a 787 with reduced requirements, especially the number of hanger on passengers: Politicians, Press, etc.
Randy Marco 0
The Fraudster's narcissistic tweet was simply his 4 year old emotional retaliation to a negative statement made by a Boeing executive, nothing more.

The Fraudster doesn't put any thought into his rhetoric, only impusive responses to attack anyone who doesn't think he's the greatest.

If that isn't painfully obvious to you yet, there is no hope for you intellectually.
BWatcher 1
"The 747 is unique because of its combined old and new technology and has the ability to still keep flying even after a catastrophic computer failure. All modern aircraft are totally reliant on computers because they are solely fly by wire, if they lose their computers they fall out of the sky, Not so the 747!":
Not completely correct. Also the world's oldest and most experienced aircraft manufacturer, the small Dutch aircraft company Fokker Aircraft originating from 1919, always maintained deliberately this safety philosophy on their aircraft, including the Fokker 70 of the mid 1990's, based on the vulnerabity of solely fly by wire.
Kevin Haiduk -3
I read an AP story that Trump also flies on his own 747. Geez. And that's been picked up by a ton of papers.
Mark Lansdell 1
I'm fairly certain that Trump1 is a 757
matt jensen -5
I don't think I'd trust MSM for anything. They aren't very friendly since they're in the DNC's pocket. I can't find anything on him using a 747. Business Insider says Boeing created a VIP 747 for an undisclosed individual. Had it been Trump - they'd be bouncing off the walls to tell eveyone about it.
joel wiley 5
Maybe they got the numbers wrong, or don't know the difference between a 747 & 757?
Kevin Haiduk 7
I just laughed when I saw it online. I don't think people got my sarcasm in my original post though :-)
Marc Futoran -1
The 747 is unique, in that it has the "hump" for a small bar, and the flight crew quarters. Looking at the Boeing website recently, it seems that they don't mention the 757 anymore. Have they dropped that version from their lineup?
joel wiley 1
I know, a quick glance can tell the difference. Which is more attention to detail and fact than fake news sources give a story. Come to that, more than some of the other sources either.
David Barnes 1
The last B757 delivery was in November 2005.
btweston 1
Just right-wing weirdo media for you then, eh?
Er.A.K. Mittal -4
The POTUS-elect is a trained businessman turned into a politician.
Hither too, there have been professional politicians who became multi-millionaires in the process whose thought process is way different.
In business / management it is common to start or encourage ‘grapevine’ to understand the ‘nerve’ of the situation or the subject matter.
POTUS-elect is doing just that. And the political minds, not used to business man’s thinking are getting confused and caught in his web unwittingly.
His numerous post-election ‘twitter’ messages bear a great testimony to this approach!
Much to his pleasure and presumably for the better of the country.
Oliver Childs 7
Trained businessman?? You are aware that if any of us had the business failures that trump has we would be finished forever. But he has a shit load of money and continued to bulldoze through the land. He is not qualified to have an opinion on AF1, and he isn't even acting president yet. The cost is necessary and Boeing along with the SS will explain this to him when he shuts up for 10 seconds and listens to the exsperts around him.
It's truly sad that such an imbecile is getting the honour of flying round the globe in a legendary aircraft.
matt jensen -1
You learn from failure, which makes him brilliant by American standards. He is the POTUS-Elect or maybe you weren't awake that week? By comparison he spent very little to get elected vs the DNC.
joel wiley 1
Do you factor in how much Putin and the other independent expenditure-only committees spent in totaling Trump's expenditure?
matt jensen 0
Did you figure the traitorus Soros is in for? Billions. Hungary and Russia both want his tush in a gulag.
JSilva35 0
People really amaze me. AF1 is old and outdated they say. "Horrible". Look at the B-52's that defend our country. They are so old that your father and grandfather flew them. Think about that one for a moment. Father and Grandfather. It was used in Korea. AF1 can be upgraded to modern electronics if necessary. The airframe is perfectly good and there still are lots of parts from mothballed aircraft. I absolutely agree with Trump.
ToddBaldwin3 2
Not quite, but close. The B-52 went into active service in 1955, two years after the end of the Korean War.
Er.A.K. Mittal 0
The thread is no longer aviation oriented.
Many non aviation dimensions have been added.
Let me add one ... cost analysis and fund allocation, a finance management related topic.
What is the break up of $ 4 Billion ? To what resource/s will these funds be allocated? Or say who will foot the bill?
Similarly what are the similar details about $ 170 Million ?
May be most of the confusion may clear up, hopefully !
Mark Lansdell 5
1)If you're the lawyer you pose to be you would be more clear in your descriptions . Everything from ... on is unclear.

2)The disintegration or degradation of a thread does not justify following that new direction. You lurk for the opportunities to nudge, or drag topics from aviation to legal or otherwise. We have had this exchange before but still you persist. If you are a pilot or have a great interest in aviation, welcome.Otherwise, to paraphrase House, a TV doctor, 'Go Away'
Er.A.K. Mittal -1
I'm primarily engineer cum management student, being a lawyer is incidental.
And a keen learner of new subjects.
BTW, what is being discussed and being debated for the last 24 or 48 hours ?
Aviation ?
Really ?
Richard Bushey 2
Do you ever read your posts before you hit the post button? So many are full of typos they they make reading them painful.
Er.A.K. Mittal 1
Richard Bushey , if this one is addressed to me , then my basic mistake is I'm not a pilot ! Therefore, apparently, not entitled to any immunity which is available in abundance for pilots !
Enjoy Christmas season which has commenced.
Don't need an analysis to know we don't have the money.
Er.A.K. Mittal -3
$ 4 Billion or $ 170 Million!
And which model of B-747 can one get for paltry $ 170 Mils?
Or are they talking of different aircrafts, one about new ones including R&D while the other is talking of the retro fits?
And, planning is action in the present for the future need!
Who got their math wrong?
Whose Management 101 is wrong and where?
ToddBaldwin3 5
The 170 million or so, is not for the aircraft, but more for the initial design phase, sot of a down payment if you like. The actual cost figures, right now are $2.9 Billion, so know one knows where Trump came up with $4 Billion, but it's entirely possible that in the long run, through cost overruns and engineering changes, that the cost could go higher. Right now, it would seem that Trump is making figures up on the fly, as he is prone to do.
Er.A.K. Mittal 6
In short , both are taking the less informed and vulnerable people for a ride ...
Joseph Schober 3
I agree. The media thrives on playing the drama card to entice and feed the masses while people (businessmen)) like the POTUS-elect twitter/seed such statements to the 'less informed and vulnerable' to promote the growth of speculation/opinion on certain issues in his newly adopted political playground, err, arena ... Boeing quoted me a smidge under $400 million USD for their latest base model B747-8 but if you have the money and want to add the latest 'bells and whistles' security devices, well, the sky's the limit. Non-analogue/digital EMP-protection doesn't come cheaply nowadays as does other security and countermeasure options. Money is the limit to what will (supposedly) ensure the safe passage of the US President (current and future) and their entourage in the skies ...
matt jensen 1
Lots of them sitting around, available for a pittance.
ken young -1
There is nothing wrong with the three the Government has now. The order for the new aircraft was nothing more than a "make work" contract for Boeing workers.
BTW...FYI no aircraft is designated "Air Force One" until the POTUS officially steps on board the aircraft. And ANY aircraft on which the POTUS boards is designated "Air force One"
That is official government protocol...
Bob Harrington 0
~If~ it is a USAF aircaft. Hence, Marine One, Navy One. I believe there is even a contingency call sign were the POTUS to be packed into a Cessna 150 for some Hollywood movie reason.
Jesse Carroll -1
Thought this was a aviation site? Stop with the politic's and move on!
Tom Sherer -1
What "politics"?
susan wilson 0
The 747 is unique because of its combined old and new technology and has the ability to still keep flying even after a catastrophic computer failure. All modern aircraft are totally reliant on computers because they are solely fly by wire, if they lose their computers they fall out of the sky, Not so the 747!
Dee Lowry 0
Airforce 1 is not a cost effective airplane. A B-777 or 787 would be more efficient. So "we" the tax payers don't have to fly the government all around the world. It's common sense. AIRFORCE 1 is an impressive aircraft but we have to go with the more efficient aircraft.
Er.A.K. Mittal 0
And this is how NYT NEWSSERVICE sees it though the pen of Michael D Shear
`Cost too high': Trump wants to dump new Air Force One
God bless America
Richard Bushey -1
This is breaking news??? But no typos. An improvement.
MH370 0
(Duplicate Squawk Submitted)

Trump fires warning shot at Boeing

$4bn - Cost of Air Force One order ‘totally out of control’, says Trump
gerardo godoy -2
Great idea!!! they can easily update the ones they have and save Money which is much needed in this failing economy for over ten years!!!!
bbabis -3
As long as people look at this or any story thru Dem or Repub tinted glasses there will be two distinctly different stories filled with opinions, half truths, and outright lies on both sides. Trump is a pragmatist and will fix a problem the best way wether it be the dem, repub, or somewhere in between way of doing it. He is not beholden to special interests and doesn't have to make anybody happy. He, along with the rest of us, simply knows we have a government contractor procurement problem that is helping bankrupt or nation. He could have picked from a thousand programs to fire the first shot that things are going to change. He picked the AF1 project most likely because it has to do with the president to show that no one will be above being called on the carpet. Throw me in the group that is tired of $300 hammers and precision shafting.
John Rumble 4
Trump is a pragmatist and will fix a problem the best way wether it be the dem, repub, or somewhere in between way of doing it. He is not beholden to special interests and doesn't have to make anybody happy
No I'm sorry I look at it through the lens of unqualified individual.
If you think his cabinet choices are prudent and thoughtful, I can't help you.
bbabis 0
Thank you John. I could not have made my point better.
Chester Zaba -1
Agree with 100%

[This poster has been suspended.]

Tyler Brown 10
Mr. Hartmann,

Unless the 747 has transitioned to an all electric airframe, no, this airplane does not have motors.
James Carlson 6
The writing style from that now-suspended account is inimitable, isn't it?
Chester Zaba 1
Strictly speaking, the accepted definition of a motor could be applied to an aircraft. The European Aviation Safety Agency, for example defines an aeroplane, helicopter or tilt rotor aircraft as a ‘complex motor-powered aircraft’. In aviation circles however, the term "motor" is to be shunned as an expression of the non air minded person forever chained to and existence crawling upon the earth.
Stephen Holup -2
He should cancel it for the Muilenberg/McInerny (Boeing) greed factor. The new and out-gone CEO's who are disconnected from the worker bees and have been ripping off the US tax payers for years.

The playing field needs to be level-set and President-elect Trump will do just that.

Boeing, is not your "fathers" company... ...especially when the Boeing Moscow design bureau is doing all of the new aircraft design and development.
Boeing invested $27 Billion US, thats right... BILLION, into the Moscow design bureau and flat-lined all of their US design centers. Go figure.
The 787 line is all designed in Moscow and not the US...

I am sure Mr. Trump will have them eating warm crow very soon...
Chester Zaba -4
Would be happy to cross off Flight Aware from my list of news sources of FA continues to inject political bias into its' articles. Not interested in reporter's bias.
BaronG58 2
Make yourself happy "Do it" This article has both a aviation and political component to it. This is our money we are talking about. I have no problem with people expressing their political opinions.
Chester Zaba -1
It is our money we're talking about and I agree with the man. Cost over runs for military contracts are endemic to the system and must be stopped. I suggest some research into the success SAAB has had not only meeting deadlines, but coming in under budget and still being able to field world class warplanes.

As for the "bias" in the article. I got the impression the writers viewed Trump's comments with some disdain, as if he was somehow "out of line. He was absolutely within his rights to make the comment, a comment not being made often enough.
Tom Sherer 2
What "political bias"??

Se connecter

Vous n'avez pas de compte? Inscrivez-vous maintenant (gratuitement) pour des fonctionnalités personnalisées, des alertes de vols, et plus encore!
Ce site web utilise des cookies. En utilisant et en naviguant davantage sur ce site, vous acceptez cela.
Saviez-vous que le suivi des vols FlightAware est soutenu par la publicité ?
Vous pouvez nous aider à garder FlightAware gratuit en autorisant les annonces de Nous travaillons dur pour que notre publicité reste pertinente et discrète afin de créer une expérience formidable. Il est facile et rapide de mettre les annonces en liste blanche sur FlightAware ou d’examiner nos comptes premium.