Wiki, I see, has a list of other chiefs of states’ aircraft:
And here’s its reference to the China story I mentioned:
A Boeing 767 was purchased by the Chinese government for use by President Jiang Zemin in 2000. This Boeing 767 was originally ordered by Delta Air Lines. An international incident occurred in 2001 when the government claimed it had discovered 27 bugs embedded in the aircraft’s interior; the plane had been refitted in San Antonio, Texas and now operates as a normal civil airliner of Air China.
Just to sum up what others have posted, the Air Force One, Marine One, etc. is a flight designator, applied, like commercial airline flights, to the service provided (in this case Presidential transport) regardless of the actual aircraft currently employed to provide the service. While popular practice is to refer to the specially-equipped aircraft as AF1 and so on, the designator applies to any aircraft used.
With reference to the Sept 11, 2001 airplane groundings, my father (a retired Canadian air traffic controller) says that this was basically activating the emergency procedures developed for use in case of the outbreak of WW III. The details were certainly worked out on the fly by some very quick-thinking ATC and airline/airport professionals, however.
Bumped.
Delivery of the new pair of presidential aircraft has been repeatedly delayed. Now Elon is getting involved: https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/29/business/air-force-one-boeing-elon-musk-trump/index.html
Here’s Wiki: Boeing VC-25 - Wikipedia
For SEO: Airforceone
Not sure how I feel about the 1970s-airliner style livery.
The old livery is classic, but also looks very 1960s. The new livery looks like, wait for it, trump’s own 757’s livery.
Since the whole contract sorta got going on his watch, I wonder why that looks like that? /s.
I just want to question the person who thought “A cake representation of the new Air Force One design” as the titular image represents, was a good idea? A cake? Does Boeing employ bakers?
So it will be Boeing? The last time I drove into Heathrow was from the south to Terminal 2/3 and I knew I’d see the Concorde parked there as it would cost money to haul it away. All the good stuff (engines, stuff inside) is gone and it’s an undeserving derelict populated by pigeons. Please blow it up or donate it to the USA as AF-1? Only two hours to get to meet the King (pigeon powered), and only four to the shithole countries.
Also, on AF-1 FOX TV is on all the screens (we don’t call them TV’s anymore right?) and this is what reporters must consider in-flight TV (what is that called now?).
Pretty much has to be. First, as per the Wikipedia entry, the new planes (converted 747-8Is) have been undergoing conversion work to become VC-25Bs since 2020. So, saying now, in 2025, “nope, it won’t be Boeing,” would be scrapping five years of work, and probably hundreds of millions of dollars already spent.
Second, unless I’m mistaken, Boeing is the only remaining U.S. manufacturer of large fixed-wing jet aircraft which would be appropriate for Air Force One. Lockheed Martin last produced a new C-5 Galaxy in 1989. Airbus is the only other maker of big jet airliners, and buying a new Air Force One plane from a foreign company is politically infeasible.
That’s what I was coyly getting at. Certainly it would be deeply unpopular but he isn’t hearing you.
Airbus is not only made in the UK - our “special relationship friends” (besides the EU) yet also ostensibly in the United States, parts of which are considered the President’s friends as well…
The 747 is a beautiful airplane. Flew from JFK to SNN (Shannon, Ireland) and twice for 19 hours from LAX to SYD (Sydney, Australia). I consider it the best big ol’ jet airliner ever made and even this president deserves it.
When the Canadian military retired their Challenger 601 VIP jets in favour of newer 650s, one of them was donated to the small aviation museum in Montreal. They kind of butchered the plane to transport it by road to the site, but the interior is mostly intact (missing a few panels here and there, some torn upholstery).
Over the years some of the criticisms directed to the Prime Minister (regardless of who it is) is the “luxury” of flying in these business jets, even for vacation (which they pay a fee out of pocket).
Having seen this plane, the definition of 'luxury" that PMs experienced until 2020 is not remotely what most people assumed.
This plane’s interior is pure early 90s, turquoise and purple and grey with a divan that looks like it belongs in a hospital waiting room. There’s an original CRT “built in” TV in one wall, meaning the cabinet on the other side in the lavatory holds the giant back end of this thing. There’s a VCR (fancy!) and, get this, one combo fax/printer installed in a cabinet!
I loved exploring that plane, but wow, business class on commercial planes far exceeds that luxury other than overall privacy.
Given that the 747 is pretty long in the tooth, one would have thought the Boeing 777X would have been the more appropriate replacement jet.
I would offer the following (this is based on the new ones coming, not the current ones):
- The 747 is 4-engine vs. 2 for the 777. I would imagine this impacts continuity of mission in the case of engine loss.
- The 747, while a bit shorter on range than the 777, actually has an equivalent flight speed.
- The 747 is actually quite a bit bigger than the 777 which, given the extra stuff it’s carrying, is important.
- The 747 is distinctive in profile and just looks impressive. The 777 looks like a pretty bog-standard widebody.
nvm
can the 777 refuel in flight?
If modified to allow it.
A civilian 747 doesn’t have an in-flight refueling receptacle either.
Taking on a civilian passenger airframe for USAF military use always entails big conversions.
But I guess the new VC-25s won’t have in-flight refueling capability. The current do but it’s never been used. Whereas the other 747 in the military inventory has made lots of use of in-flight refueling, as befits a warplane rather than a air limo.
For more on that plane (one of which I saw once at Wright-Patt): Boeing E-4 - Wikipedia
POTUS and his retinue are only part of the payload. The travelling circus of the press corps and other hangers on means that they will always want to get as big a plane as possible. Parkinson’s Law will take hold no matter how big. I’m sure an A-380 could be filled to the brim as soon as it was used.
In the end Air Force One is a working vehicle. And the work of state in the modern world carries a lot of baggage. Feeding the press being one. If POTUS wants to go on holiday he won’t need it. But actually taking time off the job is not necessarily well defined. I remember Reagan being very clear that when he went back to his ranch to chill, he was not working as POTUS. Different presidents will define this relationship differently.
Also, the two 747s currently being converted into VC-25Bs are 747-8is, and relatively new designs/builds, having been originally completed no earlier than 2011. I would suspect that the rebuild/conversion includes upgrading pretty much everything possible, as far as the planes’ systems, to the state of the art.
One of the very few things about which I agree with Trump (although I’m not angry about it).