# Boeing Struggling To Produce New Air Force Ones **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [February 15, 2025, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boeing-struggling-to-produce-new-air-force-ones/1014357 "2025-02-15T16:40:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![WildaBeast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wildabeast/32/6_2.png) [@WildaBeast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WildaBeast)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2025, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boeing-struggling-to-produce-new-air-force-ones/1014357/41 "2025-02-19T00:31:49Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Given the number of specialized aircraft that get described as “a modified ”, I think that the aircraft industry has come to the conclusion that it is not, in fact, cheaper to start from scratch. It’s almost never cheaper to _design_ something from scratch (Which is why there are so many 737 variants). But what Boeing is doing is taking two already built commercial 747-8s and modifying them into VC-25s. Is that cheaper than building a new 747-8 as a VC-25 from the start? It probably depends on the extent of the modifications and how much of the plane the have to disassemble, modify, and reassemble. The VC-25 isn’t just a normal 747 with a fancy VIP cabin, it’s got a bunch of special Air Force goodies to protect the President (which I am not privy to, and many of which are probably classified anyway). I just speculating here, but I’m betting they’re cheaper mainly because Boeing was willing to cut the Air Force a deal just to get those planes off their hands. They were originally built for an airline that went bankrupt before they could be delivered, and Boeing ended up stuck with these planes that no one else wanted. It’s just like a car dealer willing to offer a big discount on a car that’s been sitting on the lot for months just to get rid of it. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2025, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boeing-struggling-to-produce-new-air-force-ones/1014357/42 "2025-02-19T00:39:53Z")
How hard would it have been for Boeing to sell those surplus 747-8is to an existing 747-8i customer like Air China, Lufthansa, Korean Air, etc. at a discount, compared to the likely-greater cost of refurbishing them into VC-25s for the president? ---
**Author:** ![WildaBeast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wildabeast/32/6_2.png) [@WildaBeast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WildaBeast)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2025, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boeing-struggling-to-produce-new-air-force-ones/1014357/43 "2025-02-19T00:44:13Z")
I would assume Boeing’s sales department tried that, but none of those airlines wanted them. ---
**Author:** ![kenobi\_65](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kenobi_65/32/13178_2.png) [@kenobi\_65](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kenobi_65)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2025, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boeing-struggling-to-produce-new-air-force-ones/1014357/44 "2025-02-19T00:57:33Z")
> [@WildaBeast](#): > > I would assume Boeing’s sales department tried that, but none of those airlines wanted them Possibly so. But, beyond “where would we have gotten the most money for these two existing planes,” consider that Boeing not only builds airliners, but a number of military aircraft. Making nice with the U.S. government, and the U.S. Air Force, may have been seen, by Boeing’s management, as being more important than maximizing revenue on two surplus jetliners. Though apparently the USAF initially considered the Airbus A380 as another option for the new planes, Airbus quickly declined to respond to the Air Force’s solicitation for proposals in 2009, leaving Boeing as the only option. In addition, either the Air Force and/or Boeing initially considered a converted version of the Boeing 787, as well as the 747-8, before finalizing the contract to use 747-8s in 2015. Also, for what it’s worth, after Trump re-negotiated the contract with Boeing in 2018 (total cost of the contract, in 2018, was $3.9 billion), Boeing later claimed (in 2022) that they will lose money on the contract. Info from here: > **[Boeing VC-25](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_VC-25#VC-25B)** > > The Boeing VC-25 is a military version of the Boeing 747 airliner, modified for presidential transport and commonly operated by the United States Air Force (USAF) as Air Force One, the call sign of any U.S. Air Force aircraft carrying the president of the United States. > Only two examples of this aircraft type are in service; they are highly modified Boeing 747-200Bs, designated VC-25A and having tail numbers 28000 and 29000. Although technically the Air Force One designation applies to the air... ---
**Author:** ![Sooner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sooner/32/7875_2.png) [@Sooner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sooner)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2025, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boeing-struggling-to-produce-new-air-force-ones/1014357/45 "2025-02-19T01:08:24Z")
My understanding much of the challenge is shielding against electromagnetic pulses; and conducting ultralow frequency communication… Remember these shiny plane, are also intended to communicate throughout, and survive doomsday. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2025, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boeing-struggling-to-produce-new-air-force-ones/1014357/46 "2025-02-19T01:12:20Z")
Retiring the E4B NEACP fleet would save money if the new Air Force Ones can do dual purpose. ---
**Author:** ![gnoitall](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bb73d2/32.png) [@gnoitall](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gnoitall)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2025, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boeing-struggling-to-produce-new-air-force-ones/1014357/47 "2025-02-19T01:32:35Z")
Do you really think the President of the United States is going to share his airplane with a bunch of unwashed military people? The command staff and their technical support fully fills up the mission spaces in the E-4B. No room for a president. Especially one who’s too special to share a ride with the peons. ---
**Author:** ![mnemosyne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c4cdca/32.png) [@mnemosyne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mnemosyne)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2025, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boeing-struggling-to-produce-new-air-force-ones/1014357/48 "2025-02-19T02:35:36Z")
> [@Sooner](#): > > My understanding much of the challenge is shielding against electromagnetic pulses; and conducting ultralow frequency communication… Ah, that could cost a very large fortune indeed. The type design used wiring types and methodologies that were fine for the age of the aircraft design and for commercial operations. If you need to pretty much literally remove everything and rewire with new cables, for example, then you have to prove the function and safety of every single system. And open up the door to needing to update the level of regulation you’re complying with especially if you need to update/change the computer units and whatnot. It’s a can of worms for sure! Interiors, seating, passenger amenities are comparatively easy. ---
**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2025, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boeing-struggling-to-produce-new-air-force-ones/1014357/49 "2025-02-19T03:01:58Z")
> [@mnemosyne](#): > > Ah, that could cost a very large fortune indeed. The type design used wiring types and methodologies that were fine for the age of the aircraft design and for commercial operations. If you need to pretty much literally remove everything and rewire with new cables, for example, then you have to prove the function and safety of every single system. And open up the door to needing to update the level of regulation you’re complying with especially if you need to update/change the computer units and whatnot. It’s a can of worms for sure! Sounds like it could take so long all the updates are obsolete by the time they’re all approved and need to be updated, which will mean new rounds of approvals, which will take so long… ---
**Author:** ![mnemosyne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c4cdca/32.png) [@mnemosyne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mnemosyne)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2025, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boeing-struggling-to-produce-new-air-force-ones/1014357/50 "2025-02-19T03:24:37Z")
Welcome to Airworthiness! Sit down, have a coffee, relax. We’re a decade or more behind the state of technology and usually best to just let sleeping dogs lie. In the commercial space, you simply don’t change things unless you have to. Only add what you must. ---
**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2025, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boeing-struggling-to-produce-new-air-force-ones/1014357/51 "2025-02-19T03:27:31Z")
I trust y’all have at least solved the looming problem of 5G cellphones crashing planes. ---
**Author:** ![mnemosyne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c4cdca/32.png) [@mnemosyne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mnemosyne)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2025, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boeing-struggling-to-produce-new-air-force-ones/1014357/52 "2025-02-19T13:00:42Z")
That’s less an airplane problem than a cellular signal regulator problem. I’m not an expert on this but I could dig up references of needed. Tedious on my phone so please bear with my simplified explanation as I understand it. Telecommunications work on different frequencies of signal. There’s an entire range of such frequencies that were allocated to the aviation sector and restricted to it for safety reasons; they need their systems to function and to not be interfered with by other signals in order to operate safely. In particular here is the radio altimeter which only really is used as you’re coming in to land but which is really really important to get a more precise reading of how far off the ground you are so you don’t pancake into it. Planes have been operating just fine like this for decades. When the cellular companies started lobbying for more frequency ranges, they managed to get the “5G” spectrum. The size of this actually varies in different countries, but the upper “allowed” frequencies are somewhat adjacent to the aviation safety spectrum. In the USA in particular, that limit is _extremely close_ to the aviation safety spectrum, to the point where there’s actually bleed over. Technology doesn’t have direct cut offs; it’s more like a curve, and the tails are now overlapping. So the signals from 5G antennae bleed into the aviation spectrum and that causes interference. Remember the good old days when your microwave made your cordless phones cut off, or you could hear your neighbors on your call to Grandma? Annoying for a social call, but a really big fucking problem when your airplane suddenly doesn’t know where the ground is when it’s rapidly approaching. Hence the big deal about it. Limitations of towers near approach paths, limitations of the direction the towers can broadcast in. The aviation industry _did_ change their RadAlts to be more robust and less susceptible to interface by these cell signals, but that took time to design, test, and certify. The USA (FCC) allowed the cell services to implement the tech faster than the FAA/industry could react. We know about electromagnetic interference. A shit ton of work goes into each aircraft design to make them safe from it. But that takes time, and the cell phone industry had more money, more lobbying, etc. This absolutely was a case of government agencies failing to work together. And of giving in to the $$$$ as a priority over safety. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2025, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boeing-struggling-to-produce-new-air-force-ones/1014357/53 "2025-02-19T13:06:58Z")
Does Airforce One use civilian air certifications? Or does it use military rules? ---
**Author:** ![mnemosyne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c4cdca/32.png) [@mnemosyne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mnemosyne)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2025, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boeing-struggling-to-produce-new-air-force-ones/1014357/54 "2025-02-19T13:24:16Z")
I don’t know. The aircraft has a civilian type certificate. Anything on the interior that’s retained does as well (like, underfloor water system lines or waste evacuation chutes). The “business jet” world, from which they are likely getting their seats, galleys, tv screens, emergency equipment (life raft and vests etc) will be structured to supply civil approvals such as TSO approvals for parts (civil approvals that confirm minimum performance standards basically). I have worked with aircraft that are government owned and military operated, though not any American one. In those cases everything was civil, except for military/missionized antenna, radar, whatever magic tech exists. And even then, a radome to cover this stuff up and maybe the mechanical installation was likely civil approved, but the _operation_ of it would have a military approval. I expect this is similar but I do not know for sure. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2025, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boeing-struggling-to-produce-new-air-force-ones/1014357/55 "2025-02-19T14:34:49Z")
Right- there does need to be a balance between the business side of things- you do have to sell products and make a profit to stay in business, after all. And you can’t let the engineers run wild, or they’ll optimize/overbuild everything, and profits be damned. ---
**Author:** ![DavidNRockies](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidnrockies/32/6279_2.png) [@DavidNRockies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DavidNRockies)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2025, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boeing-struggling-to-produce-new-air-force-ones/1014357/56 "2025-02-19T14:50:45Z")
I think – if one were to ask Jay Leno – the renaissance of the US auto industry has come about as a result of the shift in the balance of power _from_ the bean counters _to_ the engineers and “car guys.” Leno makes that point every chance he gets. It’s all on a continuum, to be sure, but it’s pretty easy to see when the balance isn’t yielding optimal results. A couple of Boeing YouTube videos I really liked: [**Wendover Productions – 23min**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URoVKPVDKPU) [**John Oliver – 32min**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8oCilY4szc) [**Explorist – 68min**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbIqAguXTS4) ---
**Author:** ![ParallelLines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/parallellines/32/3575_2.png) [@ParallelLines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ParallelLines)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2025, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boeing-struggling-to-produce-new-air-force-ones/1014357/57 "2025-02-19T16:06:13Z")
> [@mnemosyne](#): > > When the cellular companies started lobbying for more frequency ranges, they managed to get the “5G” spectrum. The size of this actually varies in different countries, but the upper “allowed” frequencies are somewhat adjacent to the aviation safety spectrum. In the USA in particular, that limit is _extremely close_ to the aviation safety spectrum, to the point where there’s actually bleed over. Technology doesn’t have direct cut offs; it’s more like a curve, and the tails are now overlapping. > > So the signals from 5G antennae bleed into the aviation spectrum and that causes interference. Remember the good old days when your microwave made your cordless phones cut off, or you could hear your neighbors on your call to Grandma? Annoying for a social call, but a really big fucking problem when your airplane suddenly doesn’t know where the ground is when it’s rapidly approaching. I mentioned this in another thread back in 2022 but that’s not _completely_ correct. Different carriers bought different portions of spectrum depending on how they were handling their 5G. Some of the spectrum was indeed adjacent, specifically the “C” band, which several carriers went with, though it was outside the buffer that the government had previously specified. Others, (esp. T-Mobile) went with somewhat further out frequencies, and were not mentioned in the 2022 kerfuffle with the airlines. Not to mention it had more to do with planes landing at certain airports that were often dependent upon avionics (poor visibility) where said planes were using older altimeters. Said planes were updated quickly and the issue was more-or-less resolved. For more: > **[5G and Aviation Safety | Federal Aviation Administration](https://www.faa.gov/5g)** > > The FAA, collaborating with the aviation sector and wireless providers, has completed work to ensure that radio signals from newly activated wireless telecommunications systems can coexist safely with flight operations in the United States until at... ---
**Author:** ![mnemosyne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c4cdca/32.png) [@mnemosyne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mnemosyne)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2025, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boeing-struggling-to-produce-new-air-force-ones/1014357/58 "2025-02-19T16:12:49Z")
Thanks for the additional info! I was going by memory. The planes and airport were there first, though, and it led to flight restrictions and not insignificant cost impacts to do the recertification and upgrades. It was simply not acceptable to brush this aside; erroneous or failed altimeter above decision height for a runway approach is categorized as hazardous or catastrophic (depends on a bunch of stuff and also going by memory) so it _had to be_ fixed. But it was also avoidable or potentially better managed. ---
**Author:** ![ParallelLines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/parallellines/32/3575_2.png) [@ParallelLines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ParallelLines)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2025, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boeing-struggling-to-produce-new-air-force-ones/1014357/59 "2025-02-19T16:26:20Z")
> [@mnemosyne](#): > > But it was also avoidable or potentially better managed. This 100%. One of the reasons I was familiar with the scenario is that I worked for T-Mobile during the big spectrum buy prior to the 5G rollouts. And in this case, the carriers (for once) were doing everything more-or-less (for evil corporate scumballs) right, and at quite literally the last minute, the FAA said “Wait, we haven’t checked, what do you mean you’ve rolled this all out within 2-3 years, we’re GOVERNMENT, we need at least a _decade_ to get around to checking something we’ve approved!”. I exaggerate the government’s attitude only slightly. And yes, I also fully agree that even if the government screwed up their timing, taking _less than a year_ to get the avionics upgraded while only imposing a 2 mile buffer around the key airports wasn’t a huge ask of anyone considering the possible consequences. Which takes us back to the OP - while I may not care for our president (massive understatement) making sure the new plane doesn’t drop out of the sky killing those below because of unexpected avionics interference is worthy of taking their time on, _especially_ with Boeing’s track record in recent years. ---
**Author:** ![Just\_Asking\_Questions](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba9def/32.png) [@Just\_Asking\_Questions](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Just_Asking_Questions)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2025, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boeing-struggling-to-produce-new-air-force-ones/1014357/60 "2025-02-19T17:05:37Z")
> [@ParallelLines](#): > > _especially_ with Boeing’s track record in recent years. Jesus, people. It’s not like they had the pitot tube freeze up and send the plane into a death spiral over the middle of the Atlantic, or have angle of attack sensors go back and send the plane into a 4000fpm uncontrolled decent. But no one rags on Airbus. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boeing-struggling-to-produce-new-air-force-ones/1014357.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boeing-struggling-to-produce-new-air-force-ones/1014357.md?page=4)