This is one of the very few things about which I agree with Trump (although I’m not angry about it):
Well, at this point the program is in the red revenue-wise, and no defense contractor I’ve ever seen is going to throw more resources at a project that’s running late if it means losing more money.
Some part of Boeing’s leadership is quietly hoping this albatross just goes away.
Not likely to build passenger confidence:
The government (and I mean pre-Trump) has gotten wise to that sort of behavior. Your future bids started getting marked down for failure to perform on previous contracts. A company can nonperform themselves out of a business area.
Definitely true.
It’s the USA.
It’s the President’s plane.
What other OEM would the government even reasonably consider for an aircraft? This government, in this political era?
Certainly not the European designed (possibly even by a diverse group of people) Airbus aircraft. Gulfstream? Cessna? Maybe… maybe… Bombardier…Learjets are out of production and the head office speaks French so that’s a non-starter.
Embraer? Non-starter. Sukhoi? Lol. Mitsubishi failed so hard they bought the CRJ product line to learn how to make a regional jet. COMAC? For the POTUS? Never.
So, Boeing it is. Always and forever. The very definition of “too big to fail”.
I can imagine the company splitting up into independent business units, perhaps. But whatever Boeing or its descendants produce is what the American government will buy for a long, long time.
The question that needs to be asked is who is responsible for monitoring progress?
A plane was ordered with a list of specifications and a delivery date. Any project like that should have regular progress reviews. In this case I would expect a structural spec sheet that is pretty much set in stone. It’s not going to change. After that is the wildly variable electronics packages that change with new technology. That’s likely going to be handled by companies dedicated to such modifications.
Unless Boeing is being subjected to ever changing modifications like the C5-A went through it should be a reasonably straight forward project. The manufacturing process for such a plane exists with the 747-200. They should already have the knowledge to modify the 747-8 using a similar technological mindset.
I have a question for commercial pilots. Have you ever taken a plane away from the PIC?
The recent crash in YYZ and the one in SFO in 2013 ago makes me wonder. I ask this because as a low time pilot I gave that some thought early on. I thought I would waffle until too late. It happened to me and there wasn’t any thought involved because it was “do something or die”. The person flying was a new plane partner and showed no indication of flare in a nose-down grass strip landing at 10 ft off the ground.
This has almost nothing to do with the manufacturing process of the existing aircraft. That design exists, is approved (type certificate exists) and an approved manufacturing organization is allowed to build it, and they do (Boeing). They can pump out dozens or hundreds a year if they felt like it (quality concerns, material sourcing, business rationale for that notwithstanding).
This is about the changes to that type design and unless they are installing exactly the same parts, made the same way, with no improvements, upgrades, or new features as in the original AF1 (they aren’t), then this isn’t a case of being just able to just do what they did before, in the same way.
The extent of avionics and electrical/technological change this plane is getting is probably such that every existing system has to be re-tested and re-demonstrated for compliance. A substantial reinvestigation of compliance is not a trivial undertaking. It also triggers the likelihood of needing to comply with more recent regulatory standards, as I’ve said multiple times before. In that case, much of this has never been done and it’s quite possible that older systems cannot meet newer standards without themselves needing upgrades, that need their own demonstration of compliance, etc.
Read AC 25.1309-1B (public information). Get your hands on ARP4754, 4761, RTCA DO-178, DO-160…you’ll begin to maybe have a notion of how not simple it can be.
Boeing clearly underbid and underestimated the scope of work for this. They have project managers monitoring progress, but if the original bid did not correctly identify all the requirements and impacts of the design changes, then you’re in for years of delay as you gather all the requirements and develop your certification plan and showing of compliance.
The prior generation Presidential VC25’s were completed in 1986 , first flight 1987, operational in 1990. So by THAT precedent the new ones should have been flying Joe Biden. But that was 40 years ago and pre-merger. Mindset shift.
I wonder if part of the issue is a lot of the people who remembered where the procedures were filed are at rest homes in West Palm and Mesa.
I have not, though it was part of training that there are times a first officer would be required to take over the aircraft. No simple answers for that situation outside of a psychotic breakdown or deliberate suicidal intention.
Generally, we are trained that the flying pilot is the flying pilot - you don’t “help” them with control inputs. You can verbalize concerns, but if it gets to the point where you feel your “help” is necessary, it’s time to take over. But attempting to do so during a landing or other time-sensitive maneuver has its own hazards. Most basic flight students are taught that if their instructor calls for control, they are to surrender it. But if that reflex isn’t present, there could be a struggle (conscious or not).
I have seen a flying pilot deliberately surrender control in a bad moment, and that can also be fraught. I also know two pilots who were in a crash which was partially caused by the flying pilot trying to give control to the non-flying pilot at a hectic moment and it didn’t go well (fortunately, they survived, but their jet was destroyed).
I’ll be interested to hear LSL’s thoughts on this one.
It’s not just the new certifications and testing; no one can leave anything alone; constant additional crap, design changes, new specifications and regulations, wish list changes… That’s why the project managers have to freeze the design and say NO to all the myriad ‘suggestions’ flooding in each day.
Numerous weapon systems (my area) have design roots decades old. Trying to field something new ends up being a ‘moving target’.
Assuming you want a factual answer to that question (and that it’s not merely rhetorical), it’s this organization:
https://www.aflcmc.af.mil/WELCOME/Organizations/Presidential-and-Executive-Airlift-Directorate/
Question answered. Looking forward to Frontline’s expose on it.
We had some discussion of Sergey Brin’s airship, the Pathfinder, in November, 2023.
An update:
It’s first untethered flight in October, 2024.
Is it a high speed taxi if if it’s still tethered to a mast?
Do the windows open? Keep your ticket in hand if so.
As much as I love airships and think they are way cool, I find it very unlikely they will come back except in perhaps niche applications – I would still love to ride in one, though I’m not sure I would play thousands for the opportunity.
Brian
Nothing like having a fighter escort to really spice up your trip!
Forgive me… I am not an aviator and have no expertise in it, although I do find the current state of plane mishaps alarming.
I recognize that many of these things happen every day and most are unreported and that the news is simply reporting on all of the incidents more often at the moment, but still…when I see things like this…
AND ON TOP of a month or two longs of plane accidents, crashes, and mishaps… I just have to start to wonder…
What in the everloving hell is going on?
I mean, DJT’s current gutting of air traffic controllers wouldn’t make this huge of a difference, would it? And so soon?
Maybe these things are far more common and regular than I thought and it’s just the news focusing in on the stuff…?
Well, in this case, having a million ground controllers wouldn’t prevent an aircraft invading a runway without clearance unless they were standing shoulder-to-shoulder at the runway’s edge.