America - The Official Thread

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

They're thirty years old (26 in service) and the parts are increasingly hard to get hold of - it's a very old version and almost every part has since been redesigned. There's a documentary about Air Force One where 28000 gets a hydraulic leak in the gear while in Kuwait (not a region that's normally short on airliner parts) and they have to scour the globe to find a replacement part so that they can fly both planes out together.

The way the Presidential office does business requires a flying mobile command centre and those things aren't cheap... but it is how America does business. Their cost would be 0.4% of this year's US Defense budget - if that budget remained constant and these planes flew for 20 years then that original purchase/equipment cost becomes 0.02% of that budget.

They're not hard to get a hold of, Boeing does any replacing or upgrading in the first place. Considering how many of those planes still exist, the tooling still exists. Now if Boeing sent out a memo to the airforce or something in the past year or less, saying that they were trying to get away from supporting the aircraft as much, fine. Still that doesn't change the fact that it is plane still highly used and even after major airliners get rid of them they are picked up and still maintained and flown by smaller airports.

As for the flying mobile command, most of us realize that yes that is how it is done. However, there are way to obtain aircraft and have a plan of longevity while making sure you save some money. If that is the goal of the president then great. Looking at the long term plan operating two planes is clearly not that costly to the DoD budget and off the books black budget for the DoD. However, it is an accessory or sorts compared to what the rest of the budget goes to (though could be argued doesn't need the quantity of). I think any cost cutting measure is a good step.

 

[TenEightyOne]

They're not hard to get a hold of, Boeing does any replacing or upgrading in the first place. Considering how many of those planes still exist, the tooling still exists.

393 were built and the 21 that still fly (VC-25 excluded) are high-mileage freighters - the parts really aren't common any more. The problem with tooling parts on demand is that it takes time - if you're going to have a shed holding every part you need then you're going to have two spare planes sitting there. The -200 type was rolled out nearly 50 years ago, a good comparison would be if the Secret Service were still running a fleet of 1970s Presidential Limousines. It wouldn't be a problem to get parts tooled but you'd find very few on the shelf in an emergency and there'd be a high cost (relative to the cost of replacing the vehicle) in the parts you'd have to stockpile if that was your plan. The other problem with stockpiling parts is that for some aeronautical pieces they have a shelf life of their own, particularly those that are designed to be filled with working fluids or which are sensitive to rusting/dusting/static while also being difficult to inspect internally.

It makes sense to replace these old VC-25s with their younger, modernised sibling which has greater speed, range and payload capability (not that they ever operate close to MTOW). In addition the -8 type is more easily upgraded keeping its maintenance and parts in line with modern suppliers.

EDIT: The new gen 747-8s share a 30% parts commonality with the 777 and 787 while having a 40% commonality with the 747-100 and 747-200. If you're running a 747-200 you're likely to have to hunt for a lot of replacement bits.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

400 were built and the few that still fly are high-mileage freighters - the parts really aren't common any more. The problem with tooling parts on demand is that it takes time - if you're going to have a shed holding every part you need then you're going to have two spare planes sitting there. The -200 type was rolled out nearly 50 years ago, a good comparison would be if the Secret Service were still running a fleet of 1970s Presidential Limousines. It wouldn't be a problem to get parts tooled but you'd find very few on the shelf in an emergency and there'd be a high cost (relative to the cost of replacing the vehicle) in the parts you'd have to stockpile if that was your plan. The other problem with stockpiling parts is that for some aeronautical pieces they have a shelf life of their own, particularly those that are designed to be filled with working fluids or which are sensitive to rusting/dusting/static while also being difficult to inspect internally.

It makes sense to replace these old VC-25s with their younger, modernised sibling which has greater speed, range and payload capability (not that they ever operate close to MTOW).

Yes it does take time to tool parts, that's why you usually have an in house depot of parts for these issues. Main airports have them, if its an uncommon part that begins to fatigue over time and need replacement then they are less likely. Which is probably the case with the scenario you gave in the prior post, no one is going to have a shed of every part, not even an international air port, and you wouldn't have an entire spare plane either not sure where you get that idea. A good comparison is not if the government was using 1970s limos, planes are one vastly more expensive and due to this expense are built and upgraded with that in mind to last for decades. Cars are not the same in that regard.

Why would they be difficult to inspect internally? Remember my main education is in aeronautical engineering, I've never heard of parts that are hard to inspect internally. Also parts are tested from the factory based on a sample batch they came from, so, as long as the parts are held in a proper storing, they would still be newer and unused. Rusting and dusting is easily preventable as is static.

Also no one said it doesn't make sense to replace old models the question was why is it an issue when it seems to costly, and the admin asks for a better proposal to save costs. The other question is why is there a rush to replace the plane, I already acknowledged that age is the obvious issue which is a sensible reason to replace it. However, if there is a time frame in which it can still operate, then it shouldn't be an issue to take time in searching for a cost effective replacement air frame.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Yes it does take time to tool parts, that's why you usually have an in house depot of parts for these issues. Main airports have them, if its an uncommon part that begins to fatigue over time and need replacement then they are less likely. Which is probably the case with the scenario you gave in the prior post, no one is going to have a shed of every part, not even an international air port, and you wouldn't have an entire spare plane either not sure where you get that idea.

I actually meant two plane's-worth of parts if you're running two 747-200s

A good comparison is not if the government was using 1970s limos, planes are one vastly more expensive and due to this expense are built and upgraded with that in mind to last for decades. Cars are not the same in that regard.

It was a rough analogy that didn't work too well - fair enough. These -200s weren't meant to last decades though, and they haven't. The commonalities with the -400 that followed a (relatively) short time later were already quite low. Fewer than 30 are still in operation today, that makes it a rare plane.

Why would they be difficult to inspect internally? Remember my main education is in aeronautical engineering, I've never heard of parts that are hard to inspect internally.

Any part that is assembled from other parts that requires a shelf-life has to be re-inspected within that shelf-life, particularly those that use sealants, diffusion bonding, o-rings of particular materials and so on. Access to the internal surfaces of these parts for lidar inspection can be difficult, visual inspection can be useless for the required tolerances and so another non-destructive test method needs to be employed. In multi-material parts this can mean a complicated combination of the normal methods. Not impossible but not an easy test - that's why I say "difficult". I worked on attachment at British Aerospace in Warton and Brough and saw very often the difference between what a design engineer thinks is best and what a maintenance engineer thinks of that

Also no one said it doesn't make sense to replace old models the question was why is it an issue when it seems to costly, and the admin asks for a better proposal to save costs.

The relative cost to the budget is very small, other estimates put the cost at "only" 2 billion compared to the headline cost of 4 billion. Another proposal would be to use different aircraft but clearly the great bulk of the cost is after buying two 8 million dollar aircraft so that huge overhead would remain for any new aircraft.

However, if there is a time frame in which it can still operate, then it shouldn't be an issue to take time in searching for a cost effective replacement air frame.

Again, the airframe isn't the costly part. He can pay for one of them with the transgender ban

It seems that the two ex-Russian jets have now been purchased well within time to be fitted out. The normal life of a 747 is about 35,000 cycles (roughly 30 years) although this is likely longer for a jet that's babied as much as a VC-25... but they're not going to last forever.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I actually meant two plane's-worth of parts if you're running two 747-200s

I know, is there something I'm missing? My point was a generalization on the aircraft not the fact they host two or three or however many.

It was a rough analogy that didn't work too well - fair enough. These -200s weren't meant to last decades though, and they haven't. The commonalities with the -400 that followed a (relatively) short time later were already quite low. Fewer than 30 are still in operation today, that makes it a rare plane.

Sure they have, the air force has two of them that are in fine operational use for the President, back in 2011 I believe they airframes were said to be fine with no fatigue stress. The plane operated in a window that was 10 times less that of what a major airline or Cargo freighter would be doing, so by all means in that sense it isn't something you'd compare to the common variant. Yes 30 ~ planes in operation, but we're talking about probably the M or C or later version. These planes were first used in 1990, it's not all that uncommon for an air force operated plane to see such use and longer with upgrades and refurbishment. The fact we're treating this like another 200 rather than a flying fortress with office, kind of slows down the progression of this conversation.

Any part that is assembled from other parts that requires a shelf-life has to be re-inspected within that shelf-life, particularly those that use sealants, diffusion bonding, o-rings of particular materials and so on. Access to the internal surfaces of these parts for lidar inspection can be difficult, visual inspection can be useless for the required tolerances and so another non-destructive test method needs to be employed. In multi-material parts this can mean a complicated combination of the normal methods. Not impossible but not an easy test - that's why I say "difficult". I worked on attachment at British Aerospace in Warton and Brough and saw very often the difference between what a design engineer thinks is best and what a maintenance engineer thinks of that

Would you like to give a specified part, if a part hasn't undergone any working condition and is maintained in a clean storage enviorment like many sensitive parts would be...why exactly would it have a shelf life. This isn't palladium we're talking about. Complicated sure, but unless the materials are exotic and the composition make up is also such, then I'd doubt it be on Boeing 747-200 in the first place, now the VC-25 military variant that is command and defense for the President of the United States...perhaps.

And I've done welding (first degree) and research work (aero degree), and I too have had to do various testing in destructive and non-destructive from simple structures to mock aircraft designs. So I've yet to come across and see something like a machined part have to be inspected with some very crazy procedure, unless as I said was exotic in make up and manufacturing process. Now if you're specifically talking about inspect a part already attached to a plane, I could better understand your worry. If it simply to inspect a part that will replace another...not at all.

The relative cost to the budget is very small, other estimates put the cost at "only" 2 billion compared to the headline cost of 4 billion. Another proposal would be to use different aircraft but clearly the great bulk of the cost is after buying two 8 million dollar aircraft so that huge overhead would remain for any new aircraft.

Yes we both agreed on the overall cost, and even operational cost being quite small compared to other parts of the budget. However it's small because of it's relative nature. Two planes, are obviously going to be less costly, but let's say if it was two F-16s or RQ-9 in comparison then it might have some perspective on why it could be an issue. Because if you interchanged it with any other two planes (unlikely) it would be less money in the same operational life span. Clearly it was enough of a cost issue that Airbus saw no reason to go forth and entertain the chance at winning the contract because for the expense it wasn't worth it outside of Europe since it is obviously a major U.S. only operation.

Again, the airframe isn't the costly part. He can pay for one of them with the transgender ban

It seems that the two ex-Russian jets have now been purchased well within time to be fitted out. The normal life of a 747 is about 35,000 cycles (roughly 30 years) although this is likely longer for a jet that's babied as much as a VC-25... but they're not going to last forever.

Nor did I say it was the costly part, the costly part as I said was building them to order as opposed to already made never flown essentially new planes, that would then undergo heavy modifications. Also yes they're not going to last forever, once again I said age is an issue, but it's a lesser one when the conversation is one of the last set of 747-200s built, flown with far less air hours, and never probably having to be under max weight stress or close to it.

2019 is supposedly the time they want to have the replacement ready to go, so they clearly had time if it's been an ongoing conversation since 2008/2009(?).

 

[TenEightyOne]

Sure they have, the air force has two of them that are in fine operational use for the President, back in 2011 I believe they airframes were said to be fine with no fatigue stress. The plane operated in a window that was 10 times less that of what a major airline or Cargo freighter would be doing, so by all means in that sense it isn't something you'd compare to the common variant.

True - and I referred to the fact that they've been babied.

Yes 30 ~ planes in operation, but we're talking about probably the M or C or later version.

All Fs or BSFs by definition, I would think. They could, as you say, have been produced up until '91. That's still 26 years ago (though it doesn't feel it).

Would you like to give a specified part, if a part hasn't undergone any working condition and is maintained in a clean storage enviorment like many sensitive parts would be...why exactly would it have a shelf life. This isn't palladium we're talking about. Complicated sure, but unless the materials are exotic and the composition make up is also such, then I'd doubt it be on Boeing 747-200 in the first place, now the VC-25 military variant that is command and defense for the President of the United States...perhaps.

Many parts have a shelf life. Here's one example, a pretty common one. Many many parts are made with degradable materials and can't be stored indefinitely, that includes instrumentation parts, HVAC parts, hydraulic parts, control parts. The list goes on.

And I've done welding (first degree) and research work (aero degree), and I too have had to do various testing in destructive and non-destructive from simple structures to mock aircraft designs. So I've yet to come across and see something like a machined part have to be inspected with some very crazy procedure, unless as I said was exotic in make up and manufacturing process. Now if you're specifically talking about inspect a part already attached to a plane, I could better understand your worry. If it simply to inspect a part that will replace another...not at all.

I completely disagree - visual testing or caliper testing simply aren't sufficient for the tiny tolerances involved in such parts. I suspect you must know that and that you're thinking of some pretty complicated techniques as "easy" or "normal" given your experience.

Yes we both agreed on the overall cost, and even operational cost being quite small compared to other parts of the budget. However it's small because of it's relative nature. Two planes, are obviously going to be less costly, but let's say if it was two F-16s or RQ-9 in comparison then it might have some perspective on why it could be an issue. Because if you interchanged it with any other two planes (unlikely) it would be less money in the same operational life span.

True, but like my terrible Lincoln Limo comparison I'm not sure how relevant that is. This is the cost of replacing two huge airborne command centres with classified operations rooms, medical facilities and all the future-warfare gizmos that the Pentagon can get through the hatch.

Clearly it was enough of a cost issue that Airbus saw no reason to go forth and entertain the chance at winning the contract because for the expense it wasn't worth it outside of Europe since it is obviously a major U.S. only operation.

The tender specified that the aircraft had to be built in the US - for Airbus it clearly wasn't viable to build two or three aircraft there.

Nor did I say it was the costly part, the costly part as I said was building them to order as opposed to already made never flown essentially new planes, that would then undergo heavy modifications. Also yes they're not going to last forever, once again I said age is an issue, but it's a lesser one when the conversation is one of the last set of 747-200s built, flown with far less air hours, and never probably having to be under max weight stress or close to it.

One could presume that the existing planes might, if not replaced, have to undergo a refit of a similar cost... and then only last another ten years. It still seems to me that it's time to bite the bullet and do a new-fit into new, modern airframes that have the extra performance capabilities.

2019 is supposedly the time they want to have the replacement ready to go, so they clearly had time if it's been an ongoing conversation since 2008/2009(?).

The tender has certainly taken a very long time - I'm not sure when it was issued but 2009-ish sounds right. In my opinion there's no way the replacements will be ready for service in 2019. The following year, possibly. By that time the VC-25s are getting uncomfortably old for such an important job.

In all I think we've taken up enough space with this, my opinion stands that while they're expensive these planes are part and parcel of how the US does business abroad and how the President is kept safe and "in touch" with government and the armed forces. They need to be maintained and, from time to time, upgraded through replacement. Given the age of the existing planes it seems clear that this is a good time to prepare replacement aircraft.

 

[Dotini]

^Nice series of posts by 2 knowledgeable people.

All I can add, as a Boeing retired ME who riveted on the very first Boeing 747, are 3 opinions:
1) The 747 is one of the greatest planes ever made. If you have one, you can be proud of it.
2) The Boeing AOG program prides itself on keeping all Boeing airplanes flying.
3) The Boeing spare parts organization is zealously organized and motivated.

 

[TenEightyOne]

1) The 747 is one of the greatest planes ever made. If you have one, you can be proud of it.

I can't respect the man currently holding the office but I respect the office - the 747 is a great flagship for the holder of that office to arrive in.

2) The Boeing AOG program prides itself on keeping all Boeing airplanes flying.

Isn't always a brilliant service

3) The Boeing spare parts organization is zealously organized and motivated.

Definitely - the problem for this particular type is that the parts are no longer made, they have to be made to order. In terms of keeping two aircraft flying on a constant alert status that's a big problem. The 20-or-so remaing 200s (now Fs or BSFs or home-made non-Western licensed conversions) a probably not part of the Boeing program any more

 

[BobK]

Isn't always a brilliant service

I think I know how that happened, or at least was a major contributor. From the article:

The incident happened at a time when Boeing was behind schedule on maintenance and was requiring employees to work mandatory 12-hour shifts. Workers were working six and seven days in a row, sometimes without a day off for weeks.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I think I know how that happened, or at least was a major contributor. From the article:

Absolutely. It rather undermines the feeling one would normally have that Boeing OEM maintenance would be on schedule with staff who aren't exhausted and under pressure. Especially for an aircraft whose loss would be an even more catastrophic public event than other plane crashes might be.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

True - and I referred to the fact that they've been babied.



All Fs or BSFs by definition, I would think. They could, as you say, have been produced up until '91. That's still 26 years ago (though it doesn't feel it).



Many parts have a shelf life. Here's one example, a pretty common one. Many many parts are made with degradable materials and can't be stored indefinitely, that includes instrumentation parts, HVAC parts, hydraulic parts, control parts. The list goes on.



I completely disagree - visual testing or caliper testing simply aren't sufficient for the tiny tolerances involved in such parts. I suspect you must know that and that you're thinking of some pretty complicated techniques as "easy" or "normal" given your experience.



True, but like my terrible Lincoln Limo comparison I'm not sure how relevant that is. This is the cost of replacing two huge airborne command centres with classified operations rooms, medical facilities and all the future-warfare gizmos that the Pentagon can get through the hatch.



The tender specified that the aircraft had to be built in the US - for Airbus it clearly wasn't viable to build two or three aircraft there.



One could presume that the existing planes might, if not replaced, have to undergo a refit of a similar cost... and then only last another ten years. It still seems to me that it's time to bite the bullet and do a new-fit into new, modern airframes that have the extra performance capabilities.



The tender has certainly taken a very long time - I'm not sure when it was issued but 2009-ish sounds right. In my opinion there's no way the replacements will be ready for service in 2019. The following year, possibly. By that time the VC-25s are getting uncomfortably old for such an important job.

In all I think we've taken up enough space with this, my opinion stands that while they're expensive these planes are part and parcel of how the US does business abroad and how the President is kept safe and "in touch" with government and the armed forces. They need to be maintained and, from time to time, upgraded through replacement. Given the age of the existing planes it seems clear that this is a good time to prepare replacement aircraft.

I would enjoy continuing this on the appropriate thread or in private, as @Dotini hints at, we both clearly have experience in this area luckily but should obviously move on with America, and not something that should be done in the general airplane thread at this point. Because I could go on, since there are portions of this quote, that are simply wrong in comment to what I said, and yet again seem to make leaps to conclusions that were never set up to begin with.

So if you wish to continue please repost in the general airplane thread or send me a private message.

Absolutely. It rather undermines the feeling one would normally have that Boeing OEM maintenance would be on schedule with staff who aren't exhausted and under pressure. Especially for an aircraft whose loss would be an even more catastrophic public event than other plane crashes might be.

While I strongly respect Boeing's engineering staff, especially Phantom works, my posting is specifically in that regard as well as the ability and longevity of 747 in any derivation when questioned by others. However, I will say that as @BobK posted, Boeing is by no means loved in the community when it's in relation to those who run and head operations. Since they are for lack of better terms considered slave drivers who are very keen on meeting their deadlines no matter the cost at times. Also why they're not ever on my short list for employers I hope to work for.

 

[Dotini]

I will say that as @BobK posted, Boeing is by no means loved in the community when it's in relation to those who run and head operations. Since they are for lack of better terms considered slave drivers who are very keen on meeting their deadlines no matter the cost at times. Also why they're not ever on my short list for employers I hope to work for.

Yes, Boeing used to be a company run for and by engineers. But no more! The bean-counters took over, starting in the late nineties.

The important thing is, they continue to pay my pension.

 

[DK]

So...where does protecting retirement homes from lawsuits for abusing/neglecting their residents factor into "Making America Great Again"?

 

[TenEightyOne]

So...where does protecting retirement homes from lawsuits for abusing/neglecting their residents factor into "Making America Great Again"?

If the arbitration body worked properly and correctly then it shouldn't be an issue - I have no idea who that would be in America... but shouldn't physical/sexual/emotional abuse claims be a criminal (therefore police) matter anyway?

It certainly goes against all ideas of justice to ask signatories to waive their right to any potential proceedings in front of a court. The reasons given by the Chamber of Commerce (TLDR: courts can be expensive) make no difference, potential complainants should still have the right to choose. If the court itself imposes some pre-court abitration (as is the case for some cases in the UK) then that's a different matter.

 

[Carbonox]

Say hello to Penny Boudreau vol. 2, with an entire family involved.

Honestly I don't know what species those - things are (though I do have a suspicion of why their heads are this far in the wrong place) but they're wearing some extremely hideous human suits for sure.

 

[Dennisch]

Honestly I don't know what species those - things are (though I do have a suspicion of why their heads are this far in the wrong place) but they're wearing some extremely hideous human suits for sure.

They look like the type of family who likes to keep it in the family.

 

[andrea]

They're Federal employees and are still employed. Clueless git.

 

[DK]

Trump making an outrageous statement? I wonder what he's trying to deflect from this time...maybe his former campaign manager's house getting searched?

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

If the arbitration body worked properly and correctly then it shouldn't be an issue - I have no idea who that would be in America... but shouldn't physical/sexual/emotional abuse claims be a criminal (therefore police) matter anyway?

It certainly goes against all ideas of justice to ask signatories to waive their right to any potential proceedings in front of a court. The reasons given by the Chamber of Commerce (TLDR: courts can be expensive) make no difference, potential complainants should still have the right to choose. If the court itself imposes some pre-court abitration (as is the case for some cases in the UK) then that's a different matter.

The police do get called and do take reports from time to time about this stuff. My wife is a nurse and has worked in Nursing homes, long term care facilities, acute care facilities/rehabilitation. And from time to time patients will call police when they feel they've been neglected, harmed, or mistreated in a variety of ways some of which are lies to get the facility in trouble for a monetary gain. So it's not all one sided as the article seems to make.

 

[ryzno]

It appears Charlottesville, VA, yes VA is in a mini Civil War. State of emergency has been declared and the National Guard has been deployed.
No link the videos are very graphic...

 

[AnthonyD1993]

The incident has managed to get the attention of the sports world as well after some attendees were seen with the Detroit Red Wings logo on shields. I've already seen that the Red Wings condemned the usage of their logo in that manner.

 

[DK]

I bet Bannon can hardly contain his glee right now.

 

[Tornado]

A Challenger is certainly the right kind of car to use for that sort of thing, I suppose. Hope they can catch him.

 

[Dennisch]

A Challenger is certainly the right kind of car to use for that sort of thing, I suppose. Hope they can catch him.

AP reports that they have caught someone.

 

[Mike Rotch]

I suppose the state of affairs is such we should be relieved it was only a car used and someone didn't decide to bring along their AR15.

 

[Joey D]

While it's not right in any way to mow down a group of people with a car, protestors need to learn that they can't block traffic for their own safety. Here in SLC we have huge protests all the time for various things and they often block a major road and will even stand in the middle of a major intersection. They also, for whatever reason, enjoy blocking the alley that the parking structure I park in is connected to because we share it with a federal building. My frustration level builds immensely when that happens and I can see why sometimes a motorist flies off the handle and just drives through the crowd.

I'll always respect your right to protest, but I will not respect your right to inconvenience an entire city because you want to be heard. Stick to sidewalks or get a permit to have a road closed down and you can say whatever inane thing you want to say.

Also, I wasn't even aware of what the protest was about, apparently it was over taking down a statue of General Lee. The man was a traitor and enemy of the United States, he shouldn't be honored even if he wasn't totally for slavery.

 

[Carbonox]

While it's not right in any way to mow down a group of people with a car

It is if they're trying to drag you out for a mob beatdown.

 

[Joey D]

It is if they're trying to drag you out for a mob beatdown.

Sure, self-defense is a reason. I watched the video though and I don't think there's enough information to say whether that was happening or not. It was clear the protestors were pounding on the cars, but I'm not sure if the drive was in life-threatening danger.

 

[Liquid]

Also, I wasn't even aware of what the protest was about, apparently it was over taking down a statue of General Lee. The man was a traitor and enemy of the United States, he shouldn't be honored even if he wasn't totally for slavery.

I suppose that depends on how strong your personal allegiance to the United States is.

Wasn't Lee, in pure militaristic terms, considered one of the most exceptional soldiers the US ever had before the Civil War?

 

[Northstar]

I'm guessing self-defense goes out the window if the police have to track you down as well (not sure if that's the case here). Presumably if you had to run over a bunch of people in order to protect yourself you would call the cops as soon as you're out of danger.