All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: ALCON can relax their buy American bone re VC-25 RA
PostPosted: Thu Jan 29, 2009 1:48 pm 
Offline
Charter Member
JackmanHL - FlightAware user avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2005 12:00 pm
Posts: 92
Location: Nonyabees, Calif, USA
Los Angeles Times
January 29, 2009
Pg. C3

Airbus Won't Bid To Build Air Force One

The firm cites business reasons, but some lawmakers balked at giving the job to a foreign firm.

By Peter Pae

The parent of European aircraft maker Airbus said Wednesday that it would not enter the competition to build a replacement for the president's 747 Air Force One, a move that all but leaves Boeing Co. as the only potential bidder for the prestigious airplane contract.

The decision is likely to quell criticisms that began to mount in recent days, particularly from "buy American" proponents in Congress who have derided the possibility that a U.S. president could fly around in a European-designed airplane.

"Outsourcing Air Force One is not an option. It's un-American," said Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas) as he proposed legislation Monday prohibiting the awarding of the contract to a foreign firm. "Are we going to replace the American apple pie with crepes?"

This month the Pentagon took the first steps in replacing the world's most photographed aircraft by requesting information from potential providers, including Airbus. Boeing and archrival Airbus are the only two companies capable of building an aircraft as large and sophisticated as that used by the U.S. president...

The prospects of an Airbus Air Force One, however, prompted heated debates over what really is made in America given that Boeing planes also have a significant number of parts made overseas.

A spokesman for the U.S. unit of Airbus parent European Aeronautic Defense and Space Co. said the decision was based not on political considerations but on a business case that didn't make sense.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ALCON can relax their buy American bone re VC-25 RA
PostPosted: Thu Jan 29, 2009 6:10 pm 
Offline
FlightAware Member
globemaster - FlightAware user avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 3:00 pm
Posts: 383
JackmanHL wrote:
Los Angeles Times
January 29, 2009
Pg. C3

Airbus Won't Bid To Build Air Force One

The firm cites business reasons, but some lawmakers balked at giving the job to a foreign firm.

By Peter Pae

The parent of European aircraft maker Airbus said Wednesday that it would not enter the competition to build a replacement for the president's 747 Air Force One, a move that all but leaves Boeing Co. as the only potential bidder for the prestigious airplane contract.

The decision is likely to quell criticisms that began to mount in recent days, particularly from "buy American" proponents in Congress who have derided the possibility that a U.S. president could fly around in a European-designed airplane.

"Outsourcing Air Force One is not an option. It's un-American," said Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas) as he proposed legislation Monday prohibiting the awarding of the contract to a foreign firm. "Are we going to replace the American apple pie with crepes?"

This month the Pentagon took the first steps in replacing the world's most photographed aircraft by requesting information from potential providers, including Airbus. Boeing and archrival Airbus are the only two companies capable of building an aircraft as large and sophisticated as that used by the U.S. president...

The prospects of an Airbus Air Force One, however, prompted heated debates over what really is made in America given that Boeing planes also have a significant number of parts made overseas.

A spokesman for the U.S. unit of Airbus parent European Aeronautic Defense and Space Co. said the decision was based not on political considerations but on a business case that didn't make sense.
the hypocrisy of it all. the incoming new presidential helos are assemled in america from european design. so to all the politicians out there, quit being hypocrites. so an european designed af1 assembled in mobile alabama shouldnt make a damn bit of difference.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ALCON can relax their buy American bone re VC-25 RA
PostPosted: Thu Jan 29, 2009 7:05 pm 
Offline
FlightAware Member
azav8r - FlightAware user avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2006 1:00 pm
Posts: 2405
JackmanHL wrote:
A spokesman for the U.S. unit of Airbus parent European Aeronautic Defense and Space Co. said the decision was based not on political considerations but on a business case that didn't make sense.

Ahh...the real basis of the decision.

Now look at a subjective report in contrast to the biased LA Times report:
From Flightglobal


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 29, 2009 7:45 pm 
Offline
FlightAware Member
msh168 - FlightAware user avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 7:00 am
Posts: 506
I hope the 747-800 replaces the current model. For whatever reason I just want the POTUS to travel with 4 engines. No particular reason, just because.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:17 pm 
Offline
FlightAware Member
nano404 - FlightAware user avatar

Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 11:00 am
Posts: 483
msh168 wrote:
I hope the 747-800 replaces the current model. For whatever reason I just want the POTUS to travel with 4 engines. No particular reason, just because.


I'd rather the two most powerful engines in the "game", which are on the super duper long range 777, if I were POTUS. but the 747 is cool too.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:34 pm 
Offline
FlightAware Member
globemaster - FlightAware user avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 3:00 pm
Posts: 383
msh168 wrote:
I hope the 747-800 replaces the current model. For whatever reason I just want the POTUS to travel with 4 engines. No particular reason, just because.
I think that 747 and 777 are to big. I have always thought that. could a 767 or new 787(if they ever get built.) do the job? would a smaller plane carry the amount people and crew a 47 or77 could? I am not privy to amount people on af1 crew and all the presidents people. anyone know? without shouting out national secrets :roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 29, 2009 9:08 pm 
Offline
FlightAware Member
tyketto - FlightAware user avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 10:00 pm
Posts: 1019
It will be an aircraft with 4 engines. That's it.

B777, B767, B787, A330, and any variants are out of the question.

If you check all previous Air Force (One,Two) aircrafts, they have all been 4-engine aircrafts, all the way back to Eisenhower and Truman.

Why? Redundancy. With all the mods they are going to make on the next aircraft, there is no way that they would want an aircraft carrying the POTUS down to one single engine. Range would be great, but it will be a redundant engined aircraft.

With the A380 withdrawn (and IMHO, would have been a great candidate), USAF has no choice but either the B744, or B747-8.

BL.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 29, 2009 9:59 pm 
Offline
FlightAware Member
azav8r - FlightAware user avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2006 1:00 pm
Posts: 2405
tyketto wrote:
It will be an aircraft with 4 engines. That's it......

Why? Redundancy.

You are absolutely, unequivocally, correct BL.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 30, 2009 12:35 am 
Offline
FlightAware Member
pfp217 - FlightAware user avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 10:00 pm
Posts: 1053
Location: KSPI
tyketto wrote:
If you check all previous Air Force (One,Two) aircrafts, they have all been 4-engine aircrafts, all the way back to Eisenhower and Truman.
BL.

and interestingly the Lockheed Jetstar owes itself to this .


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 30, 2009 10:54 am 
Offline
mduell - FlightAware user avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 3:00 pm
Posts: 5122
Location: FAWHQ
tyketto wrote:
If you check all previous Air Force (One,Two) aircrafts, they have all been 4-engine aircrafts, all the way back to Eisenhower and Truman.


The twin engine C-32 has routinely served as A1 or A2; also the Gulfstream that Clinton took to Pakistan was a twin.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:15 am 
Offline
New FlightAware Member
damiross - FlightAware user avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 4:00 pm
Posts: 7259
I think one of the main reasons the 747 was picked was due to its size. If I recall correctly, the 777 wasn't available yet or had just started service so it didn't have a proven track record.

Where did Clinton's trip on the Gulfstream to Pakistan originate? Was he flown overseas on the VC25 then used the Gulfstream to get to Pakistan?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 30, 2009 2:53 pm 
Offline
mduell - FlightAware user avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 3:00 pm
Posts: 5122
Location: FAWHQ
I don't know; see citations 16-18 at Wikipedia.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 30, 2009 3:08 pm 
Offline
FlightAware Member
tyketto - FlightAware user avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 10:00 pm
Posts: 1019
mduell wrote:


Hmm.. Assuming that this unmarked Gulfstream wasn't not USAF owned, and Air Force One was used by the other aircraft, either the Gulfstream had to use Executive One for the callsign, or the media screwed up. If the Gulfstream was USAF owned, then either the media screwed up, or various ATC screwed up, because you couldn't have two different planes in the air with the same exact callsign.

Something fishy there..

BL.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 30, 2009 3:08 pm 
Offline
FlightAware Member
azav8r - FlightAware user avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2006 1:00 pm
Posts: 2405
The C-32 is only used on missions where the destination airport is unsuitable for the VC-25.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 30, 2009 10:42 pm 
Offline
FlightAware Member
FlyNYC - FlightAware user avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2006 3:00 pm
Posts: 1699
pfp217 wrote:
tyketto wrote:
If you check all previous Air Force (One,Two) aircrafts, they have all been 4-engine aircrafts, all the way back to Eisenhower and Truman.
BL.

and interestingly the Lockheed Jetstar owes itself to this .


The Jetstar originally had 2 Bristol-Siddeley Orpheus engines. Lockheed couldn't reach and agreement for licensing production of the engines in the U.S., so it had to substitute the less powerful P&W JT12. Air Force requirements had nothing to do with it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 12:30 am 
Offline
FlightAware Member
pfp217 - FlightAware user avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 10:00 pm
Posts: 1053
Location: KSPI
FlyNYC wrote:
pfp217 wrote:
tyketto wrote:
If you check all previous Air Force (One,Two) aircrafts, they have all been 4-engine aircrafts, all the way back to Eisenhower and Truman.
BL.

and interestingly the Lockheed Jetstar owes itself to this .


Air Force requirements had nothing to do with it.



It was underpowered per the USAF and so



Hill Air Force Base Fact Sheet wrote:

Meanwhile, the Kennedy White House was looking for Presidential/VIP transport to augment the first 707s that were being used as Air Force One aircraft, and they contacted Lockheed asking if the JetStar could be re-configured as a four-engine aircraft. Lockheed turned to Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Engines about replacing the two French-built Orpheus engines on the original design with four Pratt engines and the plane was re-engineered to its current design, adding slipper tanks on the wings for extra fuel and range.


Hill AFB Library Fact Sheet


When you guys mentioned the Gulfstream, it made me remember back during the early 90's, I guess it must have been Clinton, was supposed to fly into SPI, but instead flew the 747 into STL and then flew the Gulfstream to SPI, thus being Air Force One.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 6:29 pm 
Offline
Charter Member
JackmanHL - FlightAware user avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2005 12:00 pm
Posts: 92
Location: Nonyabees, Calif, USA
First off...thanks for the interesting replies...they were a good read...

Next, I wanted to reply to some of the things said.

Globemaster: Way to call out the "hypocrisy" however, the political reality will unfortunately remain fueled by bombastic rhetoric, fear and ignorance. With that said, the "main" presidential acft is such an icon there is no way to avoid the emotions involved with seeing POTUS fly around in something not outwardly regarded as American, in spite of the business realities.

For the fans of the 74-8: A/O today, BA will have a difficult time pitching that acft due to some operational hurdles placed in its way

For the fans of a two-motor "main" presidential acft: There are some very real operational hurdles to overcome there as well...I wouldn't hold my breath for a two engined "main" acft anytime soon.

With that said, the assertion that " all previous Air Force (One,Two) aircrafts [sic], they have all been 4-engine aircrafts, all the way back to Eisenhower and Truman..." is, as has been pointed out, flawed. However, aside from the numerous 2-engined presidential support acft currently in the inventory, the VC-6A and the U-4B were used long before the C-9, C-32 or C-37 or C-20 arrived on scene. CONUS use of 2-engined acft is not w/o precedent. Although important, destination is not the only LIMFAC considered when deciding which jet to use...

And finally, for mduell: neither of those callsigns were used...


Last edited by JackmanHL on Wed Dec 07, 2016 12:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 9:52 pm 
Offline
FlightAware Member
FlyNYC - FlightAware user avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2006 3:00 pm
Posts: 1699
pfp217 wrote:
FlyNYC wrote:
pfp217 wrote:
tyketto wrote:
If you check all previous Air Force (One,Two) aircrafts, they have all been 4-engine aircrafts, all the way back to Eisenhower and Truman.
BL.

and interestingly the Lockheed Jetstar owes itself to this .


Air Force requirements had nothing to do with it.



It was underpowered per the USAF and so



Hill Air Force Base Fact Sheet wrote:

Meanwhile, the Kennedy White House was looking for Presidential/VIP transport to augment the first 707s that were being used as Air Force One aircraft, and they contacted Lockheed asking if the JetStar could be re-configured as a four-engine aircraft. Lockheed turned to Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Engines about replacing the two French-built Orpheus engines on the original design with four Pratt engines and the plane was re-engineered to its current design, adding slipper tanks on the wings for extra fuel and range.


Hill AFB Library Fact Sheet


When you guys mentioned the Gulfstream, it made me remember back during the early 90's, I guess it must have been Clinton, was supposed to fly into SPI, but instead flew the 747 into STL and then flew the Gulfstream to SPI, thus being Air Force One.


Interesting. That's the first time I've ever heard that explanation. Everything I've ever seen or heard, including conversations with Lockheed pilots of the time, said that the licensing problem was the reason for the engine swap. Hmmmm


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 05, 2009 12:12 am 
Offline
FlightAware Member
pfp217 - FlightAware user avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 10:00 pm
Posts: 1053
Location: KSPI
FlyNYC wrote:
pfp217 wrote:
FlyNYC wrote:
pfp217 wrote:
tyketto wrote:
If you check all previous Air Force (One,Two) aircrafts, they have all been 4-engine aircrafts, all the way back to Eisenhower and Truman.
BL.

and interestingly the Lockheed Jetstar owes itself to this .


Air Force requirements had nothing to do with it.



It was underpowered per the USAF and so



Hill Air Force Base Fact Sheet wrote:

Meanwhile, the Kennedy White House was looking for Presidential/VIP transport to augment the first 707s that were being used as Air Force One aircraft, and they contacted Lockheed asking if the JetStar could be re-configured as a four-engine aircraft. Lockheed turned to Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Engines about replacing the two French-built Orpheus engines on the original design with four Pratt engines and the plane was re-engineered to its current design, adding slipper tanks on the wings for extra fuel and range.


Hill AFB Library Fact Sheet


When you guys mentioned the Gulfstream, it made me remember back during the early 90's, I guess it must have been Clinton, was supposed to fly into SPI, but instead flew the 747 into STL and then flew the Gulfstream to SPI, thus being Air Force One.


Interesting. That's the first time I've ever heard that explanation. Everything I've ever seen or heard, including conversations with Lockheed pilots of the time, said that the licensing problem was the reason for the engine swap. Hmmmm


I have to be honest that I heard of this so long ago, that I thought I might have been talking out of my aft cargo after I posted it. I either saw it on a History/Military/Discovery Channel documentary, or it was mentioned at the USAF museum last time I was there. I am going there in 2 weeks and I will see if I can find any info on it when I'm there. In all reality there may be validity to both sides.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 06, 2009 9:57 am 
Offline
FlightAware Member
FlyNYC - FlightAware user avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2006 3:00 pm
Posts: 1699
pfp217 wrote:
I have to be honest that I heard of this so long ago, that I thought I might have been talking out of my aft cargo after I posted it. I either saw it on a History/Military/Discovery Channel documentary, or it was mentioned at the USAF museum last time I was there. I am going there in 2 weeks and I will see if I can find any info on it when I'm there. In all reality there may be validity to both sides.


I would think that you might be right about it being a bit of both. Also it could have been that the Air Force wanted U.S. built engines, the license couldn't be arranged, and there weren't any U.S. built engines suitable for a 2 engine application.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ALCON can relax their buy American bone re VC-25 RA
PostPosted: Wed Dec 07, 2016 12:52 am 
Offline
Charter Member
JackmanHL - FlightAware user avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2005 12:00 pm
Posts: 92
Location: Nonyabees, Calif, USA
Seems this aircraft is back in the news...

Thanks Twitter!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: