dc koop

Well he's not all wrong. A modern jumbo jet is something akin to a ship. It can be refitted over and over again, state of the art electronic hardware installed, engines replaced. If it saves our tax money why not? The USAF still have B-52 bombers on their inventory, aircraft that were built and first flew in the 1950s

Philk

"We grit our teeth and bear it in the U.S. Air Force," he said. "We can't do that with the presidential air (fleet). They need 100 percent reliability."

source

morpeth

about assumptions.

Ebonhawke

Because the operating requirements for AF1 don't really allow for significant refits to be performed. To perform an upgrade to the hardware and wiring systems could take months, and AF1 has to be able to launch within minutes in the case of a crisis. As the plane accumulates miles, it starts to cost more and more to maintain.

Just look at owning a car - the first few years are relatively maintenance/repair free, but then comes a point where parts start to fail and the repair bills add up. On a plane you also have to worry about metal fatigue and cabin integrity, among other factors that don't translate to a car. There definitely comes a point in time when it doesn't make sense to pour more money into a car, and it's actually more cost effective to purchase new. Unfortunately with AF1, you can't go to a new plane store and pick one up the next day - they take years to manufacture. I read somewhere online today (unverified) that it costs $1B/year to maintain the current fleet of presidential transportation.

I agree that spending on the military in the US is rife with opportunities for improvements in efficiency. There are lots of reports of grifting and mismanagement of funds. It should also be noted that Trump has claimed that his construction projects are all under budget, because he over-inflates the budget to make himself look good at the end. He also has repeatedly said on the campaign trail that he would spend significant capital on arguably unnecessary military projects to help stimulate the economy and jobs (which has spurious correlation at best). All this likely means that even more taxpayer money is going to the Military Industrial Complex, for products that (hopefully) have limited value for the United States.

RoadWarriorFromLP

It's just fantastic that Trump's ignorance touches everything.

Dunning-Kruger meets Lord of the Flies.

scrubbedexpat099

I saw the 4bn figure but did not think of it as a Trump made up figure.

Emperors have always had their gilded coaches.

Waste is relative but given finite resources not an obvious spend, the one thing there is not to be a likely shortage of is Politicians.

Leslie

Yeah, right. So all those bitchy comments you made about me were created in this imaginary Assumption Free Zone?

scrubbedexpat099

This thread is all about assumptions, who would be nominated, who would be elected and what they will do.

MidAtlantic

The figure is in line with the Air Force estimate. The Government Accountability Office figure is lower because they estimated lower research and development costs, at just under $2 billion. YES, $2 billion!

What amazes me is Boeing's statement: "We are currently under contract for $170 million to help determine the capabilities of these complex military aircraft that serve the unique requirements of the President of the United States," Why are they being paid to determine the capabilities of their own plane? Surely they know that already. If not, then I will continue flying airbus whenever possible.

I'm with Trump on this one.

morpeth

My mother didn't like it if people referred to her as European, but certainly didn't get angry about it- though she would point out that she was English and not European.

I agree just common courtesy to be sensitive to the feelings of others, but is equally difficult in today's world sometimes to be aware of how sensitive some people are. As I explained in my case I was just astounded at the interpretation maybe because I have the last few years been around quite a few Mexicans, and before that I had employees in Mexico- and I still find it curious that a non-Mexican would take offense at something a Mexican would not. Hence my initial thought just another example of PC getting out of hand.

Oh well, can't disagree never good to hurt the feelings of others,

Ebonhawke

Boeing is still in the development phase of the project, so they don't really know how much the new planes are going to cost yet. The Air Force has put in an estimated budget of $3B over the next five years, but that's really just a 'placeholder' amount. The final cost for the program could be below $3B, or above $4B - no one really knows at this point.

For Trump to threaten to cancel the contract without really understanding the cost of construction, and the reasons behind those costs is just utter stupidity. If he truly does cancel the contract, then he risks creating job losses for an American company, when a big part of his platform was the opposite. The other challenge is that there's no other US based manufacturer capable of building the planes, so he's unlikely to award the contract to another manufacturer. Therefore, my opinion is that he'll bluster and then pull another (lower) number out of thin air, and claim it as a 'win', even though the final cost still won't be determined for years.

scrubbedexpat099

That was the WaPo quote I was going to mention, Aircraft need to be replaced but the vast majority of the cost will not be transportation related.

dakota44

You would be wrong. The capabilities Boeing refers too are the capabilities that are wanted by the Air Force. Thise determine what modifications to the basic airframe and performance will be needed. This isn't like the Boeing you travel in. good chunk of the money spent will come back in lower fuel and maintenence costs. The damn planes are more than 30 years old now and will be 40 by the time new ones are ready.

morpeth

Just out of curiosity where would be the source of information that he over-inflates his budgets for the reasons you state ? ( I wouldn't put it past him).

Looking at Trump's comments during the primary and campaign it is a bit hard to know what he will end up doing.

Ebonhawke

For contracts that require an R&D component (such as with AF1 - remember that they're not supposed to go into service until 2023, and last for 25+ years), it's not unusual for companies to be compensated for some of the effort to try to anticipate the challenges facing the project. For AF1, designers will have to try and anticipate how technology could change over the next 35 years, and how to design the aircraft to be able to adapt to these potential changes, even if the particular technology doesn't exist today.

The payment allows the company to hire the requisite staff to perform the design work, without risking a company becoming insolvent before the design is completed. The R&D cost is part of the total cost of the project (and usually included in the bid), it's just paid up front (sort of like hiring a contractor to perform a home renovation - you have to pay a portion of the reno up front so that they can complete the design work, pay for the permits etc, before they even begin to start work on the actual reno)