Trump Air Force One Deal Is Causing Headaches For The Air Force
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 มิ.ย. 2022
- As if Boeing didn't already have enough controversy on its plate at the moment, the handshake deal it did with former President Donald Trump for two new presidential aircraft is costing the planemaker a fortune rather than generating a profit. As a result, it is straining relationships with the US Air Force and causing potential further damage to its reputation.
Article: simpleflying.com/air-force-on...
Our Social Media:
/ simpleflyin. .
/ simple_flying
/ simpleflying. .
Our Website
simpleflying.com/
For copyright matters please contact us at: legal@valnetinc.com - บันเทิง
No slack! Boeing has raked in billions over the years by overcharging the government. The loss on these two planes probably wouldn't be a drop in a bucket compared to the overcharging they've pocketed.
Typical contractor, cost are going up will lose money, can we have some more. Need to hold them accountable!
Not to mention ALL the free money and tax breaks this company gets…🙄
And if Boeing was to collapse, Airbus a French manufacturer becomes a significant supplier of passenger aircraft...........yeh, Americans will love that!
@@pollcrazy I agree that they shouldn't enter contracts with risks they aren't prepared to accept but when you talk accountability you also need to hold the government accountable. They have a track record of shifting requirements with every lead that rotates through the office which drives up cost in ways you wont see in normal commercial dealings. There's also the governments role in the current supply chain and inflationary issues. Extraordinary times and all of that.
true..
Given Boeing's long history of shaking down the American taxpayers on cost overruns on pretty much every military plane it built since WWII, I think they can absorb the expenses over the contract price. No one held a gun to their head when they agreed to those terms. Besides, having a 747 used as Air Force One is a marketing asset you can't put a price on.
Does Boeing deliver on ANYTHING they’ve agreed to anymore??? Sweet lord. Why is everything such a problem. They’re so poorly run…a once brilliant company.
"Boeing - the NEW America; self-entitled while playing the victim" Just look at what that na, na, nasty Airbus is doing....
WHAT? you don't get cost-plus contracts on obvious attempts to influence government officials?
ONCE is the key term.
Spot on. The moment they moved to Chicago, it was all in the crapper.
It could be worse.. the new planes could have been based on the 777X !
The problem is that BOING has developed the bad habit of doing a bad job on every government contract the demanding more money from the government repeatedly.
And they have insurance for losses
Exactly, why deliver on time when you’ll pay me anyway
I worked on the present two 747-200 AF-1 aircraft that were modified in Wichita Kansas. Those two aircraft were wired and rewired 4 times, as the modifications didn't allow the wiring harnesses to fit inside the wiring tunnel.
There is a long history of what was done to modify the aircraft, so if they, Boeing lost the brain trust, that's on them.
Long gone are the days of cost plus military contracts. If you take the advertised price of a 747-8 at $475 million dollars and another, $500 million in modifications, this should have been a profitable contract for Boeing.
Where Boeing can recoup some money is via change orders. Build the aircraft as contracted. If the Air Force wants to make a change, the Air Force pays for the change. Normal contract language with change orders, just like building a house.
👍Yeah! What you said!
I seen large private planes with all kind of luxury interior, tech for a fraction of the cost. So to me Boeing is just crying wolf. I really can't see how the 3.8 billion are not enough. The defence measures are off the shelf so to me blaming everyone else is just sign how badly Boeing management has become.
Well some of the tech in this isn’t only luxury but also one of a kind. Those things cost a lot of $4B should’ve been enough
@@Surtistuff I seen conversations of 767, A330 etc none even close to a billion. Some are build for countries leaders with all communication, security features etc
The defence systems on the VC-25s are not off-the-shelf. They are custom and classified.
@@JonMartinYXD actually they are, just more of one system. The flares bin is of a AC-130. The electronics of a f35, few other components from Israel and other aircraft's. So needs minor adjustments.
Change orders are Boeing’s issue on this deal. Believe me, over the years Boeing has squeezed the DOD on change orders in the order of 100’s of billions. This one’s a lost leader Boeing. Sorry.
They've made more money on just SLS delays in the past few years than they will ever lose on these 747s
You mean a loss leader? If Boeing were silly enough to agree on a fixed price that included change orders then it serves them right that they are losing money. I have never heard of anything like it after 25 years in project management. Fixed price contracts are fine, but they ALWAYS have a clause in them to say that changes are chargeable.
Wonder if their costs had gone down rather than up, think Boeing would pass those savings on to the US government? 🤣
@@ruk2023-- I don't think the changes are at the behest of the government, rather it's Boeing having to use more expensive alternatives than they planned.
Change orders is where the money's at.. that's why they bid the contract low.
As in any business deal. A fixed price contract is fixed for a reason. Not as of Boeing would have said anything about compensation if the case would have been the opposite and delivery would be way under budget. You calculate the risk in the contract.
Agree. Boeing, do not sign a contract you do have not fully analyzed.
Exactly! Especially on fixed price contracts. They know that they only have one bite at the apple, so they build in a much bigger cushion.
Well, realize that the Senators from Boeing (and its major parts houses including Spirit) as well as a horde of lobbyists with money to bribe and with an army of lawyers trying to invent new meanings for every word in the contract we will probably end up paying for it. Trump was basically bought off for this deal but don't expect Biden to fix it up, I am sure that Boeing even as we speak is outbribing enough senators to get their way (if you look at the actions of both sides of the aisle in the Senate you might feel that hiring the Mafia to replace them might be a cost-saving deal for the people).
In addition, I think an honest accounting of the employees of Boeing would look something like Corporate executives 1000, other assorted management 6000, lawyers 5000, lobbyists 3000, accountants 3000 engineers 8 and all assembly farmed out to Bangladesh.
I have no sympathy for Boeing they absolutely knew what they were getting into. I certainly hope whoever accepts these planes goes over them with a fine tooth comb to make sure Boeing has lived up to the contract.
NO MCAS, or at least, let everybody in on how it actually works.
Damage to Boeing’s reputation… which reputation?
The 777 Max took care of that.
@@danaeckel5523 Its the 737 Max not the 777.
Although the 777X is throwing more of Boeing reputation into the dirt with its delays.
@@danaeckel5523 nah. I like the Max, it’s pretty cool
737 Max-10, 777X, 787 Dreamliner, Starliner, SLS. I've run out of fingers on one hand to count the ACTIVE issues today!
@@satoshimanabe2493 what’s wrong with the Dreamliner?
If Boeing didn't already have severe corruption and mismanagement issues, I might feel bad for them.
Contract overruns should never even be thing. The fact that people are thinking that Boeing is right to complain about the losses show you everything that is wrong with government contracts\beuracracy
100% agree. We all also gotta feel bad for all the average boeing employees caught under this b.s.
Who exactly thinks that Boeing is right to complain?
After Boeing allowed McD to take control of Boeing in a poorly structured buyout of McD, the company has been on a spiral of death. McD was the most penalized military contractor in US history and they took control of Boeing after that bad deal and immediately started the downfall. Sold all my stock years ago…
I tend to agree. Boeing has a history of massive cost overruns, long delays. At some point they need to be held accountable, and they need to figure out how to not screw up so bad all the time. No one could have anticipated Covid, and the effect it had, but I honestly believe if Covid had never happened, Boeing still would have still delivered them very late, and far over budget. Thats been Boeing's mentality for over a decade. They need to change their way of thinking.
While I have no love of Boeing (they destroyed the company I worked for) it really is difficult to work on a fixed price contract. Fixed price is OK for repeat builds but nearly impossible for complex new tech. So many unknowns.
Boeing and Lockheed, Lockheed and Boeing - always behind schedule. Always over budget. Always cost overruns. They've bought up 99% of the US based competition for the types of aircraft they manufacture, so it's not like you have a lot of US based competition you can go to for a reasonable deal - and they know it. I'm honestly surprised they agreed to this fixed price contract for these two planes because it's cutting into their profits. I'm sure the congressweasels they own in Congress will figure out a way to funnel more money to them though, one way or the other. Probably write a contract for Seattle air to be installed on each military airplane they manufacture for a low cost of $90 trillion or something to that effect.
Boeing losing another billion dollars? Just another solid financial year for them
Boeing took losses on the last contract so based on pandemic issues that was a risk they didn’t foresee… but shortsighted McD influences on old Boeing business practices (outsource all work as being cheaper) also contributed to increased costs (poor suppliers unable to perform). Same issue occurred with 787 as big push was to outsource key production that were always performed in-house. Test and development said 787 issues would arise from outsourcing to unproven suppliers and they were ignored and bullied to fall in line with the McD mentality…
Frankly...your comment sounds like a pile of bilge.
yea. The 787 issues got so bad they had to outright the bad supplier, and then they decided to have them build the entire plane. I mean sure, some customers still won't accept planes built there, but the labor is cheaper....
Its funny if you read McD as McDonalds instead of McDonnell Douglas, cause it does seem to be run like your next door McD!
McDonald's is a well run corporation. McDD is/was not.
A better way to say what's going here is you take your car to a shop for a repair. Shop tells you it will be no more than $1000 but it will take 3 days to get all the parts. You sign off on the repair. The shop calls you the next day, saying they can't get the parts in time and it's now $1400 because it's taking longer. And now they need a week... and you remind them you have a contract for $1000.
That's oversimplifying it. On such large and complex projects, there are always changes along the way from the customer side. Always! If Boeing didn't incorporate a force majeure clause into the contract, they didn't do their legal homework.
The shop would have to inform you of the reason for the increased cost, and you would have to either authorize it or get your car back unrepaired.
The two dozen or so times I have taken my cars in for work over the 37 years I have NEVER, NEVER, NEVER signed a contract for a set price and I have lived in 12 different states from coast-to-coast and Germany. The situation is exactly 180⁰ off from what you said, of the 4 or 5 times we ran into issues requiring more time I received either a discount to keep my business or them paying for my rental car for the extra time needed.
Besides your piss-poor analogy, what part of the story said that Boeing was NOT going to complete the order at the set cost, DESPITE the huge losses... Please tell me where you heard this?
A fixed price contract should have included conditions and scenarios where additional costs could be included. Its not the DoD's fault these weren't included.
Boeing seems to be so used to "cost plus" government contracts that they don't know how to build to a fixed budget (see Starliner).
Boeing couldn't build a baby stroller on time and on budget. They have lost their way.
I can't build a baby stroller on time either. What's your point?
@@hewhohasnoidentity4377 Are you supposed to be a professional baby stroller mechanic? Boeing is supposed to be a professional aircraft manufacturer. They aren't. Thats my point.
@@hewhohasnoidentity4377 His point is that Boeing is supposed to be able to baby stroller on time, but they have lost their expertise.
@@hewhohasnoidentity4377 haha, the point is Boeing couldn't supply a pencil on time and on budget because their management is so piss poor.
"Should Boeing be given some slack?"
Let's be clear, "given some slack" means "given some money." Do they give the government some money when the unforeseen issues go in the investors' favor, our do they celebrate with champagne instead?
When corporations keep the profits while things are good and get subsidized by the people when things are bad, the corporations always win and the people always lose. This power dynamic is the reason that people die in this country because they can't afford basic health care while the imperial forces of the US military have a trillion dollar a year operating budget to run bases in almost every country n the world.
one terrible day, they will regret the lack of inflight refueling capability.
Well their is always the E-4 Doomsday planes to fall back on but they are starting to get pretty old.
These are just show pieces. In the event of an emergency the president will be flying on a plane that has air refueling capabilities
Disagree. The 747-8 has an extremely long range, and there's no shortage of US military bases around the world that it can land at. The current aircraft have never once been refueled in flight.
@@B52Stratofortress1 I watched a documentary from 1997 where it had to be refueled in flight after being hijacked by Russian ultranationalists
@@B52Stratofortress1 The current 747 set were practically a doomsday device with lots of contingency plan to ensure president survival. In fact it is still the pinnacle of space age transport for VIP. Right now the biggest problem is if Boeing could deliver the order at all since they kept bleeding money on MAX compensation, 787, KC767 and now the presidential jet.
Let’s blame our suppliers for our woes…how original
Or the unions!
Fixed price contracts are the way to go. Look at SLS.
Cost plus only leads to delays and more money in the contractor pockets!!!!
This is like 2 years delayed, what is your point?
I can't believe the government can't make due with a 787 or 777.
Not for the US airborne command. The real reason that "Air Force One" is huge is to operate as a flying bunker in case the President is in a "not safe" place when something bad happens. Remember Sept 11th? We grab the Pres, his family, we throw them in the plane, and we take off. 787/777 are 2 engine, and are in severe danger if they loose one. This is why EVERY mainline cargo plane or bomber in the fleet has 4 engines.
If you ordered a Supra from Toyota would you be happy if they delivered a Prius?
So Trump drove a hard bargain and got a good deal. Every government contract should be done this way.
Not really. Boeing took a bad contract which didn’t cover them enough.
Pretend I’m a farmer and I agree to supply you with X tonnes of tomatoes for $Y. Then the price of fuel shoots up and it now costs me the whole $Y to harvest the tomatoes. Did you just “drive a hard bargain” and “get a good deal”? No, you got exactly what you would have got in the first place.
This is why long complex contracts usually aren’t fixed cost, or have clauses in place to protect both parties.
Looking the cost of a 747-8 vs the new Airforce ones, there must be about $2B in technology and luxury inside each airplane. Also Defence news is saying that Boeing is blaming the delays on a sub contractor that has now been replaced.
More like 200 mln $ in tech and 1.8 billion theft by crasheing, only last CEO did it and only crumbs are left for new one...
The cost of these aircraft is insanity. Kids in school don't have money to buy pencils and this is how our government spends it's money, it's shameful.
Three problems:
One, modern POTUS operations demand a lot of personnel in travel, and the White House want their people together and not divided among several aircraft.
Two, long-standing Secret Service/USAF safety policy preferred that POTUS flies on a four-engined aircraft, which are costly dinosaurs going extinct as far as the aircraft industry is concerned. Ordinary schmoes can risk crossing oceans on two engines, but not POTUS.
Three, for political/image reasons, there's no way Air Force One would not be an American-built aircraft.
The newer 747 variants are not too bad for fuel efficiency. They are still used for cargo runs for that reason.
As much as I hate to back the government, ordinary schmoes don't have lots of people who would like to shoot SAMs at them. But the cost overruns have nothing to do with the selection of the 747 as the base airplane or the fact that it is an American-built aircraft.
Curious, how much extra would Boeing charge for the new AF1 if it wasn’t fixed price contract.
All the money. Look at SLS. Billions over budget and 5 years (so far) late.
Cost + gives contractors zero incentives to provide the product on time or for a reasonable price
The other common type of contract is “cost +” which means that the government would pay for the actual costs plus an additional fee usually based on a percentage of the costs.
@@sebastian.stamour You shouldn't be so hard on SLS. Everyone knows that it was a jobs program, they made no secret of it. Until the billionaires got interested there was no other employment for space workers. I would rather the knowledge was kept and not lost.
Blank check :)
As much as they can squeeze out of the DoD, and $1B on top of that.
This problem is happening everywhere in all types of industries. All projects slated pre-covid are hemorrhaging money now. I have first-hand experience with this in my field. Its a complete disaster.
Could or possibly have anything to do with the fact that now your dollar is worth 10% less than when this contract was negotiated?
I don't think that is called a 'deal' Boeing made, I think most people would call it a 'bribe'. Maybe this little off-the-books' deal' is part of the reason we are paying a hugely inflated amount to the Boeing subsidiary ULA for the SLS rocket.
I bet you believe in chemtrails and a flat earth.
Or maybe the president negotiated a deal on a new plane from them??? He for once didn’t allow it to become another sls. Sls stays alive cause of strong senators in the states the manufacture in!!!
Boeing has exceptional experience in this niche, and aircraft is what they do, if they can't deliver these on time - then it's time to question why they can't do what they do, even if they have to put other productions on hold, it's simply a matter of corporate and national integrity. To fail in this, is to recognise they have a diminished capability and are lacking in the can-do, will-do that made the company so great, back when they had to work stuff out with a pencil and slide rule.
At this rate, Airbus is going to get a foot in the door simply due to time and budget. I know if I was responsible for its procurement, I would be considering other options by now.
So, when do we get the SpaceX version of Boeing? It's unfortunate that a company like boeing, can't be constructed from scratch because if you could, I guarantee, they would have been run out of town on a rail already!!
The sensible thing is dump the Air Force One's and walk away.
having managed contracts for the Army, Firm fixed-price contracts for things like this are a solid nightmare for both sides. This type of contract usually disappoints both sides and ultimately increases costs.
Yep. Just look at the grossly over budget VA hospital in Aurora Colorado. Anytime the guberment is involved companies can say good bye to profits.
@@explorenaked oh no, the poor profits! I hope every government project results in giant profits for private companies!
@@explorenaked both sides of the contract need to work to make the contract work it does the Government no good to either get ripped off or to bankrupt suppliers. Making a firm fixed price contract with a poorly defined scope work is nearly impossible, it guarantees everyone will be unhappy. You can't have people who don't actually understand the contract making handshake deals.
Sorry sport, all contracts are based on a certain amount of good faith, Boeing has not shown good faith in so many things that no tears will I shed for them. If you don't believe me, try doing a line by line for available data on their pet ULA company. If you are dealing with a company like Boeing you are a fool to do anything but a fixed price contract even if it runs them out of business. We will probably be better off if we do, only the Japanese and now Tesla have caused Detroit to set up and take notice, it will probably be the same with Boeing..
@@aldenconsolver3428 So you won;t be complaining then when the Chinese start supplying airliners because Boeing went under.
A “handshake” deal with Trump? Big mistake… 🤑
Better count your fingers!!!
How come no one gives Trump credit where credit is due?
It all seems to have changed after Boeing bought McDD - previously company was run by engineers, not accountants. Moving headquarters did not help.
You are exactly right!
for that kind of money ,there should be NO cost overruns .the profit margin on a billion dollar plane has to be 10's of millions
I am glad we’ve dispensed with the orange one’s suggested livery back to the traditional livery!
This is just like the grocery store, you pick the item off the shelf, shelf price is 99cents, you go thru checkout and the price rings up as 1.99. Contract price is contract price!
If you have to massively rebuild (total gut job) why not start with a C-5 or C-17? Hopefully one is still on the production line
The C-5 and C-17 ended production in 1989 and 2015, respectively. If they wanted to go that route they'd need to pull them from the existing fleet.
The rule of thirds should apply here. 33% cost of material, 33% cost of labour and 33% profit. Realistically its unlikely Boeing is actually losing money on the deal they just aren't making the profit they estimated at the time of signing the contract. Any company would allow a huge margin for inflation on a long term contract like this too. I think Boeing are probably fine overall they're just feeling the pinch after all the other problems with the MAX series.
In theory, but given the...unique...way that this contract was negotiated, Boeing potentially skipped some of the traditional steps for pricing a bid like this.
Hell no, all of the money we pay for "all of the stuff we buy " from them which is always over priced and years late
video idea: Why planes stop in dublin to refuel and take off right after
They signed a contract, deliver the product, go out of bussness, what ever.
So they really aren't losing money. They just aren't making as much money as they thought.
No!! They should deliver the product promised for the amount of money they agreed on. No passes!!!
I don't think so, Boeing should not have agreed to a contract so strict and as a DOD contractor myself, they definitely should understand that the DOD can be finicky at times.
I'm in the automotive industry and have been seeing the insane increases in costs and delays. I can't even imagine what Boeing must be dealing with
And if Covid hadn't happened they would have pocketed TONS of profit. So, such is the risk of taking on such contracts.
It’s ridiculous when executives say they could not have predicted the pandemic: it’s their job to predict that kind of risk, which was very probable. we were lucky it wasn’t worse
P.S. 1:53 What the heck happened to the color balance of the two flying in formation?
Sounds like trump is a strong negotiator…
They are just so used to cost+ contracts that they have forgotten how to manage their own business. I don't like Trump at all - but setting a fixed price is the way all government contracts should be negotiated.
Any contractor knows that... and that is who he was first. "This will hurt our relationship with Boeing" says the Air Force General hoping to retire to Boeing.
Take it out of the CEO and Board of Directors performance compensation packages.
No! They signed the contract and did not uphold their side of it.
Part of the internal refurbishment delay and cost over runs are due to outsourcing that work to a Saudi owned company. Which is federal security issue.
OK. Didn't anybody check who owns the company before calculating the offer based on that supplier?
@@todortodorov940 no, because that would be responsible.
@@kazansky22 I was so naive to assume even some basic common sense from that company.
$3.9 billion for two aeroplanes? Wow.Are they made of gold?
No slack. A deal based on fixed price is common and a good way to hold companies to their word. This is a blatant attempt at having their cake and eating it too‼️😩😩😩
any commercial contract should have force majeure clauses that cover some of these issues. Time to get a new attorney Boeing
I never realized until now that the second storey of the Air Force One had no windows besides the cockpit! Why is that?
It's a very old 747-200. In the 200 commercial planes there was really only room in the hump for crew rest areas. It got bigger in the -400 and included passenger seating. With the -8 it was expanded again.
Story
@@johnp139 , storey is the British spelling.
@@johnp139 books tell storys, buildings (and several aircraft) have storeys.
What is wrong with the existing AF1?
The REST of the world has to abide by contracts…. Why should it be any different because the customer is the government
Boeing have been legged over due to the incompetence of their negotiation. A fixed term contract like this one should never been signed by the company and they are suffering now for their financial and negotiating incompetence.
Keep the laywers incharge of our corporations and government.
I wouldn’t give Boeing an inch. They are a financial business now rather than an aerospace engineering business - their choice.
Boeing's performance in its space program continues on. Too many MBAs not enough engineers
Fixed price? Ha ha..no US defense contractor could comprehend that term... that's the problem..:-D
Well, at least this way us taxpayers aren’t responsible to pay for Boeing’s ineptitude!
Sounds like a good business deal was made on behalf of the American taxpayers.
Not really good for the American taxpayers, both parties have to be able to be happy with the contract outcome.
If the Governments gets a cheaper product but the supplier goes bankrupt over the lost, then the layoff of staff would impact the economy far worst than if the Government paid a fair price for the product. Sure you don't want the government over paying but you also don't want them destroying Businesses in their wake for the cheapest products.
Basically, you should not have people shaking hands on a deal without understanding contract.
Many of Trump's previous "deals" have shown this as Businesses going to the wall after these sort of contracts, that maybe OK in the private sector but not with Government, the ripple affect has far reaching outcomes that need to be thought about.
@@SteveGillham If Boeing goes bankrupt because they lose about 1% of a year's revenue on this deal, Boeing was going to go bankrupt anyway.
A billion sounds like a lot of money until you realize they do over $100 billion a year in business in most years. It's been down in the 60-70 Billion range the past couple of years due to Covid. But it's not like a Billion is half of the annual revenue. Until 2019Q2, profit margin has been a solid 8-10% on that 60-100 Billion in annual revenue.
Profits turned to losses 2019Q4 at -0.83% and have not come above water since.
Failures in the Dreamline and 737-MAX are more to blame than a loss of 1-2% of the annual revenue on this deal.
Boeing needs to fix their business, not blame others for their failures.
@@buffuniballer Yes Boeing does need to fix it Business model, especially taking on a deal which they are unable to keep, and you agree with me that just getting cheap deals from a Private Business is not a good deal for the Tax Payers if that deal also pushes the Private Business to fold.
@@SteveGillham I think you missed my point. People complaining about a small portion of Boeing's overall business.
It's not this one contract that is the problem, it's Boeings repeated failures on the rest of the business that is bringing it down. As I demonstrated, the $1 billion or so is a small fraction of a typical year's revenue and typical margins are 8-10% Which means this deal would normally turn a 10% year into a 9% profit year, so still in the typical range.
It's not the contracts, it's their execution or the past 3+ years.
@@buffuniballer oh no, I did not miss the your point and I hope you did not miss my point that just because a deal, any deal is not a good deal where one party is screwing over the other party.
That is not good Business at all, both parties need to be able to have success from the deal, when you get a one sided deal, all that happens is it leads to failure for Business as a whole.
They agreed to the contract, let them eat the costs. How many over runs have there been on other contracts??
I just hope they keep the Loewy/Kennedy pain scheme. It's timeless.
Give them slack please, any 1 off design should have a set of clauses for over runs.
Trump made a bad deal ? That is un-possible.
A contract is a contract... They'll make the needed cutbacks elsewhere.
For the price they should have a couple of 37 MAX ✈️✈️
A contract is just that. I doubt the company would reduce the price if they came out ahead and cite the first sentence.
Well, Boing will find a way so that loss is compensated. They know how to reduce costs in ordinary plane production.
All government projects need to be fixed price. If the government doesn't change the spec, then the price is what it is.
No, they should have taken the time to read the President’s book 'The Art of the Deal' before agreeing to anything.
If the Boeing CEO doesn't know that something can't be very unique (it's either unique or it isn't) then I'm not surprised they made some silly decisions.
Another one I like is "perfectly legal".
The new Air Force One 747s are less capable then the ones currently flying the new ones have no aerial refueling capability. If refurbished B-52s built 60 years ago will be flying for another 25 years why can't the life of the 30-year-old Air Force ones with low air time be refurbished.???? It wouldn't have cost 3.9 billion dollars.
If there were only two B-52s left then the they would also be too expensive to maintain. Not that I'm defending any part of this deal.
Stretchtop AF1 looks good.👍🏿
In general does not matter. They will charge in a different contract.
No ... cancel the order or deliver on time and cost as agreed !!!
Wah, Wah, Wah! Get over it. These companies make billions on other military products. Live up to the contract and deliver the product!
Yes, they should!
The art of the deal...indeed..lol
The cost of building a 747 is a known! The costs associated with spec for the VC are known! The delivery schedule (build time) is known! So the only force majure they want is also known due to government intervention can be calculated…thus you could calculate additional claim/relief!
A deal was accepted by both parties (however informal). Boeing should have known the cost as I’m sure it wasn’t just a random price. In business you win some and lose some but you have to honour your commitments. Had prices gone down, do you think Boeing would have reduced their sale price?
Yes!
A contract is a contract, I’m sure they bid on it. I pay for my mistakes, they pay for there’s.
Once they moved to Chicago the bean counters moved in. Now they may leave to cheaper quarters in the South. Yes they have certainly made huge profits on other government contracts. The "deal" was undoubtedly ill advised. Due to the complexity of the aircraft and the requirements, what with various delivery delays I can see a compromise but I wouldn't want to give the all they ask for.
It's called karma Boeing and a small price to pay since you guys got away with murder.
What about the 3962 people who died on A3XX airplanes?
Give it a rest.
@@danharold3087 whataboutism at its finest
@@lalalalalala4870 Thank you! What is good for the goose is good for the gander! Perhaps you can have some fun with that as it applies here. LOL
It is convenient for Boeing haters to paint all of Boeing with these deaths/crimes/etc. Like nobody ever died on an AIrbus.
what in the world are they putting on those planes? the list price of a 747, is under $500 million each.
@Simple Does this mean those 2 planes will be the very last 747 to be delivered? That would be an interesting historical fact.
Boeing is accustomed to dealing with NASA’s open checkbook and the free ride they are getting on the SLS program.
No slack,build the plane Boeing.
Actually fixed price contracts are now common for military contracts. Boeing also has a fixed price on the tankers
@@johniii8147 as they should be,but not on the SLS launch gantry/tower,NASA is not military however.
So fixed price ? if i bid a project to low i loose money why are they not the same.
A deals a deal! No slack! Whether he is in heaven or hell Bill Boeing is looking up or down in raging at how poorly mismanaged his company has become since his passing.
Would of been better to produce the aircraft as a new plane , all the special equipment required for AF1 would have mostly been built in on the production line . Also no air to air refuelling is a major concern going forward in case of a war , don’t forget the aircraft has to be emp proof now that’s not easy on a modern aircraft .
AR isn’t required.
Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to just build these planes from scratch??? These are such a niche and highly modified spec of the 747 that you'd think it would be easier to design the airframe to the customer's modifications rather than ripping apart to almost every rivet an existing 747.
New planes designed from scratch would add another five to ten years in development time and costs. At least with the 747 you theoretically have a basic idea of capability and safety.
I meant build a 747-8 on the line with all the custom work done while they are screwing it together, rather than ripping apart an existing 747
Because fabricating custom parts is way more complex than just changing some settings on a machine in a factory
@@KaitouKaiju My point is its easier to accommodate all those design changes in the planning/design stage for Air Force One, before it ever gets built.
Then you just send it thru Boeing's assembly line for normal 747-8's. Those guys on the line who weld and rivet the plane are highly skilled and can accommodate any sort of custom changes the Air Force demands. Maybe you employ some specialists to help with the wiring and all the crazy communication systems, but really those boys at Boeing should be able to do most of that custom work that the Air Force wants, rather than just stripping an existing 747-8 to bare metal and basically starting over.
Boeing’s continual incompetence on display
they already did….. it was called a BailOut