Q: Can an order for three aircraft justify the development of a sluggish selling derivative?A: Yes, if the aircraft is for the leader of the free world.
Boeing has always maintained that the 747-8I will be built, but with only 20 commercial orders from one customer (Lufthansa) and eight from private operators, the justification for development has typically been geared towards blunting A380 sales and a cash-flow reliant Airbus, rather than establishing a major share of the large aircraft market.
Though, the strategic justification for the next generation of 747 may have gotten the shot in the arm it needs to move forward. With the replacement competition for Air Force One now officially open, providing the platform for the most famous airplane in the world might be all the justification Boeing needs. Of course, depending on what the Air Force Mobility Command is looking for, the 747-8 might not be the airplane of choice. Though it appears to be the most likely candidate from Boeing, as the -8I provides a communications deck separate from the rest of the workspace of the airplane.
Though the battle for replacing the twin 747-200s serving as Air Force One might not be as fierce as, let's say, the Tanker contract. Boeing's likely competitor, Airbus, has already taken a skeptical approach to its chances in the competition:
Original graphics by FlightBlogger
Boeing has always maintained that the 747-8I will be built, but with only 20 commercial orders from one customer (Lufthansa) and eight from private operators, the justification for development has typically been geared towards blunting A380 sales and a cash-flow reliant Airbus, rather than establishing a major share of the large aircraft market.
Though, the strategic justification for the next generation of 747 may have gotten the shot in the arm it needs to move forward. With the replacement competition for Air Force One now officially open, providing the platform for the most famous airplane in the world might be all the justification Boeing needs. Of course, depending on what the Air Force Mobility Command is looking for, the 747-8 might not be the airplane of choice. Though it appears to be the most likely candidate from Boeing, as the -8I provides a communications deck separate from the rest of the workspace of the airplane.
Though the battle for replacing the twin 747-200s serving as Air Force One might not be as fierce as, let's say, the Tanker contract. Boeing's likely competitor, Airbus, has already taken a skeptical approach to its chances in the competition:
"While Airbus would love to see one of its family members become the new Air Force One, historically it is unlikely any proposal of ours would be very seriously considered."Though Paul Nisbet, President of JSA research, says anything is possible:
"A few years ago, I would have thought it very, very unlikely that Airbus could win a bid for Air Force One. But, given what's happened with the tankers, it could be conceivable that the Air Force would giveAt the end of the day, serving as the preferred means of air travel for the President of the United States is a marketing coup like none other and Airbus and Boeing won't want to miss the opportunity. Putting R&D resources toward developing the platform would be money well spent.Boeing the new tanker contract, and then offer Air Force One as a sop to Airbus."
Original graphics by FlightBlogger
on January 13, 2009 12:18 PM | Reply
Before awarding the Marine One replacement helicopter to Eurocopter, I'd say the scepticism was justified. With Airbus as a serious contender for KC-X, an Air Force One replacement will probably end up the most politicized (read: expensive) procurement in military history. I don't see Airbus hesitating at all for the chance to fly POTUS.
BTW, With Airbus unlikely to recoup A380 development costs, could Boeing be positioning themselves to replace retiring A380s with a 747RS?
on January 13, 2009 12:51 PM | Reply
Jon,
Nice job with the Air Force One color scheme. Just one minor nit to pick: The US Flag on the tail should always have the stars forward, even if it may make the flag appear "backwards."
I believe that three 777-300ERs could easily replace the current two 747-200s used for AF-1 service. However, the security of four engines may preclude their use.
An A380 might make sense as an Air Force One if it combined executive seating on one level and press seating on the other, thus eliminating the need for a separate press plane on most trips.
However, politically, there is no way an administration headed by a former illinois Senator would allow a non-Boeing product selected for Air Force One. As guidance, we shall see what the Obama administration does with the KC-X fiasco that is about to return front and center.
on January 13, 2009 1:24 PM | Reply
Airbus will no doubt complain about a lack of its chances in the competition until the air force writes the requirements to give weight to factors favoring the A380. Then when the A380 is picked: voila! Free trade wins again.
Also, since some of the 747 orders are already going to be for VIP aircraft, why would the USAF contract be needed to develop a VIP version? Are you suggesting that these aircraft won't be delivered unless more orders for the Intercontinental turn up?
on January 13, 2009 1:26 PM | Reply
The Secret Service and White House have extremely strict guidelines for Presidential transports. A twin engine 777-300ER won't meet the needs of the "primary" mode of transportation. And even though the White House requested information on the A380, the likelihood of that being selected is almost nil. The POTUS will arrive in countries around the world and will need to do it in an indigenous 4-engine widebody.
on January 13, 2009 4:09 PM | Reply
Flag all fixed!
Thanks for the heads up.
Jon
on January 13, 2009 5:04 PM | Reply
Sad, very sad. Even if B747-8i is selected to be AF-1 because it is an "american" aircraft (today this would be the only reason because this fat lady hasn't advantages respect A380), Boeing will never develop it only for this reason because US Goverment (sorry, I mean citzen's pockets) will never pay an aircraft development costs (we are talking about thousans of M$). Sorry, this isn't Cuba...
Boeing will cancel this project (fatty project) and we have to admit (with sadness of course) B747 age has finished and Airbus has won this "battle". The "war" still continues in a more (the most) important field: narrowbodies. Or do you think Boeing will be able to develop at same time B787,B747-8i,B737NG,tankers,etc etc etc
on January 14, 2009 5:17 AM | Reply
Its time to open an A380 assembly line in Mobile, Alabama and here you go with an "american product" :-)
on January 14, 2009 9:25 AM | Reply
I wonder if simply buying a few low hour 747-400ERs from Qantas and rebuild them as AF1 would not be much easier / cheaper..
on January 14, 2009 3:50 PM | Reply
I recall that during the competition for the current AF1, one iron-clad rule was the winner must have at least 10 yrs of in-service history. That is why the 742 was selected not the 744 which was about to enter service in 1989. The selection of the 742 was made in the late 1980s, near the end of development of the 744. If this 10-year rule still applies then the 748I is eliminated, and the choice should be the 744ER. It seems unlikely the choice would be the 748I given that it is not yet even built.
on January 14, 2009 11:58 PM | Reply
If the 748I ends up being canned, the only indigenous candidate may turn out to be a C17 with windows???????
on January 18, 2009 10:46 AM | Reply
Obama should opt for the A380 superjumbo. It would be a fitting symbol for the superjumbo government.
on January 21, 2009 3:00 AM | Reply
The reason why the VC-25 is a 747-200 with a three person analog cockpit and not a 747-400 digital glass cockpit is that the -200 was built to be a nuclear harden (EMP) aircraft same as the North American B-1B bomber and the E-4.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_E-4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse
Note the DC-10 was entry into Air Force One competitions in the 1970’s (The Lockheed L-1011 most likely was entry too)
EMP testing is perform at Kirtland AFB in New Mexico by placing the aircraft onto a wooden trestle and the EMP testing is perform by turning on all the aircraft system with the engine at idle and then turning on EMP generator to simulate a nuclear blast .
EMP testing was a Strategic Air Command requirement for all SAC aircraft (note the b-2 was not a SAC aircraft)
But choosing a replacement for the VC -25 from the 747-8, 777, 787 these aircraft are now 75% build in italy, Japans with Chinese parts or with non union labor, south caroline, texas, kasnas
(kanas (sprit) is own by onex of canada)
Airbus is now building factor in the USA.
http://www.spiritaero.com/aero.aspx?id=1923
as boeing contuine to leave the USA just look at boeing renton a shopping center