'Qatar's $400 Million Jet For Trump Is a Gold-Plated Security Nightmare' (theregister.com) 206
Qatar is gifting Trump a $400 million luxury 747 to serve as a temporary Air Force One, but experts warn that retrofitting it to meet presidential security standards could take years, cost hundreds of millions more, and risk national security due to potential embedded surveillance. The Register's Iain Thomson reports: The current VC-25s aren't just repainted 747s. They're a pair of flying fortresses that must be capable of allowing the president to run the country, survive wartime conditions (even nuclear), and be totally secure from outside influence or intrusion. While the precise details of the current airframe are a tightly guarded secret, some details are included on government fact sheets or have been revealed in various media reports. For a start, it must have an in-flight refueling capability so the president can go anywhere in the world and stay up as long as needed. Retrofitting this to an existing 747 would be very expensive, as the feds would need to strengthen portions of the hull to handle the refueling system and reconfigure the fuel tanks to handle trim issues.
Then there's the hull, which is known to be armored, and the windows are also thicker than you'd find on a normal flight. The government would also need to build in weapons systems like the chaff rockets used against radar-guided missiles, flares against heat seekers, and AN/ALQ-204 Matador Infrared Countermeasure systems, or similar to try and confuse incoming missiles. Next up, the engines and electrical systems would have to be replaced. The electronics in the current VC-25s are hardened as much as possible against an electromagnetic pulse that would be generated by a nuclear detonation. There are also claims that the aircraft have extra shielding in the engines to help against missile fragments should a physical attack happen.
Next up are communications. Air Force One has air-to-ground, air-to-air, and satellite comms systems that are thought to be the equal of what's in the White House. There are at least two separate internal phone systems - one open and the other highly secure - that would need to be installed and checked as well. Then there are incidentals. Contrary to what films will tell you, there is no escape capsule on the current Air Force One, nor a rear parachute ramp, but there is a medical suite with emergency equipment and space for a physician which would already need to be installed, as well as a secured cargo area designed to prevent tampering or unauthorized access. As for the threat of embedded surveillance devices, Richard Aboulafia, managing director of aircraft consultancy AeroDynamic Advisory, said: "You'd have to take it apart piece by piece to stop a professional operator putting in lots of equipment to confuse things, like spare sensors and wiring."
"It wouldn't be in the air before 2030 at the earliest, long after he's left office and probably later than the existing planned replacements," said Aboulafia. "It makes no sense on any level, except that he wants a free 747 for himself. Nothing else makes any sense."
"What's sort of annoying about the whole thing is I'm not sure what's wrong with the current Air Force One," Aboulafia said. "Maybe if they gave it a gold makeover, he'd like it more."
Then there's the hull, which is known to be armored, and the windows are also thicker than you'd find on a normal flight. The government would also need to build in weapons systems like the chaff rockets used against radar-guided missiles, flares against heat seekers, and AN/ALQ-204 Matador Infrared Countermeasure systems, or similar to try and confuse incoming missiles. Next up, the engines and electrical systems would have to be replaced. The electronics in the current VC-25s are hardened as much as possible against an electromagnetic pulse that would be generated by a nuclear detonation. There are also claims that the aircraft have extra shielding in the engines to help against missile fragments should a physical attack happen.
Next up are communications. Air Force One has air-to-ground, air-to-air, and satellite comms systems that are thought to be the equal of what's in the White House. There are at least two separate internal phone systems - one open and the other highly secure - that would need to be installed and checked as well. Then there are incidentals. Contrary to what films will tell you, there is no escape capsule on the current Air Force One, nor a rear parachute ramp, but there is a medical suite with emergency equipment and space for a physician which would already need to be installed, as well as a secured cargo area designed to prevent tampering or unauthorized access. As for the threat of embedded surveillance devices, Richard Aboulafia, managing director of aircraft consultancy AeroDynamic Advisory, said: "You'd have to take it apart piece by piece to stop a professional operator putting in lots of equipment to confuse things, like spare sensors and wiring."
"It wouldn't be in the air before 2030 at the earliest, long after he's left office and probably later than the existing planned replacements," said Aboulafia. "It makes no sense on any level, except that he wants a free 747 for himself. Nothing else makes any sense."
"What's sort of annoying about the whole thing is I'm not sure what's wrong with the current Air Force One," Aboulafia said. "Maybe if they gave it a gold makeover, he'd like it more."
Refueling (Score:2)
Pretty sure the new ones aren't going to have in-air refueling capabilities, so scratch that one off the liest.
Re:Refueling (Score:5, Informative)
Pretty sure the new ones
New ones? The last 747 rolled off the assembly line in 2023.
For the next Air Force One, the Air Force needs to look at a replacement for the C-17, add a few requirements and order a variant to fulfill the AF1 role. I'm guessing that most of the comms, armor and countermeasures are in the base model already. Throw in a gold toilet seat and call it done.
Re: (Score:3)
Throw in a gold toilet seat and call it done.
I wouldn't even try to guess how much government contract for a gold toilet would cost.
Re:Refueling (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
There are two AF1s that Boeing is supposed to, and currently miserably failing at, building.
Re:Refueling (Score:5, Funny)
We know the reason why now.
The requested gold ornaments turned out to be too heavy, and Boeing hasn't come up with a good substitute color yet.
And you can't cheat the boss, his eye is well-trained, he can always spot if it isn't real gold.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
So don went with the Arabian nights version, which, on top of the "real gold", also sports direct lines to putin and that Saudi Arabian bloke, who orders journalists dismembered at embassies and paid for Bin Laden.
A true patriot.
Re:Refueling (Score:5, Informative)
The reason for the delay is Boeing made a bad deal both financially and project plan wise.
The new AF1 contract is fixed-price, so Boeing has to eat any cost overruns. BTW, Trump45 personally negotiated this deal. Boeing thought it would save money using two already built 747-8s that were originally produced for Russian airline firm Transaero but never delivered. The problem with using existing 747s is the AF1 modifications are extensive and will require much of the 747s to be disassembled to install the new AF1 systems. Doing these mods while being built would have been far cheaper and faster.
Re:Refueling (Score:5, Interesting)
Can't find the article now (google results are full of the current grift now), but security concerns were a big reason they wanted to use existing airframes.
If they had built the planes with big labels saying "these are the new Air Force Ones", they would have become an obvious target for listening devices and sabotage (basically what this article is about, on an even larger scale). There was no way they could have gotten security clearances for everyone on the 747 production line and all of the suppliers.
I suspect that the design and certification of custom modifications is the real stumbling block on the new planes; getting the old parts out of the way is probably not that difficult.
Re: (Score:3)
Can't find the article now (google results are full of the current grift now), but security concerns were a big reason they wanted to use existing airframes.
If they had built the planes with big labels saying "these are the new Air Force Ones", they would have become an obvious target for listening devices and sabotage (basically what this article is about, on an even larger scale). There was no way they could have gotten security clearances for everyone on the 747 production line and all of the suppliers.
I suspect that the design and certification of custom modifications is the real stumbling block on the new planes; getting the old parts out of the way is probably not that difficult.
Imagine how bad Boeing's negotiation team were to get trounced by Trump (yes, we all know they deliberately underbid in the hopes of getting more lucrative contracts, but still, stupid).
But when it comes to bugs and potential sabotage, a used plane given by a foreign state that has ties to several anti-western terrorist groups is not going to have any of those what so ever. Right, guys, right?
Re: (Score:2)
currently miserably failing at, building
The airframes are complete. The screw-ups are in the special extras. And, although Boeing might be prime contractor on this job, the AF1 spec stuff will have to be completed by different subcontractors.
Re: Refueling (Score:2, Informative)
Trump ordered new AF1 replacements years ago, Boeing is running about 8 years behind schedule (was targeting 2021, current target is 2029), that's why we're discussing an interim replacement for the 25 year-old customized 747 that is AF1 now.
Re: Refueling (Score:5, Informative)
No, you're not discussing an "interim replacement".
You're discussing a blatant personal bribe to the president of the US for unspecified "services" that the US will render to the people who finance anti-US terrorism. The only thing that's not clear in this case is what specific services is Qatar getting in exchange for the plane.
But we can get some ideas from a different case of the same disease.
https://www.reuters.com/articl... [reuters.com]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Actually, notice one difference: Erdo claims the plane will remain Turkish after he leaves office (presumably in a coffin).
With the buffoon, we already know he's taking the plane to Mars-a-Lardo when he leaves office (although it looks like he's also planning to leave in a coffin: https://www.rawstory.com/repub... [rawstory.com])
Re: (Score:2)
All gifts have to be debugged thoroughly.
Just take a look at The Great Seal Bug [youtube.com]
As for presidents leaving in a coffin it's right now a 17% risk if you ignore the reason. It's still better than being a pope where the probability is close to 100%.
Re: (Score:2)
All gifts have to be debugged thoroughly.
Yeah, timeo danaos and all that.
But what if this modern orange-faced Achilles wants his golden toy RIGHT NOW?
Re: (Score:2)
He can get it - after it has been EMP treated.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm... Not with him on board and in flight, right?
Anyway, I'll allow it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Trump ordered new AF1 replacements years ago
It happened before Trump:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Trump's main contributions were to worry about the paint job, and a "negotiation" with Boeing that fixed the price before all the requirements were even determined.
The last part of is one of the reasons for delays - every added requirement is a new contract and negotiation.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because they are old doesn't say much - aircraft are monitored and maintained a lot, even more so the AF1 aircraft. You might find 35 year old parts in them, but those parts aren't key to the airworthiness.
I wouldn't be surprised if there are more AF1s out there with neutral or covert paintjobs, because in the case of emergency you don't want a plane that's standing out like a 100W bulb in a dark cave.
I see that the AF1 was at the time selected because it's able to accommodate enough personnel and equi
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sure the new ones
New ones? The last 747 rolled off the assembly line in 2023.
The new Air Force-1s are 747s, and are scheduled to be delivered in 2027.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/08... [cnn.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Refueling (Score:5, Funny)
Re: Refueling (Score:5, Funny)
Give Trump some credit. It's not like he failed to sell steaks, alcohol and football to Americans.
Re:Refueling (Score:5, Informative)
Pretty sure the new ones aren't going to have in-air refueling capabilities, so scratch that one off the list.
That's discussed in this article, The Next Air Force One Aircraft Will Not Be Able to Refuel in Midair [twz.com] and "The change seems almost entirely driven by the USAF's desire to match one of President Trump's off-the-cuff claims." -- about saving money. It's a pretty interesting read and notes that removing this ability is, basically, stupid and what will have to be done to compensate, like perhaps having an E-4B Nightwatch airborne command post shadow Air Force One in case there's an emergency that may require extended time in the air.
Everything he touches turns to shit (Score:5, Insightful)
Jesus, I hadnt heard about this. Why does everything this man touch turn to shit? He's like a frick'n reverse Midas
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It's okay, he's devised a way to have a second plane fly underneath the one with no fuel. Then, an escalator drops down (probably gold, like the ones in the NY tower), he descends to the other plane and the fuel-less one goes off and lands.
I don't know why so many people have so little faith in the guy. I mean, he's a Stable Genius!
Re: (Score:2)
If POTUS is not on board, the plane isn't designated as "AF1".
Fun fact: any plane with POTUS on board IS designated as "AF1".
Bribe (Score:2, Insightful)
"It makes no sense on any level, except that he wants a free 747 for himself. Nothing else makes any sense."
"Maybe if they gave it a gold makeover, he'd like it more."
Re: (Score:3)
Sure that's what the law says, and what the constitution says, but that's not what trump believes and does. And so far practically no one is stopping him. During trump 1.0 I would have agreed with you and generally-speaking, his advisors reined him in and followed the law. Now those people are long gone and Trump does what he wants. As long as Congress and the supreme court doesn't do or say anything, he does as he pleases. Trump is most definitely treating this like a gift to him personally and will act
How dumb do you have to be? (Score:2)
What if a man had an IQ of 156 but was too lazy to give a shit?
Re:How dumb do you have to be? (Score:5, Funny)
You left out the decimal point.
Re: How dumb do you have to be? (Score:5, Funny)
And leading 0
Re: (Score:3)
What if a man had an IQ of 156 but was too lazy to give a shit?
So he's smart to know better but does not care. Would that not make him a terrible human being?
of the idiots, by the idiots, for the idiots (Score:2)
Boeing 747-8 is a great plane with an excellent safety record. That model has no record of a fatal crash, and the entire series is quite safe considering the amount of air time it has collectively logged.
Now should a member of the US government, in a position that frequently needs to discuss state secrets on board an aircraft, ever get on a plane that could have been deeply compromised by foreign governments? If not the Saudis, then operatives of Iran or Russia. Potentially China or North Korea, although th
Re: (Score:2)
The excellent safety record is due to them rarely being in the sky. Only about 150 of them have ever been built, the overwhelming majority as cargo planes and cargo planes generally don't fly much. IIRC Lufthansa is the only significant user of the passenger version.
Re: (Score:2)
it makes all of us in the US look like we're ruled by the king of idiots.
What do you mean looks like??? the US IS governed by the king of idiots...
emoluments clause (Score:5, Informative)
But as far as actual corruption goes, the Trump family stands supreme as they have increased their net worth by almost a $1 Billion per month. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/t... [cbsnews.com]
Re:emoluments clause (Score:5, Insightful)
What really scares me about this is the Republican party does not fear elections. It is painfully obvious they are not in the slightest bit concerned about elections.
The only possible reason for that is they aren't planning to allow us to have them. We have Rock solid evidence that approximately 7 million Americans were denied the right to vote last year through various common voter suppression tactics. There's also some really freaky stuff with the voting machines where tens of thousands of them were going for Harris until exactly 250 votes and then suddenly flip to Trump. Something that is a statistical impossibility.
And meanwhile nobody on the left or in the center is talking about any of this. And thanks to four and a half years of Republicans poisoning the well you can't talk about their cheating even though if you even stop and think for a fucking second Missouri with its 40% black population should be a deep deep blue state...
I don't think we're going to survive all this. I think as democracy collapses we're going to get idiocracy only in the real world when you put idiots in charge they start killing people in Mass and eventually those little firecrackers we've all kind of been pretending aren't there or going to get used.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No reason for Rep Party to fear Dem Party ... (Score:5, Insightful)
> I realize he likes to troll Dems about that,
Bruh.
Tell us more about how he understands tariffs too well to crash the economy and it's just that he's trying to get competitive advantage to do deals with.
Good luck to the retailers trying to patch that two month supply gap. 5D chess.
Trying to blame the responsible parent because the other one is too irresponsible for them to stop after you conspired to remove their custody rights isn't them being to blame for anything. Stop treating a political party like they're supposed to be your parents in the first place.
Re: (Score:3)
(1) isn't set it stone. The Constitution is a piece of paper. There's a copy of the original document at the Smithsonian. There's nothing special abou
Re: (Score:3)
(1) ... Given Trump's running toughshod over everything in it, ignoring the courts, ...
You confuse talk with action. Trump overwhelming complies with court orders, despite all the verbal opposition he offers. His opposition is generally appealing decisions he doesn't like, which is the constitutional thing to do. Will he leverage circumstance, like a commercial plane outside of US jurisdiction, sure, but that is something different than ignoring the courts. That is taking advantage of circumstances, taking advantage of ambiguous instructions, etc.
Your "not" is an opinion, one to be decided by
He's looking for corp jet replacement, not AF1 (Score:2)
Well, he's Trump, leader of the GOP cult. So, phuck the constitution and that little paragraph about being bought off by foreigners.
Does not apply. The plane will be a gift to the Department of Defense. Which will transfer it to the Trump library after he leaves office.
It will probably not be delivered or modified in time for him to use it. So having never been AF1, he'll offer to buy if from DoD and it'll replace his current corporate jet. He'll get a great deal on a nice plane.
It's like dealing with a toddler (Score:5, Funny)
Just tell him "no", let him throw his tantrum, and eventually he'll be distracted by something else.
Has Trump considered that maybe his administration could use his "gift" plane for another purpose - luxury deportations, perhaps?
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldnt that be hilarious? First class accommodation followed by a forced parachute landing over Bikini Atoll. Welcome to your new home.
LARP gaslighting! (Score:5, Interesting)
It would be a bigger effort than past war games, but I'm sure a team could keep him roleplaying for 3.65 more years. He's sundowning, so it'll get easier over time.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be a bigger effort than past war games, but I'm sure a team could keep him roleplaying for 3.65 more years.
7.65 more years.
Re:It's like dealing with a toddler (Score:5, Informative)
Just tell him "no", let him throw his tantrum, ...
According to the Constitution, Congress has to approve any gifts to the President. From ArtI.S9.C8.3 Foreign Emoluments Clause Generally [congress.gov]:
Article I, Section 9, Clause 8:
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
That article has commentary about the litigation during the first Trump administration, about related issues like whether the Presidency is an "Office of Profit or Trust" and applies to him, whether gifts are actually gifts..., noting,
In late 2020, the Supreme Court denied review in one of these cases,4 and—after the end of President Trump’s term in January 2021—instructed two federal appellate courts to vacate their judgments and dismiss the other two cases as moot.
My understanding is that Trump was going to ultimately lose those cases, but he left office before conclusion and the arguments would now have to be made all over again.
But its a gift to DoD ... (Score:2)
According to the Constitution, Congress has to approve any gifts to the President.
But it's a gift to the department of defense. They say it'll then be transferred to his library after he leaves office.
I'm leaning towards it won't be ready in time, it'll never fly as AF1, have no historical value and not go to the library. At that point he'll buy it on the cheap from the DoD and it'll become his replacement corporate jet.
Re: (Score:2)
No, Don would torment those who took his big gold toy away.
What could possibly go right? (Score:5, Interesting)
Amazing what a $400 million bribe will do (Score:5, Insightful)
In 2017, the ooma loompa derided Qatar as a purveyor and funder of terrorism [x.com].
Today, he gloats over receiving a $400 million bribe from those terrorist enablers.
Good grief why? (Score:2)
Does any other nation on earth feel the need to have a tricked-out James-bond passenger jet for the benefit of one individual? What a colossal waste of money.
In the event of nuclear war, the chances of survival or otherwise of the President is a) not very greatly influenced by 'thicker windows' b) not very important compared to the survival of civil society in general, which is more dependent on personnel redundancy, planning and bunkers than whatever trivial armor is on a VC-25.
Imagine a US without Air For
Re:Good grief why? (Score:4, Insightful)
I am starting to agree. The plane reminds me of the bunker built for the governor in the 50's behind/below the Hollywood sign in case of nuclear war. It might have been useful for a WW2 era nuke, but a hydrogen bomb would vaporize it. If you need to fly into a war zone, don't do it in a 747, use a military aircraft with countermeasures integrated and an office/sleeping pod loaded in.
Re: Good grief why? (Score:2)
With this guy the turmoil of picking a commercial airline would be a benefit. Buy delta, fly on delta. Sell/short sell delta + buy American, fly American. Rinse repeat. Why do you think the tarrifs are on again off again.
Re: (Score:3)
Thanks for a good answer, lots of reasonable points.
I looked into three of the planes that you linked to: Vespina, the UK equivalent of Airforce One, Konrad Adenauer, the German equivalent and Cotam 001, the French. As far as I can tell, they are all just regular commercial planes with pragmatic changes to reflect their usage (eg seating layouts, private spaces, etc) and upgraded radar. They're pretty cheap in commercial jet terms.
eg. Vespina: It's a standard (new) Airbus 330 (list cost approximately $250m)
Re: (Score:2)
French retrofitted previously used commercial planes.
Just for the sake of completeness, besides the A330 you're referring to, the French also operates six Dassault Falcon ( https://flottepresidentielle.c... [flottepresidentielle.com] ). The most recently acquired (two Falcon 7X) were purchased new in 2008. Normally used by the Prime minister, but occasionally by the President as well. Reasons for not purchasing "previously used" in this case is that these were one of the first to be produced and such inaugural contract was an occasion to advertise the plane to foreign customers.
(I agre
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if the top of the EU have their own dedicated airplane? But that would be a good comparison.
Re: (Score:2)
eg. Vespina: It's a standard (new) Airbus 330 (list cost approximately $250m)
Specifically it's an A330-MRTT with a nonstandard paint job. This is a military derivative of the A330 which has refuelling tanks hard points and a bunch of other gubbins useful for a military plane. It's not the same as the civilian A330, but it is a standardised production run. It does keep costs down since they have built a bunch of them.
Apparently the A340 and A330 share an awful lot of the same parts and the A330-MRTT uses the
What if we dropped statistical impossibilties? (Score:2)
I get sweeping it for bugs. Due diligence, fine. But the rest of those ridiculous features and upgrades that have never been necessary for any world leader ever? Why are we acting like that is a standard?
It's his plane... (Score:2)
Re: It's his plane... (Score:4, Informative)
He will never own it. Ever.
Not clear.
It is given to DoD, when they are done with it, it joins the African spears, illuminated documents, and other assorted trinkets given to him by foreign powers, in his Presidential Library, which he has no personal control over.
Also not clear.
He will likely never fly in it as President, and once out of office it will be owned by his presidential library.
You've brushed against the problem, there.
Presidential Libraries are usually government owned and operated, as you've mentioned elsewhere- but the foundations that kickstart them very much are not.
It would be very unusual to transfer ownership of an AF1 to a Presidential Library Foundation (which is a privately owned non-operating non-profit)
Reagan's, for example, is still owned by the US Air Force.
If indeed, the DOD does transfer this over to the non-profit that exists basically solely to Do Trump's Work after his Presidency- then that is hugely fucking problematic, and it can very well be assumed that they'll basically pay to ferry his ass around in it.
Now, if what is all really meant here, is that he gets a Reagan-like deal (transfered to the Federally administrated museum that is his "Presidential Library" and not the foundation), then meh- no biggy. It's just a trophy he doesn't own and can't use, as you say.
But really, it's not entirely clear what is going to be going on here, and even you're muddying the waters by saying things like "owned by his Presidential Library" (which would be unprecedented, and abso-fucking-lutely an emolument)
Re: (Score:2)
And alot of unauthorised people will have access to the at that time ex Air Force One.
How much will people learn by wandering around the plane, snooping in it?
Ah, don't worry (Score:2)
If Trump and JD get nuked, that will improve the defense of the country.
LIVE BY STUPID, DIE BY STUPID! (Score:2)
Let us please be able to make that an expression! Then apply it to Darwin Award candidates from that point on in "honor" of dear leader.
The Trump voters seem to be abandoning slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
If you don't think he's going to sell you out at this point I don't even know what to say to you.
So did Trump faithful just kind of seem to be checking out of this website. Retreating to save spaces where their love of Donald Trump will never be questioned.
I'm almost going to miss idiots yelling TDS at me without understanding what a thought terminating cliche is...
I suppose it also helps the Russian bots are kind of quiet lately. My God they were everywhere during the election
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That is simple, Russia stopped paying for shills and bots. I remember when Biden managed to freeze Russia's money and the month or two we had where Twitter trends actually didn't reflect the rightwing nutjobs and sycophants seemed to decrease slightly. Remember Tim Poole and other influences were bankrolled by Russia until that was exposed -- now they have to try to make a comeback or have smaller new Russian sources.
I bet Russia paid at least as much as Musk. It is a far better use than having another m
Maybe the point was to embarrass Boeing (Score:2)
Boeing was already years late and saying they could not deliver until 2034. Now as per CNN https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/08... [cnn.com] "Boeing now plans to deliver new Air Force One jets in 2027, before Trump leaves office"
Re: (Score:2)
Others are saying 2027 IF no more hiccups. Most likely 2029 or later. And this was the point.
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/02/1... [cnbc.com]
Maybe he can keep it unmodified (Score:3)
Re: Maybe he can keep it unmodified (Score:2)
Re: Maybe he can keep it unmodified (Score:3)
If Israel can make undetectable radio bombs, Qatar can make undetectable airplane parts.
And free maintenance (Score:4, Interesting)
According to current information, the plane is that the US gov't will pay to have this 747 refitted to be Air Force 1. But that after Trump steps down (assuming he does, of which I am doubtful) it will transferred to the Trump Presidential Library Foundation. The Library Foundations are initially funded through donated funds, but once stood up and operating, are transferred to the Federal Gov't. Once in the hands of the Federal Gov't. The National Archives and Records Administration is responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the Library and its holdings.
So it looks to me like Trump is indeed getting his own personal jet, outfitted and maintained by the gov't for the rest of his life. As a bonus; the National Archives, which embarrassed and annoyed him by keeping track of the secret records he took home with him and demanding them back, is going to be the one to pay for it all.
So he gets his very expensive airborne symbol of ego, another opportunity for sycophants to slip him major amounts of money and revenge on some honest Federal employees who upheld their duty.
Par for the course. (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, it's a security nightmare... (Score:2)
... but is it any more of a security nightmare than Trump himself is?
What's wrong with the current air force one??? (Score:3)
What's wrong with the current air force one??? It's 35 years old.
I know, you're not interested in facts, just bashing Trump.
It could be his way of embarrassing boeing in to delivering the damn jet they keep delaying.
Re: What's wrong with the current air force one??? (Score:2)
Let me fix that title for you (Score:2)
Trump Is a Gold-Plated Security Nightmare
Sorry, couldn’t help myself after seeing that title.
Not wrong, but ... (Score:2)
I'm not sure what's wrong with the current Air Force One, ...
The 2 current 747-200 (Boeing VC-25 [wikipedia.org]) are 35 years old. Not necessarily anything wrong with that, but it may be a maintenance and reliability issue, especially for the air frame.
Re: (Score:2)
Air frames have a limited life as the stress in flight eventually weakens the aircraft. You can keep it going but the down time for inspection and maintenance eventually becomes too expensive.
Pretty sure ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't. You would be getting the gift of a logistical nightmare, horrible tax burden and a financial sinkhole that I can barely even imagine. I wonder what it costs to store a plane of this size, let alone refuel it?
Not 100% made in America (Score:2)
so it's cool if he doesn't buy something 100% made in America. Especially if it's gold plated
So what? You're missing the point, (Score:2)
If you think they intend this thing as anything other than a bribe, you're off the rails. It's a bauble. A trinket to curry (buy) favour. And Trump is very bribeable. He doesn't look at it as a functional Air Force One, the providers aren't either. Nitpicking about its technical shortcomings is like complaining that a Miata can't haul rocks well. It's not for that.
Just pathetic (Score:2)
Think about it - the richest, most technologically advanced country on the planet, accepting a used cargo plane from a tiny monarchy as Air Force One. Nevermind it'll never be used for that, nevermind i
what's the point? (Score:2)
Boeing is already in the process of delivering 2 retrofitted 747s as part of the air force one upgrade/replacement program started in 2018.
To retrofit this one means gutting it, and then investing another couple billion in upgrades, add a year or 5 five for the upgrades and another year for testing... best use case is take it and use it as a spare parts donor for the rest of the fleet. Does it need to fly after? as it's being accepted not on behalf of the president (since that would be illegal), but instea
So, uh, calling Hollywood (Score:2)
For what particular favors? (Score:2)
All this is US adventures in the Wonderland. Is it clear, enumerated and limited, what particular favors must the President of US provide in exchange?
Why does America have a king? (Score:2)
Most other national leaders just fly commercial. And if they die, well whoop de do, we elect another one. Why go to the expense of defending one person who America has shown in several occasions in the past can die in office without major implications.
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing is: make sure that not your entire government is at the same place
Just in case.
Stop lighting yer hair on fire (Score:2)
This is another sensational non-issue designed to stir up the stupid. I'd say the article was dumb and pointless, but it's from The Register, so that'd be redundant.
1. Air Force One is not a specific aircraft, it's any US Air Force operated aircraft that is carrying the President. Same thing for the Marines (Marine One) or Navy (Navy One) when one of their aircraft carry the President. If the President is aboard a Gulfstream operated by the Air Force, then it is Air Force One. Important Note: just because a
Always wondered in the event of an all out (Score:2)
Air force one (Score:2)
This is a problem with Boeing and the law (Score:2)
Boeing has had how long to build the new AF1? 8 years without progress?
And what law has Congress passed that stops a president from corruptly diverting assets into their foundations upon exit from office?
Solve these two problems first before you go moaning about Trump being Trump yet again.
DOGE Savings Can Pay For It (Score:2)
Among the stupid statements are yours. (Score:3)
How is the weather in St. Petersburg?
Qatar is giving the plane to the DoD.
For use by Trump.
So Trump will never own the plane, will likely never fly in,
Bullshit. If Trump says he flies in it, he flies in it, which he will.
it will be given to the Trump Presidential Library as a gift in the collection
Which Trump will then have use of by the agreement.
What is the threshold where Presidents need to get Congressional approval to accept a gift?
The constitution says that the president cannot accept any gift from another government, so anything would require approval.
It is clear to everyone that this is just a bribe to Trump. Your legal excuses do not fool anyone.
Re: Among one of the more stupid statements on thi (Score:3)
The limit for a gift is $480. After that, the government and not the gifted owns it. If they want to keep it, they can pay a fair market value for it. The laws and the constitution are quite clear. Not that the fascist Cheeto cares about the constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
"Surely if he or she got whacked off whilst on a junket, then they could simply get a new one?"
I think this has already happened once or twice to Trump. If not Trump, then Clinton for sure.