Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Take a look at this AF-1 and tell me it friggin' needs to retire and replaced with this...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread		 This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Hawkeye-X Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-21-08 06:26 PM
Original message
Take a look at this AF-1 and tell me it friggin' needs to retire and replaced with this...


The 747 is being phased out and replaced with this:

And this thing sucks up a LOT of oil.



This is a 787 AKA Dreamliner. That is the latest and greatest.

I am hoping it'll be retrofitted to be enviromentally friendly (i.e., takes in biodiesel or runs on peanut oil or something - I know Virgin Atlantic was testing something like that on one of their planes)..

Who agrees? Ideas here is fine.

If they really want to keep it 2 floors like the 747, then I suggest this, but I'm not sure if they want to buy it from Airbus Industries (based in France)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
NeedleCast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-21-08 06:30 PM
Response to Original message
1. Would be Nice to have a Green AF-1
And even nicer to have Obama riding in it as the next Prez.

I met Bill Clinton while working at the Pentagon 1998 during the problems in Kosovo. He gave me and another co-worker, privates at the time, passes to tour AF-1. Pretty cool experience. That is one luxury ride.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The_Casual_Observer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-21-08 06:32 PM
Response to Original message
2. How about they just cancel the whole thing & charter one when they
need it.
The whole thing is unnecessary bullshit and a waste of taxpayer money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
terrya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-21-08 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. I agree with you.
There really is no reason why a President needs a personal plane (a 747?) such as this. Hell, I understand there's TWO 747's that are used as Air Force One. One is a backup. No other world leader has anything like this.

But I hate to say it...when I see pictures of it...with the words "United States of America" on the fuselage...I'm impressed with it. It's pretty damned awesome.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The_Casual_Observer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-21-08 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. I used to be impressed with shit like that, until I started paying
heavy taxes every year. If they want shit like that let them raise donations to pay for it & see how long it lasts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-21-08 06:33 PM
Response to Original message
3. If I'm remembering correctly,
the 787 is manufactured with light weight "snap together" parts - and is supposed to save on fuel. The launch keeps getting pushed back, though.

Never be an Airbus - POTUS has to fly in an American jetliner - even if most of the parts are made overseas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hogwyld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-21-08 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. What if it's an Airbus
with American made parts? I'm really impressed with the Airbus fleet offerings. They're nice, comfortable planes. Boeings planes lately seem old and outdated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-21-08 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. I don't think they'd take the chance politically.

Nothing says America like Boeing,.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheCowsCameHome Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-21-08 06:45 PM
Response to Original message
6. AF-1 is a taxicab with wings. Let them rent a plane when it's really needed.
What a colossal waste of our $$$
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-21-08 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. It has to serve as an airborne WH if needed.
You can't get that technology -- and have checked out every nut and bolt for security -- on a charter flight that you use occasionally.

I think it's worth the money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
monomach Donating Member (619 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-21-08 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Agreed
It's a necessary expense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Youphemism Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-21-08 08:00 PM
Response to Original message
10. No... It needs to be replaced with *this*:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-21-08 09:03 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. Right on! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mloutre Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-21-08 09:41 PM
Response to Reply #10
15. Yeah! O- Force One!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eppur_se_muova Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-21-08 08:21 PM
Response to Original message
12. "787-8 will use 20% less fuel than any other current airplane of its size"
mostly due to lightweight carbon-fiber/epoxy composites.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/07/boeing-rolls-ou.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-21-08 09:09 PM
Response to Original message
14. The 747 is not being phased out. The 747 and the 787 are different planes for different routes.
Edited on Mon Jul-21-08 09:12 PM by Occam Bandage
I'd be fine with replacing Air Force One with a 787, but it seems like an unnecessary expense, especially given all the technology they'll have to build into it. Boeing is still producing 747s; it's not like Air Force One is outdated-looking.

A380? No. The A380 would use more fuel (despite using less per pax/mi), be able to land at fewer airports, and would amount to a military contract being given to EADS over Boeing. No.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 10:45 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC