Comments by "John P" (@johnp139) on "The New Air Force One: What We Know So Far" video.

  1.  @oachkatzl93  that wasn’t in the original requirements, no bearing.
    24
  2. Electrical power requirements.
    3
  3. Not enough power either, would not have met the requirements and wasn’t proposed.
    3
  4. Especially if Airbus never submitted a proposal.
    3
  5.  @springbok4015  only that would not have met the requirements.
    2
  6.  @Bloblobloblown  $3.9 Billion
    2
  7.  @Bloblobloblown  only that’s what it will actually cost(or more) to produce these two aircraft.
    2
  8. No remaining parts for the-200’s, EXTREMELY HIGH maintenance and sustainment costs, and LOW operational availability!
    2
  9. Only Airbus didn’t submit a proposal.
    2
  10. Not enough engines to generate the required electrical power!
    2
  11. That wasn’t bid, so it wasn’t selected.
    2
  12. That wouldn’t have met the requirements.
    2
  13. -8
    2
  14. That’s what I thought 4 years ago 😢
    2
  15. Not enough power
    2
  16. Only it was not a proposed option, probably because it would not have met the requirements.
    2
  17. It’s about generating enough electrical power.
    2
  18. Not enough power.
    2
  19.  @richarddastardly6845  not enough ELECTRICAL POWER!!!
    2
  20. No proposal was submitted for such a system, probably because it would not have met the requirements.
    2
  21. Mostly pluses
    2
  22. Only Airbus didn’t bid on the RFP.
    2
  23. Airbus never submitted a proposal. All submitted proposals need to be considered, with the first consideration being that all of the requirements were met.
    2
  24. None of those options were submitted as proposals and if they were, they would not have met the requirements.
    2
  25. Electrical power is more important.
    2
  26. It’s not dumb if you know the requirements.
    2
  27.  @jerryyang8046  they haven’t been painted yet and the cost of paint is like 0.0001% of the total acquisition cost.
    2
  28. Only Airbus didn’t submit a proposal!
    2
  29. Can’t generate enough electrical power.
    2
  30. It neither met the requirements nor was that a submitted proposal.
    2
  31. Only it wouldn’t provide sufficient electrical power.
    2
  32. Well if you can tell me how they can produce 1.21 gigawats of power with just two engines, I’m sure a lot of people would be willing to hire you.
    2
  33. They’ll make up for it in the 30+ years of sustainment costs.
    2
  34. Trump negotiated to buy OLD aircraft.
    2
  35. The RFP didn’t ask for previously built aircraft.
    2
  36. Not to mention the money that Boeing is going to make by maintaining these aircraft!
    2
  37. Too bad that Airbus didn’t submit a proposal then.
    2
  38. The 787 didn’t meet the requirements.
    1
  39.    only it came from Europe.
    1
  40. No crap 💩
    1
  41. Only these are NOT NORMAL 747’s, IDIOT!
    1
  42. Idiot
    1
  43. Maybe you should read the Request for Proposal documents and requirements.
    1
  44. 8i
    1
  45. Wrong
    1
  46. If only Airbus would have submitted a proposal.
    1
  47. Idiot
    1
  48. Exactly!
    1
  49. The contract is already in place.
    1
  50. And there was no proposal for that aircraft. The government can’t just open up a catalog and place an order for a unique system.
    1
  51. Obama didn’t sign for anything. The contract was awarded under the Trump Administration.
    1
  52.  @jamesgrigg6918  there was no deal
    1
  53. First of all it is -8, not 800. Secondly it has NOTHING to do with being more fuel efficient. Idiot.
    1
  54. Still too expensive to keep running
    1
  55. Idiot, do some research on the availability for parts for 747-200’s!
    1
  56. Too bad Airbus didn’t submit a proposal, idiot!
    1
  57. Until we’re on the verge of WW-III
    1
  58. It’s not about cost, it’s about value.
    1
  59. Idiot
    1
  60. Nothing about redundancy. All about electrical power.
    1
  61. Google is your friend
    1
  62. Idiot
    1
  63. Idiot
    1
  64. Only none of those aircraft would have met the requirements.
    1
  65. Great bargain, right!
    1
  66.  @deus_ex_machina_  it’s not about safety, idiot
    1
  67. Maybe you should develop some sought after skills.
    1
  68. Idiot
    1
  69. Maybe you should have submitted a proposal then.
    1
  70.  @puzzleluvr  idiot
    1
  71. What other company do you think could have built it?
    1
  72. Never been needed, Cody’s a lot extra, adds a lot of unneeded weight. Any other brilliant questions?
    1
  73. Idiot
    1
  74. It just wasn’t needed and would have added a $hitload of cost, weight and qualification testing.
    1
  75. No
    1
  76. Not right now, we’ll see what’s around in 20+ years.
    1
  77. The contract has already been awarded.
    1
  78. Boeing was the only company that submitted a proposal.
    1
  79. Who is they?
    1
  80. You can’t just go out and buy a dozen Maytags, idiot!
    1
  81. Search FedBizOps.
    1
  82. You mean “classic”?
    1
  83. You don’t get to choose. Requirements are generated and offerors submit proposals for consideration.
    1
  84. Your opinion means nothing, you need to know the REQUIREMENTS!
    1
  85. Boeing will make even more in the 20+ years of sustainment.
    1
  86. Idiot
    1
  87. Idiot
    1
  88. Not in the next half-century.
    1
  89. I doubt it, and if it did, you would never know.
    1
  90. You mean the company went bankrupt, that’s why Trump liked the deal.
    1
  91. AR is a waste.
    1
  92. That was never submitted as a proposal. You can’t choose something that was never offered.
    1
  93. Exactly!
    1
  94. You mean the current livery.
    1
  95. Idiot
    1
  96. That’s exactly what it is.
    1
  97. COLOR!
    1
  98. In what ways? Airbus CHOSE not to bid!
    1
  99. NEVER been needed, would add a lot to cost and weight.
    1
  100. Why?
    1
  101. ONE? Idiot.
    1
  102. The Acquisition Strategy was to have the airframer make all of the mods.
    1
  103. Never been needed, a lot of extra cost, weight and time testing. Go back to your parents’ basement.
    1
  104. Not
    1
  105. Idiot
    1
  106. Considering that these are based on commercial varies that have been flying for over a decade, I doubt it.
    1