Jump to content

Talk:Air Force One/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Can someone identify these things?

I'm looking at a photo I pulled up on NARA (link) and I can't tell what the shiny things are on the engine pylons. These aren't normal civil aircraft features, are they? - Sekicho 03:56, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

When I go to the URL I get a "session timed out." [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 04:14, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

Power of the office / projection of power

I'm wondering if anyone has put thought to the fact that Air Force One is often a show of the office of the president, especially during diplomatic missions or election campaigning? To have Air Force One (and entourage) land at your airport in Anytown, USA is impressive and guaranteed to make the local news. Additionally, to have Air Force One land at an airport in another country is a massive projection of power. I'm not sure how best to sum this up, but do think it's a valid point to raise in a few sentences in the article. I'd welcome any thoughts from other Wikipedians about this. --ABQCat 01:04, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is only a projection of power. Such a power is granted by others to you, a dialog, as it were. If you agree it is power, then you have granted it. Air Force One cannot land in another country without the permission granted by others. Ancheta Wis 08:16, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think, however, that to not mention the boost which accompanies the president arriving on AF1 is to deny the truth of the matter. It's a projection of REAL power, not just psychological influence. The trappings of the office can be a huge boost during campaigns, diplomatic missions, etc. In a similar manner to the Oval Office being the best home field advantage in the world, Air Force One is the best away-team advantage, if you will. My suggestion: "Presidential use of Air Force One in campaigns and diplomatic missions can be a powerful advantage; the projection of American executive power can be enough to sway public opinion or change the outcome of a given diplomatic mission." I'd be content to discuss changes to that, as I don't think it's necessarily NPOV or encyclopedic enough, but it's a place to start. As I said before, even if you deny the projection of power, the airtime on the nightly news it buys you to land Air Force One in Anytown, USA, is a factor that would be worth mentioning in some manner. --ABQCat 23:42, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)


what is the point of mentioning that Bush boarded the aircraft in Pakistan from lower deck but from India on the upper deck? I think the true reason was security since a few days earlier a bomber had killed a US diplomat in Karachi, I dont believe it to make any political points to Pakistan, which Bush has repeatedly called an ally in his "war on terror". I request that the paragraph be removed and I suspect it was inserted by an Indian or someone with pro-India bias. It does not make any sense that Bush would behave like that in Pakistan.

What if president flies in another aircraft?

I know this is highly unlikely, but what if the president for some reason had to fly in another aircraft, then the following sentence technically implies that this "non-air-force-1" plane would be "air-force-1"?:

Air Force One is the airline call sign of any U.S. Air Force aircraft carrying the President of the United States.

Revolver 02:40, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes. Any aircraft that the President flies is "Air Force One." [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 03:45, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
Any Air Force aircraft that the President flies is "Air Force One". -- Cyrius|✎ 05:23, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Any Air Force aircraft that the President flies on is "Air Force One". --timc | Talk 16:32, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Any Air Force aircraft that the President flies in is "Air Force One". ;-> --the Epopt 21:41, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Any {Branch of U.S. military} aircraft that the President flies in is "{Branch of U.S. military} One". See Navy One, Army One, and Marine One.  :-) --Ponder 22:48, 2004 Nov 2 (UTC)
/me contemplates hypothetical events that might call for the use of the call sign "Coast Guard One".... --the Epopt 23:23, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Don't forget the Sixth and Seventh Service: "Public Health Service One" and "NOAA Corps One". ---Isaac R 06:19, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't think your have to worry about that, besides, I don't think the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps even has any aircraft! Rogerd 17:02, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Just about all gov. departments have aircraft. What If the president boards an aircraft belonging to a city,county or state? Dudtz 11/11/05 1:54 PM EST

Since all state and local gov. a/c are registered as civil aircraft (N-numbered), it would be Executive One. --Rogerd 22:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Way late to add it, but there's a few other options that haven't yet been considered:
  1. Flies on an Air National Guard plane (technically belonging to its respective state).
  2. Flies on a Civil Air Patrol plane
  3. Flies on a Texas State Air Guard (no, they are not part of the air national guard; yes, Texas has its own Air Force...a small one)
Just some food for thought. — BQZip01 — talk 01:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

other/misc

The range is listed as 7,800 miles or "halfway around the world". The Boeing 747 article says the 400 series has a range of 8,400 miles or "roughly a third of the globe". Can we at least agree on the size of the earth? Mykej 02:45, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The physical circumference of earth is about 40,000 km or 25,000 miles, so 8,000 miles is roughly a third, not halfway around the world. Revolver 02:55, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
There may be some disagreement about what "range" or "operational range" mean. Air Force One is capable of mid-air refueling and thus has a VERY large operational range, but of course has a smaller range on a single tank of gas, so to speak. Other factors are considered (food, supplies, etc), but I think we should speficy what KIND of range we're talking about. --ABQCat 02:58, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Maybe so, I can't say about that. Nevertheless, that has nothing do with whether 8,000 is roughly 1/2 or 1/3 of 25,000. Revolver 03:00, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Callsign

I've got the FAA regs on callsigns of presidential aircraft, but I'm not sure how to fit it into the "Sources and further reading" section. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:24, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Angel

The Secret Service refers to Air Force One by the codename Angel.
No wonder 9/11 happened: each and every one knows codewords of Secret Service! (Either this way, or the sentence is a deliberate misinformation. ) Mikkalai 02:43, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It's not like it's something special and hidden. But an anon added it and I moved it to a more fitting place; perhaps it is false? --Golbez 16:23, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

ummm actually some of you are not very well informed, this is no longer the codename, as the Secret Service changes codenames as soon as they become public knowledge. And Mikkalai, what the heck did secret service codenames have to do with the 9/11 attcks?? no one hijacked Air Force One. Mac Domhnaill 00:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

And when the VPOTUS flies?

In his book My Discovery of America curmudgeon Farley Mowat said he would not visit America unless President Reagan flew to his door, aboard Airforce One, to extend a personal apology to him. Mowat was asked to be reasonable, and to compromise. Mowat's compromise was to bend far enough to accept an apoloy if the Vice President flew an apology to him, at the Buffalo border crossing, aboard Airforce Two. So, is the VPOTUS's plane really called Airforce Two?

Yes, it is. Generally, that plane is one of a fleet of four Boeing C-32As that also fly the Secretaries of State and Defense, the First Lady and occasionally the President when the destination is too small for a VC-25A. -- Blrfl

Not only does the VP get AF2, there's an established hierarchy all the wat down to AF7. The callsign AF2 may be used by the VP, a governor of a state in his own state, Chief Justice of the USSC, and several dozen other people. AF7 may be used by Captains USN or USCG; Colonels United States Air Force, USA, or USMC; or Comparable Rank Officers of Friendly Nations, Counselors in Charge of Consulates of Foreign Powers, or, finally, by GS/GM-15 (Civilians). The DOD "General Planning" Flight Information Publication (FLIP) details it all. Mykej 12:45, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That scenario may have military significance for flight or mission planning, but I only recall President, VP, and their families as candidates for those sorts of callsigns from my 30 years of ATC. This link to FAAH 7110.65 confirms my memory. That document governs both the FAA and military ATC ops. Although I didn't work around Washington, whose controllers have lots of opportunities to work the presidential flights, I did work A1 once and A2 once. I even kept the strip for A1 for my love me wall. Incidentally, the Special Air Mission (SAM) callsign mentioned in the main article is used with the tail number of the aircraft when the President (etc.) is not on board. e.g. SAM 29000 (technically, the correct phraseology would be SAM two niner zero zero zero, however everyone I know would say SAM twenty nine thousand). A little known happening (although it's been aired on a documentary that probably everyone reading this has seen), was when Nixon flew back to California the day he resigned. He left ADW on A1 and somewhere over Kansas when Ford was sworn in (back in DC), the pilot advised ATC that they were changing the callsign of the flight to SAM 27000. Duckecho 22:06, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

There's a stub for Air Force Two that needs some of the above information. ---Isaac R 06:30, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Minor nitpick, I believe the callsign changed near Jefferson City, Missouri. The request was made to Kansas City Center, which is in Olathe, Kansas. Skywayman 12:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The main article says that the Presidential escape capsule aboard Airforce One, in the film of the same name, is fanciful. Airforce One has a Presidential escape capsule in the film Escape from New York. Is this worth mentioning?

  • Why not? ---Isaac R 06:22, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Inside Air Force One

Too bad there is not a better or lengthly discussion on what is in the inside of Air Force One. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:59, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In terms of pictures, I meant. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:08, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The Bush Library's transport photos page has some interiors of the current plane. One photo in the set,P09637-09, was taken on the old plane. --Blrfl

Wrong name

The plane listed isn't necessarily Air Force One. Remember, the plane and the callsign are two totally different things. When the President is not on the plane, it is NOT referred to as Air Force 1. The page has to be changed to reflect this. CoolGuy 09:37, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone care that this article is totally wrong, since the 747s have nothing to do with the callsign "Air Force One." They are totally different. Perhaps this page should be renamed "U.S. Presidential Fleet" CoolGuy 22:17, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article's only wrong in that it assumes that the only Air Force planes POTUS ever flies on are those two 747. Which he almost always does, for various practical reasons. The fix is to simply mention that on the rare occasions he flies on another Air Force plane, that plane becomes "Air Force One". ---Isaac R 06:28, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I distinctly recall Clinton flying to Martha's Vineyard for a break during his term. That airport won't handle a 747. They flew in a C9 (military DC9). Naturally it was Air Force One. Bush I may also have had that issue going to Kennebunkport (I don't know that for a fact). The one time I worked A2, I vectored it for final approach at DBQ (Dubuque, IA) and as I recall, it was one of the 707s (VC137, if you want to pick nits). Duckecho 21:44, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Yea the airport at Martha's Vineyard is small. I flew a small passenger plane part way there Dudtz 9/6/05 9:29 PM EST

And, while we're picking this *particular* nit, the photo caption is wrong. I'd be *insanely* surprised if they flew the plane that close to Mount Rushmore (and yes, I'm a photog; I *do* understand foreshortening :-) with the pres on it... so it wasn't AF1 then, either.  :-)

But this really *is* pedantry, and the general public considers 28000 and 29000 to *be* AF1 (y'know, kinda like Mary Kate and Ashley played one character on Full House?)... and since those two airframes are not really used operationally for any other service, that's probably not really unreasonable. --72.91.20.127 17:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

747-300

I thought that the plane is a 747-300 not 200?

According to http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/af1/af1spec.html it is a 747-200B Rogerd 17:04, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Tom Harris quote

Doesn't this need to be cited? mtz206 15:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Other nations executive transports?

This is growing to the point where I think there should be a separate article about transports for heads of state/heads of governments. I am not sure what we would call this, however. Consensus? --rogerd 00:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Transports of heads of state, but I'm not sure. perhaps rather than an article a category? --The1exile - Talk - Contribs - 18:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I moved all of that content to Air transports of Heads of State. --rogerd 05:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


Boeing 747

When Clinton visited New Zealand as part of APEC he refused to come to the capital, Wellington. Why? Because Wellington International Airport cannot handle Boeing 747s. I will try to find a reference for this as I think it is valuable to the page. --Midnighttonight 05:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Colonial One of Battlestar Galactica

Would it be worth mentioning that the ship Colonial One of the reimagined Battlestar Galactica series is heavily based on Air Force One? A number of charactistics are similar, including the color scheme, and the swearing in of Laura Roslin, which resembles the swearing in of LBJ. It's not quite Air Force One in fiction, but using Air Force One as for inspiration for Colonial One was talked about in the commentary of a few episodes. AscendedDaniel 11:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Except that "Colonial One" was originally a heavy passenger transport that shuttled cabinet minister Roslin, other dignitaries and press out to the Galactica for decommissioning ceremonies, and was carrying them back when the war began. When Roslin learned she was the highest ranking survivor of the government, she became president, and at that point, the captain, on the radio, abruptly changed the designation from its original flight-craft number to "Colonial One". It is not too unlike the movie Air Force One, at the end of which the president (Harrison Ford) is hauled aboard a Hercules-type craft and MC-130P and it becomes Air Force One only because the president is aboard. Since this colonial heavy is one of few surviving FTL-equipped craft, it remains in service as Colonial One. GBC 16:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

strikeouts and clarification made by — BQZip01 — talk 01:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
One should not also forget to mention EarthForce One, which was used by the president of the Earth Alliance in the Babylon 5 TV series. 161.24.19.82 (talk) 19:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Several Deficiencies

I'm not sure this article is deserving of FA status anymore; here is a list of some of the problems...

  • Article is confusing ("The role SAM 26000 played during [LBJ's] funeral, which Nixon presided over, made several points clear: It was the aircraft that LBJ used primarily when president. In fact, it was used most often by LBJ.")
  • Some section written in the wrong tense ("the President would enter/exit Air Force One via the self contained Air Stairs. This is most often seen in George W. Bush.")
  • Full of non sequiturs and non-notable events passed off as important and notable ("Reagan flew on SAM 27000 to Berlin and made his famous "Tear down this wall!" speech. President George W. Bush added a treadmill to Air Force One. In November 2003, there was a minor controversy...", "There was a notable incident in January 1998 when the 707 carrying President Clinton became stuck in mud before departure from Willard Airport, Illinois.")
  • The section Air Force One#Analogues in other countries consists just of "No other mode of transportation for government executives is as well-known as Air Force One." and a link to Air transports of Heads of State. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 07:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Edits to preserve FA status

Cataloguing my potentially controversial deletions:

  • removed speculation about "political point" in using different stairs. What would be the political point of using a different set of stairs? What's the citation for this?
Occasionally, to get a political point across, the President would enter/exit Air Force One via the self contained Air Stairs via the lower deck instead of the Main Deck. This was seen when President George W. Bush, during his visit to Pakistan in March 2006, boarded and disembarked the 747 via the lower deck rather than the main door. This might have been a security precaution, but it also might mean that the White House wanted to bring across the "Flying Fortress" role of Air Force One to the politicians of the host country. Note that a day earlier, during Bush's stop over in India, he boarded via the Main Deck.
  • Removed "Most of the furniture on board was hand-crafted by master carpenters. "
  • Removed "Eisenhower... the first American president to have been a pilot in his own right.
  • Removed "A month earlier, it broke 30 speed records when carrying a delegation to Moscow" 30 records in a single flight? Which records? The most meals served on a flight, the most inflight movies, and the most Russians on Air Force 1? If there were 30 records broken by a single flight....they must not have been very notable. Kept the claim of fastest nonstop between Washington and Moscow.
  • Removed:
  • The role SAM 26000 played during the funeral, which Nixon presided over, made several points clear:
  • It was the aircraft that LBJ used primarily when president. In fact, it was used most often by LBJ.
  • Even though he died in Texas, Lady Bird Johnson agreed to the public honors in Washington because so many others from around the world wanted to join in—40,000 paid their respects when the former president lay in state, even though the mood during the state funeral was one of intense recrimination because the wounds of the Vietnam War were still raw.
  • The final services honoring LBJ on January 25 were completed in one day, even though they took part in different parts of the country, thanks to jets.
  • Kept the stuff about the pilot at the funeral as it indicates the close link that AF1 has with the first family.
  • Removed:
There was a notable incident in January 1998 when the 707 carrying President Clinton became stuck in mud before departure from Willard Airport, Illinois. Everyone on board had to disembark on to grass. (I know this sounds trivial, but when I read it earlier I found it interesting. Recommend putting it back somewhere. mmA 12 Oct 2006)
  • Removed: It does not seem to mention if the flight was on SAM 26000, 27000, or any other of the Air Force 1's. Even if it did, it belongs in the section prior to the 747's.
On October 6, 1981, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat was assassinated. Because of security concerns, Reagan did not attend the funeral, nor did then-Vice President Bush. Instead, President Reagan sent Secretary of State Alexander Haig and the living former presidents—Nixon, Ford, and Carter—to the funeral. Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger was also on board.
  • moved the treadmill bit to the features section. Interesting tidbit on introduction of exercise equipment, but it's interesting in the context of features, not in the history. It's interesting that there is one, not that he added it. I think this is the proper context for it.
  • Removed. OMFG.....they lied about the identity of the aircraft to protect the president. I'm just shocked beyond belief.
In November 2003, there was a minor controversy when Air Force One's crew lied to the crew of a passing German charter jet, informing them that the 416-ton 747 was a 45-ton Gulfstream V corporate jet, while transporting George W. Bush to Iraq to spend Thanksgiving with troops stationed there,1 though White House officials later denied this.2.


--Mmx1 07:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


This feature creep does bug me. I did a major rewrite of another aircraft article that I was pretty proud of. I came back several months later and the language was butchered and strewn with trivia. The unwillingness of people, myself included, to delete any information, detracts from the overall quality of an article. An encyclopedia should be a narrative, not a collection of facts thrown together in paragraphs. --Mmx1 08:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It looks a lot better now. My main complaint is about Analogues in other countries; "No other mode of transportation for government executives is as well-known as Air Force One" is not an entire section. Would this be better expanded or removed, with the link placed elsewhere? smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 08:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. The sloppy content bugs me and while there are wikignomes and fairys that fix the grammar, it takes someone with some relevant knowledge to sift the trivia from the good content and do a true copyedit, and that doesn't happen that often. WRT analogues, I would put the link in related links, and move the comment to the intro - "While many other nations have established exclusive air transport for their heads of state, none are as well known as Air Force One"

Setting aside the pop culture ones because I have strong views on the matter and I'm sure I'm steppig on somebody's toes.

My view in brief is that pop culture doesn't merit a mention unless it's notable. A cameo appearance in a movie doesn't count. Namely, wiki should not be an IMDB for technology - a list of which movies something "appeared in". My deletions:

  • Escape From New York One scene that isn't the focus of the movie.
  • Left Behind, again, a minor plot point. Willing to change if it is significant in the book, but from the summary here, it doesn't appear so.
  • Deception point. Again, just one scene, description or not.
  • brewery commercial - I'll believe it when I see it
  • 24. Again, some bit scenes over 5 seasons. Not notable.

Keeping

  • the AF1 movie. Duh.
  • the novel. It was featured, as I'm presuming by the title.
  • union pacific - similarly, it's the primary feature of the lookalike
  • the shoe. Well, if you call it the AF1 I suppose that's pretty notable. And if it's got a song named after it.


    • (edit above unsigned) By Dawn's Early Light is listed in popular culture as having Air Force One. The scenes mentioned occur on E-4, the Doomsday plane. The plane is repeatedly referred to as E-4 in the dialogue. The pilot actors are credited in the film as E-4 pilots, not Air Force One pilots. I suppose one could argue that E-4 is Air Force One by virtue of having the Sec. of Interior as acting President onboard, but this is not the plane normally associated with Air Force One. Another movie that features E-4 is Sum of All Fears, not listed in popular culture. Exterior shots show E-4 and the interior is depicted in that film as looking like an airborn bunker. Not at all similar to what the public has seen of Air Force One's interiors. A line in the film also mentions the President is on NAOC. Skywayman (talk) 14:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Pop Culture - graf. spoof

One individual keeps deleting the Internet hoax discussion, claiming that it is not notable. When We have discussions of shows and t.v. shows, I can hardly see how this pretty widely reported send-up should be removed. Can we have a vote on this instead of twor or three people re-instating the text and another re-erasing it? Kdammers 04:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Picture

Is the picture of Air Force One flying over Mt. Rushmore a real picture. It seems to be flying awful low and seems to be doctored, possibly with adobe photo shop. Anyone know?--Gephart 18:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. But if I was going to doctor up a cool photo, I would have gotten a better angle or more of a frontal shot of Mt Rushmore to start with. The fact that Mt Rushmore is not at the most desirable angle for the photo tells me that either it really is a real photo, or the photo doctorer is really sly.
--Loyt 15:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a real photo. National Geographic did a documentary on Air Force One and had video of the plane doing passes at that altitude over Mount Rushmore. I believe this was done prior to delivery as the Air Force would have made several flights with it for training before it went into service. They likely did this for a promotional photo shoot from Ellsworth AFB nearby. When I was a kid growing up in Kansas City I saw the Doomsday plane pass low over my school near Kansas City International on several occasions prior to delivery. Presumably the Air Force was doing training flights with it from McConnell AFB in Kansas prior to entering regular service. The Doomsday plane is also a 747 and sometimes mistaken for Air Force One. One of the real Doomsday planes was seen in exterior shots in The Sum of All Fears. Skywayman 12:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Cost of Air Force One adjusted for inflation?

In the top level summary paragraph, "Air Force One costs approximately 325 million dollars". Wouldn't it be more correct to state the original cost in past tense in it's original dollar value and also state the year that it was built. Then in the future (which I assume we're already in), a note can be added to show an adjusted cost in future (current) dollars adjusted for inflation. --Loyt 14:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

We also need to know what currency that is refering to. And is that yearly operating costs or purchace cost? etc.

VC-137 refuelable?

I heard a story from an old boom operator who claims to have refueled Air Force One (VC-137) and claims that Jimmy Carter walked up front and he could see him looking up. Were the VC-137s refuelable in flight?

Does anybody have an answer to this question, I too am curious?Ratsbew (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes it was; and the cockpit of Air Force One is commonly a hang out place for bush because his pilots are friends to him

Decoy?

The latter sentence was recently inserted: "Since 1990, the presidential fleet has consisted of two specifically configured, highly customized Boeing 747-200B series aircraft—tail numbers 28000 and 29000—with Air Force designation VC-25A. One is used to actually be used by the President, and the other is used as a decoy so that possible attackers do not know which one he is on."

I've found a couple non-reliable sources suggesting that's true, but no reliable ones yet. I found good source that an AF1 was used as a decoy once, but not yet whether one of the main reasons there are two craft is to function as a decoy. It makes sense, but I'd like a cite. TransUtopian 23:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that is the normal practice. It may happen occasionally, but not normally. Most of the time when the President travels, he is seen publicly boarding either 28000 or 29000 and the aircraft is seen taking off. How would a decoy work under those circumstances? The sentence should be removed unless someone has a good cite. --rogerd 00:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Good point. Why do they have two? One for the Vice President if he needs to travel elsewhere at the same time, or just in case one breaks down? TransUtopian 00:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I think the second one is for backup like you said, and perhaps to transport other officials. Also, in case of a national emergency, one can be pre-positioned in the center of the country. The VP typically flies on a Boeing C-32 (Boeing 757) --rogerd 00:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I imagine it's not too difficult to stick an 8 over the 9 when they're using it as decoy. Well within the US armed forces' capability, eh? — ceejayoz talk 16:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it's just a maintenance thing. If you take a look, how much time commercial planes have to spend in hangar for routine checkups you will see they need a second plane.

Stuck in the mud

This appears in the article:

The last time SAM 26000 carried a serving president was in January of 1998 when Bill Clinton's Air Force One literally got stuck in the mud in Champaign, Illinois.

I found this in the NY Times.

As it [Air Force One] was attempting to take off from there [Champaign, Ill] this afternoon, a controller ordered the pilot to make a 270 degree turn. As he did, one of the plane's wheels left the taxiway and became stuck in the mud, Mr. Beeman said.
The plane, a military version of the Boeing 707 usually used by Cabinet members, was chosen for the President's trip because his usual plane was too big for the taxiways at Champaign. But the 707 apparently was not quite small enough.
The Air Force sent out another 707 to complete the trip.

This is from Rocky Travel Times On Air Force One By Matthew L. Wald, New York Times Jan 29, 1998;

Hangar

Is this picture the hanger where Air Force One spends its off duty time? If so, I'd have thought there would be some interesting things to say about it. It looks considerably more expensive than the average hanger. -- Solipsist 21:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a hangar at Moffett Field, outside of San Francisco. It's an old blimp hangar. Ydorb 20:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I thought it looked like an airship hanger, but it seemed too modern and I figured that it was plausible that Air Force One would have a surprisingly large hanger. -- Solipsist 07:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
A hanger is what you hang your coat on in the closet. A hangar is where aircraft are parked. :) GBC 19:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Nope, this is the bad boy HERE1, HERE2, and HERE3. Very impressive. Located at Andrews Air Force Base and can hold two 747s. - Rollo44 01:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Replacement

Could a section on the replacement of the VC-25s be created? i.e. when such a requirement may emerge and what candidates there would be. Or given the length of time the VC-137s served will it be a very long time before the VC-25s are retired? Mark83 22:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The last paragraph of the "Location of past planes that served as Air Force One" sections contains a line about replacement by 2010. It should probably be moved somewhere else in the article that deals with the VC-25 directly. (Actually, the whole text could use some reorganization.) I have read somewhere recen;ty (I don't recall where, but it may have been on Wiki) that the 777 is being promoted by Boeing as a replacement. But until the USAF actually announces a program or study to replace AF1, anything else would just be speculation. - BillCJ 23:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I just read today here among other places that the Air Force is looking into replacements. The A380 double-decker super-jumbo (insert your large aircraft buzzwords here) is being considered ro pleave the VC-25, as well as possibly the C-5B. This appears to be driven by increasing lifecycle costs on the C-5B. Boeing's counter is likely to be the 747-8, which incorporates advances made in the development of the 787. My inclination with regard to the article is to add a section on Future Air Force One's after the history section. There probably should be a link to articles on Marine Corps One and Navy One. --tom (talk) 14:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
You have a good idea in general, but the coverage in this article should be minimal. In Nov 2006 when the preceeding comments were written, there was no Boeing VC-25 page, as there is now. That page would be the proper place for more-detailed coverage, including of possible replacement aircraft. We're now trying to limit this page to being a general overview of AF1, and for a less detailed coverage of the aircraft types used. - BillCJ (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Trivia

Jawed Karim, one of the three founders of the popular website YouTube, claims to have started the Air Force One article back in 2002. He revealed this in an Oct 21st, 2006 lecture at the University of Illinois regarding the growth of YouTube. He mentioned Wikipedia as one of the groundbreaking social networking websites that laid the groundwork for a site like YouTube to take off. (Video of the lecture in full) Hanako 15:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Question

Could someone clarify whether the call sign is Air Force One only when the current President is onboard? The article mentions that the Anwar Sadat flight was aboard SAM 26000, but doesn't seem to come out and say whether it flew under the AF1 designation. This relates to a personal question about whether the aircraft transporting a dead President is called AF1 as well. Thanks. 71.205.181.239 08:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Steve Philp

During the flight to the funeral of Anwar Sadat, the flight flew under SAM 26000 because the president was not aboard. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 00:22, 14 January, 2007
I believe the plane only uses the call sign Air Force one if the current US president is onboard. If he isnt, it isnt AF1, if he's on another plane, that can use AF1...? Reedy Boy 01:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Correct. The president could be in a Cessna 152 and the callsign would still be Air Force One. ericg ✈ 03:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Only if that Cessna 152 is operated by the USAF. If it were a civilian aircraft, it would be Executive One. If it was a USCG aircraft, it would be Coast Guard One, and so forth...--rogerd 22:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Add this in?

When talking about the capibilities of the AFO, I remember hering on the Discovery Channel that the plane has some sort of classified radiation shield that's classified. Should this be added? --ASDFGHJKL=Greatest Person Ever+Coolest Person Ever 21:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If you can find a verifiable source. --rogerd 22:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Boeing VC-25

I'm thinking maybe it's time to split the VC-25 off to its own article (Boeing VC-25) for coverage of the aircraft itself, leaving this article to cover the name "Air Force One", and the historic usage of the term. The topic really is broader than just the VC-25, and will probably be replaced by another type in the next 5-10 years. The Air Force Two article is separate from the Boeing C-32 page. Comments? - BillCJ 19:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

An alternative tiltle to Boeing VC-25 would be VC-25 "Air Force One". My preference is for the first, following the pattern of the C-32, but I can live with the second choice, even though technically they are only AF1s if the President is actually onboard. - BillCJ 23:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of a split. "Air Force One" is a mission and a call sign. Doesn't matter what the type of aircraft, when POTUS is onboard, it's AF1. Thus, it seems natural to have an article under that name which describes the mission and its history, including all the aircraft that have served as AF1 over the years. As the VC-25 is a rather unique aircraft in and of itself, having an article on it is also appropriate, and that's the place for the aircraft-specific info like infoboxen and specs. Akradecki 00:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree. There should be a separate article for Boeing VC-25 --James Hetfield 16:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Split completed. Article is at Boeing VC-25. Both articles still need tweaking. I have placed a pic of AF1 in the lead spot; it looks like the one on the new page's infobox, put the plane is pointed in the opposite direction. I'm open to a better pic if someone has an idea. - BillCJ 18:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

"Doesn't matter what the type of aircraft, when POTUS is onboard, it's AF1." Not entirely correct; if it's operated by the Army, Navy, or Corps, it's Army, Navy, or Marine One (contrary to the movie). (Of course, expecting Tinseltown to get it right is a bit like expecting a moron to solve differential equations...) Trekphiler (talk) Canada 21:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Rather than try to wrangle items back and forth between this article and the new Boeing VC-25 page, I've created the Air Force One in popular culture page. - BillCJ 00:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Lead pic/image

When I split off the VC-25 aircraft info, I took the Infobox with it, including the pic. I quickly checked the article and Commons for suitable lead pics, and the best one in my opinion was also one of AF1 over Mt. Rushmore, but pointing in the opposite direction. I picked this one in a hurry, partly because it was similar to the previous one, though different enough to warrant a try. I know there are much better/more dramatic pics out there, but whether they are useable here is the question. We have more than enough pics to rule out using a fair-use image. If someone has an idea for a better lead pic or image that we can use, then have at it! - BillCJ 01:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

No democratic king?

"Kennedy felt the plane appeared too regal, more fitting of a king than the head of a democracy." I was wondering if President Kennedy would actually have come to that specific conclusion. This statement makes it sound (unintentionally, I'm sure) that a 'king' could not be head of a democracy. Some of the very oldest democracies have a monarch as Head of State who use air transport very happily. I understand the information being conveyed by this statement but query the point of comparison being made.Scoop100 16:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree the statement is questionable; it should at least have a cite.
Queen Elizabeth II is perhaps the world's best-known monarch, being not only the sovereign of the United Kingdom, but also the queen of 15 other Commonwealth Realms (including Australia, Canada, and New Zealand). Yet, unlike the President of the United States, she doesn't have a Boeing 747 for personal use and flies on commercial jets to travel intercontinentally. I totally agree with President Kennedy's statement. 189.18.151.175 (talk) 19:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That entire section is unsouced, so I have added {{fact}} tags to the individual sentences. Thanks for spotting that. Hopefully someone can source this, or it should be removed. Thanks. - BillCJ 16:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Armament

Should we make an entry of the various defensive weapons Air Force One is armed with?? --Promus Kaa 05:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No. According to the USAF VC-25 fact sheet, the aircraft are unarmed. If you have credible, verifiable sources to the contrary, then produce them, and we check them out. - BillCJ 05:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Analogs in other countries

Current text reads "Although other nations use specially designed aircraft to transport their heads of state, no other mode of transportation for government executives is as well-known as Air Force One." I think this text should be removed (just linking to the other page), or the US-centric POV be removed (unless a credible reference exists). Presumably people in other countries are familiar with their transportation for government executives.

Uh, it's implying well-known in the whole world. The claim is unsourced, tho, so add a fact tag to it, and remove it after 2 weeks if there's no soucre. - BillCJ 09:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

What kind of sentence is that?

"In 2007 US Airforce considers Airbus A380 as replacement for the Air Force One based on the Boeing 747-200 and entered service in the early 1990s." Should that be considered or is considering? What entered service? It entered service 17 years before it was considered? Can someone make sense out of this? I would re-arrange it, but I honestly dont understand it. --Murphoid 23:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

What kind of sentence? A poorly-written on. Remember, many A380 or Airbus fans don't speak/write good English (being from non-English-speaking European countries, this is perfectly understandable), and this kind of info is exciting to them. I'll try to find the source, and rewrite it in proper English. - BillCJ 23:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Rewrote the interesting tibit. ENJOY! — BQZip01 — talk 02:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Semi-OT: I don´t think that the A380 would be a reasonable C-5 substitute, otherwise the C-19 (B747 that has the same cargo handling characteristics) would still be in service. 84.173.218.118 (talk) 13:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
That is your opinion, but various airframes are still in service for various reasons (some political). This is a talk page regarding the topic at hand, not a place for debate of whether a C-5 could be replaced by the Airbus 380. — BQZip01 — talk 03:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

WPMilHist assessment

Demoted to "Start" as more inline citations are needed. Ejosse1 (talk) 16:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Independence Day

I think the role of Air Force 1 in Independence Day is sufficient for including in the "popular culture" section. It allows the escape of the protagonists from Washington and subsequently serves as the hub of government prior to landing at Area 51 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.45.3 (talk) 11:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

-thats stupid —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.42.117 (talk) 06:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Undiscussed merge

I have reverted the undiscussed merge of Air Force Two by User:Reywas92, per Bold-Revert-Discuss. When dealing with high-traffic articles such as Air Force One, these types of actions really need to be discussed beforehand. Please propose a merger using {{merge}} tags, and try to build a consensus for the merge before performing it. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 03:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Image

Could File:Lyndon B. Johnson taking the oath of office, November 1963.jpg be worked into this article somehow? It's a featured picture and at Sarah T. Hughes it's described as "the most famous photo ever taken aboard Air Force One". -- Jao (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Blair Force One

The "Blair Force One" thing is largely irrelevant to the subject of this article (and seems to be a temporary meme). In any case, I don't see any reason why it should feature prominently in the article's intro. I've removed it and put a link into the "See also" section instead. Averell (talk) 09:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

In invoking BRD, use this page first before reverting again. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC).
Use of similar terms by other nations should not be in the lead. But should be mentioned in the article as it shows the wide spread use. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, at least it's not in the intro any more. I'm still not convinced that the information in itself is relevant here, though. The information wasn't removed from Wikipedia in any case: The whole affair is explained in length in the "British" article, where it belongs and where I linked to. And yes, it could be used to showcase how famous the Airforce One is; but in that case I'd suggest starting a specific section on it and use it as one example there. Otherwise it's just a random piece of information. Averell (talk) 14:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
A note about the "Blair One" has been added to the last section as an example of other aircraft used in the same manner as the U.S. presidential fleet. I agree that the relevance is a bit nebulous and perhaps some rewriting is in order. FwiW Bzuk (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC).
In fact I'd have less problems if it was a real aircraft. As far as I've seen from the other page, it was just a procurement plan of a past government, that was never carried out. That's why I felt it was probably giving a bit too much weight to it. Averell (talk) 08:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I took out some of the links that were not really related to the subject, per the Manual of Style. The article remains strongly linked, but I hope the remaining links will be more useful to the reader now. Averell (talk) 08:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Just remember the MOS is just a guide, not carved in stone. Some links were possibly useful, mais, c'est la vie... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC).

NYC Flyover?

Why isn't there any mention of the current event regarding the flyover of Manhattan by Air Force One that left many in a state of panic? Coolgamer (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is a link to Air Force One photo op controversy. I guess it could be mentioned in the text as well (although technically it wasn't Air Force One at the time). You might also be interested in the AFD concerning that article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 New York City airplane scare. —JAO • T • C 16:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You know, since the jet in the NYC flyover technically wasn't Air Force One, since the President wasn't aboard, I wonder if the image in the Mount Rushmore photo that's currently in this article is really Air Force One. Perhaps that's just a "photo op" shoot as well, and the President wasn't aboard, either? Just food for thought,... ;-) Dr. Cash (talk) 03:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Caption tweaked. It's probably too wordy, but whatever! All for the sake of hyper-accuracy! Btw, take a look at whatthis USAF web page calls the aircraft in the same photo. Perhaps the USAF webmaster needs to be made aware of their error too! :p - BillCJ (talk) 02:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

C-37 used by Obama on 5/30/09

Earlier this evening, President Obama flew up to NYC and a video from the Associated Press on YouTube shows the president and the first lady boarding something resembling the C-37B. The link is here. Should this be added to the article? --Blue387 (talk) 02:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Certainly. I've modified the lead a little to include such a description later in the article. However, I caution against using YouTube as a Reliable Source, as it generally isn't considered to be so. I'm sure other pictures exist out there too. — BQZip01 — talk 03:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

In his recent trip to North Carolina, the president used a C-32 (a military 757). It was painted like Air Force One, so I think it should be included in this article. See http://m.citizentimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100424/OBAMA/304240025/1001/WAP&template=wapart --Westwind273 (talk) 14:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Confusion: headings and photo

I think there is some confusion as of late when it comes to sub-section headings. As long as the section title itself is genereal enough to cover all aspects within it, there is no need for additional subheadings. Now in certain articles additional subheadings are necessary, but I don't think so in this article, especially not "Incidents" and "Replacement". The section should primarily focus on the layout, design, structure (interior and exterior) and purpose, not indidents the plane has gotten into and when it will be replaced. That is simply straying from the subject matter.

In addition, I've now removed this photo three times and it has been added back three times without a reason. Being a rather short section, it is already image-heavy, with two images and one directly underneath in the "past aircraft" section (creating a minor visual problem). In addition, the image in question looks nearly identical to the image atop the article, with only the background differing and having two similar photos adds nothing to the article. Happyme22 (talk) 18:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Note that edit comments are provided for all changes that were mentioned. The images that are in question are not the same and do not have any connection other than the Air Force One is featured above an iconic U.S. landmark. The image that precipitated a minor cause celebre was the reason for retaining the image. Nonetheless, there is actually a "better" photograph in terms of clarity and resolution found in the article: Photo op Incident. As to sub-headings, there is no confusion as is stated, but a matter of interpretation as the reason for the deletion of the photo op incident photo was given as the somewhat unusual, and subjective characterization: "the section is a little image heavy." I questioned whether eight images in the entire article constituted an overly-large proliferation of imagery. Since I construed that the original submitter was wedded to the statement since it was repeated, and was the only screed that mattered, an exercise was initiated in establishing sections would ultimately provide a rationale for retaining an image that was challenged. Regarding the descriptor that the aforementioned section was to be devoted to technical details of the aircraft type flies in the face of what is essentially a chronological account, that is maintained throughout the article. A series of "daughter" articles have been spawned from the main or "pater" article, including Boeing VC-25 (which features four photographs and one movie in one section, [c'est le horreur!! (LOL)]) where there is a conventional aircraft article of the type, following the pattern established by the WP:AVIATION working group. BTW, I've moved on, this is merely one of 3.000 articles that I have in my watchlist. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC).
Note the photo being proposed now for current use shows the "living quarters" of Air Force One. FWiW, is there a reason for a preponderance of George W. Bush images connected with the Air Force One? Bzuk (talk) 02:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC).
Probably just because he was in office for eight years in the full age of the internet, just more photos available. - BillCJ (talk) 03:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Yet in the WikiCommons, I located a series of recent images of the current resident of the White House in Air Force One. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC).
Well it is a very bad idea to replace all the Bush pictures with ones of Obama simply to "update" the article now that Obama is the president. Most Bush pictures should be retained for historical record. In addition, Bzuk, I reverted your good faith edit. I thought that we should have a picture to show the office and the president working in the office, thus the picture of President Bush in the office was fine. The image that you replaced it with shows President Obama with his staff in the office, but it is more focused on the staff than on the office and one staff member is obstructing a good view of the office.
If anything, I would keep the Bush photo of the office and replace the one of President and Mrs. Bush walking in front of the plane on the tarmac with one of Obama. If you want. Happyme22 (talk) 05:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
To preserve the historical record of the president's office, I have transferred the aforementioned photo to the article: Boeing VC-25 although I am hard pressed to see that an image that already exists in WikiCommons and has no particular significance to an event would be considered relevant to this article. As I already reiterated, this article is devoted to a chronicling of the Air Force Ones not a type-related aircraft article. Note the word "plane" is deprecated as a colloquialism and is most often replaced with "aircraft." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 05:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC).
(edit conflict) BillZ, Obama has only been in office 6 months. I wasn't saying there weren't any images of him available, only that with 8 years worth of images, collected in the time the bulk of this was written, it is not a surprise they are mostly of Bush. Also, WP is a work in progress, and Obama photos have probably not been added simply for the reason that no one has doen it yet. However, as Happy pointed out, simply replacing Bush photos with Obama photos simply to update the article is not a good idea if the photos are not of better quality, and do not show relevant features of the aircraft to good effect. Btw, "plane" is more informal than colloquial, since it's regularly used in most variants of English. ;) - BillCJ (talk) 05:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
There is at least one image (I actually found six photographs shot by a White house photographer) of the current president in Air Force One that is of sufficient quality to be a relevant image since as I had already discussed, this article recounts a historical record, not a type-specific article. There is no effort to replace Bush photos for Obama photos (perish the thought – LOL) as the photo in question is retained in the Boeing VC-25 article. As to the use of "plane", "planes", "aeroplanes", "aerioplane", "aerodromes" and other quaint vernacular, just look at the VC-25 article to see them sprinkled about with abandon, merely reinforcing the notion that the editors use them without looking for alternatives. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 06:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC).
That still doesn't address the point here: there doesn't have to be a reason beyond "no one has done it yet". That's perfectly legitimate in a work in progress. While I admit I probably would not have added any Obama photos had I thought of it, I have not activley replaced any Clinton photos with Bush photos in these articles in the past either. I do agree that this article is a historical record, not a type specific article - remeber, I'm the one who co-split off the VC-25 to its own page in the first place, so I have no disagreement there. As to the whole "plane/etc." issue, I regularly correct those to the "accepted" terms of the literary elite. :) I did not change "The plane! The Plane" in the Fantasy Island article to "The fixed-wing aircraft! "The fixed-wing aircraft!", as that is a direct quote. Hmm, I think I'll start using more direct quotes the use "plane"! Great idea! :) - BillCJ (talk) 08:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Given that the article's development matched the period of the recent George W. Bush administration, it is logical that images would have been from the office holder of the time. Regardless, the contention that the article follows a historical sequence leads to an effort to document the presidents that have used Air Force One. I have no proclivity or affectation to establish primacy with the use of the Barack Obama photograph other than it serves to put a placeholder behind the dates used in the article. I did not find the original photograph or the latest incarnation (of the "president at work in the flying Oval Office scene) to have a particular significance to the text, in contrast with the assertion that there was a question of "historical record" being altered? affected? On the contrary, the [File:Air Force One President Office.jpg image] is available through Wiki Commons and is utilized as a illustration of the "office space" (still a dubious contention, but then again, the entire contretemps began as an assertion of WP:OWN) on the ancillary but related Boeing VC-25 article. BJ (if I can refer to your more obvious lascivious alter-ego), I know, you probably saw through my transparent attempt to register points here, but the contentions that were forwarded as to motivation were so WP:LAME that refuting them gave me some glee. I will behave myself from this juncture on, and "stick to my knitting." Thanks for the chance to make contact again, across the electronic void. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC).

"Power"

In the final paragraph in the lead, it states "Air Force One is a prominent symbol of the American presidency and its power." While I have no qualms with the statement, I find the term "power" to be a bit ambiguous in this context. Are we talking about US political power, international political power, military power, or what? Maybe someone who has access to the source (or just a more-informed opinion than mine) could add a clarifying word or two to the lead? --RobinHood70 (talk) 22:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Air Force One is the symbol of the power which is bestowed on the Office of President. Air Force One does not symbolize the person who holds the office. It is the presidency itself which Air Force One symbolizes. --Kildruf (talk) 20:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

cool photo

Obama landing at Albany International Airport in Colonie NY Sept 21, 2009

NBC: this is the first flight with renovated plane

http://twitpic.com/il74d

I'm FDR, fly me

While I don't dispute the use of the B314, I recall from somewhere (a TV doc on AF1?) the 1943 trip also involved a DC-3 (specially modified for FDR, & used previously as a Presidential aircraft, or perhaps as a campaign bird), which I don't see mentioned. Am I wrong? If not, I suggest inclusion. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 09:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closed as No Merge. - BilCat (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Lets merge the articles for Air Force One and Air Force Two. Google shows that Air Force One is a way more popular term and all the other armed services have one article for their presidential/vice presidential aircraft. Awg1010 (talk) 04:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Those areally aren't good reasons on their own. Although the AF2 article could use expansion, it's content would be completely overwhelmed by the AF1 article. The articels for the other services' presidential aircraft are quite smal even now, so there way plenty of room to merge in their VP articles. - BilCat (talk) 04:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - This article is not the right place for the AF2 content. Boeing C-32 would be more like it, if the AF2 content was merged elsewhere. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - AF2 has nothing to do with AF1 other than both being callsigns, dont think it should be moved to a hardware (C-32) article either as it is or has not allways been a 757. AF2 is just a stub that needs a lot more work particularly going back in time. We should encourage development of the AF2 article not hide it elsewhere. MilborneOne (talk) 08:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Good point MilB1. AF2 existed before, most likely as long as the AF1 callsign. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Just expand AF2 ~merge unnecessary NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 00:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Obviously not the same bird... Expand AF2. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 00:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose No reason to confuse the two aircraft callsigns — BQZip01 — talk 01:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose The two subjects are fairly distinct. Merging them would place undue weight on AF1, while merging with the aircraft would be pointless because the call sign is applied regardless of aircraft. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 15:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
"oppose" I agree that the two subjects are distinct. Although the AF2 article will inevitably be shorter than AF1, it is a separate entity, distinct, and needs to be differentiated from AF1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.176.190 (talk) 13:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

May the force be with somebody else

Shouldn't it correctly be Air Force One, since it's an official name? Or does that not apply to what's effectively only a callsign? Or what? And on a relatively unrelated note, is it "sam twenty-nine thousand", or "Sierra Alpha Mike two-niner thousand", or what? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 11:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Air Force One is the air traffic control call sign for when the president is aboard an Air Force aircraft. Don't know about the SAM part. That may be covered in one of the VC-137 SAM articles. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I knew the callsign applied regardless (& the movie got it wrong, it would've been "Army One"). I meant for the aircraft, in livery: should it be Air Force One (even without POTUS aboard)? The SAM I'm thinly believing the movies (probably a bad idea), but I've never actually heard an authoritative source on it. And no, the VC-137 pages don't address it, either. :( :( TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 13:25 & 13:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

If the jets typically used in the role as Air Force One are flying without a sitting, living president on board the aircraft, it simply uses the ATC call sign by the designation of its serial number/tail code. Hence, if one of the two Boeing VC 25's flew politicians or civilians onn board without President Obama on board, say for example when using SAM 28000, that mission would use the call sign "Special Air Mission 28000". That same rules would apply when using SAM 29000.

Interestingly, if the First Lady, Michelle Obama flew on any aircraft in the U.S. air force fleet, that mission would use the call sign Executive One Foxtrot. For the Vice-President's wife, Jill Biden, the mission would use the call sign Executive Two Foxtrot. Now let's say that President Obama flew on civilian aircraft typically used for commercial air travel, the call sign that the pilots would use in the cockpit would be Executive One. For the Vice-President, he would use the call sign Executive Two.

Simply put, without a sitting, living president on board any air force aircraft, the call sign Air Force One is not allowed to be used. They would use call signs by using the serial numbers on the tail of the plane being used.

I know that this is confusing but I hope that I explained it so that it is understandable.--Yoganate79 (talk) 06:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

You've missed my point entirely (tho I didn't know about the First Lady call, thx for that, & I've heard the VP's bird called AF2), & evidently I should've been clearer: should it be italicized as a name, like a ship (as describing a particular & specific a/c) or never? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 15:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
It is not a real name only a callsign so does not need to be in italics, although most of the readers would not understand if it was italicized. MilborneOne (talk) 18:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
And as a term, I would agree. However, the term applies very specifically to a liveried a/c. Does she deserve to be described as if by formal ship name? Probably most readers wouldn't notice the ital, IMO, so y/n makes small difference. It has been bugging me, tho. (In case you hadn't guessed. ;p) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
The term does not relate to a specific aircraft, it can be any USAF aircraft, so it can not be a name in my opinion. I dont think it always the same VC-25. MilborneOne (talk) 19:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Y'know, I realized that almost immediately after my last post but got busy & didn't correct myself. (Also, I hoped not to look like a total idiot. ;p Everyone's patience is appreciated. ;D ) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 05:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Service to the White House

My understanding is that this is a service provided to the White House by the Air Force. Each branch of the Armed forces provides a service to the White House, and this is what the Air Force provides. This should be mentioned somewhere. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 16:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't this "service" paid for by the President when used for personal flights? Election related flights should be paid for out of thier campaign funds.108.23.147.17 (talk)

Sacred Cow

Several Wikipedia articles refer to the first airplane, Sacred Cow but there is no redirect for this use. Would someone involved in this article like to create one? 69.3.72.9 (talk) 19:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Air_Force_One/Archive_2&oldid=1146674420"