{"id":29893,"date":"2017-10-18T17:32:07","date_gmt":"2017-10-18T17:32:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/airforcetimes\/uncategorized\/2017\/10\/18\/replacing-the-air-force-one-fleet-literally-takes-an-act-of-congress-commentary\/"},"modified":"2026-08-07T22:11:09","modified_gmt":"2026-08-07T22:11:09","slug":"replacing-the-air-force-one-fleet-literally-takes-an-act-of-congress-commentary","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/airforcetimes\/opinion\/commentary\/2017\/10\/18\/replacing-the-air-force-one-fleet-literally-takes-an-act-of-congress-commentary\/","title":{"rendered":"Replacing the ‘Air Force One’ fleet literally takes an act of Congress [Commentary]"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Although President Donald Trump made headlines for tweeting his criticism of the cost of replacing Air Force One<\/a> this past December. But the aircraft solely used by the president of the United States is actually authorized and funded through a separate branch of government: Congress. Oversight and replacement of Air Force One, officially known as the Presidential Aircraft Recapitalization program, falls under the jurisdiction of the House and Senate Armed Services committees. And given that presidential transportation has been an enduring Air Force mission since the Eisenhower era, the effort to replace the iconic white and blue planes uses Department of Defense dollars and therefore requires congressional approval.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There seems to be almost unanimous agreement \u2014 a rarity in Congress \u2014 that the president\u2019s current aerial fleet needs to be replaced. Both Republican and Democratic presidents have used the current two VC-25 aircraft, based on the Boeing 747-200 passenger aircraft, since they were originally acquired in 1990 and first flew then-President George H.W. Bush. Today, 27 years later, less than 15 747-200 passenger aircraft remain in service worldwide \u2014 and zero with U.S. commercial airlines.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As the current VC-25 fleet has increased in age, it has also seen an uptick in maintenance issues and costs. The first heavy-maintenance duration for the fleet in 1993 reportedly lasted 212 days, while the most recent heavy-maintenance duration exceeded 630 days. Additionally, the cost to maintain and upgrade the fleet will continue to grow substantially due to issues such as obsolete parts, aging systems and growing maintenance downtime. The alternative to recapitalizing the fleet would be to completely modernize an outdated platform \u2014 an expensive undertaking and an unwise investment.<\/p>\n\n\n\t