No one operates the A380 as a head of state aircraft. Would there be any operational difficulties in doing so? For example, would most of the airports capable of landing a 747 also be able to land an A380. (We don't need a passenger gate, but do need a tall set of stairs.


Factoid: By my count 13 nations use a 747 at least part of the time.

You are limited not by if you have gates or "tall stairs" but the A380 requires specifics for taxiways and runway dimensions and weight limits. I think a couple private A380's are still on the order books though.

A head of state plane based on the A380 would probably have built in airstairs similar to airstairs on the VC-25's. Still the A380 would be much more limited in the number of airports that can handle it than the 747. The 747 was designed to be able to use the same runways and taxiways as a 707. Perhaps the 747-8 is more restricted than the earlier versions of the 747, but its still able to use more airports than the A380.

airport physical issues aside, I really question how many states can rationalize the legitimate need for the size and design range of a A380, Given the fuel burn and cost, it would seem kinda crazy.
Even the B747 can realistically claim to have notably lower operational and maintenance costs, when you are not spreading it out over a serious pax count. I mean, this is a case when CASM doesn't count, right?

Does any HOS state need to travel with an absurd armada and journalism corp as does POTUS? I am guessing not, and I'd think most of those other states will eventually replace their B747 with something much smaller, not even the largest twin. An A330neo would make a fine HOS for virtually everyone else, no? Affordable, practical - no need for larger A350/B777 I'd think, and that much better if any of them are in the practice of using 2 airframes.

b747400erf wrote:

I think a couple private A380's are still on the order books though.

No, not a single one. Kingdom Holding had one A380 on order (a former testframe) but that order has been cancelled after the Sheikh’s death (don’t ask me for the full name - I don’t have so much time right now to quote the full name )

I would have thought some Middle Eastern Emir, Sheikh, etc..., would have ordered one because he can. I would argue, no one needs it, certainly but again, why not if you can afford it and your citizens will not revolt.

hz747300 wrote:

I would have thought some Middle Eastern Emir, Sheikh, etc..., would have ordered one because he can. I would argue, no one needs it, certainly but again, why not if you can afford it and your citizens will not revolt.

budgets are tightening and the rulers are more afraid than ever of being overthrown

I doubt it. The 747 is plenty big enough even for the USA's President. As noted, the limited numbers of airports it can operate at, the costs, the negative political image of such a huge aircraft for use by a Head of State is just unacceptable.

Actually the 747-8 and A380 fall into the same category, that is F. In E you are limited to a wingspan less than 65 m.

ltbewr wrote:

I doubt it. The 747 is plenty big enough even for the USA's President. As noted, the limited numbers of airports it can operate at, the costs, the negative political image of such a huge aircraft for use by a Head of State is just unacceptable.

You misunderstood me. I never meant to imply that the USA / trump would act on it - the 747 is fine. What I meant is that it would bother trump at an emotional level. It could lead to amusing tweets perhaps.

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/0 ... /23202652/

I think President Putin could carry such an aircraft off. He`s not constrained by the wests tiresome concern
for seemingly wasting resources in transporting heads-of-state. The A380 would also befit his stature as head
of the Russian people, & would look great in his livery too! Why not?

N14AZ wrote:

b747400erf wrote:

I think a couple private A380's are still on the order books though.

No, not a single one. Kingdom Holding had one A380 on order (a former testframe) but that order has been cancelled after the Sheikh’s death (don’t ask me for the full name - I don’t have so much time right now to quote the full name )

Uh? Al-Waleed bin Talal is still alive. That was gonna be his A380. Cancelled it for other reasons.

I doubt any nation leader could justify that sort of capacity (and cost).

On the other hand, it could be useful as a troop transport or for other logistics missions.

But most nations look for third-party operators for that kind of stuff. I'm venturing a guess by saying that HiFly might see some government/military contracts for theirs.

This often comes up but the A380 is not as difficult as people think. It uses a shorter runway than a 747 and has less pavement loading than a 777. The only minor issue is wing width during taxi - but (scraping temporary buildings at airshows or aircraft tails at JFK aside) that is mostly an operational consideration...

If it can land and take off at Oshkosh, it should be okay at any commercial airport.

Tedd wrote:

I think President Putin could carry such an aircraft off. He`s not constrained by the wests tiresome concern
for seemingly wasting resources in transporting heads-of-state. The A380 would also befit his stature as head
of the Russian people, & would look great in his livery too! Why not?

He is nationalistic and uses Russian built aircraft. He wouldn’t want a European aircraft to showcase him to the world at a time when Russia/EU relations are abysmal. He wouldn’t give the Europeans the money for it and I’m not sure they’d accept it even if he wanted to. He’d go Boeing over Airbus any day.

The US President is the only head of state that legitimately requires an aircraft that size (he has to travel with a huge entourage of staff and journalistsbut the 747 is big enough, and any aircraft used primarily as Air Force One has a to be American made if I recall correctly.

Arabs are the only ones who could “justify”it, but it’s not a great time economically for oil producers. Qataris have the economic stability, so maybe once QR is ready to retire their A380s, one might be repurposed.

Francoflier wrote:

I doubt any nation leader could justify that sort of capacity (and cost).

On the other hand, it could be useful as a troop transport or for other logistics missions.

But most nations look for third-party operators for that kind of stuff. I'm venturing a guess by saying that HiFly might see some government/military contracts for theirs.

You are thinking with too much of a democratic head on, yes it is hard to justify purchasing anything larger than a B737/A320 for personal use of a head of state / prime minister / cabinet, unless it is dual purpose e.g. troop caring or the like, an A330 size a/c if you truly need the range, but that is pushing it.
That is in a democracy, in an autocracy, it doesn't really matter, the head of state is all powerful so he doesn't care how much it cost, he can't lose the next election .

dredgy wrote:

Tedd wrote:

Qataris have the economic stability, so maybe once QR is ready to retire their A380s, one might be repurposed.

But they already opted for the 747-8

dfambro wrote:

dredgy wrote:

Tedd wrote:

Qataris have the economic stability, so maybe once QR is ready to retire their A380s, one might be repurposed.

But they already opted for the 747-8

You’re right, and they can’t have both. The Gulf states are famous for their fiscal restraint

I could see China opting for something like a 380 or 747. With their growing influence and economy, the "prestige" of flying a large aircraft similar to the US president would be a point of pride and reminder of their influence.

TWFlyGuy wrote:

I could see China opting for something like a 380 or 747. With their growing influence and economy, the "prestige" of flying a large aircraft similar to the US president would be a point of pride and reminder of their influence.

I can't. They are still a communist state, such a luxury is bad in the eyes of the people. Don't think they even have a dedicated long range government aircraft. Just a Boeing 747-400 from Air China.

Dutchy wrote:

TWFlyGuy wrote:

I could see China opting for something like a 380 or 747. With their growing influence and economy, the "prestige" of flying a large aircraft similar to the US president would be a point of pride and reminder of their influence.

I can't. They are still a communist state, such a luxury is bad in the eyes of the people. Don't think they even have a dedicated long range government aircraft. Just a Boeing 747-400 from Air China.

Communism is really just a leader saying we're all equal, I'm just more equal. They tend to get caught up in the nationalism aspect too in China and having their leader in a VLA similar to POTUS would signal importance. They would sell it as needing it to ensure the influence of China is always taken seriously.

A huge part of AF1 being huge is the capability it brings as a flying command post. Along with other jazz like transport of Presidential motorcade vehicles, medical treatment space, etc. That requires space. And it's just not a requirement for anybody else but the POTUS. The rest of us just don't think our leaders that important!

I'm actually surprised there are a dozen nations that even use the 747. That seems high. But I think a lot will switch to twins or large bizjets going forward. Let's not forget that a huge part of the 747's appeal for a long time was range.

ytz wrote:

A huge part of AF1 being huge is the capability it brings as a flying command post. Along with other jazz like transport of Presidential motorcade vehicles, medical treatment space, etc. That requires space. And it's just not a requirement for anybody else but the POTUS. The rest of us just don't think our leaders that important!

I'm actually surprised there are a dozen nations that even use the 747. That seems high. But I think a lot will switch to twins or large bizjets going forward. Let's not forget that a huge part of the 747's appeal for a long time was range.

As far as I can see, there aren't a dozen nation that uses the 747:

Iran Imperial Iranian Air Force ♠[4]
Japan Government of Japan ♠[3]
Saudi Arabia Kingdom of Saudi Arabia ♠[3]
United Arab Emirates United Arab Emirates Presidential Flight ♠[3]
United States United States Air Force ♠[4]

Japan is set to replace them with the Boeing 77W

Irain are old ones (747-100/-100F/-200F), probably going to be replaced when widebodies start pouring in.

SA and the UAE just prestige and autocratic leaders, what is government and what is private there?

US --> replaced with the 748i.

Dutchy wrote:

TWFlyGuy wrote:

I could see China opting for something like a 380 or 747. With their growing influence and economy, the "prestige" of flying a large aircraft similar to the US president would be a point of pride and reminder of their influence.

I can't. They are still a communist state, such a luxury is bad in the eyes of the people. Don't think they even have a dedicated long range government aircraft. Just a Boeing 747-400 from Air China.

PRC always use a particular 744 as the HOS Aircraft, in the early days, the plane also fly the commercial flights,
but in recent years (following CA's retirement of 744), the plane no longer fly the commercial flight even it is not needed as a HOS aircraft,

In addition, a 748, from CA is currently being modified as HOS aircraft in Germany,

South Korea uses a 747-400
China uses Air China 747-8s, and before Air China 747-400s.
India uses Air India 747-400s
Brunei uses a 747-8, and used to use a 747-400
Kuwait, UAE, Oman, and Qatar all have 747-8s

Dutchy wrote:

ytz wrote:

A huge part of AF1 being huge is the capability it brings as a flying command post. Along with other jazz like transport of Presidential motorcade vehicles, medical treatment space, etc. That requires space. And it's just not a requirement for anybody else but the POTUS. The rest of us just don't think our leaders that important!

I'm actually surprised there are a dozen nations that even use the 747. That seems high. But I think a lot will switch to twins or large bizjets going forward. Let's not forget that a huge part of the 747's appeal for a long time was range.

As far as I can see, there aren't a dozen nation that uses the 747:

Iran Imperial Iranian Air Force ♠[4]
Japan Government of Japan ♠[3]
Saudi Arabia Kingdom of Saudi Arabia ♠[3]
United Arab Emirates United Arab Emirates Presidential Flight ♠[3]
United States United States Air Force ♠[4]

Japan is set to replace them with the Boeing 77W

Irain are old ones (747-100/-100F/-200F), probably going to be replaced when widebodies start pouring in.

SA and the UAE just prestige and autocratic leaders, what is government and what is private there?

US --> replaced with the 748i.

dredgy wrote:

Tedd wrote:

I think President Putin could carry such an aircraft off. He`s not constrained by the wests tiresome concern
for seemingly wasting resources in transporting heads-of-state. The A380 would also befit his stature as head
of the Russian people, & would look great in his livery too! Why not?

He is nationalistic and uses Russian built aircraft. He wouldn’t want a European aircraft to showcase him to the world at a time when Russia/EU relations are abysmal. He wouldn’t give the Europeans the money for it and I’m not sure they’d accept it even if he wanted to. He’d go Boeing over Airbus any day.

The US President is the only head of state that legitimately requires an aircraft that size (he has to travel with a huge entourage of staff and journalistsbut the 747 is big enough, and any aircraft used primarily as Air Force One has a to be American made if I recall correctly.

Arabs are the only ones who could “justify”it, but it’s not a great time economically for oil producers. Qataris have the economic stability, so maybe once QR is ready to retire their A380s, one might be repurposed.

Don`t be in any doubt, if Mr Putin wanted an A380, he would have an A380. You may be correct in your assumption though
that due to tensions with the EU ( not all of his making it has to be said ) he wouldn`t entertain it. With his Ilyushin-96 getting
on a bit what a fantastic replacement the A380 would be. Your notion President Trump is the only leader to legitimately use
an aircraft the size of a 747 made me laugh. You should know that all our leaders want to out-do each other, & that any of the
G8 heads are liable to do so at anytime.

ytz wrote:

A huge part of AF1 being huge is the capability it brings as a flying command post. Along with other jazz like transport of Presidential motorcade vehicles, medical treatment space, etc. That requires space. And it's just not a requirement for anybody else but the POTUS. The rest of us just don't think our leaders that important!

I'm actually surprised there are a dozen nations that even use the 747. That seems high. But I think a lot will switch to twins or large bizjets going forward. Let's not forget that a huge part of the 747's appeal for a long time was range.

I dont think the limo is actually in AF1. AF1 travels in a convey with several cargo C17s, and sometimes the spare AF1 and a press plane.

32andBelow wrote:

ytz wrote:

A huge part of AF1 being huge is the capability it brings as a flying command post. Along with other jazz like transport of Presidential motorcade vehicles, medical treatment space, etc. That requires space. And it's just not a requirement for anybody else but the POTUS. The rest of us just don't think our leaders that important!

I'm actually surprised there are a dozen nations that even use the 747. That seems high. But I think a lot will switch to twins or large bizjets going forward. Let's not forget that a huge part of the 747's appeal for a long time was range.

I dont think the limo is actually in AF1. AF1 travels in a convey with several cargo C17s, and sometimes the spare AF1 and a press plane.

Presidential movement is extreme, generally one AF1 VC-25 (747-200/400 hybrid, short upper deck, 200 wings/fuselage, 400 engines CF6-80C2, air refueling), possibly a second VC-25 backup comms and transport. An E-4B NAOC command post (747-200 CF6-50C2) will be in the same timezone and at an alternate airport within 150 miles, and then 2-3 C-17s with the BEASTs armored limos, presidential/staff/press helicopters, either UH-60 or CV-22. Even if not needed or planned to be used.

So at a minimum, two 747s and 1-2 C-17 for most trips. When the president comes to Colorado, AF1 lands at COS or DEN and E-4B sits 50 or so miles to the south in PUB. Also, not visible on ADS-B services

Having a larger aircraft doesn't necessarily make sense when POTUS is already flying two 747s to most locations. I have seen more of the 757s in the regional East Cost visits that T has been making lately. Maybe he's just more comfortable on a 75! I'm curious how they will configure the SSUD on the 748i vs the 742 that they have now. That's a lot of extra space up top and if it wasn't for the cockpit access at front and stairs at the back, I'd say it would make a great VVIP private suite. For the A380, the two widebody decks could be easily split up top between VVIP suite at front (East Wing), West Wing at Rear upper, Pentagon forward lower, and J for Press and entourage at the rear lower.

dredgy wrote:

Tedd wrote:

I think President Putin could carry such an aircraft off. He`s not constrained by the wests tiresome concern
for seemingly wasting resources in transporting heads-of-state. The A380 would also befit his stature as head
of the Russian people, & would look great in his livery too! Why not?

He is nationalistic and uses Russian built aircraft. He wouldn’t want a European aircraft to showcase him to the world at a time when Russia/EU relations are abysmal. He wouldn’t give the Europeans the money for it and I’m not sure they’d accept it even if he wanted to. He’d go Boeing over Airbus any day.

You seem a bit out of touch with reality. Putin's dispute with the EU lies primarily with eastern europe (*cough*Poland and the baltics*cough*) and the UK. He has been quite busy cosying up with potentially friendly European governments and politicians at every possible opportunity. Numerous freight trains and thousands of trucks shuttle back and forth between Russia and the EU each night, not to mention all the passenger services and the gas lines. Russia is far more entwined with the EU than with any other economy.

And he would absolutely never go for a Boeing considering this little issue: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... g-jet.html

dredgy wrote:

The US President is the only head of state that legitimately requires an aircraft that size (he has to travel with a huge entourage of staff and journalistsbut the 747 is big enough, and any aircraft used primarily as Air Force One has a to be American made if I recall correctly.

How about the worlds most powerful man?

b747400erf wrote:

hz747300 wrote:

I would have thought some Middle Eastern Emir, Sheikh, etc..., would have ordered one because he can. I would argue, no one needs it, certainly but again, why not if you can afford it and your citizens will not revolt.

budgets are tightening and the rulers are more afraid than ever of being overthrown

Not really, budgets are tightening, sure, but Middle Eastern rulers have rarely lived with any basis of reality. As for the basis of overthrow, as long as they pay to keep the barbarians at bay they should be safe for now.

... Add Morocco to the list.
Has a 747-400 shared with RAM and is just taking delivery of an ex-Abu Dhabi 747-8 according to another thread.
Cheers,
Bunumuring

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

This often comes up but the A380 is not as difficult as people think. It uses a shorter runway than a 747 and has less pavement loading than a 777. The only minor issue is wing width during taxi - but (scraping temporary buildings at airshows or aircraft tails at JFK aside) that is mostly an operational consideration...

If it can land and take off at Oshkosh, it should be okay at any commercial airport.

That's what I'm asking. Does the extra width cause actual operational issues?

I know it landed at Oshkosh (I was in it myself), but I remember being told it could not take off with a full fuel load. So that's not so helpful.

Dutchy wrote:

ytz wrote:

A huge part of AF1 being huge is the capability it brings as a flying command post. Along with other jazz like transport of Presidential motorcade vehicles, medical treatment space, etc. That requires space. And it's just not a requirement for anybody else but the POTUS. The rest of us just don't think our leaders that important!

I'm actually surprised there are a dozen nations that even use the 747. That seems high. But I think a lot will switch to twins or large bizjets going forward. Let's not forget that a huge part of the 747's appeal for a long time was range.

As far as I can see, there aren't a dozen nation that uses the 747:

Iran Imperial Iranian Air Force ♠[4]
Japan Government of Japan ♠[3]
Saudi Arabia Kingdom of Saudi Arabia ♠[3]
United Arab Emirates United Arab Emirates Presidential Flight ♠[3]
United States United States Air Force ♠[4]

Japan is set to replace them with the Boeing 77W

Irain are old ones (747-100/-100F/-200F), probably going to be replaced when widebodies start pouring in.

SA and the UAE just prestige and autocratic leaders, what is government and what is private there?

US --> replaced with the 748i.

I count 14. Quotes below all from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_trans ... government

Bahrain, Brunei, China, India, Japan, Kuwait, Morocco, Oman, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Taiwan, Abu Dhabi, Dubai, United States

You could argue some of these. For example, Abu Dhabi and Dubai are sort of the same country, but sort of have two heads of state. Taiwan's situation is complicated. etc.


Bahrain - The Bahrain Royal Flight operates a Boeing 747-400 and Boeing 747SP.

Brunei - Boeing 747-400 In service 1990. Bought for approx $100m and $120m outfit

China (People's Republic of China) - A commercial Air China Boeing 747-4J6 is converted for international travel when necessary. The plane is registered as B-2472. It is specially retrofitted during official use and returns to commercial service afterwards.

India - Since 2003, four Boeing 747-437B, equipped with jamming equipment, anti-missile systems and air-to-air refuelling facility, have been used as Air India One.

Japan - Japan maintains two Boeing 747-400 aircraft mostly for the Prime Minister, the Emperor, Empress and other members of the Imperial Family, operated by the Japan Air Self-Defense Force.

Kuwait - Until April 2013, the Emir of Kuwait used a Boeing 747-400; since then he has used either one of two Airbus A340-500 airframes equipped with military defense equipment to protect the plane from any potential attacks, also used by the Crown Prince of Kuwait, or since 2016, a Boeing 747-8 Intercontinental equipped similarly to the A340s.

Morrocco - The Moroccan Air Force operates a fleet of VIP aircraft for use by Moroccan officials, including King Mohammed VI and Prime Minister Saadeddine Othmani:
1 x Boeing 747-8EM

Oman - The Oman Royal Flight operates a Boeing 747-400, Boeing 747SP

Saudi Arabia - The Saudi Arabian Royal Flight operates a Boeing 747-300 and a Boeing 747-400 for use by the King of Saudi Arabia

South Korea - As of April 2010, the President of the Republic of Korea uses 2 CASA CN-235s, a Boeing 737-300 aircraft and a Boeing 747-400, leased from Korean Air for next five years.

Taiwan - Instead, a Boeing 747 or Boeing 777 operated by China Airlines ...

Dubai - The Dubai Royal Air Wing has 12 aircraft ranging in size from de Havilland Twin Otter to Boeing 747-400, used by the Emir of Dubai as well as government officials.

Abu Dhabi - Abu Dhabi Amiri Flight has 7 aircraft the smallest being an Airbus A320-200 and the largest being a Boeing 747-8BBJ.

United States -

Thanks for the extensive list.

Some are dedicated, some are in commercial use and sometimes used as government transports, some are used in a gray area between state and personal use (Middle East, Brunei).

The South Korean example is clearly one which should have been added to the list on wikipedia.

The Indian fleet, are those dedicated a/c or are they also used for passenger service? Seems a bit excessive if they only use it for VIP flights.

Wiki deleted country wise 747 listing which included all operators, as they find planespotters and airfleets unreliable reference sources.

Current list is based on original 747 operators only who ordered aircraft new direct from Boeing, with order book as the reference.

The previous list can be looked up in edit history of article.

Air India use them commercially.

dredgy wrote:

The US President is the only head of state that legitimately requires an aircraft that size (he has to travel with a huge entourage of staff and journalists but the 747 is big enough, and any aircraft used primarily as Air Force One has a to be American made if I recall correctly.

Is it legitimate to travel with a huge entourage of staff and journalists ? Especially when in fact there is a whole fleet of aircraft involved anyway ?

Why does the US president need that huge entourage more than other head of states ?

Aesma wrote:

dredgy wrote:

The US President is the only head of state that legitimately requires an aircraft that size (he has to travel with a huge entourage of staff and journalists but the 747 is big enough, and any aircraft used primarily as Air Force One has a to be American made if I recall correctly.

Is it legitimate to travel with a huge entourage of staff and journalists ? Especially when in fact there is a whole fleet of aircraft involved anyway ?

Why does the US president need that huge entourage more than other head of states ?

Ego. But it is legitimised that the presence of the US is also head of the military.

Dont Saudi gov. still have two 747SP?

quote from a post above 'Saudi Arabia - The Saudi Arabian Royal Flight operates a Boeing 747-300 and a Boeing 747-400 for use by the King of Saudi Arabia'

Aesma wrote:

dredgy wrote:

The US President is the only head of state that legitimately requires an aircraft that size (he has to travel with a huge entourage of staff and journalists but the 747 is big enough, and any aircraft used primarily as Air Force One has a to be American made if I recall correctly.

Why does the US president need that huge entourage more than other head of states ?

Purely to show off.

This topic is kinda getting off track. This isn't about our awesome AF-1 aircraft, it's about everyone else's aircraft. We are going to keep flying 747's for AF1 for the foreseeable future, it's happening, get over it. Some people on here almost seem envious.

Personally I don't care what other countries fly, it's not like it's coming out of my pocket. Fly whatever makes sense for your country.

Aesma wrote:

dredgy wrote:

The US President is the only head of state that legitimately requires an aircraft that size (he has to travel with a huge entourage of staff and journalists but the 747 is big enough, and any aircraft used primarily as Air Force One has a to be American made if I recall correctly.

Is it legitimate to travel with a huge entourage of staff and journalists ? Especially when in fact there is a whole fleet of aircraft involved anyway ?

Why does the US president need that huge entourage more than other head of states ?

The US probably has one of the biggest media markets. The press agencies in the White House Press Corps pay to put their reporters on AF1. It's a win win. The media get to keep up with POTUS and the White House keeps the American public up to date on the what the President is doing. It's also a tool for the president to keep the business of the country going. He can bring along key players and have meetings on the plane over the course of the trip.

tjh8402 wrote:

The US probably has one of the biggest media markets. The press agencies in the White House Press Corps pay to put their reporters on AF1. It's a win win.

Reality is more complicated than that. When Bill Clinton visited Denmark some twenty years back in time, then he arrived on two VC-25 and three C-5 Galaxy. The latter mainly contained vehicles, including three "Marines One" helicopters.

Nobody knew which VC-25 was actually Air Force One until one of them parked at the red carpet, while the other one continued to a remote stand.

The C-5's arrived well in advance. Some left early for next destination, Pargue, while others left the next day after having loaded the last heavy baggage.

Moving the POTUS around is a lot more complicated than most people imagine.

When Bill Clinton flew from Copenhagen to the lawn in front of the Queen's summer cottage 30 miles outside the city, then it happened on all three Marines One choppers. They approached the lawn from three different directions. Again nobody knew which one was the real Marines One until one landed at the red carpet.

"Moving the POTUS around is a lot more complicated than most people imagine." No, the President of America just has an overkill for security. No other head of state seems to need it. So, in the end, it is a choice not mandatory.

Not trying to suggest that every head of state should do like our Prime Minister of the Netherlands, Rutte.

MoonC wrote:

N14AZ wrote:

b747400erf wrote:

I think a couple private A380's are still on the order books though.

No, not a single one. Kingdom Holding had one A380 on order (a former testframe) but that order has been cancelled after the Sheikh’s death (don’t ask me for the full name - I don’t have so much time right now to quote the full name )

Uh? Al-Waleed bin Talal is still alive. That was gonna be his A380. Cancelled it for other reasons.

Ooops, I apologise. I mixed that up with another Sheikh or Prince who had an B748i on order but passed away (747classic has it in his regular updates in the 748-production-thread). But as they say “The condemned live longer”...

So I wonder why (or I simply don’t remember) he cancelled this contract (let alone HOW he managed to get out of that contract...) but I guess that’s o/t...

flyingclrs727 wrote:

A head of state plane based on the A380 would probably have built in airstairs similar to airstairs on the VC-25's. Still the A380 would be much more limited in the number of airports that can handle it than the 747. The 747 was designed to be able to use the same runways and taxiways as a 707. Perhaps the 747-8 is more restricted than the earlier versions of the 747, but its still able to use more airports than the A380.

The A380 can use the same runways as the 747. In fact it can land shorter.

dredgy wrote:

Tedd wrote:

I think President Putin could carry such an aircraft off. He`s not constrained by the wests tiresome concern
for seemingly wasting resources in transporting heads-of-state. The A380 would also befit his stature as head
of the Russian people, & would look great in his livery too! Why not?

He is nationalistic and uses Russian built aircraft. He wouldn’t want a European aircraft to showcase him to the world at a time when Russia/EU relations are abysmal. He wouldn’t give the Europeans the money for it and I’m not sure they’d accept it even if he wanted to. He’d go Boeing over Airbus any day.

The US President is the only head of state that legitimately requires an aircraft that size (he has to travel with a huge entourage of staff and journalistsbut the 747 is big enough, and any aircraft used primarily as Air Force One has a to be American made if I recall correctly.

Arabs are the only ones who could “justify”it, but it’s not a great time economically for oil producers. Qataris have the economic stability, so maybe once QR is ready to retire their A380s, one might be repurposed.

It is so hypocritical reading "The US President is the only head of state that legitimately requires an aircraft that size", it is prestige reasons like it would be for every other head of state, the USA president just can not arrive in a smaller frame than somebody else, having such a big frame it will be filled with journalists. The biggest home made aircraft it has to be and that is in the moment a 747-8.
The point is that all the really big countries have a reason to use a home produced frame or at least a frame from a friendly country.

Aesma wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

A head of state plane based on the A380 would probably have built in airstairs similar to airstairs on the VC-25's. Still the A380 would be much more limited in the number of airports that can handle it than the 747. The 747 was designed to be able to use the same runways and taxiways as a 707. Perhaps the 747-8 is more restricted than the earlier versions of the 747, but its still able to use more airports than the A380.

The A380 can use the same runways as the 747. In fact it can land shorter.

It's not runway performance that limits the A380, it's taxiways and ramp space.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

It's not runway performance that limits the A380, it's taxiways and ramp space.

A head of state plane is not going to use regular facilities for taxing/boarding. It will come and go using segregated/secured space of the airport (remote + booked taxiways) not interacting at all with regular operations. That scenario that some people like shaking doesn’t apply to this thread.

I think Israel should buy the Guatemalan president, Jimmy Morales, a 380 to reward his vote on Jerusalem.

Paint it in a Mayan livery - it'd be awesome!

Airbus just needs to design retractable wings on the thing first ...