Trump says cancel new Air Force One: Costs 'out of control'

[TexasTowelie]

Source: AP

NEW YORK (AP) — The government should cancel its multibillion-dollar order for new Air Force One presidential planes, Donald Trump declared Tuesday, serving notice he's ready to jump in and start making decisions six weeks before his inauguration.

Costs for the two Boeing 747s are "totally out of control," Trump told reporters in the lobby of his New York skyscraper.

The government has contracted with Boeing to build two or more new planes, which would go into service around 2024. That means Trump wouldn't fly on the new planes, which carry U.S. presidents around the globe, unless he pursued and won a second term. But the Air Force has pressed for a faster schedule, saying the current planes are becoming too expensive to repair and keep in good flying shape.

The contract for the planes was to be about $3 billion, but costs have been reported to be rising. Trump tweeted early Tuesday, "Boeing is building a brand new 747 Air Force One for future presidents, but costs are out of control, more than $4 billion. Cancel order!"

Read more: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/95684ac1d4a84415ad8b0dd89d01587c/trump-heads-back-out-road-thank-you-tour

---

Does anybody have a 1920's era crop-duster that can do the job?

[irisblue]

1. bet he tries upgrading his plane @ tax payers expense

[secondwind]

13. that was my thought EXACTLY!

[Sunlei]

27. he already has. campaign charged 10,000 an hour to use his antique jet & rest of security & journali

journalists had to hire more planes. He's a big lavish spender like all Republicans are of Americans money.

[MichMary]

42. I doubt it

I don't think his plane could be retrofitted to comply with the Secret Service's standards for presidential safety.

[MiniMe]

2. His way of not paying full price for the contract

Part of the Art of the Deal. Complain, complain, complain until the other party cuts their price. Boeing is never going to be paid for that contract, at least not full price.

[treestar]

24. I wonder does he realize he can't do that with the government

The government will pay its bills.

[lagomorph777]

66. This has nothing to do with the plane. It's Trumplethinskin's latest Twitter Tantrum.

The Boeing CEO mildly criticized Trump's trade policy, and Trump took offense. The whole thing looks "out of the blue" until you know that piece of it.

Trump takes on Boeing: Impact on defense stocks Trump takes on Boeing: Impact on defense stocks
18 Hours Ago | 03:17
Donald Trump's Tuesday morning criticism of Boeing closely followed the publication of a story in which the aerospace giant's CEO expressed concerns about the trade agenda Trump has backed.

The Chicago Tribune published a column Tuesday morning which included Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg's recent comments arguing that free trade is a crucial part of the U.S. economy. Boeing has a lucrative jet business in China.

Muilenburg expressed concerns about resistance to trade, which is partly driven by Trump repeatedly slamming the Trans-Pacific Partnership and North American Free Trade Agreement. Trump appealed to many blue-collar voters by saying those deals cost Americans jobs and depressed their wages.

Only 22 minutes after the article published, Trump threatened on Twitter to "cancel" Boeing's contract for new Air Force One jets, arguing that an unconfirmed $4 billion cost was too high for the project.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/06/trumps-boeing-attack-follows-article-with-ceos-pro-trade-argument.html

[MiniMe]

70. How comforting

[4139]

3. Err, he is very at take 'a nothing' and using it to own the news cycle

[Fichefinder]

4. Somehow this will be the fault of the Union!

I'm an aircraft mechanic, former Boeing production line worker. Their default position is to blame overruns on labor costs, instead of admitting that they make promises they can't keep.

[Warpy]

55. That's what he'll scream about but the cost probably reflects

state of the art secure communications and all sorts of other security gear to withstand all the "what if" scenarios dreamed up by the diseased minds at the Pentagon.

It's not just an ordinary rich man's airplane, Orange Cal. And no, it's not going to reflect your taste, either.

[justhanginon]

58. And we're not going to put you f'ing name on the side of it either.

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

5. It's another con-job on his part.

He wants them to buy his company new planes or use his and pay him for it like the Secret Service is going to have to do for The Tangeranus Tower in New York.

[Maven]

6. Translation: Lease a plane from the Trump Org for millions instead.

Kleptocracy continues apace, and he's not even in office yet.

[nini]

39. yep

exactly what I thought

[iluvtennis]

40. yep+1 n/t

yep+1

[no_hypocrisy]

48. yep +2

[SharonAnn]

7. Obama had a year left but couldn't get a supremem Court nominee. Trump sn't even in yet and

he's already making decisions.

Yuck!

[The Wielding Truth]

54. The Congress break for Christmas is when the recess appointment should be a go.

[AtheistCrusader]

77. The wailing will be glorious.

Many tears will be drunk on that day.

It will be the awesome-est Christmas present of my life.

[rzemanfl]

8. Isn't the 747 going out of production? n/t

[Brother Buzz]

14. The 747 would have been out of production years ago if Russia and China stopped buying them

[Travis_0004]

26. Perhaps

From and airline perspective, the 787 is just a better plane. You can react to changing demand easier, cost per passenger mile is lower, and you can offer more frequent flights for your customers.

That said, the Presidents needs are very different. Either way 747's will be around 30 years from now, and spare parts will be around 30 years from now.

[wordpix]

46. pundits this am were saying the new AF1 is planned with high tech security capability

I don't know what these planes normally cost but $4 billion sounds like a lot

[tammywammy]

49. $4B would be the lifetime cost

R&D, maintenance and fuel for 30/40 years. $4B,which is a number Trump made up, would be a good deal. The regular airplane costs around $169M.

But even more important they're not in production there is no behind schedule or over cost for the new AF1

[JudyM]

9. Perfect high-visibility iconic-of-establishment "kill" intended to counterbalance his establishment

Cabinet appointments.

[AtheistCrusader]

10. Why the fuck are they building it on the 747 platform?

It burns 3x as much fuel as the 787, and both the 777 and 787 are certified for international flight over water on 2 engines.

I know Trump doesn't give a shit about carbon footprint, but the 747 is dying, nearly end of life. It's going to have the same 'expensive to maintain' problems that the current fleet is having in like, 10 years tops.

[tammywammy]

18. From WaPo

Boeing’s 747-8 was the only plane made in the United States that could meet the requirements for the presidential aircraft while also being “consistent with the national public interest,” Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James said in a statement at the time.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/12/06/citing-cost-overruns-trump-says-boeings-contract-to-build-air-force-one-should-be-canceled/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_boeing-930a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

[AtheistCrusader]

20. As someone who has submitted plenty of RFP's in his time

I know you can tailor the requirements to the desired product/person.

Happens all the time.

[FBaggins]

31. Plus it appears that he doesn't need a large press cabin

OTOH a few presidents will use the next AF1.

[AtheistCrusader]

36. Right? All he needs is a 100$ android tablet and a twitter account.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

61. How does the 777 and 787 perform on one engine? Versus a 747 on three?

I know the industry has come a long way in the two engine planes and extended operation with one engine out...

But you can't beat the beauty of having 3 engines left if you lose one. Especially in some kind of the-shit-has-hit-the-fan crisis - The plane is built for The Commander in Chief.

[beaglelover]

63. Exactly. I want the POTUS on a 4 engine plane, not a 2 engine plane.

[AtheistCrusader]

65. Why?

In what practical reality is the president worth more than a standard 787 with 310 random American passengers?

If it's not safe for the president, it's not safe for commercial use at all.

[AtheistCrusader]

64. The CiC is expendable in war.

That is why we have a chain of command.

When you know the enemy will spend maximum effort to decapitate your government in war, you can try to harden the fuck out of the head (futile), or you can make the head unimportant.

A distributed chain is the only practical option. Go with two engines.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

67. Hooooookayyyyyyy. How does two engines make the CIC "unimportant"?

Still don't want an engine out to be an emergency for the President while he is traveling. With a 747 an engine out is a minor event that really doesn't even require a diversion.

With two engines they have to be much more careful how far they are from any given suitable airport.

There was a British Airways 747 that lost an engine just after departing LAX. They flew all the way to Europe on 3 engines. Can't do that in a twin.

[AtheistCrusader]

68. It doesn't.

I'm saying the CiC is not more important than any standard planeload of US citizens, and if two engines is sufficient for 310 passengers, it's sufficient for the CiC and cohort.

(I realize 310 is a lot for a 787, but the -10 model can do it.)

[Hassin Bin Sober]

69. I edited the post this reply is to.

What's your beef with the 747?

Fuel? It's not like they are running scheduled service 24/7 while in use.

[AtheistCrusader]

71. It's a deprecated platform.

It's going away. End of life. It is going to have the same costs, due to economy of scale, that they are fighting today with a 30 year old aircraft. But instead of in 30 years, they're going to have the SAME problem in 10.

These craft are being retired already due to fuel consumption. A single economic driving force. Nostalgia buys you NOTHING in this space. Nothing. Not worth a hoot. It's done.

Fuel? It's not like they are running scheduled service 24/7 while in use.

If that objection meant anything, it would apply to the current fleet.


Consider the A-10 warthog. A aircraft the army SCREAMS for, demands, NEEDS, but consumption has rendered it un-manufacture-able. Despite the pentagon having a practically unlimited budget; there are no new airframes. The things are hitting end of life due to metal fatigue, and there are no new airframes. They still have the jigs to make new airframes. No plans to make any. It's 'obsolete'. It's dead. Despite being the workhorse today and for the foreseeable future for close air support.


Time to evolve. Time to be more efficient. Time to move 'with the times' as they say. There is no reason for the Office of the President to not conform to current trends in air travel. Consider that we live in a time when a sitting US president may 'pop in' to the International Space Station and that would not be a terribly shocking idea. It's going to happen in our living lifetimes. Suborbital and orbital travel by a sitting US head of state. It's coming.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

72. I think you are thinking too much as if the plane is going in to commercial fleet operations.

Fuel economy doesn't mean squat. Yeah it's not as fuel efficient. It doesn't have to be.

Regardless of how expendable you think the CIC is in times of war, the plane needs to be able to stay aloft for literally days at a time in the event of a major shooting war. That's the ultimate mission. And you can't spec out a two engine plane to complete that mission. You just can't.

The avionics and engines are the same equipment (obviously with minor modifications) being installed in current model year aircraft. So parts will be as available as a currently produced 787.

Who cares about "deprecated platform" other than commercial fleet operators? Not the guys who still operate a fleet of B-52s. It's a proven reliable safe design that can complete the worst case scenario mission. It's the only American made plane that fits the bill - probably the only plane.

[AtheistCrusader]

73. EVERYTHING needs to be more fuel efficient. No exceptions.

You LEAD by DOING. (part of what scares the shit out of me about Trump)

Carter put solar panels on the white house despite the cost/difficulty to retrofit. Reagan ripped them off. Obama put them back. It's a statement of leadership. Fuel economy of AF1 is a policy statement on consumption and carbon footprint.

We make multiple multi-day sustained flight two engine aircraft. The KC-676 can circle the globe with in-flight refueling. So yes, we can spec out an aircraft for that.

SOME avionics equipment will overlap, but not all. In that sense, had AF1(s) been updated over time to glass cockpits and other modern 747 avionics packages, it would still be viable, no? They can unbolt most of the cockpit and remove it, and upgrade it over time. But they didn't and aren't, and are now citing costs.

You don't cite maintenance costs for a 30 year old 747 as a reason to supplant it with a new 747 when there are better options on the table and the 747 is end of life. And there ARE better domestic-made aircraft on the table.


The last BUFF was made in 1962 and there will be no more produced. Ever. As they go out of service, they are not replaced. You could. It is a certainty that the air force has the jigs and tools squirreled away somewhere. But none will be made. Zero. There are better options.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

79. Let's see the KC-676 do that with an engine out. It can't. That's the point

The 747-800 is designed to accommodate current avionics and engines. They are not retrofitting a 200.

[AtheistCrusader]

81. Unclear.

The base model 676 does have a shorter ETOPS rating than the 777, 787, or 747, but the military KC-676 ETOPS rating is not public data.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

83. Military as far as I know, doesn't use etops.

I don't think cargo does either.

I doubt it's very hard to figure out what a military twin max aloft with one out would be seeing as though they use civilian engines and civilian planes.

Im sure the military's rules are way less conservative in time of war but there is a point at which something will have to give running a twin on one engine indefinitely.

Thats why the "doomsday planes " are also 747s.

Sure you can run a twin with one engine till it becomes a glider. But you wouldn't spec it for a mission requiring potential extended/days time aloft.

Like my first flight instructor used to say "you can do it, but now you're a test pilot"

[AtheistCrusader]

74. You realize that it was widely reported that Boeing artifically inflated 747 production JUST to win

the Air Force 1 contract right?

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-airforce-boeing-idUSKBN0L12FP20150128

But the Air Force order for a few 747s might not extend the life of the 747 program, which has failed to capture much business in recent years.

Boeing was clearly trying to preserve production so it could fill the Air Force order, said Richard Aboulafia, an analyst at Teal Group in Fairfax, Virginia. Now that the firm order is there, he said, it might be an opportunity for the program to end.

And the Air Force is bidding on more than just the plane, but the ability to MAKE major components of it.

It said it planned to purchase enough of the technical baseline to permit competition for maintenance during the plane's planned 30-year life.

[Plucketeer]

11. Trump'll get a better deal

as soon as his kids set up their aircraft leasing business!

[bucolic_frolic]

12. Short-sighted pecuniary thinking is not a path to progress

Trump is going backwards

Wish he'd pedal real fast

[Renew Deal]

15. The planes are a matter of national security

They aren't just transportation.

[DeminPennswoods]

59. Yep

nt

[yallerdawg]

16. "We can't trust the government to do anything right."

Corrupt Trump wants to tear up every trade agreement, every contract, every function of government.

This is just another step in the rightwing conservative Republican goal to de-legitimize the Federal government - and throw us to the wolves.

Regulations and standards keep many private-sector companies from competing for government contracts.

Now throw in an increasing possibility we won't honor our contracts or pay our bills?

Pass legislation that is only honored until the next election?

"This is the way the world ends, not with a bang but a whimper."

[hollowdweller]

17. Just like the Carrier Deal this will be a huge political plus for Trump.

Just like him jabbing China.

Just like him talking about a tarriff.

This stuff is going to be hugely popular. Stuff Dems should have floated more aggressively.

It's really galling me that a so called republican is out flanking the Dems on the little guy stuff.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

19. So you want us to be more like Trump?

Say what?

[Renew Deal]

22. Obama cancelled two new helicopters when he started

And no one cared

[yallerdawg]

25. Not the same at all.

The contracts had been frozen for a number of reasons before Obama took office.

Lockheed has made progress on the first increment, having built four test models and three of the helicopters that will eventually be used. Those aircraft are supposed to be delivered by the end of 2010. But the Pentagon issued a stop-work order at the end of 2007 on the second increment as costs continued to rocket upward. Divided by 28 helicopters, the overall cost works out to $400 million per aircraft, roughly the same as the $410 million that the government paid in 1990 for the latest two Air Force One jetliners plus a hangar.

The notice to Congress last month means the program must now be recertified by Mr. Gates to proceed. Ms. DeLauro and other members of the Connecticut delegation wrote the Navy last week asking it to consider reopening the bidding on the contract or turning part of it over to Sikorsky. Critics said Mr. Obama should pull the plug. “The VH-71 is a waste of time, money and resources,” said Lt. Col. Gene T. Boyer, a retired Army pilot who flew three presidents, including Nixon on the flight after his resignation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/16/us/politics/16chopper.html

[OKNancy]

21. Trump job killer

Throw that back at his creepy orangeness

[hamsterjill]

23. It's all bluster for his Twitter followers.

This will look to them like he's trying to save them money.

The fact of the matter is that the new places wouldn't go into service until after Trump's (hopefully only!!!) term is up. So this is nothing that will affect him. In other words, if he can't have the new toy when HE's President, then no one should.

For his base of ignoramuses, he's trying to pretend that he's not the rich, entitled SOB who we all know he is. Air Force One probably doesn't have a portrait of him, so he'll insist on flying in his gold-plated Trump plane.

[machoneman]

33. One more issue:

Just like the one shot Carrier deal, Trumpenstein heralds the 'easy' win here (even though he can't stop it now or even after he takes office. Boeing would sue and win) but trying to take this idea nationally is hard, takes a village so to speak, and takes time.

I've a better idea: get the navy to stop building it's newest generation of ships, the Air Force to stop buying the F-35 and other misc. war weapons we don't need. See, doing so here would be really hard as it would impact almost every single Republican Senator's and many House representative's districts. Heck, he'd hear the howling all the way from D.C. to NYC's Trump Tower.

See, he'll take all the cheap and easy press for now and even some time later. But eventually, all his crap will catch up to him as true legislating, policy making and the like are hard tasks that require analysis, judgement, cost/benefit reviews and more, things he knows nothing about!

God help us!

[hamsterjill]

50. God, I hope you're right!

"But eventually, all his crap will catch up to him as true legislating, policy making and the like are hard tasks that require analysis, judgement, cost/benefit reviews and more, things he knows nothing about!"

I hope someone will start to understand that this maniac is crazy. Before he blows us all up.

[HassleCat]

28. All rightee then!

Same for the F35 and V22, right Mister President Elect?

[jberryhill]

29. Of course to "review" it, his team will need detailed information on all of the security features

Ordinarily, the details of the communication and defensive features of the aircraft would not be sent to the Office of the President.

However, since he can surely personally review these features on taking office, in the course of 'reconsidering' the contract, then this will provide the vehicle for the Russians to get the details.

[Retrograde]

30. But the costs for him shutting down

mid-town Manhattan are perfectly reasonable?

[Paladin]

32. Meanwhile, the security costs for keeping the Trumps in Manhattan keep rising. (nt)

[evilhime]

34. But facts are . .

http://gizmodo.com/trump-bitches-about-air-force-one-upgrade-he-wont-get-t-1789726467

[Lithos]

35. Dead cat

Obama care won't be repealed.

L-

[turbinetree]

37. Hey serial predator Dumpster diver, do you fully understand that American public

Last edited Tue Dec 6, 2016, 02:22 PM - Edit history (1)

is not going to pay for you to fly around in your 1990's B757-200 and rename it trump 1. I have better name serial predator 1.

I just wonder what your call sign is going to be by the secret service, anyone know? I have one look above and it starts with serial

You do fully realize that the B747-200 currently flying around is over 30 years old, and if you think that just not paying for a "new B747-8 is some how another scheme that you are going to save money, your full of shit, not only are you full of shit your full of serial predator fascist shit.

I know you can't comprehend this , but do you fully understand that A/C costs only about 370 million dollars to build, including engines, its 'the counter measures and the other looking glass systems that are installed, to, you, know, have secure sites from your Russian masters, and other secure communications and threat awareness systems, and refueling capabilities, are you that fucking stupid and you do realize that costs are associated for three A/C. Do you understand why there are four engines on the A/C for this particular plane------------right and not two, its called ETOPS , shit for brains, and the rules for ETOPS, that even the military has to uphold by the FAA, did you think of that fascist. When you go buzzing around in your B757-200 its either ETOPs Certificated or it is not. And just for good measure its the "airborne white house with both the military and civilian staff

You are such a dip shit, where you on your golden throne tweeting this shit?

Did you not say that your were going build the best Military, well shit for brains it starts with this airplane, its a command center for the military and the for the congressional leaders and representatives of this country dumb shit, if the country is under attack and it the f***ing white house.

And the media is still trying to "normalize" you and your bigot buddy pence, amazing.

Your bilking seniors and having over 750 lawsuits pending against you says everything about your cost overs and stiffing people out of money you still owe

I really believe that 65 million people that voted against you should not pay taxes, since you don't and you may get to ride on a taxpayer jet, depending on the recounts that are popping up

[spiderpig]

44. As usual this all boils down to It's All About The Donald

2024 delivery? He won't be able to use it much, so why should anyone else?

Unless he decides he can change the 2-term presidential limit. After all, he thinks he can do anythinbg he wants.

[turbinetree]

45. He not even been confirmed yet---------------and the media is "normalizing " this jerk--amazing

Is it just me? I don't think so

He is not the president, he's a nobody, he's a fascist and megalomaniac narcissistic serial predator to boot

[AtheistCrusader]

76. The 747-8 and both the 777 and 787 are ETOPS 330 certified.

so.... um.

The trip7 actually holds the longest duration ETOPS emergency record. 117 minutes on one engine. 225 passengers, zero fatalities. Also broke the eastbound great circle route 'distance without landing' record.

[turbinetree]

80. I remember when we had a busted ETOPS Aircraft

and they scheduled the aircraft to fly to Hawaii, it did not have the APU generator, but both aircraft generators. Maintenance control was trying to convince us that the a/c was ETOPS qualified, we said no, if the generator is lost on the engine there would remain only one, you can't have it in a either or situation, you need that APU generator, and it needs to be able to start at flight altitude or cold start, you do have to have air start capability of the APU but you need that generator. You can cross bleed the engine for restart and not have a generator .
To say the least the plane did not depart, no one would sign off the log book, pilot was beside himself and was upset, but safety and the MEL override everything

[Taitertots]

38. Its enough to build two burj Kalifias

Or create an automotive manufacturing company.

[truthisfreedom]

41. He's not president.

He's not in a position to endanger the real President.

[MFM008]

43. Let him have whichever

Responds worse to a lightening strike...........

[wordpix]

47. lololol lmao

[MontanaMama]

51. REALLY?

I'll tell you what is out of control...A million dollars a day to keep Melanoma and child safe at TT in New York because the White House isn't good enough for your gold plated asses!!! Holy crap. STFU donald.

[still_one]

52. Boeing responded as follows:

"“Boeing is building a brand new 747 Air Force One for future presidents, but costs are out of control, more than $4 billion. Cancel order!” the president-elect tweeted.

It’s not clear how Trump, who frequently tweets exaggerated or baseless claims, arrived at that number. Reuters, citing budget documents, reported that the “budgeted costs for the Air Force One replacement program are $2.87 billion for the fiscal years 2015 through 2021.”

The aircraft manufacturing company issued a statement clarifying that it is currently under contract for $170 million to determine the capabilities of the new aircraft.

“We are currently under contract for $170 million to help determine the capabilities of these complex military aircraft that serve the unique requirements of the President of the United States. We look forward to working with the U.S. Air Force on subsequent phases of the program allowing us to deliver the best planes for the President at the best value for the American taxpayer.”

Gee, Mr. trump LIED again

https://www.yahoo.com/news/boeing-responds-after-trump-knocks-contract-for-air-force-one-jets-174029191.html

[yurbud]

53. "AND it's not solid gold and doesn't have a single f$%@&*g "T" on it anywhere!"

[tammywammy]

56. BTW, for anyone not familiar with government contracts

Specifically defense (AF1 is a military aircraft).

It is very different than commercial contracting. The government sees all your data. All of it. I'm going to make up some numbers here. But if Boeing is responding to a Request for Proposal (RFP) to the government and they say Project A will be $4B, included in that proposal is all their cost data. So $4B would include all materials and labor associated with it and how they determine all labor costs. And then after it's submitted to the government the DCMA does their fact finding. And DCMA sends a report to the customer with how much they think it should cost. AND THEN the customer also looks at what you've submitted and figure up how much they think it'll cost.

And the government all gets your cost data. So you say subcontractor X cost $1B well you provide that information to the customer. In commercial contracting you don't show the customer how much your products actually cost to produce, with the government you give them all your cost data as part of the requirements of the FAR (part 15) and Federal Truth in Negotiations Act.

AND even more the contract spells out specifically how much fee and profit the contractor will make. It's right there in black and white. There are normal percentages applied to the proposal to get the profit total.

TL/DR - no government contractor (i.e. Boeing) is contracted for anything that really costs $1B and getting $3B in profit. Trump is a dumbass. Period.

[DeminPennswoods]

60. Very true

Very little the government does is like anything in the private sector. Defense contracting is a big one. I've been privy to a couple of headline stories about over-priced parts, but that simplification ignores the small quantities that DoD often buys and the specialized requirements.

[Javaman]

57. pissing off the MIC.

this will get interesting really quick.

[titaniumsalute]

62. No...the asshole's New York living stint is out of control

What a whacked POS shit Trump.

[adigal]

75. I heard McCain, I think, say that maybe Air Force One doesn't need all the security it has

And I was wondering if he was hoping to make that change and then put Donny on it.

[dembotoz]

78. Anything is too much til it proves to be not enough

The 20-20 hindsight thing

[supernova]

82. Hey, if he doesn't want a new secure plane

and thinks his private jet is all that, who am I to argue? Not that private employees can't be bribed or avoid proper security protocols to be cleared to work closely with the president and his/her family. No, none of that matters when there is more profit to be squeezed.