this post was submitted on 22 May 2025
171 points (98.9% liked)

World News

1124 readers
601 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be a decent person
  2. No spam
  3. Add the byline, or write a line or two in the body about the article.

Other communities of interest:

founded 7 months ago
MODERATORS
all 48 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] DarkFuture@lemmy.world 20 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Oh look. Another violation of our Constitution.

Hope everyone is well aware that our Constitution is basically toilet paper now.

The collapse of our democracy is imminent.

[–] j_elgato@leminal.space 1 points 2 hours ago

Imminent?

Hmm.. I think it has already happened and we are just in there awkward lull as we await the consequences to start rolling in...

[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 2 points 10 hours ago (3 children)

Can we please stop all planes that use fossil fuels?

[–] Anomalocaris@lemm.ee 4 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

i wish, batteries are still too heavy to replace jet fuel, hydrogen could work weight wise, but too low density and you just don't have space in an airplane (you could design one but it'll be too big and have too much drag).

best possibility for now is biofuels. basically plug and play.

better yet, replace all major overland routes with high speed rail, much cheaper than flying anyways.

[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 0 points 2 hours ago

Sail boats work great.

[–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 2 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

not realistically with our current technology

[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 0 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Lol we had this tech for centuries

[–] Zron@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

We’ve had batteries with better energy density than fossil fuels for centuries?

Were the Roman’s just sitting on magic batteries but did nothing with them because no one had invented the iPhone yet?

[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Nope. Sails. They work great for moving people and cargo across oceans.

No fossil fuels required

[–] TheTurner@lemm.ee 15 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Hey. I thought he was supposed to be cutting costs.

[–] Anomalocaris@lemm.ee 4 points 4 hours ago

Taxpayers spending billions to accept a bribe that's a fraction of the cost.

America cant even do bribing right.

[–] BigMacHole@lemm.ee 63 points 1 day ago

This is EXACTLY why we ELIMINATED my Child's EDUCATION! So we can Afford THIS!

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 61 points 1 day ago (2 children)

And since the plane gets transferred to Trump's actual ownership after his term, Trump gets a free $2billion plane..

[–] leftytighty@slrpnk.net -2 points 3 hours ago

lol that's not how value works. If you add $1 million worth of mods to your civic and then remove them for a similar cost, you still have an old civic

[–] clay_pidgin@sh.itjust.works 32 points 1 day ago

The military is already ordered to strip it again when they are don't with it, meaning he gets all the work done for free.

[–] Letstakealook@lemm.ee 35 points 1 day ago (3 children)

I wonder how many better planes could be built for that price.

[–] DrDickHandler@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

You are missing the point. They are using these defence contracts to funnel themselves money.

[–] evidences@lemmy.world 26 points 1 day ago

Well considering the current contract for the two 747s Boeing is currently converting for the government is a fixed cost contract that's already paid for technically infinite I guess?

[–] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 21 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The Air Force awarded Boeing a $3.9 billion contract in 2018 for two new Air Force One planes, updated VC-25B models based on the newer 747-8I. Delivery originally was slated for 2024 but currently they are looking at 2027.

[–] Letstakealook@lemm.ee 2 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

I guess not quite 1, but at least it isn't decades old. Though, who knows, government projects like this have a habit of ballooning in cost.

[–] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 7 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

That was a fixed price contract for the new planes. Boeing will have to eat any cost overruns. Their CEO has Already been complaining about it.

The days of cost plus contracting with companies like Boeing are essentially gone luckily. Now that the practice is decently well known by the public, it can't just be hidden as a cost of private sector business anymore like they used to claim.

A decently large reason for that is SpaceX's dramatically cheaper space launch costs, even with iterative design principles resulting in a lot of "waste" designs and products being destroyed or never used. Their contracts were fixed prices through NASA commercial programs so they never received contracts cost plus the way companies like Boeing did, so they actually optimized to minimize their costs. They proved in the real world that cost plus wasn't necessary for those contracts at all, and Boeing has been one of the worst hit by that.

[–] Letstakealook@lemm.ee 1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

I meant the updating of the Qatari plane could balloon to equal the cost of one of the newer planes.

[–] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 1 points 22 hours ago

Oh possibly. Not sure the government has even signed those contracts yet at this point.

The one surprising thing is that the Qatari jet is actually a 747-8 model like the two new contracted planes. So I suppose it could technically be outfitted as a new Air Force One, then only one of the new airframes finished and outfitted, and then gut this to finish the second new airframe, leaving a gutted 747-8 for Trump.

But we know that's not what will happen.

[–] TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com 28 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

for scale ... how much is that in little girl dolls ?

30 dolls ? 100 dolls ?

[–] OmegaLemmy@discuss.online 6 points 21 hours ago

Ten million

[–] doctortofu@reddthat.com 27 points 1 day ago (1 children)

See, that's what government efficiency looks like!

[–] Ledericas@lemm.ee 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

trump the ever moron, thought he was getting a steal, when in fact that 400million jet had a very expensive upkeep. it was mostly like costing QATARIS to even having sit in an airplane hanger in thier country before "gifting" it to trump.

[–] flandish@lemmy.world 18 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

spend our money. to corporations. for this shit.

[–] Anomalocaris@lemm.ee 4 points 4 hours ago

Hey, if you can figure out a cheaper way for the president to accept bribes they'll be happy to ignore it

[–] svc@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz 13 points 1 day ago

How I learned to stop worrying and love the grift

[–] Skua@kbin.earth 7 points 1 day ago (2 children)

OP, I think you just linked ABC's home page instead of the article

[–] 20cello@lemmy.world 3 points 23 hours ago

Hahaha, haha, American people won't allow this, they have guns