The two Boeing 747-8 jets being built to serve as the next Air Force One were supposed to be a straightforward, if expensive, upgrade. Instead, the program has become one of the Pentagon’s most visible financial disasters, with costs now exceeding $4.3 billion, delivery potentially years away, and Boeing hemorrhaging money on a contract it locked in at a fixed price.
As of spring 2026, the sitting president still flies aboard a pair of VC-25A aircraft, modified 747-200Bs that entered service in 1990. Those planes are older than many of the crew members who operate them. The replacements, designated VC-25B, were originally expected by the mid-2020s. That timeline has collapsed.
A fixed-price deal that keeps getting more expensive
The financial damage is not speculation. It is documented in Boeing’s own regulatory filings. In its quarterly report for the period ended June 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Boeing disclosed reach-forward losses and additional charges tied directly to the VC-25B program. That filing is the most recent SEC disclosure reviewed for this article; a subsequent quarterly or annual filing may have been published since then and could contain updated loss figures. Under the fixed-price structure of the contract, Boeing absorbs the cost of every overrun rather than billing the government. Each schedule slip and labor problem cuts deeper into the company’s balance sheet.
On December 12, 2025, the Department of Defense announced contract modification P00161, awarding Boeing up to $15.5 million for VC-25B communications expansion work. That modification brought the cumulative contract value to $4,315,589,245. Critically, the government noted that this communications work sits outside the firm-fixed-price engineering and manufacturing core of the program. In other words, the $4.3 billion figure includes both the original build contract and a growing list of add-on work that is not subject to the fixed-price ceiling. That structure gives the Air Force flexibility to refine mission systems as technology evolves, but it also creates a pathway for incremental cost growth that is harder to track at a glance.
Delivery could slip past 2029
The schedule picture is bleak. In February 2025, more than a year before this article’s publication, a senior Boeing official told Reuters that the Air Force One program “could be delayed until 2029 or later,” citing Boeing’s inability to consistently hire and retain mechanics. That workforce problem is not unique to the VC-25B. Boeing’s defense and commercial divisions have struggled with the same issue across multiple programs in recent years.
No newer official Air Force or Boeing statement has surfaced to confirm or revise the 2029 projection. The Reuters report remains the most recent publicly available timeline estimate identified for this article, though its age means conditions may have shifted in the intervening months. Until the service publishes an updated acquisition program baseline or issues a formal schedule revision, any delivery date remains provisional. Whether the 2029 target is realistic, pessimistic, or optimistic depends on variables that are not visible in the public record, including how much schedule margin remains and whether additional technical or supply-chain problems emerge.
What the budget numbers reveal
The VC-25B program does not exist in a vacuum. Every dollar Congress directs toward the Air Force One replacement is a dollar unavailable for other aircraft programs competing for the same budget accounts. A Congressional Research Service report on the FY2026 defense budget, available through Congress.gov, provides nonpartisan analysis of how the VC-25B fits into Air Force procurement and research funding lines. The program’s share of total defense spending is relatively small, but its political visibility makes it a lightning rod in debates over Pentagon priorities.
Boeing’s SEC filing groups the VC-25B with other defense programs, so the precise per-aircraft loss figure is not independently verifiable from the disclosure alone. Analysts have cited various estimates over the years, but Boeing has never published a standalone accounting of VC-25B losses. That opacity leaves outside observers to infer, rather than calculate, how much of the company’s broader defense portfolio stress flows from this single effort.
Big gaps in the public record
For all the documented cost growth, several important questions remain unanswered. The Air Force has not released a detailed mitigation plan addressing the workforce shortages Boeing identified as the primary cause of delays. No inspector general review has publicly confirmed whether Boeing has implemented specific remedies or whether the government has adjusted its oversight approach.
Congressional action on the program also lacks a clear trail. Lawmakers have raised concerns in past years about fixed-price development contracts and Boeing’s performance on other efforts, but no public hearing transcripts, floor votes, or committee markups specifically addressing VC-25B cost growth have been identified in recent reporting. Whether Congress is preparing tighter oversight, additional reporting requirements, or simply accepting the current trajectory is an open question.
There is also no public accounting of what happens after delivery. The sources available focus on development and procurement costs, not on the decades of maintenance, upgrades, and security enhancements that typically follow for presidential aircraft. Without official lifecycle cost projections, it is impossible to compare the VC-25B program’s total burden on taxpayers to the cost of extending the aging VC-25A fleet or pursuing some alternative.
Why the fixed-price model is on trial
The VC-25B program is backed by some of the strongest evidence available in defense procurement: SEC filings with legal accountability, official contract notices, and nonpartisan congressional analysis. Together, those sources confirm that the effort has grown more expensive than originally envisioned and that Boeing is absorbing substantial losses under the fixed-price terms it agreed to.
But the public record is also frustratingly incomplete. It does not reveal how deep Boeing’s losses truly run on these two aircraft, how resilient the current schedule is, or how aggressively the Air Force and Congress intend to manage the remaining risks. The program that was supposed to prove fixed-price contracts could discipline Pentagon spending has instead become a case study in how even tightly structured deals can spiral when industrial capacity erodes and complexity compounds.
For taxpayers, the stakes are concrete. The outcome will determine not just what the next Air Force One looks like, but whether the fixed-price model the government increasingly favors for high-profile defense work can actually deliver on its promise.
More from Morning Overview
*This article was researched with the help of AI, with human editors creating the final content.
