Emirates airline president reveals staggering cost to transform Qatari ‘sky Palace' into Trump's new Air Force One jet

DONALD Trump's luxury "sky Palace" gifted to him by Qatar will cost a few billion dollars, says the President of Emirates airline.
The US government now faces a "Herculean task" to transform the huge Boeing 747-8 into a new Air Force One fit for a president, warns Sir Tim Clark.
Advertisement
9
President Trump boards Air Force One earlier this month
Credit: Reuters
9
President of Emirates airline Sir Tim Clark believes it will cost a few billion dollars to properly transform it into a replacement Air Force One
Credit: Emirates
9
A look inside the lavish $400million plane shows the Boeing kitted out in gold
Credit: YouTube/Spotti Flight
9
President Trump, 78, sparked concerns earlier this month with his willingness to accept the plush flying mansion from the Qatari royal family.
The giant gift, worth an estimated $400m (£300m), has raised several ethical questions about if the US leader should be allowed to accept such expensive goods from other states.
But despite the controversy, Trump gladly took the 13-year-old mega jet back to Washington with him.
He now plans to make it part of his Air Force One fleet alongside two other Boeing 747-200 jumbo jets.
Advertisement
They have been operational since 1990 but are now said to be not up to scratch compared to modern planes such as Qatar's 747-8.
In order for it to become a fully fledged member of the president's aviation arsenal however, it will need to go through some serious work.
It would have to be kitted out with top-tier communications and security tech before ever ferrying around Trump.
And significant retrofitting and clearance from security officials would be required.
Advertisement
Sir Tim, president of Emirates, told Piers Morgan Uncensored that President Trump's flashy plans may cost a 'couple of billion dollars'.
He explained to Piers: 'I think you're talking a couple of billion dollars to start with.
Trump's new $400m Qatari Air Force One jet from Qatar is 'hackers dream'
"Just roll back a little bit and look at what it takes for us to convert our 777s - from the old to the new - because we haven't got the Boeing's coming in at the pace we want them so we're having to reconfigure all of them."
The top aviation boss said trying to fix up all the jets as an airline has been an extremely tough task.
Advertisement
Tim admitted to "pulling his hair out" over the regulators and the tiny tweaks that have to be made to modernise a plane of that size and stature.
And he believes the US government will face an even trickier - and much more expensive - battle to get the gifted plane ready for presidential trips.
He said: "It's a Herculean task, make no mistake about it.
"Whether President Trump will adapt fully, this present from Qatar, to an Air Force One I doubt it, but he'll certainly get a lot of it done."
Advertisement
Aviation specialist Jeff Wise also told The Sun that he expects the Air Force One replacement to take years and need billions of dollars pumped into the project to make the jet viable.
Trump's Air Force One jets currently in use come with dozens of specialised security features.
9
Donald Trump's new 'sky Palace' which he has been gifted from the Qatari government
Credit: YouTube/Spotti Flight
9
The jet would need to be kitted out with top-tier communications and security tech before being used as Air Force One
Credit: YouTube/Spotti Flight
Advertisement
9
The plane marks the most expensive gift ever given to a US president
Credit: YouTube/Spotti Flight
These include armoured glass and plating, on board flares to confuse enemy missiles, mirror-ball defences and even an electric jamming system.
Another unique yet needed element is an electromagnetic shield for nuclear explosions.
This has to be on a presidential plane as the leader of Washington can actually launch a nuke from the aircraft.
Advertisement
But the new Qatari jet lacks most of these security features.
Instead, the lavish aeroplane boasts a luxurious interior, featuring spacious suites and rooms with ornate interior decoration.
It also has glittering gold-coloured furnishings and hallways that echo Trump's well-know interior design preferences.
The president is believed to have spent an hour inspecting the plan when when it was parked at West Palm Beach International Airport back in February.
Advertisement
The luxury Boeing was once even listed for a whopping $400 million, according to the Business Jet Traveler.
During his first stint in office, Trump had ordered two new Air Force One jumbo jets from Boeing to replace the pair that have been in service since George H. W. Bush's presidency.
But the Boeing contract has faced delays, and reports suggest the new plans would not be ready until after Trump leaves the Oval Office.
Fears Trump's new Air Force One replacement is vulnerable to devastating HACKS – or worse
By Chief Foreign Reporter, Katie Davis
A LAVISH jumbo jet Donald Trump plans to receive from Qatar will be vulnerable to hacking, an expert has warned.
The Boeing 747 - dubbed a "palace in the sky" - could even be blasted out the sky, aviation specialist Jeff Wise believes.
He fears Trump may bypass necessary measures to save time and money - which could therefore invite hacking or a devastating assassination attempt.
Wise told The Sun: 'This Air Force One would be a major intelligence target for any adversary nation or even our allies, because allies love to spy on each other.
'The United States is being given this albatross that they are going to have to spend billions of dollars on to fix up for the personal use of Trump.
'If your job is to protect the President of the United States or if your job is to protect the secrets of the United States, then this is a massive headache for you.
'This is a plane that does not have secure communications and the anti-missiles defence systems that a normal Air Force One has. It's just wide open.
'This is an administration that is completely irresponsible in the way they use their personal devices. They're using these off-brand apps to communicate. It's just a hacker's dream.'
Wise continued: 'I would say an increasing number of people would like to target Air Force One.
'America's list of enemies is growing longer and longer as we become an increasingly horrible nation, from the Houthis to the Iranians to the Russians.'
9
Trump sparked concern after he willingly accepted the plush plane from the Qatari royal family, headed by Qatar's Emir Sheikh Tanim bin-Hamad Al Thani
Credit: AP
Advertisement

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

NBC News

31 minutes ago

• NBC News

Trump meets with national security team as B-2 bombers head to Guam

President Trump returned to the White House on Saturday to meet with his national security team, as he continues to consider a potential U.S. strike on Iran. It comes as several B-2 stealth bombers head to the Pacific, according to two defense officials, though their mission remains unclear. NBC News' Vaughn Hillyard is traveling with the president.

Times

an hour ago

• Times

How Israel could go it alone without US bunker buster bombs

The United States appears to have sent two B-2 stealth bombers to a military base in the Indian Ocean. The decision to send the warplanes, shortly after sending the USS Nimitz aircraft carrier to the region, could be a last minute negotiating tactic or a prelude to war. The bombers, which were probably making their way to Guam or the Diego Garcia military base, are equipped with the capability to use 'bunker buster' bombs which could offer the best chance of taking out Iran's Fordow nuclear facility. However, President Trump is still uncommitted for the time being to offensive action and is talking up diplomacy. If the president is unwilling to use his assets in the region to attack Iran, the question arises of how far the Israelis might be able to go on their own. Several targets, including the heavy-water reactor at Arak and the most important uranium enrichment plant, Natanz, have already been struck. The boss of the International Atomic Energy Agency has confirmed that the centrifuges there were stopped so abruptly by airstrikes that they have been 'severely damaged if not destroyed altogether'. But other key sites are believed to remain intact, including the Isfahan Nuclear Technology Centre and the uranium enrichment plant deep underground at Fordow. The first of these (also a subterranean facility) is thought to have been the storage site for the 400-plus kilograms of uranium already enriched close to weapons grade. The second site is home to the most secure processing facilities available to the Islamic Republic. So, what are the other options? Expert opinion seems divided. Yoav Gallant, Israel's defence minister until last year, in an article in the Free Press co-authored with Sir Niall Ferguson, argued, 'only one air force has the power to finish off Fordow … only America can do this'. Gallant, however, like many on the Israeli side, wants to draw the Americans in, and US attacks on this and other deeply buried facilities might turn out to be more a question of delaying for longer than completely eliminating Iran's nuclear programme. Even if America does join in the assault, Fordow's centrifuges, shielded by 80-90 metres of rock, may prove invulnerable to its 'bunker buster' — the massive ordnance penetrator or GBU-57 bomb which is rated as effective down to 60m. Speaking on an Israeli podcast, Zohar Palti, Mossad's former analytical chief, said of Fordow: 'It would be better if the Americans strike there. They truly have the capacity to make the place 'evaporate', and I chose that word deliberately.' The phrasing was chilling, hinting that a tactical or low-yield nuclear weapon might be the only way to ensure its destruction. The idea of a nuclear weapon being used, something the White House would not rule out this week, seems like an extraordinary escalation but might be threatened at this stage as another attempt to intimidate Iran into making concessions. It's fascinating also that the Mossad veteran implied that a deep penetration unconventional weapon was a capability the US has, but not Israel. If President Trump's desire to avoid another Middle Eastern war means he sits this one out, it's possible the Israelis may have secretly produced a better penetrator weapon than its publicly acknowledged inventory suggests. There's also been some speculation — shades of blowing up the Death Star — that Fordow has an Achilles heel, a ventilation shaft that could provide a pathway for a bomb. But so far Israel has not attempted an assault on Fordow. David Albright, an American academic who's spent many years looking at Iranian nuclear sites, is one of those who's more upbeat about the chances of putting it out of action, saying 'Israel doesn't need the United States to come in with bunker busters and destroy it … Israel can do it on its own'. He argues that destroying generators, ventilation systems and so on at Fordow's other support plant could wreck the centrifuges inside in the same way that Natanz's were. It's noteworthy also that this week Israel bombed the factory where new enrichment machines are made. If all else fails, it's likely that the Israelis also have a plan to attack Fordow using ground forces. Their main airborne formation, the 98th Paratroopers Division, was withdrawn from Gaza earlier this month to be ready for action elsewhere. Israeli C-130 transport planes have also been seen over Syria, apparently on missions to or from Iran. There could be many reasons for those flights, for example to set up refuelling points for Israeli aircraft or ferry their forward air controllers to or from operations. But the suppression of Iran's air defences has been so extensive that it may soon be viable to mount the type of airlift needed to insert a force of several thousand troops to a forward mounting base near Fordow. It could be that a desire to retain the option of such a mission lies behind the fact that the tunnel entrances of the complex have not yet been attacked. They might need to be used by an assault force after all. This type of operation, though, would be fraught with difficulty — indeed in the view of Gallant and Ferguson it's 'not realistic'. There are thousands of Iranian troops deployed around the plant, so casualties could be high. Although the quantity of explosive needed to destroy it from the inside out might be a lot less than bombing it, it would remain considerable. While the Israelis are likely to have developed numerous plans, Iran may still hold some wild cards. 'All enriched materials have been transferred and are in secure locations,' Major General Mohsen Rezaie of the Revolutionary Guard Corps said earlier this week. He added: 'We will come out of this war with our hands full.' Many believe Iran has indeed dispersed its stockpile of highly enriched uranium from Isfahan to other sites too. A third uranium enrichment site at a secret location is believed to have been under preparation when the conflict started. What all the 'kinetic' options require — from GBU-57 bombs to ground forces — is an continuing onsite inspection regime to ensure that in the months or years to come Iran's nuclear project is not reconstituted. That might be necessary even in the 'regime change' scenario: note that international organisations are currently trying to secure the remnants of Syria's chemical arsenal. At talks with the UK, France, and Germany in Geneva on Friday, Iran showed both its willingness to engage on these issues but also its refusal to give up uranium enrichment. That's a longstanding position which is, so far, unchanged by the war. This refusal to bend may be sufficient for President Trump, mindful of the political divisions within his Maga movement, to say that a deal is impossible, despite his recent attempts to pressure Iran into one. His line last week — saying 'I may or may not' attack — may also simply have been stalling for time while final military deployments went ahead. Evidently Pentagon planners have wanted to head off various contingencies if, for example, Iran were to retaliate against their bases or diplomatic facilities in the region. But with the arrival of two stealth bombers, alongside two aircraft carriers and soon a number of F-22 stealth fighters and tanker planes, Trump will be able to deliver a final ultimatum to Iran. When that happens, the question of whether Israel can take out Fordow and other key facilities on its own may become academic.

Times

an hour ago

• Times

Trump's taking Maga fire over ‘forever wars', but the real battle awaits

'I'm the one that decides,' declared President Trump last week when asked by a reporter who gets to say what 'America First' really means. Faced with a backlash from parts of his base over the prospect of the US supporting Israel in military action in Iran, the president said his word is final — 'after all, I'm the one that developed America First' — adding that 'the term wasn't used until I came along'. In fact, the phrase dates back to the First World War when Woodrow Wilson used the slogan to appeal to voters who wanted America to stay out of the conflict. (They didn't get their wish.) The America First Committee was founded in 1940 to protest against US involvement in the Second World War, but gained notoriety after high-profile members such as the aviator Charles Lindbergh and the automotive tycoon Henry Ford led to a perception that it had antisemitic and pro-fascist sympathies. However, since Trump launched his first bid for president ten years ago, it has taken on a new meaning. 'He has driven the term back into usage,' says Julian Zelizer, the Princeton University historian and author of The Presidency of Donald J Trump: A First Historical Assessment. 'He has the most power to shape what it actually includes.' Now it represents a whole movement, extending from foreign policy to trade to immigration. No more forever wars. No more favours for other countries out of the goodness of Uncle Sam's heart. But in a week where parts of Trump's base came out and criticised the president directly, the question is being asked in Washington: is Trump still in control of the agenda — or is it the base that decides? There are certainly plenty of figures in Washington who have distinct views on what America First ought to mean in practice. Last week, the row over Iran has seen a US version of blue on blue: Maga on Maga. As the alt-right influencer Jack Posobiec put it: 'I'm just thankful the neocons are here to tell us who is REAL MAGA.' Trump has distanced himself from certain members of his cabinet, saying that his head of intelligence Tulsi Gabbard is 'wrong' on her intelligence assessment of Iran. But in his second term, Trump has had ultimate authority over his cabinet. Learning from the first term, he picked them for loyalty and deference. As a figure with close ties to the administration says: 'It's a football team. He's the manager, they're the players, they listen to the manager and that's all there is to it.' It is why the voices he needs to worry more about may be the ones on the outside. Enter the Maga-verse — the network of former advisers, informal advisers and influencers free to speak, exerting varying degrees of influence on the president. One figure close to the White House says: 'There are a bunch of people that we look to to see how things are landing.' Indeed, the administration last week reached out to key figures as they tried to control the narrative. There are different spheres of influence. Steve Bannon, Trump's former adviser, is widely regarded as the godfather of Maga. While he no longer has a place in the White House, he is seen as a temperature check on the movement by keeping the government in touch with the grassroots through his media and bringing up the next generation of Maga — several of whom have gone on to take jobs in the administration. 'Everybody just folds to whatever big corporate interest there is and this administration is only slightly different to that,' explains an insider. 'Steve keeps a check on it.' Bannon's War Room podcast regularly ranks among the top ten in the US, and has more than 200,000 followers on X. The former executive chairman of the alt-right news website Breitbart had lunch with the president last week — just before Trump's spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt announced a two-week window to make a decision on his next steps in Iran. Next, Tucker Carlson — the former Fox News host — who last week accused Trump of taking America on the wrong path. This led to Trump saying: 'I don't know what Tucker Carlson is saying. Let him go get a television network and say it so that people listen.' 'He's definitely relevant,' says one Maga figure. 'But it's a much younger, less-likely-to-vote demographic that he now appeals to. It's a much lower propensity voter. I don't think he would take that as an insult. He lives in a cabin in the woods in Maine.' After the barrage of words, Trump later said he shared a phone call with Carlson who apologised for going too far. Then there's Laura Loomer — the right-wing conspiracy theorist — who regularly leads the news in DC with her social media and investigations. A Republican insider says: 'She's probably the best opposition researcher in Republican politics nationwide and she's devastatingly destructive to people. Some people might walk around with their chest puffed out and go, 'Oh, I'm not scared of Laura Loomer.' They're all scared of Laura Loomer.' Last week, Loomer and Carlson have clashed on Iran, while Bannon warned against the US getting too embroiled in any conflict. The changing media landscape is giving these figures greater prominence. Matt Boyle, the Washington bureau chief at Breitbart, says: 'We live in impassioned times, especially in the podcast era and new media.' It's not gone unnoticed in Maga world that last week streaming overtook cable and broadcast as the most-watched form of TV in the US. Yet the base is insistent there is no civil war. 'We're not a monolith, we're not the left, they don't tolerate dissent, right?' says one Maga figure. 'One part of the coalition is holding the other part of the coalition accountable.' Boyle, who was recently spotted dining with both Bannon and the Democrat senator John Fetterman, says: 'I do think that when the president makes his decision that the movement is gonna fall in line very quickly. He is the leader of the America First movement. He built this movement.' Yet Trump has never been a perfect fit for some of the views within it. In 2016, he said of America First that he wanted to make decision-making more 'unpredictable'. 'We won't be isolationists — I don't want to go there because I don't believe in that,' Trump said. 'But we're not going to be ripped off any more by all of these countries.' The historian Victor Davis Hanson, of the Hoover Institution think tank at Stanford University, says: 'Trump is neither an isolationist nor an interventionist, but rather transactional. The media fails to grasp that, so it is confused why tough-guy Trump is hesitant to jump into Iran, or contrarily why a noninterventionist Trump would even consider using bunker busters against Iran. 'The common thread again is his perception of what benefits the US middle class — economically, militarily, politically and culturally.' But internal debates go beyond foreign affairs. The other main Maga priorities are bringing jobs back to the US — through tariffs — and cracking down on immigration. Tensions have bubbled on all of these: last week Trump exempted the farm and hospitality industries from the immigration raids, only for Maga activists to raise alarm. The president then changed it back. Raheem Kassam, who is a close ally of Bannon, a co-owner of the Butterworths restaurant in Washington — a Maga hotspot — and a former adviser to Nigel Farage, says: 'It's definitely become more complex and thoughtful and flexible. 'There's now a depth where you can't necessarily fit all of Maga policy on a banner held up at a rally. You used to be able to say it was 'build the wall', 'drain the swamp'. It's developed more, it's deeper, it's denser and that's kind of what the establishment is really upset about this time. It's like, 'Oh, these guys have actually developed an element of political sophistication.'' For now, most agree — at least publicly — that Trump is king. Yet privately what is making the base so jumpy is this idea that Trump is being forced by the deep state into the default establishment policy position. If it happens to Trump, what chance does his successor have? Hanson says: 'Trump decides — in the sense of le Maga état, c'est moi. Almost everyone who tried to redefine Maga or take on Trump has mostly lost rather than gained influence. 'The key question is whether Maga continues after 2029, given Trump's unique willingness to take on the left rhetorically and concretely in a way that far exceeds the Reagan revolution, and in truth, any prior Republican. Trump's bellicosity, volatility, and resilience — his willingness to win ugly rather than lose nobly — ensure him credibility and goodwill among the base that in turn allows him greater latitude and patience.' Or as a recent visitor to the White House puts it: 'A lot of them want a Maga ideology whereas Trump is happy with it just being about him.' Kassam adds: 'Trump does largely get to decide what America First means. But the point is, there's a whole movement behind it that will want to keep the America First agenda even after Trump.' The real fight to define America First is likely to come when Trump exits the stage.