Talk:Trump Force One

Info seems old

The aircraft is evidently still flying, despite the end of the campaign and despite President Trump using a Boeing VC-25 as Air Force One now.

So... need updated info.

97.104.70.92 (talk) 06:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

It being a company aircraft like thousands of others doesnt need to be any additional text. The only thing that would be of note is if Trump is actually using it while President, but you would need a reliable source for that. MilborneOne (talk) 09:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

updated as of 2023. Jjazz76 (talk) 20:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

No corporate aircraft I've ever heard of has had such indepth sustained long term coverse as Trump Force One, even long before Trump ran for president. Legacypac (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Saw it sitting at LaGuardia a week ago (June 2018). I'm sure it still gets used for his family/business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.195.3.64 (talk) 15:59, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Just N757AF?

The Trump Organization has at least four aircraft, I believe - the 757, a Citation or maybe two, and at least a pair of Sikorsky S-76 helicopters. Is this page purportedly just about one of them? I'm not sure why this is notable or should be separate from the Trump Organization's or maybe Donald Trump's page. 69.200.226.19 (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Updated article to focus on the 757 as that is the only aircraft that has been definitively and regularly associated to the nickname. MJHTrailsolid (talk) 05:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Echo chamber

Found in https://www.aviation24.be/airlines/from-air-force-one-to-trump-force-one/: Trump Force One is an informal name for The Trump Organization’s private jet, comparing it with Air Force One, originally used by Donald Trump. The name was coined before Trump became president of the United States and was in use by his supporters during his presidential campaign of 2016. The current version of Trump Force One is a Boeing 757 registered N757AF, which replaced a Boeing 727. It is operated as part of “Trump Air”, the air assets of The Trump Organization. (Source: Wikipedia) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:09, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Deleted content possibly in need of additional action

On September 5, 2021, text was added to a reference footnote. It appears to me that the text is mere opinion unsupported by the citation and more importantly may be libelous regarding a living person or persons. I am about to revert that edit, but I don't think that potential libel should remain even in the history.100.36.75.182 (talk) 13:24, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

On the one hand, you're right. It's not at all relevant to the article in question.

On the other hand, however, the insinuation that Ex-President Trump abused his power to foment the January Insurrection or that he robbed a children's cancer charity to pay for his own absurd luxuries aren't libellous. They are matters of public interest that are at the very least still being litigated. They certainly aren't worth striking from the history of the article, even if that were possible. George Mucus (talk) 01:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Not of note

Relevance. This seems to state that one commenter called this plane trump force one one time in 2015. This entry should be removed. 2603:300F:202:EFA0:25D1:4274:5969:8BFC (talk) 08:06, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Confuses Cessna Sold in May 2024 with 757 still owned

Trump sold his Cessna Citation in May 2024. That was not Trump Force One. The plane informally called that is his Boeing 757, which he still owns. 136.226.102.112 (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

"Jet" or "Aircraft"

​I want to say it is a "jet" in the first sentence, but I was denied. "Jet" is a common term and includes information that "aircraft" does not, and is therefore more desirable. Saying someone owns an "aircraft" could mean they own an ultralight powered by a 12 horsepower motor... who knows? It is needlessly inadequate. Marcus Markup (talk) 01:11, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Marcus Markup The first sentence literally links to Boeing 757, so I'm not sure any competent reader would think "aircraft" means an ultralight powered by a 12 horsepower motor in this case. If they do, then I don't think replacing "aircraft" with "jet" will do any good when the latter can mean anything from a Bede BD-5J to the Scaled Composites Stratolaunch. The only thing "jet" really does is specify the engine type, which is a largely unimportant detail when the aircraft's claim to fame is that it is owned and operated by the President of the United States. If you look through Category:Individual aircraft, I think you'll find that a vast majority of similar articles also leave the engine type out of the first sentence.

Now, I am more baffled about the sequence of edits you made when changing "aircraft" to "jet":

• Your first edit was a simple word swap with the summary "jet" is more informative than "aircraft" and takes up fewer bytes to boot (the latter being a non-issue as five bytes are practically nothing unless you're running hardware built before the World Wide Web). This notably left "an jet" in the sentence.
• By your third edit only seven minutes later, you seem to have already forgotten that it was you who left "an jet" in the sentence, as evidenced by your summary of "an jet"? Where do they find you people? Is it like, a second language for you?
• Your fourth edit then added a link to Jet aircraft, which is not problematic as the added 13 bytes are still practically nothing, but is still weird considering half your reason for the first edit was literally that "jet" takes up fewer bytes to boot than "aircraft". I'll also note that while you initially said that "jet" is more informative than "aircraft", the fact that you then felt the need to link to Jet aircraft (presumably since "jet" alone has four common meanings) seems to imply that you at least later thought otherwise.

I hope you can see how nothing about this sequence of events makes any sense to me. - ZLEA ^TǀC 06:06, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

I hope you can understand I was being humorous with my edit summary. I hope this clears up your confusion. Using humor on Wikipedia, where subtleties are often lost, is a fools errand. Anyway, and in the meantime, the question remains: is calling his aircraft a "jet" more valuable and does it convey more information to the reader than simply calling it an "aircraft". Because of course it does. Please do address the subject, and not how it was arrived at. Marcus Markup (talk) 11:43, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

only seven minutes later with astonishment. How tedious. Marcus Markup (talk) 11:54, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Are you going to set a timer on how long it took me to reply to this? Marcus Markup (talk) 11:54, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

I need a minutes count, and an edit count here. Help a brother out. Marcus Markup (talk) 12:48, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Or this? Marcus Markup (talk) 11:55, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure any competent reader I am not sure how more sarcastic you can get. Lets see. Give me your best. Marcus Markup (talk) 12:04, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

How long did it take me to reply to that? Please do the time math for us. Marcus Markup (talk) 12:07, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

By my estimations, it has been 31 minutes since I replied. Marcus Markup (talk) 12:38, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

I need a minutes count, and an edit count here. Help a brother out here @ZLEA. Marcus Markup (talk) 12:48, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Marcus Markup Was it really necessary to make nine separate replies to me? Only one of your replies added anything meaningful to do with the discussion at hand, so I will answer that one. I hope you can understand I was being humorous with my edit summary. I hope this clears up your confusion. Using humor on Wikipedia, where subtleties are often lost, is a fools errand. If that's your idea of "humor", then no, I don't understand. Humorous edit summaries can be fine, but yours just looks like an attempt at a personal attack that boomerangs to yourself. I hope you can see how that would be inappropriate and concerning. Anyway, and in the meantime, the question remains: is calling his aircraft a "jet" more valuable and does it convey more information to the reader than simply calling it an "aircraft". Because of course it does. Perhaps you missed the first part of my original reply. That's alright, I have copied it word for word below:

The first sentence literally links to Boeing 757, so I'm not sure any competent reader would think "aircraft" means an ultralight powered by a 12 horsepower motor in this case. If they do, then I don't think replacing "aircraft" with "jet" will do any good when the latter can mean anything from a Bede BD-5J to the Scaled Composites Stratolaunch. The only thing "jet" really does is specify the engine type, which is a largely unimportant detail when the aircraft's claim to fame is that it is owned and operated by the President of the United States. If you look through Category:Individual aircraft, I think you'll find that a vast majority of similar articles also leave the engine type out of the first sentence. - ZLEA ^TǀC 15:37, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

I think you'll find that a vast majority of similar articles also leave the engine type out of the first sentenceI am not reviewing other articles, I am talking about this one. "Jet" is shorter and includes more information. Precision in wording and economy is valued in the lead; all the more so in the first sentence. Marcus Markup (talk) 10:31, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

The first sentence literally links to Boeing 757, so I'm not sure any competent reader would think "aircraftI'm not sure you realize Boeing has historically made many, many propeller driven aircraft... a competent reader would understand that. In the field of aviation the word "Boeing" does NOT mean "jet". Marcus Markup (talk) 11:04, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

literally links to BoeingNot every app allows linking. If you search for this using a web browser on a PC, Google will give you results without hyperlinks. Marcus Markup (talk) 11:09, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Notice that I said literally links to Boeing 757, not literally links to Boeing. Cherrypicking my words will not help your argument, and looks to me like desperation or at the very least a lapse in reading comprehension. "Boeing" alone may not mean "jet", but "Boeing 757" does. "Jet" does not convey any meaningful information or context that a link to Boeing 757 does not. If you search for this using a web browser on a PC, Google will give you results without hyperlinks. We're not writing our articles to be read from search engines. All articles are written to be read from the Wikipedia website and mobile app alone. I don't know where you got the idea that they are written to be read on third-party websites or apps, but you would do yourself a favor by forgetting it. I'll also point out that that sentiment seems to directly contradict your linking of "jet" to Jet aircraft, since you seemingly were aware of the fact that "jet" alone is not entirely synonymous with a "jet aircraft". - ZLEA ^TǀC 20:51, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

The purpose of words, and of language, is to convey information. "Jet" conveys more information than "aircraft" and I am not sure why it's superiority for our purposes is controversial. Marcus Markup (talk) 13:33, 22 September 2026 (UTC)