<p>Uncertainty analysis is of great use both for calculating outputs that are more akin to real<br> flight, and for optimization to more robust shapes. However, implementation of uncertainty<br> has been a longstanding challenge in the field of aerodynamics due to the computational cost<br> of simulations. Geometric uncertainty in particular is often left unexplored in favor of uncer-<br> tainties in freestream parameters, turbulence models, or computational error. Therefore, this<br> work proposes a method of geometric uncertainty analysis for aerodynamic shapes that miti-<br> gates the barriers to its feasible computation. The process takes a two- or three-dimensional<br> shape and utilizes a combination of multifidelity meshes and Gaussian process regression<br> (GPR) surrogates in a multifidelity Monte Carlo (MFMC) algorithm. Multifidelity meshes<br> allow for finer sampling with a given budget, making the surrogates more accurate. GPR<br> surrogates are made practical to use by parameterizing major factors in geometric uncer-<br> tainty with only four variables in 2-D and five in 3-D. In both cases, two parameters control<br> the heights of steps that occur on the top and bottom of airfoils where leading and trailing<br> edge devices are attached. Two more parameters control the height and length of waves<br> that can occur in an ideally smooth shape during manufacturing. A fifth parameter controls<br> the depth of span-wise skin buckling waves along a 3-D wing. Parameters are defined to<br> be uniformly distributed with a maximum size of 0.4 mm and 0.15 mm for steps and waves<br> to remain within common manufacturing tolerances. The analysis chain is demonstrated<br> with two test cases. The first, the RAE2822 airfoil, uses transonic freestream parameters<br> set by the ADODG Benchmark Case 2. The results show a mean drag of nearly 10 counts<br> above the deterministic case with fixed lift, and a 2 count increase for a fixed angle of attack<br> version of the case. Each case also has small variations in lift and angle of attack of about<br> 0.5 counts and 0.08◦, respectively. Variances for each of the three tracked outputs show that<br> more variability is possible, and even likely. The ONERA M6 transonic wing, popular due<br> to the extensive experimental data available for computational validation, is the second test<br> case. Variation is found to be less substantial here, with a mean drag increase of 0.5 counts,<br> and a mean lift increase of 0.1 counts. Furthermore, the MFMC algorithm enables accurate<br> results with only a few hours of wall time in addition to GPR training. </p>