Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5740796/

Topic: Was It A Mistake AA Didn't Get The 717s.
Username: mia305
Posted 2013-04-17 12:10:17 and read 11081 times.

Why didn't AA get the 717s when they couldve. I know that AA needed a
plane fill the gap in passengers. I know with the TWA acquisition they
had the 717s but got rid of them shortly after.

With the 319s comming I know they don't need them now.
But, why didn't they invest in them.

Topic: RE: Was It A Mistake AA Didn't Get The 717s.
Username: AeroWesty
Posted 2013-04-17 12:14:59 and read 11060 times.

Quoting mia305 (Thread starter):
I know with the TWA acquisition they
had the 717s but got rid of them shortly after.

The lease rates were too high, and Boeing Capital wouldn't negotiate to where AA felt the 717 was a viable product for their fleet at the time. There are several threads on this easily searched in the archives.

Topic: RE: Was It A Mistake AA Didn't Get The 717s.
Username: mia305
Posted 2013-04-17 12:20:57 and read 10997 times.

Why didn't they invest in the 717s to begin with?

That's my question.

Topic: RE: Was It A Mistake AA Didn't Get The 717s.
Username: Roseflyer
Posted 2013-04-17 12:28:19 and read 10933 times.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 1):

The lease rates were too high, and Boeing Capital wouldn't negotiate to where AA felt the 717 was a viable product for their fleet at the time. There are several threads on this easily searched in the archives.

That is likely the biggest problem with the 717. None of the leasing companies wanted to acquire the 717 since it was viewed as a niche product and they were worried about resale and secondary customers. The finance companies similarly were not very willing to invest in the 717 because it was not very popular. The result was Boeing Capital had to finance over half the 717s. Boeing Capital doesn't have the same financing power that the leasing and financing companies have, which drove up cost.

The 717 was in a similar situation as the A318, A340-500/600, 757-300, 767-400, 747-8 and 737-900 (until recently). The finance companies heavily control the market. Great airplanes that have a limited market are not the type of airplanes that the finance companies are interested in. They want every airline to have the same airplane so that it is easy to find customers on the used airplane market. When your lease rates are a few percentage points higher, it destroys the market for the airplane.

Topic: RE: Was It A Mistake AA Didn't Get The 717s.
Username: usairways85
Posted 2013-04-17 12:37:10 and read 10861 times.

Hindsight is 20/20 but after the got rid of the F100s they left a hole in their fleet. The CR7s help but even now there is a large gap between the CR7s and the 738/MD80s

Topic: RE: Was It A Mistake AA Didn't Get The 717s.
Username: PSU.DTW.SCE
Posted 2013-04-17 14:23:40 and read 10419 times.

Quoting mia305 (Thread starter):
With the 319s comming I know they don't need them now.
But, why didn't they invest in them.

While similar in capacity, the A319 and 717 have very different economics on different route profiles. They are not necessarily interchangable.

Topic: RE: Was It A Mistake AA Didn't Get The 717s.
Username: Burkhard
Posted 2013-04-17 15:03:09 and read 10270 times.

717s would have been mainline, CRJs are feeder airlines.

Topic: RE: Was It A Mistake AA Didn't Get The 717s.
Username: GSPSPOT
Posted 2013-04-17 15:45:37 and read 10057 times.

Quoting usairways85 (Reply 4):
The CR7s help but even now there is a large gap between the CR7s and the 738/MD80s

At least they're getting E175s now. Wonder why Eagle never got the CR9?

Topic: RE: Was It A Mistake AA Didn't Get The 717s.
Username: bobloblaw
Posted 2013-04-17 16:21:31 and read 9936 times.

Quoting GSPSPOT (Reply 7):
At least they're getting E175s now. Wonder why Eagle never got the CR9?

SCOPE. AA cant have anything over 70 seats. Maybe with the E75s they can go up to 75 seats. Even at Delta the CR9 is quite spacious at 76 seats I think. The CR9 is suppose to seat 85-90. AA SCOPE use to say that they couldn't operate any RJ over 70 seats. But if any airline in the WORLD operated a plane similar to what AA had and put more than 70 seats, AA would have to operate it at mainline. So a CR9 with 70 seats would be a huge no-no. I think that part of SCOPE no longer exists.

Topic: RE: Was It A Mistake AA Didn't Get The 717s.
Username: rfields5421
Posted 2013-04-17 18:42:30 and read 9188 times.

Quoting mia305 (Thread starter):
Why didn't AA get the 717s when they couldve. I

At the time the airline was getting rid of the Fokker 100s - a near identical size / niche market aircraft.

If the F-100 wasn't right for AA, I'm certainly sure they though the 717 wasn't right either.

Topic: RE: Was It A Mistake AA Didn't Get The 717s.
Username: mia305
Posted 2013-04-17 18:51:40 and read 9098 times.

Wouldn't the 717s been an upgrade to F100s as far as carrying a little more
pax and being more fuel efficient.

I think the 717s wouldve been good out of DFW & ORD and certain
MIA routes.

Topic: RE: Was It A Mistake AA Didn't Get The 717s.
Username: FlyPeoria
Posted 2013-04-17 18:54:53 and read 9045 times.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 9):
If the F-100 wasn't right for AA, I'm certainly sure they though the 717 wasn't right either.

Wasn't the F100 retired (at least in part) because of the manufacturer's bankruptcy and liquidation concerned American about spare parts? I mean, AA only operated them from 1991 to 2004, IIRC.

[Edited 2013-04-17 19:29:19]

Topic: RE: Was It A Mistake AA Didn't Get The 717s.
Username: AeroWesty
Posted 2013-04-17 18:56:23 and read 9011 times.

Quoting mia305 (Reply 10):
I think the 717s wouldve been good out of DFW & ORD and certain
MIA routes.

No, they wouldn't have been.

AA To Get Rid Of TWA 717's By End Of The Year? (by Westjet_8 Jan 30 2002 in Civil Aviation)

Topic: RE: Was It A Mistake AA Didn't Get The 717s.
Username: mia305
Posted 2013-04-17 19:01:37 and read 8963 times.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 12):

Ok. I understand why they got rid of them. All I'm saying if they had them
it wouldve worked good for them out of thise cities

Topic: RE: Was It A Mistake AA Didn't Get The 717s.
Username: AeroWesty
Posted 2013-04-17 19:07:27 and read 8890 times.

Quoting mia305 (Reply 13):
All I'm saying if they had them
it wouldve worked good for them out of thise cities

If the 717 was a good choice for AA out of those cities, AA would have kept them.

Topic: RE: Was It A Mistake AA Didn't Get The 717s.
Username: mia305
Posted 2013-04-17 19:33:35 and read 8575 times.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 14):

If the leases were right they wouldve.

Topic: RE: Was It A Mistake AA Didn't Get The 717s.
Username: AeroWesty
Posted 2013-04-17 19:36:53 and read 8535 times.

Quoting mia305 (Reply 15):
If the leases were right they wouldve.

Did you bother to read the thread I linked? There was more than just the lease costs involved, even though that was a major reason.

Topic: RE: Was It A Mistake AA Didn't Get The 717s.
Username: mia305
Posted 2013-04-17 19:52:06 and read 8351 times.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 16):

I read what you put. And I'm not arguing that fact. All I'm saying worked it
out with boeing and the lessors that the 717 would be good for them out of those
cities plain and simple.

Topic: RE: Was It A Mistake AA Didn't Get The 717s.
Username: solarflyer22
Posted 2013-04-17 19:56:25 and read 8318 times.

I don't think the mistake is replacing the MD-80 with the 717. MD was going broke close to the period when it was being offered so I can't blame lessors not showing any faith.

The problem in my mind with their short haul fleet, is that they did not switch from MD-80 to 73G around 1995-1999. I like the MD-80 but I think in the long run it cost them a lot in operations costs and fuel costs. I don't think they acquired the frames for so cheap that it was worth it. I think the CRJ fleet is fine.

Topic: RE: Was It A Mistake AA Didn't Get The 717s.
Username: mia305
Posted 2013-04-17 20:23:29 and read 8088 times.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 16):

I read what you put. And I'm not arguing that fact. All I'm saying worked it
out with boeing and the lessors that the 717 would be good for them out of those
cities plain and simple.

Topic: RE: Was It A Mistake AA Didn't Get The 717s.
Username: brilondon
Posted 2013-04-17 21:32:58 and read 7544 times.

Quoting mia305 (Reply 13):

This is beginning to become a cyclical argument. The had them and found them not to fit into their plans at the time due to the expense. We can all use our hindsight and they would still have gone I believe before the retirement of their A300s. Their plan seemed to revolve around American Eagle doing the thin regional routes and allowing AA to concentrate on the mainline flying with the larger jets. The 717 did not fit in with their plans at the time.

Topic: RE: Was It A Mistake AA Didn't Get The 717s.
Username: BoeingGuy
Posted 2013-04-18 10:15:46 and read 3618 times.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 9):
If the F-100 wasn't right for AA, I'm certainly sure they though the 717 wasn't right either.

Not true at all. AA and Boeing discussed a potential deal for 75 717s to replace their fleet of F100s. I'm not privvy to all the business reasons why it didn't happen, but I believe a lot had to do with terms of the F100 trade in, not AA's evaluation of the 717. The 717 is an excellent performing reliable airplane. There are other business factors that killed it, not the airplane capabilities.

That's like saying if the MD-11 wasn't right for AA, I'm certainly sure they thought the 777 wasn't right either. There are good reasons for an airline to replace a given size airplane with another model that is more capable and efficient.

Topic: RE: Was It A Mistake AA Didn't Get The 717s.
Username: cschleic
Posted 2013-04-18 11:27:48 and read 3083 times.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 3):
That is likely the biggest problem with the 717. None of the leasing companies wanted to acquire the 717 since it was viewed as a niche product and they were worried about resale and secondary customers. The finance companies similarly were not very willing to invest in the 717 because it was not very popular. The result was Boeing Capital had to finance over half the 717s. Boeing Capital doesn't have the same financing power that the leasing and financing companies have, which drove up cost.

The 717 was in a similar situation as the A318, A340-500/600, 757-300, 767-400, 747-8 and 737-900 (until recently). The finance companies heavily control the market. Great airplanes that have a limited market are not the type of airplanes that the finance companies are interested in. They want every airline to have the same airplane so that it is easy to find customers on the used airplane market. When your lease rates are a few percentage points higher, it destroys the market for the airplane.

Good reality-of-market-economics summary.

And follow the money. The extremely capital intensive airline business needs financial markets to finance planes, the financial markets depend on liquidity, and liquidity likes plain vanilla assets...therefore, lots of 737-800's and A-320's.

Topic: RE: Was It A Mistake AA Didn't Get The 717s.
Username: BoeingGuy
Posted 2013-04-18 11:33:49 and read 3036 times.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 3):
The 717 was in a similar situation as the A318, A340-500/600, 757-300, 767-400, 747-8 and 737-900 (until recently). The finance companies heavily control the market. Great airplanes that have a limited market are not the type of airplanes that the finance companies are interested in.

Yep, both the 717 and 767-400 are excellent airplanes that are very well liked by those few airlines that fly them. The 717 is a very durable airframe that will probably last much longer in the long-term than some competing Regional Jets, but that's not what the bean counters are looking for. There are other complex factors that limited sales (lack of flight deck commonality with other models, times where some investments weren't made to better improve certain aspects, etc), through no fault of the airplane's performance itself. Same with the 747-8. Remember that today's 737-900ER is different from the 737-900 you are referring to.

Topic: RE: Was It A Mistake AA Didn't Get The 717s.
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2013-04-18 16:07:35 and read 2506 times.

Quoting mia305 (Reply 10):
Wouldn't the 717s been an upgrade to F100s as far as carrying a little more
pax and being more fuel efficient.

Not enough to offset the increased capital costs. I expect AA found it much more cost effective to use smaller regional jets using pilots earning much lower salaries than mainline AA pilots flying the F100s (or 717s).

Topic: RE: Was It A Mistake AA Didn't Get The 717s.
Username: lat41
Posted 2013-04-18 20:08:19 and read 2392 times.

At one point, there was some discussion of a 717-300 as a further development. It would have featured a bit more capacity, longer range and a newer wing design. This would have given the 717 greater sales potential and a longer lifespan for AA or any other operator to fly the 200 or envisioned 300.

Topic: RE: Was It A Mistake AA Didn't Get The 717s.
Username: type-rated
Posted 2013-04-19 02:24:20 and read 2159 times.

Also didn't a very expensive engine AD come out which which accelerated AA's draw down of the F100 fleet?

[Edited 2013-04-19 02:29:23]

Topic: RE: Was It A Mistake AA Didn't Get The 717s.
Username: American 767
Posted 2013-04-19 17:27:09 and read 1858 times.

Quoting lat41 (Reply 25):
At one point, there was some discussion of a 717-300 as a further development.

Yes I remember that. It would have been an MD-80 replacement, I'm sure American and Delta considered it at some point when it was under study at Boeing.

Topic: RE: Was It A Mistake AA Didn't Get The 717s.
Username: Polot
Posted 2013-04-19 17:37:21 and read 1821 times.

Quoting American 767 (Reply 27):
Yes I remember that. It would have been an MD-80 replacement, I'm sure American and Delta considered it at some point when it was under study at Boeing.

Yes, and once Boeing accidentally included a render of it in their rotation of images on the front page of their website. I think it was closer in size to the A319/73G than the MD-80 though.

Topic: RE: Was It A Mistake AA Didn't Get The 717s.
Username: flyabr
Posted 2013-04-19 18:31:24 and read 1744 times.

Quoting Polot (Reply 28):
Yes, and once Boeing accidentally included a render of it in their rotation of images on the front page of their website. I think it was closer in size to the A319/73G than the MD-80 though.

I highly doubt that was accidental...

Topic: RE: Was It A Mistake AA Didn't Get The 717s.
Username: nws2002
Posted 2013-04-19 19:14:40 and read 1693 times.

Quoting lat41 (Reply 25):
At one point, there was some discussion of a 717-300 as a further development. It would have featured a bit more capacity, longer range and a newer wing design. This would have given the 717 greater sales potential and a longer lifespan for AA or any other operator to fly the 200 or envisioned 300.

Boeing would have rather sold more 737s instead. Why compete with yourself by adding range and increasing capacity.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/