Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
717s & M90s - Too Bad None In AA Fleet  
User currently offlineSeptember11 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 3623 posts, RR: 21
Posted (10 years 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 5534 times:

717s and M90s of course ... they are NOT that old

AA M90s

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Wilsam Cheung



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Chris Coduto



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Chris Coduto



AA 717s (TW LLC)

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Bevin Shively



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Brian Peters



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Brian Peters



Good or bad decision of AA to take them out of their fleet?


Airliners.net of the Future
43 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDayflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (10 years 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 5471 times:

Bad decision to ever pass up something as fuel efficient as a 717 when you are dumping a thirsty F-100. Huge mistake. They could have used the 717 instead of CRJ's out of STL and been much better off.


One Nation Under God
User currently offlineSrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (10 years 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 5413 times:

The entire what to do with the TW 717s came at a bad time in the industry. This decision came post-9/11 and airlines were looking to cut costs, and at the same time, the aircraft leasing companies were taking hits as well with airlines returning a/c and trying to renegoiate leases. The TW 717s were leased through Boeing Capital, and with Boeing Capital refusing to get the lease rates to an amount that AA wanted, AA decided it would be cheaper to return them (and pay the cancellation penalities) than to keep paying the leases. While the a/c ended up in storage for some time, Boeing Capital knew that they could depend on exsisting 717 customers to pick up those a/c once things started to look better financially for them, which is why the bulk of the TW 712s ended up @ FL.

I still wouldn't count AA out of ever ordering the 717 as long as Boeing is still building and taking orders for the a/c. They liked the a/c, they just didn't like the high payments TWA was having to make on them.

As for the MD-90, in a way it made sense to not keep them since they were basically a minor part of the fleet that really didn't fit in with the rest of the AA fleet, plus they had to keep a supply of stuff just for a small number of a/c, and that adds to the costs as well.


User currently offlineAirtran737 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3707 posts, RR: 12
Reply 3, posted (10 years 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 5360 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Its such a huge smack in the face for the employees of TW to have to have seen the hybrid AA/TW airplanes.


Nice Trip Report!!! Great Pics, thanks for posting!!!! B747Forever
User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12339 posts, RR: 18
Reply 4, posted (10 years 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 5291 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

High lease rates forced AA to return the B717s to Boeing. Wasn't there a rumor that AA was thinking of getting some 717s recently?

User currently offlineMoman From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 1054 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (10 years 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 5262 times:

I concur that AA made a mistake in getting rid of the 717. They could have made STL the crew base for the 717 fleet and it would have made a lot of people happier. A 717 is the perfect plane to fly a lot of point to point and feeder routes into the STL hub.

No opinion on the MD-90 although I do think it is a neat jet.

Moman



AA Platinum Member - American Airlines Forever
User currently offlineLat41 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 479 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (10 years 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5203 times:

This has been around many times before but indeed, the lease rates for the. 717s were supposedly the deciding factor in returning them. Besides American was going to do what it it wanted to do period! There also has been some discussion that the MD-90 program was more or less snuffed out by Boeing in order to bolster sales of the larger versions of their 73G's. Operators apparently love the 717s and MD-90s they have, and the aircraft are great performers. The major drawback seems to be that carriers have to keep a whole line of spares around that are not in common with the rest of their fleet.

User currently offlineElwood64151 From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 2477 posts, RR: 6
Reply 7, posted (10 years 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5185 times:

Wasn't there a rumor that AA was thinking of getting some 717s recently?

Yeah, I think we know what rumors are all about...

I don't believe AA made a mistake by getting rid of the 717, at least not one they could have forseen. At the time, fuel costs were comparatively low, and the F.100s made sense since there were more of them and they cost less to own (if not operate). AA could not have forseen $50 oil when at the time oil was at range of $20-$30, and the highest price before then had been during the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, around $40.

(Extended) Side note:

Interestingly, the reasearch I just did into this subject has clued me into something: Both of the recent recessions have coincided with large spikes in the cost of crude oil. Between June and October of 1990, oil rose from $16 to $40 a barrel. By the time of the 1992 recession (one of the shallowest in history) oil was down to $20 a barrel, but it appears the damage had been done.

During the Clinton years, oil managed to remain in a range of $15-$25 for most of that Administration, dropping to as low as just under $11 during the explosive-growth period of 1998-1999. In Europe, prices were even lower on a per-barrel basis. By March of 2000, oil had risen to $30 a barrel, its highest level since 1991. From June on, prices remained in the $30-$35 range. While the economic growth period peaked in 1999, growth reached a negative growth period in early 2001, just months after light sweet crude reached $36 a barrel. Oil dropped as the economy recovered from this also-shallow recession.

In October of this year, oil reached a new high over $50. Now retailers are complaining about low sales for this Christmas and airlines are facing additional losses, some of the LCCs for the first time in years. While I'm not predicting a recession, I am prediction slower economic growth in this and the next quarter.

I am also not placing any blame on Dubya, Clinton, or Bush I for the price of oil. They don't have control over that. It's a commodity, the price of which is determined by the market based upon supply, demand, and the perceptions of the traders. It's no different from Pork Bellies or Winter Wheat in that respect. What is different is that it's the engine that drives our economy.



Wow... That was originally intended as a short, one paragraph side-note, not a full-page diatribe. Sorry.



Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it in summer school.
User currently offlineAAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3494 posts, RR: 46
Reply 8, posted (10 years 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5182 times:

This has been around many times before but indeed, the lease rates for the. 717s were supposedly the deciding factor in returning them. Besides American was going to do what it it wanted to do period!

AA tried negotiated with Boeing for more 717s in addition to renegotiating the TWA payment terms, but they couldn't reach an agreement. Hence, the 717s departure from the AA fleet.

Bad decision to ever pass up something as fuel efficient as a 717 when you are dumping a thirsty F-100.

The decision to retire F100 was made independent of anything else. It is simply not an economical option to keep a relatively small fleet (with no growth potential) active in today's airline marketplace. Boeing's last offer was a one-for-one trade of 717 for F100, but the "deal-killer" was AA's requirement the F100s would not be remarketed to potential AA competitors. Came close, but in the end... no deal.  Crying

There also has been some discussion that the MD-90 program was more or less snuffed out by Boeing in order to bolster sales of the larger versions of their 73G's.

The MD90 program was pretty much dead long before Boeing purchased MD.




*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
User currently offlineWesternA318 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 5723 posts, RR: 24
Reply 9, posted (10 years 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 5113 times:

"the "deal-killer" was AA's requirement the F100s would not be remarketed to potential AA competitors."

I guess AA learned the lesson that DL suffered through in regards to their DC-9's ending up at Valujet?



Check out my blog at fl310travel.blogspot.com!
User currently offlineMoman From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 1054 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (10 years 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 5093 times:

Fly:

You are right about the correlation between oil prices and the economy. Since 1972 every significant (20%) rise in oil prices has led to a recession. (1973, 1979, 1990, 2000, 2004?). The only exception has been 2004 so far, but we have not yet seen the end of this.

I cringe when I hear "the economy is in a new period of high oil prices" because this sounds reminiscent of "the stock market is justified at 12000 because we have entered a new economy". We all know how that ended.

Moman



AA Platinum Member - American Airlines Forever
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1001 posts, RR: 51
Reply 11, posted (10 years 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 5075 times:

There also has been some discussion that the MD-90 program was more or less snuffed out by Boeing in order to bolster sales of the larger versions of their 73G's.

Well no duhh.. it was an inferior aircraft (relative to the A320/737NG) that competed directly with another Boeing model.

Operators apparently love the 717s and MD-90s they have, and the aircraft are great performers. The major drawback seems to be that carriers have to keep a whole line of spares around that are not in common with the rest of their fleet.

717 maybe.... but there is no love lost for the MD-90. It's shakey reliabilty was well known. The VSCF electrical system had a habit of.... disrupting desired opperation....

717s and M90s of course ... they are NOT that old

The MD-90s were aquired via merger.... AA never intended for them to be long-term or key elements to their fleet.


User currently offlineCkfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 5309 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (10 years 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 5038 times:

The orginal plan was that, if the UA-US merger went through, AA would have leased a number of F100s to DC Air. So, it would have needed to keep the 717s.

When the Feds nixed UA-US, then the question became whether AA could get Boeing to lower the lease rates.

The F100 was a very efficient plane to operate, but there were some problems that AA had with the plane. The lack of spare parts was the last problem that pushed AA into retiring the fleet.

It will be interesting to see if AA does buy 717s some day. Arpey has said that AA can't go on indefinitely without a 100-seat plane. Scheduling with nothing between the CRJ and the MD-80 has been a headache, particularly with the constraints at ORD.

What is also interesting is the fact that JetsGo had been buying AA's F100s. This had allowed JetsGo to use the MD-80s to fly routes out of eastern Canada to Florida. Apparently, AA over the years has had a decent market share for those routes, via BOS or LGA. So while the F100s aren't used on competing routes, the F100s have allowed other planes to go against AA.


User currently offlineAAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3494 posts, RR: 46
Reply 13, posted (10 years 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 5029 times:

I guess AA learned the lesson that DL suffered through in regards to their DC-9's ending up at Valujet?

Some may consider AA management "stupid," but I doubt they were ever "that stupid."  Nuts

The VSCF electrical system had a habit of.... disrupting desired opperation....

Actually, once we (pilots) learned how to properly operate it it seldom caused a disruption. Unfortunately, properly operating it meant to get the MD90 on its internal power sources (engines or APU) and to keep it there (don't let ground power get anywhere near the plane). Not a very economical way of operating, especially in these high fuel price days.  Crying

The MD-90s were aquired via merger.... AA never intended for them to be long-term or key elements to their fleet.

No, but we did give them a try because they were exempt of any slot restrictions at SNA. Unfortunately their operating costs significantly outweighed their SNA revenue generating prospects even though they were the preferred operator at SNA. When they worked right they made huge profits, but when they needed repairs the costs were huge as well. I once saw the bill for "borrowing" an INS control panel (unique to MD90s) from DL...$3,500/day!



*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
User currently offlineDeltaGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (10 years 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 5005 times:

The rumor I had heard through the grapevine was that AA offered DL their Reno Air M90's, but DL turned right around and offered AA their 90's...or maybe I have that backwards lol.

The reason DL is hanging on to their 90's is because there is 0 market for those jets currently...too oddball, and hard to compete with it's 73G/320 contemporaries.

How many 90's are sittin in the desert vs how many used? Probably not a good number. All the ex AA ones must be like 10-ish?

DeltaGuy


User currently offlineAAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3494 posts, RR: 46
Reply 15, posted (10 years 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4904 times:

The rumor I had heard through the grapevine was that AA offered DL their Reno Air M90's, but DL turned right around and offered AA their 90's...

Not a rumor. AA management even spent some time/$$$ studying the idea, but concluded that AA would end up where DL is today...A very small fleet (albeit 5 times larger than AA's MD90 fleet was) of non-marketable airplanes with relatively very high maintenance costs.



*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
User currently offlineDacman From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 444 posts, RR: 8
Reply 16, posted (10 years 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 4777 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

There are only three MD-90s that are parked at this time as far as I know and those are the three at Marana sporting the ProAir livery.

The five Reno Air/AA MD-90s are now destined for Lion Airlines and Hello Air picked up the 3 three ex Air Aruba/Aserca aircraft.

AirTran is happy that AA returned the TWA 717s as they are operating all but 8 of the TWA fleet which totaled 30 in all (25 operational and 5 delivered but not put into service).

Mike
lgbguy



"Airliner Photography is not a crime"
User currently offlineDeltaGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (10 years 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4598 times:

Not a rumor. AA management even spent some time/$$$ studying the idea, but concluded that AA would end up where DL is today...A very small fleet (albeit 5 times larger than AA's MD90 fleet was) of non-marketable airplanes with relatively very high maintenance costs.

Thanks for the good gouge sir...doesn't surprise me at all, seems like the 90 is the oddball that's been tossed around, not sure where to end up. Would have loved to have flown her  Sad I'm sure you heavily enjoyed your time on them though, despite the VSCF problemos.

I do believe DL will hang onto theirs for the time being, as mentioned before, because of the excellent SLC perf/lack of noise constraints, and because there's 0 market for them elsewhere, other than in the Victorville parking business.

DeltaGuy


User currently offlineAAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3494 posts, RR: 46
Reply 18, posted (10 years 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 4475 times:

I'm sure you heavily enjoyed your time on them though, despite the VSCF problemos.

Most definitely... I got spoiled!  Big thumbs up Most pilots, especially checkairmen, say the 738 is a "dream" since it has so much power; but those of us who flew the MD90 kinda laugh because we know the 738 is a wimp compared to the MD90!  Smile/happy/getting dizzy



*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
User currently offlinePHLBOS From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7558 posts, RR: 23
Reply 19, posted (10 years 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 4423 times:

Boeing's last offer was a one-for-one trade of 717 for F100, but the "deal-killer" was AA's requirement the F100s would not be remarketed to potential AA competitors.

With existing and new LCCs going with new aircraft (instead of 2nd-hand) and with US phasing out their own F100s, AA's above-requirement was not only asinine but obsolete as well.

I guess AA learned the lesson that DL suffered through in regards to their DC-9's ending up at Valujet?

And how is this different than most of AA/TW's 717s going to FL?

I wonder how many of FL's 717s that come in-and-out of DFW are ex-AA/TW birds?

Once again, AA's continued arrogance backfires.

[Edited 2004-12-16 15:25:07]


"TransEastern! You'll feel like you've never left the ground because we treat you like dirt!" SNL Parady ad circa 1981
User currently offlineD950 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 493 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (10 years 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 4399 times:

PHLBOS, while I agree with you in principle, Boeing has to be right behind in the arrogance department. If they had not driven a stake through the MD90 because they were scared ----less of competition to the 738/9, Airbus would not be taking all these 320/319 orders(my opinion). I will go a step further, DL should look into MD90's either in the desert, or possibly the China MD90's they are looking to dump. The DL 90's are getting better fuel numbers than the 738's (I asked some pilots on my flights for you source freaks) so why look to dump a performer?? Also passengers prefer the 2-3 aspect of the MadDogs!!


Resting on your laurels is a synonym for flirting with disaster
User currently offlineAAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3494 posts, RR: 46
Reply 21, posted (10 years 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 4369 times:

With existing and new LCCs going with new aircraft (instead of 2nd-hand) and with US phasing out their own F100s, AA's above-requirement was not only asinine but obsolete as well.

I disagree. Back in the year 2000 there were many LCC's on paper, but not flying. They wanted used planes... cheap. Boeing wanted to offer them AA's used F100 fleet.... cheap. They are not flying today because they couldn't get used planes... cheap enough.

And how is this different than most of AA/TW's 717s going to FL?

AA owned its F100 fleet and could make stipulations upon its sales. AA did not own the 717s... they were leased, so AA could not place stipulations upon their actual owners when they returned the planes to the owners.

they had not driven a stake through the MD90...

The MD90 program never got off the ground with any quantity sales under MD's "leadership." Boeing understood the 737 and A320 families had already beaten the MD90 in the marketplace and simply stopped the official sales attempts for the plane that MD was officially (but unsuccessfully) "selling."

DL 90's are getting better fuel numbers than the 738's (I asked some pilots on my flights for you source freaks)

This source freak disagrees. Having flown both planes, my opinion is the MD90 has better performance and noise characteristics while the 738 has slightly better fuel economy... they designed that plane to sip fuel. Depending upon its useage the differences might very slightly (and so opinions might change).

...so why look to dump a performer??

Cost to operate... pure and simple. That's where the airline marketplace has moved the past few years.

Also passengers prefer the 2-3 aspect of the MadDogs!!

Some do and some do not. Ticket price has become the single most important decisionmaking issue for the vast majority of the domestic USA air travel market.

I do believe DL will hang onto theirs for the time being, as mentioned before, because of the excellent SLC perf/lack of noise constraints, and because there's 0 market for them elsewhere, other than in the Victorville parking business.

Very well said.... I agree primarily because DL's -90 fleet is so much larger than AA's fleet (5 planes) was that DL's operating costs are significantly lower than AA's ever was. Retirement at this time isn't really an option unless DL management decides to significantly reduce the size of DL in total.



*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
User currently offlineD950 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 493 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (10 years 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 4350 times:

AAR90, Thanks for taking the "source freaks" thing the right way. Two things, the pilots I spoke with from DL argue that the MD90 fuel numbers are better than the 738. Second, the MD90 program got off the ground with an order for 110 from DL, 20 from AS, with AA and CO in the background waiting. DL switched to the 738 only after Boeing telling them they would not support the 90, ditto with AS. My point is if Boeing would have kept the line open I believe they would have sold more of them. Hello, since taking the ex AMC craft from the desert is raving about fuel numbers (website, though you will need an interpreter) and looking for more!!


Resting on your laurels is a synonym for flirting with disaster
User currently offlineSsides From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4059 posts, RR: 21
Reply 23, posted (10 years 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 4330 times:

It was a great decision for AA to get rid of both planes. At the time, it had 12 different aircraft types in its mainline fleet:

F-100
MD-80
MD-90
717
727
737
757
767
777
DC-10
MD-11
A300

The complexity of its fleet was costing it a great deal of cash. Now AA had cut its fleet types in half:

MD-80
737
757
767
777
A300

This makes AA much more efficient.



"Lose" is not spelled with two o's!!!!
User currently offlinePHLBOS From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7558 posts, RR: 23
Reply 24, posted (10 years 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 4311 times:

I disagree. Back in the year 2000 there were many LCC's on paper, but not flying. They wanted used planes... cheap. Boeing wanted to offer them AA's used F100 fleet.... cheap. They are not flying today because they couldn't get used planes... cheap enough.

AAR90,

First of all, I do believe that the AA/TW merger wasn't fully consummated until mid-2001. AA's original intent following the merger was to keep the TWA identity around for another year or two. The downtown following 9/11 nixed that idea.

Second, FL started receiving its 717s in Sept. 1999. Meanwhile, WN has been continually receiving new 73Gs to this day. B6 (not sure if they started operations in either 2000 or early 2001) never operated any used aircraft. Their A320s are fresh from the factory. TZ, of course, started receiving their new 738s and 753s... a decision that ultimately put them in their present predicament. The off-again/on-again Sun Country Airlines (not sure if they're a LCC) was receiving new 738s. To date, the only 'paper' airline that has since become reality is Independence Air. I'm assuming that the CRJs were purchased new when they were still ACA; the A319s coming on-line now are factory fresh as well. So which North American LCC (real or on paper) was still receiving used planes in 2000/2001? Were N7s 752s new or used? Either way, no airline that I listed had any future plans for the F100 then or now.

Thirdly, by 2000, didn't production of all Fokkers (not just the F100) cease before then? If an upstart carrier was seeking to purchase used planes, wouldn't it be more logical and cost effective to pick one that's either in large supply (like the now-stopped 757, 727, DC-9, MD-80/90) and/or still being produced (737NG, A320 series, 717)? Yeah, a carrier could have gotten F100s cheap, but what does that carrier do when parts no longer become available or the carrier wants to get more planes never mind transition training of pilots and crew from the F100 to something else? Again with US dumping their F100s as well, what would've kept a start-up carrier from buying those?

In FL's case, the transition from their old DC-9s to the 717 was not a hard one for them to make because the 717 (or proposed MD-95) utilized the old, but still-popular DC-9-30 airframe that they started using during their J7 years.


[Edited 2004-12-16 17:50:24]


"TransEastern! You'll feel like you've never left the ground because we treat you like dirt!" SNL Parady ad circa 1981
25 Lat41 : Thank you D950 and AAR90 for fact filled, informative posts. Looks like being the oddball of the fleet, no matter how good an aircraft is works agains
26 Post contains images AAR90 : Two things, the pilots I spoke with from DL argue that the MD90 fuel numbers are better than the 738. Fuel economy numbers can change dramatically wit
27 Gigneil : DL switched to the 738 only after Boeing telling them they would not support the 90, ditto with AS. Delta cancelled their order when the plane didn't
28 PHLBOS : From my earlier reply (#24): First of all, I do believe that the AA/TW merger wasn't fully consummated until mid-2001. AAR90's reply: What does that h
29 Post contains images AAR90 : If the AA/TW merger never happened, AA might've either delayed the phase-out or not even considered getting rid of their F100s; especially since they
30 Ckfred : AAR90: I heard from a friend who works for AA that the F100 was a terrific plane in terms of fuel efficiency. But that the big problem was that it's m
31 DBCooper : IF AA had purchased the MD-87 and not the F-100, which I understood the choice at the time came down to, I suspect AA would still be flying them (the
32 AAR90 : I heard from a friend who works for AA that the F100 was a terrific plane in terms of fuel efficiency. Yes. Very fuel efficient, but (relatively) very
33 Ckfred : AAR90: Thanks for the information. I know that AA flew F100s on ORD-SAT, because I flew both legs of that roundtrip on the Fokker in 1996. You're righ
34 Post contains images DeltaGuy : IF AA had purchased the MD-87 and not the F-100, which I understood the choice at the time came down to, I suspect AA would still be flying them (the
35 Jerion : Yes, the F100's did fly ORD-SAT. I too had a few trips ORD-SAT. ORD-SAT was the longest scheduled F100 flight on AA.
36 Post contains images AAR90 : I know that AA flew F100s on ORD-SAT, because I flew both legs of that roundtrip on the Fokker in 1996. That would explain why I don't recall such a t
37 Post contains links and images Qqflyboy : I miss the 90 terribly. I like the MD-80s, but when I was an FA at QQ, I LOVED the 90s. Yes, they had reliability issues, especially in the beginning,
38 Aaway : AAR90, Excellent info posted by you regarding AA/F-100 fleet strategy. I recall from my AA days @ LAX the rumor (now verified by you) that F-100 flyin
39 Post contains images AAR90 : Based on your experience w/the Fokker, would it be able to operate from KSNA effectively (that is, without payload penalty) considering the short runw
40 BR715-A1-30 : I miss the MD-90 w/ AA... I want to fly on another one, but I guess I will have to go to DL for that. Can anyone tell me the current routes DL puts th
41 PHLBOS : From my earlier reply (#28) I will give you that one but an upstart carrier buying cheap used F100s would be like a ground transportation company in 1
42 AAR90 : Are these manufacturers of these used '80s busses still around? Yep, there are a dozen in SoCal area alone... not counting the Mexican companies that
43 Flyibaby : PHLBOS, It had been rumored that JI actually leased F100's from AA but that was later proven to be false. AA did however have a monopoly on the availa
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Former Reno Air MD-80s In AA's Fleet posted Fri Mar 23 2001 05:06:54 by Deltaflyertoo
Doesn't AA Have A Huge Hole In It's Fleet? posted Fri May 7 2004 23:40:25 by 727LOVER
"You Can't Make A Bad Landing In A 747"? posted Sun Mar 23 2003 13:56:34 by Cedarjet
Why Comining A330 & B777 In A Same Fleet? posted Sat Mar 1 2003 13:45:09 by Flying Belgian
Number of A340s in Virgin's Fleet posted Mon Oct 23 2006 15:17:35 by Concorde01
Bad Night In Atlanta posted Mon Aug 21 2006 04:06:35 by Nwafflyer
Does Florida West Have DC-10s In Their Fleet? posted Sat May 13 2006 09:47:01 by LTU932
CO & DL Fight Over NYC In Advertising posted Fri Apr 21 2006 16:53:38 by Junction
AA Fleet Pic Question @ LAX? posted Tue Apr 4 2006 06:03:03 by BoeingFever777
Has Any US Carrier Ever Had The A340 In Their Fleet? posted Sun Mar 26 2006 19:15:36 by Josh12815