Flashmeister From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 2863 posts, RR: 7 Reply 2, posted (11 years 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 910 times:
20 years? That's a little far out for these birds, already 16 years old. I give them another 10 or so until they become exceptionally expensive to maintain and make parts for, since manufacturer support for these doesn't really exist anymore...
Crosswind From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 2572 posts, RR: 59 Reply 4, posted (11 years 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 872 times:
16 years old
American Airline's F100s were delivered between July 1991 and June 1994, making them between 8 and 11 years old. Not exactly due for replacement
Given that AA have 74 of them, they're a sizeable fleet and look set to be around for some time to come. The fact that they're getting rid of new B717s and keeping the F100s says a lot.
Yes, the 717s were on unfavourable lease terms, but AA could have renegotiated them if they'd wanted to because leasing firms would rather have them flying at lower lease rates than having them sat idle on the ground with no real prospect of finding work for them in the near term.
Hope to see these little fokkers at AA for a long time to come!
Dutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 58 Reply 5, posted (11 years 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 818 times:
That AA returned the ex-TW 717s and elected to keep the F100 in service does show that AA is committed to the F100........and it is likely to be in service for many more years. The question of replacement in the future is an interesting one; will AA keep a +/-100 seat aircraft in its mainline fleet or will that become "large regional jet" territory operated by Eagle?
I assume that we can expect AA to order the smaller versions of the 737NG family (736, 73G) to replace the MD80 and at least some of the F100 fleet in the long-term future.
Crosswind From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 2572 posts, RR: 59 Reply 6, posted (11 years 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 803 times:
I agree DutchJet, whatever happens with the F100 replacement at AA, it will be interesting!
Unless there are some major ALPA concessions, I don't think AA will be allowed to transfer their whole 100 seat operation to American Eagle.
As things currently stand American Eagle's RJ operation is severely restricted because of cutbacks at AA, which mean until AA's fleet size increases again it will be difficult for Eagle to add more RJs in the near term.
I don't really see a need for the B737-600 at American, longer runs can support larger aircraft, and it's a bit heavy for intensive short-haul operations in place of the F100. I think by the time the F100 comes up for replacement, some of it's routes may require a larger aircraft anyway and can be upgraded to the B737-700. The ones that cannot will have to be transfered to American Eagle with the CRJ-700 or dropped.
By that stage AA's fleet should be large enough to allow increased RJ operation, and ideally renegotiation of the scope clause will allow American Eagle more freedom.
At the end of the day, I understand the pilots wanting to protect their jobs but I think that the days of major carriers operating 100 seat jets are coming to an end. Their costs, among them crew costs, just make it very hard to turn a profit.
I'm of the view that RJs bring in increased passenger numbers into hubs, eliminate unprofitable mainline routes freeing up aircraft and crews to pursue profitable expansion and generally benefit the whole company. Ultimately RJs promote expansion of the mainline carrier and provide more jobs for pilots at both the regional and mainline airlines. The pain comes with the transition to the new business model that's currently slowly starting to take place.
Dazed767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5447 posts, RR: 53 Reply 12, posted (11 years 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 600 times:
In the meantime, we're doing a lot: we're making very strategic schedule changes, focusing on customer service and on ways to minimize hassles at the airport, and generally pursuing ways to make our business operate more effectively. We are reducing complexity wherever we can find it, most notably slashing the number of fleet types we operate from 14 to 7.
I'm just thinking in 5 years or so it might happen. But I could see the A300 and F100's leaving the fleet if they do cut the aircraft types.
PSU.DTW.SCE From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 6871 posts, RR: 29 Reply 13, posted (11 years 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 550 times:
The F-100's aren't going anywhere. As mentioned, they were delivered between 1991-1994. Their planned retirement is between 2010-2012. They suit AA quite well, and they've been happy with them, except the whole problem with the landing gear defect that led to the write-off of that one in DFW last year. AA is spending money to provide new First Class seats on the F-100's too. Since US dumped their F-100's, there are plenty of spare parts available.
Stage IV in the US is still a pipe-dream. Airline lobbyists won't let it happen. There are too many airlines still flying those aircraft to make this happen. (DC-9's, MD-80's, etc) More or less, airlines will have to phase them out when the aircraft are up for retirement.
You guys keep on taking that one statement by Carty out of context. They already reduced the fleet types from 14 down to 7, and no, those numbers don't include Eagle!!! No more fleets are leaving. You need to read the whole article and his last message to see what he means by saving money. Its about where AA can cuts costs across the board in any little or big way. Reducing the fleet type was strictly an example he gave about what AA has done.
(Remember, within each fleet type there are various subfleets, like in the 767's)