Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Ex-AA 717's Where?  
User currently offline717fan From Switzerland, joined Nov 2001, 2017 posts, RR: 6
Posted (12 years 2 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1331 times:

Are the 24 remaining AA/TWA 717's still in the desert or have some of these birds left their place? Perhaps for modification for a new operator or something like this?

17 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineB747-437B From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (12 years 2 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1329 times:

Information correct as of June 1, 2002. There may have been changes since then.


N401TW - leased from Wells Fargo - parked at VCV on 1 Apr
N402TW - leased from Wells Fargo - parked at VCV on 26 Feb
N403TW - leased from Wells Fargo - parked at VCV on 27 Feb
N2404A - leased from FSBU - parked at VCV on 4 Mar
N405TW - leased from Wells Fargo - parked at VCV on 18 Mar
N406TW - leased from Wells Fargo - parked at VCV on 19 Mar
N407TW - leased from Wells Fargo - parked at VCV on 12 Mar
N408TW - leased from Wells Fargo - parked at STL
N409TW - leased from Wells Fargo - parked at VCV on 25 Feb
N2410W - leased from Wells Fargo - parked at VCV on 22 Feb
N411TW - leased from Wells Fargo - parked at VCV on 19 Feb
N412TW - leased from Boeing Capital - parked at VCV on 21 Feb
N413TW - leased from Boeing Capital - parked at VCV on 13 Mar
N2414E - leased from Boeing Capital - parked at VCV on 5 Mar
N415TW - leased from Boeing Capital - parked at VCV on 7 Mar
N416TW - leased from Boeing Capital - parked at VCV on 15 Mar
N2417F - leased from Boeing Capital - parked at VCV on 29 Apr
N418TW - leased from Boeing Capital - in service
N2419C - leased from Boeing Capital - in service
N420TW - leased from Boeing Capital - parked at VCV on 20 May
N2421A - leased from Boeing Capital - in service
N422TW - leased from Boeing Capital - in service
N423TW - leased from Boeing Capital - in service
N424TW - leased from Boeing Capital - in service
N2425A - leased from Pembroke - subleased to Qantas - in service as VH-VQF
N426TW - leased from Pembroke - subleased to Qantas - in service as VH-VQG
N2427A - leased from Pembroke - subleased to Qantas - in service as VH-VQH
N428TW - leased from Pembroke - subleased to Qantas - in service as VH-VQI
N429TW - leased from Pembroke - subleased to Qantas - in service as VH-VQJ
N420TW - leased from Pembroke - subleased to Qantas - in service as VH-VQK



User currently offlineLGB Photos From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (12 years 2 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1296 times:

Yup, shot N408TW on the ramp at STL without titles parked for good.

User currently offlineSeiple From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (12 years 2 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1287 times:

As of this morning, three B717's were sitting with titles removed on the TWA maintenance ramp next to the end of runway 6 at STL.

User currently offlineBR715-A1-30 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (12 years 2 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1282 times:

I had the chance of going on N407TW on July 2, 2001. It was still in TWA titles (Had it been AA titles, I would have steered clear of it in fear of getting contaminated.) She was a beautiful bird. I only wish she was still in service, But knowing AA, I knew she wouldn't have been for long.  Angry

User currently offlineSeiple From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (12 years 2 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1276 times:


I had the chance of going on N407TW on July 2, 2001. It was still in TWA titles (Had it been AA titles, I would have steered clear of it in fear of getting contaminated.) She was a beautiful bird. I only wish she was still in service, But knowing AA, I knew she wouldn't have been for long.


However much enthusiasts who don't buy many airline tickets or even TWA frequent flyers are disgusted by the retirement of the B717's, it was an economically sound move by American Airlines for several reasons such as the lease deals on the B717's and cutting down on aircraft types (for example.... why keep the 25 B717's they had when they have 70 plus F-100's?).


User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16259 posts, RR: 56
Reply 6, posted (12 years 2 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1244 times:

QF is currently in talks with Boeing (and/or the lessors) about leasing an addl 10 of the remaining 24 ex-AA 717's to add to the current fleet of 14. QF is reported as being very pleased with 717 performance.




Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineBlink182 From Azerbaijan, joined Oct 1999, 5482 posts, RR: 15
Reply 7, posted (12 years 2 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1213 times:

Flyboy36y is right. AA already had the F100s paid off and AA already had enough of them, and the F100s are not that old, so it was a better choice for them, I thought.

blink



Give me a break, I created this username when I was a kid...
User currently offlineBR715-A1-30 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (12 years 2 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1212 times:

For someone like Seiple who does not know much about the economics of the 717, I can say that if they would have kept the 717s, They would have saved more money on maintenance, and fuel costs in 5 years than they would have with Maintenance, Fuel, AND PASSENGER Costs on the F100s. The 717 would have been a much better choice for AA. Even though the F100s are fairly new, they are GETTING old, Passengers do not like them (Just ask Justin Cederholm who has actually flown on one), and Now that Fokker is out of business, It will soon be hard to find parts for them. Seeing that the 717 will be around for a long time (Or Boeing will), The 717 will have parts available for some time to come. In 5-6 years, they would have already saved billions on operating costs, but what am I talking about, Why would I WANT AA to save money, They like to hoard it all from other airlines.

User currently offlineBoiler Special From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 135 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (12 years 2 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1200 times:

Why don't you provide some actual numbers to support your claim? I'm sure you know more than the folks at AA Operations about their own aircraft.

User currently offlineSeiple From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (12 years 2 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1195 times:

For someone like Seiple who does not know much about the economics of the 717, I can say that if they would have kept the 717s, They would have saved more money on maintenance, and fuel costs in 5 years than they would have with Maintenance, Fuel, AND PASSENGER Costs on the F100s. The 717 would have been a much better choice for AA. Even though the F100s are fairly new, they are GETTING old, Passengers do not like them (Just ask Justin Cederholm who has actually flown on one), and Now that Fokker is out of business, It will soon be hard to find parts for them. Seeing that the 717 will be around for a long time (Or Boeing will), The 717 will have parts available for some time to come. In 5-6 years, they would have already saved billions on operating costs, but what am I talking about, Why would I WANT AA to save money, They like to hoard it all from other airlines.


Wow, what a post. :rolleyes:

I have unfortunately ridden on board the F-100 multiple times (only with two airlines though: American and Mexicana). I dislike it. I have flown the B717 on several occasions with TWA/American and found it comfortable in both First and Coach.

The lease terms on the B717s that TWA had were fairly poor, IIRC. When it comes down to it, they paid too much for the aircraft. American saw it economically wise to cancel the leases and return the aircraft. They already have established themselves with the F-100. Additionally, they have similar capacity aircraft coming in through American Eagle with CRJ-700s. Keeping the 717s was just not economically sound. Yes, operationally they are more economical, but not when you have a cruddy lease deal and are established with another aircraft that makes it redundant.

As far as just because Fokker no longer exists and they no longer make the aircraft so no more parts.... McDonnell Douglas no longer exists and they no longer make the MD-80. Whoops, I guess all those MD-80 operators are S.O.L.

I also seem to recall the B717 program being in danger of cancellation due to a non-abundance of orders.

One minor point of basic economics: Just because one company makes a lot of money, it doesn't mean others can't make a lot of money too.


User currently offlineCannedSPam From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (12 years 2 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1171 times:

Thanks for the laugh Jacob... I glad to know that you are a lot smarter than a bunch of MBAs that compute the airline's finances day in and day out. Don't you think that your financial wizardry will go to waste if you only become a flight attendant? I'm sure you could contribute more!

User currently offlineAA717driver From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 1566 posts, RR: 13
Reply 12, posted (12 years 2 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1122 times:

AA has suspended F100 C-checks(heavy maintenance) until a decision on their future can be made. Did Boeing cough up better lease rates on new 717's or did AA find a way to pump more RJ's into the system?TC


FL450, M.85
User currently offlineB747-437B From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (12 years 2 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1117 times:

For someone like Seiple who does not know much about the economics of the 717, I can say that if they would have kept the 717s, They would have saved more money on maintenance, and fuel costs in 5 years than they would have with Maintenance, Fuel, AND PASSENGER Costs on the F100s.

How about someone like me who DOES have strong operational knowledge? The block hour operating costs for the 717 are significantly lower than the F100s, but there are additional considerations as well. AA paid a pretty decent sum for the F100 package when Fokker went under, and that is a capital investment that they need to protect. Additionally, with the F100 already established in the fleet, the costs of phasing them out and retraining personnel on 717s would have been much higher than simply axing the 717s. Also, the lease terms on the 717s were not particularly attractive since they were initially negotiated against TWA's credit, while the F100s were taken care of. There are plenty of other reasons that the F100s won out, but these summarize the key ones. The 717 is a more efficient aircraft than the F100 without a doubt, but not for AA and not at this time.


User currently offlineSrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (12 years 2 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1060 times:

One of the reasons why AirTran started to turn higher profits was due to the 717. The fuel savings were actually more than they and Boeing had expected (somewhere between 30-40% better), and the better the fuel savings, the less fuel to be purchased, and that leads to a better bottom line. Yes, the lease rates TWA got were in the pawn shop neighborhood, but you would think AA had enough clout to renegotiate the lease terms with Boeing Capital, Wells Fargo and FSBU, and Pembroke to a more attractive rate for them. It is good to see that Qantas has become a fan or the aircraft; maybe they'll order some outright in addition to leasing them. But with this news of AA delaying C checks on their F100s in order to decide their future could be an indication that perhaps AA wants to order the 717, and instead of taking the TWA ones, they may have returned them in a bargaining move. Perhaps AA wants new-builts, not some adopted birds that are oddballs in the fleet.

User currently offline717fan From Switzerland, joined Nov 2001, 2017 posts, RR: 6
Reply 15, posted (12 years 2 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1048 times:

AA has said that the 717 is a good bird, but that they are not interested in the TWA-birds. With this F-100 news from AA...it could become interesting again....

User currently offlineTEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (12 years 2 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1019 times:

I think AA should have kept those TWA 717s because aren't they related the the MD-80 family? Except for the engines, are most of the components in both aircraft the same? Where AA mechanics can use the same spare parts between their MD-80s and the 717s?

User currently offlineBrons2 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3013 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (12 years 2 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1006 times:

tedski...it has been said by others that there is almost zero commonality between the MD-80 series and the MD-90 and 95 (717) Other than the basic airframe...


Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
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...
Ex-AA 717: New Operators? posted Mon Apr 8 2002 08:51:00 by TriStar500
AC/NW: Ex-AA 717? posted Tue Jan 15 2002 19:21:10 by 717fan
Ex-Jetstar 717's Still Parked? posted Sun Oct 15 2006 23:54:57 by 717fan
Which Ex-AA 727 Just Crashed Recently? posted Sun Jan 4 2004 18:59:00 by 727LOVER
Which 3 Ex AA 727 Used For Pilot-gun Training? posted Mon Dec 1 2003 18:31:30 by 727LOVER
Ex-AA CEO Crandall Wants Gov't Help For Amtrak posted Fri Nov 7 2003 21:00:37 by Mikey711MN
AA 717 Or Emb-190 posted Sat Oct 25 2003 05:02:52 by Fuelhog
Help With An Ex-AA MD-11 posted Fri Oct 17 2003 20:31:59 by AM
AA 717 Possible posted Wed Sep 24 2003 05:45:16 by Fuelhog
Fedex MD11 In Ex-AA Colours. posted Mon Dec 9 2002 02:13:54 by Cx flyboy