LMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2142 times:
I have heard from a good source that AA intend to dispose of the F-100's and A-300's over the next five years. This is an attempt to further reduce costs by rationalizing the fleet. It's been AA plan to go to an all-Boeing fleet. Due to the current economic conditions it appears that it's been decided to speed up the plans.
Getting rid of the F-100 and A-300 only makes sense since both are "odd ball" types in it's fleet. They were never really that popular with the M&E folks at AA. Every A&P I have talked to who has worked on the A300 have all said what a pain it is. The finance people liked the A300 and F100 because they got a good price on them. In addition you could pack a lot of cargo into the A300.
Considering the popularity of the A300 with cargo carriers AA should not have a problem selling them off. The F100 is another story. Since Fokker is no longer around and F100 not widely used I have a feeling that most will end up in the desert.
It's probably pretty certain the A300 will be replaced by a combination of 767 and 777. The F100 is more problematic. I'm sure AMR would love to be able to order more CRJ's for American Eagle. That would save them a lot of money. However the pilots current scope agreement does no allow for this. Maybe AA will order CRJ's or possibly the EMB-170 for it's fleet. Who knows.
Airsicknessbag From Germany, joined Aug 2000, 4723 posts, RR: 38 Reply 2, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2011 times:
I am still convinced that there is no real A300 replacement on offer, let alone from Boeing. I hear cargo is pretty important on AA´s Caribbean routes, so I´d be very surprised to see nay 767 take over. And the 777 would probably too big in terms of passengers.
RayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7693 posts, RR: 5 Reply 3, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1954 times:
I have real serious doubts that AA will get rid of their A300B4-600R and F100 fleets anytime soon.
First of all, the AB6's are superb airplanes for Caribbean service, especially with the extra revenues from carrying cargo. Secondly, there are currently no equivalent planes to replace the F100, especially given AA's very large fleet of the planes.
Because both planes easily meet ICAO Stage III noise regulations, that's even more incentive NOT to retire them.
Travellin'man From United States of America, joined May 2001, 530 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1907 times:
American also has some obscene deal with Airbus on the lease for the 300's. I think they can shed them with 30 days notice. So I don't think they are any real liability.
The F100's are probably paid for, so it's like the NW DC-9's: you might think they are just a bunch of old birds, but they are moneymakers, and that matters to any airline hemmoraghing money as badly as AA and the rest in these times!
It is not enough to be rude; one must also be incorrect.
Nwa757300 From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 298 posts, RR: 2 Reply 5, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1907 times:
This brings up the point as to why didn't AA just keep the 717s from TW. They would have been a perfect replacement for the F-100. It fits the 100 seat market and it's Boeing. From what I understand the F-100s are expensive to operate. Plus, keeping the 717 would have given a big boost to Boeings program.
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16245 posts, RR: 52 Reply 7, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1888 times:
TWA had high lease payments due to their bad credit rating, AA has very low lease payments due to their good credit rating. So they got rid of the 717s.
I would think a mix of 757-300s and 767-400s would fit the A-300 niche, the 757 is much more active on AA's Latin American and Carribean routes than the A-300 (they have 100 757s). So adding more 757s (300 models) would be very cost effective since they have such a large support structure in place for the 757.
The A-300s only number about 30, whatever money is made from extra cargo and low lease payments are probably eaten up by higher maintenance costs to support so few aircraft which have no commonality with any other AA aircraft.
Ordering 757-300s with RR engines and 767-400s would streamline maintenance and parts costs associated with them, also pilot training costs would be decreased because of the commonality of the 757s and 767s already in AA's fleet.
As for what they do after the F-100, that's more uncertain.
HlywdCatft From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 5321 posts, RR: 7 Reply 10, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1823 times:
I thought the same thing, why didn't AA take the 717s to replace the F100s. I'm sure Boeing could have worked out a deal with AA to keep the program alive by lowering the lease payments to AA once AA took over, or AA could have just bought the planes and not leased them. The 717 would be a lot easier for maintenance and repairs since it is still in production.
My guess is that AA will eventually replace its A300s with 763s, maybe 764s. My guess since AA is leaning all Boeing and they already have 738s, they will go to 736s and 73Gs for F100 and MD-80 replacement, but don't count on that anytime soon.
Wannabe From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 675 posts, RR: 3 Reply 11, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1789 times:
I have heard from good sources that the cargo element of the A-300 is what is keeping it going. Because the islands depend upon inbound cargo, the more you can carry, the better you are. I was told that even if they flew the 300 down without passengers, they make money on the cargo alone. They want every pound of cargo they can get.
Spacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2735 posts, RR: 1 Reply 12, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1754 times:
They have 34 of the original 35 A-300s, as one was lost last december, and 74 of the original 75 F-100s that were delivered. One was written off after the right main gear collapsed during landing at DFW last year.
LMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1698 times:
IMO it makes perfect sense to dispose of the F100 and A300. By getting rid of two fleet types you are reducing your flight crew training costs. In addition you are reducing your maintenance costs because you no longer have to train your technicians on two A/C. Plus you are no longer having to stock parts for the aircraft.
The A300 has the lowest reliability rate in AA's fleet and the F100 is not far behind. By getting rid of them you increase your on-time performance. Once again your maintenance costs go down since you are disposing of two aircraft with higher maintenance costs than the rest of your fleet.
BA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11135 posts, RR: 61 Reply 14, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1678 times:
I don't think American is going to get rid of there A300-600Rs anytime soon.
American relies on lots of Cargo from it's Caribbean routes which is an even larger revenue source than the passengers themselves.
No aircraft in it's size and category can compete with the A300 in terms of cargo capacity. One of the biggest problems with the 767 is it is lacking in cargo capacity since it is narrower than the A300.
I've heard from several sources and even employees that AA is planning on holding on to it's A300s for many many more years. The Flt. 587 accident hasn't changed there minds.
Regarding the F100, I've heard American will also be keeping them for at least 10 more years.
They were at a time considering replacing them with TWA's 717s, but instead decided to dump the 717s and are going to keep the F100s which have been running in American's fleet for quite a few years now.
Not sure what they would replace the F100 with, but I think they will be keeping them for quite some time.
"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
EA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 12556 posts, RR: 64 Reply 17, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1565 times:
Any AA pilot will tell you that while the A-300-600R can carry more cargo, it's a total dog in terms of both performance and reliability.
The B-767 is a superior aircraft in both aspects (it's just a fact based on operational performance, people..please save the "Airbus vs. Boeing" flames), but anyone checking in a flight to SJU, POP, SDQ, and the like will tell you that some customers' excess baggage fees exceed their ticket prices! THAT is how much cargo capacity comes into play on AA's flights.
When TW attempted to compete with AA to the Caribbean using B-757 equipment, they had to restrict the number of excess bags per person, infuriating many of the passengers they were trying so desperately to win over from AA.
So even though AA would probably love to ditch the A-300 fleet, they'll probably stick around for the Caribbean runs for awhile.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
Clipper471 From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 726 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1542 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW DATABASE EDITOR
"TWA had high lease payments due to their bad credit rating, AA has very low lease payments due to their good credit rating. So they got rid of the 717s."
Actually, because AA had better credit one of the first things they did was re-negotiate lower lease rates on the Boeing 757's and MD-80's. So, they could have done the same with the Boeing 717's, if they wanted to.
Dutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 58 Reply 21, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1525 times:
I am not sure who provided this information, but from what I hear and understand, nothing can be further from the truth......the F100s are staying for the medium-term future and AA in the process of upgrading the F100 fleet with new interiors and other improvements, and the A300 will continue to fly the medium-haul latin amerian routes as they are the ideal aircraft for the service that they fly.....AA has great financial arrangements on the A300s.
AA has not even started to think about a replacement type for the A300 and the replacement of the F100 depends upon whether 100 pax aircraft will be operated by mainline or regional carriers in the future.
CMK10 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 513 posts, RR: 4 Reply 24, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1479 times:
I can see them getting rid of the A300 but not the F100. Markets like SWF and HPN are perfect for the F100 and im not sure what could replace them. At HPN we cant take 737s or MD-80s and we haev too many RJ's as it is. Adding more might clog runways farther.
"Traveling light is the only way to fly" - Eric Clapton
25 Flyingbronco05: If AA was going to get rid of their F-100's, then why didnt they hold on to the 717's? AA will keep the -100s for five more years or so. They are stil
26 Penguinflies: I think all but 6 of the F-100s are fully paid for and AA did take a $500 million dollar write down on them last year. After taking that big of hit on
27 Flyboy80: I agree that non doubtingly AA will take dilivery of the 736 and 73G, it only makes PERFECT sense, as far as the A300 goes i think the replacement wil
28 Boeing nut: Here's a crazy thought..... AA should get 753's to replace the A300's. The operating cost of the 753 would be pennies compared to the A300. As far as
29 Flyboy80: sorry, forgot to add something. I'm aculty not sure if AA will order the 736 but sertianly the 737-700
30 PSU.DTW.SCE: Wow, this topic is getting discussed almost as much at the NW DC-9 replacement. Every week this topic comes up, and all it is is rumors, rumors, rumor
31 Kaitak: They would need to start thinking about a 767 replacement and it occurs to me that the A330-200 would make a fine A300-600R and 763 replacement, with
32 Clipper471: "AA was able to renegotiate certain TWA aircraft leases that were provided by Boeing GE etc, they might not have been able to renegotiate with the sma
33 PSU.DTW.SCE: Sigh..... Yes, AA is going with an all-Boeing fleet. Not now, but in the long term they are. They are ordering exclusively from Boeing, thats it. Sorr
34 Brons2: The 763 is a fine aircraft and I know AA has a few more on order, but the 332 can do virtually everything it can do and more - more freight space, wid
35 Trintocan: You are all surely right about AA and cargo capacity to the Caribbean. A few years ago my father, who was travelling to MIA and on to DCA with 2 of my
36 Yyz717: Regardless of the current fit of the A306 and the F100 in the AA fleet, Boeing could make a very attractive offer to roll over the fleet with the 753/
37 Californiasoul: Nice to see all these rumors flying around about the company I work for......at least people are talking. As for the F-100, Dutchjet and PSU have the
38 Flyboy36y: Californiasoul, Don't you mean: StAAy tuned for next week's exciting episode.......same bAAt time....same bAAt channel!
39 MAH4546: Fact: No single plane on the market can offer American the flexibility and efficiency it needs on the routes it flies out of Miami and JFK. It is real
40 Californiasoul: I agree with Mah4546 on the A300 situation......we service those in Tulsa and I am not hearing any rumors or rumblings from the brass on their future.
41 Boeing nut: If it happens, I see American acquiring the 753 or more 763's for the Carribean routes. Possibly considering the 757PF for cargo. They've obviously al
42 JAL: Maybe AA will now orders the 767-400 to replace their A300 and the 717 would be a great replacement for the F-100.
43 Hustler: As a frequent traveler to SDQ and POP I always see people paying extra cash to bring extra cargo aboard the A300. I've heard of people paying up to $2