Lubcha132 From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 2776 posts, RR: 7 Posted (12 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1940 times:
I am a pretty big fan of the Fokker 100. I've flown on them several times (Midway and AA) on 1-2 hour flights (EWR-RDU,PBI-RDU,ORD-BNA,ORD-EWR) and i must say that it is a great plane. For its size, it is very comfortable, and even sitting next to the engine isn't bad.
Tango-Bravo From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 3806 posts, RR: 29
Reply 2, posted (12 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1849 times:
F100 is one of the few jet airliner types I have not experienced. "What I think" of the F100 is that it may be the logical replacement for the ancient DC-9s that remain in service with airlines who will eventually be looking for not-quite-as-ancient replacement types.
LMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (12 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1794 times:
This is from an AA perspective. The F100 was an expensive aircraft to maintain when compared to other aircraft. Since Fokker went BK and other suppliers were less than enthusiastic in supporting it AA had to manufacture itself some of the parts. This of course drives up costs. As does having to train technicians to work on a plane that has nothing in common with any other airplane in it's fleet.
OA277 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 76 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (12 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1650 times:
I really think it is one of the most spacious planes i've ever been in my life.
I've flown them a couple of times on the MAN-AMS route.
These birds belong to KLM UK.
I'm 6.3'' and i had space to take my shoes off and generally feel very comfortable.
I wouldn't mind flying them again!
Tg 747-300 From Norway, joined Nov 1999, 1318 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (12 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1647 times:
Having only flown a F100 once. (Air Inter from Ajaccio-Orly back in 1995) I don't remember much. But based on pictures etc. I think it's a very nice and good looking plane. The flightdeck is just not too modern and the aircarf has the lovly dc9 look. I have also heard that fokker planes are very well build since thay are more hand made than normal. Sadly fokker isn't around so I do understand that keeping the f100 flying might be expensive.
Contrails From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 1834 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (12 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1582 times:
I've flown the F-100 a good bit, mostly on the DCA-ORD and TUL-ORD routes. Flew it once on the DFW-COS route. I've known people who thought it was a great plane, but I don't hold that view.
It's an "OK" plane, and I can think of other planes that I don't enjoy as much, and it is most certainly better than a puddle-jumper, but it is not a plane I look forward to traveling in. Imo, it's uncomfortable in the rear of the cabin, feels "crowded", and doesn't give the smoothest of rides. I thought the old DC-9's were better planes, but I didn't get to ride in a lot of them.
An AA pilot once told me, right after the Fokker company went belly-up, that getting parts would be a serious problem one day and he thought AA didn't think the purchase completely through. He didn't elaborate on what "completely through" meant.
KKMolokai From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 760 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (12 years 3 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1420 times:
I am so glad we (AA) are getting rid of the F100s. These "Barbie Dream Jets" are nightmares to work! They're constantly weight restricted, seem to always have something wrong with them, and just are a problem child!
In my opinion, they aren't the most comfortable aircraft, in means of size and spaciousness, however, they're better than a prop! Their old looking interiors, and dated amenities don't help either.
We are the people of American Airlines. And we know why you fly.
Fokker Lover From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (12 years 3 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 1376 times:
After working on them every day for 13+ years, I think I'm qualified to say it's a pretty good airplane. Once you understand, and I emphasize UNDERSTAND what makes them tick, it's a pretty easy plane to work on. The guys that don't understand them are the ones that bury their heads back in greasy, old, Diesel 9's
Sllevin From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 3376 posts, RR: 6
Reply 18, posted (12 years 3 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1338 times:
FokkerLover: I think that's a good point -- for operational usage as well. People tend to forget that the F100 was designed for very short routes, and then wonder why its so expenseive to operate on 1,000nm legs.
NKP S2 From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 1714 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (12 years 3 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 1321 times:
Fokkerlover: AMEN!!! Man, you've nailed it to a tee. I cannot understand why that plane gave so many guys such an inferiority complex...And it's not just old Douglas die-hards either. I found it's a well engineered plane with a lot of maintainence friendly features...If some people would just "think outside the box". Quirky? Maybe. Perfect? No. ( "Dutch ovens" anyone? ) A Pain in the a$$ sometimes? Yes...but so is everything else. -- As for the "expensive to maintain" bit: The pigeon-holing of the A/C to oddball status seemed to doom the parts support to a precipitous ride down a slippery slope.
Leo From China, joined May 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (12 years 3 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 1273 times:
The Fokker 100 made a problematic start in the USA because it was the first 'fully digital' aircraft to arrive there.
In those days, the US mechaniscs were not properly trained to deal with the advanced electronic maintenance facilities. They still 'kicked' tires and got out their spanners when things went wrong.
In close cooperation with USAirways and AA, Fokker identified that lack of maintenance training was one of the major issues with the aircraft's reliability. A program was designed to overcome these issues.
In Europe the aircaft always had a higher dispatch reliability because the A310 and other Airbus aircraft were more established and engineers were used to the new 'digital' way of thinking.
At AA the B777's introduction was smoothed by the 'digital' knowledge gained from the Fokkers.
Ts-ior From Tunisia, joined Oct 2001, 3494 posts, RR: 6
Reply 21, posted (12 years 3 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 1271 times:
I assume to say that the Fokker 100 is a quiet elegant aircraft.Its lines are more or less similar to those of the MD-80s and the wings shape remembers me of the Caravelle ones...Am i wrong ?!!!
The first time i saw a Fokker 100 was in 1991 on an Exxon Aviation magazine.It was a quiet luxurious AA Luxury Liner with its shining metal belly,then i saw it on the Swissair livery,TAM livery and then on Deutsche BA colors.
Few are the Fokker 100s nowadays,and i would say that they would had a respectable career if Fokker is still alive !!!
BR715-A1-30 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (12 years 3 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 1226 times:
Lowfareair: And at least the F-100's have real RR engines, before BMW got involved!
What is this supposed to mean. The BR715 is the best sounding engine in the air as of now (aside from it's parent figure the RB211). Actually, BMW didn't do much in the design phase of this engine. and if you notice, They do not put a BMW sticker on the sides of the engine anymore
D-aqui From Germany, joined Sep 2001, 203 posts, RR: 8
Reply 24, posted (12 years 3 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 1224 times:
I have flown as a passenger in Swissair's F-100's right from their introduction into service back in 1989 between BSL and LHR several times and later in the 1990ies between ORY and Bastia on the French island of Corsica. In direct comparison to the DC 9-51 employed on the BSL-LHR sector I considered them to be a real improvement. They were by any means comfortable: spacious and quiet, even at the rear.
It was really sad to see the well-known name of Fokker from the aviation scene due to scrupulous and shady Daimler interests at the time.
Yes, from a passenger perspective it was and still is a good plane.
DeltaRules From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3840 posts, RR: 9
Reply 25, posted (12 years 3 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1177 times:
I've flown on several US F100s & I like them- it was a shame that they were retired. They were pretty comfortable, and as was mentioned above, sitting by the engine wasn't bad (I had to do it a couple times!) I think it's a pretty nice looking plane as well. I wish more carriers still had them.