Mia777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2002, 1165 posts, RR: 6 Posted (11 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2053 times:
I was wondering if AA is going to replace their F100s with anything...this may have been discussed before but I never really got a clear asnwer...are they simple going to put Eagle planes on the old routes...thanks!
John From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 1374 posts, RR: 6 Reply 1, posted (11 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2044 times:
It has been stated that the F-100s will be around thru 2004, so it looks like it'll be a gradual phase out of this fleet. This industry, at least the big established airlines, are in such financial turmoil right now, I doubt the huge expense of a fleet replacement is in the cards right now, at least in the near term, until AA pulls themselves out of this disastrous slump. However, it has been rumored that they are once again looking at the 717, along with Northwest.
Yyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16126 posts, RR: 57 Reply 2, posted (11 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1982 times:
There has no announcement or intension of a direct 100-seat replacement. It appears that the smallest aircraft will be the MD-80 upon retirement of the F-100. However, this will create a big capacity gap betw the CRJ-700 and the MD-80, so it seems reasonable that a 100-seat aircraft will be added. It could be either mainline or commuter I presume. Candidates would no doubt include the 717, 736/G, CRJ-900, EMB-170, etc.
Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
Blink182 From Azerbaijan, joined Oct 1999, 5460 posts, RR: 18 Reply 3, posted (11 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1944 times:
I don't think any replacement will be announced in the next year or so. To keep commonality, I think a 737NG, EMB-170 or CRJ900 will be in the cards as AA already flies the 738 and the Embraers and Canadairs are in service with Eagle. I would love to see AA order the EMB-170. I don't see AA going with the 717. If they wanted them, they would have taken them from TWA.
Give me a break, I created this username when I was a kid...
El Al 001 From Israel, joined Oct 1999, 1063 posts, RR: 2 Reply 5, posted (11 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1915 times:
I don't understand AA at all. They have in their hands the ex-TWA 717s, and without any doubt, the aircraft that AA needs on the route which currently being operated by the F100, must be very light and therefore the same sized 736/G wont be a very smart alternative, if its even considered. However, the 717 might be a good choice to replace the F100, but I guess AA rather not operate it.
I guess the smartest replacement though will be the ERJ195, but this a/c will be available only in a few years.
Yyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16126 posts, RR: 57 Reply 6, posted (11 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1912 times:
AA was happy with the 717 operationally, but the lease payments were too high. Also, the 717 served the same market as the F-100.
AA's goal is to reduce fleet diversification (the 717, 722, PW 762/3, MD-87, MD-90, MD-11, QQ MD-80 are all gone) and return to profitability. The next aircraft on the chopping block happens to be the F-100.
No reason why AA may not add the 717 at some future date.
Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
Sllevin From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 3376 posts, RR: 6 Reply 7, posted (11 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1900 times:
I think a large part of this is that AA doesn't want to serve the 90 seat market with mainline aircraft. Right now, they can need to lose capacity, but I suspect that down the road they are going to push for pilot contracts that allow them to fly 90 pax aircraft under the auspices of Eagle.
PSU.DTW.SCE From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 7198 posts, RR: 29 Reply 8, posted (11 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1879 times:
The F-100's will never be replaced in a one-for-one sense.
The F-100's are being phased out because of their high maintenance costs, and because AA needs to slash capacity. AA has too many planes flying, not enough passengers and not enough revenue. Getting rid of the 717's first made sense, AA made out pretty well on that, since they went back to Boeing and are now finding new homes. The F-100's on the other hand, thats questionable. Not too sure anyone is going to want F-100's with the glut of other aircraft parked in the desert. However between the number of F-100's being abandoned by US and AA, a small niche operator could make out quite well on the F-100's.
AA decided to get rid of the F-100's in order to simplfy the fleet and cut costs. The F-100 will kind of be replaced by RJ's and in other cases MD-80's and 738's. AA is just trying to match capacity with demand. Down the road more ERJ's and CRJ's will come, along with 738's.
Mia777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2002, 1165 posts, RR: 6 Reply 10, posted (11 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1763 times:
ok...first off...who would want all those F-100s....wasn't one of the reasons for their getting rid of being that they had a defect that was worth more than the plane? If their really was a defect why woudl anyone else want them...AA needs to replace these planes....75 is a lot. I think that they need to look into the 717 or the CRJ-700/900....they obviously won't now because there is simply no money but for the future...
Usairways85 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 3245 posts, RR: 7 Reply 11, posted (11 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1750 times:
i don't think that the supposed defect in the plane is a leading cause of them retiring their F100's. I think its rather stupid to take 2 years to retire a plane with a defect. Although the defect may not be a serious threat to the plane, its a hefty risk to take. I am having a feeling there wasn't much to that story about the defect. Anyone have anymore details about it? I'm sure there are other reasons for their retirement, that have been mentioned above.
FlagshipAZ From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3419 posts, RR: 15 Reply 12, posted (11 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1696 times:
If American is going to replace their F-100s, I don't see it happening anytime soon. They'll be laying off 7,000 employees soon, and the stock price has dropped to below $5 a share...first time in 19 years the stock has gotten that low. Granted, the F-100s will need replacing, but I believe the RJs has a better chance of getting that niche. The 717 is good, but really, AA can't afford anything that big right now. Just my thoughts. Regards.
"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." --Ben Franklin
Sllevin From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 3376 posts, RR: 6 Reply 14, posted (11 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1667 times:
It's not a defect, but, rather, a time-in-service related Airworthiness Directive. In short, it states that several engines parts must be examined for cracks and fatigue. It applies to just about everything using Tay 6xx series engines, including such primarily civil aircraft as the Gulfstream IV and IV-SP.
I'm *not* an A&P, but I read the AD, and it would appear, based on the parts that need to be inspected, that you'll have to tear down the entire engine to do the inspection.
AA is retiring the F-100's as they hit the TIS requirments for the AD. So, while there will be airplanes parked in the desert, each one will require between 1 and 2 million to bring back into service -- a price which is likely too high for them to ever see service again.