Why didn't AA keep the TWA 717s. I mean, AA chose to keep the Fokkers instead. In the end, the Fokkers were retired as well. The 717 is known to have superior economics and reliablity compared to the F100. It seems like AA made a huge mistake on retiring the 717s.

In a nutshell: The lease rates TWA negotiated were very high and so AA returned them when the leases expired to help consolidate fleet types.

I wonder if the reason had to do with taking on the TWA 717 debt?

Would have been perfect replacement for their MD-80s!

Quoting JAL (Reply 3): Would have been perfect replacement for their MD-80s!

Considering the MD-80 holds about another 40 pax, I don't think so.

Quoting JAL (Reply 3): Would have been perfect replacement for their MD-80s!

Even though they are both based on the DC-9, the 717 is the size of the DC-9-30, which is smaller than the MD-80. The closest aircraft to the MD-80's capacity that Boeing is currently offering is the 737-800, but AA will likely wait until the 737RS is announced.

AA and WN are both considered likely customers to make huge orders on the 737RS, to replace their MD-80 and 737 fleets.

Quoting JAL (Reply 3): Would have been perfect replacement for their MD-80s!

Too small. The perfect alternative to the MD80 was the 734, and a decent replacement is the 738, though that's more of a 727 replacement as well.

Then again, if AA could fly the MD80 transcon, they would in a heartbeat, so replacing the oldest ones with 738s that are capable of this is a good concept, and one they are following. The bulk will still be replaced when 737RS arrives, but for now, a smaller number will be replaced with 738s.

The best replacement for the missing F100 is the E190 with 94 seats (8+86), as it offers good economics, under 100 seats (to limit number of F/As), and has the same range as the F100 did.

I miss the F100 though. Sure, it broke down a lot, but it was my favorite narrowbody jet to fly in at the time.

Quoting JAL (Reply 3): Would have been perfect replacement for their MD-80s!

They would have been a better replacement for the F100s.

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Thread starter): The 717 is known to have superior economics and reliablity compared to the F100. It seems like AA made a huge mistake on retiring the 717s.

I would have liked to seen them put in service and then place a large order for more to keep the Long Beach production line going, probably would have kept the 717 in production too. AA kept the 717s parked correct?

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 5): The closest aircraft to the MD-80's capacity that Boeing is currently offering is the 737-800, but AA will likely wait until the 737RS is announced.

I think the MD-80s will be with AA for at least another 5-10 years. I would like to see them either a) re-engine them, which won't happen or b) add winglets ala Jet Tran Air. I will miss the Mad Dogs when they are finally retired.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 6): I miss the F100 though. Sure, it broke down a lot, but it was my favorite narrowbody jet to fly in at the time.

I wish the F100s were still around too. For variety if nothing else. However the 727s are the narrowbodies that I really miss.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 6): I miss the F100 though. Sure, it broke down a lot, but it was my favorite narrowbody jet to fly in at the time.

I miss the F100 too, mostly because it filled such a big gap in AA's mainline fleet. Until they can find a suitable replacement, we'll be stuck flying RJs to cities like Buffalo, Amarillo, Knoxville and Memphis, etc. that used to be served by F100s. Who knows if they'll ever find a mainline 100-seater, though.

Quoting Jsnww81 (Reply 8): Who knows if they'll ever find a mainline 100-seater, though.

Unfortunately, I don't think that the 737RS will be available in a 100-seat variant. Unless Boeing splits the 737RS into two separate aircraft families, the size will likely range from the 737-700 to the 757-200. The past two 100-seaters offered by Boeing, the 717 and 737-600, have been poor sellers. Even though the 737-600 is still available, I just don't see AA ordering them. The only suitable replacements currently available are the Embraer 190 and 195.

The 717,s were a lease plane ,and i think Fl has bought them and put them in their fleet....

Those f100 were a mech nightmare, but i heard someone overseas was foolish enough to buy them...

Anyone remember how aa got them in their system..I dont recall them always being there.. was it an aquistion

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 7): I think the MD-80s will be with AA for at least another 5-10 years.

Try 15 years, at least. AA has 350+ M80's to replace...at 35/year that would take 10 years to replace. AA has nothing on order to being replacing the M80's so expect the newest M80's to still be flying for AA in 2020.

Quoting JetJeanes (Reply 10): Those f100 were a mech nightmare, but i heard someone overseas was foolish enough to buy them... Anyone remember how aa got them in their system..I dont recall them always being there.. was it an aquistion

AA ordered the F100 directly from Fokker. 75 firm orders plus 75 options, none of which were converted to orders.

Incidently, of the 30 717's AA inherited and parked, 22 went to AirTran, 6 to QantasLink, and 2 to Bangkok Airways.

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 7): I wish the F100s were still around too. For variety if nothing else. However the 727s are the narrowbodies that I really miss.

Dear God, why? The 757 or 737-800/900, as well as A321 are all far nicer to ride on. 727 was a noisy gas guzzling aircraft, great for its day, but that was LONG ago.

I miss the F100s, they had a very mainline feel to them, far nicer to ride on than any of the regional jets, including the E-170/190.

I'll also miss the BAe RJ70/RJ85's, which despite being something of complete engineering/mx nightmares, were delightful to ride on.

Quoting Yyz717 (Reply 11): Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 7): I think the MD-80s will be with AA for at least another 5-10 years. Try 15 years, at least. AA has 350+ M80's to replace...

Hence why I said at least. There are only 301 in service by the way, and the oldest built from 83-85 will probably be stored in the next couple of years.

Quoting JetJeanes (Reply 10): Anyone remember how aa got them in their system..I dont recall them always being there.. was it an aquistion

The F100s were ordered directly from Fokker.

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 12): Dear God, why? The 757 or 737-800/900, as well as A321 are all far nicer to ride on. 727 was a noisy gas guzzling aircraft, great for its day, but that was LONG ago.

Why? Because its a beautiful classic aircraft thats why.    The noise was not all that bad as long as you were not sitting in the very last few rows and I can live without the latest IFE. I know I'm not alone when I say the 727s are missed.

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 13): I know I'm not alone when I say the 727s are missed.

I for one agree with you completely! I will miss all my DL and UA 727 flights!

On another note, didnt TWA order the a318?

I miss the F100 too, mostly because it filled such a big gap in AA's mainline fleet. Until they can find a suitable replacement, we'll be stuck flying RJs to cities like Buffalo, Amarillo, Knoxville and Memphis, etc. that used to be served by F100s. Who knows if they'll ever find a mainline 100-seater, though.

We sure saw lots of AA F100's at ROC! Unless something changes with AA's scope clause, lots of medium-size markets can presumably look forward to Lawn Darts and a few CR7's from AA for a long time to come. Perhaps a solution would be EMB-195's flown by mainline pilots at a rate economical for the a/c?

It has long surprised me that AA has tolerated, with (from what I can tell) little apparent objection, such a big gap in its its seating capacity--only 25 CR7's in between an army of Lawn Darts and an army of Mad Dogs.

Jim

Quoting EmSeeEye (Reply 14): On another note, didnt TWA order the a318?

They did indeed, but that order got cut with the AA acquisition. If the 717's hadn't already been on property, my guess is that AA would have found a way to void that order as well.

Apparently AA feels they need fleet simplicity more than filling a gap in their seating capacity. From a cost standpoint, that's probabaly the correct call considering all of their current alternatives. Costwise, the disparity between Eagle and mainline probably makes it cheaper to add a section with a 145 or CR7 than to have a whole new fleet type. When they decide what they'll do with the M80 fleet, they may address it, but I doubt before that.

Like all of the legacy majors, AA is basically in survival mode with far more pressing concerns than finding mainline lift for 110-120 passengers. That they've managed to stay out of BK up until now can be taken as a justification of their approach.

Cheers,
Dave in Orlando

Quoting Logos (Reply 16): Costwise, the disparity between Eagle and mainline probably makes it cheaper to add a section with a 145 or CR7 than to have a whole new fleet type.

That is not true in the high fuel cost era. It was true when AA made the decision, however. Now I am sure AA wishes they had a more fuel efficient 95 seater with an F section. JFK-ORD would likely be running them, and DFW-IAH would have them. I remember living near CVG, and flying F100s CVG-DFW-IAH.

It's how the airline does business! Buy a failing airline, park all the acquired airplanes, drop all the acquired routes, and keep (sort of) all the people. It happened with AirCal, it happened with Reno, and then it happened yet again with TWA. Somehow they think it's a great plan!

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 1):

I hate to have to contradict a fellow member however it definitely was not due to the "expensive" lease rates that TWA had negotiated...indeed the leases were extremely cheap as Boeing was desperate to keep the 717 production line going and wanted the prestige of having a major US carrier flying them.

During the third bankruptcy proceedings that AA had insisted on as a precondition to the purchase of the carrier, the leasing companies granted further reductions in lease payments for the remainder of the leases, thus making the former TWA fleet even more inexpensive. I was actually in the courtroom in Delaware while all this was going on and saw to firsthand.

AA decided that since they did not need two 100 seat types in the fleet and since they owned the 75 F100s outright and were leasing the 27 717s, the 717s were returned to the leasing companies well ahead of the experation of the leases. Ironically, the operating costs of the F100 (especially following the demise of Fokker and the source of spares) rose dramatically shortly thereafter and that fleet was also desposed of, shifting the majority of those flights to American Eagle.

There was a question about the TWA A318's and these were on order until the aforementioned bankruptcy proceedings when those orders were cancelled by the court.

Quoting EmSeeEye (Reply 14): I for one agree with you completely! I will miss all my DL and UA 727 flights!

The 727 has got to be one of my favourite aircraft, not only to ride but also to watch. The Noise and the smoke coming from the jets were beautiful. Damn the environmentalists!!   

Anyone know why they sometimes call the MD-80 the "Super 80"?

For some reason I hate that name. 'Super' sounds so pretentious.

Quoting Remcor (Reply 21): MD-80 the "Super 80"?

The MD-80 was originally known as the DC-9 Super 80, and AA simply decided to retain the "Super 80" name.

Now that I understand the expensive lease rates had nothing to do with the 717s....I can tell pretty clearly that AA made an error in judgement....favoring the Fokker over the 717. Sigh....even before the gas rose, it was clear the 717 was superior to the Fokkers fuel-wise...it even had the exact engines that appeal to AA the most...ROLLS ROYCE!!! sigh....if I were AA I'd still be pounding myself for this mistake. Plus, even tho there were only 27 TWA 717s, more were on the way...over 100 I recall before they cancelled the orders. The 717s would've made an excellent replacement for the Fokkers.

Quoting Thrust (Reply 23): The 717s would've made an excellent replacement for the Fokkers.

And with the additional 75 or so due to AA, Boeing would not have shut down the 717 line, we might have seen the 717-300 and 717-200LR, and AA would have a 20 year jet in the 100 seat market through 2020. I'm sure the people in the South Bay of my state wish they had done the "right" thing.

It was truly a shortsighted move that they are hurting because of now. LAX-SFO/SJC could be running them, DFW-Midwest could be running them, ORD-JFK/LGA/EWR could be running them.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 24): It was truly a shortsighted move that they are hurting because of now.

Are they really? I know we here on this forum like to see every possible Airline/Aircraft combination as it is the nature of what we discuss. However, it's not as if acquiring/keeping a large fleet of 717s would be without cost for AA. Yes, there would be benefits, but I'm certainly not familiar enough with their finances to say that incurring those costs wouldn't have pushed them into bankruptcy before fuel prices jumped.

This logic seems a little like the guy who trades his SUV for a Prius because gas prices are up. Yes the SUV costs more to operate, but there are other costs of car ownership. The benefits of fleet simplicity, the lease/purchase payments not made for a fleet of 717s, etc. have to be factored into this. The question goes beyond whether a 717 would better fit demand for particular routes than the aircraft they have now.

Don't get me wrong, I like the 717 and was disappointed when it was discontinued. But, in hindsight, it was probably doomed from the start as an orphan of McDonnell-Douglas. The E-Jets can fill the same mission and beyond with a flexibility that the 717 would never have had so it's not hard to see why they won several contests with the 717. As for larger stretches, anything bigger would have encroached on the 737 franchise and probably wasn't realistically ever going to happen. If AA needs the capacity of a 717-300, they'll order the 737-700 and expand what that pilot/crew pool can do.

AirTran will continue to operate their fleet for years and will benefit from the aircraft. But there are too many variables to say definitively that AA would be better off with the aircraft than they are now. Frankly, the airlines with the more complex fleets seem to be the ones populating the bankruptcy courts at this time. On the cost side, AA has a better track record than any of the other majors (when my Aunt worked for them in the 60s she said they wouldn't spend a dime if they didn't have to), so I'm a little loathe to second guess them on this.

Cheers,
Dave in Orlando

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 13): Why? Because its a beautiful classic aircraft thats why. The noise was not all that bad as long as you were not sitting in the very last few rows and I can live without the latest IFE. I know I'm not alone when I say the 727s are missed.

You are not alone.

Quoting Logos (Reply 25): Don't get me wrong, I like the 717 and was disappointed when it was discontinued. But, in hindsight, it was probably doomed from the start as an orphan of McDonnell-Douglas. The E-Jets can fill the same mission and beyond with a flexibility that the 717 would never have had so it's not hard to see why they won several contests with the 717.

But AA can't seem to order those EJets. For AA, they have a gap from 70 seats in single class to the MD80, and that's only recent. Before that, it was 50 seats to the MD80. The F100/717 fits right in the middle there, and as others have noted, AA has had to cut former mainline routes to ERJ and CRJ routes instead. And before you say that helps with costs, the fuel environment has changed. Those ERJ aircraft are especially thirsty, and the 717 is not.

And the 717 may be a another type, but it's not entirely another type compared to their MD80s. Pilot cross qualification and crew training are pretty simple between the 717 and MD80. They use the same ground equipment and share parts.

AA and Boeing had talked about AA replacing the F-100's with more 717's, with Boeing taking the F-100's as trade-in's. Talks went sour when AA stipulated to Boeing that they could not resale the former AA F-100's to any other US based carrier, established or a new start-up. AA didn't want those F-100's used against them by another carrier. Boeing wouldn't agree to it, so talks ended..

Quoting NikonDFW (Reply 28): AA didn't want those F-100's used against them by another carrier. Boeing wouldn't agree to it, so talks ended..

And given what happened to Delta with Valujet/AirTran, can you blame them? Again, I think this "gap" is of less importance than people who frequent this board make it out to be. To use a car analogy, I don't own a third car so that my wife can get better gas mileage when she doesn't need all the room in our mini-van. Is the car better suited for that mission? Sure. Does it make economic sense to own it? Absolutely not.

Again, I think it's similar with AA - the cost of owning a 100-110 seat jet in their fleet exceeds the potential savings. Even with fuel costing more, I think that's likely still the case or they would have gotten in line for the E-jets already. It's much the same calculus that NW has done regarding their DC-9s. At the end of the day, they're cheaper to continue to operate than buying a new, more efficient aircraft.

Both airlines will probably begin to see erosion in their passenger bases because they operate older aircraft, but I imagine they've accounted for that as well. And, as that happens, I think they will, in a measured way, begin to replace and reposition their respective mainline fleets.

None of this makes for very interesting topics on this board where we'd like to see new aircraft/liveries, etc. But it is a pretty sound way to run an airline.

Cheers,
Dave in Orlando

Quoting TWACaptain (Reply 19): ...indeed the leases were extremely cheap as Boeing was desperate to keep the 717 production line going and wanted the prestige of having a major US carrier flying them.

Boeing's actions in Long Beach were not exactly what I would describe as those of a company desperate to maintain and expand production of high quality airliners. I don't think they could dismantle the place fast enough.....

It's going to be a distinct pleasure for me , in 2030, to watch vintage MD's still generating profits for those airlines and cargo ops wise enough to operate them.

Quoting Thrust (Reply 23): it even had the exact engines that appeal to AA the most...ROLLS ROYCE!!!

Well, sort of. The 717 has the BMW Rolls Royce BR715. BMW Rolls Royce was originally a joint venture of BMW the car company and Rolls Royce plc (which is separate from the car company of the same name). Now the BMW Rolls Royce venture is a subsidiary of Rolls Royce plc and known as Rolls Royce Deutchland. For those of us who are history nerds and fans of the British aeroplanes of the Second World War, that name catches in the throat a little.

Quoting Logos (Reply 29): To use a car analogy, I don't own a third car so that my wife can get better gas mileage when she doesn't need all the room in our mini-van.

Do you make a living transporting cargo and passengers?

Limo companies usually have a fleet of town cars, stretch limos, vans and super stretch limos. They don't just save on types and dump the stretch limos and vans, using super stretches even when only transporting 4 people who are happy with a normal limo or need a van for luggage purposes. And those town cars can't fit every need, so you'd have to dispatch 2, but are the customers going to pay for 2, or find another company that has the right product?

AA did want a 100 seater. As the facts show, they were unreasonable with the F100 disposition, so they dumped the 717 instead, and it was mainly the maintenance/dispatch reliability problems of the F100 that lead to them going out of the fleet, with the fact it was a subfleet contributing but not being the key factor. Had they been less stringent on the F100 disposition, they'd be flying the 717 right now, and there might be people down in Long Beach working...

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 32): . Had they been less stringent on the F100 disposition, they'd be flying the 717 right now, and there might be people down in Long Beach working...

So because of AA, Long Beach shut down? I bet you would never say such a statement about CO.   

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 32): Do you make a living transporting cargo and passengers?

No, and according to your profile, neither do you. I wasn't aware it was a criterion of joining the discussion. I was making a deliberately overly simplistic analogy to illustrate a point.

If AA erred in not taking on the 717 as you contend (a point I do not necessarily concede), if they needed a 100 seat aircraft so badly, they'd be about the process of acquiring one now. I'm just not convinced that the cost of such a gap in capacity exceeds the cost of remedying it when it comes to airlines.

Cheers,
Dave in Orlando

Quoting 727Tiger (Reply 26): You are not alone.

Good to hear there are others who enjoy the classic jets as well.   

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 27): But AA can't seem to order those EJets. For AA, they have a gap from 70 seats in single class to the MD80, and that's only recent. Before that, it was 50 seats to the MD80. The F100/717 fits right in the middle there, and as others have noted, AA has had to cut former mainline routes to ERJ and CRJ routes instead.

I agree in principle it looks like AA made a big mistake, but its possible they wanted these routes to go to AE because it is cheaper with wages. Another way to cut costs.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 27): And the 717 may be a another type, but it's not entirely another type compared to their MD80s. Pilot cross qualification and crew training are pretty simple between the 717 and MD80. They use the same ground equipment and share parts.

Not too mention it features a cockpit similiar to the 777 with the advanced LCD screens.

Quoting NikonDFW (Reply 28): AA and Boeing had talked about AA replacing the F-100's with more 717's, with Boeing taking the F-100's as trade-in's. Talks went sour when AA stipulated to Boeing that they could not resale the former AA F-100's to any other US based carrier, established or a new start-up.

Damn AA, gotta be stubborn. Not only could the 717 line still be open now with a large legacy operator but we might still be able to see some Fokkers here in the states. A win-win for us enthusiasts!

Quoting Logos (Reply 29): And given what happened to Delta with Valujet/AirTran, can you blame them?

That was on a much smaller scale. Valujet had a smaller fleet to begin with and had used DC-9s from a variety of carriers.

Quoting AA767400 (Reply 33): So because of AA, Long Beach shut down? I bet you would never say such a statement about CO.

I don't think that's inconceivable. If AA takes the 717s at some point they would have made a large order to add to the fleet, assuming they were happy with its operations. Second, when was the last time CO ordered a Douglas aircraft, the '80s?

Quoting Logos (Reply 34): If AA erred in not taking on the 717 as you contend (a point I do not necessarily concede), if they needed a 100 seat aircraft so badly, they'd be about the process of acquiring one now.

This is why I think they are happy with having AE flights fly routes with lower paid crews.

Quoting AA767400 (Reply 33): So because of AA, Long Beach shut down? I bet you would never say such a statement about CO.

If CO had canceled a huge order of 717s and parked the ones they already owned, why wouldn't I? AA alone would have kept the line going for years, and a blue chip carrier like AA flying them might have led to other carriers flying them. But when AA dumped them, it made them look less desirable to other carriers as the used market would be poor.

If you think I have nothing good to say about AA, go read the EK to AKL thread, which got way off track. I spend quite a bit of time defending the AA 777 F product against attacks from Oceania, as well as put forward the argument that AA is not afraid to fly to SYD, they just have no need to with the profitable QF partnership.

I call a spade a spade. That seams to annoy some people on a.net.

I used to fly AA all the time, enough to earn First Class trips to the Caribbean (for 2), Europe and Japan, and I still would fly them if they didn't slash their service levels domestically and fly so many MD80s and worn out 757s to the places I fly from LAX. I used to fly them all the time from Ohio in the late 90s, and one reason was they were flying F100s on routes others were already putting regional jets on.

I moved to CO because they currently provide the best full service product in America, and they fly to the two cities where most of my family lives (IAH and SRQ). If AA were to return to this service level and fly to SRQ from DFW, I'd fly them again. And a 717 DFW-SRQ sure would have been nice...  

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 35): Not only could the 717 line still be open now with a large legacy operator

See, I'm not alone thinking this.

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 35): If AA takes the 717s at some point they would have made a large order to add to the fleet, assuming they were happy with its operations.

They actually could have renegotiated TWA's substantial 717 order.

Anyway, it's water under the bridge.

Hindsight being 20/20, I'm sure AA wishes that it had disposed of the Fokkers and kept the 717s, but as other posters have said, the 717s had expensive leases while the F100s were owned by AA.

Eagle is flying a lot of former F100 routes, and the lack of first-class cabins has been a problem with AA's elite passengers. Also, the lack of a 100-seat airplane has been a headache for scheduling, particularly at ORD with the operations restrictions imposed by the FAA.

AA either has to offer infrequent MD-80 service on routes or go to frequent Embrears and CRJs to get enough flights and seats, while eating up slots.

The problem with the 737-600 is that it is scaled down from the -700, so it's heavy and doesn't make sense on short and medium-haul routes.

The problem with AA buying Embrear 170s or 190s is that brings another aircraft type into the fleet. AA has been reducing the number of types in its fleets.

Considering that AA needs a 100-seat jet and UA still has 737-500s that will need to be replaced, Boeing might see potential sales and try to offer a 100-seat version of the 737NG replacement.

Quoting Ckfred (Reply 37): but as other posters have said, the 717s had expensive leases while the F100s were owned by AA.

You didn't read the thread, did you?

The leases of the 717s were very low and when TW went back into BK, they were offered at lower still. AA owned the F100s and only leased the 717s and decided to remove those from the fleet instead of the F100s. Huge mistake in hindsight.

Quoting ClassicLover (Reply 38): Huge mistake in hindsight.

Again, an assumption on your part. My contention is that, net the savings of fleet simplicity and the low (labor) costs associated with pawning some of this flying on Eagle, AA's not kicking themselves too hard. If they were, they'd be remedying this "mistake" as we speak.

Cheers,
Dave in Orlando

Quoting Logos (Reply 39): My contention is that, net the savings of fleet simplicity and the low (labor) costs associated with pawning some of this flying on Eagle, AA's not kicking themselves too hard. If they were, they'd be remedying this "mistake" as we speak.

Just like your assumption really. Neither of us will ever know  

Quoting ClassicLover (Reply 40): Neither of us will ever know

True enough.

I believe it is unfair to blame AA for the line closure, the only guy who could have kept it going was Joe Leonard who begged Boeing for a 717-300 with range, and they flat out refused, pointing to the 737NG. I still think he should have held out.

Quoting C133 (Reply 18): Buy a failing airline, park all the acquired airplanes, drop all the acquired routes, and keep (sort of) all the people. It happened with AirCal, it happened with Reno, and then it happened yet again with TWA. Somehow they think it's a great plan!

IIRC, most of (if not all) the ex-TW MD-80s are still flying in AA colors. I'm not sure about the ex-TW 757s or 767s.

In a nutshell (many posters addressed these points individually):

1. TW's A318 order was cancelled right from the get-go; F9 would later become the North American launch customer for the type.

2. The lease rates for the TW 717s were high.

3. In an effort to keep TW's existing 717 order in tact (or at least keep the current planes from being returned); Boeing offered AA a one-for-one swap for their F100s.

4. AA threw in the clause regarding the sale of their F100s to any North American competitor. Boeing rejected the offer resulting in AA returning the former TW 717s. If Boeing wanted to (not sure whether they did), they could've said to AA, "Yeah, right. What airline in North America is planning on aquiring or expanding their F100 fleet?" At least, the 717s found homes w/other carriers (mainly FL).

According to one magazine report (Airways Feb. 2000 issue), Boeing only needed to produce 200 717 airframes to break even. TW's 717 original order (both firm and options) combined w/FL's 717 order along w/smaller orders from other carriers (HA, YX, etc.) would've done it fairly easily.

Quoting Logos (Reply 29): Quoting NikonDFW (Reply 28): AA didn't want those F-100's used against them by another carrier. Boeing wouldn't agree to it, so talks ended.. And given what happened to Delta with Valujet/AirTran, can you blame them?

Big difference here! At the time J7 started flying those ex-DL DC-9s; several North American carriers (NK, NW, TW & US to name a few) were still actively flying the type; as we all know, NW is still flying about 150 of those birds today. Plus, many of the DC-9's design attributes (not sure about parts) still live on with the newer MD-80s, MD-90s and, yes, the 717s. IIRC, at the time Boeing aquired McDonnell-Douglas; they (Boeing) promised that they would support maintenance and repair services for many of the MDD planes that are still flying today.

The same can NOT be said about the F100 (Boeing at least adopted the MD-95/717 whereas the F100 was an outright abandoned orphan). At the time of AA aquired TW, there was only ONE North American carrier still flying the type... US; which was planning on phasing the type out down the road anyway. IIRC, Midway II (one of AA's LCC rivals at RDU) retired their remaining F100s roughly a couple of months before ceasing operations as a stand-alone carrier in 2001 (Midway II did briefly fly as a USExpress carrier following that point). Had AA looked out of their Fort Worth office windows long enough to see that NO North American carrier was interested in the F100; they would have seen that their no sale to a rival carrier clause was unecessary and, IMHO, foolish. Ironically, guess where most of those ex-TW 717s wound up going to... FL; which, as we all know, competes w/AA in some routes/markets.

Quoting AA767400 (Reply 33): So because of AA, Long Beach shut down?

Yes. In a nutshell, AA's returning the ex-TW 717s signaled the beginning of the end for commercial airplane production at Long Beach. Had AA continued (or even expanded) TW's 717 order; not only would 717 production continue today, maybe the 717-300 (which FL originally wanted over the 73G) and/or a longer-range 717 model would've become reality.

[Edited 2007-01-03 21:06:24]

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 43): 2. The lease rates for the TW 717s were high.

Oh really?

Are you right or...

Quoting TWACaptain (Reply 19): I hate to have to contradict a fellow member however it definitely was not due to the "expensive" lease rates that TWA had negotiated...indeed the leases were extremely cheap as Boeing was desperate to keep the 717 production line going and wanted the prestige of having a major US carrier flying them. During the third bankruptcy proceedings that AA had insisted on as a precondition to the purchase of the carrier, the leasing companies granted further reductions in lease payments for the remainder of the leases, thus making the former TWA fleet even more inexpensive. I was actually in the courtroom in Delaware while all this was going on and saw to firsthand.

... is TWA Captain right?

Hmm? I want to know who is right so I can keep it right in my head and punch anyone who has a wrong answer in future  

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 43): 2. The lease rates for the TW 717s were high.

So you disagree with TWA Captain? Ostensibly an eyewitness to the proceedings, he says...

Quoting TWACaptain (Reply 19): it definitely was not due to the "expensive" lease rates that TWA had negotiated...indeed the leases were extremely cheap as Boeing was desperate to keep the 717 production line going and wanted the prestige of having a major US carrier flying them.

As for the F-100s, I'm willing to stand by my original post. It wasn't a matter of who was operating them, but who could start an operation with them (in the same way that Valujet used some of Delta's ex DC-9-32s). Even if it would be a failure, it could still stand to bleed AA and I believe that's what they wanted to avoid.

If there was no US market for the aircraft (as you contend) why didn't Boeing simply agree to AA's condition for the sake of keeping the 717 going? They wouldn't have been able to sell them to anyone anyway so why not say yes?

While AA could have kept the line going had they taken the aircraft, Boeing could have kept the line going if they had accepted AA's conditions. As for AA currently regreting the decision, I remain unconvinced that they do.

Cheers,
Dave in Orlando

Quoting D950 (Reply 42): I believe it is unfair to blame AA for the line closure, the only guy who could have kept it going was Joe Leonard who begged Boeing for a 717-300 with range, and they flat out refused, pointing to the 737NG. I still think he should have held out.

Unfair to blame AA for the 717 halting production? Perhaps. But, like it or not, the fact remains that AA's returning those birds did play a role in the 717's production demise just as much as NW and/or SAS (2 carriers that MDD had in mind when the MD-95 was first designed) not ordering the type.

Needless to say, the RJ boom and the pilot scope clauses didn't help the 717's cause either.

As far as Joe Leonard's concerned; you're right, he should have tacked on some additional 717 orders (beyond the additional 6) when he made that 73G order. Especially given the current 737NG production backlog (and the earlier strike at Renton); didn't Boeing recently turn down a request from WN to produce additional planes (which prompted WN to aquire two 737s from Ford)?

Quoting Ckfred (Reply 37): Eagle is flying a lot of former F100 routes, and the lack of first-class cabins has been a problem with AA's elite passengers.

Then AA should do like Delta and buy two-class CRJ900 with 70 seats for their regional partner. AE already fly the CRJ700 and I'm sure Bombardier will cut them a nice deal. Eventually they might renegotiate the scope clauses to 76 seats like DL and NWA.

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 46): NW and/or SAS (2 carriers that MDD had in mind when the MD-95 was first designed) not ordering the type.

Boeing made a decent presentation for the Star Alliance, including a 717-300, which they sat on for over a year, and Airbus giving away (literally) 320's to Cebu hurt a lot also.

Quoting ClassicLover (Reply 44):

Quoting Logos (Reply 45):

Both of you missed this line from my earlier post bold emphasis added:

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 43): In a nutshell (many posters addressed these points individually):

If one had the time to search through numerous archived threads regarding TWA 717s (particularly their post-AA fate) on these boards; lease rates (whether real or speculation) were indeed the subject of discussion. At the time, from what I remember from reading some of those threads; nobody contested the relative value (be it high or low) of the TW lease rates... until now.

I agree, it can be confusing to keep items straight. Thanks, TWACaptain for your input. I stand corrected on those lease rates. I will keep your thoughts/insight in mind should this subject resurface again in the future (which it will).

Quoting Logos (Reply 45): As for the F-100s, I'm willing to stand by my original post. It wasn't a matter of who was operating them, but who could start an operation with them (in the same way that Valujet used some of Delta's ex DC-9-32s). Even if it would be a failure, it could still stand to bleed AA and I believe that's what they wanted to avoid.

In theory and all things being equal, you are correct; look what AA did just to keep Legend (a DC-9 carrier, BTW) from taking flight at DAL.

However, I believe we all can agree that things were different in 2000-2001 than they were in 1992-1993 (when J7 started) plus the aircraft type in question had nowhere near the sheer numbers (nor the multiple generations) that the DC-9 type had; plus MD-80/90 production was still taking place during the early 90s.

At the time of the AA/TW merger and the aborted UA/US merger, the only potential start-up carrier that might have opted for the orphaned F100 (whether it be from AA, US and/or Midway II) would have been the DOJ-induced DCAir had the UA/US merger been approved. Not sure when but by 2000, the F100 was already out of production for several years with NO modern like-successor being produced.

As far as other carriers (besides AA) are concerned, here's a rough breakdown of who (mainline equipment only) was getting or had what at the times (early 90s vs. 2000). Feel free to add or correct any of the below-listings... I'm going by pure memory here.

WN (Boeing 737s)
FL (90s - J7: 2nd hand DC-9s & MD-80s, FL(pre-J7): 2nd hand 732s)
(2000: DC-9s, 732s and new 717s)
NK (90s & 2000: 2nd-hand MD-80s & DC-9s (90s only?)) their new Airbus order came later
B6 (2000: only new A320s)
F9 (90s: 2nd-hand Boeings)
(2000: mixture of 2nd-hand Boeings & new Airbii)
HA (90s: DC-9s & DC-10s, 2000: new 717s & 763s were coming on line to replace their older DC- planes)
HP (90s & 2000: Boeings & Airbii)
TZ (90s & 2000: 2nd-hand Boeings & L1011s w/new Boeing plane order for 2000)
Midway II (90s & 2000: F100s & 737s (2000 only))
YX (90s & 2000: DC-9s & MD-80s) they didn't receive their first 717 until 2003
Legend (2nd-hand DC-9s during their brief existence)
(2000: 73Gs & F100; F100s were being phased out)
CO (90s & 2000: Boeings & MDDs) when did CO retire their last DC-9?
DL (90s & 2000: Boeings, MDDs & L1011) when did DL retire their last DC-9?
NW (90s & 2000: Boeings, Airbii, DC-9s & DC-10s)
TW (90s & 2000: DC-9s (90s only), MD-80s, Boeings, 717 (2000 only))
UA (90s & 2000: Boeings, Airbii & DC-10 (90s only))
US (90s & 2000: Boeings, MD-80s, DC-9s, F28s (90s only) & F100s)

Number of above-carriers (excluding AA) that flew the DC-9 (MD-80/90 & 717 variants excluded):
early 90s - 9
2000 - 7
present (for comparision only) - 1

Number of above-carriers (excluding AA) that flew the DC-9 (MD-80/90 & 717 variants included):
early 90s - 9
2000 - 10
present (for comparision only) - 6


Number of above-carriers (excluding AA) that flew the F100:
early 90s - 2
2000 - 2
present (for comparision only) - 0

Bottom line: No North American carrier (be it legacy, LCC or upstart) wanted the F100, even in 2000.