They had no Fokker planes in their fleet and they had MD-80's. Why would they buy them?

AA evaluated the Boeing 737-500, BAe 146-300, Fokker100, and MD-87. The Fokker 100 was seen as the best solution.

Regards

Quoting MD80 (Reply 1):

The MD-87 would've been better for commonality. Shame they don't have the F100 today, it would look sharp in the new livery.

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 2): The MD-87 would've been better for commonality.

The MD-87 was studied but it was a bit heavy and a fuel hog. The Fokker 100 was quite good actually and efficient for the time. The reason still 2/3rd of all 100s built are still flying today while only a dozen MD-87s are not withdrawn from use yet.

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 2): The MD-87 would've been better for commonality.

That´s correct and this was one major factor that several important MD-80-operators opted to take the MD-87.

I´ve made an article (in German) about exactly this topic for my website but I think that it´s forbidden to paste a link.

All important factors were discussed regarding the decision for the Fokker 100. The Boeing 737-500 was (for example) described as "too heavy" - 18% more compared to the Fokker 100.

Maybe it was also a nice factor to maintaina separate pilot-group with lower salaries?

Regards

Bonus question....why didn't AA order the Boeing 717?


AND....why not battle DL for WN's 717?

Quoting MEA-707 (Reply 3): The MD-87 was studied but it was a bit heavy and a fuel hog. The Fokker 100 was quite good actually and efficient for the time. The reason still 2/3rd of all 100s built are still flying today while only a dozen MD-87s are not withdrawn from use yet.

Ugh. Great for the F-100s still flying, not so great for Fokker in the long run. Too bad, and you know what new program this makes me think of in terms of new and good vs. commonality.

I hear AA had some maintenance issues with the F100-or they were a pain to maintain.

Quoting 727LOVER (Reply 5): Bonus question....why didn't AA order the Boeing 717?

Has been discussed on this board before. AA technically had 717s on property at one point...immediately after the TW merger. Unfortunately for them, TW, due to its poor credit ratings, was charged very high lease rates on the 717s...and Boeing apparently wasn't willing to renegotiate the leases to AA's liking, so they decided to keep the F100s and get rid of the 717s.

Fast forward a year or two...the 717s would have been the smarter choice, given the F100s' reliability and MX issues...but hindsight is always 20/20.

Quoting USAirALB (Reply 8): I hear AA had some maintenance issues with the F100-or they were a pain to maintain.

Once Fokker went under, finding parts and whatnot got insanely difficult to obtain...thus the operating costs began to skyrocket.

Quoting AWACSooner (Reply 10): Once Fokker went under, finding parts and whatnot got insanely difficult to obtain...thus the operating costs began to skyrocket.

Yes, that's why they got rid of the little Fokkers.

Quoting AWACSooner (Reply 10): Once Fokker went under, finding parts and whatnot got insanely difficult to obtain...thus the operating costs began to skyrocket.

Not quite. From what I heard AA did not have the full service contract with Fokker. That is why some parts were harder to obtain. The airlines that did sign the service contract had no problem. According to KLM (until recently the largest operator of Fokker jets) spare parts only became an issue in the last few years, but by then AA had long retired their fleet.

The Fokker was used for short routes with a short turn-around time. Think DFW-SAT. The Fokkers were easy to unload since they are close to the ground and made it easy for AA to fly short routes with little time lost.

Quoting MD80 (Reply 4): Maybe it was also a nice factor to maintaina separate pilot-group with lower salaries?

   Plus, with a large enough fleet as AA had, commonality with other fleet types becomes less important than having the best airplane for the mission, similar to how LAA chose different engine options for their A319 (CFM) and A321 (IAE) fleets.

Quoting DariusBieber (Reply 13): The Fokker was used for short routes with a short turn-around time. Think DFW-SAT. The Fokkers were easy to unload since they are close to the ground and made it easy for AA to fly short routes with little time lost.

Didn't AA find that the F100's air conditioning was awful or something, and ended up using them for more northernly routes/longer routes than initially intended when ordered.

I can't remember the exact reason, but I seem to recall AA finding them not as suitable for the short haul routes, especially around Texas, that they originally ordered them for.

just iimagine how good the 146 would have looked in AAs colourscheme   

The F100 was purchased because the RDU/BNA hubs were not high volume markets and the smaller F100 was seen as a way to match capacity to demand at these hubs.

Quoting larshjort (Reply 16): just iimagine how good the 146 would have looked in AAs colourscheme

I imagine it would look something like this:


View Large View Medium

Photo © Frank C. Duarte Jr.


 

Quoting larshjort (Reply 16): just iimagine how good the 146 would have looked in AAs colourscheme

Part of the reason for the unattractiveness was AA's decision to paint the aircraft grey when they took them into their fleet. I appreciate these were previously Air Cal aircraft, but US Air managed to have the polished metal scheme on their 146s obtained from PSA. Always thought they looked much better due to the polished livery.

The US Air 146s stayed around a few years longer than the AA ones did though.

View Large View Medium Photo © Frank C. Duarte Jr.

View Large View Medium Photo © Richard Silagi

Interesting that both obtained their 146s through mergers, but also ordered their own F100 fleets...

How does the f100 cabin compare to an md80, I've heard it was narrower despite still accommodating 5 across?

All 15 OS F100s are ex-AA. Some spent a while with other carriers before OS, including a few with short-lived Canadian LCC JetsGo.

Quoting flyboy80 (Reply 20): How does the f100 cabin compare to an md80, I've heard it was narrower despite still accommodating 5 across?

Slightly narrower but not very noticeable.

I flew F from Dallas to Monterrey, Mexico on the F100 and it was on the cramped side. There were 8 seats in F.

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 2):

MD87 fuel burn was way to high or its size

I also remember the AA F100 being used at the RDU hub, when that was in operation. ALB-RDU was F100 and 737

Quoting 727LOVER (Reply 5): Bonus question....why didn't AA order the Boeing 717? AND....why not battle DL for WN's 717?

Maybe because they had a short history with the aircraft, and didn't find them suitable?



View Large View Medium

Photo © Brian Peters

Quoting UPNYGuy (Reply 24): I also remember the AA F100 being used at the RDU hub, when that was in operation. ALB-RDU was F100 and 737

They also were flown DAL - LAX, and maybe other cities, back when Legend was flying, and were configured with the max number of seats allowed under Wright at the time...I think 56?

Quoting EMB170 (Reply 9):

The F100's left due to 2 main issues.

First the shutdown of Fokker made parts harder to get & more costly until Stork deal was finished.

Second the Max Landing weight was to low for the usage & length flights AA wanted. The original routes they planned to use them on changed. This resulted in reduced loads when using AA standards. If there had been a higher landing weight & parts they would still be lying with AA. I believe a while back I was told all the AA units had been sold and are used by other carriers.

Very well built plane, long cycle life & the only one to prove you don't need a gun to hunt for geese. (Look up KLM-717-goose online)

[Edited 2015-11-15 21:05:56]

[Edited 2015-11-15 21:11:42]

[Edited 2015-11-15 21:12:14]

AA staffed them with two cabin crew. There was no exit in the back of the plane. So it was just the overwings and the forward galley and entry doors. I could be totally off but the config of 8/89 pops into my head. Flying on them with a friend was great because it was just the 2 of you. We used them to compete with Legend out of DAL. That was fun, doing f/c services to 56 (but usually much less) people on their routes. F100 was perfectly suitable as a competitor to a Legend DC9. I can remember the forward service door on the plane. It had this microscopic looking black lens that you had to look in to to check for fire. It was a very odd thing
...like being in science class. Flight attendants weren't comfortable not having a way out the back, especially if they sat back there. Then I do remember there was a parts problem. I enjoyed flying them.

I flew it a few times between DFW-CMH on AA.. I always enjoyed flying on it.

One other problem with the Fokker F100 was or is that they had no leading edge slats which necessitated higher landing and takeoff speeds which was also necessary for the DC-9-10 as it also had no leading edge devices. It was not a favorite with all pilots because of this.
Douglas solved that problem with the DC-9-30 which had leading edge devices. At the request of SAS, Douglas built about ten DC-9-21s which had a DC-9-10 fuselage mated with a DC-9-30 wing which resulted in improved performance and the pilots dubbed it the "Sport."   

View Large View Medium Photo © Frank C. Duarte Jr.

View Large View Medium Photo © Gerard Helmer

Quoting Polot (Reply 15): Didn't AA find that the F100's air conditioning was awful or something, and ended up using them for more northernly routes/longer routes than initially intended when ordered.

I do know that if a F100 over nighted in a moist humid location like IAH in the spring the air system on start up would cool so fast that any moisture in the duct work would freeze into ice. Then when the flight would take off within about 30 minutes or so the ice would "break loose" in the ductwork. It sounded like someone was rolling a bowling ball down the ceiling of the aircraft several times. If you didn't know what it was, the sound was unnerving. The first time I heard it I thought the roof of the aircraft was going to depart. After about 10 minutes, it finally stopped.

For awhile AA ran the F100 IAH-ORD back in the early 2000's.

UPNYGuy said 737's from ALB to RDU. I didn't think AA had 737's at the time.
MD-80 and F-100's but that's a long time ago.
F-100 was a neat plane. Also used from ORD to ALB.
Very quite too - I lived near ALB at the time. MD-80's were quite
noisy. US 737-300's much quieter.
Drifting off subject!

There once was a time when there were no 50 seat regional jets. There was a time when regional affiliates were flying mostly 30 seat props with a few flying larger ATR props. There was a time when 60-70% load factor was profitable. There was a time when there were seven international carriers based in the United States and smaller airlines maintained smaller hubs in cities like STL, PIT, RDU, BNA, CVG, MEM, etc. There was a time when 100 seat mainline planes were useful.

All of those things are gone now. The Fokker 100s are gone too. All of those reasons that made the Fokker 100 useful are gone.

The only airline that can make 100 seat jets work is Delta now. A big part of that is their chopped up erratic New York operation which isn't really a hub, but moreso a reaction to a high O/D market that has terrible airport infrastructure that can't support a hub. That and their fortress hub in ATL is so big that they can fly mainline jets to cities that everyone else is flying regional jets to.

Before the F-100, AA had a fleet of BAC-111s, I believe the 500 model. (remember those?) As these grew older, AA looked for an aircraft good for short haul, less dense routes or medium haul off-peak type segments. The F-100 replaced the BAC-111 very well.

Quoting Polot (Reply 15): Didn't AA find that the F100's air conditioning was awful or something, and ended up using them for more northernly routes/longer routes than initially intended when ordered.

Hence the moniker, "The Dutch Oven."

Quoting LawnDart (Reply 25): Maybe because they had a short history with the aircraft, and didn't find them suitable?

No, those 717's were TWA's and came with INSANELY high lease rates that the leasing company wasn't about to re-negotiate with AA for a lower rate, so they turned them back in.

Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 30): One other problem with the Fokker F100 was or is that they had no leading edge slats which necessitated higher landing and takeoff speeds

Thank you for that bit of information. I remember flying the F100's out of BNA back in the '80's and had more than one flight attendant tell me they were rockets on take off and landing. All these years I just assumed they were either being funny or if there was a speed difference it was due to lower aircraft weight. Thanks for setting this straight for me after 30 years!

Quoting rbavfan (Reply 23):

Personally, I don´t think that the higher fuel-consumption was a major factor against the MD-87. However, the MD-87 was not a commercial success within the MD-80series but secured some important orders which were highly contested. The main drivers for the MD-87 were loyal MD-80-operators. The original intention failed as a replacement for the DC-9-30.

Perhaps, this statement is an interesting one, once published by McDonnell Douglas in 1984:

“The design intent for the MD-87 is to offer airlines the lowest costs per aeroplane-kilometre of any advanced technology aeroplane in its class. We believe that where traffic is suited to a smaller aircraft, the MD-87 will be an ideal complement to the larger MD-80s. Compared to the MD-82, most common of the series currently in service, the MD-87 will reduce direct operating costs per trip by 8 to 10 percent, according to our present estimates.
When greater passenger capacity is needed, one of the other MD-80 models can be used to archieve lower costs per seat. With passenger configurations ranging from 109 to a maximum of 172 seats and the range capability varying from short hauls to transcontinental US or Australia service, we now can offer the airlines a twin-jet family with what we believe to be outstanding trip and seat economics and unparalleled flexibility. As a companion to other MD-80s, the MD-87 can give airlines maximum flexibility in meeting a wide range of service requirements. It can replace older, less efficient and noisier aircraft similar size and can meet growth needs for airlines currently flying smaller equipment."

The MD-87 is a much more capable aircraft compared to the Fokker 100. The MD-87 has the ability to lift a large amount of payload to provides a much higher usable range (even as a standard MD-87 and not the MD-87ER). This was important for some operators and the MD-87 was seen as the best solution.

Other airlines selected the Fokker 100 (or BAe 146-300, Boeing 737-500 etc.). I think that the Fokker 100 was optimized for short hauls with a lighter airframe and performance data which reflected the demands of typical short missions. Some operators had their share of problems with their then-new Fokker 100s, including Swissair and KLM.

Btw. Swissair also decided to introduce the Fokker 100 to supplement their growing MD-81-fleet and the MD-87 was officially described by Swissair as "too heavy" for Europe. Ironically, the majority of MD-87s were sold to European airlines. Some sources claim that Swissair originally wanted to operate the Fokker 100 with much "cheaper" pilots of Crossair but this wa snot allowed. Crossair later introduced the BAe 146/-200/-300. It is possible that the management of Swissair was not pleased with the idea to place their expensive pilots in a shortened MD-80 (MD-87) with even more unattractive cost-structures. Subsidiary CTA originally wanted to replace their Caravelle-fleet with Fokker 100ERs but ordered four MD-87s because it seemed unrealistic to operate 119-seat Fokker 100s between Switzerland and the Canary Islands nonstop.

Other MD-80-operators selected the MD-87 and operated them for many years. The Fokker 100 was evaluated by SAS and Iberia and both airlines ordered the MD-87.

It is noteworthy that only a few US-based MD-80-operators opted to take the MD-87 during the active production-run. Airlines like American, TWA, Alaska, Continental etc. decided against this version. So there were probably some important considerations and reasons to select alternative aircraft.

It is also interesting that a number of airlines originally operated a combined fleet of MD-80s and Fokker 100s:

China Eastern Airlines, Korean Air, USAir and others.

Transwede even operated the MD-80/-87 and Fokker 100 during a short time.

While most Fokker 100s replaced smaller aircraft, the Fokker 100 replaced portions of the Boeing 727-100-fleet at American Airlines and one manager once told that the Fokker 100 "would earn money from day one". The quietness of the Fokker 100 was also an important reason.

The Fokker 100 filled the gap between the services flown by American Eagle and the 142-seat Super 80.

Regards

Quoting rbavfan (Reply 27): Second the Max Landing weight was to low for the usage & length flights AA wanted. The original routes they planned to use them on changed. This resulted in reduced loads when using AA standards. If there had been a higher landing weight & parts they would still be lying with AA. I believe a while back I was told all the AA units had been sold and are used by other carriers.

Quite right. AA bought the planes to fly short hops like ORD-IND or DFW-SAT. But, because of the low Max Landing weight, they wound up on routes like DFW-ATL and ORD-SAT. Now, over time AA did figure out how to use the F100 out of ORD to cities such as STL, DTW, and MSP.

The problem was that the between the design of the plane and the efficiency of the RR Tay engines, the F100 had very low fuel consumption. So, for a shorter flight, the engines simply didn't burn enough fuel to get the plane down to Max Landing weight, assuming that the plane departed at MTOW.

From what I've heard, pilots loved the plane. The performance was good, and it was easy to fly. On the other hand, mechanics hated it. A friend of mine who is an AA pilot says that the F100 was more like an overgrown biz jet, rather than a commercial jet. With most commercial jets, a mechanic can turn on the electrical system without the plane being plugged into ground power, say to check an issue. The F100 had to be plugged into ground power, or else turning on the electrical system could cause severe problems.

Quoting ozark1 (Reply 28): AA staffed them with two cabin crew.

Back in the early 90s, if there was a meal in Y, then there were 3 F/As. I seem to remember a flight from ORD to ATL with Caeser salad served for dinner in Y, and there were 2 F/As serving meals and beverages. But, if the flight had Bistro Bags (or after 9/11, no food other than the bag of pretzels), then it was 2 F/As, one in F and one in Y.

Quoting 717atOGG (Thread starter):

Very simple: the MD-80 is a 142 seater, while the Fokker 100 is a 100 seater, and they needed to add a 100-seater light-weight plane for short hops.

g77

Quoting USAirALB (Reply 8):

Maybe it was just my bad luck, but almost every time I was scheduled to fly on an Fokker, there was a mx issue of some kind. I tried 3x to fly from DAL on the 56 seat configuration but each time there was a problem. AA would pay for a cab to DFW and then give me a Comp Platinum upgrade. I'm sure this cost them dearly. I began to avoid these planes. I do not miss them.

Quoting lat41 (Reply 34): Before the F-100, AA had a fleet of BAC-111s, I believe the 500 model. (remember those?) As these grew older, AA looked for an aircraft good for short haul, less dense routes or medium haul off-peak type segments. The F-100 replaced the BAC-111 very well.

The BAC-111-500 was a stretched model similar to the DC-9-30. By the time BAC had stretched, the DC-9 had really captured the market and none were sold in the US. The AA model was in fact the -400 and was the same dimension as the -200s operated by Braniff and Mohawk (similar to the DC-9-10). I believe it had slightly increased weights and more powerful Speys.

Although the 111 and the F100 are similar overall, AA retired the 111 in 1972 and the F100s didn't come along until the late 80s at the earliest.

Back to the 111-500, I wish BN had ordered some. The -200 model was getting too small and they could have added capacity without going whole hog to a 727-200.

Quoting UPNYGuy (Reply 24): ALB-RDU was F100 and 737

F100 yes, but not 737 because at the time American was flying ALB-RDU they didn't have 737s (yes they did but only on West Coast routes, from the merger with Air Cal).
MD-80 and 727 also.

Quoting ckfred (Reply 39): Now, over time AA did figure out how to use the F100 out of ORD to cities such as STL, DTW, and MSP.

EWR also. In the late 90s American was flying ORD-EWR on 727 and F100 equipment.

Quoting American 767 (Reply 43): F100 yes, but not 737 because at the time American was flying ALB-RDU they didn't have 737s (yes they did but only on West Coast routes, from the merger with Air Cal).

outbound
ALB-RDU F100
RDU-MCO DC10

inbound
MCO-RDU 737
RDU-ALB 737

I remember the a/c type   I may have only been in 3rd grade, but I've never seen a 727 or MD80 with wing mounted engines  

Quoting flyboy80 (Reply 20): How does the f100 cabin compare to an md80, I've heard it was narrower despite still accommodating 5 across?

The oval shaped windows were annoying  

Quoting Polot (Reply 15): Didn't AA find that the F100's air conditioning was awful or something, and ended up using them for more northernly routes/longer routes than initially intended when ordered. I can't remember the exact reason, but I seem to recall AA finding them not as suitable for the short haul routes, especially around Texas, that they originally ordered them for.

Flew plenty of ELP-DFW flights on them...mostly in the late 1990's.

Quoting 727LOVER (Reply 5): Bonus question....why didn't AA order the Boeing 717?

American started taking delivery of F-100s four years before the launch order was placed for the MD-95/717. They already had their 100-seat niche filled when the MD came out.

AA ordered the F100 for two primary reasons: Price and availability

In the late '80s, Fokker was desperate to get the F100 line moving. Outside of a few hometown orders, the order book was relatively thin. They needed to land a US blue chip customer in hopes of building market share that would translate to further orders. Fokker undercut the price of the MD-87, which then went further with the 75-75 arrangement (the largest the program would ever receive). AA also received delivery slots that allowed for a quick turnaround for EIS and a staggered implementation over the course of several years.

As for why the MD-87 did not win the bid: During this same time, the MD-80 had hit it's zenith in popularity and was selling like hotcakes. The backlog was in excess of 3.5 years, versus less than 12 months at Fokker. There was not the urgency to deal at LGB as there had been five years earlier. Thus, AA made a calculation of price and availability over commonality. With the hindsight of the operational issues incurred, the astuteness of that decision can be debated.

Quoting MEA-707 (Reply 3): The MD-87 was studied but it was a bit heavy and a fuel hog. The Fokker 100 was quite good actually and efficient for the time.

The F100 certainly did benefit from the lighter OEW. But at $20 a barrel oil prices, and for the missions which they were intended for, fuel efficiency did not play a factor. On the other side, the MD-87 had the superior wing, which closed the gap, to a degree, that benefited the RR Tays. In addition, the MD-87 had the range for long thin route options. The F100 was relegated to medium haul routes, or short-hauls that did not require quick turns. It's inability to perform well on the short haul/high frequency/quick turn missions was Fokker's biggest downfall.

Quoting OB1504 (Reply 14): Plus, with a large enough fleet as AA had, commonality with other fleet types becomes less important than having the best airplane for the mission,

The problem is, it was not the best airplane for the mission.

Quoting rbavfan (Reply 27): Second the Max Landing weight was to low for the usage & length flights AA wanted. The original routes they planned to use them on changed. This resulted in reduced loads when using AA standards.

   Exactly.

Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 30): One other problem with the Fokker F100 was or is that they had no leading edge slats which necessitated higher landing and takeoff speeds

  

Quoting MD80 (Reply 38): It is noteworthy that only a few US-based MD-80-operators opted to take the MD-87 during the active production-run. Airlines like American, TWA, Alaska, Continental etc. decided against this version. So there were probably some important considerations and reasons to select alternative aircraft.

Operationally, the MD-87's greatest capability was the transcon range it offered for long-thin route pairings. Unfortunately, the timing was not right, as DC-10s and L-1011s dominated 4 hour missions in the US in 1987, and the 762/752 cleaned up the rest. Fast forward some years, and it became commonplace for A319s and 73Gs to be assigned to such missions.

Quoting lat41 (Reply 34): Before the F-100, AA had a fleet of BAC-111s. As these grew older, AA looked for an aircraft good for short haul, less dense routes or medium haul off-peak type segments. The F-100 replaced the BAC-111 very well.

Quoting CF-CPI (Reply 42): Although the 111 and the F100 are similar overall, AA retired the 111 in 1972 and the F100s didn't come along until the late 80s at the earliest.

Yes, the F100 wasn't a BAC-111 replacement at AA. As you say, the -111s were all disposed of between 1969 and 1972, some after only 3 years service at AA. 3 were sold in 1969, 2 in 1970, 15 in 1971 and 9 in 1972.

The first F100 was delivered in 1991, 19 years after AA operated their last BAC-111. The last of the 75 F100s was delivered in 1994.