AMR mulls fate of its Boeing 717 fleet
#1
Original Poster
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 46,817
AMR mulls fate of its Boeing 717 fleet
AMR mulls fate of its Boeing 717 fleet
AMR Corp. said on Thursday it was reviewing whether to keep 30 Boeing Co. 717 jetliners or return them to their leaseholders as it evaluates its long-term aircraft needs.
http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/020110/n10195699_1.html
AMR Corp. said on Thursday it was reviewing whether to keep 30 Boeing Co. 717 jetliners or return them to their leaseholders as it evaluates its long-term aircraft needs.
http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/020110/n10195699_1.html
#2
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend




Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 46,306
The most interesting aspect of this article from my POV was the idea that the 717s are considered to overlap with the F-100s AND that AA would prefer to keep the latter. Aren't those the planes with the nose-gear problems. From the article:
``The Fokkers still have many years of life left and they give us a lot of flexibility in terms of routes,'' Becker said. ``The oldest have been in our fleet for 10 or 11 years, so it's a relatively young fleet, a very good fleet and a very large fleet.''
``The Fokkers still have many years of life left and they give us a lot of flexibility in terms of routes,'' Becker said. ``The oldest have been in our fleet for 10 or 11 years, so it's a relatively young fleet, a very good fleet and a very large fleet.''
#3
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: SNA/LAX
Programs: AA EXP 4MM
Posts: 1,609
IIRC, when Fokker went bankrupt, AMR bought the manufacturing rights to the F100. They still have a big stake in keeping the F100 fleet alive. They own a lot of custom tooling for the F100 and have a ton of spares for the fleet.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by moondog:
The most interesting aspect of this article from my POV was the idea that the 717s are considered to overlap with the F-100s AND that AA would prefer to keep the latter. Aren't those the planes with the nose-gear problems. From the article:
``The Fokkers still have many years of life left and they give us a lot of flexibility in terms of routes,'' Becker said. ``The oldest have been in our fleet for 10 or 11 years, so it's a relatively young fleet, a very good fleet and a very large fleet.''</font>
The most interesting aspect of this article from my POV was the idea that the 717s are considered to overlap with the F-100s AND that AA would prefer to keep the latter. Aren't those the planes with the nose-gear problems. From the article:
``The Fokkers still have many years of life left and they give us a lot of flexibility in terms of routes,'' Becker said. ``The oldest have been in our fleet for 10 or 11 years, so it's a relatively young fleet, a very good fleet and a very large fleet.''</font>
#4
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: DFW
Posts: 3,282
Correct, SFOJFK.
Whatever they don't have in terms of spares or replacements, they either manufacture themselves or contract out for someone else to manufacture. (Edited to clarify this statement.)
To use an example from the post above, the landing gear is 100% aluminum, but BF Goodrich have made replacement OEM gear for the ships which is 100% steel.
The 717/F100 debate has already been discussed in another thread.
Studley
[This message has been edited by studley (edited 01-11-2002).]
#5
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Slackerville, FL USA
Posts: 1,844
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by moondog:
The most interesting aspect of this article from my POV was the idea that the 717s are considered to overlap with the F-100s AND that AA would prefer to keep the latter. Aren't those the planes with the nose-gear problems. From the article:
``The Fokkers still have many years of life left and they give us a lot of flexibility in terms of routes,'' Becker said. ``The oldest have been in our fleet for 10 or 11 years, so it's a relatively young fleet, a very good fleet and a very large fleet.''</font>
The most interesting aspect of this article from my POV was the idea that the 717s are considered to overlap with the F-100s AND that AA would prefer to keep the latter. Aren't those the planes with the nose-gear problems. From the article:
``The Fokkers still have many years of life left and they give us a lot of flexibility in terms of routes,'' Becker said. ``The oldest have been in our fleet for 10 or 11 years, so it's a relatively young fleet, a very good fleet and a very large fleet.''</font>
I'd rather see a 717 than a Fokker any day of the week.
#6




Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Syracuse, Boston, Athens
Posts: 999
Here are Don Carty's relevant remarks, on the occasion of AMR's reporting of a $734M 4th=quarter loss, from the PRNewswire, as reported by Yahoo:
In connection with its strategy of reducing costs by simplifying its fleet, AMR announced today that it has reached an agreement with Boeing that, among other things, will result in the retirement of its 717 fleet by June of this year. The 717 is a short-haul, 100-seat airplane similar in size to the Fokker F100s already in American's fleet. American does not need two airplanes of this fleet size and had always intended to retire the 717s. The agreement with Boeing allows American to do this earlier than planned.
``The 717 is a fine aircraft,'' Carty said, ``but we are committed to simplifying the fleet, and it just doesn't make sense to hold on to the 717s when we already have a fleet of 74 F100s in the 100-seat category. All we're doing now is accelerating a retirement that had been in our fleet plan from the beginning of our TWA acquisition.''
The 717 retirement is part of a broad fleet-simplification strategy that will see American reduce its total number of basic fleet types from 14 two years ago to seven types by the end of 2002. In 2001, American retired five fleet types -- the MD11, MD90, DC10, MD87 and DC9. This year, it will take two more types out of the fleet -- the 717 and the 727. As the numbers of fleet types shrink, the overall fleet becomes more reliable and easier and less costly to maintain.
Here is the link to the full article.
#7
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2001
Location: LAX; AA EXP, MM; HH Gold
Posts: 31,789
This is bad news for anyone who will suffer on an F100 this summer due to its insufficient air conditioning (and those passengers inconvenienced by any more landing gear deficiencies).
Too bad AA made a HUGE mistake ever taking the Fokker for a test ride and then being suckered into buying 75 of the losers. Whaaat were they smokin???
Had this latest recession and September 11 never happened (and AA fighting for its survival), maybe AA would have seen the wisdom of buying a couple hundred 717s to serve as the 80-90 seat (after MRTC and MRTF) short haul planes (maybe even for Eagle to fly).
Now, instead, Eagle will probably fly 50 or 70 seat RJs (without MRTC or even an F seat) with cramped seating on those routes. Too bad. Yikes.
I can only hope that lots of AA executives get to roast this summer in F100s as they wait in the hot sun at DFW. It won't change the decision, but it might help drive home the mistake -- you don't buy airplanes made in a country that has no need for AIR CONDITIONING. "[a] very good fleet" -- my a@&. Fire that guy for lying to the analysts (not to mention, lying to the passengers).
Too bad AA made a HUGE mistake ever taking the Fokker for a test ride and then being suckered into buying 75 of the losers. Whaaat were they smokin???
Had this latest recession and September 11 never happened (and AA fighting for its survival), maybe AA would have seen the wisdom of buying a couple hundred 717s to serve as the 80-90 seat (after MRTC and MRTF) short haul planes (maybe even for Eagle to fly).
Now, instead, Eagle will probably fly 50 or 70 seat RJs (without MRTC or even an F seat) with cramped seating on those routes. Too bad. Yikes.
I can only hope that lots of AA executives get to roast this summer in F100s as they wait in the hot sun at DFW. It won't change the decision, but it might help drive home the mistake -- you don't buy airplanes made in a country that has no need for AIR CONDITIONING. "[a] very good fleet" -- my a@&. Fire that guy for lying to the analysts (not to mention, lying to the passengers).
#8
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: SNA/LAX
Programs: AA EXP 4MM
Posts: 1,609
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by FWAAA:
Now, instead, Eagle will probably fly 50 or 70 seat RJs (without MRTC or even an F seat) with cramped seating on those routes. Too bad. Yikes.
</font>
Now, instead, Eagle will probably fly 50 or 70 seat RJs (without MRTC or even an F seat) with cramped seating on those routes. Too bad. Yikes.
</font>
#9
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Programs: AA EXP & 3MM, SPG GLD
Posts: 1,215
My flight from MKE-STL on Feb 1 which was supposed to be a 717 was just changed to a RJ
. It's happening already and what's worse in my fear that MKE will lose AA service again altogether and become AE only again.
. It's happening already and what's worse in my fear that MKE will lose AA service again altogether and become AE only again.

