Fokker 100, and American Airlines
02-10-2006, 11:32 AM
#1
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Posts: 260
Fokker 100, and American Airlines
Why did the F100 flop for American? It seems the plane would be great for competition purposes (LAX-SFO, DFW-ORD, LGA-MIA, the short routes the LCC dominate).
Edik
Sorry if this has been talked about already, i did not find and forums on it.
Edik
Sorry if this has been talked about already, i did not find and forums on it.
02-10-2006, 12:06 PM
#2
On Reserve
Joined APC: Aug 2005
Position: Astra Captain
Posts: 19
I don't think it did flop. AA used to essentially put "Legand Ainlines" out of business on the LAX-DFW routes. I think after 9-11 in an effort to cut costs, AA shrunk the fleet types it had by getting rid of the F-100 and B727. Both on the way out anyway. AA also had to do all the heavy mx on the F-100 cause Fokker didn't do it anymore.
02-10-2006, 05:52 PM
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2005
Posts: 236
The airplane was "orphaned" when Fokker liquidated, too. I don't know how it compared in cost with the new generation of 100 seat aircraft, but at the time they were building them there just wasn't much of a market for 100 seat airplanes. It's too bad, the F28 was a little underpowered but it was a sweet flying machine with engineering that was ahead of it's time. Like a DC9 with power steering.
02-14-2006, 08:06 PM
#6
Guest
Posts: n/a
The Fk100 seated 89 pax. Crew costs were high, maintenance costs were higher. Folker would not release the part specs so we could not buy after market hardware such as bolts or even break away tape. 2 inch strips of breakaway tape used to cover guarded swithches in the cockpit cost $45. Seating was cramped and the cabin hot in the summer. Cruise was slow @ mach .70-.72. PIT-DFW took 4 hrs. You had to watch the landing weight. If you landed overweight the aircraft was taken out of service until a gear swing inspection could be performed. You had to balance fuel load with payload. It did not have the driftdown capabilites to fly west of Denver. The plane was designed for northern european flights. Cool air and one hour legs. At the time Eagle did the hour flights with ATR-42 so AA used the FK-100 on long legs ORD-ATL, ORD-HOU, DFW-MSP, DFW-PIT. Long slow legs. The RJs just added to it demise in the US.
02-14-2006, 08:46 PM
#7
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Posts: 260
Originally Posted by AKFlyer
The Fk100 seated 89 pax. Crew costs were high, maintenance costs were higher. Folker would not release the part specs so we could not buy after market hardware such as bolts or even break away tape. 2 inch strips of breakaway tape used to cover guarded swithches in the cockpit cost $45. Seating was cramped and the cabin hot in the summer. Cruise was slow @ mach .70-.72. PIT-DFW took 4 hrs. You had to watch the landing weight. If you landed overweight the aircraft was taken out of service until a gear swing inspection could be performed. You had to balance fuel load with payload. It did not have the driftdown capabilites to fly west of Denver. The plane was designed for northern european flights. Cool air and one hour legs. At the time Eagle did the hour flights with ATR-42 so AA used the FK-100 on long legs ORD-ATL, ORD-HOU, DFW-MSP, DFW-PIT. Long slow legs. The RJs just added to it demise in the US.
