? about AA's Future Fleet

[LGA Fleet Service]

Can anyone confirm if 7AL has been leased to Boeing for use as a testbed on the 787 program?


On another note,it's ironic that people are just now wondering 'What if' about the 717 at American.

We had the entire infrastructure in place via TWA, (Training, maintenance, the works) and we opted to stick with the F100.

Then literally five minutes later the FAA comes out with an F100 AD requiring a $1 millon per engine modification...that worked out well.

So you go E135/45 to S80, nothing in between.

The 717 would have been perfectly suited for so many different places in the system.The DAL Debacle being one.With the 717 they could have stayed in DFW matched on price and offered superior frequency and connectivity.

Let's not go into STL and any number of other stations that plane could plug right into...

 

[eolesen]

Yes, AA has a 777 leased out to Boeing for 787 flight control testing. Don't recall the tail number.

The 717 at TW was a far different situation. It was doubtful that there'd ever be more than 50 or so, and that's a far different proposition than having 200 of them.

The fact remains that once Boeing bought out Douglas, the 717/MD95 was doomed. Had Douglas remained independent, it's possible that the 717 might have had a longer production run, and maybe AA would have signed on. But they didn't, and the 717 became a red-headed stepchild which would always be in the 737's shadow, and rarely mentioned by Boeing's salesforce.

 

[LGA Fleet Service]

The aircraft came along when the fifty seat regional jet was the flavor of the month.Now the fifty seater is in decline and the hundred seat 'regional' jet is the "In" thing.

Boeing should have pushed harder in terms of marketing, its almost like they expected the big D9 operators to just automatically buy it and saw no need to 'sell' the type.


One can only wonder how many mainline jobs and routes would have been preserved had MEC's and executives had a little more long term vision.

It's also left Boeing on the sidelines as Embraer and Bombardier scarf up orders in the 75-100 seat range.

 

[eolesen]

Boeing should have pushed harder in terms of marketing, its almost like they expected the big D9 operators to just automatically buy it and saw no need to 'sell' the type.

Oh, believe me, they tried to sell it, but while it's fuel efficient, you still wind up carrying considerably more aluminum compared to the EMB190, which means higher operating costs.

Even B717 launch customer Airtran decided to go with B737s instead of more B717s.

It's also left Boeing on the sidelines as Embraer and Bombardier scarf up orders in the 75-100 seat range.

It's pretty clear that Bombardier is taking it up the rear on their 90 seater's popularity. They've all but lost that market to Embraer.

 

[twaokc]

Oh, believe me, they tried to sell it, but while it's fuel efficient, you still wind up carrying considerably more aluminum compared to the EMB190, which means higher operating costs.

Even B717 launch customer Airtran decided to go with B737s instead of more B717s.
It's pretty clear that Bombardier is taking it up the rear on their 90 seater's popularity. They've all but lost that market to Embraer.

Airtran went to 737's only because Boeing quit production of the 717. Had AA kept the 717, that is all that Airtran would be flying

 

[eolesen]

No, Airtran went to 737s because the 717 didn't have the capability to fly West Coast to Atlanta without a fuel stop.

On shorter haul routes, the additional 20-40 seats they gain helps offset the higher operating cost of the 737. That wasn't an option with the MD95/717.

 

[AMFAMAN]

No, Airtran went to 737s because the 717 didn't have the capability to fly West Coast to Atlanta without a fuel stop.

On shorter haul routes, the additional 20-40 seats they gain helps offset the higher operating cost of the 737. That wasn't an option with the MD95/717.

Some interesting links from Boeing about 717...

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/717/news/

 

[formeraa]

No, Airtran went to 737s because the 717 didn't have the capability to fly West Coast to Atlanta without a fuel stop.

On shorter haul routes, the additional 20-40 seats they gain helps offset the higher operating cost of the 737. That wasn't an option with the MD95/717.

You're absolutely right! If McDonnell-Douglas had stayed independent, they may have offered AA a deal that couldn't be refused (like they did with the MD-80s). I could have definitely seen AA slowly replace the MD-80s/F-100s with a mixture of the 717-200 and the proposed 717-300.

"Next Generation" is what Boeing says it stands for, but Airplane Geeks often use 73G to refer to 737-700s (as in WN's fleet is increasingly comprised of 73Gs).

I think it includes 737-600s, -700s, -800s and -900s.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/737family/background.html

NG = Next Generation in Boeingspeak.

73G = OAG designator for the 737-700 (because they already used the 737 designator for the old 737-100).

 

[MCI transplant]

You're absolutely right! If McDonnell-Douglas had stayed independent, they may have offered AA a deal that couldn't be refused (like they did with the MD-80s). I could have definitely seen AA slowly replace the MD-80s/F-100s with a mixture of the 717-200 and the proposed 717-300.
NG = Next Generation in Boeingspeak.

73G = OAG designator for the 737-700 (because they already used the 737 designator for the old 737-100).

<_< "3G" for third generation?

 

[mga707]

<_< "3G" for third generation?

Clever, but actually "73G" was chosen as the 737-700 designator because 'G' is the 7th letter of the alphabet.

 

[MCI transplant]

Clever, but actually "73G" was chosen as the 737-700 designator because 'G' is the 7th letter of the alphabet.

Oh really!!!

 

[Frm AE Attendant]

Hi All. First time poster. I live in Sacramento. Used to be based at DFW for AE. Anything on AA metal out of SMF is to DFW only and now its completely a Mad Dog route. I don't mind 80's for anything less than 2 hrs, but after that, they get very cramped in coach.

Somewhere, somehow, there has to be an efficient model that can be domestic, twin-aisled and seat in the 120-200 range (excluding the 762 and its fuel-hogging).

I think that's where Boeing needs to concentrate their 737 replacement to go in tandem with the 777 and 787 lines.

 

[777 fixer]

I personally hope we never order another one of those garbage 737s again. What a hunk of junk. The absolute worst plane in our fleet. I'd take an 800 year old A-300 to work over that tin can 737 any day of the week. The thing sounds like the front gear is going to fall off on takeoff and landing and you would swear the gear door was going to blow out everytime the gear folds in. I've never heard such groaning and moaning. It's all we can do to keep a straight face as we are strapped into our doll sized jumpseats as the passengers stare at us in horror thinking we're going down. For a new plane the whole design is way outdated. Other than the new seat covers the entire feel is like some ancient airplane the Wright Brothers must've tested. Don't get me started. It gives me the dry heaves just thinking about working it. blech....

As FWAA has stated I hope that by the time we get rid of the stupid 80's we have a better option available.

:down: 737s stink.

The reliability numbers of the 737 compared to the A300 say otherwise.

 

[AC AA LA FA]

Hi All. First time poster. I live in Sacramento. Used to be based at DFW for AE. Anything on AA metal out of SMF is to DFW only and now its completely a Mad Dog route. I don't mind 80's for anything less than 2 hrs, but after that, they get very cramped in coach.

Somewhere, somehow, there has to be an efficient model that can be domestic, twin-aisled and seat in the 120-200 range (excluding the 762 and its fuel-hogging).

I think that's where Boeing needs to concentrate their 737 replacement to go in tandem with the 777 and 787 lines.

Welcome...and enjoy !!
The S80 is a Bay Area "favorite"..as the step child to LA and the south "waste" land...we up north get the shaft regarding equip/routes...ect...