Would Us Be Profitable If It Used F100 Again ?

[A330US]

Hello,
i was just wandering, that i remember that i have flown on a US F100 so many times,
why did they put them out of service, they werent even that old, max 10-11 when retired, would US be progitable if they could bring it back on smaller routes, indtead of putting rjs and 737s
btw, who did their maintenance ?

 

[Phantom Fixer]

Hello,
i was just wandering, that i remember that i have flown on a US F100 so many times,
why did they put them out of service, they werent even that old, max 10-11 when retired, would US be progitable if they could bring it back on smaller routes, indtead of putting rjs and 737s
btw, who did their maintenance ?

[post="296430"][/post]​

The F-100 was an impossible to support Acft from a Maintenance standpoint..thus driving it's user costs higher than it should have been , in a more perfect world.

U was also hading toward an "All Airbus" Fleet at the time that they and the MD-80's and DC-9-30's were retired.

All F-100 Heavy Maintenance was performed in PIT by U Mechanics...and Line service was performed by U Mechanics were we had actual Line Maintenance at the time.

The F-100 pops up all the time here...and much of that has to do with its comparative passenger loads with the larger RJ's being procured. The sad part is the F-100 and Fokker itself was a dying breed..and the cost of outsourcing and using non-mainline labor rates to fly the new generation RJ's too appealing for U to pass up on.

 

[twoturnin]

Very senior and retired check airman told me "Uncle Ed SHOCKED us all(aircraft fleet managers) "when he announced the F-100 buy verse the -500. I still got my big sheet of CB's to reset just to keep that thing going----and the flat spot on my butt flying it from KPHL to KMCI---another marvelous marketing route for that A/C.

 

[jimntx]

AA got rid of them for the same reason. Fokker went out of business and I was told that our maintenance bases were having to manufacture the spare parts to repair them.

From a f/a standpoint...I did not like the F100. Having all the catering carts at the forward entrance and galley made boarding a chore if catering arrived the least bit late (a frequent occurrence at DFW). Your choice was to hold up boarding while the catering guys moved the carts or hold up catering until boarding was complete. The second choice, you risked the catering guys leaving to go to another a/c and in both choices you risked taking a delay for a late departure.

 

[700UW]

Stork Aviation still supports the Fokker with parts and technical help as they bought the rights when Fokker went bankrupt.

 

[diogenes]

In addition, RJ disease.

Underpowered, and frequently incapable of carrying max passengers and their checked luggage.

 

[700UW]

And never stayed cool.

And US does not own nor lease any of the F100s that are still in the desert they were all abrogated in the first chapter 11 filing.

 

[notlayedoffyet]

And never stayed cool.

And US does not own nor lease any of the F100s that are still in the desert they were all abrogated in the first chapter 11 filing.

[post="296499"][/post]​

IIRC did'nt PIT base come up with a cooling mod that fixed this issue?

 

[700UW]

They came up with a cooling mod that helped, but still not the coldest of cabins.

 

[A330US]

after stork bought the rights, it changed its name to rekkof, backward of fokker,
and have have heard rumours that the F70-100 production might begina again !

 

[700UW]

No they did not, and you won't see those planes built again, they were a failure.

They are Stork Aerospace and also Fokker Services.

Stork Aerospace

Fokker Services

 

[nycbusdriver]

In addition, RJ disease.

Underpowered, and frequently incapable of carrying max passengers and their checked luggage.

[post="296496"][/post]​

I flew it for a year. I don't remember any of these being factors. AS I recall it performed fair-to-good. Certainly better than the A321.

 

[diogenes]

We got to the point we wouldn't even stage freight for them, and on hot days, we'd hold off the last cart load of bags, pending the final passenger count (full flight scenario, but in 97-2000, full flights were the norm).

We routinely ran into the 'leave off the standby/non-rev, leave off 5-15 bags' shuffle.

And the flight would leave at max allowable.

The F100's aren't as bad in this regard as the RJ's, but they were a foretaste.

I can't speak to the Airbii's so I'll take your say-so.

 

[JAXPax]

AA got rid of them for the same reason. Fokker went out of business and I was told that our maintenance bases were having to manufacture the spare parts to repair them.

Yeah. I remember when out at DFW in the Eagle offices a couple years ago, they had that F-100 that bellied in sitting on a flatbed truck. Wings removed. Various parts removed/cut out. They drove what was left of the thing around as a mobile spare parts warehouse.

I never flew on a Fokker with US post-Piedmont.... but I put in a few dozen F-100 segments in the cabin and 1W with AA.... mostly DFW-JAX. Only plane where I'd request exit row in coach and decline the upgrade.

 

[Light Years]

Uh, are we really talking about the F100 when "Express carriers" are now permitted to operate the same size E190?

I wonder if people at mainline would have a clue if "MAA" had operated F100s instead of E170s, and then had them sold to an outside contractor instead?

Oh, probably not, because the company still would have painted Express on the side which apparently fools everyone still at the "Airbus and Boeing Division." :down: