Fleet Age

[N628AU]

One additional point on the F100.

An AD was approaching on the RR engines on that aircraft which was very expensive to comply with, from what I understood the cost was over 7 figures per aircraft. Neither US nor AA wanted fork over that kind of cash for an aircraft that basically duplicated the mission of another in their fleet, or could be replaced by an RJ after the downturn in traffic post 9/11.

 

[justaumechanic]

The reason they were parked at US was the pulldown of capacity after 9/11, and US parked the 737-200, DC-9 and MD-80 at the sametime as they parked the F100s, your own statement saying US dumped them spoke loads about it.

And if the F100 was such a bad plane why was US spending over a million per plane to upgrade the cooling system up till the time the decision was made to park them?

And KLM, Air France and numerous other airlines around the world still fly the F100.

[post="245855"][/post]​

Having working in PIT maintenance for many years on the Fokker Aircraft I can tell you from first hand experience some of the short comings of the aircraft.

First you say that parts were easy to come buy. Yes and no.. It depended on the part. There were many long lead structural Items that had a 3 to 6 month wait period. Component level parts were not a big problem however the Fokker had a unigue set of instruments and equipment that were no longer being aggressivly supported by the vendors because it was a dead end aircraft.

The RECAS cooling system was not a million per aircraft.. We did not modify the AirConditioning system so much as we added additional suction fans in the back for ground operations.. We did have an aggressive program to maintain the Airco system during the summer months due to the cooling problems with the aircraft.

As for AA having an upgraded aircraft.. Well that all depends on how you look at it. Yes they did have the three spool pack for the Airco system however all you need to do is ask any AA mechanic, it was a huge nightmare to take care off.. It did work better than our system however the maintenance cost was excessive.. Due to cost US Airways opted not to install the 3 spool system. To add to that before AA decided to unload their aircraft they were looking to add the RECAS system to their aircraft due to the success US Airways had in lowering the cabin temp during ground ops..

Now you also mention some of the added improvements we were doing to our Fokker.. Most noticeably was the Steel Gear Mod.. This was a safety issue.. An analysis was done on the likely hood of another major gear failure.. This was done at Fokker and provide to the industry. I forget the exact numbers but it was one failure every 3 years depending on flight operations.. This was very unacceptable to both US and AA so a decision to install the Steel gear was made.. It was not an AD note or a requirement from the FAA since the original gear was certified.. Strictly a corporate decision..

In the end the Fokker had its good points and its bad points.. It did get more reliable towards the end of its career at US Airways however it still ranked as the number one aircraft for cancellations.. (the 767 ranking highest in delays)

Fokker being out of production did not play a big role in the aircrafts departure from US Airways.. Keep in mind to the aircraft was an orphan fleet. It had no future. Fleet simplification dealt it its final blow.

 

[eolesen]

An AD was approaching on the RR engines on that aircraft which was very expensive to comply with, from what I understood the cost was over 7 figures per aircraft.

[post="245873"][/post]​

I heard it was around $1M per engine, but don't quote me on that. Paying the lease on the grounded aircraft may wind up being cheaper than doing the AD, and with the AD being cycle driven, as long as the aircraft are returned to the lessor without reaching the cycle threshold, AA and US don't have to perform the mod.

Incidentally, all but 5 of AA's 60+ F100's have already been sold (and delivered to the new owners). The majority of them headed to Europe and Africa, with others heading to JetsGo in Canada. Being a Dutch aircraft with British engines, I don't know that the JAA is applying the same rules that the FAA does...

 

[UseYourHead]

What this is really about at US Airways is executing Wolf/Gang "Plan B" which was, if the airline was not going to be a "World Class Carrier of Choice" it would retrench to become a regional airline.

They tried, in the end we are living plan B. They parked the aircraft that were less attractive for many reasons.

That plan B was carried on by Siegel, and now our current management.

I think something in this industry that is greatly underappreciated is how long carriers are able to fly their A/C for.

Before all the cuts, US had solidified itself as a carrier that flew planes for many years.  The DC9/MD80 fleet pushed 25 years, as did the 73S fleet.

Obviously, there was a push to streamline the fleet, but was it necessary to retire planes that were less than 10 years old?

[post="245806"][/post]​