NYCAviation.com
ADVERTISEMENT

It is currently Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:13 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Fokker Speculation
PostPosted: Tue Mar 09, 2010 2:46 pm 
Offline
NYCAddict
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 1:14 pm
Posts: 4771
Location: FRG/SRQ/ADS
Where would you love to see the "new" F100 used in what colors. It doesnt have to be realistic.

Me personally, I would just love to see them in airline service in the USA again period. I do not care who flys them. If they are used I am going to book tickets on them. I love the Fokker. I would LOVE to see them in AA colors again. AA needs an airplane between the MD-80 and 737-800. Is it realistic? probably not though. Alaska would be another really great place for that airplane with it's performance capacity. It can take HUGE loads for it's size and has faily good range. Plus......... It is able to operate from unimproved surfaces rigth out of the factory. There are pictures someplace of an AA F100 doing touch and goes on a grass runway in fact.

I could see this airplane being a good starter jet as well for LCC's in the states if the product support is good. One thing I question is the powerplant viability with all of the new technology out there. KLM loves this airplane, Austrian is loyal to it and I think American really liked it but the overhead when Fokker went down the tubes killed its viability. All armchair CEO dream speculation though.

_________________
Keeping your jet engine at full power is just a way of letting dinosaurs roar one more time.... To me that is not pollution... It's more like a pterodactyl with a DirectTv pod on it's back...Don't worry, a few million years later the cave men are still trying to take them out of the sky though.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Fokker Speculation
PostPosted: Tue Mar 09, 2010 4:37 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 11:12 pm
Posts: 8293
Location: New York City
hiss srq wrote:
AA needs an airplane between the MD-80 and 737-800.

Why did they get rid of their original Fokkers? They weren't that old...most of the Fokkers built are still in service.

_________________
Ladies and gentlemen, this is your captain speaking. We have a small problem.
All four engines have stopped. We are doing our damnedest to get them under control.
I trust you are not in too much distress. —Captain Eric Moody, British Airways Flight 9


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Fokker Speculation
PostPosted: Tue Mar 09, 2010 4:43 pm 
Offline
NYCAddict
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 8:41 pm
Posts: 7970
Location: Shot from a cannon, endlessly orbiting
GothamSpotter wrote:
hiss srq wrote:
AA needs an airplane between the MD-80 and 737-800.

Why did they get rid of their original Fokkers? They weren't that old...most of the Fokkers built are still in service.


Expense. They required there own MX, Training, Parts, and Support programs. The return on investement simply did not cover the expense.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Fokker Speculation
PostPosted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 12:50 am 
Offline
NYCAddict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 8:18 pm
Posts: 1238
Location: JFK
T-Bird76 wrote:
GothamSpotter wrote:
hiss srq wrote:
AA needs an airplane between the MD-80 and 737-800.

Why did they get rid of their original Fokkers? They weren't that old...most of the Fokkers built are still in service.


Expense. They required there own MX, Training, Parts, and Support programs. The return on investement simply did not cover the expense.

Hopefully it will be different this time


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Fokker Speculation
PostPosted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:21 am 
Online
NYCAddict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 9:59 pm
Posts: 2790
Location: 4 air miles SE of ISP.
NLovis wrote:
T-Bird76 wrote:
Expense. They required there own MX, Training, Parts, and Support programs. The return on investement simply did not cover the expense.

Hopefully it will be different this time


But it wont be, because of the reasons Tommy outlined. It's a completely different manufacturer, airframe & engines. So even if it's new, you still need MX training, a seperate supply of parts, and a different support program.

This is fine for KLM and any other Fokker operator, they are already invested in the aircraft, but for a US carrier in these times to make that kind of investment it would be completely foolish.

Now, if it's a brand new airline, and they need those things anyway, they sure why not? But I don't see any new airlines on the horizon for the US in the near future.

_________________
View my Photos: http://www.jetphotos.net/showphotos.php?userid=21620
http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnklos


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Fokker Speculation
PostPosted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 2:36 pm 
Offline
NYCAddict
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 1:14 pm
Posts: 4771
Location: FRG/SRQ/ADS
I'm sure some crackpot's will eventually get around to it here in the states. there is no shortage of Bill Diffendeffer's (Skybus) in the USA who have grand ideas of taking their three store front travel agencies and turning them into the next major LCC fad. I'm sure at some point we will see some parked down in Jackson, MS. with plugs and a scheme that never carried revenue.

_________________
Keeping your jet engine at full power is just a way of letting dinosaurs roar one more time.... To me that is not pollution... It's more like a pterodactyl with a DirectTv pod on it's back...Don't worry, a few million years later the cave men are still trying to take them out of the sky though.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Fokker Speculation
PostPosted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:30 pm 
Offline
NYCAddict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 8:18 pm
Posts: 1238
Location: JFK
hiss srq wrote:
I'm sure some crackpot's will eventually get around to it here in the states. there is no shortage of Bill Diffendeffer's (Skybus) in the USA who have grand ideas of taking their three store front travel agencies and turning them into the next major LCC fad. I'm sure at some point we will see some parked down in Jackson, MS. with plugs and a scheme that never carried revenue.

Only time will tell. think jetblue will give it a long shot?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Fokker Speculation
PostPosted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:54 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 11:12 pm
Posts: 8293
Location: New York City
NLovis wrote:
Only time will tell. think jetblue will give it a long shot?

Probably not, based on their strong ties to Brazil and Embraer.

_________________
Ladies and gentlemen, this is your captain speaking. We have a small problem.
All four engines have stopped. We are doing our damnedest to get them under control.
I trust you are not in too much distress. —Captain Eric Moody, British Airways Flight 9


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Fokker Speculation
PostPosted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 8:41 pm 
Offline
Singing in the Light Rain, Mist
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 8:50 pm
Posts: 385
Location: Seattle, WA
Honestly I was surprised to see them enter the 100 seat market with so many planes already there and coming. There really is nothing in a market of 80 seats and thought that it might have been a better one for them. But we will have to see how it turns out. Might see QX go back to its old Fokker days.

_________________
http://seahawks7757.blogspot.com/ My continuing updated 787 Flight Test Blog
http://www.flickr.com/photos/13497349@N04/ My continuing updated photostream from BFI and sometimes SEA


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Comments on this forum are owned by the poster. | Powered by phpBB
[
SEO MOD © 2007 StarTrekGuide ]