Talk:Fokker 100

Bombardier

Shouldn't there be something about the attempt by the Dutch government to entice Bombardier to buy the then bankrupt Fokker? 76.66.196.229 (talk) 13:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source that's relevant to the 100, then feel free add it. However, it's probably better on the Fokker company page, if it's not already there. - BillCJ (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Specifications

The knot numbers for never exceed and maximum speed seem off (1 kn = 1.852 km/h, so 310kn or even 320kn cannot be 800+ km/h). I am not changing this in the article because I am not an expert and have no way of knowing if the Mach or km/h numbers are correct basis for adjustment. Can the author or someone truly knowledgeable about aircraft look into this?

Not sure where the figures came from so I have changed to a referenced specification section. MilborneOne (talk) 21:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

British Airways

Added British Airways to former operators category. Passenger on a British Airways Fokker 100 in 1999.

Cannot verify if they still operate this aircraft.

This site provides a picture of a British Airways Fokker 100: - http://www.pbase.com/aviationimagesrf/image/119967157/original —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oracoraque (talk • contribs) 05:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I have removed it as British Airways never operated the Fokker 100 the image is an aircraft of Touraine Air Transport. MilborneOne (talk) 15:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The entry on Touraine Air Transport -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TAT_European_Airlines - states that it was wholly (100%) owned by British Airways from August 1996 until May 2001.

In August 1996 British Airways acquired the remaining 50.1% of TAT's share capital, thus acquiring 100% ownership.[3]

In 1997 British Airways brought TAT under joint management control with Air Liberté, in which it had acquired a controlling stake in October 1996.[4]

British Airways subsequently merged TAT into Air Liberté to achieve a significant reduction in costs and greater operational synergies. The UK flag carrier eventually disposed of the merged entity in May 2001 to rid itself of years of heavy losses and difficult labour relations at its French subsidiaries.[5]

I was a passenger on a British Airways Fokker 100 in June 1999. There was every indication that I was flying on a British Airways aircraft, not a code share partner or subsidiary aircraft. The aircraft was painted in British Airways livery, and the crew wore British Airways uniforms.

Would that not in fact make British Airways a former Fokker 100 operator?--Oracoraque (talk) 10:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Note 1

How can a publication from 2006 give us data on airplanes in use in 2009?--Idonthavetimeforthiscarp 14:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Updated to last years figure with a ref. MilborneOne (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Fokker 70/100

Why are there separate articles on the Fokker 100 and the Fokker 70? I always thought these were just two different versions of the same aircraft, like the Boeing 737-600, -700, -800 and -900 or the Airbus A318/19/20/21 which do not have separate articles on each variant? --87.160.154.24 (talk) 17:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I know other stuff exists is not a good argument but the Boeing 737 has five articles (overview, classis, ng, T-43 and MAX) and the A318 has its own article. So it is fairly normal to have articles on variants if we have enough material to support it. MilborneOne (talk) 18:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

air dolomiti

Air Dolomiti is listed in the crash list but it is missing in the list of the companies who operate or operated the F100 — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiorgioG (talk • contribs) 14:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I understand they only wet-leased two aircraft for a while so not actually operated by them. MilborneOne (talk) 15:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fokker 100. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140406142510/http://www.aerobuzz.fr/spip.php?article4938 to http://www.aerobuzz.fr/spip.php?article4938
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120321232627/http://www.aer.ita.br/~bmattos/mundo/airliner/fo100.htm to http://www.aer.ita.br/~bmattos/mundo/airliner/fo100.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100405081233/http://www.flyfokker.com/Stork/18515/FF_F100.html to http://www.flyfokker.com/Stork/18515/FF_F100.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.planepictures.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=268&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=&sid=0bba7879d2c01b91d2973fd89a23301c

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

main picture

• 
  previous on-ground
• 
  current, nice arrangement but flying right
• 
  other candidate, flying left (KLM)
• 
  Same, Blue Line
• 
  same, OLT Jetair
• 
  same, OLT

I WP:BOLDly replaced the previous grounded picture to an inflight one. I think it's good looking, a little from above, but it's heading right, away from the article. A nice other candidate is the KLM one (which remind the Dutch origins), but maybe a bit too much from below. Dynamic though. Others are more usual approach from 3/4 views. Any preference? --Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

The ground image was only added recently the Montengro image was used before that so why not return to it. MilborneOne (talk) 10:34, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

• 
  Montenegro
• 
  Alliance Airlines

The Montenegro image is a little bland (simple side view), there was also another Alliance airliners before, a little more interesting but less than the right-flying one or the KLM.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

main photo change

• 
  current picture
• 
  proposed picture, better shows the aircraft configuration

--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:23, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Dont have a problem with changing the image. MilborneOne (talk) 08:54, 7 September 2019 (UTC)