From:         rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft)
Date:         30 Jan 1996 12:53:33 -0800
Organization: Graduate School of Business, Stanford University
References:   1 2
Followups:    1 2 3 4
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

I have mixed feelings about this proposed rescue.  On the one hand, it
keeps alive a manufacturer that should, in economic grounds, be dead.
This is not good.

On the other hand, Samsung and the Chinese seem determined to build the
AE100, despite the fact that it has a snowball's chance in hell of being
an economic success and will simply end up adding more capacity to an
industry that already has far too much.  To the extent that the Fokker
purchase replaces an all-new AE100 (that is to say, the F100 becomes
the AE100), this is probably a good thing.

The best thing, however, would be for Fokker to die and for the Koreans
and the Chinese to stop this nonsense about building the AE100.

So far as I can tell, there is only one company regularly making a profit
making airliners, and that is Boeing.  It makes no sense, no sense at all,
that others want to join this party.  It seems entirely a matter of
national virility.  Ah well, maybe 50 years from now, when we're still
flying 777s, the whole thing will seem less glamorous.


In article <4ei0eh$>, Kester Meijer <> wrote:
>29 jan 96 9am CET
>Samsung Aero from South Korea confirmed being interested in buying
>Fokker; bet they want to have a closer look at the books before
>putting any money in it. It is a cheap way to purchase a lot of
>knowledge. Meanwhile the Dutch government has put up some funds to
>keep Fokker floating until they know what to do with it. Some parts of
>Fokker can go on, on their own as a healty business. 
>Kester Meijer