Sino-Korean AE100 (Re: FOKKER BANKRUPTCY?)

From:         Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang)
Organization: Concentric Internet Services
Date:         08 Feb 96 03:21:08 
References:   1 2 3
Followups:    1
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

In article <4em0gd$bsp@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU>,
Robert Ashcroft <rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>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.

I don't think the Chinese nor the Koreans will allow that to happen.
Furthermore, the F100 is a relatively old design.  At one time, even
Fokker and DASA were talking about a new model, the FX, to replace the
F100.

>
>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.

I agree with you that the market will be overcrowded with the AE100.
However, I don't think it's such a bad idea to transfer the low-end
market to low-cost countries.  China will have a tremendous domestic
market that can sustain the AE100 production.  The Europeans as well
as Boeing and McDonnell Douglas all realize the potential, and they
are fiercely competing to be the Western partner for the Sino-Korean
project.  Unfortunately, the biggest problem the AE100 is facing now
is that the Chinese and the Koreans don't seem to be able to agree on
anything.

--
H Andrew Chuang (chuanga@cris.com)