From: (wohlsen)
Organization: sri international
Date:         08 Feb 96 03:21:08 
References:   1 2 3
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

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

Much of the F100 is built by others, some of whom are risk-sharing
partners whose contracts may have to be honored even if the program is
taken over by another.  DASA builds the center and aft fuselage; Shorts
builds the wings; Northrup-Grumman builds the nacelles and thrust
reversers; Menasco of Canada builds the landing gear; and IPTN builds
various other pieces.  In the short-term it may be in Samsung's best
interests to honor these contracts in order to keep production rolling.
Given that, won't Samsung be stuck with the same costs that destroyed
Fokker.  Are there any similar buyouts/takeovers that set a precedent in
this area?

Bob Wohlsen