Re: F100s

Date:         16 Aug 99 22:27:58 
From:         "Antoin Daltun" <adaltun@tinet.ie>
References:   1 2
Followups:    1
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

>Fleet commality was a drawback from the airlines' perspective; Fokker
>didn't make anything larger than the F-100. Also, some operators
>were probably scared away by reduced residual values of Fokker
>aircraft in the residual market if Fokker hit financial trouble, which it
>did. I have read speculation that Fokker offered such a low price to
>American for the 75 F-100s that that financial trouble was nearly
>assured. On the other hand, I don't know that Fokker management
>had much choice at the time.

<www.fokkernl.com> gives entry to a huge number of pages concerning the
Fokker bankruptcy.

There seem to have been many factors in the collapse of Fokker.

The simple summary is that the costs were much too high relative to the
prices which were obtained in the market, and this was particularly true of
the American Airlines order.

At the end, the Dutch Government seem not to have believed that DASA would
cease funding Fokker, or if they did, they were prepared to stand aside
without trying to extend Fokker's life further.

Given the new generation of regional jets from Bombardier and Embraer, as
well as the A318 and B717, it is hard to see what a revived F100 or F70
would now have to offer customers, even taking the development money as
spent.

Bombardier have built an empire on the basis of buying badly run companies
with good products on which the development money has already been spent and
buying them cheaply with government support.  I think it is significant that
(so far as I know) they did not make a serious effort to buy Fokker.

Antoin Daltun.