Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5561017/

Topic: Why Wasn't The Fokker 70/100 More Successful?
Username: delta88
Posted 2012-09-10 16:48:15 and read 8014 times.

Its as simple as the question says, Why was the Fokker 70/100 not as sucessful as the F28 they replaced? (Not including that Fokker already had Financial Issues)

Topic: Why Wasn't The Fokker 70/100 More Successful?
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2012-09-10 17:09:49 and read 7959 times.

Quoting delta88 (Thread starter):
Why was the Fokker 70/100 not as sucessful as the F28 they replaced?

Don't understand why you think the Fokker 70/100 was less successful than the F28 since more 70s/100s were built than the earlier model F28s (283 Fokker 100s and 47 Fokker 70s, total 330, compared to 241 of the original F.28).

Also note that Fokker 70 and 100 are also officially F28s. Fokker 70/100 are marketing designations. Officially the 70 is the F.28 Mark 0070 and the 100 is the F.28 Mark 0100.

Topic: Why Wasn't The Fokker 70/100 More Successful?
Username: delta88
Posted 2012-09-10 17:12:08 and read 7947 times.

Well i didnt know that, I thought that the F28(First Gen) was more sucessful than the F70, with only like 50 or so F70s made and around 250 F100s made before the Production run ended, but what i mean is why dont we see more, lets assume Fokker didnt have any Financial problems and they continued to make more aircraft

Topic: Why Wasn't The Fokker 70/100 More Successful?
Username: iFlyLOTs
Posted 2012-09-10 17:18:21 and read 7931 times.

Quoting delta88 (Reply 2):
lets assume Fokker didnt have any Financial problems and they continued to make more aircraft

Thats not really an easy thing to do seeing as the F100s development costs were part of what put them under.

Topic: Why Wasn't The Fokker 70/100 More Successful?
Username: AA737-823
Posted 2012-09-10 17:31:39 and read 7887 times.

It was a niche aircraft, much as the BAe-146/AvroRJ were. Those aircraft were produced in similarly "small" numbers.
What one has to remember is that an airplane doesn't have to sell as many copies as the 737/A320 to be successful.
The F100 could have been more successful, but unfortunately, time ran out.
There are, it should be pointed out, also reliability issues with the birds. I love flying on them, once we get into the air, but I've been delayed out of Amsterdam on CityHopper more times than I care to count. Granted, the E170/190 isn't exactly a flawless aircraft, either.....

Topic: Why Wasn't The Fokker 70/100 More Successful?
Username: YYCspotter
Posted 2012-09-10 19:01:30 and read 7686 times.

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 4):
Granted, the E170/190 isn't exactly a flawless aircraft, either.....

during the winter, the folks up at AC call it the E-180...

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The Fokker 70/100 More Successful?
Username: SamuP
Posted 2012-09-11 11:15:36 and read 7087 times.

Quoting YYCspotter (Reply 5):

You just made my day!

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The Fokker 70/100 More Successful?
Username: nws2002
Posted 2012-09-11 12:37:28 and read 6940 times.

Quoting YYCspotter (Reply 5):
during the winter, the folks up at AC call it the E-180...

AA at DFW called them the Dutch Oven because of the lousy air conditioning and I guess the fact that you could die a fiery death without aft emergency exits.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The Fokker 70/100 More Successful?
Username: N737AA
Posted 2012-09-12 05:12:51 and read 6505 times.

They were junk, was glad when they left the fleet, the only good thing about them was they were easy on gas.

N737AA

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The Fokker 70/100 More Successful?
Username: Burkhard
Posted 2012-09-12 05:38:42 and read 6436 times.

I'm sure Fokker would have sold still quite some of them if Fokker had survivied. But after Fokker and VFW joined under the Daimler umbrella, Daimler management had no clue how to run an aircraft company. Lufthansa had a lot of interest, but that in the end LH went Avro and not Fokker tells you how bad a management team this must have been.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The Fokker 70/100 More Successful?
Username: ckfred
Posted 2012-09-12 09:03:40 and read 6181 times.

Here are issues with the F100, according to a friend of mine who is an AA pilot (although never a Fokker pilot).

1. The lack of a rear exit. There were F/As who avoided the Fokker, because sitting in the back meant either going out window exits or getting all the way to the front of the cabin. Even an old turboprop like the Convair 580 had exits forward and aft.

2. They didn't work well on short hops. AA bought the Fokker for short routes like DFW-AUS or ORD-IND. The problem was that if you got the plane near MTOW with a light fuel load, then it was overweight for landing. They weren't designed to carry a lot of baggage, mail, and cargo on short hops. Now, AA was able to work with the problem over time. In the late 90s, I used to see Fokker departures out of ORD for STL and DTW. I know that the Fokkers were also used to work ORD-GRR (probably light on cargo). But, AA didn't buy the Fokkers to fly ORD-SAT or DFW-ATL, yet they worked a lot of those routes.

Considering that the MTOW for the MD-80 is also its maximum landing weight, the weight problem for the Fokker was a headache for scheduling

3. They were a pain for mechanics. My friend explained that most commerical jets will let a mechanic switch on the electrical system without connecting the aircraft to ground power. That wasn't the case with the Fokker. If a mechanic turned on the electrical system without ground power, there would be all sorts of problems within a few minutes. It was built more like an oversized biz jet that a commercial jet.

4. Here's a little one that an F/A told me. Most jets allow the F/A to make coffee and hot water, so long as the plane has ground power or the APU is running. But, if the Fokker was connected to ground power, the F/As couldn't get hot water. So, no coffee or hot tea for first class passengers before departure, unless the APU was running.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The Fokker 70/100 More Successful?
Username: AirbusA6
Posted 2012-09-12 09:15:28 and read 6142 times.

Sales wise the F100 was pretty successful for its day, outselling the 146/Avro most years, especially when you consider that sales of the 737/A320/MD80 were at a much lower level than the modern versions are selling at now.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The Fokker 70/100 More Successful?
Username: FlyCaledonian
Posted 2012-09-12 10:49:51 and read 5940 times.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 1):
Don't understand why you think the Fokker 70/100 was less successful than the F28 since more 70s/100s were built than the earlier model F28s (283 Fokker 100s and 47 Fokker 70s, total 330, compared to 241 of the original F.28).
Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 11):
Sales wise the F100 was pretty successful for its day, outselling the 146/Avro most years, especially when you consider that sales of the 737/A320/MD80 were at a much lower level than the modern versions are selling at now.

But it should also be considered that Fokker struck lucky with AA and US who purchased 75 and 40 F100s between them - just over a third of the F70/F100 aircraft went to two airlines! Both carriers must have seen something good in the aircraft (even if itwas just price) when they would have been considered by many to be a shoe-in for the MD-87 and 737-500 respectively.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The Fokker 70/100 More Successful?
Username: TC957
Posted 2012-09-12 13:11:13 and read 5738 times.

There would have been quite a few more F70's around had all the orders for them been fulfilled before Fokker failed.
Alitalia, British Midland and Sempati Air were all due to recieve more F70's, probably a few others as well.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The Fokker 70/100 More Successful?
Username: EPA001
Posted 2012-09-12 13:21:00 and read 5711 times.

Quoting YYCspotter (Reply 5):
during the winter, the folks up at AC call it the E-180...

Well, I have flown them weekly this winter without any incident.

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 9):

I'm sure Fokker would have sold still quite some of them if Fokker had survivied

That would be my guess as well. But history decided differently. They are wonderfull birds to fly on as a passenger.  .

Quoting ckfred (Reply 10):
Here are issues with the F100, according to a friend of mine who is an AA pilot (although never a Fokker pilot).

Thanks for that list. I recognise some issues you have listed their since I have flown the Fokkers as a passenger lots of times.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The Fokker 70/100 More Successful?
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2012-09-12 13:28:06 and read 5678 times.

Quoting FlyCaledonian (Reply 12):
Both carriers must have seen something good in the aircraft (even if itwas just price) when they would have been considered by many to be a shoe-in for the MD-87 and 737-500 respectively.

Fokker 100 is much lighter (roughly 25% if not more, depending on weight options etc.) than the 737-500 and MD-87. Should mean lower operating costs, including lower landing fees which are normally based on maximum takeoff weight (max. landing weight in the US)..

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The Fokker 70/100 More Successful?
Username: type-rated
Posted 2012-09-12 13:36:44 and read 5659 times.

I thought a few years ago Fokker had a very expensive maintenance update to the engines and airlines like AA removed the F100 from the fleet rather than repair the engines. Obviously the airlines still flying these must have come up with the millions needed for the engine update.

AA flew them quite a while on the ORD-IAH route. And I think maybe even on a few Texas-NYC routes too.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The Fokker 70/100 More Successful?
Username: multimark
Posted 2012-09-12 15:12:04 and read 5495 times.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 14):
Well, I have flown them weekly this winter without any incident.

Well, are you in Canada? As the poster noted AC's E-jets have a poor rep for reliability, especially in cold weather.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The Fokker 70/100 More Successful?
Username: EPA001
Posted 2012-09-12 15:49:32 and read 5441 times.

Quoting multimark (Reply 17):
Well, are you in Canada?

No, I am not. The winter where I live is not as harsh as the Canadian winters.  

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The Fokker 70/100 More Successful?
Username: rikkus67
Posted 2012-09-12 16:46:20 and read 5342 times.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 18):
No, I am not. The winter where I live is not as harsh as the Canadian winters.

Really? Can you grow Palm Trees in the NL?

http://tinyurl.com/8qmkztu


I digress. There were only a couple of airlines that had the Fokker 100:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Marc Hasenbein


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Anders Nilsson


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jeremy Irish - V1 Aviation Photography


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ivan Kresanek - Contrails Aviation Photography



None lasted very long in Canada...

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The Fokker 70/100 More Successful?
Username: lows
Posted 2012-09-13 01:27:29 and read 5141 times.

The F70s and 100s have been very good for OS/VO.

In addition to operating services to FRA from SZG, INN, GRZ etc., they operate some services from VIE, eg. some VIE-AMS, VIE-TIP, etc.

They are very comfortable to fly, and much better than a CR7 or CR9 because unlike a normal RJ, they feel larger than they really are. You have to walk up large stairs, not just the door of the ERJ. Sometimes when we disembark, I wait until everyone else has gotten off and stop at the top of the stairs and wave at the people in the SZG observation deck like I'm President Obama, just for fun.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The Fokker 70/100 More Successful?
Username: ckfred
Posted 2012-09-13 08:42:51 and read 4944 times.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 15):
Fokker 100 is much lighter (roughly 25% if not more, depending on weight options etc.) than the 737-500 and MD-87. Should mean lower operating costs, including lower landing fees which are normally based on maximum takeoff weight (max. landing weight in the US)..

My friend who flies for AA read in some company literature that if a given Fokker flight had a good mix of fares and some mail and/or cargo in the hold, it could make money with less than 50% load factor. Considering that when AA started flying the Fokker, the typical break-even load was above 60%, AA was very happy with the Fokker in terms of operating costs.

Quoting type-rated (Reply 16):
I thought a few years ago Fokker had a very expensive maintenance update to the engines and airlines like AA removed the F100 from the fleet rather than repair the engines. Obviously the airlines still flying these must have come up with the millions needed for the engine update.

The problem for AA was the fact that Fokker was out of business. So, there was no customer support, and no production of spare parts. AA was having to fabricate a lot of parts, which was expensive. I don't know if there was any sort of upgrade for the RR Tay engines that was an issue.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The Fokker 70/100 More Successful?
Username: okie
Posted 2012-09-13 09:37:22 and read 4844 times.

Quoting ckfred (Reply 21):
The problem for AA was the fact that Fokker was out of business. So, there was no customer support, and no production of spare parts. AA was having to fabricate a lot of parts, which was expensive. I don't know if there was any sort of upgrade for the RR Tay engines that was an issue.

The engines, Mx access and the parts issue was the banter here at A.nut at the time, making the planes cost prohibitive to operate.
However, as we have seen the F 100 has continued to fly right along with little issues or complaint with other operators
.
The major issue I believe was the pilots contract and ground costs with AA as it was deemed just as cheap to lower frequency and count on a expected passenger growth of 6% to up gauge to a MD-80 series (S-80 if your AA specific)

Let me add that they scared the living daylights out of a lot of passengers that were not familiar with the F 100 and noticed there were no flaps down for take-off expecting to crash into an underpass or at the end of the airport.

Okie

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The Fokker 70/100 More Successful?
Username: ptrjong
Posted 2012-09-13 09:51:51 and read 4793 times.

Quoting ckfred (Reply 10):
2. They didn't work well on short hops. AA bought the Fokker for short routes like DFW-AUS or ORD-IND. The problem was that if you got the plane near MTOW with a light fuel load, then it was overweight for landing

Interesting. I think this is because the F28 undercarriage wasn't beefed up (enough). There have been quite a few instances of F100 undercarriages collapsing.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The Fokker 70/100 More Successful?
Username: simairlinenet
Posted 2012-09-13 10:04:54 and read 4752 times.

Quoting ckfred (Reply 10):
4. Here's a little one that an F/A told me. Most jets allow the F/A to make coffee and hot water, so long as the plane has ground power or the APU is running. But, if the Fokker was connected to ground power, the F/As couldn't get hot water. So, no coffee or hot tea for first class passengers before departure, unless the APU was running.

This is also the case for DC-9s. At least Northwest ones--I used to try to solve this from a fuel issue. It turns out that buying Starbucks in the terminal for first class passengers was even more expensive. The rate was roughly one gallon of fuel would brew one cup of coffee!

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The Fokker 70/100 More Successful?
Username: FI642
Posted 2012-09-13 10:05:46 and read 5057 times.

Quoting N737AA (Reply 8):

AA and US were not happy with them. The bladder fuel tanks were a nightmare to maintain. They developed leaks constantly. They were easy on Jet A, but nothing else.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The Fokker 70/100 More Successful?
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2012-09-13 11:00:47 and read 4988 times.

Quoting lows (Reply 20):
They are very comfortable to fly, and much better than a CR7 or CR9 because unlike a normal RJ, they feel larger than they really are.

I often fly on KLM CityHopper Fokker 70s (their 100s are almost gone, just 3 left I believe). Their 26 Fokker 70s (55% of all Fokker 70s built) are among my favourite aircraft types in Europe. They're always very clean and look like new inside and out, as usual for KL. And in my opinion the seats are among the most comfortable Y class seats on any aircraft, shorthaul or longhaul. The seat pitch is a little tight if you're tall (fortunately I'm not) but the seats themselves are excellent. Reminds me of the old days when most aircraft had comfortable seats with plenty of padding.

On that point, I find the seats on KL's Embraer 190s very uncomfortable, and slippery leather which I hate (the only KL aircraft with leather seats). I much prefer cloth. And although the seat pitch seems slightly better than the Fokker 70s, the seat bottom cushion on the KL E-190s is too short front-to-back so you feel like you're sitting on a narrow bench with no support for your legs. I like the Embraers but not KL's only due to the seats. Seats on other E-190s I've flown on (AC for one) are much better.

I will be sorry to see KL's Fokker 70s disappear but I think they plan on keeping them for a few more years.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The Fokker 70/100 More Successful?
Username: EPA001
Posted 2012-09-13 14:49:55 and read 4788 times.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 26):
And in my opinion the seats are among the most comfortable Y class seats on any aircraft, shorthaul or longhaul.

I can only agree with this. Flying them on a weekly basis for over two years now I know what you are talking about.  .

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 26):
I find the seats on KL's Embraer 190s very uncomfortable, and slippery leather which I hate (the only KL aircraft with leather seats)

The seats are also imho the biggest disappointment on the Embrears which are very fine planes in all other departments.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The Fokker 70/100 More Successful?
Username: Tangowhisky
Posted 2012-09-13 20:18:11 and read 4506 times.

We will never know if it would have been successful because its investor pulled out during the booming mid 90's when aviation was growing and demand for regional jets were increasing. Putting aside scope clause limits at that time, that the the aircraft was not technically perfect yet still pretty good, investors saw companies such as Fokker, Dornier and BAe (commercial aircraft) doomed against the greater Airbus Industries in Europe. If Fokker had the financial backing, they may have enjoyed more sales as there was eventual relaxation of scope clause, and superb demand right until 2001. It would have given them the opportunity to restructure their supplier costs, and find more efficient manufacturing means. But because their finances were in such dire conditions, nervous investors pulled out.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The Fokker 70/100 More Successful?
Username: longhauler
Posted 2012-09-13 21:14:01 and read 4422 times.

Quoting multimark (Reply 17):
Well, are you in Canada? As the poster noted AC's E-jets have a poor rep for reliability, especially in cold weather.

Maybe 5 years ago when the aircraft were new. Now they have roughly the same maintenance dispatch rate as the A320 series. (which is best in the fleet)

Quoting ckfred (Reply 10):
1. The lack of a rear exit. There were F/As who avoided the Fokker, because sitting in the back meant either going out window exits or getting all the way to the front of the cabin. Even an old turboprop like the Convair 580 had exits forward and aft.

At American, yes. But some airlines' F100s did have rear exits, like Swissair, etc. Also, the only exit aft of the over-wing exits on the DC-9-10 to DC-9-50 was the tail cone. Which historically, more often than not, was unserviceable in an evacuation.

Quoting ckfred (Reply 10):
The problem was that if you got the plane near MTOW with a light fuel load, then it was overweight for landing.

That is true for just about every transport aircraft I have flown.

Quoting ckfred (Reply 10):
4. Here's a little one that an F/A told me. Most jets allow the F/A to make coffee and hot water, so long as the plane has ground power or the APU is running. But, if the Fokker was connected to ground power, the F/As couldn't get hot water. So, no coffee or hot tea for first class passengers before departure, unless the APU was running.

That also is quite common, as bleed air is required for water pressure, and water pressure is required to brew coffee. F/A's usually worked around it, brewing coffee on arrival, for departure passengers. Or firing up the APU for just a few minutes .... we used to call it the $100 cup of coffee!

Actually though, American always has had trouble making money with small aircraft. I recall the BAC-111 didn't hang around for long either.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The Fokker 70/100 More Successful?
Username: Aviopic
Posted 2012-09-14 03:14:22 and read 4182 times.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 1):
Don't understand why you think the Fokker 70/100 was less successful

They are pretty successful still.
http://www.fokker.com/Fokker-Portal-...ker-aircraft-in-first-half-of-2012

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 4):
There are, it should be pointed out, also reliability issues with the birds.

Even after so many years the TDR is still awesome(and better than some competition).
TDR

Quoting ckfred (Reply 10):
an AA pilot (although never a Fokker pilot).

and it shows   

Quoting nws2002 (Reply 7):
I guess the fact that you could die a fiery death without aft emergency exits.
Quoting ckfred (Reply 10):
1. The lack of a rear exit.

You can't blame the a/c for a Customer choice.

Quoting ckfred (Reply 10):
2. They didn't work well on short hops.

The aircraft is designed for short hops, everybody else does it.

Quoting ckfred (Reply 10):
Considering that the MTOW for the MD-80 is also its maximum landing weight

Which is why it is massively overweight and guzzles fuel.

Quoting ckfred (Reply 10):
3. They were a pain for mechanics.

Education eases the pain.  
Quoting type-rated (Reply 16):
Obviously the airlines still flying these must have come up with the millions needed for the engine update.

Looking at the list of current operators this obviously sounds quite silly don't you think ?

Quoting ckfred (Reply 21):
The problem for AA was the fact that Fokker was out of business. So, there was no customer support, and no production of spare parts.

Fokker out of business.......... jeeh, who pays my salary ?
http://www.fokker.com/
Customer support, Development/Certification of new items, Aircraft MX, Component MX it is all still there and in working order as it has always been !
It was AA who choose to do their own thing rather than signing a contract and therefor mx, parts became their problem.

Quoting ckfred (Reply 21):
AA was having to fabricate a lot of parts, which was expensive.
Quoting okie (Reply 22):
The engines, Mx access and the parts issue was the banter here at A.nut at the time, making the planes cost prohibitive to operate.

See above, their own choice.

Quoting okie (Reply 22):
However, as we have seen the F 100 has continued to fly right along with little issues or complaint with other operators

Because they do have a contract with Fokker.
Several options are available.
http://www.flyfokker.com/

Quoting okie (Reply 22):
The major issue I believe was the pilots contract

The dreaded scope clause was the main(and most likely only) reason.

Quoting ptrjong (Reply 23):
I think this is because the F28 undercarriage wasn't beefed up (enough). There have been quite a few instances of F100 undercarriages collapsing.

The F100 doesn't have a F28 gear, the F28 was very suited for rough terrain.
The F100 gear comes in 2 flavors, a light weight aluminum or a steel heavy duty one.
It was a customer choice.
When due a newly developed gear is available.
http://www.fokker.com/landinggear

Quoting FI642 (Reply 25):
AA and US were not happy with them. The bladder fuel tanks were a nightmare to maintain.

Another customer choice, no center wing tank, a bladder center wing tank or an integral centerwing tank.
It was AA and US who opted for the bladder tank.
Afaik both were happy with the a/c but not with pilot demands(read salary).

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 26):
They're always very clean and look like new inside and out, as usual for KL.


The clean and new look in the KL F70's is very noticeable but most people don't know where that is coming from.
If on next flight you have a window seat just look straight up and you'll find:
http://www.fokkerservices.com/LED-Cabin-Wash-Lighting
One of the latest developments, not only for Fokker a/c btw.

Fokker is very active anyway with new thingies:
http://www.fokkerservices.com/Modifications-Brochures
Still people think there isn't any service and no parts............   



  

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The Fokker 70/100 More Successful?
Username: r2rho
Posted 2012-09-14 06:27:24 and read 3872 times.

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 28):

We will never know if it would have been successful because its investor pulled out during the booming mid 90's when aviation was growing and demand for regional jets were increasing. Putting aside scope clause limits at that time, that the the aircraft was not technically perfect yet still pretty good, investors saw companies such as Fokker, Dornier and BAe (commercial aircraft) doomed against the greater Airbus Industries in Europe. If Fokker had the financial backing, they may have enjoyed more sales as there was eventual relaxation of scope clause, and superb demand right until 2001. It would have given them the opportunity to restructure their supplier costs, and find more efficient manufacturing means. But because their finances were in such dire conditions, nervous investors pulled out.

Indeed this is the true reason. Fokker went down before the F70/100 could ever reach its full potential. The aircraft has proven itself with several airlines, it is a fundamentally good design, and we would have surely seen more of them had Fokker continued to exist as a full-fledged manufacturer. The aircraft sold quite well while it was available, and would have certainly sold more.

Topic: RE: Why Wasn't The Fokker 70/100 More Successful?
Username: daviation
Posted 2012-09-14 06:35:35 and read 3840 times.

As a passenger, I enjoyed them very much and flew them quite often. In fact, they were used frequently on routes out of SWF when SWF had much more service: AA from SWF - ORD, Midway from SWF - RDU, US from SWF - PIT. Very comfortable and quiet, especially if you were sitting toward the front.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/