Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Wasn't The Fokker 70/100 More Successful?  
User currently offlinedelta88 From United States of America, joined May 2009, 85 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 7820 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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)


707,717,727,738,744,752,762ER,763ER,772ER,MD82,MD-83,MD-88, DC-9-10,DC-10-10,A320
32 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25205 posts, RR: 22
Reply 1, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 7765 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.


User currently offlinedelta88 From United States of America, joined May 2009, 85 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 7753 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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


707,717,727,738,744,752,762ER,763ER,772ER,MD82,MD-83,MD-88, DC-9-10,DC-10-10,A320
User currently offlineiFlyLOTs From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 480 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 7737 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.



"...stay hungry, stay foolish" -Steve Jobs
User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5779 posts, RR: 11
Reply 4, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 7693 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.....


User currently offlineYYCspotter From Canada, joined Jul 2012, 189 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 7492 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...



I
User currently offlineSamuP From Colombia, joined Jul 2010, 52 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 6893 times:

Quoting YYCspotter (Reply 5):

You just made my day!


User currently offlinenws2002 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 896 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 6746 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.


User currently offlineN737AA From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 270 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 6311 times:

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

N737AA


User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4396 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 6242 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.

User currently offlineckfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 5227 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 5987 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.


User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2013 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 5948 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.


it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently offlineFlyCaledonian From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2084 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 5746 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.



Let's Go British Caledonian!
User currently offlineTC957 From UK - England, joined May 2012, 852 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 5544 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.


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4724 posts, RR: 39
Reply 14, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 5517 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25205 posts, RR: 22
Reply 15, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 5484 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)..


User currently offlinetype-rated From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 4996 posts, RR: 19
Reply 16, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 5465 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.



Fly North Central Airlines..The route of the Northliners!
User currently offlinemultimark From Canada, joined Jul 2006, 796 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5301 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.


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4724 posts, RR: 39
Reply 18, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 5247 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.  


User currently offlinerikkus67 From Canada, joined Jun 2000, 1631 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 5148 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...



AC.WA.CP.DL.RW.CO.WG.WJ.WN.KI.FL.SK.ACL.UA.US.F9
User currently offlinelows From Austria, joined Oct 2011, 1143 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4947 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.


User currently offlineckfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 5227 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 4750 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.


User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3010 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 4650 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


User currently offlineptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3944 posts, RR: 18
Reply 23, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 4599 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.



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlinesimairlinenet From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 914 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 4558 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!


25 FI642 : 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, bu
26 Viscount724 : 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 a
27 Post contains images EPA001 : I can only agree with this. Flying them on a weekly basis for over two years now I know what you are talking about. . The seats are also imho the big
28 Tangowhisky : 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 f
29 longhauler : 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 flee
30 Post contains links and images Aviopic : They are pretty successful still. http://www.fokker.com/Fokker-Portal-...ker-aircraft-in-first-half-of-2012 Even after so many years the TDR is still
31 r2rho : 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
32 daviation : 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 ser
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why Was The 777-300 Not More Popular? posted Thu Sep 8 2011 08:42:43 by kaitak744
Why Wasnt The 767/747 Very Popular With RB211's posted Tue Mar 23 2010 13:27:25 by overloaduk
Fokker 70/100 - A Tribute By Wings. posted Mon Jan 15 2007 17:29:23 by WINGS
KLM - Fokker 70/100 Reliability posted Tue Nov 22 2005 21:02:51 by Varig_dc10
KLM Cityhopper Fokker 70/100 posted Wed Nov 26 2003 15:13:04 by Applepie81
Why Did The Fokker Collapsed? posted Mon May 7 2001 21:19:36 by Sonic
BMI Fokker 70/100 posted Wed Apr 18 2001 14:57:36 by Zander
Why Isn't/hasn't The CSeries Caught On More? posted Mon Aug 2 2010 11:10:45 by EA772LR
Why Has The "-100" Disappeared After The 747? posted Thu Feb 25 2010 01:54:47 by faro
Why Didn't The B737-100 Last As Long As -200? posted Tue Dec 2 2008 05:04:28 by Boeingdotcom