Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Fokker Is No Longer Been Made?  
User currently offlineMARIO NAME From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 2164 times:

Hi,

I'm flying the great F 100 for a year now, and I love it.

I can't understand why they are no longer producting this nice piece of art!
I'm flying in Brazil, South America. And I will be looking for your coments.....
TKS

18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineSnoopy From Switzerland, joined Oct 2001, 370 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 2089 times:

Fokker went bankrupt some years ago. I believe at the time that Samsung from Korea were interested in buying them, but the deal never went through and the company collapsed. End of story.

User currently offlineSjc>sfo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 2074 times:

Because the company no longer exists.




Haha, hey it's the first thing that came to my mind.


User currently offlineFokker Lover From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 2049 times:

There is a company called FAS ( Fokker Aircraft Services).
They do maintenance and modifications. They were trying to convince USair to let them cut a section from their F100's and change them in to F70's. I don't believe we fell for that one though. If you are going to turn it in to an RJ,

just take out some seats and give the passengers some leg room. I know FAS was just trying to drum up some business, but that was ridiculous.


User currently offlineNZ767 From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 1620 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2030 times:

In other words.........they're "Fokked"! Big grin

User currently offlineFallingeese From Canada, joined Apr 2001, 2097 posts, RR: 18
Reply 5, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2026 times:

There were plans for a company name Rekkof (fokker backwards for you not sitting upsidedown....lol) to continue production. I believe the plans have since been scrapped.


Mark McWhirter...Contrails Photography
User currently offlineKtliem@yvr From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 161 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1960 times:

Actually Daimler Benz (DASA), the then owner of Fokker, pulled the plug. It's really too bad, because Fokker had a 100 seater jet before regional airliners became popular. In a way it was ahead of its time.

This page provides more detailed information on Fokker's demise. It is in Dutch though... http://www.fokkernl.com/content/verslag5/INHOUD.htm

A brief summary in English:

Fokker's receivers concluded that the simultaneous development of F50 & F100 was ill-advised form the very beginning.

Fokker's miscalculations:

INTERNAL:

projected development costs : FL70 million
actual development costs: FL775 million

projected production costs: FL0.6 billion
actual production costs: FL2.5 billion

exploding development costs coincide with the end of the F27/F28 production

Costly delays

delays in the development of the F100 lead to hefty penalties

Rigid mamagement structure

Fokker as an organization was top-heavy and was unable to implement change quickly.

EXTERNAL:

Worldwide low demand

The F100 came on the market when demand for airliners were at a all-time low (1993). It had only 10 orders for the F100 at the time.
Fokker produced more airplanes than they actually sold; there were 18 "white tails" F100 and 17 F50.

Currency risk

Many F100s were leased to Airlines by a subsidiary of Fokker. The lease contract was always in US$. The US$ dropped from FL1.90 at the time of signing to FL1.60 at the time of the lease.

Fokker became part of DASA in 1992
In 1995 DASA decided not to provide futher financing.

Fokker went bankrupt in Jan.29. 1996



User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 7, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 1932 times:

Fokker was murdered to remove competition for the Do-328, short and simple.
They made some bad business decisions (like launching their own leasefirm that had trouble collecting from cash-starved mainly African airlines that leased aircraft) and selling too many aircraft under the production price (mainly to that lease company) in order to keep production going.
Business was looking up, and they could have sold a lot more had DASA (now EADS) not destroyed them.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineFlying-Tiger From Germany, joined Aug 1999, 4165 posts, RR: 36
Reply 8, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 1926 times:

Jwenting, your statement is bullsh**. The Dornier seats 31-34 Pax, Fokker´s smallest bird was the Fokker F50 with 50 seats, followed by the Fokker F60 (60 pax), Fokker F70 (70 pax) and the F100 (100 pax). There was no competition between those two thus Fokker´s bankrupcity didn´t help Dornier in any way. Fokker went down because of way too-high production costs, far above their income. And DASA stopping the money flow one day, that was only a matter of time...

Regards
Flying-Tiger
http://fly.to/rorders



Flown: A319/320/321,A332/3,A380,AT4,AT7,B732/3/4/5/7/8,B742/4,B762/763,B772,CR2,CR7,ER4,E70,E75,F50/70,M11,L15,S20
User currently offlineLZ-TLT From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 431 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 1911 times:

I'm with Flying-Tiger on this. DASA's move by then was rather an attempt to shut a bottomless pit.

User currently offlineMARIO NAME From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (12 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1844 times:

Hi you all!

I'm very happy with all of this feedback, please, keep on the coments, I'm learning a lot..

Tks again for replying.

Best regards from Brazil!
Mario Name


User currently offlineAirsicknessbag From Germany, joined Aug 2000, 4723 posts, RR: 34
Reply 11, posted (12 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1811 times:

Oh come one - if you want to start the mudslinging about who killed whom, why not think about the VFW614?? It´s all moot anyway.

Daniel Smile


User currently offlineMARIO NAME From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (12 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1752 times:

Hi Daniel,

What's this VFW614? And why are you thinking that we are "starting the mudslinging about who killed whom" ?
It's true I think someone killed FOKKER, yes, that is a fact my friend! The airplane is a "money machine", low costs, low maintenance cost, easy operation, self sustained(it's stair is the door itself),for the pilots is an easy and friendly cockpit, and the best of all, we don't have big failures wile flying, just minor squawks...and I will give you more, the break even is just 1/4 of the occupation...so as I said, this was too much for the competitors...and what we had was a murder! I'm sorry, and I feel sorry for pilots that maybe never fly a Fokker, wich I guarantee is very nice.
Thank you.
And best regards from Brazil!
Mario


User currently offlineKtliem@yvr From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 161 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (12 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1724 times:

The production of the VFW 614 ended in 1978, well ahead of the F100's introduction. I'm not sure whether the failure of the VFW614 was due to its unusual overwing engines or its small size (40 passengers only). 40 passengers for jet commuter was not a viable option in those days. This is especially true for the US market. Remember for a long time commuter aircrafts in the US were not allowed to carry more than 19 passengers. Moreover, powerful pilot unions have long prevented jet operations for commuter airlines (correct me if I'm wrong on this matter)

I think the demise of Fokker was due to its debtloads, its inept managment, & the downturn of world aviation.

As I have written in my previous posting, the debtload was horrendous. I think only the Dutch governmnet would have been able to bail out Fokker & they chose not to. It was a political decision.

I think an even more difficult problem was the business culture at Fokker. Until the F100, Fokker was a small manufacturer producing a few airplanes for small airlines from mostly the developing countries. Fokker biggest customer was Garuda with 35 F28s. Other airlines ordered in the single digits. Fokker was very good at providing these small airlines with the right product for their working environment. I remember an article in Flight about Fokker's database of every runway in the developing world. Everything was organized to please these small airlines.
Being good at developing & producing small numbers of aircraft for many smaller airlines does not mean that you're equally good at producing large number of aircrafts for powerful mega airlines such as American. Negotiating with these major airlines was very different that waht Fokker was used to. It certainly didn't help that US$ depreciated after the contracts were signed.

I was living in the Netherlands at the time & was following the developments at Fokker closely. My obervations are those from someone from the outside. If there are any former Fokker employees at this forum, I'm more than curious to know what happened on the inside.


User currently offlineFlying-Tiger From Germany, joined Aug 1999, 4165 posts, RR: 36
Reply 14, posted (12 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1695 times:

It wasn´t the VFW-614´s design, it was Fokker´s unwillingness to market the plane (remember, at that time it was called VFW-Fokker). And then the US government introduced a "Buy american act", excluding the VFW614 from a large Coast Guard tender in which it was the front-runner. Same happened to a FedEx order, political pressure to "buy american" kicked this order.

Regards
Flying-Tiger
http://fly.to/rorders



Flown: A319/320/321,A332/3,A380,AT4,AT7,B732/3/4/5/7/8,B742/4,B762/763,B772,CR2,CR7,ER4,E70,E75,F50/70,M11,L15,S20
User currently offlineVfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 4013 posts, RR: 5
Reply 15, posted (12 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1689 times:

The VFW614 was competing with the Fokker 28-3000 (and to some extent with the Fokker 27) at its time, of course not with the Fokker 100. The smaller Fokker 28 had a capacity of 65, the Fokker 27 of 44/48. The VFW614 could seat up to 44. VFW relied on the Dutch Fokker marketing activities for the VFW614 but quite obviously Fokker was more interested in selling the Fokker 28 than the VFW product at a time when all manufacturers were struggling to sell airplanes (late 1970s).

Re the engines: The concept of the VFW614 was to offer a jet with rough field capabilities as a possible replacement for the DC3 in third world countires, hence the unusual location of the engines above the wings. Main problem was the reliabiltiy of the RR MH45 engines which had an extremely poor dispatch reliability in the beginning.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © AirNikon
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Erik Frikke



User currently offlineTsv From Australia, joined Nov 1999, 1641 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (12 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1645 times:

"the break even is just 1/4 of the occupation"?????

I'd be interested if you could expand on this statement please.

As an example I've been told that when Flight West operated the Cairns-Weipa-Cairns route (single leg flight time 55 minutes to 1 hour 5 minutes) with an average loading each way of 48 pax the route was running at a loss.

I do however seem to remember reading somewhere (when it was being designed or rolled out?) that's it's breakeven was 40 pax? However even if this figure was right then a lot has changed since then which would only make this figure much higher.

I really liked (and still do like) the F100 by the way.



"I told you I was ill ..." Spike Milligan
User currently offlineMaugie From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 47 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (12 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1617 times:

Fokker went bankrupt becouse corrupt dutch government !!



User currently offlineMARIO NAME From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (12 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1586 times:

Hi Tsv,

Tks for your reply. At the company I work for, with all the costs and flying "cost index 12", which is very economic, I've noticed that when you have more than 25 pax onboard you are making money, but if you don't reach that, you are loosing money.
I will try to see if I have more accurate info on this...

Tks again and,

Best regards from Brazil!
Mario


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...
ASA Is No Longer "Candler" And Now "Acey"? posted Wed Mar 15 2006 13:47:07 by DocChaos
Your Favorite Airline That Is No Longer... posted Wed Sep 10 2003 08:54:38 by Zrs70
The Oldest Airbus Is No Longer posted Fri Jul 11 2003 19:44:46 by Redcap
American Is No Longer A 727 Operator posted Sat May 4 2002 01:12:13 by American 767
Why There Is No WestJet 004 FIN# posted Mon Feb 4 2002 03:26:38 by Dripstick
MX No Longer Leader In US-Mexico Market: AA Is! posted Tue Jun 14 2005 19:28:47 by Pzurita1
A321 Why No Longer Range V? posted Mon Feb 21 2005 20:53:07 by A321fly
No Longer On The Brink, American Air Is Still In P posted Thu Mar 18 2004 16:23:31 by STT757
No Secret As To Why AA Is Doing Better In STL posted Fri Feb 13 2004 00:43:17 by LambertMan
Is NW The Only Carrier No Longer Carrying Mail? posted Sat Jan 17 2004 01:39:01 by M404