Fokker Lover From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1575 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.
Ktliem@yvr From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 161 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1486 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.
Fokker's receivers concluded that the simultaneous development of F50 & F100 was ill-advised form the very beginning.
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
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.
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.
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.
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 21 Reply 7, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1458 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.
Flying-Tiger From Germany, joined Aug 1999, 4115 posts, RR: 39 Reply 8, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1452 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...
MARIO NAME From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1278 times:
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.
And best regards from Brazil!
Ktliem@yvr From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 161 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1250 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.
Flying-Tiger From Germany, joined Aug 1999, 4115 posts, RR: 39 Reply 14, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1221 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.
Vfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 3644 posts, RR: 5 Reply 15, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1215 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.
Tsv From Australia, joined Nov 1999, 1641 posts, RR: 5 Reply 16, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 1171 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.
MARIO NAME From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 18, posted (11 years 1 month 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1112 times:
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...