pillowtester
Posts: 149
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 9:44 am

Fokker Revival

Sat Feb 18, 2006 1:49 pm

The current issue of Air International has an article about the Fokker Revival plans. I wasn't aware this was an ongoing effort. I think that is pretty exciting.

What is the current status of this project? Does this mean new Fokkers will be produced? Anyone have this issue and read the article? I only saw the blurb on their website.
...said Dan jubilantly.
 
Beaucaire
Posts: 3888
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 4:48 am

RE: Fokker Revival

Sat Feb 18, 2006 2:43 pm

This is becomming a never ending story - Rekkof tried since many years to make people believe they gonna re-build aircraft based on Fokker F 70 technology but modernize it. They never ever build a singel aircraft and the project is dead !
Please respect animals - don't eat them...
 
lijnden
Posts: 528
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 1:34 am

RE: Fokker Revival

Sat Feb 18, 2006 7:05 pm

Rekkof has made a business plan, created a webpage and seeks every so many months publicity. I would love to see a revival of the Fokker products. It is simply the best commuter jet around from a passengers' point of comfort.

At the same time I must look realistic at Rekkof and with the problems listed below and must wonder if a wonder will happen

The problems:

- The Fokker designs and AW certificates are belonging to another company
- There is no location to build the planes
- They have not received any orders to build the planes
- They missed out on the KLM (the largest Fokker user) MX and overhaul program
- Capital raising is a problem
- The Netherlands is one of the least attractive locations when it comes to costs. Especially if you compete against countries like Brasil
Be kind to animals! Next trip: ORF-ORD-NRT-IAH-ORF
 
blast
Posts: 105
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 1:25 am

RE: Fokker Revival

Sun Feb 19, 2006 4:12 am

Quoting Lijnden (Reply 2):
There is no location to build the planes

I thought Twente Airforce Base was a potential location together with Woensdrecht??
I would love to see Fokkers being built again. However, it seems to be nothing more than rumors so far unfortunately.
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7864
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: Fokker Revival

Sun Feb 19, 2006 5:07 am

Quoting Lijnden (Reply 2):
It is simply the best commuter jet around from a passengers' point of comfort.

I'm not so sure about that.

Quoting Lijnden (Reply 2):
- The Netherlands is one of the least attractive locations when it comes to costs. Especially if you compete against countries like Brasil

Embraer is a global company. While it designs the a/c in Brazil, a lot of it's parts come from the same suppliers Boeing, Airbus and BBD have. Not to mention other costs and issues they have to deal with that an European or North American company probably does not have to.

The lower costs issue is not always necessarly true. It may be in this case, it may not.. I do not know. I've heard of cases (my father is a Project Manager for a Thyssen Krupp subsidiary) that has been cheaper/equivalent costs to assemble big pieces of machinery in Belgium (IIRC) than in Brazil (you can blame government policies for that). Not to mention freight costs.
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
JRadier
Posts: 3943
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 11:36 pm

RE: Fokker Revival

Sun Feb 19, 2006 5:22 am

Quoting Blast (Reply 3):
I thought Twente Airforce Base was a potential location together with Woensdrecht??

Latest I heard they were looking at LEY (but without ILS and ATC wich were promised years ago (after wich TTA relocated, and went bankrupt) I don't think this is such a good option)
For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and ther
 
Fokker70NG
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 7:18 am

RE: Fokker Revival

Sun Feb 19, 2006 6:28 am

It's true, as far as I know, Rekkof still isn't dead at all. Last november they announced that if they will build new Fokkers, they will have new engines (my guess would be the BR715). At the same time, Fokker Services is rumoured to be in the process of retrofitting an existing F100 with new engines. I also read an article that Rekkof and Fokker Services are actually working together on this project, but I don't know if this is the infamous ignorant journalist interpretation or reliable information.

Quoting Lijnden (Reply 2):
- The Fokker designs and AW certificates are belonging to another company

They belong to Stork, but Fokker Services (subsidary of Stork) actually is involved with Rekkof plans, because they would take care of MX etc. So this is not really an issue.

Quoting Lijnden (Reply 2):
- There is no location to build the planes

There are enough hangars around. Last I've heard is that this isn't an issue either.

Quoting Lijnden (Reply 2):
- They missed out on the KLM (the largest Fokker user) MX and overhaul program

As far as I know, Fokker Services is currently overhauling all the KL F100's. They even made an collaboration agreement with KLM Engineering & Maintenance recently.

Quoting Lijnden (Reply 2):
- Capital raising is a problem

This doesn't seem to be the issue either. If they have orders, there are enough investors. But there are a lot of politics involved in all this. And as you know, every process that has to do with politics is difficult and slow. However, last thing I've heard (LifelinerOne wrote something about it her on A.net not too long ago) was that a big reputable company will backup the Rekkof project, and that would really make the whole project a lot more credible, especially for potential buyers.

Quoting JRadier (Reply 5):

Latest I heard they were looking at LEY (but without ILS and ATC wich were promised years ago (after wich TTA relocated, and went bankrupt) I don't think this is such a good option)

Latest thing I've heard was that Woensdrect would be the most likely location.

As far as I know, the Rekkof project isn't dead yet. I hope they will succeed eventually, let's wait and see.
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. -Albert Einstein
 
dogfighter2111
Posts: 1867
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 3:02 am

RE: Fokker Revival

Sun Feb 19, 2006 6:44 am

Hey,

I beleive they are still going. Their website shows a whole load of info:

http://www.rekkof.nl/bannerframes/frame_home.htm

and not to mention an extended version of the Fokker (Rekkof)

http://www.rekkof.nl/about_rekkof/about_rekkof_development.htm

I'd love to see that one ^, IMO it looks like a VC-10 with 2 engines.

Thanks
Mike
 
TheSorcerer
Posts: 1003
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 3:35 am

RE: Fokker Revival

Sun Feb 19, 2006 6:46 am

Quoting Lijnden (Reply 2):
- There is no location to build the planes

Couldn't they contract a manufacturer to build it for them?
thanks
Dominic
ALITALIA,All Landings In Torino, All Luggage In Athens ;)
 
User avatar
ptrjong
Posts: 4088
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:38 am

RE: Fokker Revival

Sun Feb 19, 2006 8:09 am

They cannot even build a decent website...

Who wrote the AI article?

Peter

[Edited 2006-02-19 00:10:46]
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
 
lhrmaccoll
Posts: 567
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 6:12 am

RE: Fokker Revival

Sun Feb 19, 2006 10:23 am

I only just realised that Rekkof is fokker in reverse..
Oh I'm a moron!
 
sllevin
Posts: 3312
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 1:57 pm

RE: Fokker Revival

Sun Feb 19, 2006 10:49 am

Let's look at this logically.

The EMB-170 is a direct competitor to the F70. And the EMB-190 competes directly with the F100.

Orders and options:

EMB-170/175: 334 F70: 25*

EMB-190/195: 468 F100: 0

Total: EMB: 802 Rekkof 25

I think it's pretty obvious the market has spoken.

Steve

* 1 order from Iran Air, which appears to be time-constrained. Rekkof must deliver aircraft starting in 2007.
 
pillowtester
Posts: 149
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 9:44 am

RE: Fokker Revival

Sun Feb 19, 2006 11:04 am

I think the lack of orders are possibly partly due to the Airline industry sharing the same "I'll believe it when I see it" attitude that most of us here on A.net have. Once they fly, I'm sure more orders will come. An upgraded and modernized Fokker lineup could be quite a competitive product. I hope it works!
...said Dan jubilantly.
 
Fokker70NG
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 7:18 am

RE: Fokker Revival

Sun Feb 19, 2006 11:20 am

Quoting Sllevin (Reply 11):

Orders and options:

EMB-170/175: 334 F70: 25*

EMB-190/195: 468 F100: 0

Total: EMB: 802 Rekkof 25

I think it's pretty obvious the market has spoken.

I think it's pretty obvious this isn't a good comparison at all, sorry. Rekkof doesn't have a lot of credibility, compared to Embraer. The "We'll believe it when we see it"-attitude, but also the fact that Rekkof is a very small company that isn't backed up by a big company (yet) that doesn't have the risk of going belly up tomorrow, make orders hard to get. But I wouldn't be surprised to see this situation change in the near future.
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. -Albert Einstein
 
sllevin
Posts: 3312
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 1:57 pm

RE: Fokker Revival

Sun Feb 19, 2006 11:49 am

Quoting Fokker70NG (Reply 13):
Rekkof is a very small company that isn't backed up by a big company (yet) that doesn't have the risk of going belly up tomorrow


If Rekkof landed significant orders, they could have all the backing they want, sorry.

They can't get the orders becaue airline after airline has decided Embraer's aircraft are better, sorry. The only reason that they have one order at all is because it's from an airline that can't order the Embraer.

Airlines are greedy. If Rekkof could make them money, they'd buy it. It can't, and they haven't. Rekkof is and will always remain the fond dream of a handful of people, sorry.

Steve

[Edited 2006-02-19 03:52:54]
 
lijnden
Posts: 528
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 1:34 am

RE: Fokker Revival

Sun Feb 19, 2006 8:17 pm

Rekkof must make deadlines on decisions and have at least one updated 'prototype' ready to show airlines on shows or on demand, just like Airbus and Boeing do. All they have now are a poor web page, maybe some folders or brochures and a wonderful story.

I know that building aircraft is not only an issue of finding a empty hangar! It is a very complex puzzle of suppliers and creating a own infrastructure. Still, I think that The Netherlands is not the place to do this right now. Labour privileges, rights and costs are simply way out of line when compared to even other EU-countries. Together with a very strong environmental lobby in politics (Groen Links, PvdA, SP), who are against about anything, one must wonder why Rekkof wants to use The Netherlands at all? Countries like Latvia are better alternatives I think!
Be kind to animals! Next trip: ORF-ORD-NRT-IAH-ORF
 
lat41
Posts: 457
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 12:23 pm

RE: Fokker Revival

Sun Feb 19, 2006 10:57 pm

In the face of these new larger RJs, why would they continue that effort. Also if the 717 couldn't make it, why reheat the souffle?
 
Fokker70NG
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 7:18 am

RE: Fokker Revival

Mon Feb 20, 2006 2:18 am

Quoting Sllevin (Reply 14):
If Rekkof landed significant orders, they could have all the backing they want, sorry.

They can't get the orders becaue airline after airline has decided Embraer's aircraft are better, sorry. The only reason that they have one order at all is because it's from an airline that can't order the Embraer.

Airlines are greedy. If Rekkof could make them money, they'd buy it. It can't, and they haven't. Rekkof is and will always remain the fond dream of a handful of people, sorry.

To continue the sorrying, I will have to say that I stick with my opinion that this isn't a good comparison. To say that the 'market has spoken and decided that Embraer aircraft are better' is a little bit narrow-minded. Could you provide some technical data to back up your statement?
Of course there are many more things involved with fleet decisions. Do you think an airline would place an order with Rekkof when they're unsure whether the project will be a success, and how long they will manage to keep the productionlines open? Do you think they would take this guess so when Rekkof would be a failure in the end, they would have to go to Embraer where the production slots for their desired timeframe are given away to others? Do you think an airline would take the guess and pay deposits to a little company that could be belly up tomorrow because of lack of orders or a unfortunate change of the dollar exchange rate? Small companies that do not have income yet are vulnerable for all those little risk factors, where big companies have reserves to stay alive for the time being. This hasn't got anything to do with a better product.

Quoting Lijnden (Reply 15):
I know that building aircraft is not only an issue of finding a empty hangar! It is a very complex puzzle of suppliers and creating a own infrastructure.

Of course you're right. But I believe they already have suppliers and a whole infrastructure, waiting to be turned on, based on things I've heard from people who are (indirectly) involved in the project.

Quoting Lijnden (Reply 15):
Together with a very strong environmental lobby in politics (Groen Links, PvdA, SP), who are against about anything, one must wonder why Rekkof wants to use The Netherlands at all?

Vos (a GroenLinks politician) was actually the first one to ask the minister of economical affairs about his involvement in the project (back in 1998), and asked him if he would do everything he could to make the project succeed. The PvdA is also very interested in the whole Rekkof project.
They are not against Rekkof, because they know the economical gains outweighs the environmental 'losses'. Agreed, they seem to oppose significant air traffic growth, but they don't seem to be against Rekkof.

Quoting Lat41 (Reply 16):
In the face of these new larger RJs, why would they continue that effort. Also if the 717 couldn't make it, why reheat the souffle?

Rekkof always said they would start with F70 production, only to introduce the F100 a little later when there would be enough demand. The F70 (70-seater) is a very different market than the 717. Also, the F100 is not really comparable to the 717, because the 717 is basically a shrink, where the F100 is the largest member of the Fokker JetLiner family. OEW of the F100 is more than 5000kgs lower than that of the 717. Also, the F100 has a smaller brother, to complete a regional aircraft family, where the 717 hasn't. So for airlines wanting a flexible regional fleet, the F100 could be more attractive than the 717.

'nuff said.

[Edited 2006-02-19 18:19:30]
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. -Albert Einstein
 
connector4you
Posts: 768
Joined: Wed May 16, 2001 10:27 am

RE: Fokker Revival

Mon Feb 20, 2006 3:14 am

Quoting Lijnden (Reply 15):
building aircraft is not only an issue of finding a empty hangar! It is a very complex puzzle of suppliers and creating a own infrastructure



Quoting Lijnden (Reply 15):
The Netherlands is not the place to do this right now. Labour privileges, rights and costs are simply way out of line when compared to even other EU-countries

That's exactly what Fokker is working on here and here
 
Fokker70NG
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 7:18 am

RE: Fokker Revival

Mon Feb 20, 2006 4:42 am

Quoting Connector4you (Reply 18):

That's exactly what Fokker is working on here and here

Officially there's no connection between Stork and Rekkof, apart from the deal between Rekkof and Fokker Services that the latter would do the MX on all new Fokkers. So this Stork Fokker subsidary hasn't got a lot to do with Rekkof. But hey, you never know what's going on behind the scenes...  Smile
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. -Albert Einstein
 
Oykie
Posts: 1563
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:21 am

RE: Fokker Revival

Mon Feb 20, 2006 4:49 am

Quoting Fokker70NG (Reply 17):
because the 717 is basically a shrink, where the F100 is the largest member of the Fokker JetLiner family. OEW of the F100 is more than 5000kgs lower than that of the 717.

The 717 is not a shrink. It is based on the DC-9-32 fuselage. The DC-9-10 was the initial version of the 717. I would imagine that the newer engines ong the 717 explains some of the increase in weight.

By the way. How is the operating economics on the Fokker engines, compared to the 717 engines?

I like the F70 and F100 and would like to see more of them produces, but they have allot of obsticals to make it to the sky again. Maybe they need to further improve the F70/F100/F130 in order to make the airlines more interested?
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
 
connector4you
Posts: 768
Joined: Wed May 16, 2001 10:27 am

RE: Fokker Revival

Mon Feb 20, 2006 6:08 am

Quoting Fokker70NG (Reply 19):
you never know what's going on behind the scenes...

Looks like they will go private Somebody with big pockets  dollarsign   dollarsign   dollarsign  is ready to buy out all sharehoders . . . Will find more on March 10
 
wycombe
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 6:12 am

RE: Fokker Revival

Mon Feb 20, 2006 6:34 am

Bring back the F27!
I guess there must be some still flying?
 
User avatar
ptrjong
Posts: 4088
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:38 am

RE: Fokker Revival

Mon Feb 20, 2006 8:33 am

Quoting Wycombe (Reply 22):
Bring back the F27!
I guess there must be some still flying?


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Peter de Jong


50 years and still going strong.
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
 
aviopic
Posts: 2423
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 7:52 pm

RE: Fokker Revival

Mon Feb 20, 2006 8:49 am

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 4):
Embraer is a global company. While it designs the a/c in Brazil, a lot of it's parts come from the same suppliers Boeing, Airbus and BBD have. Not to mention other costs and issues they have to deal with that an European or North American company probably does not have to.

Not much different to the Fokker F70/100 status as it features about 65% US content. According my own estimation about 80 to 85% of all parts needed came from outside the Netherlands.
http://www.honders.net/tmp/F70coop.jpg

Quoting Connector4you (Reply 18):
That's exactly what Fokker is working on here and here

and probably the most important one : http://www.stork-aerospace.com/page.html?id=10384

Quoting Fokker70NG (Reply 19):
Officially there's no connection between Stork and Rekkof

That's not true Joost, Rekkof did sign a deal with Stork(Fokker Services).... didn't I tell you that ?

Quoting Fokker70NG (Reply 19):
So this Stork Fokker subsidary hasn't got a lot to do with Rekkof.

We have everything to do with Rekkof, there can't be such a thing as Rekkof without Stork Fokker.
Rekkof needs Fokker where Fokker does not need Rekkof, infact they can start building tomorrow if they only wanted too.
Or maybe Rekkof is used by Stork Fokker for other purposes like market investigation.
Or maybe Stork/Fokker needs the name Rekkof due to lingering conflicts of interest(will be cleared up later in this post)
Or maybe it was never the intention for Rekkof to start building themsleves ?
Who knows(no I don't), guess things will become clearer around May of this year.

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 20):
By the way. How is the operating economics on the Fokker engines, compared to the 717 engines?

The 717 BR's where already selected as the new engine when Fokker was still in business so I guess that's what we will see if anything happens.

I've always updated you on the current situation but the situation right now is getting misty even for me.
Some people(foreigners) seem to think Fokker is dead where the truth is that Stork/Fokker is doing better then the old Fokker Aircraft ever did with involvements in:
B7E7(now 787)
http://www.stork-aerospace.com/page.html?id=5758

B737NG
http://www.stork-aerospace.com/page.html?id=10413
http://www.stork-aerospace.com/page.html?id=5773

NH90
http://www.stork-aerospace.com/page.html?id=5750
http://www.stork-aerospace.com/page.html?id=5762

F35 JSF
http://www.stork-aerospace.com/page.html?id=5757
http://www.stork-aerospace.com/page.html?id=5751
http://www.stork-aerospace.com/page.html?id=5759
http://www.stork-aerospace.com/page.html?id=10640

A350/380(in case you did not know but the Famous Glare is a Fokker product)
http://www.stork-aerospace.com/page.html?id=5760
http://www.stork-aerospace.com/page.html?id=5682
http://www.stork-aerospace.com/page.html?id=7613

A400M
http://www.stork-aerospace.com/page.html?id=8992

Gulfstream G550
http://www.stork-aerospace.com/page.html?id=5763

Dassault Falcon 7X
http://www.stork-aerospace.com/page.html?id=6073

Then there are numorious other projects like:
Boeings P8A multi mission Maritime Aircraft
http://www.stork-aerospace.com/page.html?id=10651

Royal Dutch airforce (k)DC10 and F16
http://www.stork-aerospace.com/page.html?id=9705
http://www.stork-aerospace.com/page.html?id=5766

and of course regular MX as well as component maintenance on the current Fokker fleet.
To sum it up the Stork/Fokker portfolio contains Airbus, Boeing, Bombardier, Cessna, Dassault, Gulfstream, Lockheed Martin, Northrop, Grumman and P&W(it's getting hard these days to find an A/C without any Fokker content  Wink ).

All this shows that there might be a "little" conflict of interest when the F70/100 production is re-started.
An inocent bystander might even think: "Stork/Fokker is compensated by A as well as B(and others) for not building F70/100's anymore".

Looking at the list I guess it is fair to say Stork/Fokker has enough to do with or without Rekkof and also they got all the work without really focussing on aviation.
Because it is just now that the decision has been taken to make aviation really a core business with the sale of none aviation related companies.
http://www.stork-aerospace.com/page.html?id=10983
Apperently they made so much money that they will leave the stock market and buy all shares back in the next 3 years, for what ?
Is it to have their hands free for something else without the prying eyes of share holders looking over the shoulder ?
This combined with the stakes in new companies mentioned in reply 18 and this one is making me think...... what is going on here ?
A little voice is telling me there is something going on but as I am trained to understand technical matters this goes above my head.
If there is someone out there who can make chocolate out of this be my guest.

Have fun,
The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
 
aviopic
Posts: 2423
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 7:52 pm

RE: Fokker Revival

Mon Feb 20, 2006 8:59 am

Quoting Wycombe (Reply 22):
Bring back the F27!
I guess there must be some still flying?

Yes..... that is what I am doing in my "spare" time. Big grin

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Willem Honders



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Willem Honders
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Willem Honders



Serial 10105 or F5 as we know it which is the very first production F27 delivered on Nov.19-1958 to Aer Lingus as EI-AKA.
Brought back from Australia to be re-vamped and now performing pleasure flights.

Have fun,

oh..... I did a rough count but around 250 are still flying.  Wink
The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
 
Fokker70NG
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 7:18 am

RE: Fokker Revival

Mon Feb 20, 2006 5:26 pm

Quoting Aviopic (Reply 24):
That's not true Joost, Rekkof did sign a deal with Stork(Fokker Services).... didn't I tell you that ?

I meant and said 'apart from the deal with Fokker Services'... I thought that Stork itself never mentioned any connection with Rekkof (yet)?

Quoting Aviopic (Reply 24):
We have everything to do with Rekkof, there can't be such a thing as Rekkof without Stork Fokker.
Rekkof needs Fokker where Fokker does not need Rekkof, infact they can start building tomorrow if they only wanted too.
Or maybe Rekkof is used by Stork Fokker for other purposes like market investigation.
Or maybe Stork/Fokker needs the name Rekkof due to lingering conflicts of interest(will be cleared up later in this post)
Or maybe it was never the intention for Rekkof to start building themsleves ?

I meant to say the Romanian subsidary 'officially' wasn't connected with Rekkof, I know Rekkof would be nowhere when Fokker Services wouldn't want to cooperate. But my point was that apart from Fokker Services, Stork didn't ever mention a connection with Rekkof openly to my knowledge, and that sets me to thinking, with the same thoughts you expressed here..  Smile
I hope a lot of things will be cleared up this year!
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. -Albert Einstein
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7864
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: Fokker Revival

Tue Feb 21, 2006 1:09 am

Quoting Aviopic (Reply 24):
Quoting PPVRA (Reply 4):
Embraer is a global company. While it designs the a/c in Brazil, a lot of it's parts come from the same suppliers Boeing, Airbus and BBD have. Not to mention other costs and issues they have to deal with that an European or North American company probably does not have to.

Not much different to the Fokker F70/100 status as it features about 65% US content. According my own estimation about 80 to 85% of all parts needed came from outside the Netherlands.

My point exactly  Wink

Cheers
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
mrocktor
Posts: 1388
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 12:57 am

RE: Fokker Revival

Tue Feb 21, 2006 4:53 am

Quoting Lijnden (Reply 2):
It is simply the best commuter jet around from a passengers' point of comfort.

No it's not. The E-jets are better: seat width 18.25in, aisle width 19.75in, aisle height 6ft7in, no middle seats, bigger windows. No contest.

Quoting PillowTester (Reply 12):
Once they fly, I'm sure more orders will come.

They need orders to fly. No one spends money on developing an aircraft without buyers.

mrocktor
 
aviopic
Posts: 2423
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 7:52 pm

RE: Fokker Revival

Tue Feb 21, 2006 5:02 am

Quoting Fokker70NG (Reply 26):
I meant and said 'apart from the deal with Fokker Services'... I thought that Stork itself never mentioned any connection with Rekkof (yet)?

Yes but if you make a deal with Fokker Services you have a Stork deal after all it is one and the same thing.

Quoting Fokker70NG (Reply 26):
But my point was that apart from Fokker Services, Stork didn't ever mention a connection with Rekkof openly to my knowledge

True not in public but we did receive a internal memo of one and other with one sentence in bold: "do not speak with press". Big grin


Quoting Fokker70NG (Reply 26):
I hope a lot of things will be cleared up this year!

Something has to clear up in May, I guess.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 27):
My point exactly

Are you sure ?
I thought you meant Embraer was a global company and therefor making costs a European company does not have to make.
My point is that Fokker was a very similar global company with the same costs as Embraer.
Not that it matters though, single source A/C manufacturers are probably extinct anyway.

Willem
The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
 
Fokker70NG
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 7:18 am

RE: Fokker Revival

Tue Feb 21, 2006 5:29 am

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 28):
No it's not. The E-jets are better: seat width 18.25in, aisle width 19.75in, aisle height 6ft7in, no middle seats, bigger windows. No contest.

Hmm, let's turn it the other way around, the E-jets may have 10cm (0.3inch) more aisle height, it's almost 0.5m (that's 20inch!) narrower than the F70/100.
Despite of the middle seat, I prefer the wider cabin because it reduces the feeling of being in a sardine can...
What's your source for the bigger windows?
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. -Albert Einstein
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7864
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: Fokker Revival

Tue Feb 21, 2006 7:02 am

Quoting Aviopic (Reply 29):
I thought you meant Embraer was a global company and therefor making costs a European company does not have to make.

I meant as in costs would equalize somewhat given that they rely on (many times) the same partners, or at least partners from the same countries. So I guess we're on the same page now  Smile

Cheers
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
aviopic
Posts: 2423
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 7:52 pm

RE: Fokker Revival

Tue Feb 21, 2006 8:34 am

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 28):
No it's not. The E-jets are better: seat width 18.25in, aisle width 19.75in, aisle height 6ft7in, no middle seats, bigger windows. No contest.



Quoting Fokker70NG (Reply 30):
Hmm, let's turn it the other way around, the E-jets may have 10cm (0.3inch) more aisle height, it's almost 0.5m (that's 20inch!) narrower than the F70/100.

There is little to no point in this discusion if you ask me.
What matters is how much seats the operator wants to put in the given space.
Some F100 operators flew in a 120pax config in which case a few inches more or less don't matter much, you are cattle in a tin can anyway.
I believe AA(or USa forgot who) used a couple in a 56pax config in which case you probably feel like flying a Bentley.
So it's the operator to decide whether you fly comfi or like cattle nomatter what kind of A/C we are talking about.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 31):
I meant as in costs would equalize somewhat given that they rely on (many times) the same partners, or at least partners from the same countries. So I guess we're on the same page now

Yes we are on the same page.
Embraer is and Fokker was a global company suffering and benefiting from the same principles Big grin

Willem
The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
 
wycombe
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 6:12 am

RE: Fokker Revival

Tue Feb 21, 2006 8:51 am

Aviopic:
That's interesting. Do you know who was operating the F27 in Australia?
And what the VH registration was?
i probably flew in it.
 
L-188
Posts: 29874
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Fokker Revival

Tue Feb 21, 2006 9:01 am

Quoting Beaucaire (Reply 1):
Rekkof tried since many years to make people believe they gonna re-build aircraft based on Fokker F 70 technology but modernize it.

Wrong airplane to bring back.

Would be better to modernize the old F.28 and sell it as a F.28 and Yak-40 replacement.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
jsqvl1
Posts: 35
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 3:23 am

RE: Fokker Revival

Tue Feb 21, 2006 9:14 am

Quoting L-188 (Reply 34):
Wrong airplane to bring back.

Would be better to modernize the old F.28 and sell it as a F.28 and Yak-40 replacement

...Correct me if I'm wrong but, isn't the F70 a modernized F28 already?
"SAM hace amigos volando", o al menos solía hacerlos...
 
AMSSFO
Posts: 912
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:42 am

RE: Fokker Revival

Tue Feb 21, 2006 9:16 am

Quoting L-188 (Reply 34):
modernize the old F.28

why don't you think the F70 is exactly that?
 
L-188
Posts: 29874
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Fokker Revival

Tue Feb 21, 2006 9:21 am

Quoting AMSSFO (Reply 36):
why don't you think the F70 is exactly that?

Way back when the F-100 came out, flying magazine described it as the smallest aircraft a large airline would own and the F.28 as the largest aircraft a small airline would own.

The F.70 and F.100 are good aircraft, but they are also built with paved operations in mind. The F.28 on the other hand was built with operations from remote airfields, short gravel strips, minimum ground support in mind. Ditto for that Yak.

What I am saying is that Rekkof needs to focus on that specialty market, because at the moment, I am afraid that other companies (EMB, Canadair) have eclipsed that design with more modern ones.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
sllevin
Posts: 3312
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 1:57 pm

RE: Fokker Revival

Tue Feb 21, 2006 10:25 am

Quoting Fokker70NG (Reply 30):
Despite of the middle seat, I prefer the wider cabin because it reduces the feeling of being in a sardine can...

I think you'll find yourself in a very small minority. I can't think of anyone I know who would agree with you. Just about everyone else hates middle seats.

Steve
 
Fokker70NG
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 7:18 am

RE: Fokker Revival

Tue Feb 21, 2006 5:40 pm

Quoting Sllevin (Reply 38):
I think you'll find yourself in a very small minority. I can't think of anyone I know who would agree with you. Just about everyone else hates middle seats.

That's no problem with me, I don't like to be the same as everyone else anyway  Wink

My point was that while you can keep saying "Embraer is better", I've never seen any real argument justifying that statement. Just summing up some numbers doensn't make any sense at all, if you don't sum up the competitors numbers also...

Quoting Aviopic (Reply 32):
There is little to no point in this discusion if you ask me.

Agreed.. Big grin

Quoting L-188 (Reply 37):
What I am saying is that Rekkof needs to focus on that specialty market, because at the moment, I am afraid that other companies (EMB, Canadair) have eclipsed that design with more modern ones

I doubt there's a lot of market in that 'niche'. There are enough second hand aircraft around that will be able to serve those remote airfields for some time to come.
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. -Albert Einstein
 
hardiwv
Posts: 4341
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 11:30 pm

RE: Fokker Revival

Tue Feb 21, 2006 7:03 pm

Sllevin:

You better be careful when expressing your points here. Fokker discussions turn out to be very "fanatic" because of the frustation of a small minory of a.net members.

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 28):
They need orders to fly. No one spends money on developing an aircraft without buyers.

Excellent summary. No buyer, no company.

Rgs,
 
User avatar
ptrjong
Posts: 4088
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:38 am

RE: Fokker Revival

Tue Feb 21, 2006 7:22 pm

Quoting L-188 (Reply 37):
The F.70 and F.100 are good aircraft, but they are also built with paved operations in mind. The F.28 on the other hand was built with operations from remote airfields, short gravel strips, minimum ground support in mind.

You might be correct here, but which relevant bits on the F.28, then, were removed on the F.100/70?

Regarding short field performance, I doubt the F.28 is better. The F.28-5000 and -6000 had leading edge slats and a longer-span wing, but they were not put in production I believe.
The F.100 got a bigger wing. It is aerodynamically more efficient, which might mean lesser short field performance (correct me if I'm wrong), but I would think the F.70's lower weight compared to the F.100, with 40% more powerful engines compared to the F.28, would more than redress the balance. The F.70/100 also have thrust reversers in addition to the tail speedbrakes, while the F.28 does not.

Peter
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
 
keesje
Posts: 8591
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Fokker Revival

Tue Feb 21, 2006 7:49 pm

Only chance for new Fokkers would IMO be

- a major OEM taking over (Asia?)
- $2 billion available cash (subisidy) with long term pay back conditions
- have commitments for at least 200 F100s (F70 good but just to heavy)
- a stable cost attractive, high skill enviroment to build
- a significant design upgrade to bring down seat mile costs
(lighter materials, new engines (CF?), cabin, systems, wing lets, a stretch F110?)
- get the program rolling within two years

Otherwise it will remain a dream of proud / frustrated ex Fokker employees.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
aviopic
Posts: 2423
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 7:52 pm

RE: Fokker Revival

Tue Feb 21, 2006 8:21 pm

Quoting Wycombe (Reply 33):
Aviopic:
That's interesting. Do you know who was operating the F27 in Australia?
And what the VH registration was?

Of course I know Wycombe.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Willem Honders
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Willem Honders


Please let me know if you indeed flew it and if you know the crew.

Have fun,
Willem
The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
 
mrocktor
Posts: 1388
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 12:57 am

RE: Fokker Revival

Wed Feb 22, 2006 2:52 am

Quoting Fokker70NG (Reply 30):
What's your source for the bigger windows?

My sense of vision and my memory. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

Quoting Fokker70NG (Reply 39):
I've never seen any real argument justifying that statement.

I have flown both, the E-jet is so much better that it should not even be compared to the Fokker. There may be some magic doable to the F-70/100 interior (thinner paneling, re-modeled bins, thinner seats) that would bring it into contention, there is no getting around the basic cross section characteristics though.

With decent pitch, anything over 31" (which is up to the client, as noted), the E-jets economy feels almost like business class (within reason).

mrocktor
 
727forever
Posts: 304
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2006 12:50 pm

RE: Fokker Revival

Wed Feb 22, 2006 3:12 am

I would love nothing more than to see the F70/F100 family come back to life. Despite their slow speed, they are a great airplane. In my mind there are still a few problems with this concept.

1. What was the cause for Fokker to run out of money in the first place? Weak product demand?

2. I was out in Mojave last week snooping around. There were more US & AA F100s there than anything else now. It would appear as though nobody wants them.

3. While the F70/F100 are great airplanes, they can only provide the RSMs of an RJ while they have CASMs more indicitave of a Narrowbody. It is a bigger airframe and a heavier design. This is what makes it so much better than RJs which feel like they're made of tin. Rekkof is going to have to do quite a lot of research & development inorder to get the CASMs on the aircraft down or we'll never see her take to the skies again.

727forever
727forever
 
L-188
Posts: 29874
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Fokker Revival

Wed Feb 22, 2006 3:19 am

Quoting Fokker70NG (Reply 39):
There are enough second hand aircraft around that will be able to serve those remote airfields for some time to come.

Not quite that sure. Like Fokkers have been out of production for what 10 years now? The Yaks what? 15-20?

Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 41):
Regarding short field performance, I doubt the F.28 is better. The F.28-5000 and -6000 had leading edge slats and a longer-span wing, but they were not put in production I believe.
The F.100 got a bigger wing. It is aerodynamically more efficient, which might mean lesser short field performance (correct me if I'm wrong), but I would think the F.70's lower weight compared to the F.100, with 40% more powerful engines compared to the F.28, would more than redress the balance.

You might be correct there, but did the F.70 ever get gravel certified?
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
petertenthije
Posts: 3256
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 10:00 pm

RE: Fokker Revival

Wed Feb 22, 2006 3:40 am

Quoting 727forever (Reply 45):
1. What was the cause for Fokker to run out of money in the first place? Weak product demand?

Several reasons, but not weak product demand.

1) bucketloads of debt from developing both the F50 and F100 at the same time
2) very unfavourable exchange rate USD/Dutch Gulden
3) politics

In the end airlines where not convinced that Fokker would continue to exist (and history thought us they where right). Therefor most of them where unwilling to risk buying Fokkers, with a chance that their orders could not be fulfilled. It was revealed after the bankruptcy that amongst many smaller orders three large orders could be expected had Fokker been more stable. Those where Lufthansa (instead they went for ARJ), SABENA (ARJ) and SAS (736). Unfortunately I forgot the source.

Nowadays F100s are still in good demand. F70s are in very high demand. A 2nd hand F70 is never on the market for very long, quickly being taken up by other airlines (mostly KLM cityhopper). In fact, in the past KLM Cityhopper has actively been asking other airlines if they would be willing to sell their F70s.
Attamottamotta!
 
AMSSFO
Posts: 912
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:42 am

RE: Fokker Revival

Wed Feb 22, 2006 4:46 am

Quoting 727forever (Reply 45):
2. I was out in Mojave last week snooping around. There were more US & AA F100s there than anything else now. It would appear as though nobody wants them.

Peter has nicely taken care of your first point, let me take your second one.
You may also have noticed that already quite some F100s have left MHV on their way to new operators. Both US and AA had large fleets (40 resp 75) but most of them have found a new home now or will soon leave for their new home. Most US f100s are long gone (Germania and Alliance mainly). Most AA f100s are already fllying with Austrian, Helvetic and several others and the remaining ones will follow soon; Synergy has bought 29 and they are slowly taken out of the desert and flown to TUL to make them ready. About 8 of them have been delivered and several are already in TUL.
What's left in the desert are 5 exUS f100s of which one will be scrapped and about 26 exAA F100s of which 15 will go to Synergy and about 7 will be scrapped.
In short, they are in high demand nowadays
 
Fokker70NG
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 7:18 am

RE: Fokker Revival

Wed Feb 22, 2006 5:39 am

Quoting Petertenthije (Reply 47):

1) bucketloads of debt from developing both the F50 and F100 at the same time
2) very unfavourable exchange rate USD/Dutch Gulden
3) politics

Don't forget to mention the management!

Quoting 727forever (Reply 45):
While the F70/F100 are great airplanes, they can only provide the RSMs of an RJ while they have CASMs more indicitave of a Narrowbody. It is a bigger airframe and a heavier design. This is what makes it so much better than RJs which feel like they're made of tin. Rekkof is going to have to do quite a lot of research & development inorder to get the CASMs on the aircraft down or we'll never see her take to the skies again.

Not really true, the F70/100 are actually a light-weight design.
Let's face it: the Fokker 70 Maximum Zero Fuel Weight is approximately 33,000kgs standard version. The EMB170 MZFW is approximately 30,000kgs. (sources: embraer.com and rekkof.nl)
At 32inch seat pitch in single class configuration, the Fokker 70 carries 79 people, while the EMB170 carries 70. (sources: airliners.net and embraer.com)
So that makes (33,000kgs/79PAX) = 418kgs ZFW/pax for the Fokker 70, and (30,000kgs/70PAX) = 428kgs ZFW/pax for the EMB170. Amazing isn't it?
A lot of research obviously isn't very neccesary, the only thing they need is a new fuel-efficient engine.

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 44):
I have flown both, the E-jet is so much better that it should not even be compared to the Fokker. There may be some magic doable to the F-70/100 interior (thinner paneling, re-modeled bins, thinner seats) that would bring it into contention, there is no getting around the basic cross section characteristics though.

Cabin interior has nothing to do with economics. Basic cross section characteristics? The cabin width of the F70/100 is actually 20inch wider, so even with the extra middle seat the aisle width is about the same.

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 44):
With decent pitch, anything over 31" (which is up to the client, as noted), the E-jets economy feels almost like business class (within reason).

What's exactly your point here? With a decent pitch everything feels like business class.. Don't see a specific relation with Embraer here.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 42):
- $2 billion available cash (subisidy) with long term pay back conditions

$2billion?? Sorry, but that just seems outrageous. The investments will be little because the design is actually already there and it's kept up to date by Rekkof.. The only thing they should invest in would be an assembly line, but that would be far less than $2billion. I believe the necessary investments were estimated at around 150 million euros..

Quoting Keesje (Reply 42):
- a significant design upgrade to bring down seat mile costs
(lighter materials, new engines (CF?), cabin, systems, wing lets, a stretch F110?)

As I said, the design is already kept up to date by Rekkof. I believe a stretch design is also available, the F130 (a old Fokker project that never materialized).
It would however need new fuel-efficient engines. Fokker already chose the RR BR715 as the replacement engine before their bankruptcy, so I guess there's already work done here also.

Quoting Hardiwv (Reply 40):
You better be careful when expressing your points here. Fokker discussions turn out to be very "fanatic" because of the frustation of a small minory of a.net members.

Hi Hardi. The only reason it becomes 'fanatic' is because you and some of your friends just say "Fokker bad economics blablabla, Embraer fantastic blablabla" without providing any data to prove these statements that turn out to be untrue. It almost seems like you're afraid of the possibility that Fokker could return. By the way, accusing people of xenophobia also doesn't help to keep the discussion pleasant, don't you think?

[Edited 2006-02-21 21:42:29]
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. -Albert Einstein

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 817Dreamliiner, a380787, agrflyer, ARN, b377, Baidu [Spider], BI777, D328, factsonly, fikrinoor, gloom, Google Adsense [Bot], KarelXWB, MAH4546, Mani87, michaelworchid, prchan, RalXWB, smithnl, Yahoo [Bot] and 243 guests