Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Misterven1
Topic Author
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 7:30 pm

25 years Fokker bankrupt

Mon Mar 15, 2021 8:34 pm

It has been 25 years since Fokker was declared bankrupt by the court on March 15, 1996. After 77 years of aircraft construction in the Netherlands, varied by the many successes of Fokker 27 and Fokker 28. Fokker Aircraft BV was therefore unable to compete well with British Aerospace and ATR in the market for aircraft of 80-100 passengers. It is well known that there had also been many production problems with the Fokker 100, especially some companies wanted a different door on the hull than the original door with a staircase built in. It was also mentioned that there had also been many paint problems with Fokker 50 or Fokker 100. Earlier Dasa had taken over Fokker in 1995. Since bankruptcy was pronounced, there has been a serious candidate for Samsung to be able to take over Fokker in its entirety, but that opportunity was also unfortunately lost. The chance of a restart as an aircraft manufacturer was indeed no longer feasible.

Attempts were also made by another company Rokkof or NAC to build a Dutch aircraft, named Fokker 130NG. Unfortunately, not much has been announced in the news that aircraft could be built again in the Netherlands. Some aviation experts think that NAC is a kind of ghost company where former Fokker employees are employed. Little news had been reported in recent years that a new Fokker was being developed. Unsuspectingly, it could also involve collaborating with another aircraft manufacturer to develop an aircraft again instead of independently working on a project.

Aircraft construction in the Netherlands sounds nice, but unfortunately an expensive project that sometimes seems unfeasible, despite enormous competition from various aircraft manufacturers such as Embraer, Airbus, Boeing, CAAC, CRAIC and other smaller aircraft manufacturers.

Fokker is still serving as a subcontractor for aircraft parts on behalf of Airbus and Boeing. It is also something we can be proud of that Fokker now plays a smaller role in the global aviation world.

We must not forget that Fokker has built very good aircraft in the past based on the quality and performance they have delivered. KLM has had a very good relationship with Fokker, where many Fokker aircraft were also in service with that company, Fokker 27 (NLM), Fokker 28 (NLM), Fokker 50 (KLM Cityhopper), Fokker 70 (KLM cityhopper) and Fokker 100 ( KLM / KLM cityhopper).
 
davidjohnson6
Posts: 1450
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2016 10:10 pm

Re: 25 years Fokker bankcrupt

Mon Mar 15, 2021 8:39 pm

Great shame that they're gone.... but just too small to compete with the big players in the world. Perhaps a merger with another company in the 1980s while Fokker had greater relative importance might have saved a greater part of Fokker
 
Misterven1
Topic Author
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 7:30 pm

Re: 25 years Fokker bankcrupt

Mon Mar 15, 2021 8:52 pm

davidjohnson6 wrote:
Great shame that they're gone.... but just too small to compete with the big players in the world. Perhaps a merger with another company in the 1980s while Fokker had greater relative importance might have saved a greater part of Fokker


That could also be a good solution that Fokker could have merged with British Aerospace into a medium-sized aircraft manufacturer in Europe.

But in the past, Fokker also collaborated with other German aircraft manufacturers and MCDonnel Douglas on various projects that were not successful.

I honestly think that smaller aircraft manufacturers such as ATR or other aircraft manufacturers will also merge into a larger aircraft manufacturer for regional aircraft. Fokker has never seized this opportunity with both hands.

Perhaps the best thing is that in Europe we will have 2 big airplane bowers, 1 other company besides Airbus. 1 for regional aviation market and 1 for general aviation market. Airbus competes with its products such as Airbus A220, which was acquired from Bombardier. Embraer is doing very good business with its E-jets, especially the E2 series. ATR is doing less well on the regional market.
 
User avatar
leleko747
Posts: 504
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 4:16 pm

Re: 25 years Fokker bankcrupt

Mon Mar 15, 2021 9:17 pm

Too bad they're gone... Fokkers had plenty of service here in Brazil.
F27, F50 and F100 models were greatly used. Very nice birds.
I wonder when people will understand:
Embraer 190 or simply E190, not ERJ-190. E-Jets are NOT ERJs!
Boeing 747-8, not Boeing 747-800. Same goes for 787.
Airbus A320, not Airbus 320.
Airbii does not exist.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 5498
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: 25 years Fokker bankcrupt

Mon Mar 15, 2021 9:19 pm

Misterven1 wrote:
I honestly think that smaller aircraft manufacturers such as ATR or other aircraft manufacturers will also merge into a larger aircraft manufacturer for regional aircraft.


ATR is owned 50% by Airbus and 50% by Leonardo. It has been like that since day 1 (albeit under the predecessors to Airbus and Leonardo).
 
User avatar
aemoreira1981
Posts: 3853
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:17 am

Re: 25 years Fokker bankcrupt

Mon Mar 15, 2021 9:47 pm

That market is one of the hardest to fill, but needed filling (the segment above the ATR 72/Dash 8 Q400 and the A319). The BAe146/Avro RJ would continue production until 2001, but an improved RJ was basically all but killed by Embraer's announcement of entry into the segment at the 1999 Paris Air Show.

Now, with the Fokker base of operations largely limited to Australia and Iran, how much longer can the remaining Fokker fleet fly? You already see Embraer 190s being introduced more into Australia as replacement with Alliance Airlines (which acquired most of the American and Copa stock). In most of the rest of the world, you will see the E290/E295 being introduced as replacements for the E190/E195, but there is no scope-compliant E175 replacement yet. (Was the F70 ever scope compliant?)
 
brindabella
Posts: 731
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:38 am

Re: 25 years Fokker bankcrupt

Tue Mar 16, 2021 10:49 am

aemoreira1981 wrote:
That market is one of the hardest to fill, but needed filling (the segment above the ATR 72/Dash 8 Q400 and the A319). The BAe146/Avro RJ would continue production until 2001, but an improved RJ was basically all but killed by Embraer's announcement of entry into the segment at the 1999 Paris Air Show.

Now, with the Fokker base of operations largely limited to Australia and Iran, how much longer can the remaining Fokker fleet fly? You already see Embraer 190s being introduced more into Australia as replacement with Alliance Airlines (which acquired most of the American and Copa stock). In most of the rest of the world, you will see the E290/E295 being introduced as replacements for the E190/E195, but there is no scope-compliant E175 replacement yet. (Was the F70 ever scope compliant?)


Always enjoy your posts.
:checkmark:

You would have to be the exact "a.net" member to start a thread:

"Why do no OEMs plan to build Scope-compliant frames?".

Over to you! :D

cheers
Billy
 
brindabella
Posts: 731
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:38 am

Re: 25 years Fokker bankcrupt

Tue Mar 16, 2021 10:55 am

davidjohnson6 wrote:
Great shame that they're gone.... but just too small to compete with the big players in the world. Perhaps a merger with another company in the 1980s while Fokker had greater relative importance might have saved a greater part of Fokker


Great shame indeed.
:crying:

I happened to be doing business at Fokker-Schipol when the union with McDD was nixed.

Said nothing when my valued contacts in Fokker celebrated.

1) History shows that McDD may not have been the ideal partner, however
2) It was clear to me (Australian) that Fokker really couldn't afford to stay in a game where the price-tag required to keep-up with the latest technology
was probably beyond Fokker. Great people. Smart people. But the capital to stay in the game just wasn't there.

Billy
Billy
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 14409
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: 25 years Fokker bankcrupt

Tue Mar 16, 2021 11:13 am

There is also the Airbus A220 in the game now. And Sukhoi. And Mitsubishi.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
FCRO
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 10:58 am

Re: 25 years Fokker bankcrupt

Tue Mar 16, 2021 11:30 am

Aesma wrote:
There is also the Airbus A220 in the game now. And Sukhoi. And Mitsubishi.


mitsubishi is probably gone too
 
petertenthije
Posts: 4211
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 10:00 pm

Re: 25 years Fokker bankcrupt

Tue Mar 16, 2021 1:02 pm

Fokker went down because of hubris and arrogance.

Their first mistake was developing two aircraft families at the same time. The F50 and the F100. They simply did not have the financial resources to do so. The government had to step in repeatedly to let Fokker go on.

Then the merger came with DASA. With the benefit of hindsight a mistake. DASA sucked them dry for information and technical assistance to develop the DASA Fax (an aborted ~120 seater jet). This was a vanity project. Especially when you consider the F100 could easily be stretched into a plane that would cover the proposed Fax's market. Actually, Fokker sneakily continued working on it against DASA's instructions.

When DASA pulled out, Fokker thought everything would turn out OK. They had arguably the best and most advanced planes available at the time. They had a large order book. Several airlines showing serious interest. The exchange rate was a bit of problem, but exchange rates go up and down so that would not be a long term probel.

The problem is, over the years the government put in a LOT of money and did not want to sink more money into Fokker. The economy was in the shit at the time. But if you support Fokker, then others companies in similar situations will want the same help (DAF trucks, Hoogovens, NDM wharf). Without government backing, the airlines where hesitant to place orders since Fokker's continued existance was in serious doubt. Of course, this hesitation by the airlines only strengthened the opinion of politicians that supporting Fokker was a bad idea.

After the bankrupty was made official several parties tried to resurrect Fokker. But at the same time, some companies tried very hard to make Fokker not come back. Take for instance Bombardier, they of course had a vested interest to keep Fokker away. Unfortunately for Fokker, the wings where made by Shorts... a subsidiary of Bombardier. The ink on the press statement was barely dry, or Shorts where instructed to get rid of the wing molds.

I still believe that letting Fokker collapse was one of the most short sighted decisions made by the Dutch government. Fokker finally had all their development problems sorted out. Their production costs where seriously cut as well, and as mentioned several airlines showed serious interest for large orders. Not just small orders Fokker was familiar with from F27 and F28 days, but also large orders.
The first thing to remember is always treat your kite like you treat your woman.
Get inside her five times a day and take her to heaven and back!
Lord Flashheart, 1989
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 2293
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: 25 years Fokker bankcrupt

Tue Mar 16, 2021 2:45 pm

FCRO wrote:
Aesma wrote:
There is also the Airbus A220 in the game now. And Sukhoi. And Mitsubishi.


mitsubishi is probably gone too

It never really started... Flying prototypes that no longer conform to the intended production aircraft, so it must be done all over.
 
User avatar
NWAROOSTER
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 2:29 pm

Re: 25 years Fokker bankcrupt

Tue Mar 16, 2021 3:13 pm

Fokker's F27, F28, F50 and F100 were good aircraft but but had one problem and a lot of pilots did not like it. They all did not have leading edge flaps which other jets did. This meant the aircraft had a higher takeoff and landing speed. Fokker might of sold more if they were equipped with leading edge flaps. :old:
Procrastination Is The Theft Of Time.......
 
User avatar
armagnac2010
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2020 12:45 am

Re: 25 years Fokker bankcrupt

Tue Mar 16, 2021 3:48 pm

They had arguably the best and most advanced planes available at the time.


I agree with the analysis, except for that sentence. Bear in mind the F50 was just an upgrade of the F27, the F100 of the F28; Fokker had only two Type Certificates in their portfolio.

By the mid-90s, both were getting old. The F50 was fighting in a crowded market, hopelessly outdated compared with more modern products like the Saab 2000 or the ATR. The F100 had better odds, it had the upper hand on the BAe 146, but at some stage would have required an upgrade to remain competitive.

Letting the F50/60 go to focus on the F70/100 might appear logical with hindsight, but was a difficult decision to take, and might not have changed the outcome.
 
User avatar
armagnac2010
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2020 12:45 am

Re: 25 years Fokker bankcrupt

Tue Mar 16, 2021 3:54 pm

NWAROOSTER wrote:
Fokker's F27, F28, F50 and F100 were good aircraft but but had one problem and a lot of pilots did not like it. They all did not have leading edge flaps which other jets did. This meant the aircraft had a higher takeoff and landing speed. Fokker might of sold more if they were equipped with leading edge flaps. :old:


Straight wing turboprops don't have slats.

And I am too sure regional airline pilots are really consulted in the procurement process. At least not to the extent business jets pilots are, for instance.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 11869
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: 25 years Fokker bankcrupt

Tue Mar 16, 2021 3:59 pm

NWAROOSTER wrote:
Fokker's F27, F28, F50 and F100 were good aircraft but but had one problem and a lot of pilots did not like it. They all did not have leading edge flaps which other jets did. This meant the aircraft had a higher takeoff and landing speed. Fokker might of sold more if they were equipped with leading edge flaps. :old:

They had a few other issues. Their (or at least the F100’s) max landing weight was too low relative to MTOW causing issues for short flights (aircraft would not burn off enough fuel to get below MLW), especially if you wanted to tanker or were heavy on cargo.

Their ACs also kind of sucked. Fine in Northern climates/Europe, brutal in the American south during the summer.
 
ILNFlyer
Posts: 675
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:34 pm

Re: 25 years Fokker bankcrupt

Tue Mar 16, 2021 4:16 pm

Flew on many a F100 flight between ORD and ROC back in the day on AA. While we all know pax are never asked about a possible aircraft requisition, the aircraft seemed very noisy to me in comparison with others.
 
MEA-707
Posts: 3855
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 1999 4:51 am

Re: 25 years Fokker bankcrupt

Tue Mar 16, 2021 4:47 pm

armagnac2010 wrote:
They had arguably the best and most advanced planes available at the time.


I agree with the analysis, except for that sentence. Bear in mind the F50 was just an upgrade of the F27, the F100 of the F28; Fokker had only two Type Certificates in their portfolio.

By the mid-90s, both were getting old. The F50 was fighting in a crowded market, hopelessly outdated compared with more modern products like the Saab 2000 or the ATR. The F100 had better odds, it had the upper hand on the BAe 146, but at some stage would have required an upgrade to remain competitive.

Letting the F50/60 go to focus on the F70/100 might appear logical with hindsight, but was a difficult decision to take, and might not have changed the outcome.

I think they both were great aircraft for the late 1980s and quite advanced. I admit if Fokker didn't stop in 1997, both types would become outdated by 2004 and Fokker would have to stop thén as they probably couldn't finance the development of successors. Some indicators: blue chip airlines like Austrian and KLM continued flying the F-100 family 10-15 years after they already withdrew other 80s designs like the MD-80, A-310, 737-300. Still even after 25 years about half of the production run is still airworthy (but not with the original airlines). Less than a quarter of other aircraft built in 1986-1996 is still flying.
The Fokker 50 was quieter and had better systems (deicing!!) than the early ATR's but that made them more expensive to acquire, but still a perfect mid 80s project, not worse than any competitor at the time. But orders were low, I think Fokker would or should have closed the Fokker 50 line anyway around 1998 if they didn't go bankrupt, but could have sold 200-400 more F-70s and 100s if they survived, stopping around 2004 when the order glut also killed the 717 and 757.
nobody has ever died from hard work, but why take the risk?
 
PerthBoy1987
Posts: 59
Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2019 5:59 am

Re: 25 years Fokker bankcrupt

Tue Jul 20, 2021 12:33 pm

MEA-707 wrote:
armagnac2010 wrote:
They had arguably the best and most advanced planes available at the time.


I agree with the analysis, except for that sentence. Bear in mind the F50 was just an upgrade of the F27, the F100 of the F28; Fokker had only two Type Certificates in their portfolio.

By the mid-90s, both were getting old. The F50 was fighting in a crowded market, hopelessly outdated compared with more modern products like the Saab 2000 or the ATR. The F100 had better odds, it had the upper hand on the BAe 146, but at some stage would have required an upgrade to remain competitive.

Letting the F50/60 go to focus on the F70/100 might appear logical with hindsight, but was a difficult decision to take, and might not have changed the outcome.

I think they both were great aircraft for the late 1980s and quite advanced. I admit if Fokker didn't stop in 1997, both types would become outdated by 2004 and Fokker would have to stop thén as they probably couldn't finance the development of successors. Some indicators: blue chip airlines like Austrian and KLM continued flying the F-100 family 10-15 years after they already withdrew other 80s designs like the MD-80, A-310, 737-300. Still even after 25 years about half of the production run is still airworthy (but not with the original airlines). Less than a quarter of other aircraft built in 1986-1996 is still flying.
The Fokker 50 was quieter and had better systems (deicing!!) than the early ATR's but that made them more expensive to acquire, but still a perfect mid 80s project, not worse than any competitor at the time. But orders were low, I think Fokker would or should have closed the Fokker 50 line anyway around 1998 if they didn't go bankrupt, but could have sold 200-400 more F-70s and 100s if they survived, stopping around 2004 when the order glut also killed the 717 and 757.


Question is - when Fokker went bankrupt, why didn't another company take the F50 on board and redesign it in terms of newer fuselage and more powerful engines. F50s nowdays are still very competitive today but imagine a newer F50 with improvements in this current climate. It probably would of done well.
 
PerthBoy1987
Posts: 59
Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2019 5:59 am

Re: 25 years Fokker bankcrupt

Tue Jul 20, 2021 12:36 pm

aemoreira1981 wrote:
That market is one of the hardest to fill, but needed filling (the segment above the ATR 72/Dash 8 Q400 and the A319). The BAe146/Avro RJ would continue production until 2001, but an improved RJ was basically all but killed by Embraer's announcement of entry into the segment at the 1999 Paris Air Show.

Now, with the Fokker base of operations largely limited to Australia and Iran, how much longer can the remaining Fokker fleet fly? You already see Embraer 190s being introduced more into Australia as replacement with Alliance Airlines (which acquired most of the American and Copa stock). In most of the rest of the world, you will see the E290/E295 being introduced as replacements for the E190/E195, but there is no scope-compliant E175 replacement yet. (Was the F70 ever scope compliant?)


I think also Alliance Airlines (in Australia) were going to retire the F50 as well.
 
smokeybandit
Posts: 1537
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 3:24 pm

Re: 25 years Fokker bankcrupt

Tue Jul 20, 2021 12:58 pm

There's a good show on the History Channel, "The airplanes that built America"

It focused on Ford, Boeing, Douglas and Fokker. It was interesting how significantly the Ford Trimotor was "influenced" by Fokker's 3-engine plane
 
User avatar
REDHL
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2020 1:19 pm

Re: 25 years Fokker bankcrupt

Tue Jul 20, 2021 1:37 pm

I had the opportunity to fly Air Panama F100s between PAC and SJO back in the mid-2010s (between 2015 and 2017). Although I found them a bit noisy in comparison to a 737NG, they were an enjoyable and comfortable ride.

I really miss them.
 
FlapOperator
Posts: 89
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2021 4:07 pm

Re: 25 years Fokker bankcrupt

Tue Jul 20, 2021 2:20 pm

I think Fokker’s biggest error was introducing an airplane in the F100 to the market ten years early. The F28 and F100 were better airplanes than the CRJ. Too bad that the APA was less gullible than the Delta MEC.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 11869
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: 25 years Fokker bankcrupt

Tue Jul 20, 2021 2:24 pm

FlapOperator wrote:
I think Fokker’s biggest error was introducing an airplane in the F100 to the market ten years early. The F28 and F100 were better airplanes than the CRJ. Too bad that the APA was less gullible than the Delta MEC.

The F100 was too big to farm out to regional airlines. It would have never achieved the success of the CRJ or E-jets for that reason alone.
 
FlapOperator
Posts: 89
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2021 4:07 pm

Re: 25 years Fokker bankcrupt

Tue Jul 20, 2021 2:32 pm

Polot wrote:
FlapOperator wrote:
I think Fokker’s biggest error was introducing an airplane in the F100 to the market ten years early. The F28 and F100 were better airplanes than the CRJ. Too bad that the APA was less gullible than the Delta MEC.

The F100 was too big to farm out to regional airlines. It would have never achieved the success of the CRJ or E-jets for that reason alone.


The F28 was not…it needed be lightened a touch with bigger engines. It was far more comfortable ride than either the ERJ/CRJ200.

The Horizon F28s, according to rumor, derailed the first Alaska/AA merger talks as the plan was that the F28s would go to AA, and the rest of Horizon (-227s and Dashes) would integrate with Eagle. Problem was the F-28 was super senior in the left seat, but junior in the right. There was no way to square that circle.

The CRJ was just fortunate that FedEx backed away at the same time the Delta MEC got sold on the CRJ as the Metro/-120/ATR replacement. It was a master stroke by the then Delta management that was really detrimental to two or three generations of pilots. At the stroke of pen, thousands of entry level mainline jobs were turned into far less desirable positions.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 11869
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: 25 years Fokker bankcrupt

Tue Jul 20, 2021 2:34 pm

FlapOperator wrote:
Polot wrote:
FlapOperator wrote:
I think Fokker’s biggest error was introducing an airplane in the F100 to the market ten years early. The F28 and F100 were better airplanes than the CRJ. Too bad that the APA was less gullible than the Delta MEC.

The F100 was too big to farm out to regional airlines. It would have never achieved the success of the CRJ or E-jets for that reason alone.


The F28 was not…it needed be lightened a touch with bigger engines. It was far more comfortable ride than either the ERJ/CRJ200.

Getting an existing rear engined aircraft lighter with bigger (aka heavier) engines is much easier said then done. Re-engining with larger engines is much easier when the engines are hanging off the wings and not the side of the rear fuselage.
 
FlapOperator
Posts: 89
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2021 4:07 pm

Re: 25 years Fokker bankcrupt

Tue Jul 20, 2021 2:43 pm

Polot wrote:
Getting an existing rear engined aircraft lighter with bigger (aka heavier) engines is much easier said then done.


I’m not saying it’s likely or even probable. I’m just arguing that it was sad that Fokker was unable to get a right sized aircraft to what was an artificially manipulated market.

I tend decry the gradual aviation and technical monocultures that have developed, while acknowledging that lots of economic realities drove that.
 
factsonly
Posts: 3123
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 3:08 pm

Re: 25 years Fokker bankcrupt

Tue Jul 20, 2021 2:53 pm

Polot wrote:
The F100 was too big to farm out to regional airlines. It would have never achieved the success of the CRJ or E-jets for that reason alone.


That's precisely why the Fokker 70 had a very promising future at the time of Fokker's demise.
It was the only real airliner for regional airlines at the time.
Airline interest for the Fokker 70 was HOT HOT HOT and Fokker was wondering how to meet this demand.
This potential was clearly visible to many insiders in the industry, but not to the NL Government at the time.

Reason why Fokker customers prompted Boeing's senior executives to take a serious look at the Fokker 70/100 family, after Fokker's collapse.
Boeing considered the possibility and agreed that a Boeing 70/100 family would seriously outsell the B717.
However Boeing had only just absorbed McD, killed the MD11 and turned the MD-95 into B717 with no further room to manoeuvre in Long Beach.
Politically it was unacceptable for Boeing to buy the Fokker family, at the expense of the McDonnel Douglas aircraft.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 11869
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: 25 years Fokker bankcrupt

Tue Jul 20, 2021 2:58 pm

factsonly wrote:
Polot wrote:
The F100 was too big to farm out to regional airlines. It would have never achieved the success of the CRJ or E-jets for that reason alone.


That's precisely why the Fokker 70 had a very promising future at the time of Fokker's demise.
It was the only real airliner for regional airlines at the time.
Airline interest for the Fokker 70 was HOT HOT HOT and Fokker was wondering how to meet this demand.
This potential was clearly visible to many insiders in the industry, but not to the NL Government at the time.

Reason why Fokker customers prompted Boeing's senior executives to take a serious look at the Fokker 70/100 family, after Fokker's collapse.
Boeing considered the possibility and agreed that a Boeing 70/100 family would seriously outsell the B717.
However Boeing had only just absorbed McD, killed the MD11 and turned the MD-95 into B717 with no further room to manoeuvre in Long Beach.
Politically it was unacceptable for Boeing to buy the Fokker family, at the expense of the McDonnel Douglas aircraft.

Why wasn’t it pitched to Airbus?
 
User avatar
armagnac2010
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2020 12:45 am

Re: 25 years Fokker bankcrupt

Tue Jul 20, 2021 3:24 pm

Polot wrote:
factsonly wrote:
Polot wrote:
The F100 was too big to farm out to regional airlines. It would have never achieved the success of the CRJ or E-jets for that reason alone.


That's precisely why the Fokker 70 had a very promising future at the time of Fokker's demise.
It was the only real airliner for regional airlines at the time.
Airline interest for the Fokker 70 was HOT HOT HOT and Fokker was wondering how to meet this demand.
This potential was clearly visible to many insiders in the industry, but not to the NL Government at the time.

Reason why Fokker customers prompted Boeing's senior executives to take a serious look at the Fokker 70/100 family, after Fokker's collapse.
Boeing considered the possibility and agreed that a Boeing 70/100 family would seriously outsell the B717.
However Boeing had only just absorbed McD, killed the MD11 and turned the MD-95 into B717 with no further room to manoeuvre in Long Beach.
Politically it was unacceptable for Boeing to buy the Fokker family, at the expense of the McDonnel Douglas aircraft.

Why wasn’t it pitched to Airbus?


Interesting, but this is rewriting history.

Boeing never invested successfully in a foreign OEM, see de Havilland Canada or Embraer.

DASA might have some responsibility but they did to Fokker what Fokker did to VFW twenty years earlier.

The Dutch government had no passion for industrial investments and favoured the service and financial sectors.

The BAe 146 was also on the market and was on par with the F70 from a technological point of view, both steadily getting outdated. Heavy structure, ageing powerplant architecture, outdated systems. The CRJ 700 was coming, with much lower DOC. The F70 might have been the more comfortable of the lot, but we all know this is not enough.

The truth is Fokker was fighting new designs such as ATR, Saab or CRJ with derivates of old products (the F50/60 are updated F27, F70/100 revisited F28), and could not make it.
 
IAmGaroott
Posts: 136
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2018 4:37 pm

Re: 25 years Fokker bankrupt

Tue Jul 20, 2021 3:56 pm

I always enjoyed flying on US Air(ways) F100s. Much like the E190s nearly two decades later, they were great for short trips, but maintenance needs (and a sizable Airbus fleet) held them back from having a long career.
 
FlyingHonu001
Posts: 443
Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2020 2:33 pm

Re: 25 years Fokker bankrupt

Tue Jul 20, 2021 4:11 pm

With that being said, is the upcoming F130-NG still relevant?
Havent seen any updates other than this website
Source: https://www.ngaircraft.com/
 
petertenthije
Posts: 4211
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 10:00 pm

Re: 25 years Fokker bankrupt

Tue Jul 20, 2021 5:02 pm

FlyingHonu001 wrote:
With that being said, is the upcoming F130-NG still relevant?
Havent seen any updates other than this website
Source: https://www.ngaircraft.com/

The site was updated earlier this year, but that’s pretty much all that NGA does. Website management.

I honestly have no clue what’s keeping the lights on there.

I would love to see Fokker return in some way as an independent OEM. But those days are well behind us. (Please DO prove me wrong NGA)
The first thing to remember is always treat your kite like you treat your woman.
Get inside her five times a day and take her to heaven and back!
Lord Flashheart, 1989
 
factsonly
Posts: 3123
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 3:08 pm

Re: 25 years Fokker bankcrupt

Tue Jul 20, 2021 6:52 pm

armagnac2010 wrote:

Interesting, but this is rewriting history.

Boeing never invested successfully in a foreign OEM, see de Havilland Canada or Embraer.

DASA might have some responsibility but they did to Fokker what Fokker did to VFW twenty years earlier.

The Dutch government had no passion for industrial investments and favoured the service and financial sectors.

The BAe 146 was also on the market and was on par with the F70 from a technological point of view, both steadily getting outdated. Heavy structure, ageing powerplant architecture, outdated systems. The CRJ 700 was coming, with much lower DOC. The F70 might have been the more comfortable of the lot, but we all know this is not enough.

The truth is Fokker was fighting new designs such as ATR, Saab or CRJ with derivates of old products (the F50/60 are updated F27, F70/100 revisited F28), and could not make it.


Lets get our facts straight.

1. Boeing never invested in the Fokker 70/100 family AFTER Fokker's collapse, for the very reasons I provided. (Nothing to do with either de Havilland Canada or Embraer ??)
2. DASA played a role BEFORE Fokker's collapse, a period I did not even touch upon. Not clear why you bring this up.
3. The BAe146 'on par' with the Fokker 70, really! You should ask the management of Tyrolean Airways, they absolutely disagreed with you after the two aircraft were demonstrated at INN on the same day.
4. The Fokker 70 was only on the market for 4 years (1992-1996 - with 47 built), so you can hardly say 'getting outdated' at the time of Fokker's demise in 1996.
5. The CRJ700, E190 and A318 were all launched several years after the bankruptcy of Fokker and therefore did not compete with the Fokker 70 at the time.
6. It was the departure of Fokker that provided space for these new regional aircraft by Bombardier, Embraer and Airbus.

So no re-writing history here!

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos