CX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4434 posts, RR: 5 Posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2546 times:
British Airways currently operates two engines but 3 different "types" in it's 777 fleet.
(3) 777-200s GE90-76B G-ZZZA to G-ZZZC
(24) 777-200ERs GE-90B G-VIIA to G-VIIY
(16) 777-200ERs Trent 895-17 G-YMMA to G-YMMP
Does anyone know how the engines have compared to one another? It would seem to me that British Airways knows pretty well the areas that each engine succeed in and in which areas they come up short. Also, does BA operate certain engined 777s to certain destinations?
I know that BA originally operated 5 777-200s, but recently returned 2 of them. Why have they continued to hold onto the other 3?
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
ConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2521 times:
BA's Trent895-17 powered 772ERs generate 20,000lbs more thrust than its GE90-85B powered 772ERs and have longer range/higher MTOW as a result.
BA switched to RR mostly due to political pressure, but also because the GE90-94B was not yet in its full production swing.
The Trent895-17 is lightweight and supposedly possessing a superb throttle "reflex", in keeping with the Trent800 family. Its rather lackluster sales (BA and LY are the only customers), coupled with the GE90's exclusivity on the 777NGs, has recently allowed GE to take the title of preferred engine for the 777 family.
While I'm not privy to the exact reason the why Trent895 (along with the PW4098) have thus far failed to attract many customers in the 92,000lb+ thrust category... rumor has it that both engines lack the GE90's fuel efficiency and structural integrity when operated at the peak of their potential for extended periods*
*though by incredibly slim margins, as both engines have passed all ETOPS and reliability requirements for their general specifications.
ConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2460 times:
GE pitched a 773A package powered by the GE90-92B and a proposed GE90-98B to CX (who was then and somewhat still is: a hopeless slave to RR) as well as KE (who chose the wildly unpopular PW4098) and also CO (who decided against the 773 completely) but dropped it when all three airlines declined.
The buzz from the bees however is that GE plans to offer a similar conversion package to EK should they choose the 773ER (which is expected, but they supposedly want the GE90-115B certified for 5K-10K more lbs of thrust before ordering) for its 772ERs as well as 772/773As.
Gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16302 posts, RR: 87 Reply 6, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2410 times:
Garuda- yes partially that's true.
But if GE had a GE90-94B available when BA wanted it, they probably would have gone with it.
Certainly in retrospect I bet they wish they had just gone for the -92B and shut up about it.
Concordeboy - So EK is going to re-engine all their existing planes with GE90-94Bs? Or a possible -98B? Their existing planes are all Trent 892 powered, despite the misnomer, they're 90k pounds. I'm sure the -94B will be more than adequate.
Heh maybe they'll drop the Trent 772Bs and go for CF6-80E1A3s for their 332s.
ConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2392 times:
Boeing never really did (officially) refer to them as 777-200A... just that the planes were built for the "A" market (i.e. shorthaul, mass load) and the I.G.W planes (later called "-200ER") were built for the "B" market (i.e., longer range, higher MTOW).
the 772LR is slated to re-enter full-scale production and marketing in late April/early May of this year.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12947 posts, RR: 79 Reply 8, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2295 times:
While I'm not directly involved with 777's at BA, I know we did have a lot of teething problems with them for some years, more than usual even with a new airframe/engine.
R/R were picked as explained above (but not for any political pressure), the GE90 birds had load restrictions on certain routes.
The GE90 deal was not liked by many at BA, as part of it was the selling to GE of BA's Engine overhaul facility in Wales, since then we get a much worse service from them, probably due to te new owners laying experienced people off and others leaving.
(But when BA 'outsource' it always seems to lead to a poorer, more expensive service, that's the fault of those at BA who agreed contracts of course, and there are much worse examples within BA Engineering of poor outsourcing decisions, GE are one of the better ones believe me!)
It was seen as a shoddy deal, many of our people come from the airline industry, and were dismayed to see R/R snubbed, we have a good relationship going back with them over many years.
For a time, it looked like badly affecting R/R too, but they came back stronger than ever.
Dynkrisolo From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1845 posts, RR: 8 Reply 13, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2110 times:
Everyone seems to have their own version of why BA switched to the Trent engine on the 777. Based on the sequence of events, I believe the following was the most likely scenario:
BA made the strategic move to maximize high-yield traffic around 1997 or 98. So, they wanted to cancel the remaining 744 orders then and switched them to the smaller 772ER. If they stayed with GE, BA would have faced with a hefty penalty on the RR engines that they ordered with the 744. RR was willing to waive the penalty if BA switched to the Trent. GE was unwilling to pick up the tab. GE saw no chance of winning the add-on order. So, they decided not to accommodate BA's request for an engine with a higher thrust rating. Less than a year later, Air France asked for a higher thrust engine, GE readily complied with the GE90-94B and AF's order was a much smaller order than BA's. In short, I believe the thrust thing was not a major factor, but an easy excuse for all the parties involved. No matter where you are, money is always a sensitive subject. That's why BA and the two engine companies avoided the subject. Politics is another sensitive subject. But I wasn't aware of any major political pressure being exerted on BA to switch to RR at that time. Also emember in the same month that BA ordered the 16 772ERs with the RR engine, they also converted 6 772ER options with the GE engine. If they were unhappy with the GE90, they could have easily allowed those options to lapsed. In another word, it would be unlikely that BA switched to the Trent because they were unhappy with the GE90.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12947 posts, RR: 79 Reply 14, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2042 times:
Well I've worked in BA Engineering for 15 years, and I remember managers admitting that they regretted buying GE, for not only technical reasons, they regretted selling off the Engine overhaul facility, all this way before the 1998 order.
Dynkrisolo From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1845 posts, RR: 8 Reply 16, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1984 times:
Options are options. No one can force BA to convert all the options. That's why they are called options. BA would lose some deposits if they didn't convert the options, but that would be a lot less than canceling firm orders.
CX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4434 posts, RR: 5 Reply 17, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1973 times:
While I am not an inside source, here is what I remember about the British Airways Trent order. As others have stated, they cancelled their remaining order for 10-15 747-400s as they wanted less economy seats and more business pax on each flight. By cancelling the 747-400 order they were going to have to pay RR. Rather than pay RR, they opted to go with the Trent engine on their 777-200ER order. Also, from what I have read, one of the main reasons that BA went with GE for its original order was the promise by GE that it would by the engine maintenance facility.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12947 posts, RR: 79 Reply 18, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1955 times:
This options thing is a red herring, the PW engine was also evaluated.
If it was so certain that BA was to order R/R, why bother with all that?
We've cancelled enough options in the past, I don't recall us having to make some kind of reparations to engine makers.
Hey, what do I know, I only work there, I'm friends with the Olympus R/R rep, never heard him mention anything about it, in fact he expected GE to win again, for the sake of having a common engine across the 777 fleet as much as anything else.
Dynkrisolo From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1845 posts, RR: 8 Reply 20, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1840 times:
It wasn't an red herring because the canceled 744 orders were not options. They were firm orders. Canceling the engine orders on the 744 would involve heavy penalties. It's not a big surprise that PW engines were also evaluated. It is very common that all engine companies would submit bids even if they knew they absolutely had no chance.