TomFoolery From Austria, joined Jan 2004, 412 posts, RR: 3 Reply 1, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 500 times:
Not to get this onto a sour note, but every engine is going to have problems. Not always the same problem, but problems none the less. That is what keeps mechanics in business. i'm sure problems are not unique to PW. GE, RR and CFM have issues as well. In time and engineering, bugs get worked out. I am not defending PW, rather, I am being neutral. Some like Chevy some like Ford, each has their problems, it is a matter of them getting publicized.
N79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 439 times:
TF,
Your points are good. I am not one to gratuituously criticize a company. But I think PW has suffered beyond the norm that is to be expected when designing, selling, and servicing something as complex as a jet engine. (Admittedly, some of this is an image problem.) I say this because of the following:
- Major delay in PW6000 program resulting in defections to CFM
- Had to cancel derivative engine for A332 customers because they exceeded pylon weight.
-United 777 record ETOPS diversion because PW4000 failed. (image problem)
I do not read monthly reports on dispatch reliability or in-flight shutdowns but my impression from the press is that PW has some problems that need to be addressed. These problems seem more serious than those faced by GE or Rolls.
On a happier note for PW, I saw that they signed a 10-year, $2 billion contract with United to take care of their IAE engines. It is one of the largest such contracts in history.
AA737-823 From United States, joined Mar 2000, 4015 posts, RR: 9 Reply 3, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 389 times:
In regards to the United 777 diversion...
Singapore and CX??? Thai??? Well, anyhow, there have been a couple of contained-engine-faiures on 777s with Rolls Royce engines as well. It just happens. I don't have any dispatch reliability figures, either, but I think it's safe to say that those engines are safe.
I am heavily disappointed, however, in their 6000 program. What a joke. They are the laughing stock of the industry now.
I am not too concerned about the JAS MD-80s. They're old engines, bound to come up with a few flaws after awhile.
We'll see. It seems as though they are handling the problems well- they already sent replacement engines to JAS out of their own stock, and are looking for operators with spares in order to send more.
We'll see.
R
For unto us a Child is born- unto us a Son is given!
N79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 311 times:
I did not say these were critical safety issues or even imply that. However there are serious economic consequences when airplanes are grounded for repairs.
Like I said about the UAL diversion, it is an image-related problem. A record ETOPS diversion is dubious distinction. While GE and RR powered 777 airplanes have also diverted, none happened to be on that long of a diversion over that much blue water.
I do not at all believe that PW engines are unsafe. However, image does matter and that diversion will stick in a lot of minds for a long time. All these (even if minor) things may have cumulative negative effect on their brand of engines.
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Austria, joined Jan 2004, 412 posts, 
From United States, joined Mar 2000, 4015 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jan 2004, 2466 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
