Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
BA's Engine Choice For 777s  
User currently offlineTranstar From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 530 posts, RR: 0
Posted (10 years 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 4423 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Why does BA operate a mixture of RR and GE90 engines on its 777s?

Are the older aircraft RR and the newer aircraft GE?

Or did they opt for a mixture for performance reasons?

Thanks

TranStar

28 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineGKirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24961 posts, RR: 56
Reply 1, posted (10 years 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 4370 times:

Older one's are the GE90 I think, all their new 777s are RR engines


When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
User currently offlineKateAA From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 89 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (10 years 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 4368 times:

Thats right, when they first flew the B772's they had GE, then they moved onto RR.

Not sure why!?

Kate

[Edited 2004-11-24 16:39:17]

[Edited 2004-11-24 16:39:48]

User currently offlineSNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3247 posts, RR: 22
Reply 3, posted (10 years 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 4350 times:

I'm pretty sure the first batch of B777s they got was with GE90s. But,
apparently they had some problem with them (hopefully someone in this
forum will be able to give us more details on this) and they were not
totally happy with them. So, the second batch of B777s they ordered was
with RRs.

Tony



Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
User currently offlineEg777er From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 1837 posts, RR: 14
Reply 4, posted (10 years 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 4316 times:

It's an interesting one this.

Firstly, for the original order (the 5 A market frames and remainder IGW), BA went with GE. Why? Many suggest it was because GE made BA an offer they couldn't refuse...to take over the Cardiff Maintenance facility for engine overhaul.

For the second order (the Y-MM* regns), it's either because

1) BA weren't particularly happy with the GE engines in the early days....reliability problems, fan blades, extra inspections etc.
2) BA dumped a 747 order in favour of more 777s, the engines for the 747s had been ordered from RR, and there would have been massive change penalties had the RB211 order not been changed to Trents for the 777s.

I suspect it's a mixture of all these.


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (10 years 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 4305 times:

...this topic's only been covered ten thousand and one times, but anywho:




BA was the launch customer for the GE90, and it had teething problems.

That and even though it was built with a heavily-fortified core (which was its biggest weakness in the A-market, but later became its biggest advantage for the newest 777s); GE was initially reluctant to take it beyond 90,000lbs thrust of output in the B-market.

Combine this with an outstanding debt to RR due to a defunct RB211 order, and an overall cost assessment showing that RR would be the expedient path....

...BA decided to order the Trent895 for its remaining 777s.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Somewhat ironically, if/when BA goes for the 777NGs, they'll once again be ordering GE90 powered aircraft.... which contrary to the ridiculous albeit strongly-held belief of some members here, would be of negligible difficulty/cost to the airline.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13242 posts, RR: 77
Reply 6, posted (10 years 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4179 times:

When considering this, it should be noted that the PW engine as well as GE and RR were also evaluated in 1998, RR won, so the notion that a more powerful engine was needed was correct, it is also true that GE90 did have teething problems.
Honestly, I don't know where this idea that BA had to buy RR because of cancelled 747 orders has come from.


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (10 years 6 days ago) and read 4139 times:

I don't know where this idea that BA had to buy RR because of cancelled 747 orders has come from.

Quite a few (many credible) sources actually.

...that, and it is accurate that you guys had plenty of outstanding RB211s at the time. Only makes sense really.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13242 posts, RR: 77
Reply 8, posted (10 years 6 days ago) and read 4102 times:

For the past 3 1/2 years that I've seen this notion that BA HAD to buy R/R in 1998 on here (and nowhere else), I have made a point of asking everyone I know who may shed light on this within BA, no-one has ever recognized this to be true.
I also remember our R/R rep (for Olympus engines) being surprised that R/R was chosen in 1998, pleased of course with comments like 'should have brought R/R in the first place', which is the view of everyone too.
For no other reason that selling the engine overhaul to GE has been a disaster, just this year we've had problems with them having contamination issues causing a bunch of RB211's to be parked causing some of BA's problems this summer.


User currently offlineJeffDCA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (10 years 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4006 times:

I'm with you, GDB, a good friend of mine was a BA employee at the time of the GE/RR switch, and he's never heard of this "must buy Trents in place of RB211's" story. According to him it was all down to reliability issues with the GE90. Funny how all the BA employees tell that scenario, where as ConcordeBoy, who has nothing to do with BA i might add, comes out with the other.

which contrary to the ridiculous albeit strongly-held belief of some members here, would be of negligible difficulty/cost to the airline.

Of course it would be negligable. They already have a sizable GE90 powered 777 fleet. It wouldn't make any difference to them.

Cheers,

Jeff


User currently offlineRRFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (10 years 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3963 times:

BA chose the GE90 originally because of the maintenance base issue. It may surprise alot of you particuarly Concordeboy, but it really was as simple as that. The savings on that facility were huge and BA could not resist that. It has nothing whatsoever to do with RB211's!
The RR engine was chosen on merit and merit alone. We are not discussing the 200LR or the 300ER 777's with GE that BA might choose someday this is about the original GE90's. The original GE90 aircraft had appauling, yes thats right appauling reliability compared to the P&W and RR offerings. There were numerous occasions where blades broke off (one which I witnessed) being brought into the hangar for the 5th time G-ZZZB! The RR engines on the other hand offered superb reliability and still do compared to their older GE90 counterparts!
I have to say i am amazed at how many people are still blind to the obvious failings of the GE90, that was all it was nothing else! When we at BA were flying B777's across to Paris that tells you there was a HUGE problem with the engine. BA can honestly brag that they had 12 minute ETOPS crossing the english channel because the GE90 could not get certified for trans-atlantic crossings. More proof of this was the fact the BA 777's were deployed to southern europe and the middle east (again with a lot of dwon time)

Concordeboy, i have nothing against you or this forum, but please get your information correct before attacking others.


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (10 years 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3843 times:

For the past 3 1/2 years that I've seen this notion that BA HAD to buy R/R in 1998 on here (and nowhere else)

But I haven't  Big thumbs up
Check your email.



It may surprise alot of you particuarly Concordeboy, but it really was as simple as that

...not sure from whence you derive this drivel, but if you'd conduct a simple (yeah, it really is as simple as that  Insane) search-run on the myriad times this topic has arisen-- you'd see that I've stated your aforementioned quote more often than any other.




Of course it would be negligable. They already have a sizable GE90 powered 777 fleet. It wouldn't make any difference to them.

...'bout time you learned that; considering that you argued the complete opposite through two whole threads  Laugh out loud



It has nothing whatsoever to do with RB211's!

...I'm curious, whom here claimed that it did?




There were numerous occasions where blades broke off (one which I witnessed) being brought into the hangar for the 5th time G-ZZZB!

I've gotten to see several maintenance reports from BA where within a GE90's blades separated from their holding wells, I'll give you that...

...but I defy that you could provide any corroboration WHATSOEVER that a GE90s fan blade "broke off".




I have to say i am amazed at how many people are still blind to the obvious failings of the GE90

...thus proving to anyone reading this, that your posting is little more than a beveled rant  Smile/happy/getting dizzy




When we at BA were flying B777's across to Paris that tells you there was a HUGE problem with the engine

What sort of tripe is that statement?

...nearly ALL airlines operate a new type (particularly if they're among the earliest customers) regionally before operating them on their intended mission profile.



BA can honestly brag that they had 12 minute ETOPS crossing the english channel because the GE90 could not get certified for trans-atlantic crossings.

The engine/airframe received ETOPS certification (at BA) sufficient for transatlantic crossings not long after its delivery, and then received ETOPS180 certification by both the FAA/JAA in October 1996-- the same month as did its competitor  Insane


User currently offlineJeffDCA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (10 years 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3793 times:

...'bout time you learned that; considering that you argued the complete opposite through two whole threads

Bout time you learned to read, since in past threads referring to this subject i was using examples of airlines not currently operating the GE90.

...I'm curious, whom here claimed that it did?

Errrr.... you did!

I personally wouldn't argue with RRFan and GDB. They clearly know what they're talking about, where as you.... well... don't!

Cheers,

Jeff


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (10 years 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3773 times:

since in past threads referring to this subject i was using examples of airlines not currently operating the GE90.

riiiiiight, of course you were  Insane



Errrr.... you did!

Might wanna recap that one more time champ--
I've never once claimed that RB211s have anything to do with BA acquiring GE90s.




I personally wouldn't argue with RRFan and GDB.

I make it a habit to rarely argue with GDB, as I've learned more from him [along with Sean] than anyone else on these forums.

As for this RRFan character... half of what he posted was inaccurate, unfactual, and/or just plain crap; as addressed above.

Deal.


User currently offlineRRFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (10 years 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3770 times:

Concordeboy,

'I've gotten to see several maintenance reports from BA'

Utter rubbish! There is no way you could have seen them, if you did then I would say there is a serious security breach at either Heathrow or Cardiff! That is not something an anybody like you can get their hands on, it is sensitive due to manufacturers and company policies to prevent media hysteria etc.

'nearly ALL airlines operate a new type (particularly if they're among the earliest customers) regionally before operating them on their intended mission profile.'

Again you have no idea, they trial aircraft like that on Shannon and other routes not commercially PARIS!. It was not certified for months to cross the atlantic and as already mentioned they were put on the middle eastern routes to until certification was achieved 11 months later when LHR-BOS was flown. You are really clutching at straws, I was there, you weren't, I worked there, you didn't. Go on and call because I am getting fed up with you thinking you know everything when you obviously don't.

This is not an AirbusvBoeing battle or an RRvGE battle this is about you filling this thread with your own stories which are not true. Call BA, Call GE lets see what they have to say because I can assure you my colleagues are awaiting your call.



User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (10 years 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3756 times:

Utter rubbish! There is no way you could have seen them, if you did then I would say there is a serious security breach at either Heathrow or Cardiff!

If you really believe that, give me your email... see for yourself.


User currently offlineJeffDCA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (10 years 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3754 times:

I've never once claimed that RB211s have anything to do with BA acquiring GE90s.

Very clever, ConcordeBoy, twisting peoples words in your own favour. Shows the kind of low life you are. If i were you i'd leave this thread until you've done as RRFan suggested and actually call BA, and speak to someone who actually has seen the maintenance reports, rather than dreamed them.

Good day sir,

Jeff


User currently offlineRRFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (10 years 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3755 times:

Concordeboy,

Sorry to say this, but this person you keep referring to who talks tripe is me! I am the B777 first officer who was there, give me your e-mail and maybe I can enlighten you in a civil manner.

Regards


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (10 years 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3738 times:

ConcordeBoy@gmail.com

User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (10 years 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3733 times:

Very clever, ConcordeBoy, twisting peoples words in your own favour.

Funny how that concept of tangible fact works, aint it?  Nuts

Course, all you would have had to do was read before ranting, and you wouldn't have stumbled into that pitfall


User currently offlineJeffDCA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (10 years 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3720 times:

You know exactly what i meant ConcordeBoy. Please stop trying to act all proud, especially after your little downfall just there.  Wow!

Once again, good day sir,

Jeff


User currently offlineRRFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (10 years 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3719 times:

Concordeboy,

I noticed that you live in New Orleans, if at all I am in the area and it isn't very often due to BA not flying there, I would like to further discuss this subject to better our mutual interests in this area.

Regards


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (10 years 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3706 times:

your little downfall just there

"little downfall just there"... hmm, care to expand on that one champ?





due to BA not flying there

...ooooh, ouch. Just had to hit below the belt, didn't you  Laugh out loud




I would like to further discuss this subject to better our mutual interests in this area

I'd be game for it in a second!

...as I've already mentioned, have some stuff here you might find particularly amusing (citing Tom in NO and MSYtristar as witnesses thereto).


User currently offlineRRFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (10 years 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3696 times:

'as I've already mentioned, have some stuff here you might find particularly amusing'


Your posts are sufficient

Thanks


User currently offlineJeffDCA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (10 years 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3694 times:

"little downfall just there"... hmm, care to expand on that one champ?

Once again, you know exactly what i'm talking about.  Wink/being sarcastic

Cheers,

Jeff


25 Cheeryguy : guys, they were using the 777 to Paris to allow the most sectors per day.....for crew training purposes. i know i was crewing them.
26 Sn330 : Concordeboy, Are you on Anet as an aviation enthusiast, or just to argue with aviation enthusiasts. Anyway, I really think you are a kind person! Have
27 KrisYYZ : If I understand correctly each 777 engine variant were intended for different missions. 777-200A GE 90-76's @ 76,000lbs (For Middle Eastern and Gulf)
28 GDB : I think it's fair to say that in the early days, the attitude was 'well, it's a new airframe and engine type, shit happens', but then it went on and o
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
BA's Engine Choice. posted Fri Sep 22 2006 18:06:06 by BOE773
AC Engine Choice For B777s posted Wed Mar 1 2006 20:39:44 by KrisYYZ
Engine Choice For The A319 posted Wed Mar 9 2005 17:34:18 by Planefool1010
Engine Choice For New NZ Aircraft posted Mon May 31 2004 20:41:40 by RupesNZ
Single Engine Choice For 777 posted Thu Apr 29 2004 23:40:04 by Moose1226
BA Avoids Prosecution For Engine Failure Flight posted Fri Aug 11 2006 01:35:55 by PhilSquares
Criteria For Engine Choice posted Mon Aug 23 2004 14:18:05 by Fd728
BA Choice For Regional Jets. WHo Will They Choose? posted Wed Jan 31 2001 01:51:28 by Dellatorre
Engine Selection For Qantas 787? posted Mon Nov 27 2006 21:28:57 by ClassicLover
BA Loads Request For Nonrev - 8-9NOV06 posted Sat Nov 4 2006 11:18:18 by Sabena 690