Money, Money, Money! My guess is that, like the 772LR/773ER program GE has ponied up development money for the aircraft. That means they are a risk sharing partner. In exchange for that GE would most surely want a guarantee of a market.
N79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 9102 times:
If the 747Adv uses bleedless systems (which I hear they might), then PW would be out of the running anyway. Phollingsworth is correct. When there are 3 choices for an airplane type, none of the engine makers generate much profit and have complained. The development and certification costs are very expensive.
If Boeing is signing deals with suppliers that means an operator has probably put money down to buy 747Adv or is at their ATM taking out the cash right now.
PhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 8995 times:
The issue of a sole supplier in powerplants is nothing new. Just a quick look at the market gives you a reason why.
Boeing estimates there is a market of 300 max. For all the engine mfgrs to provide an engine choice is commercial suicide. In addition, Boeing would have to design a pylon and certify each powerplant, thus adding cost to the aircraft.
The 777 was the precursor of this agreement. It's nothing new at all.
Quoting United Airline (Reply 5): OK if an airline wants to place a large order for the B 747 Advanced using P and W or RR engines, will Boeing say yes? I suppose so right? Coz they wanna make $ too.
PhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 8676 times:
Quoting United Airline (Reply 9): Also I don't think Boeing will shut themselves out from a huge order simply because of engine deals
Take a look at the 777-300ER and 777-200LR. Boeing refused any other engine types on that aircraft. Believe me, it gets very expensive to certify various engine types on airframes. The increased costs have to be passed along to someone.
The figure of 300 aircraft is Boeing's estimate of the market. Take that up with them!
Iowa744fan From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 931 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 8664 times:
I was wondering the exact same thing. I keep hearing how BA, CX, QF, LH, and JL are to be among the airlines most interested and whom would order right away....and the first three operate RR powered 744s. Then again, with decent sized orders, others have added engine types recently so who knows. Perhaps this will help GE in the 787 market if airlines want to operate both the 787 and the 747Adv.
PhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 8633 times:
You will have to ask Boeing.
However, if you look at the order pool and how small it is, there costs to develop and certify each engine isn't worth it. You have a case where engine companies can't make money by selling the engines. If Boeing sticks with one engine type, in the long run it's cheaper for the customer.
With the advent of "power by the hour" having a "non standard" engine type isn't the big deal it used to be years ago.
N60659 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 654 posts, RR: 24
Reply 16, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 8520 times:
There seems to be a rather subtle yet significant shift in the way Boeing has approached selecting engine suppliers in the last few years especially with the 773ER, 772LR, 787 and the 744Adv. Where multiple suppliers are tapped (like on the 787), they have gone to bleedless systems which allows the use of either the GEnx or the Trent 1000. In the case of the 772LR and 773ER, they have exclusivity arrangements with GE and GE also shared in development costs. And now the 744Adv has a single engine supplier.
For the latter three programs, the benefit derived from the success of a program is tangible - if the program succeeds, GE partakes in the profits as well. In the past, the engine manufacturers were somewhat isolated from success or failure of a program. With this new philosophy, Boeing and GE have to truly participate as a team as the stakes are higher for all involved parties.
For the 787 program, engine manufacturers have to vie that much harder for orders, and have to either meet or beat gurantees otherwise the airlines will be able to switch engine suppliers at any point in the fleets lifecycle.
Over and above all this, the after market has gotten significantly more streamlined. One does not have to weigh the possibility of inducting an airframe/engine combination that is not uniform with the airlines' current fleet.
I think many of us have focussed so much on the Airbus vs. Boeing saga. However, there is a bigger tussle which includes the engine manufacturers as well and currently, GE has a leg up over RR and PW. Please feel free to comment about this. I would love to hear what you think.
No doubt. I once inquired Dornier about certifying the 328Jet with Primus Epic when they launched the 728 family with Epic. They had already looked into that and the potential of a GE engine for supplier (with the 306B problems) and parts commonality across the entire line. The Avionics was $13 million, Engines $17 million (Closest engine is on the Falcon 2000)- Just for the certification process. It may not seem like much, and an Airline may have considered such an expense for the Avionics but damn...
WhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 8259 times:
Quoting N60659 (Reply 10): I wonder how this is going to play with BA and CX which were both interested in the 744 Adv, but their fleets are predominantly RR powered.
Cathay are a different operation, but BA isn't as clear-cut as you might think.
They originally considered ordering the 744 with CF6 engines as there was some movement inside British Airways towards the GE product. At the time this was attributed to BCal people who had been brought into BA, and BCal was a GE loyalist to a certain extent.
They also have the GE90 powered 772 fleet, which has put its early reliability issues behind it.
Willie Walsh is another factor. The new CEO is another one who has waved the company chequebook at GE in the past when he was with EI.
GE engines are well supported in the United Kingdom, so assuming BA will always want to buy a Rolls product isn't entirely correct.
Quoting Gigneil (Reply 17): The 747A will struggle to sell 300 frames. Its not worth it to have another engine manufacturer. That manufacturer would lose money by offering an engine.
If Boeing go with the GENX engine, I wonder if the carryover from the 787 might happen? Interface compatability with the Rolls Trent 1000?
Gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 20, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 8242 times:
The GEnx on the 747A will be very different than the one for the 787.... clipped blades and bleed air. Any RR engine would have to be the same, so I don't think that there will be much in the way of compatibility.
RRFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 8233 times:
This is going to be a HUGE blow to the Adv program.
BA will certainly now not go for the 747Adv. They are already under pressure from the UK government to support industry. What this has done is now given the BA 767 replacement to RR for 787's and the 747 replacement will now be Airbus A380/A350 mix.
I like Boeing aircraft, but this ability to take away choice is literally leaving airlines with no other choice but to switch. Just look at the 7E7, it clearly shows the airlines prefer RR. When the 777 came out it clearly showed the airlines preferred RR followed by P&W.
GE is taking the market not by technology, but by cash! This seems to be a company scared of competition!
WhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 8207 times:
Quoting Gigneil (Reply 20): The GEnx on the 747A will be very different than the one for the 787.... clipped blades and bleed air. Any RR engine would have to be the same, so I don't think that there will be much in the way of compatibility.
Interesting to think about though.
I'll stick my 'expert' opinion in here and say I don't think the 747A is a good project for Boeing. On the strength of their past projects with the 753 and 764, looking at a stretch of the 777 to a 774 might be a better use of their development budget in the short term.
Both the 753 and 764 were money losers which came to market way too late in the lifecycle of the base product. Stretching the 773 again could be a much more lucrative line than spending what would be effectively a complete redesign and testing budget on the 747.
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8226 posts, RR: 8
Reply 24, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 8160 times:
I believe this agreement simply pushes the 747ADV closer to board approval. I also have a feeling that there will be more than 300 sales over the years. Airlines are going to buy a size of plane to meet the market. Just as they will not buy a 777 if the 787 is the size they need they are not going to buy a 380 if they only need a 747 sized plane. Both the 380 and 747ADV will do well because they both are the best matches for their respective size ranges. I believe GE recognized this and were very smart to get the exclusive deal with Boeing.
: NO - 777NG has been doign really well w/o RR or PW. Well, if they want the 773ER, 787 and the 747Adv in their fleet plans, which they will have no ch
: Ah well, thats the 747Adv flushed down the pan. What the h*** are Boeing thinking when the worlds biggest 747 operator (BA) has an entirely RR fleet.
: I don't see how you can say that given there have been so few engine selections for the 787. And the PW and RR engine selections for the early 777s w
: Why does everyone bitch about Boeing giving sole supplier contracts to GE for their aircraft. No one complained that Airbus gave RR sole supplier stat
: What was Boeing thinking? Business, the 747Advanced is going to serve the niche market, Boeing is planning on selling around 300 of the aircraft, har
30 Boeing Nut
: The 747ADV program has the potential of replacing every 747 in existance today. That's 1,100+ hundred units folks. Of course it won't but if it even r
: How come no one complains about the fact that if you want to buy a 737 you have only one engine choice?
32 United Airline
: Then BA will not order the B 777-300ER too since it is GE powered only. If they need an aircraft, they will order it regardless of engine deals. BA is
: Not going to happen. Invariably, the A380, 777-300ER, and A340-600 will get much of this business. N
: Boeing is using the number of 300 747Advanced sales, not every single 747 operator will be replacing their 747 with the 747Advanced. 500 units is a n
: BoeingBus haha - what are you smoking dude? obviously not the strong stuff you are on! p.s keep chearing for the 787 and 747 Adv, they are gonna need
: Actually, QF's 744ERs are CF6 powered. Only the CF6 and PW4062 are available on the 744ER, as there is no over 60,000 pound version of the RB211 The
: QF could have bought into RR for that order, but the RB211 being offered wasn't suitable. The CF6 offering on the 744ER offered greater commonality w
: According to Boeing, only the PW4062 and CF6 are available for the 744ER
: And the point of keeping these lines open would be what? A new Jobs program???
: As I said, the RB211 which was initially put forward was substantially different from existing engines so it never happened. The only airline which w
: I really don't think they will. BA has stated many times in the past that they will not have any more aircraft with GE engines. The 777-200s were too
: This is what I have never understood. You have two engines, lets say RB.211 and Trent 1000 or CF6 and GENx. These two pairs have NOTHING in common oth
: I think the risk-sharing element is the key here, particularly when new technology (bleedless engines) is being introduced. There are plenty of other
: Commonality (engines, cockpit) is certainly a viable argument when adding to a large existing fleet, but not so much for a new type or subtype. Face
: Actually, a fair amount of non-core parts are interchangeable between the RB211 and the Trent. Notwithstanding Air Transat fitting an RB211 fuel syst
: Production lines closing and new product opening means PROGRESS! Airbus will have to follow suit or it will be left behind. Boeing is progressing to
: Will the new GE engines on the 747Adv offer FADEC? IIRC all 744's offered an EEC only to control engine overtemp (or did the 744ER offer a FADEC syste
: Exactly the same thing that happened with the 777. I think the reason Boeing did pick GE (may have been said before) is that they already have had so
: But aren't most airliners outsourcing their maintenance where this becomes more of a non-issue and fuel savings and better product go right to the top
: So I suppose Boeing is pushing forward with the 747A...why for the life of me I donno. Isn't that too small? With that and their CMO 2004, yes the re
: I didn't even know the 747Adv was launched. When was this announced? Regards, A388
: BOEINGBUS Production lines closing and new product opening means PROGRESS! Airbus will have to follow suit or it will be left behind. They don't need
: Hey I never ever said that Boeing had a better product. Kudos to Airbus for its past success! it sure woke up Boeing.... didnt it? Does this make you
: The GENx is not available on the 777. If it was then you might hear a loud crunch as the 777 goes off the end of the runway. Engine commonality for la
: RRFan...while your points are valid, I believe you are the one with the pride issues. Don't be so hard pressed to defend RR, they are a fine engine ma
: Appreciate it BoeingBus We'll call it a draw! at the end of the day they both make fanatstic aircraft past and present.
: Good for GE, bad for RR. I agree with others that 747A sales will be lost due to a lack of a RR engine (sorry, I love Pratt, but outside of NW, who m
: This seems a dangerous move by Boeing, when 2 of they're main targets (BA and CX) are heavy RR 747 users. Further, CX are also heavy Trent users on a
: I have read all of the replies, but still think that this is not going to help Boeing in selling B747ADV to airlines who are big RR or PW users. The B
: SQ had over 60 Trent powered 772ERs... they went for the Ge90 powered 773ER I could list examples all day... I think yall are putting far too much st
: Additionally, Boeing most probably knew of this early on and included the possibility of a lone engine supplier during their presentations to the var
: As it looks right now, Airbus has 1 program thriving, 1 that had initial success but has flattened and a need to go back to the CATIA for the third T
: That would depend on the lone supplier being the one they wanted The 773ER is a good enough product to overcome such obstacles, the 747A isn't, I fea
: Joe Sutter was on CXs latest 777-300 B-HNP delivery flight to Hong Kong so Boeing is still pushing the 747ADV with CX. Also CX has now got RR, GE (B-H
: Why? ANA is a heavy user of GE and PW engines. If anything, they should have gone GE. So the question is why did they go RR? I suspect it has to do w
: RRfan is pretty funny the way he "stacks the deck" showing various Airbus products as separate...i.e. A319/A320/A321 etc. They are all on the same bas
: I think you can't stretch the 777 too much because the -300 is already 73.8 meters in length and you can't go over 80 meter. This would cause more pr
: They can go over the 80 meter box, and accommodation is much easier when it's the tail not the wing that's exceeding the box. The 80 meter box is pri
: Also forgot to add so was Boeing's head of Asia Pacific Sales, Larry Dickenson. CCA
: Wait now? A product that potentially has a lower seatmile cost than its larger, more expensive competitor that may have a common type rating to almos
: They have already mentioned that a 777-400 is in the works in the event the 747A fails. I don't know how long it would be, but a 6 meter stretch is ac
: Gigneil, you once wanted some sort of proof that R-R was struggling to define an engine for the A350/747Adv applications. You now have some. R-R real