Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
PW Declined Place On 787?  
User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6961 posts, RR: 63
Posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2410 times:

Louis Chenevert [President of Pratt & Whitney] disputed the perception that Pratt is backing away from air transport power in the wake of its failure to get on the 787. "Boeing selected us technically but we didn't see the business case," with Pratt's investment payoff stretching out more than two decades, he said. (ATW Online today - 15th June 2005)

Am I reading this right? He's asking us to believe that PW was selected by Boeing (instead of whom, I wonder) for the 787 but they turned it down?!

4 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13437 posts, RR: 100
Reply 1, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2300 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PM (Thread starter):

Am I reading this right? He's asking us to believe that PW was selected by Boeing (instead of whom, I wonder) for the 787 but they turned it down?!

Chevevert spun this a little. Pratt put together a very strong technical proposal *even* with Boeing having vetoed a geared turbofan. However, as part of the 787 selection process, each engine vendor had to take on a share of the airframe development financial risk (not just the engine)! Pratt "declined the opportunity."

There was no chance to be selected technically and not join the 787 as a financial partner... it was all or nothing. Not being on the 787 has really hurt pratt's chances on the A350, 747adv, etc.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6961 posts, RR: 63
Reply 2, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2202 times:

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 1):
Chevevert spun this a little.

A little?! Only the most grudging Airbus diehard would argue the 787 isn't on its way to a pretty impressive future and that GE and RR will reap the rewards for decades to come. Chevenert would have us believe that PW chose not to join the party. He seems to be kidding himself. If he isn't, then his shareholders ought to be calling for his resignation.

Had PW not "declined the oportunity" what would have happened? Did PW make the decision for Boeing by withdrawing? If so and if they hadn't withdrawn, who would Boeing have chosen out of the three?

I guess my understanding was that RR and GE made the cut but PW didn't. That was nice a simple to understand. What is Chevenert now trying to tell us? (Whatever it is it smells a bit fishy.)


User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13437 posts, RR: 100
Reply 3, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2141 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PM (Reply 2):
Did PW make the decision for Boeing by withdrawing? If so and if they hadn't withdrawn, who would Boeing have chosen out of the three?

No, it was still a "three horse race" when Pratt stonwalled at Boeing's demands for assistance in financing the 787.

By not going "fully to the plate" on the financial issue, Pratt did ruin its chances. But... to claim that Pratt had won on technical grounds goes way too far. At the time, the perceived risk on the 7E7 was very high.

Pratt dropped the ball. That's not to say they would have won the game, but Chevenert has spun this too far to claim that Pratt "was selected technically." Pratt was informed they had presented a good technical argument for their engine. However, there were still a few issues to be settled when Boeing dropped Pratt for being too stubborn in the negotiations.

Comments: It would have been nearly impossible for Boeing not to select RR unless RR had done a poor offer due to customer loyalty. Since the Trent 1000 technical and financial offer was well done... that left it to a GE/Pratt compition. With financing being part of the deal, GE pulled ahead.

Also, don't forget, that after the Pw2038, pw4172, pw4098, and pw6124 that Pratt's reputation for meeting technical promises wasn't what it used to be...
Pw2038: met TSFC, didn't meet turbine durability promise (1st commercial single crystal turbine blades)
Pw4172: Didn't happen, Pratt botched thrust upgrade from pw4168
pw4098: Famous for TSFC miss.
Pw6124: Famous for TSFC miss.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6961 posts, RR: 63
Reply 4, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2087 times:

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 3):
It would have been nearly impossible for Boeing not to select RR unless RR had done a poor offer due to customer loyalty.

Yes, before the decision was announced I heard that it would be RR plus one other. But why? RR have the smallest share of the widebody market - and certainly of the 767, the plane the 787 will mostly replace - so why did RR customers carry more weight than GE or PW? I also read somewhere that Boeing could not be seen to offer the 7E7 with only US engines? Again, why not? They offer the 777LR with only GE.

I'm still just intrigued as to why RR was in such a strong position on the 7E7/787 from the very start.


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...
Why Is Boeing Confident On 787 posted Thu Nov 23 2006 20:22:08 by SJCRRPAX
NYT Article On 787 BBJ And The Luxury Market posted Tue Oct 17 2006 17:33:55 by BWI757
Why No Winglets On 787! posted Sat Oct 7 2006 20:27:37 by Bringiton
FI: Boeing Focuses On 787 Weight Not Rate posted Tue Aug 15 2006 13:56:44 by Leelaw
No Smoking/Fasten Seat Belt/Lavatory Signs On 787 posted Mon Jul 10 2006 18:44:09 by 1337Delta764
Randy B. Comments On 787 Fuse, A380 Hiccups posted Sat Jun 24 2006 00:12:36 by Greaser
Why Only Two Engine Choices On 787 And A350? posted Tue Jun 20 2006 02:02:16 by 1337Delta764
Boeing Briefs Journalists On 787 Refinements posted Mon Jun 12 2006 19:54:28 by BoomBoom
Boeing Unveils Plans To Reduce Drag/Weight On 787 posted Mon Jun 12 2006 14:59:26 by Leelaw
Flug Revue Article On 787 & 350 posted Wed Jun 7 2006 20:28:36 by Joni