Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
What's The Deal With Engine Choices?  
User currently offlineGlom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2820 posts, RR: 10
Posted (9 years 3 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4043 times:

How does having multiple engines benefit the airline? Why would an airline prefer one to the other for the same aircraft presumably doing the same job? If having engine choice is good, why has Boeing done so many exclusivity deals?

12 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineWrighbrothers From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 1875 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (9 years 3 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 4000 times:

Hi Glom

It's all about what the airline wants . For example , you can chose what engine or interior trim you have in your car . If airlines want a choice , Boeing offer a choice . And it depends on what they want , e.g. - SAY a P&W engine is more powerful ( more thrust ) but is less fuel efficient , that's great , but not all airlines want their whole fleet to have more fuel as this could lead to the aircraft being heavier and more UN-enviromentally friendly , so they might want some with a longer range , and some more fuel efficient for shorter range routes a routes over major cities , therefore less pollotion and smaller fuel bill . I hope this explanes all

Safe Flying !!  wave 



Always stand up for what is right, even if it means standing alone..
User currently offlineIRelayer From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 1073 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (9 years 3 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3993 times:

Loyalty is also a huge consideration. Most of CX's fleet use RR engines almost exclusively because of their obvious ties to each other (I believe they recently leases some 744's from SIA that are non RR, can anyone confirm?). So does BA for that matter, and Qantas. This has the side benefit of also being good business. CX can cut down on maintenence costs and training and their mx staff are experts with close ties to RR and they know what they are doing. Sometimes an inferior engine choice is offered to appease one customer...I believe UA 777's and NW's 753's and DC-10-40's are a good example...the P&W engines on these reduce performance on all three of these aircraft but these were what they wanted. I believe in the case of the 753's P&W compensates NW for the performance difference.

-IR


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (9 years 3 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3985 times:

Depends on the airline and what they want to use the aircraft (and the relative strengths of various engine choices) for.

VN is a great example:
  • They employ the cheaper/weaker PW4084 on their regional 772ERs... less performance, but less cost. That works great for them on those shorter routes.
  • They employ their much more powerful GE90-94B 772ERs for most of there intercontinental routes, and soon for their transpacific routes.



    As for exclusivity, that's usually a function of market demand, and the desires of the OEMs.

    For example, GE and PW didnt think the market was big enough for more than 1 manufacturer to compete for the longer range 777s. RR was the only one who did, but they didn't have an engine suitable to the thrust Boeing wanted within the time frame that it wanted them; and RR also didn't want to share in the direct investment for the model line. GE had/could do both of these, but would only do so if Boeing agreed to only use GE engines for the 700K.lb+ 777s. As a result, Boeing chose to grant GE exclusivity.

    Basically, the same thing happened with the 787, 'cept there was room for two OEMs instead of just one.

    [Edited 2005-07-27 20:55:38]

  • User currently offlineGlom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2820 posts, RR: 10
    Reply 4, posted (9 years 3 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3914 times:

    If different engines give different qualities to an aircraft, is that why the interchangeability of the 787 is so important?

    User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6491 posts, RR: 3
    Reply 5, posted (9 years 3 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3910 times:

    The ability to negotiate price, and keep innovation going through competition is another.


    When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
    User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 6, posted (9 years 3 months 2 days ago) and read 3905 times:

    Quoting Glom (Reply 4):
    If different engines give different qualities to an aircraft, is that why the interchangeability of the 787 is so important?

    Interchangeability allows the airline to conform the aircraft to whatever its prefered (or already-used) engine is; which saves the airline from additional costs, and increases the resale value of the aircraft.


    User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2014 posts, RR: 0
    Reply 7, posted (9 years 3 months 2 days ago) and read 3872 times:

    Politically it can be useful too, so that an airline worried about being seen to be too reliant on the US can specify RR engines, while can airline wanting to buy Airbus, but not offend the US too much can specify GE engines...

    During the 70s and 80s there was lots of pressure on BA to buy Airbuses, which it refused, but by specifying RR engines on its Boeings (742, 744, 757, 767) and L011, it could point to the British jobs being supported.



    it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
    User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6939 posts, RR: 63
    Reply 8, posted (9 years 3 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3733 times:

    Quoting Glom (Reply 4):
    Is that why the interchangeability of the 787 is so important?

    "So important"? Boeing are talking this up but I think the jury is still out on this one. Has any airline yet said that this was a decisive factor in their choice of the 787?


    User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12640 posts, RR: 46
    Reply 9, posted (9 years 3 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3695 times:
    Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

    Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 6):
    Quoting Glom (Reply 4):
    If different engines give different qualities to an aircraft, is that why the interchangeability of the 787 is so important?

    Interchangeability allows the airline to conform the aircraft to whatever its prefered (or already-used) engine is; which saves the airline from additional costs, and increases the resale value of the aircraft.

    That's the theory, but it will be interesting to see what happens in the real World.

    Having a choice of engine (for example on the A320 vs not on the 737) does give the airlines an extra area for negotiation and competition to drive prices down.



    Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
    User currently offlinePhollingsworth From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 825 posts, RR: 5
    Reply 10, posted (9 years 3 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3645 times:

    There are several engine properties that an airline will consider in the rational portion of their decision making process (lots of irrational factors also play in the decision making).

    Engine weight - Counts toward payload capability
    Engine thrust - Take-off performance (Higher T.O. weights for same runway length)
    Engine SFC/fuel burn - More range per fuel consumed
    Availability/reliability
    Cost to the airline (purchase & operating)

    Depending on the mission mix that the airline feels they are going to fly one specific combination of weight, thrust, and SFC will show more profitable for the airline. However, this only counts if the maintenance and costs are equal.

    Airlines, at least in the US, are legally required to make their decisions based upon what would maximize shareholder value. Of course when projecting out twenty, twenty-five years this is nearly impossible to determine. This means that cost can often drive the decision.

    An example thought experiment imagine an airline has negotiated an engine purchase price of $1.5 billion for a fleet from two manufacturers, deliveries starting 1 year from now. Along with this they have negotiated two mtc contracts for 20 years at the same price. To differentiate themselves one engine man offers a $5 million discount on the mtc contract. The other offers $95 million upfront. Which one, all other things remaining equal, would be the best choice for the airline? Obviously (for most discount rates) it is the $95 million discount upfront. As money today is worth more than money tomorrow. The discount rate that would make these two deals worthwhile is 0.49%. In almost all cases inflation alone will exceed this rate, let alone risk-free interest rates.


    User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2014 posts, RR: 0
    Reply 11, posted (9 years 3 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3617 times:

    Taking US airlines and the 777 (all including 772ER variants)

    AA and DL chose RR
    UA chose PW
    CO chose GE

    Presumably all made rational decisions, based on the business case, but came to different answers.



    it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
    User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6491 posts, RR: 3
    Reply 12, posted (9 years 3 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3553 times:

    Quoting PM (Reply 8):
    "So important"? Boeing are talking this up but I think the jury is still out on this one. Has any airline yet said that this was a decisive factor in their choice of the 787?


    I am guessing that the genesis for the interchangable engine concept is not the airlines themselves, but from the big leasing companies (except GECAS, of course) and the banks.

    On a side note, will the engines on the A350 be interchangable as well?



    When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
    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...
    What's The Deal With Z-ARL At EMA? posted Sun Oct 22 2006 21:32:00 by NoelG
    What's The Deal With These Pilot Seats? posted Wed Sep 27 2006 21:52:40 by Cumulus
    What's The Deal With FLG611A? posted Fri Jul 28 2006 05:32:38 by AlexPorter
    What's The Deal With This Picture? posted Wed Apr 5 2006 23:42:14 by SkyHigh777
    What's The Deal With Australian Airlines? posted Tue Apr 4 2006 01:43:13 by Bakestar
    What's The Deal With The Wright Amendment? posted Tue Jan 31 2006 20:48:13 by MrPhoo
    What's The Deal With GoJet Airlines? posted Wed Oct 5 2005 16:13:15 by WestIndian425
    What’s The Deal With That New ATC TV Commercial? posted Sun Jul 17 2005 22:25:08 by FlyingTexan
    What's The Deal With The Stands In This Pic? posted Wed Jun 29 2005 06:43:36 by ETStar
    What's The Deal With This Picture?! posted Sat Nov 6 2004 03:00:02 by JetBlast