PM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6888 posts, RR: 63 Posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks ago) and read 2947 times:
Moved by the very rare announcement of a new order for PW engines (today's announcement by Eurofly that they are leasing two more A330s), I was browsing the PW website and found this...
PW4000 100-inch fan engines have accumulated more than three million hours of revenue service and are the leading engine on the A330. The engine is built to provide maximum value and its success is reflected by its continued dominance in the A330 market.
PW have sold 163 A330s to airlines and RR 218. (GE have sold 131.)
PW have delivered 123 A330s and RR 151. (GE have delivered 100.)
I struggle to remember the last new customer PW signed for the A330 but it was surely several years ago. During that time, both GE and RR have chalked up several new customers each.
Interesting spin to suggest that this is "market dominance" but if it makes them feel better... It's also quite telling that the most recent press release they can find to put on the PW4000-100 page is from June 2002.
None of this matters much but the bottom line is that PW are claiming something on their website that isn't just marketing spin, it's simply not true!
Quite right....puffery, nothing more. Seems to me there's a couple of airframe manufacturers who indulge in a little bit of the blarney from time to time don't they? Not to mention the teevee commercial running here in the states with a woodchuck and a buncha animals cheering for GE's recent conversion to "green" technology. You saw through it....
All it proves is that there's more horse's asses than there are horses.
Scbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12499 posts, RR: 46
Reply 2, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks ago) and read 2886 times:
By your figures there's only 28 engines difference in the "in service" numbers. That represents, at best, 14 planes. It is entirely possible that the PW powered A330s have accumulated more flying hours than the RR ones. This could easily be true if more of the PW planes were flying earlier (if you see what I mean).
If they have the most flying hours, they can probably claim to be the "lead engine". For the time being anyway.
Lies, damned lies and statistics.
Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
PM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6888 posts, RR: 63
Reply 3, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks ago) and read 2829 times:
Quoting Scbriml (Reply 2): By your figures there's only 28 engines difference in the "in service" numbers. That represents, at best, 14 planes. It is entirely possible that the PW powered A330s have accumulated more flying hours than the RR ones. This could easily be true if more of the PW planes were flying earlier (if you see what I mean).
Absolutely and PW did have a good lead over RR in the early days. So, yes, I have no trouble accepting that they've accumulated more hours than the Trent 700 so far. But "...continued dominance in the A330 market."??? None of the three engine manufacturers can honestly claim "dominance" but RR have an appreciable lead in both orders and deliveries and have picked up many new customers in recent years whereas PW haven't really picked up any. It is stretching a point way beyond credibility for PW to pretend that they "dominate" the A330 market. At best they're whistling in the dark while their market share is in freefall.
Laxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25163 posts, RR: 46
Reply 6, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 2450 times:
Keep in mind that aircraft sold, does not neccasarily mean number of engines sold. Extra engines are always purchased to keep as spares, cover planned overhauls and such. In addition there are a few engine pools in the industry including a large one run by MTU covering the PW4000 engine for A330 operators.
Their claim could very well be true that PW as sold more PW engines for the A330 program then its competitors.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
PM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6888 posts, RR: 63
Reply 8, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2261 times:
Quoting Laxintl (Reply 6): Their claim could very well be true that PW as sold more PW engines for the A330 program then its competitors.
Yes, sure. Airlines buy spares as well as engines on the wing. But I presume that RR and GE operators buy more or less as many spares spares as PW operators. Then again, maybe not. So if RR have delivered 30-odd planes more than PW (i.e. 60 engines) but PW have sold more engines because of all the spares airlines need then it doesn't say much for their reliability!!!
Quoting Gigneil (Reply 7): I don't really get all the insistence that what these major faceless corporations put out in marketing is some sort of gospel.
No, but I think we are entitled to expect them not to put out plain untruths - or even to leave them on their website three years after they ceased to be true! If Airbus claimed that more A330s had been sold than 777s would we just shrug and put it down to corporate spin? If RR claimed that the RB211 was the most popular engine on the 767 would we smile and gently chide RR for bending the truth? I can't see by any stretch of the imagination how PW can claim to "continue" to "dominate" the A330 programme. At worst, it's a flat lie. At best, since it clearly isn't true, it calls into question every other assertion on their website. Either way, it doesn't reflect well on them. That's all.
Lemurs From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1439 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2082 times:
So here's the question...it looks like the last news item on the page for the PW4000-100 is from 2002. Who was the leader on the A330 family at that time? It's very easy for me to believe they haven't gone and updated this page since then. Chances are the webmaster just doesn't care, either. They'd need to get the PR folks to write up something new...it's a hassle for everyone, if anyone even bothered to look.
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those that don't.