WhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 4692 times:
Still there, and a major partner in IAE. Pratt and Whitney build military engines, service and support their existing products, and supply the PW4000 for the A330 being supplied to carriers with that option (NW and US are customers).
They had problems with their PW6000 engine for the A318 which caused them a lot of difficulty, and also with the larger PW4000 for the 777 at one point.
Nowadays they are a lead partner in International Aero Engines and build large portions of the V2500, as well as the new A380 GP7200 engine with GE in the Engine Alliance project.
PM From Namibia, joined Feb 2005, 7227 posts, RR: 63
Reply 2, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 4680 times:
This has been discussed many times. I'm not sure we can say there's anything "wrong" with PW engines but they've missed the boat (several boats) latterly.
What killed them was not making the cut for the 787. That meant they weren't even in the running for the 747-8 or the A350. GE wrapped up the 777-300ER/-200LR and RR have exclusivity on the A345/346. What does that leave PW?
It leaves them with dwindling sales of the PW4000 on a trickle of A300s, some 767s, some 747s, some A330s and some 777s. But the A300, 767 and 747 (i.e. 744) are on the way out soon and PW have been losing market share on the A330 and 777.
And the market knows it and PW find themselves with their backs to the wall. An example: Air China have long been a staunch PW customer and the PW4000 on the A330 is something of a success. So, when Air China chose an engine for their 20 A330s, that should have been an obvious PW sale. But Air China went for RR instead. Hard to see that happening unless Air China (to use that one example) feared they might be investing in a sinking ship. At the very least, buying RR Trent 700s could give them commonality with other Trents (900s? 1000s? 1700s?) down the road. A PW4000 purchase would be a dead end.
So in big civil engines PW have some life left in the PW4000 (though not for long, I suspect) and their share of the EA GP7000.
They've actually just announced healthy profits and their future certainly isn't in question. But in big fans the race is now between GE and RR.
Ducker From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 137 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 4576 times:
PWA wants to make money up front, not years later. They gave JT8's away when they enjoyed 100% of the aftermarket. PW is willing to lose commercial competetions in order to get their price. why drop $2B on a new engine program when the payback may be in 20 years? George David said something to the effect that if were to compete on the 7E7 again, they would quote it the same.
RR is giving engines away in order to gain market share. However, RR is only a jet engine maker, and is not necessarily expected to make the yields a conglomerate such as UTC and GE would demand. Agreed, RR hopes to get the lions share of the aftermarket sales, but when will the real profits start on the aftermarket sales?
As for GE, what do they have invested in the GE90 and GEN-X? $2B, $2.5B? They have to sell lots of engines to cover their huge investment. That explains the sole source for the 777-300ER/200LR.
PWA is okay, turning more into a military engine builder. UTC expects great margins from PW, not market share.
Lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 14788 posts, RR: 100
Reply 6, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 4475 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
You all didn't expect me to miss one of these threads, did you?
Quoting SQ773 (Thread starter): May be its just me, but I can hardly see any new aircraft powered by PW engines...Seems like RR and GE are the only playesrs when it comes to new aircrafts...
. Yes, I'll explain more later.
Quoting WhiteHatter (Reply 1): They had problems with their PW6000 engine for the A318 which caused them a lot of difficulty, and also with the larger PW4000 for the 777 at one point.
Basically pratt has missed too many promises in a row. While RR and GE have had major problems, they have been more proactive in fixing them. The big issues.
1. PW4062 compressor surge: requires more frequent overhauls or costs $$$
2. PW4172 botch. Customers *needed* this for the high gross weight A332/A333's. Since Pratt can only offer 68k, customers are forced to go elsewhere.
3. PW4098 fuel efficiency miss. 4% higher fuel burn than promise is not ok on any airframe, much less a longhaul airframe.
4. Pw6122/6124 miss in fuel burn. Grrr... one manager and his "what part of 5 stages in the HPC don't you understand" sunk an entire product line. Grrr...
5. PW2000 family turbine life at only 1/2 the takeoffs between overhauls vs. Promise (partially fixed with the latest turbine kit).
6. And we could even go back to the Jt9D having a horrid entry into service that destroyed the prior "Pratt glow."
Quoting PM (Reply 2): This has been discussed many times. I'm not sure we can say there's anything "wrong" with PW engines but they've missed the boat (several boats) latterly.
Sadly, Pratt missed a bunch, see above.
Quoting PM (Reply 2): o, when Air China chose an engine for their 20 A330s, that should have been an obvious PW sale.
Air China needed the range/payload only the 72k thrust level could provide. Hence the engine change. Otherwise, the Pratt's had a small advantage in TSFC... the pw4168 is a great engine! Pratt's best actually. But without a pw4172... no sale. In my opinion, the pw4168 is the best engine on the A330. But unless you can take the range/payload hit... it doesn't make sense for too many customers due to the lack of thrust.
Now, I shouldn't be so negative. The pw4090 is a great engine, just everyone wants 92k+ thrust today. The pw4062 burns the least fuel on the 744. And the pw2000 series has the lowest fuel burn on the 757. (It just was a hanger queen of an engine for its first decade. That cost way too many orders.)