Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
What's Going On At Pratt&Whitney's?  
User currently offlineYULWinterSkies From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2179 posts, RR: 5
Posted (8 years 5 months 23 hours ago) and read 6180 times:

Hi

I was thinking in terms of engine manufacturers, and it seemed to me that PW was left far behind in the most recently developed aircraft. The 773ER/772LR is GE, the 340NG is RR, the 737NG is CFM56 only.

The only well-selling modern airplane in which PW is involved are the 777 and the 330 (in which PW has a good market share), and the 320 via the IAE consortium. The only aircraft in development in which PW is involved is the A380 (again, in a joint venture).
What is the market share of PW in the 777 ? The only big customer in my mind is UA, most the other major players are RR (BA, AA, SQ, CX) or GE (AF, KL, DL, CO). Who else has PW on 777s? Are there PW-powered 777s on order at the moment?

What is the opinion here about the future of PW? No 787 at all, no 748 seemingly, the A318 does not sell well... Will they get involved in the 350?

That looks like a pessimistic future to me...

Or am I missing something?


When I doubt... go running!
25 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16865 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (8 years 5 months 22 hours ago) and read 6152 times:

They are heavily involved in Major Military projects,

Pratt powers the following Military Aircraft still in production:

Boeing C-17, F-22A, F-35.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineDuff44 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 1723 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (8 years 5 months 22 hours ago) and read 6115 times:

First post for yours truly!!!  Smile

I'm newly hired at P&W directly (after doing contract for 10 months) doing drafting/modeling stuff, and everything seems pretty good to me so far!

C17 uses the F117 (a military PW2000)
F22 uses the F119
F35 uses the F135

Glad to be seated with my seat belt fastened and tray table in it's upright and locked position!



I'll rassle ya for a bowl of bacon!
User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6914 posts, RR: 63
Reply 3, posted (8 years 5 months 18 hours ago) and read 6000 times:

Quoting YULWinterSkies (Thread starter):
What is the market share of PW in the 777 ?

In the early years of the programme they were running away with the 777 but nowadays PW are down to about a 21% share. You mention UA but other large PW operators include All Nippon, JAL, Korean, Asiana and Air China.

PW has delivered 151 777s and there are up to another twenty on order.

Quoting YULWinterSkies (Thread starter):
most the other major players are RR (BA, AA, SQ, CX) or GE (AF, KL, DL, CO).

Correction: BA has both GE (27) and RR (16) and DL has RR, not GE.

On the A330 PW has about a 29% share.

There has been several threads over the past year on the rapid decline of PW in the civil market but here's a jaw-dropping statistic: last year Boeing sold 457 widebodies. Of these, just 3 (three) were PW-powered.


User currently offlineNDSchu777 From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 419 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (8 years 5 months 17 hours ago) and read 5944 times:

Back in the day, Pratt dominated the commercial market. The JT8D was sole-source on the 727, 737-100/200, DC-9 and MD-80. The JT9D had success on the early 747's as did the PW4000 on later 747's, the 767, and 777. The PW2000 was also installed on the 757.

However the past 10 years or so have not been kind to PW. First, several new projects of theirs were not successful. The PW4098 on the 777-300 had a higher than promised SFC performance. The PW6000 had similar issues on the A318 and had to be taken back to the drawing board and delayed for a while, only to reemerge recently almost too late on a moderately successful airplane. The geared-turbofan PW8000 was not convincing enough for Boeing and thus it appears to have been locked out of the wide body market for at least a decade or so. (There is no indication of PW developing an engine for the A350).

On top of all this, PW's installed base has been shrinking rapidly since 9/11 when older inefficient airplanes like 727's, DC-9's, etc have been retired like crazy. The only moderate success they seem to be having are on engines that are joint ventures like the V2500 on the A320 with IAE and the GP7200 on the A380 with Engine Alliance. Another sign that Pratt's struggling can be shown by the fact they are entering the PMA parts business, reverse engineering and selling parts on a competitive engine, the CFM56.

Like mentioned in the thread's above, Pratt is doing very successful on the Military side, but is really struggling on the commercial side. The next big opportunity on the horizon for them to get back in the game is on the successors to the 737 and A320. That is a huge market to have and it will be interesting to see if Pratt will regroup and put a lot of effort into capturing this market, whether it be alone or with IAE. That seems to be the only hope in the near future, so it will be interesting to see what happens in the up coming years with that.


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 5, posted (8 years 5 months 16 hours ago) and read 5933 times:

Quoting YULWinterSkies (Thread starter):
Will they get involved in the 350?

No, the A350 engines are derivatives of the B787 engines. The A350 is not expected to sell enough to warrant development of an engine just for that market.

Quoting YULWinterSkies (Thread starter):
That looks like a pessimistic future to me...

Or am I missing something?

PW's big opportunity is the upcoming single-aisle market -- the Airbus NSR and B737RS. A GTF from PW could do very, very well in this market.


User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9637 posts, RR: 52
Reply 6, posted (8 years 5 months 14 hours ago) and read 5825 times:

It seems that the business model for Pratt & Whitney has moved away from commercial airplanes. P&W has a history of strong innovation. They have built things first that no one thought could be done. This makes the company ideal to go after military contracts where pure performance are key numbers. On the other hand airlines care more about reliability and efficiency and less so on pure performance. There are numbers out there that show the reliability rates of P&W compared to other engine manufacturers. A lot of this has to do with operating temperatures and other components.

It is just a case of which manufacture specializes in which technology. Pratt developed the early jet engines, but now as efficiency is dominant, RR and GE are gaining. RR use to be on the brink of failure in the 70s while PW was successful. It is just changing around of the market. GE, PW, and RR are all stable companies nowadays.

Quoting Duff44 (Reply 2):
I'm newly hired at P&W directly (after doing contract for 10 months) doing drafting/modeling stuff, and everything seems pretty good to me so far!

Congratulations on getting hired. United Technologies is a good company to work for.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineDeltaDC9 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 2844 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (8 years 5 months 12 hours ago) and read 5742 times:

Quoting YULWinterSkies (Thread starter):
Or am I missing something?

As mentioned above, they have fallen behind the curve in commercial airliners, but rule the roost in the military arena. I think they might be poised for a comeback though.

The engine for the F-35 is the single most powerful engine ever developed for a fighter jet. It is a very impressive achievment and they will sell boatloads.

The F-22 engines are also quite superior to anything that preceeds them. Reliable vectoring, supercruise, and lower maintenance. All this took me by surprise and I follow military aviation much closer than civilian.

Obviously they have some serious expertise going on there.



Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
User currently offlineF14D4ever From United States of America, joined May 2005, 319 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (8 years 5 months 11 hours ago) and read 5670 times:

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 6):
P&W has a history of strong innovation. They have built things first that no one thought could be done.

They have arguably less history of innovation in the gas turbine realm than GE. Years if not decades before Pratt ever uttered the words 'gas turbine', GE was building turbosuperchargers. The J-79 was the first variable stator machine. Adding an aft fan to the J79, they were the first to put a turbofan into commercial service in the form of the CJ805-23, ahead of Pratt's (admittedly superior) JT3D. More recently, there was the GE36 Unducted (and aero coupled, not geared) Fan (tm) engine. Contemporary with that development program there was the Advanced Tactical Fighter Engine competition for the F-22. General Electric's offering, the variable cycle GE37 / YF120, was more innovative than Pratt's YF119.

In Pratt's column we can tally the clever use of two spools in the revolutionary J57. I'll leave it to the P&W loyalists to add to that tally.

Pratt has obviously been successful, and their products have been for the most part top-shelf, but within the context of innovation, I beg you to reconsider your statement.



"He is risen, as He said."
User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9637 posts, RR: 52
Reply 9, posted (8 years 5 months 10 hours ago) and read 5619 times:

Quoting F14D4ever (Reply 8):
Pratt has obviously been successful, and their products have been for the most part top-shelf, but within the context of innovation, I beg you to reconsider your statement.


Sorry that I sound a little excessively in favor of Pratt, but I work for one of their sister companies, so I most of my knowledge about Pratt comes from PR material that I have read. Pratt does have a history of innovation, and is a very successful company. I've never been to Connecticut or any other Pratt & Whitney facility.

I am well aware of what GE does and can do. They produce incredible products.

[Edited 2006-04-21 16:33:41]


If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineRainmaker From Brazil, joined Jan 2006, 115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (8 years 5 months 10 hours ago) and read 5606 times:

I know it's a bit off-topic but how does PWC fit into the big United Technologies' picture? Does PWC and P&W share a common engineering pool? Any complimentary business strategy?

If P&W is slowly leaving the commercial engines market, PW Canada is delving deeper on small turbofans. Two major manufacturers have chosen them for their VLJ programs: Embraer and Cessna. It sounds like PWC runs head tohead with Williams at this segment as least.


User currently offlineF14D4ever From United States of America, joined May 2005, 319 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (8 years 5 months 5 hours ago) and read 5467 times:

Quoting Rainmaker (Reply 10):
It sounds like PWC runs head to head with Williams at this segment as least.

And GE/Honda are joining the battle with the new HF118.



"He is risen, as He said."
User currently offlineYULWinterSkies From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2179 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 5330 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 3):
Correction: BA has both GE (27) and RR (16) and DL has RR, not GE.

Thanks PM for your corrections but are you sure BA has mostly GE? I thought they had GEs only on the earliest built 777s (5-6) and all the rest of the fleet was RR (G-ZZZx are GE, G-YMMx and G-VIIx are RR)



When I doubt... go running!
User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6914 posts, RR: 63
Reply 13, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 5319 times:

Quoting YULWinterSkies (Reply 12):
(G-ZZZx are GE, G-YMMx and G-VIIx are RR)

There's your mistake: G-VIIx are GE. Hope that helps.


User currently offlineBond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5417 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 5209 times:

Quoting Rainmaker (Reply 10):
Two major manufacturers have chosen them for their VLJ programs: Embraer and Cessna. It sounds like PWC runs head tohead with Williams at this segment as least.

..and it's not just VLJ's, but P&W are huge in business/corporate market. They have delivered around 6,000 JT15s for the Cessna Citations, Raytheon Beechjets, etc.

Also, let's not forget the PT6...still going!


Jimbo



I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
User currently offline1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6532 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 5172 times:

PW could work together with RR, MTU, and JAEC as IAE for a new engine for the Boeing 737RS/Airbus NSR. However, for Pratt working alone, they could have a chance for Y3.


The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlineMarkC From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 259 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4993 times:

As stated above, commercial is just one side of the business.

PW chose not to compete for the 737-300 (which they regret), and for the 787 (which they may or may not). Rolls and GE were making deals on the 787 which would have made it very difficult for PW to make money. Its also a question of resources. A company can only take on so many developmental projects at once. It takes a lot of front money for an engine program. Its not unusual for payback for a commercial program to start after 15 - 20 years. You take a big risk, and its somewhat at the mercy of how well the airframer does. Military is a little different, as they pay for the development and the engines separately, and they usually know the quantities up front.

There have almost been as many F117 engines made as commercial 2000's, and those are still in production. PW is also making F119's, and is devoting a lot of resources into the F135.

By the time the 737 and A320 replacements come around, PW will have a lot of resources to commit to it.


User currently offline1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6532 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4987 times:

Quoting MarkC (Reply 16):
By the time the 737 and A320 replacements come around, PW will have a lot of resources to commit to it.

I know that CFM has talked about a new engine for the 737RS/Airbus NSR. Has anything about a new engine been mentioned by IAE? I really don't think Pratt will work solo on an engine for those new aircraft.



The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlineWjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5162 posts, RR: 22
Reply 18, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4959 times:

Quoting MarkC (Reply 16):
PW chose not to compete for ... the 787 ...

You know, I could have sworn that I read an article while flying one day, maybe in Business Week or Forbes or whatever, about Pratt's then-new chief of something executive, and how he was reaching out as never before to airline customers, imposing discipline and energy in the ranks, and really making a go at turning around the commercial business. It was a very upbeat article, and one thing that I'm sure it focused on was the 787 and how they were fighting to be one of (two?) engine manufacturers who would be chosen by Boeing to do a final competition. Maybe I'm crazy, but it seemed like he was working real hard to get on the 787, talking about overcoming the arrogance of the past, etc. Sounded like a great boss and a great salesman. I remember being disappointed for him when I thought that I heard that Pratt didn't make the cut.

Am I just remembering this complely wrong?


User currently offlineMarkC From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 259 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 4916 times:

WJC, maybe it was, but PW was heavily involved with the F119/135 (and maybe a little PW6000) at the same time as a commitment for the 787 engine would have been needed. Its hard to believe the resources would be available to start a whole new commercial project at that time. Like I said, commercial is a gamble. Its like poker, if you are faced with a raise and re-raise from two opponents, it might be correct to fold even if you have a good hand.

1337, I don't know. It would be a lot of engines, but that's been done before.


User currently offlineWjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5162 posts, RR: 22
Reply 20, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4872 times:

Quoting MarkC (Reply 19):
Its hard to believe the resources would be available to start a whole new commercial project at that time. Like I said, commercial is a gamble.

Your posts are very insightful. I did a little research, and although I didn't find the article that I think I read, I came up with this article from Flight Global, quoting Steve Heath, who I think was the guy quoted in the article that I read about the 787. This Flight Global article seems to imply that we were both right: one the one hand, they really wanted the 787 business, and offered a newly-developed engine to Boeing, but were shot down; on the other hand, the parent company said that while the 787 was a "must win", it was not a "must win at any cost" (which supports your point and may be partly why the offering was rejected).

In any event, the article, from late November 2005, goes into significant detail about the company's plans to make money from (1) maintaining their huge installed base by expanding the MRO and parts business; (2) doing MRO on other people's engines (i.e. the CFM); (3) supporting the continued use of the JT8D by developing a hushkit for the MD80 that goes to Stage IV; (4) continuing to promote the PW4000; (5) making a little money from the PW6000, which they still think is a good, viable product that will sell in the long-run; (6) continuing to promote the V2500, in which it is a partner, which is doing "very well"; (7) taking half of the A380 engine business with its partnership in the GP7200. Pretty upbeat article, here: http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...n/177/203078/Back+in+the+game.html

Hope this helps.


User currently offlineFLALEFTY From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 468 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4827 times:

I've been wondering why Pratt is not pushing AA and DL to re-engine their vast, MD-80 fleets with PW-6000s. The size (small enough for the 318) and thrust (21K to 23K) seem about right. These engines would meet Stage IV. And their SFC should be close to 73Gs and A319s.

The MD-80 airframe is a tough customer and can be economically renovated (see NW with their DC-9s). I'm guessing that the re-engining and airframe updates could be done for less than $20M per frame - far less than the $40M to $60M for a new 73G/738 or 319/320.

Just a thought.........


User currently offlineDuff44 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 1723 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4810 times:

Quoting FLALEFTY (Reply 21):
The MD-80 airframe is a tough customer and can be economically renovated (see NW with their DC-9s). I'm guessing that the re-engining and airframe updates could be done for less than $20M per frame - far less than the $40M to $60M for a new 73G/738 or 319/320

On the flip side of that, would it be worth dropping $20 million into a plane that is at the earliest is in the middle of it's useful life?  scratchchin 

That said, if it turns out to be worth it, and as a proud P&W employee, I'd love to see it Big grin



I'll rassle ya for a bowl of bacon!
User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6914 posts, RR: 63
Reply 23, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 4761 times:

Quoting MarkC (Reply 16):
PW chose not to compete ... for the 787

That's simply not true. They badly wanted to be on the 787.

Quoting MarkC (Reply 19):
PW was heavily involved with the F119/135 (and maybe a little PW6000) at the same time as a commitment for the 787 engine would have been needed. Its hard to believe the resources would be available to start a whole new commercial project at that time.

GE and RR had just as many simultaneous projects and managed it.

Quoting Wjcandee (Reply 20):
In any event, the article, from late November 2005, goes into significant detail about the company's plans to make money

Notice the date of the article. There's an element here of putting a brave face on their rapidly dwindling civil sales and attempting to regroup. To suggest that this was a calculated retreat from the potentially risky business of building new civil engines is disingenuous.

PW aren't about to go bust. They have robust military sales and PWC remains healthy. Moreover, as noted in the recent article, they have plenty of ways left to make money.

But that's the point. Deliberately or not, their focus now is on making $$$, not on making civil engines. Nothing wrong with that (especially if you're a shareholder) but a bit sad that they have effectively dropped out of the civil market except through joint ventures.

Quoting PM (Reply 3):
here's a jaw-dropping statistic: last year Boeing sold 457 widebodies. Of these, just 3 (three) were PW-powered.

Here's another. So far in 2006 Airbus and Boeing combined have sold 92 widebodies. Just one has PW engines (a 767). Under its own name PW now has about a 1% share of the widebody market.


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 24, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 4753 times:

Quoting MarkC (Reply 16):
PW chose not to compete ... for the 787

My recollection is that PW competed for the B787 business but Boeing rejected the PW proposal as too advanced i.e. too risky in favor of more conservative offerings from GE and RR.


User currently offlineF14D4ever From United States of America, joined May 2005, 319 posts, RR: 4
Reply 25, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 4700 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 24):
My recollection is that PW competed for the B787 business but Boeing rejected the PW proposal as too advanced i.e. too risky in favor of more conservative offerings from GE and RR.

Engineers who examined the Pratt offering say that its projected performance simply didn't measure up to that of the GE and RR offerings.

Can you tell us what aspects of the Pratt offering were risky? Materials? Configuration?



"He is risen, as He said."
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...
Google Maps: What's Going On At PAE? posted Wed Jan 11 2006 05:07:26 by N328KF
What's Going On At LBA? posted Fri Dec 30 2005 18:06:12 by SQNo1
What's Going On At SEA? posted Sat Dec 3 2005 18:27:54 by Flybynight
What's Going On At IAD posted Thu May 19 2005 22:41:46 by Scott0305
What Going On At EWR posted Tue Aug 31 2004 06:34:51 by Sdkualeb
What's Going On At RSW posted Thu Apr 22 2004 05:00:45 by Iflyorl
What's Going On At FLL posted Mon Mar 22 2004 22:47:17 by KevOC3
What's Going On At SQ? posted Sun Sep 7 2003 12:15:51 by Singapore 777
What's Going On At KUL? posted Tue Apr 8 2003 23:41:32 by OdiE
What's Going On At Bmi? posted Mon Feb 17 2003 20:54:52 by Britair