AirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 1906 posts, RR: 0 Posted (6 years 6 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 8517 times:
GE got exclusivity on the 77W, in return for investing in the programme. As the plane (and engine) have been a roaring success, both technically and commercially, I can see why GE must be happy.
Re Boeing, did they need to do this? Surely, by risksharing in this way, they are losing a share of the profits to GE unnecessarily?
For those of you, who say the programme was risky, surely the original 777 programme was the risky programme, a clean sheet plane, the largest twin ever, FBW etc was a major investment. An upgraded version with bigger engines (the stretch had already been done for the 773A model) doesn't sound too expensive to me, or risky, especially as they had sold lots of earlier versions already, so had a large base of likely customers...
it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
FlyDreamliner From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2759 posts, RR: 15 Reply 1, posted (6 years 6 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 8456 times:
When Boeing started development on 77W, they were not in the best place financially, the deal with GE insulated them against loss, should the plane flop. Moreover, I think the engine manufacturers and Boeing more or less knew that developing an engine for a single variant of a single model that would have no application to anywhere else in the market was not necessarily a good deal if you have to compete with someone else for that small of a market. Let's say 77W only sold a total of maybe 100 frames, if GE and RR both 50, that's 100 engines a piece, surely not a good deal after plowing the cash into developing the world's largest, most powerful, and efficient turbofan engine.
I am not certain Boeing fully foresaw 77W become as big of a success as it has. The other risk of course is whether or not airlines with all PW or RR fleets would buy the GE powered jet..... and of course, they have.
At the same time remember, Airbus gave exclusivity on A342 and A343 to CFM and on A345 and A346 to RR. Likewise Boeing has a deal like this with GE/CFM on 737. Boeing knows 737 will be a success. Boeing is also partnered financially with GE on Boeing Business Jets.
The one thing GE has on PW and RR is its financial and leasing arms. GECAS buys GE powered aircraft almost exclusively, and airlines who are financed by GE Capital find themselves buying GE powered aircraft often times as well. It sure wouldn't hurt Boeing to have things like that working in their favor.
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
AAFLT1871 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 2333 posts, RR: 16 Reply 2, posted (6 years 6 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 8435 times:
Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 1): The other risk of course is whether or not airlines with all PW or RR fleets would buy the GE powered jet..... and of course, they have.
Not AA. Sadly I do not think they will ever purchase a GE powered 777
N328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6222 posts, RR: 3 Reply 3, posted (6 years 6 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 8394 times:
Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 1): The one thing GE has on PW and RR is its financial and leasing arms.
Actually, Rolls-Royce does have such an arm. It's obviously nowhere near the big dog that is GECAS, though.
Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 1): GECAS buys GE powered aircraft almost exclusively, and airlines who are financed by GE Capital find themselves buying GE powered aircraft often times as well.
I think GECAS has been known to buy P&W and R-R airframes from time to time, but I am nowhere near authoritative on this. Anyone?
Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 1): It sure wouldn't hurt Boeing to have things like that working in their favor.
Boeing does have Boeing Capital. It used to deal in non-aircraft leases, but that unit was merged with GE Capital. Boeing Capital now only exists as an aircraft lessor at this point.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26697 posts, RR: 83 Reply 4, posted (6 years 6 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 8379 times:
Quoting AirbusA6 (Thread starter): GE got exclusivity on the 77W, in return for investing in the programme...did (Boeing) need to do this? Surely, by risk-sharing in this way, they are losing a share of the profits to GE unnecessarily?
When the 777X program was presented to the three current 777 engine manufacturers, all of them were somewhat unsure as to how successful the program would be.
Both GE and P&W demanded exclusive engine deals to offset what they felt was a risk that sales would be too low to spread it across two or three manufacturers. Only Rolls-Royce was willing to share the market, but GE and P&W refused to build their engine if RR was chosen.
So there was only going to be one engine supplier on the 777X program, period.
In the end, only GE was willing to put forward development money on the 777X itself. And that pretty much closed the deal for them.
Oznznut From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 153 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (6 years 6 months 1 day ago) and read 8271 times:
Please excuse my ignorance, but what the heck is a 77W? I know the 777-200/300 ER/LR versions. I have seen this reference (77W) several times, but didn't want to ask.
Thanks
Dave
Jfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 7343 posts, RR: 7 Reply 6, posted (6 years 6 months 23 hours ago) and read 8254 times:
A 777W is the 777-300ER, the most commom of the two 777X. The other is the 777-200LR. Just this week Korean Air ordered 10 773ER's, in Asia many airlines are repacing the 744 with it. JAL, ANA, Korean, Cathay, EVA and Singapore Airlines have ordered the twin beast, just look at those engines WOW. Air France is another large operator of the type with many earlier 777 too.
Brendows From Norway, joined Apr 2006, 1020 posts, RR: 4 Reply 7, posted (6 years 6 months 23 hours ago) and read 8211 times:
Quoting N328KF (Reply 3): I think GECAS has been known to buy P&W and R-R airframes from time to time, but I am nowhere near authoritative on this. Anyone?
Out of new orders from Boeing, counting a total of 333 orders from the 30th of August 1995 to the 27th of March 2006, 4 757-200s, ordered on the 13th of June 2000, had RR engines. The rest of the orders included CFM or GE engines.
If only the Airbus orders and deliveries website was as detailed as the one Boeing has...
AirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 1906 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (6 years 6 months 9 hours ago) and read 7993 times:
Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 1): When Boeing started development on 77W, they were not in the best place financially, the deal with GE insulated them against loss, should the plane flop. Moreover, I think the engine manufacturers and Boeing more or less knew that developing an engine for a single variant of a single model that would have no application to anywhere else in the market was not necessarily a good deal if you have to compete with someone else for that small of a market. Let's say 77W only sold a total of maybe 100 frames, if GE and RR both 50, that's 100 engines a piece, surely not a good deal after plowing the cash into developing the world's largest, most powerful, and efficient turbofan engine.
I am not certain Boeing fully foresaw 77W become as big of a success as it has. The other risk of course is whether or not airlines with all PW or RR fleets would buy the GE powered jet..... and of course, they have
Surely all of this applies to the original 777, after all the 90+k thrust requirements for the 772ER were exclusive to the 777, and indeed no other plane will match them until the A350-1000 in 10 years time! A far bigger investment, and risk.
Re the 77W, the 772ER healthily outsold the A343, so it was highly likely the 773ER would outsell the A346. Boeing must surely have seen (after all they were the proposers of downsizing and fragmentation) that the 773ER would be a fine replacement for many 744s.
Re RR, it looks like they (in not demanding a monopoly) realised the potential success of this plane more than GE and PW...
it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
Trex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 3970 posts, RR: 14 Reply 9, posted (6 years 6 months 5 hours ago) and read 7875 times:
did Airbus really give exclusivity to CFM (for the A342/3) and RR for the A345/6? IIRC the former was by circumstances beyond their control (like no one else had a product in that thrust range once the IAE Superfan died) and the latter was not a contractual exclusivity like the 77W and due solely to GEs refusal to develop new versions of the CF6 to compete.
Atmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 39 Reply 10, posted (6 years 6 months 1 hour ago) and read 7779 times:
Quoting Trex8 (Reply 9): latter was not a contractual exclusivity like the 77W and due solely to GEs refusal to develop new versions of the CF6 to compete.
Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 8): Re RR, it looks like they (in not demanding a monopoly) realised the potential success of this plane more than GE and PW...
Maybe GE did see it and that was why they were willing to put up development funds for the 777LR aircraft itself in return for profit sharing. And they get the added bonus of having RR stuck on the losing A340NG offering after wasting money developing a new engine for it. Another diabolical GE plot, eh PM?
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
RJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (6 years 6 months ago) and read 7727 times:
Quoting Trex8 (Reply 9): did Airbus really give exclusivity to CFM (for the A342/3) and RR for the A345/6? IIRC the former was by circumstances beyond their control (like no one else had a product in that thrust range once the IAE Superfan died) and the latter was not a contractual exclusivity like the 77W and due solely to GEs refusal to develop new versions of the CF6 to compete.
Yes correct on both counts. There nothing stopping another manufacturor joining the A340 today. Well, apart from perhaps common sense.
Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 10): And they get the added bonus of having RR stuck on the losing A340NG offering after wasting money developing a new engine for it.
It's a derivative of the Trent, which in itself is a derivative of the Rb211. And RR get to sell 4 copies every time Airbus sell an A340. I don't know where people are getting this idea that the T500 has cost RR?
FlyDreamliner From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2759 posts, RR: 15 Reply 12, posted (6 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 7607 times:
Quoting N328KF (Reply 3): Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 1):
GECAS buys GE powered aircraft almost exclusively, and airlines who are financed by GE Capital find themselves buying GE powered aircraft often times as well.
I think GECAS has been known to buy P&W and R-R airframes from time to time, but I am nowhere near authoritative on this. Anyone?
You are right, they have purchased a few PW and RR powered jets for clients, but by and large, if a GE engine is an option, with rare exception, that's what they get.
Quoting AAFLT1871 (Reply 2): Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 1):
The other risk of course is whether or not airlines with all PW or RR fleets would buy the GE powered jet..... and of course, they have.
Not AA. Sadly I do not think they will ever purchase a GE powered 777
Is that grudge still that strong? They have those 737-800s, CFM is basically GE.....
Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 8): Surely all of this applies to the original 777, after all the 90+k thrust requirements for the 772ER were exclusive to the 777, and indeed no other plane will match them until the A350-1000 in 10 years time! A far bigger investment, and risk.
The A350-1000 will hopefully not need engines as big as 777, as it should weigh less, and will take a generation newer of engines, likewise with the Y3.
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
Lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10668 posts, RR: 100 Reply 13, posted (6 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 7456 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 4): Both GE and P&W demanded exclusive engine deals to offset what they felt was a risk that sales would be too low to spread it across two or three manufacturers. Only Rolls-Royce was willing to share the market, but GE and P&W refused to build their engine if RR was chosen.
This is correct and entirely why Boeing went with GE.
They were given a choice.
Pratt exclusive.
GE exclusive...
or by default, a RR exclusive...
Pratt was out due to their PW4098 botch.
RR customers really liked their proposal and were very upset to see RR cancelled. Ok, they got over it...
GE came out with a great product. The engine the original GE-90 should have been. (The original GE-90 had a bunch of "gremlins". Problems now engineered out of the engine.)
Quoting Trex8 (Reply 9): did Airbus really give exclusivity to CFM (for the A342/3) and RR for the A345/6? IIRC the former was by circumstances beyond their control (like no one else had a product in that thrust range once the IAE Superfan died) and the latter was not a contractual exclusivity like the 77W and due solely to GEs refusal to develop new versions of the CF6 to compete.
Its quite common to give exclusive contracts. The 737NG has it, the A342/3 A345/6, 77W, MD-80, and many others. Where one gets non-exclusives is when you can use an existing engine (767) or there is so much interest that multiple engine makers are willing to commit (757/330/777/380).
That said, the added cost of the GE-90 isn't enough to slow the 77W sales. In fact, the added cost is probably less than the value of the simplified resale market.
However, the 787 is taking it to the next logical step. By being able to swap engines/nacelles rapidly... the resale market is going to be excellent. Not only that, RR and GE are going to improve their engines continuously. If they don't, an airline could cheaply swap to the other engine! I expect that to be rare unless one of the two engines is a lemon. But the possibility will be used in negotiations and it will eventually happen. Besides, the lessors are going to love it. For only a few million they can swap between the two airframes. Heck, its probalby going to be less as the secondary engine market for the 787 will be pretty liquid thanks to its high sales rate.
RayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7694 posts, RR: 5 Reply 14, posted (6 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 7433 times:
I think the reason why Boeing went with the GE90 for the 777-200LR/300ER because unlike the Trent 800 series and uprated PW4000 series, the GE90 sports an all-new design with great growth potential, necessary for the 115,000 lb. thrust used on the GE90-115B found on the 777-300ER. I sometimes wonder could Rolls-Royce been able to push the Trent 800 series engine to 115,000 lb. thrust reliably for the 777-300ER application.
RayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7694 posts, RR: 5 Reply 16, posted (6 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 7422 times:
Quoting Trex8 (Reply 15): IIRC GE were the only engine OEM who were willing to put their $ up for risk sharing on the 77W/L
Boeing went with GE Aero Engines because GE did put up quite a lot of money for the cost of developing the 777-200LR/300ER. I believe GE paid circa US$500 million towards the development cost.
RJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (6 years 5 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 7409 times:
Quoting RayChuang (Reply 14): I sometimes wonder could Rolls-Royce been able to push the Trent 800 series engine to 115,000 lb. thrust reliably for the 777-300ER application.
The Trent 8104 demonstrated 117,000lb thrust in testing and was actually the first engine to exceed 100klb.
Thanks to the triple spool design the Rb211 Trent has great thrust versatility. That said the GE90 is the most efficient 777 engine on the longer sectors due to it's good SFC but high weight. So it was the most logical choice for the longer range versions. Which worked out nicely becasue....
Quoting Trex8 (Reply 15): GE were the only engine OEM who were willing to put their $ up for risk sharing on the 77W/L
Laxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 22028 posts, RR: 51 Reply 18, posted (6 years 5 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 7373 times:
One more thing to consider from an airlines perspective, and probably why no airline has really cried foul about this deal is that both Boeing and GE committed to quite reasonable purchase price on the exclusive GE engine. In many cases I would venture to say better rates then what some airlines might have been able to negotiate on their own even with multiple engines competing. This has also been critical in allowing airlines to operate mixed fleet 777s, as the economics are quite compelling.
In addition having a single engine provided some minor engineering and production benefits by simplifying options and variance between airframes.
Overall, I would say exclusive engine deals along with other aircraft parts and features will become more and more common as manufacturers pursue lean production methods and as airlines look to reduce the complexity in options chosen.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26697 posts, RR: 83 Reply 19, posted (6 years 5 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 7335 times:
Quoting Laxintl (Reply 18): One more thing to consider from an airlines perspective, and probably why no airline has really cried foul about this deal is that both Boeing and GE committed to quite reasonable purchase price on the exclusive GE engine.
Also, "power by the hour" all-inclusive maintenance contracts helps non-GE shops add the GE90-11X series because they don't have to invest in spares and staff training.
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 1906 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2759 posts, 
From Norway, joined Apr 2006, 1020 posts, 
I expect that to be rare unless one of the two engines is a lemon. But the possibility will be used in negotiations and it will eventually happen. Besides, the lessors are going to love it. For only a few million they can swap between the two airframes. Heck, its probalby going to be less as the secondary engine market for the 787 will be pretty liquid thanks to its high sales rate.
Printer friendly format 
