Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
No GP7000 For A350XWB-1000  
User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6937 posts, RR: 63
Posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 4356 times:

ATWOnline are announcing today that GE have ruled out the GP7000 as a powerplant for the A350XWB-1000.

http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=8150

Interesting that the announcement comes from GE rather than the Engine Alliance. I wonder if PW are happy with this.

And it seems that talks between Airbus and GE to put the GEnx on the A350-800/-900 are still some way from agreement.

Looks like RR will have the A350-1000 all to itself.

37 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21544 posts, RR: 59
Reply 1, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 4325 times:

Quoting PM (Thread starter):
Looks like RR will have the A350-1000 all to itself.

Why can't PW build their own engine? Is there some restriction on thrust? Can't PW enter a full range of engines if they choose?



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6937 posts, RR: 63
Reply 2, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 4303 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 1):
Why can't PW build their own engine? Is there some restriction on thrust? Can't PW enter a full range of engines if they choose?

I should imagine that Airbus would be happy to talk to PW about it and I've no doubt that PW could design and build such an engine but it seems unlikely. PW have been cautious about designing engines for new models (starting with the A340-500/-600 if not sooner) and the A350XWB must still be seen as quite a gamble.

It seems out of the question that PW would propose an engine solely for the -1000 so unless Airbus want to offer three engines on the A350 range (and I'm sure they don't) then GE would need to be knocked out of the picture before there's room for PW.

Airlines have apparently said that they want an engine choice on the A350. RR are signed up but Airbus may have trouble finding a second supplier.


User currently offlineLH452 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 42 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4199 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 1):
Why can't PW build their own engine?

If P&W couldn't get their business case to close on the B787, they are definitely not going to be able to do it on the A350 XWB.

Since airlines demand an engine choice, it seems to me that GE is in a pretty good negotiation position. Even if GE officially is saying that they will not develop an engine for the A350-1000, they have plenty of time to change their minds.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21544 posts, RR: 59
Reply 4, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4178 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 2):
Airlines have apparently said that they want an engine choice on the A350. RR are signed up but Airbus may have trouble finding a second supplier.

Yes, and GE has their hands full with the 787, 777 LR series, 748, future 767/777 tanker, and the 737NG and 737RS engines they are involved in.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6937 posts, RR: 63
Reply 5, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4135 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 4):
future 767/777 tanker

For what it's worth, PW were actually chosen for the aborted 767 tanker programme.


User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4108 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 4):
Yes, and GE has their hands full with the ... 777 LR series, 748,

Of which GE are the sole engine suppliers, which doesnt sit well with :-

Quoting LH452 (Reply 3):

Since airlines demand an engine choice, it seems to me that GE is in a pretty good negotiation position.

If Airlines can sit fine with the 777-300 series being single manufacturer supplied, then the A350-1000 should also be OK.


User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12623 posts, RR: 46
Reply 7, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 4065 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting LH452 (Reply 3):
Since airlines demand an engine choice

Airlines might prefer to have a choice of engines, but the lack thereof doesn't seem to have had any impact on the sales of 772LR, 773ER, A345, A346 or 748.

If airlines want a particular plane, the lack of an engine choice is a poor reason not order it.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6937 posts, RR: 63
Reply 8, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 4025 times:

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 7):
Airlines might prefer to have a choice of engines, but the lack thereof doesn't seem to have had any impact on the sales of 772LR, 773ER, A345, A346 or 748.

Or the 737 for that matter!  Wink


User currently offlineBoeing767-300 From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 660 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3963 times:

Quoting PM (Thread starter):
And it seems that talks between Airbus and GE to put the GEnx on the A350-800/-900 are still some way from agreement.

Looks like RR will have the A350-1000 all to itself.

If ever the term "Pie in the Sky" seem appropriate it is now with the A350-1000. On e could argue that the A350 XWB is still miles from being frozen in design. Since the big SQ announcement the game keeps changing from panels to barrels and so forth.

I suspect that the lack of announcements and orders (SQ included) means that the engineers are having trouble trying to match Leahy's glossy brochure. Apart from FinnAir who seem to have 'screwed' Airbus into honouring the original A350 version 6 price there has been a distinct lack of progress in the orders department.

With the delay in Boeing launching the 787-10 I believe is because they are waiting for Airbus to freeze the design. I also think that Boeing are finding it difficult to achieve the -10 objectives with around 245T MTOW and a four wheel main bogie. I suspect Airbus are also struggling in 'matching' the 787 let alone beating it.

The problem for Airbus is how do they tackle the the physical uplift and size of a 773 with only a 4 wheel main gear and somewhere around 250T MTOW.

The Airbus cheerleaders on this site have always proclaimed that the A350-1000 will slaughter the 77W for range and payload. I would like to know how. Maybe the A350 will have 6 wheel main gear and much larger than planned engines and a MTOW approaching the 340 odd ton of 77W and therefore even longer delay and cost to EIS

I find it very interesting that GE are not particularly interested in the A350 (particularly) the stretch 1000 version.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 4):
Yes, and GE has their hands full with the 787, 777 LR series, 748, future 767/777 tanker, and the 737NG and 737RS engines they are involved in.

This appears quite logical but there is no doubting that GE and Boeing have become quite close. Is GE taking a calculated risk not to enter or are their hands too full as mentioned above.

Did Boeing have some sort of agreement regarding the GE 90-115B that it cannot be used on anything else.

It all comes back to Airbus trying to compete with the 777/787 combo with the one aircraft. Perhaps they should have slapped Trent 1000s and GEnx on the A330 and developed a twin engined competitor to tackle C market 777s which are killing Airbus A345/6 sales.

PM RR being the sole supplier will be great for RR but not the Airlines as the market will lack the competitive contests to supply powerplants which obviously bring the price down.

Interesting times ahead.... when was SQ supposed to sign??.... maybe when their lawyers have finished with the performance guarantee part of the contract........  scratchchin 


User currently offlineDanny From Poland, joined Apr 2002, 3514 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3954 times:

Quoting LH452 (Reply 3):
Since airlines demand an engine choice,

A myth imo. The best selling aircraft in the history 737 has no engine choice.


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 11, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3910 times:

Quoting PM (Thread starter):
Interesting that the announcement comes from GE rather than the Engine Alliance.

The 350 Trents appear not to have been fully defined, which make me wonder if they will not come in quite a bit ahead of the T1000s? The 787 Trents have been running for ?about a year while RR do not seem to have finalized the configuration for the T-XWBs - or am I not reading the RR site correctly?


User currently offlineSolnabo From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 854 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3866 times:

Maybe the GP7000 engine are outdated when A350-1000 EIS, who knows..

Btw, I didn´t know that Boeing have monopoly on engine manufactures

Micke//   

[Edited 2007-03-08 11:21:39]


Airbus SAS - Love them both
User currently offlineLH452 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 42 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3826 times:

Quoting Danny (Reply 10):
A myth imo. The best selling aircraft in the history 737 has no engine choice.

Do you seriously believe that Boeings successor to the 737 will be offered with only one engine.


User currently offlineDanny From Poland, joined Apr 2002, 3514 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3806 times:

Quoting LH452 (Reply 13):
Do you seriously believe that Boeings successor to the 737 will be offered with only one engine.

We know very little about next generation engines for narrow-bodies so it is to early to call. My point is an aircraft can sell very well with 1 engine available only - ie 737 or 773.


User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3806 times:

Quoting Baroque (Reply 11):
The 350 Trents appear not to have been fully defined, which make me wonder if they will not come in quite a bit ahead of the T1000s?

Well its unlikely that they will not be a further development of the 787 trents.


User currently offlineLH452 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 42 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 3773 times:

Quoting Danny (Reply 14):
My point is an aircraft can sell very well with 1 engine available only - ie 737 or 773.

I don't disagree, however from a customer point of view it's always better to have a choice.


User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6937 posts, RR: 63
Reply 17, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 3765 times:

Quoting Boeing767-300 (Reply 9):
M RR being the sole supplier will be great for RR

Possibly, but only if the A350 itself is a success. And that's still far from being a given. Having de facto exclusivity on the A345/A346 hasn't been a huge moneyspinner for RR.  Sad

Quoting LH452 (Reply 13):
Do you seriously believe that Boeing's successor to the 737 will be offered with only one engine.

Well, the successor to the 737-300/-400/-500 has only one engine and it has been widely rumoured that Boeing only wanted one engine on the 787. I wouldn't rule it out.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 11):
The 350 Trents appear not to have been fully defined, which make me wonder if they will not come in quite a bit ahead of the T1000s?

Being so far behind the 787 and especially the GE90s on the 777LRs, RR and Airbus must come up with some winning cards if they really want to beat Boeing. The Trent 500 was no great development of previous engines and Airbus (and RR) are paying the price. RR really need to pull some rabbits out of their hat this time.


User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 3664 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 17):
Quoting LH452 (Reply 13):
Do you seriously believe that Boeing's successor to the 737 will be offered with only one engine.

Well, the successor to the 737-300/-400/-500 has only one engine and it has been widely rumoured that Boeing only wanted one engine on the 787. I wouldn't rule it out.

I would not be surprised to see just one CFM56 based engine choice


User currently offlineBoeing767-300 From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 660 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3651 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 17):
The Trent 500 was no great development of previous engines and Airbus (and RR) are paying the price.

You are not wrong there PM. As a RR fan you are very aware that the Trent 500 is a disappointment when compared to the rest of the Trent Family and in particular A330 and 772 RR powerplants.

As for the GE 90-115B that performed way above what anyone would have expected in terms of reliability and efficiency.

We may see in the future with the A350-1000 a glimpse of what the Trent 8104 might have been had RR got onto the "C" market 777s.

Quoting PM (Reply 17):
RR really need to pull some rabbits out of their hat this time.

I suspect that with similar twin engine airframes that the differences between Trent 1000 and GEnx will not be as great as between GE 90-115B and Trent 500. Actually PM despite GE picking up QF for 787 powerplants I expect GE and RR to maintain the same sort of similar "duopoly" that Airbus and Boeing have now.........


User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6937 posts, RR: 63
Reply 20, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3469 times:

Quoting Boeing767-300 (Reply 19):
Actually PM despite GE picking up QF for 787 powerplants I expect GE and RR to maintain the same sort of similar "duopoly" that Airbus and Boeing have now.........

I would have been more confident had QF gone for RR and closed the gap. As it is, it'll take a while for RR to claw their way back. SQ choosing RR (if they do) will be a start...


User currently offlineLH452 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 42 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3430 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 17):
Well, the successor to the 737-300/-400/-500 has only one engine and it has been widely rumoured that Boeing only wanted one engine on the 787. I wouldn't rule it out.

I wouldn't rule anything out, but I believe there very specific reasons behind IAE's decision not put the V25 on the 737NG. Boeing was very clear on that wanted two engines on the 787 based on lessons learned from the initial 777, where the airlines had three options. It did not make economical sense for the engine companies.


User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6937 posts, RR: 63
Reply 22, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3393 times:

Quoting LH452 (Reply 21):
I believe there very specific reasons behind IAE's decision not put the V25 on the 737NG

It was touted for a while but never happened. My understanding is not that IAE "decided" not to put the V2500 on the 737NG but that Boeing wouldn't have them.

Quoting LH452 (Reply 21):
Boeing was very clear on that wanted two engines on the 787 based on lessons learned from the initial 777, where the airlines had three options. It did not make economical sense for the engine companies.

Yes and no. What they were "clear" about was not wanting three engines. That doesn't mean they were all that keen on two.


User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 23, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3375 times:

Quoting LH452 (Reply 21):
Boeing was very clear on that wanted two engines on the 787 based on lessons learned from the initial 777, where the airlines had three options. It did not make economical sense for the engine companies.

Boeing considered one, but airlines objected.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3352 times:

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 23):
Quoting LH452 (Reply 21):
Boeing was very clear on that wanted two engines on the 787 based on lessons learned from the initial 777, where the airlines had three options. It did not make economical sense for the engine companies.

Boeing considered one, but airlines objected.

Is objected the right word? I cant see airlines objecting to having another option available to them on the 787, it could even give them a reason for further discounts on the engines! They probably just did not have much interest. How many airlines have ordered 787s that dont have GE or RR on their 767s?


25 Atmx2000 : Boeing considered having one engine manufacturer only. They were told no by the airlines.[Edited 2007-03-08 15:41:03]
26 Post contains images SCAT15F : One thing is for sure- P&W has got to get on the ball with a next generation replacement for the PW-4000 series if it plans to be competitive with GE
27 EI321 : Isnt the GP7200 based on the GE90 with a 4000 fan?
28 Areopagus : P&W has said that it is concentrating on recovering its position in narrowbody engines, and will not pursue the A350.
29 Lemurs : If Pratt is really as far along with the Geared Turbofan as they've been saying, and they can bring the product to market quickly, they will own the n
30 Laxintl : Maybe not.. To date both manufacturers have done a good job with their exclusive engine choices. By only offering a single choice, manufactures have
31 Post contains images Scbriml : Doh! How could I have forgotten the biggest-selling, no engine choice type? Only here on a.net. When did Airbus ever say they were doing a CF barrel
32 Post contains images Jacobin777 : ..its all about economics friend......especially in this day and age when engine servicing is contracted out (i.e. such as "power by the hour"..... .
33 Stitch : GE may be waiting in order to try and develop a new family of engines able to scale beyond 100,000lbs thrust so they can power not only the XWB, but a
34 LH452 : The reason that a single suit of avionics and a single choice of engine etc. is available on the 748 is that the market size is relitavily small and
35 Laxintl : Trust me, the 748 avionics standardization has nothing to do with a small market. The 748 is using basically a common cockpit as with the 744 with mu
36 LH452 : From your logic I deduct that the from an airline perspective the best possible scenario is to have one aircraft, one engine, etc. to choose from. I
37 Laxintl : What I am saying is in the case of the airframe manufactures exclusive supplier deals they have worked out quite well do date for many airlines. Simp
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...
Open Skies: EU Still Not Taking "no" For An Answer posted Mon Jan 29 2007 19:29:40 by Kaitak
Why No Winglets For UAL? posted Sun Jan 7 2007 20:27:49 by Highliner2
Why No A346HGW For VS posted Fri Dec 15 2006 12:36:42 by UAEflyer
Why No Winglets For 737-900? posted Thu Nov 30 2006 05:55:25 by UncGSO
Why No Winglets For Every 737-700/800? posted Thu Nov 9 2006 23:48:32 by LY777
No Need For Aviation Magazines Anymore posted Wed Oct 25 2006 06:41:27 by Boeingforever
Why No Alliance For EK, EY, MP And LT? posted Sat Oct 21 2006 17:50:21 by RicardoFG
Inflight (no)service For Y On US&UK Based Airlines posted Wed Oct 18 2006 06:59:50 by A3
No Merger For Continental posted Tue Oct 3 2006 16:40:50 by CLE757
UA: No Liability For Electronic Items In Baggage posted Sat Aug 19 2006 01:45:59 by BoomBoom