Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airplane Cominality V. Engine Cominality  
User currently offlineAa737 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 849 posts, RR: 0
Posted (13 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1563 times:

I have read a bunch of posts on this forum over the period of a few months and some people mention that airlines are willing to fly both the A340 and the 777 just for the RR engine cominality rather then a mix of RR powered 777s and GE powered 777LRs.

I was under the impression that it would be more economical to have the same airframe, even if it ment that there would be 2 types of engines. I would think it would be better to have 772ER and LR versions with RR engines on the 773ERs and GEs on the 777LRs.

Would it really be worth flying 772ERs and A346s just so that you could keep RR engines on both planes? I would think the costs of keeping pilots for both types, as well as mechanics trained for both types would be much greater then just operating multiple engine types.

So which is better, engine or airframe cominality?

11 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineChiawei From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 944 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (13 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1539 times:

Personally, I think Airframe Commonality would be refered. Since the airlines can be more flexible with their crew and aircraft deployment. For example, on some day Virgin can fly A346 to JFK due to high demand, and the same crew can fly A343 back the next day if the demand is low.

Engine commonality is important, but i personally think that fleet commonality is more important.


User currently onlineCV990A From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 1421 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (13 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1535 times:

I would think that airframe/ cockpit commonality is important, but some airlines prefer a single engine manufacturer (ie BA with RR) for national reasons, or simply because their mechanincs are trained on one family of engines only and the costs of training on a new engine may outweigh the crew training required.


Kittens Give Morbo Gas
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29795 posts, RR: 58
Reply 3, posted (13 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1527 times:

Being dedicated to one engine type is less common today then it was is the past and will continue to grow less so.

The Reasons are Federal Express and UPS. Since it is now possible to get parts overnight airlines don't have to stock a certian $amount of parts on hand at each station. This makes the accountants very happy and doesn't tye up as much of the airlines money.




OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineFLY DC JETS From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 199 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (13 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 1510 times:

Another important thing to remember is the increasing number of carriers who choose to outsourse their engine maitainence to other companies. As this practice has increased, airlines are not faced the significant costs of different types. With the 777LR Boeing and GE have structured contract proposals to some airlines in such a way that they wont even have to touch the engine.

User currently offlineTEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (13 years 8 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 1508 times:

Look at United, their entire fleet of aircraft except the 737-300/500s and a few DC-10s are powered by reliable Pratt & Whitney engines. They did this to save money on training and spare parts by sticking with one manufacturer.

User currently offlineEg777er From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 1837 posts, RR: 14
Reply 6, posted (13 years 8 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1497 times:

Usually it's Airplane Commonality that wins over the engines.

However, in the one case which is so famous, the 777X, you have to take into account the enormous disappointment that some operators have had with their GE90 fleets - British Airways being the prime example. They have now switched to RR-powered 777s.

I don't think that an airline would switch from an all-Boeing fleet of RR-777s to the A340NG JUST to get the Trent, but in the case of airlines who already have any airbus in thier fleet - A320. A330 powered by either IAE or RR engines they would prefer to add the A340NG even if they have an existing 777 fleet.

For example, Emirates have the RR-777 but they decided to buy A340-500s becuase thier A330s and 777s are RR powered.



User currently offlineTEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (13 years 8 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 1485 times:

Here is another example, Singapore Airlines has a fleet of RR Trent powered 777s, instead of ordering the GE90 777X they went for the new RR Trent powered A340-500.

User currently offlineTEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (13 years 8 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 1484 times:

Here is another example, Singapore Airlines has a fleet of RR Trent powered 777s. Instead of ordering the GE90 777X they went for the new RR Trent powered A340-500.

User currently offlineSammyk From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1690 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (13 years 8 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 1479 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Tedski, Singapore went with the A340-500 before the 777-200LR was even available. There really was no competition. Also note, they only ordered 5 firm and 5 options.

Eg777er, are you sure the A340-500 was ordered for its common engine, or for getting around ETOPS on long routes to Australia?

Sammy


User currently offlineExPratt From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 311 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (13 years 8 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 1473 times:

Singapore Airlines bought the Rolls Royce Trent engines for its 777s because Rolls offered Singapore a great deal. Singapore was traditionally a Pratt & Whitney customer. Pratt, thinking that it had the inside track to Singapore, did not make its offer for the PW4090 engine as lucrative as Rolls did for the Trent. Unfortunately for Pratt, Singapore Airlines purchase of Trents also lead to other airlines in the region such as MAS to also buy Trents.

User currently offlineTEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (13 years 8 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 1468 times:

What about Cathay Pacific, they also went for the RR Trent powered A340NG over the GE90 777X, and they too have a fleet of RR Trent powered A330s & 777s.

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...
Airplane Cominality V. Engine Cominality posted Thu Dec 7 2000 00:17:14 by Aa737
Boeing CEO Sees Potential To Re-engine 737. posted Thu Sep 3 2009 21:49:28 by Art
How Important Is Engine Manufacturer To Airlines? posted Tue Sep 1 2009 23:38:24 by LHCVG
N598HA At SJC Getting A Engine Replaced. posted Fri Aug 28 2009 22:26:19 by Cvervais
Lufthansa Engine Change In ATL 8/21? posted Sun Aug 23 2009 19:25:44 by Jbmitt
Status Of The "Miracle On The Hudson" Airplane? posted Tue Aug 18 2009 15:56:16 by Blackbird1331
Vikings Airplane? posted Tue Aug 18 2009 08:24:22 by Premobrimo
New Airplane Delivery, How Does This Work? posted Tue Aug 11 2009 15:58:21 by EcuadorianMD11
Where Can I Buy Airplane Seats? posted Wed Aug 5 2009 16:18:17 by JetBlue777
A320 Engine On Fire In Paris posted Wed Aug 5 2009 04:03:32 by AFCDGPTP