Keesje From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 9843 posts, RR: 51 Posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 14661 times:
GE has been holding back on offering an engine for the A350-1000 because they want to protect their investment in the GE90 and 777, as confirmed by Seager recently.
**** November 2006: GE confirms it commitment to B777, "protecting its investment" http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm....echnology/2003452451_boeing29.htm
Roger Seager, GE vice president of sales, who was in Everett for the 777 delivery, emphasized how closely aligned Boeing and GE are in the large wide-body market.
"There is an agreement on how we'll use the GE90 engine, and that ties us to the Boeing 777," said Seager, "It is a partnership. ... We've literally shared jointly in the airframe and the engine."
When Airbus announced in July its proposal to develop a 350-seater A350 to go head to head with the 365-seater 777-300ER, GE made clear it wouldn't provide an engine for that largest A350 model. That stance remains solid, though Airbus' plans on the A350 have shifted.
"We're protecting our investment," said Seager. "Why would we want to go and participate with another product that would compete directly?"
Hopefully for GE their strategy will be succesfull.
On the other hand they probably didn´t have a chance against RR because they could not offer an engine family for Qatar Airways massive A350XWB -800, -900 and -1000 RFP.
Qatar Airways is a big GE customer; CFM56, CF6 & GE90 (GP7200?).
I wonder if GE will take another look at the A350XWB situation.
FlyDreamliner From Korea, joined Jan 2006, 2614 posts, RR: 21 Reply 2, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 14535 times:
Most likely, they will not. GE90 sales on the 777 are sufficient enough that losing out on a couple of larger A350 orders isn't worth their trouble. The 777 is still selling like hot cakes, and though this won't last forever, my guess is that Boeing will keep updating 777 until they are ready to replace it. GE developed an entire new engine line for 777 and they need it to continue to do well to realize a return on their investment. They are doing well on 787 and 748 sales with the new GEnx, and if anything, the inavailability of a GE engine on A350-1000 may hurt the A350-1000 as much as GE for engines they'd lose out on. I'm still convinced that the only reason 773ER has gotten so many converts from airlines that were staunch PW and RR customers was that the GE90-115b and 773ER offered performance that was simply too good to otherwise pass up.
GE has staked their bets with Boeing and so far it is working out pretty well with them. My guess is that this close partnership will guarantee GE/CFM continued exclusivity on 737RS/Y1, Perhaps on Y3, etc.
The other thing is this, why would they spend the money to develop two seperate engines to compete against themselves. In making a specific engine for 777, they spent a lot of money developing they want to make back, why would they then go create a different engine (as I can only assume Airbus does not want GE-90-94 for A350-1000) for this new airbus, when airbus keeps changing their mind every other minute anyhow? It costs them nothing to offer GEnx engines already developed for other use on A350-800 and -900, developing an engine specifically for A350-1000 when they've already staked their bets doing it with 777-300ER makes no sense.
So far their strategy seems to be working to me. They are sold out of as many GE-90s as they can produce for years, ditto GEnx, which is only picking up speed, they are still turning CFM56s out the door by the hundred, and they more or less dominate the regional jet market with the CF34 on CRJ and E-Jet.
You could ask the same question, how many engine orders has RR lost out on with 773ER? RR didn't want to be a risk sharing partner, GE said they would, so GE it was. I wonder what that decision has cost RR? See, it's all relative. You win some, you lose some. I wouldn't over-hype this.
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
Stitch From United States, joined Jul 2005, 15917 posts, RR: 64 Reply 3, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 14534 times:
GE will eventually be forced to develop higher-thrust versions of the GEnx to power HGW 787 models, if nothing else, so it is likely that GEnx will be an option on the A358 and A359.
I don't know what magic was involved in getting an extra 25,000lbs of thrust out of the GE90 to power the 772LR and 773ER, but if that could be applied to the GEnx, she'd be plenty for the A350-1000 as well as some powerfully high-MTOW 787s.
AeroWesty From United States, joined Oct 2004, 15634 posts, RR: 66 Reply 4, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 14505 times:
Quoting Solnabo (Reply 1): What about free enterprice/marketing if Airbus wants GE-nx engines?
That's what free enterprise is all about. You can offer a product, or you can choose not to. You aren't required just because someone wants it.
Legoguy From Ireland, joined Jun 2006, 3160 posts, RR: 51 Reply 5, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 14505 times:
Could GE not just offer the current GE 90 to the A350XWB? Surely an A350 with the same engines as the 777 would still be a slightly better aircraft, thus securing some orders for those airlines who wish to use GE engines on the larger A350-1000's.
Can you say 'Beer Can' without sounding like a Jamaican saying 'Bacon'?
DfwRevolution From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 14505 times:
At this time, GE can likely have their cake and eat it, too. The 777 is still enjoying very strong sales, predominately for the Ge90-powered 777LR variants. Given how far away the A350-1000 is from EIS, offering an engine option now could potentially legitimize a competitor where none exists yet. In the meanwhile, of course they will ride their Ge90 investment for all its worth.
In terms of GEnx sales, focusing on the 747 and 787 has proven far more fruitful then working on the A350. The dreadful mismanagement and indecision that has plagued the A350 isn't any interest to GE who have since taken a commanding market share for the 787 and sold nearly 320 engines for the 747-8. Once Airbus has shown they have their ducks in a row, GE will probably get moving on a power option. Given the leap of faith QR has taken with their long-awaited order, it doesn't necessarily prove one thing or another. IMHO, of course.
BoeingBus From United States, joined May 2004, 1565 posts, RR: 17 Reply 7, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 14489 times:
I bet GE reluctance has to with negotiations with Airbus than anything else. Airbus wants something for free and GE would rather get some solid assurance for a return of the investment.
QATAR's order may change things a bit and GE's involvement is inevitable.
Stitch From United States, joined Jul 2005, 15917 posts, RR: 64 Reply 8, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 14458 times:
Quoting Legoguy (Reply 5): Could GE not just offer the current GE 90 to the A350XWB?
Yes, but the GE90 will be at a fuel-burn disadvantage to the Trent XWB. The Trent XWB's will be 2% more efficient in SFC then the Trent 1000's on the 787 which themselves are probably a couple percentage points (minimum) more efficient then the GE90-7x and -9x series.
Also, GE will probably want to offer the GEnx on the A330-200F program, so it may be more a case of GE waiting on Airbus (to provide enough data to develop a variant for the A332F, A358 and A359) then the reverse.
BigJKU From United States, joined Feb 2007, 474 posts, RR: 7 Reply 9, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 14458 times:
Quoting Solnabo (Reply 1): It would be a shame if GE sticks to Boeing, imo that would be monopoly on a big scale...
What about free enterprice/marketing if Airbus wants GE-nx engines?
It has nothing to do with free enterprise. GE is not obligated to produce an engine for Airbus anymore than Airbus is obligated to put a GE engine on its planes.
GE may just think they get a better deal by not being involved with the bigger A350. It is their business decision and they will suffer the consequences if they make the wrong one. Thing is GE is a very well run company that has a history of making smart decisions. I tend to think if they decided to avoid the plane they have a good reason.
Glideslope From United States, joined May 2004, 1319 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 14443 times:
Quoting Keesje (Thread starter): I wonder if GE will take another look at the A350XWB situation.
Not a chance. QR will be the only large 350 MOU at Paris, and IMO, EIS will still be 2015. There is no way Airbus has it's act together enough to freeze the design by summer 08.
Keesje From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 9843 posts, RR: 51 Reply 11, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 14423 times:
Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 2): I'm still convinced that the only reason 773ER has gotten so many converts from airlines that were staunch PW and RR customers was that the GE90-115b and 773ER offered performance that was simply too good to otherwise pass up.
The fact GE was the only 773ER option might have helped too.
About not offering an engine for the A350-1000, I wonder how GE customers will react.
I guess we´ll have to wait until Clark, Baker or Udvar-Hazy makes some public comments on customer focus at the Paris Airshow..
Stitch From United States, joined Jul 2005, 15917 posts, RR: 64 Reply 12, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 14409 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 11): The fact GE was the only 773ER option might have helped too.
About not offering an engine for the A350-1000, I wonder how GE customers will react.
It depends on what Boeing does with the 777, 787, and Y3 and GE does with the GE90-11xB, GEnx and their post-GEnx powerplant.
If the A350-1000 does stake out her market with the emphasis that the 773ER did, then most likely GE customers will become RR customers and buy it just as RR customers did with the GE/773ER combination. We know loyalty is a fickle thing to airlines, so there not going to wax nostalgic about their current fleet and powerplants if somebody new comes along and makes them a better offer.
Jdevora From Spain, joined Aug 2006, 300 posts, RR: 9 Reply 15, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 14262 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 8): Also, GE will probably want to offer the GEnx on the A330-200F program, so it may be more a case of GE waiting on Airbus (to provide enough data to develop a variant for the A332F, A358 and A359) then the reverse.
It doesn't sound likelly, the last that I heard about it was :
Quote:
Flight International understands that plans for the potential GEnx application are thought to have foundered over cost and complexity of adapting the engine to the A330 wing and strut.
PM From Japan, joined Feb 2005, 5134 posts, RR: 59 Reply 16, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 14138 times:
Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 2): airbus keeps changing their mind every other minute anyhow?
That's a cheap shot. And, happily, some serious airlines think otherwise.
Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 2): It costs them nothing to offer GEnx engines already developed for other use on A350-800 and -900
That's a bit naive. You think that GE can hang an unchanged GEnx-64B under the wing of an A350 and be competitive? Every new application these days requires a customised engine. And that costs!
You sneer at that? Just how many orders have either Airbus or Boeing signed for 80 widebodies in one go? SQ's initial order for 777s came close but I can't immediately think of many more. Pretty "massive", I'd say.
Quoting Keesje (Reply 11): About not offering an engine for the A350-1000, I wonder how GE customers will react
You don't have to "wonder". It looks like QR have given you their answer.
Cobra27 From Slovenia, joined May 2001, 602 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 14111 times:
They are protecting their investment? Like 777W will sell forever? Come on just offer the engine and stop talking crap. After all they will pay for the engines. And by the way with so many 777W sold, they should be making a large profit pf the engines.
Lumberton From United States, joined Jul 2005, 4094 posts, RR: 24 Reply 18, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 14112 times:
Time to repeat my pet theory on this. I believe that GE will go with the A358 & A359 program as Stitch noted. However, I feel they are negotiating with Airbus to avoid having to pony up a massive investment in the A350 program. No, I don't have a link, but it seems to make sense -- to me at least!
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
Poitin From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 14050 times:
Quoting Glideslope (Reply 10): Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
I wonder if GE will take another look at the A350XWB situation.
Not a chance. QR will be the only large 350 MOU at Paris, and IMO, EIS will still be 2015. There is no way Airbus has it's act together enough to freeze the design by summer 08.
Two points -- first GE may well have a contract with Boeing preventing them from selling the engine to anyone else. I do not know that this is the case or not, but it may well be.
Second Leahy is promising some 200 350 orders this year. He has about 100 in all but in hand with QR and SU, and a bunch more in the the MOU stage. I would guess one of members could list them. That means he has a very good idea what he is likely to land and if he is saying 200, then there isn't much on the horizon. If this is the case, then why should GE spend the money to build the 350-1000 engines? The only ones ordered have been by QR.
SkyGazer From Australia, joined Feb 2007, 76 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 13985 times:
Quoting Cobra27 (Reply 17): They are protecting their investment? Like 777W will sell forever? Come on just offer the engine and stop talking crap.
Easier said than done. There was quite an interesting thread earlier that revealed how engine manufacturers often take many years to recoup their initial investments.
Given there's only 2 GE90-115Bs on every 77W & 77L Boeing sells, they might very well be shooting themselves in the foot by acting too quickly and offering an engine on the XWB-1000, pretty much a direct competitor.
Mham001 From United States, joined Feb 2005, 1486 posts, RR: 1 Reply 21, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 13926 times:
Quoting PM (Reply 16):
You sneer at that? Just how many orders have either Airbus or Boeing signed for 80 widebodies in one go?
Quoting Poitin (Reply 19): He has about 100 in all but in hand with QR and SU, and a bunch more in the the MOU stage.
As i understand it, these 80 are not exactly "signed orders" but still MOU's? Given the history of QR and Airbus, it is quite prudent of GE to wait and let things shake out before committing to another program.
BigJKU From United States, joined Feb 2007, 474 posts, RR: 7 Reply 22, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 13839 times:
Quoting Cobra27 (Reply 17): They are protecting their investment? Like 777W will sell forever? Come on just offer the engine and stop talking crap. After all they will pay for the engines. And by the way with so many 777W sold, they should be making a large profit pf the engines.
Actually I think a big part of the problem is that Airbus is not willing to pay for the investment GE would have to make to uprate their current engine. If, as many believe, Boeing is working on Y1 or Y3 I could undstand GE being gunshy about putting lots of extra money into a program that just cost them billions in development when they have either a new larger engine or a new smaller engine comming up soon. Both programs, in particular the smaller engine, are far more critical to GE than working on a one off variant for the A350-1000.
Keesje From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 9843 posts, RR: 51 Reply 23, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 13839 times:
Quoting Poitin (Reply 19): then there isn't much on the horizon. If this is the case, then why should GE spend the money to build the 350-1000 engines? The only ones ordered have been by QR.
I think QATAR would probably have ordered GE engines if they had the option, they decided to go GE on the A350 last year, like on their recent A330s, B773ER's and 777-200LR's.
Loosing an 160 engines order because of protecting a position will rise eyebrows even at GE..
Bypassing / Irritating key customers (that all talk to each other on these issues) is quiet a business risk.
--
PW was suggesting a improved GP7000 version for the XWB. GE also stopped this.. In this construction they could have shared the development costs with Pratt & Whitney.. . In this construction they wouldn't be obliged to Boeing to much. The engine is already delivered to Airbus.
Stitch From United States, joined Jul 2005, 15917 posts, RR: 64 Reply 24, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 13821 times:
Quoting Poitin (Reply 19): Two points -- first GE may well have a contract with Boeing preventing them from selling the engine to anyone else. I do not know that this is the case or not, but it may well be.
Seems unlikely since they were going to offer the GEnx-1BAxx on the original A350.
I think it's just a matter of how much it will cost to develop the engine, how they can leverage that cost with HGW models for the 787, and whether or not they will need to develop a third fan diameter in order to provide the necessary thrust for the HGW A350 models.
Baroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 10617 posts, RR: 51 Reply 25, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 13758 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 8): Quoting Legoguy (Reply 5):
Could GE not just offer the current GE 90 to the A350XWB?
Yes, but the GE90 will be at a fuel-burn disadvantage to the Trent XWB. The Trent XWB's will be 2% more efficient in SFC then the Trent 1000's on the 787 which themselves are probably a couple percentage points (minimum) more efficient then the GE90-7x and -9x series.
Quoting PM (Reply 16):
Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 2):
It costs them nothing to offer GEnx engines already developed for other use on A350-800 and -900
That's a bit naive. You think that GE can hang an unchanged GEnx-64B under the wing of an A350 and be competitive? Every new application these days requires a customised engine. And that costs!
PM explains why just hanging any of the current GE engines under an A350 is not an option. And Stitch explains why, even if you could, the last generation (which now arguably includes the first run of GEnx as well as the 110 and 115 engines) is not going to be attractive for the 350.
Then there is the agreement on the 777-300ER where the GE engine has exclusivity, but there appear to be countervailing restrictions on the uses for its engines. Is it just possible that both Boeing and GE might have been too clever by half with that tie up? Maybe GE were able to get a set of one way terms due to the amount of money they were putting up, but it is more likely that it will cut two ways, like a two edged sword.
Then IIRC, La has explained why (for reasons that escape me at the moment but could be found) why the larger end of the 350 requirements is likely to be beyond the scaling potential of the GEnx.
The happy bit of this is that RR have to be competitive on the 350-8/900 with the GEnx so the the TXWB for the A350-1000 version should also be cutting edge stuff, back to the argument put forward by Stitch.
26 Jacobin777: ...there is no other engine choice on besides GE on both the B773ER and B772LR...but I'm sure you already knew that Kessje....
27 Poitin: I said "all but in hand" because there is, I believe, only one confirmed A350 order with Finnair. But I am sure both SU and QR are all but signed. I
28 F14D4ever: The GE90-110/115 configuration has one additional booster stage than the -76/85/90/94 config, and a different fan, but they're tacked on to a low pre
29 Stitch: Well GE also has a commanding position in terms of sales on the 787 right now, as well as doing very nicely on the 747-8 program. Add to that all the
30 Poitin: I am REALLY surprised that Airbus hasn't screamed about this. Perhaps they have, but I haven't seen it in the press.
31 Stitch: That I do not know, but even if it was not, the GE90 as it is now would be a poor(er) choice for the A350 compared to the Trent XWB.
32 Poitin: Probably true, but when there is only one choice the price goes up. RR may well do well on the A350-1000, but we will have to see. I very much doubt
33 Lemurs: You make it sound like someone deciding to invest in some sneakers. New engines cost multiple billions to develop, test, manufacture, and support. If
34 DfwRevolution: In terms of dollar value adjusted for inflation, UA's order for 30 777 + 30 747-400 was likely bigger
35 Stitch: And yet GE having exclusivity on the 772LR and 773ER hasn't hurt sales of it vis-a-vis the RR exclusivity on the A345 and A346... RR must be looking
36 Poitin: That is an awfully large delta in engine/airframe performance, and if true, then the A350-1000 should blow away the 777. However, where's the data to
37 Scbriml: Bit of a Catch-22 situation. The engine's not being offered, so there's no need to review the rule. The rule stands, preventing the engine from being
39 Trex8: an MOU signed by two heads of state is a far cry from other MOUs, this one is far more likely to end up in a real contract than any other type as the
40 Stitch: The Engine Alliance was formed to create the GP7xxx series to power the 747-500 and 747-600. Since neither GE nor P&W are EU companies, but the EU wa
41 Jfk777: I can understand GE having an exclusive deal with Boeing for the 777LR and 773ER but to make a deal to prevent another airplane having the same engine
42 Scbriml: Agreed, and considering that GE had to invest in the 777 to gain said exclusivity, it would seem odd that they would agree to restrict the potential
43 Poitin: This happens all the time. And the only people who can complain is GE, who obviously aren't. The facts of the matter are that the engine would not wo
44 CygnusChicago: Probably, and I'm sure this will be eclipsed by the upcoming AA 787 order . However, that doesn't take away that this is still a pretty huge order by
45 Eureka: Don't get too excited about yet another Qatar A350 MoU. At least one Qatar order will be firm at Paris and it will be for 787s.
46 XT6Wagon: If Airbus really wanted GE engines for their A350, then they should have actually decided what A350 the customers wanted before the GEnX.... was in fl
47 BigJKU: Then you fundamentally do not understand free trade. Free trade means equal rights sell your goods in various nations. It does not mean you have to s
48 Keesje: GE is betting on the 773ER horse. We will have to watch the race this year and see if GE will spread it´s risk after the first run.
49 BigJKU: As numerous people pointed out, and I am sure with you just missed it, GE is not really betting on the 773ER. They are betting that they can get a be
50 Airbazar: My guess is GE will come around if/when the A350 becomes a reality and it proves to be all that it's talked about. The question then is: will Airbus h
51 DfwRevolution: You are implying that GE has committed to the 773ER in such a way that they can't offer an XWB engine. That couldn't be further from the truth. The o
52 Fruitbat: Finally, a voice of reason in these debates - as I have said before, airlines don't make emotional decisions, they make business ones Remember that (
53 Klkla: GE Will offer GENX engines for all three versions of the A350 once they see the final specs. Of course the same engines (with needed variations) will
54 Keesje: I think we have a different view here. Maybe you came in later and missed my original post in which GE itself declares it´s commited to Boeing & the
55 Fruitbat: Probably, yes. But what if, by committing early to the programme and showing confidence in Airbus, RR manage to negotiate some sort of exclusivity de
56 XT6Wagon: Airbus loses if GE doesn't sign up for more than the A350-800. Maybe just a bit, maybe alot, but its a given they will lose. So the question is how m
57 PM: Nice way to put it! Always look on the bright side!
58 Keesje: Lets not forget GE mainly will have to explain to big long term airline customers what´s up.. Wonder what happens if EK does something similar as Qat
59 Lumberton: You mean James McNerney, Jr., the CEO of Boeing? Talking about what? Why GE isn't on the A350? Woultn't he be better off calling Jeff Imhelt?
60 Jfk777: I understand free trade very well thank you very much ,Sir.
61 FlyLKU: I recall reading in Aviation Week in the early days of the GE90 program that it was intended to be a 100 lbs thrust engine out of the gates. Perhaps
62 EI321: Airbus would not be the only loosers. Forget about the 787 & 350 for the moment, and look at the A330 & 777 backlogs. Demand is so buoyant for widebo
63 EI321: I dont think theres anytthing to stop it. Am I right in thinking that theres an agreement that the GP7000 can only be fitted to the A380?
64 Lumberton: I believe it prohibits the GP7000 series to be used on twins; it could be used on a version of the 747.
65 DfwRevolution: That's unlikely. If Rolls Royce had that inclination, they would have put such a plan in motion long ago. Airbus would only stand to benefit if RR wa
66 XT6Wagon: I am currently a firm believer that GE will ONLY produce an engine in the XWB size class if *BOEING* asks for one. Airbus is at the top of GE's shit
67 Stitch: Why shouldn't they be committed? It's made them money in the past, it's making them money now, and it will make them money in the future. But that sh
68 Zvezda: I don't believe the GP7000 would fit under the Jumbo's wing without lengthening the landing gear.
69 Jetlife2: If you mean it doesn't matter when the sales are, provided the delivery stream is the same, you are mostly correct. Accounting of future revenue woul
70 Zvezda: Jetlife2, I'm not the one who wrote that. Please edit your post while you still can.
71 Jetlife2: Done. My apologies. Not sure how that happened - used the quote feature! Anyway looks to be correct now. Thanks
72 Zvezda: It can happen by selecting the text you want to quote and then clicking the SELECT TEXT QUOTED button for the wrong post. Thanks for fixing it.
73 F14D4ever: The early roadmap for the GE90 included a 100k+ pound thrust growth engine on a common core. I do recall the day that the GE Aircraft Engines interna
74 Astuteman: "legitimize a competitor where none exists yet". I suspect the legitimisation of the competitor is being done by customers placing deposits on it....
75 Revelation: It is public knowledge that it is the other way around: in exchange for helping fund the 777NG effort, GE has the exclusive right to put engines on t
76 Keesje: I think GE position is clear. Yes they are very committed to /involved in the 777NG and it's exclusive engines & that's the reason they don't do an e
77 Poitin: I have read somewhere, but I can not find it, that GE and Boeing have a two-way agreement with regard to the 777 version of that engine. Now just wha
78 Airbazar: You're assuming that oil will remain at a "relatively low" price of $70/barrel for the next decade beyond. I don't think the large 777 operators of t
79 AirFrnt: I guess I fail to understand what people are griping about, other then just to whine that Boeing has that Airbus doesn't. Remember that Boeing basical
80 Stitch: I believe GE does have a few years to make a decision on the A350HGW models, so I am of the opinion shared by those who believe GE will ride the 777
81 XT6Wagon: Its very doubtful that if the market returns to only having OPEC screwing with it, that oil prices won't go down over the next 20 years. Right now we
82 BigJKU: And it is Boeings options to respond plus the importance of the new narrowbody that will keep GE from offering a new engine for the XWB-1000. If GE w
83 Ken777: If I was more than an armchair CEO I would be looking at putting resources - especially my best R&D engineers - where they would generate the largest
84 Keesje: To make it clear Boeing did not give Boeing exclusivity on the GENX, GE will offer it for the A350-800, A350-900 and even proposed it for the A330. G
85 BigJKU: They won't because they could likley not be competitive with the GenX on the smaller variants and the number of A350-1000's they would get is not lik
86 Poitin: I am being far to Leahy and not calling him a #$#@ liar. And yes, he is sounding like a broken record. However, since he is giving numbers that a typ
87 Stitch: They may very well not. GE has had a very good run with the HGW 777s and is doing well on the 787. Even if the A350-1000 proves to be a strong seller
88 AirFrnt: As you yourself point out, thoose frames do not compete with the 777. In reality they also don't compete with the 787. It may fall outside of their c
89 A5XX: The GE management is not dumb. They'll steer the company where they can make money. When the T7 cash cow goes dry, GE will look elsewhere... Airbus c
90 AirFrnt: That's strange. The statistics say the exact opposite.
91 A5XX: Be patient. You'll see. I work in the videoconference industry, and you'd be surprised to see how many companies are investing huge amounts of mon
92 AirFrnt: Again, you are flying in the face of 30 years now of statistical evidence to the contrary. That's a argument _against_ your point of view (less peopl
93 A5XX: Wrong assumption. Less people traveling, simply means airlines would fly fewer flights, each weeks, for each destinations, but may require the use of
94 Jacobin777: ....err...no mate....AirFrnt's assumptions are correct... ....during an industry downturn, what are the first planes to be parked? VLA's...which will
95 A5XX: We'll see. The traveling habits of the people will change, drastically, in the future (I'd say within 5 - 15 years) unless you could find new foss
96 A5XX: Typical, American way of thinking..... The current VLA, parked in the desert, are gas guzzlers... 747-xxx with inefficient engines... You still think
97 A5XX: The A380-8 will, eventually, be parked among the rusty 747-400, and 747-8i. Not because it's too big, but because it's too small. A5XX
98 BigJKU: Which would argue for smaller planes burning less fuel but with the same frequency rather than fewer flights with bigger planes... No, less people tr
99 Zvezda: RR can more easily scale up the thrust because of their three-spool design. A market is much healthier with three competitors than with only two. Tha
100 Jacobin777: ...er, no... ...that is what has historically happened around the world....larger planes parked... ....which just goes to show how inefficient many p
101 A388: Nice to see those A350XWB in QR colors. I also didn't know their already was a full freighter version of the A350XWB. Has QR ordered a full-cargo A350
102 PM: Your post lacks a certain credibility. You are aware, I hope, that the GE engine on the 777L/W is the GE90 and not the GEnx? So the statement that "B
103 Stitch: In theory. There has been industry idle talk that, ala the A380, Airbus may suspend development of the freighter and ULR versions to free-up resource
104 Asiaflyer: This seems to be a hot topic. A5XX, you have a point, even if I not compleatly agree with your conclusion and arguments. In all transportation there
105 Ken777: Doesn't work in low season though. I've flown a lot of 744 long haul flight with less than 200 people on board. I believe that the higher the cost of
106 Astuteman: I so wish my Lithuaniuan was as polished as your English... Hell, I wish my English was as polished as your English Where's that dictionary?.........
107 Zvezda: Thank you for the complement, but why would you want to be able to speak Lithuanian??? There are more people who can speak Klingon than Lithuanian (a
108 WINGS: That is correct. Both Russian and French language are on a decline. Portuguese language has surpassed the Russian language recently and is far ahead
109 Astuteman: It was really a comment about the "typical" English "ignorance" of other languages compared to the knowledge other nationalities have of English. As
110 Zvezda: There is not a compelling need for native speakers of English to learn other languages anymore. English became the global language (e.g. of air traff
111 AirFrnt: Show me a single instance where this has actually occurred on a high frequency route. This doesn't happen in practice. And this statement proves the
112 PM: Have you actually read my post?! How simple does it need to be? 1. There is no GEnx (or even GENX!) on the 777. 2. The GE engine on the 777 is the GE
113 Zvezda: UA's 747-400s definitely had and have lower fuel consumption per passenger (and CASM) than their 777s. Correct. The other major factor in PanAm's dem
114 AirFrnt: The GE family here is what is at issue. You seem to think that somehow the difference between the GE for the 787 and the GE for the 777-300ER/200LR i
115 PM: Well, they are different engines with different names, applications, characteristics and, in the context of this exchange, different legal constraint
116 Astuteman: PM is correct on this one, AirFrnt, and GE, as far as I am aware are still offering the Bleed-air GEnx developed for the "old" A350 for the 245t A350
117 Iwok: Your comments are hillarious. Thank you. So using your scenario we'll have a weekly flight into DAY. Tough luck if you want to get there. Its funny,
118 Poitin: Zvezda has a excellent vocabulary at least in English. He is absolutely spot on (excuse the pun) when he commented on Oh, for those of you without a
119 Poitin: I find it interesting that the smaller the country, the more languages the educated native speaks. Even in Holland I expect just about everyone to sp
120 Zvezda: Your adulation is as welcome as the interminable bashing is ineluctable. In Los Angeles, I wouldn't even think of trying to speak English with a taxi
121 Jacobin777: ...one might have possibly been Urdu.......
122 Poitin: You are one of the two writers whose work requires a dictionary. The only other English language writer who forces me to look up words is Justice Sca
123 EI321: ...Comical enough for airlines that have 777-300ERs on order to go and order A350-1000s? Which makes simple business sense, no matter which angle we
124 Zvezda: I've never seen a Mexican taxi driver in LA. They all seem to be Ukrainian.
125 SpruceMoose: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means I've never heard GE say they _couldn't_ offer an engine for the A350-1000,
126 Poitin: Maybe they are Mexican speaking Ukrainians. Sure had me fooled, but then I never tried Russian on them. I must remember that.
127 EI321: That would make business sense. It seems like good business sense for GE to cold shoulder the -1000 until 773ER sales begin to evaporate in about 5 y
128 AirFrnt: Sorry, I should have been more explicit. My only comment about being possibly restricted was meant only in the context of models that directly compet
129 Stitch: I would not necessarily say "cold shoulder", but I do agree that they're going to hedge their bets a bit. In the end, GE has to worry about situation
130 Zvezda: I don't expect Y3, if built, to be small enough to compete much with the A350. Boeing's competitor to the A350 will be the 787.
131 AirFrnt: That was true several generations ago. Now only the smallest A350 competes with the 787. The medium A350 doesn't have a competitor, and the largest A
132 EI321: It will once the 787-10 arrives on the scene. Huh? The 777 will dominate the A350, even with 20-25% higher operating costs? Kill airbus off? Both man
133 Brons2: Considering the 787 has a common interface for the engines, P&W could produce an aftermarket engine for the 787 and get it approved under an STC. Not
134 Stitch: I remain unconvinced that they money Boeing would spend to launch Y3 would generate a strong enough RoI at the moment. Even if the 787-10ER and 787-1
135 AirFrnt: Today. Right now. There is no such thing as the 787-10. That changes once Boeing sells one, but the case for the 787-10 is nowhere near as slam dunk
136 PM: Wherever you are, maybe, but on our planet Boeing had sold 952 by the end of April and announced another 34 in May. That makes 986. Where do you get
137 Astuteman: Have a mosey on over to OAG's thread on the A350's marketplace. There's some different viewpoints floating around on that one........ (I'm with you,
138 Zvezda: Then Y3 would have to be a stretched 787 because there is no way that Boeing would build two 9 abreast airliner families with different cross section
139 Scbriml: Strange how QR is expecting to get its A350s starting in mid-2013. No, they were your words.
140 Stitch: The A350-1000 will knife the 747-8I in the heart. All the 787-11 will do is slit it's throat at the same time. Either act is fatal. The market seems
141 EI321: Not true. The A320E is just a mid life update to the A320, just like the A340-300E was. The A330lite was an instinctual reaction to a new competitor
142 Zvezda: The A350-1000 and, if built, 787-11 would kill both the 747-8 and the WhaleJet. The 747-8F will survive only until the A350F or 787F become available
143 BigJKU: I think what some assume is that Airbus is not going to get their NSR out in enough time to capture a large share of the market. They have not yet bu
144 Zvezda: Being first to market does not guarantee a large market share. The 777 was third to market and still won the market share. Yes. Non sequitor and not
145 EI321: Highely unlikely. The A350WXB is 5 yrs behind the 787 mainly because work on its design started not long before it was launched, wheres Boeing had be
146 BigJKU: Not saying I believe that but I think that is the logic you are seeing there. The thing is all it really takes is a swing of a few big operators for
147 EI321: Although we have to remember that the 777-200LR/300ER have won the majority of market share over the A340-500/600 due to their large fuel burn advant
148 AirFrnt: Wikipedia. It's out of date. My apologies. Please reread my statement. I said the A350 family, which includes the -10. That's a few years after 2013.
150 Zvezda: No, the 767 is a 7 abreast airliner and the 777 is a 9 abreast airliner. In one important, but narrow area. Boeing will abandon some details of the Y
151 EI321: It was not taken out of context (see below). You suggested that Boeing could kill airbus off by developing Y1. This seems to ignore the fact the like
152 AirFrnt: You think that Boeing could develop the 787-10 and the 787-11 for 800 million dollars? That was the last published budget for the 787 program. It's a
153 Stitch: I was just spit-balling a figure, to be honest. Not trying to prognosticate. No they will not, but that also does not mean Boeing will not change or
154 Zvezda: Each, yes. Yes. Do a search on "Zvezda's Law". A 787-10 and 787-11 would cut into what you think Boeing would like to do with Y3. I think Boeing just
155 AirFrnt: Yes, but at this point, the Yellowstone plans look pretty impressively prescient. It may just be the best thing that Boeing ever did under Condit. My
156 Atmx2000: I don't think we know this to be true. All we know is the GE has exclusivity on the 777LR because they paid for the right to be exclusive and to rece
157 Stitch: I agree, but I believe that "not much" effort is larger and heavier variants of the 787 rather then an all-new Y3. As Zvezda has noted, the 777 would
158 BigJKU: I agree on this, especially if they do some work to increase the MTOW of those models. I think this is probably the best approach. The first of these
159 Jacobin777: It's obvious the B787-10 will be a "done deal".. I see the B787 range at 787-3 to 787-10 range....B787-11 is possible, but would be setting the limit
160 Zvezda: Exactly right and exactly why Boeing shouldn't spend $15B or so developing a Y3. Why repeat the WhaleJet mistake?
161 Jacobin777: .....that plane is that its just too big IMHO, the market really doesn't need an A388-sized plane....but a B777-sized Y3, which would allow 10-across
162 Poitin: Bit more complex than that, Zvezda, and you know it. There are two -- and in my opinion three -- Zvezda's laws, the first two of which combine to for
163 PanAm_DC10: As it stands at the moment, according to Mr Leahy, RR are the only option for the A350 until maybe, at least the end of the year. Airbus Unlikely to S
164 Stitch: So it looks like engines will be as important to the economics of the A350 as they are to the 787. Being a larger and heavier plane, Airbus needs/des
165 PM: If it was that obvious why hasn't Airbus done it? The implication is that the Trent XWB is "a generation beyond" the Trent 1000. Interesting. (Altern
166 Jacobin777: ...a couple of reasons IMHO..... 1)they still would need a plane which could compete with the smaller B787's and would be a fit for carriers which ne
167 CygnusChicago: Interesting, is the Trent XWB so much better than the GEnx that it can be considered "a generation beyond"
168 Ken777: Looks like one of JL's quotes that will come back to him later - but it's good for stirring the pot with GE.
169 Zvezda: With the same level of technology, a larger engine with a larger fan should offer a lower SFC (greater efficiency) because the fan tip to nacelle cle
170 Dank: That is what I assumed was contributing to increased efficiency of the Trent XWBs, but I guess there could be some other advances. I kind of read the
171 Calags: First glance it looks like sour grapes. I'm sure GE doesn't appreciate the comment but business is business and I think they'll let it pass if Airbus
172 Baroque: A nice simple summary. There may be one extra element. Clearly with the GE investment in the GE exclusive T7s, they have an interest in not pushing c
173 PM: Lol. It's more a fear of being branded an optimist if I jump to the conclusion that the Trent XWB must inevitably be better than the GEnx. (Though I'
174 2wingtips: Well, I wonder how many generations old Leahy would regard the A380 powerplants from RR and GP??? He is almost as funny as some others on this site.
175 Jacobin777: I would say the B787-10 would have very close CASM or possibly less CASM than the A380 and the A350-10/hypothetical B787-11 have even lower CASM than
176 PM: OK, I'm not entirely unbiased but I may add to your wise words by reminding everyone that the Trent 700 has comprehensively outsold the CF6 on the A3
177 Astuteman: If you consider the timespan between the EIS of the Trent 900 and Trent 1000, and compare it to the timespan between the Trent 1000 and Trent-XWB, it
178 Keesje: The GENX can be seen as an evolutionairy devlopment of GE90 technology. New materials, shapes, fan, combustor & turbine technology added. I think wha
179 Zvezda: I don't think SQ are merely threatening to buy A350-900s. I believe SQ are serious about buying A350-900s, but need concrete assurances about deliver
180 EI321: Theres an article in the Seattle Times today that quotes SIA and others as saying that they may put off firming up their A350 commitments until the d
181 Keesje: I think for GE in the end it will be timing. If it becomes clear the 777 is the hottest thing around anymore and RR & Airbus are selling a substantia
182 Stitch: Lifting 68mt less weight into the air helps, I am sure. Seriously, we know from the planned Trent 81xx series that RR had some amazing engine designs
183 PM: Strictly speaking, EK didn't "order" A343s with CFM (i.e. "partly" GE). (a) the plane doesn't come with an engine choice and (b) they received them s
184 Keesje: I think EK indicated they were only interested in the 787-10, and asking for IGW / more range. EK could also go for similar A350-900's. Now if GE wan
185 Stitch: It's expected to be EI. What engines do they hang off their A330s?
186 Baroque: How about: Baseline T900 (2006 version, 2007 version tba) Gen 1.2 Gp7200 Gen 2 GEnx and T1000 ?Gen 2.5 or 3 TXWB? Other bits of guessometric "maths"
187 Keesje: I found an interesting blog on Flight Global about the GE XWB situation. ILFC (Udvar) made comments about it. The Airlines see & understand the single
188 Atmx2000: I don't think EK is loyal to anyone, so I see no particular reason for them to choose one or the other. If they are purchasing 787s it will likely be
189 Trex8: ANA was also a big L1011 operator and were quite happy with Rolls
190 PM: My point exactly. They like to spread it around. When they were getting too dependent on RR they surprised everyone and opted for the GP7200 on their
191 Atmx2000: I don't think they are spreading it around for the sake of spreading it around, but instead choosing best overall deal. They have no compunction agai
192 Stitch: Honestly, the folks who believe GE will not or cannot offer an XWB-class engine makes me shake my head. If Boeing had never launched the LR777s and th
193 PM: Absolutely. They'll always choose effective airframes and engines. But, given a choice, I believe EK like to buy Airbus/Boeing/GE/RR in some sort of
194 Atmx2000: I don't know if you were following this forum during 2004, but it was readily apparent Airbus and various European/EU officials were up in arms regar
195 PM: Not "politics", I'd suggest, but industrial/commercial relationships. Yes, I've read the same posts. I'm no engineer but they make sense to me. Simil
196 Revelation: Yes, you can wonder, but for now the GEnx on A350XWB is as dead as the EU constitution. The CEOs spoke to each other: Airbus lobbies General Electric
197 Trex8: all the bloomberg story says is that there will be no agreement before the end of the year. That doesn't mean it will never happen though I think GE
198 EI321: Like all A350 threads that open on a positive note, this one is being intentionally dragged under. How pathetic.
199 Stitch: That is emphatically not guaranteed to be the case in the future.
200 Revelation: Well the topic is GE, GEnx, A350XWB & QR and it looks like GEnx won't be on A350XWB in the time frame of the QR offer. I don't know how pointing this
201 CygnusChicago: I think that is the case with nearly all Airbus threads that start on a positive note. I think you're comments prove his point
202 Revelation: I think my comments prove all points of view can be expressed. Otherwise the Airbus fans could keep themselves amused by reading the Airbus press rel
203 EI321: Hmm, Its appears that you related to my point And your tune has changed from: to: after which you stated: ....I take it that the phrase 'No one' refe
204 Stitch: Because Leahy is a carnival barker. He gets the job done (thanks in no little part to Airbus' engineers), but he makes more verbal gaffes then the si
205 Jdevora: The way that read it is that Airbus wants a NEW development for the A350xwb instead of the 787's engines, the same way that RR did. cheers JD
206 Revelation: Not sure if it's worth the time to unwind the selective quoting, but here goes: A true statement, if we consider the current state of affairs. My post
207 NorCal: There really isn't anything that new about the Trent XWB. It will offer 2% SFC improvement, that is it. The GE90-115 offered a bigger improvement ove
208 Astuteman: Apart from the quoted "2%" comment, what do you know about the technology being introduced on the -XWB? (Genuine question...) Regards
209 NorCal: Well I know (from public sources) there will be a larger fan and some minor tweaks to the turbine section. It would be logical to assume that those a
210 Revelation: Rolls-Royce releases new data on Trent XWB
211 Astuteman: FWIW this is the only article I've seen so far, hence my question to NorCal.. Helps to know what's contained in Vision10, in that case, doesn't it?..
212 Keesje: Rolls-Royce says it won US$6.06 billion of new orders LONDON (AP) - Rolls-Royce PLC, the world's second largest aircraft engine maker, said Monday tha
Sponsor Message: 
From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 9843 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 204 posts, 
From Korea, joined Jan 2006, 2614 posts, 
From United States, joined Jul 2005, 15917 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Jun 2006, 3160 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Spain, joined Aug 2006, 300 posts, 
From Japan, joined Feb 2005, 5134 posts, 
From Slovenia, joined May 2001, 602 posts, 
From Australia, joined Feb 2007, 76 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
