AT From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 863 posts, RR: 0 Posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 7606 times:
Hello,
I have a number of questions re: Boeing's decision to have an exclusive relationship with GE for the engines for the 777-200LR and 300ER series
1) Is that competitive? Had Boeing allowed all three manufacturers to provide engines, there would have been more competition, with more (and possibly cheaper) choices for the customers...
2) Commonality: 777 operators that hitherto were using RR or P&W engines now have to switch to GE if they order
the LR. Would this be a deterrent in ordering the 777LR?
3) Related to point 2, how much commonality is there between the GE engines that power the ER versus LR variants.
THe fan blades, for example, are completely different. And can you replace an engine on an ER with one from an LR and vice versa?
Leskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 72 Reply 1, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 7543 times:
Quoting AT (Thread starter): 1) Is that competitive? Had Boeing allowed all three manufacturers to provide engines, there would have been more competition, with more (and possibly cheaper) choices for the customers...
Perhaps, perhaps not - I seem to remember that (at least) one of the engine manufacturers mentioned that it would be very unlikely for them to generate a profit from the sales of engines for the B777 considering the high amount of development they'd had to put in them, only to be faced with the two other companies also offering engines: I doubt that all three would have taken part in the race again.
Quoting AT (Thread starter): 2) Commonality: 777 operators that hitherto were using RR or P&W engines now have to switch to GE if they order
the LR. Would this be a deterrent in ordering the 777LR?
Considering that airlines that had not been operating GE engines on their B777s before have ordered the -200LR or -300ER, I'd say the deterrent doesn't seem to be that big.
Quoting AT (Thread starter): And can you replace an engine on an ER with one from an LR and vice versa?
I'm no expert for aircraft engines, but my gut feeling says no - too different systems.
Moo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3600 posts, RR: 4 Reply 2, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 7508 times:
The thing that I have heard most often is that Boeing did not infact see the market for the 777-300 and -200LR that did infact later materialise - the GE partnership was a risk sharing one, where GE not only developed the engine but also invested in the airframe as well, so they requested exclusivity as well and got it.
1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 5774 posts, RR: 2 Reply 3, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 7499 times:
Quoting Leskova (Reply 1): Considering that airlines that had not been operating GE engines on their B777s before have ordered the -200LR or -300ER, I'd say the deterrent doesn't seem to be that big.
Yes, Delta has ordered the 777-200LR, even though their 777-200ERs use RR engines. Delta is really no stranger to operating multiple engine types. Their 767 fleet features both GE and P&W engines. Delta started out with the CF6-80A2 on their 767-200s and most of their domestic 767-300s. Delta then went with the PW4060 on their first 767-300ERs and last four domestic 767-300s. Around 1998, Delta switched to the GE CF6-80C2 for their 767-300ERs and 767-400ERs.
The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26726 posts, RR: 83 Reply 4, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 7334 times:
Quoting AT (Thread starter): Is that competitive? Had Boeing allowed all three manufacturers to provide engines, there would have been more competition, with more (and possibly cheaper) choices for the customers...
The engine manufacturers drove the decision more then Boeing did. Both GE and Pratt demanded that they be exclusive suppliers and I imagine part of RR's "magnanimity" was that they had an exclusive contract on the A340-500 and A340-600.
Quoting AT (Thread starter): Commonality: 777 operators that hitherto were using RR or P&W engines now have to switch to GE if they order the LR. Would this be a deterrent in ordering the 777LR?
At the time, only AA and CX swore they would never abandon RR power for a new 777 model. AA continues to stick by that, but more for economic reasons then dogmatic I imagine. As for CX, they eventually ordered the 777-300ER with GE power.
Quoting AT (Thread starter): Related to point 2, how much commonality is there between the GE engines that power the ER versus LR variants. The fan blades, for example, are completely different. And can you replace an engine on an ER with one from an LR and vice versa?
I don't know the specifics, but I do would imagine the engines are physically incompatible since the GE90-11xB need different nacelle mounts and such.
Boeing744 From Canada, joined Jun 2005, 1770 posts, RR: 25 Reply 5, posted (5 years 4 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 6097 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 4): since the GE90-11xB need different nacelle mounts and such.
Yes, IIRC the engines on the 773ER have about 5000 pounds more thrust than those on the 772LR (so I would imagine they are slightly bigger in physical size).
Quoting AT (Thread starter): 1) Is that competitive? Had Boeing allowed all three manufacturers to provide engines, there would have been more competition, with more (and possibly cheaper) choices for the customers...
I believe the driving force behind this decision was to make the design process quicker and cheaper for the entire airframe. Therefore it should have brought costs down for the airframe itself.
Cruiser From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 998 posts, RR: 8 Reply 6, posted (5 years 4 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 6013 times:
Quoting Boeing744 (Reply 5): Yes, IIRC the engines on the 773ER have about 5000 pounds more thrust than those on the 772LR (so I would imagine they are slightly bigger in physical size).
This is just a software upgrade. The 772LR comes standard at 110,000lbs and can be upgraded (just with software) to the 115,000lb variant. The 773ER comes standard with the 115,000lb variant. Physically, I believe they are the EXACT same engine, but just with different software on it.
Leahy on Per Seat Costs: "Have you seen the B-2 fly-by at almost US$1bn a copy? It has only 2 seats!"
CF6PPE From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 306 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (5 years 4 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 6000 times:
Quoting Boeing744 (Reply 5): Yes, IIRC the engines on the 773ER have about 5000 pounds more thrust than those on the 772LR (so I would imagine they are slightly bigger in physical size).
Check the following linked "GE Comparison Chart: Turbofans" for differences in the several different GE90 models - located at the end of the chart. (Note: The linked chart also includes the different CF34 and CF6 engine models.):
Gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16215 posts, RR: 88 Reply 8, posted (5 years 4 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 5986 times:
Quoting AT (Thread starter): And can you replace an engine on an ER with one from an LR and vice versa?
A 777-200ER to a 777-200LR, no.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 4): that they had an exclusive contract on the A340-500 and A340-600.
No such contract... nobody else wanted to build an engine.
Quoting Boeing744 (Reply 5): Yes, IIRC the engines on the 773ER have about 5000 pounds more thrust than those on the 772LR (so I would imagine they are slightly bigger in physical size).
Quoting Cruiser (Reply 6): Physically, I believe they are the EXACT same engine, but just with different software on it.
Nicholaschee From Australia, joined Oct 2005, 661 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (5 years 4 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 5862 times:
Quoting Leskova (Reply 1): Considering that airlines that had not been operating GE engines on their B777s before have ordered the -200LR or -300ER, I'd say the deterrent doesn't seem to be that big.
The exclusivity of GE engines on the 773ER hasn't deterred Singapore Airlines from ordering 19 of it, even though Singapore Airlines has been operating a RR Trent powered fleet for their 772ERs and 773s since 1997.
Lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10696 posts, RR: 100 Reply 10, posted (5 years 4 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 5814 times:
Quoting Leskova (Reply 1): Quoting AT (Thread starter):
And can you replace an engine on an ER with one from an LR and vice versa?
I'm no expert for aircraft engines, but my gut feeling says no - too different systems.
Not really. For the 773ER to 772LR.
Quoting Cruiser (Reply 6): This is just a software upgrade.
Operationally, its a chip change. However, it also requires a license from GE to switch. (Any 77W/77L combined operator already negotiated the license).
Quoting Gigneil (Reply 8): A 777-200ER to a 777-200LR, no.
Nope. About 6" more fan diameter.
Quoting Gigneil (Reply 8): No such contract... nobody else wanted to build an engine.
Nitpick, Pratt was developing an A340 engine when they found out there was an exclusive through 2008. Then Airbus told Pratt about that clause in the RR contract; at that point Pratt dropped the development effort (it was still only a 'paper engine'). Source? None. Its one I worked on though.
RR offered to make a non-exclusive engine. GE and Pratt demand exclusivity. At that point, GE offered to become a risk sharing partner and loan Boeing a few Billion bucks. That sealed the deal.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26726 posts, RR: 83 Reply 11, posted (5 years 4 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 5565 times:
Quoting Gigneil (Reply 8): No such contract... nobody else wanted to build an engine.
Whether they specifically wanted it that way or not, only Trent 900 power was offered on the A340-500 and A340-600 so RR could have figured whether it was an Airbus or a Boeing, they had a good shot either way of powering it, so why not let GE and/or Pratt have a go. They likely (and correctly) figured a number of RR customers would be going for the 777X so they'd win more then they lost.
Gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16215 posts, RR: 88 Reply 12, posted (5 years 4 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 5555 times:
Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 10): Source? None. Its one I worked on though.
Leskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 72 Reply 13, posted (5 years 4 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 5317 times:
Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 10): Quoting Leskova (Reply 1):
Quoting AT (Thread starter):
And can you replace an engine on an ER with one from an LR and vice versa?
I'm no expert for aircraft engines, but my gut feeling says no - too different systems.
Not really. For the 773ER to 772LR.
Guess I misunderstood the original question - I though the question was from -200ER to -200LR...
Boeing744 From Canada, joined Jun 2005, 1770 posts, RR: 25 Reply 14, posted (5 years 4 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 5261 times:
Quoting Cruiser (Reply 6): This is just a software upgrade. The 772LR comes standard at 110,000lbs and can be upgraded (just with software) to the 115,000lb variant. The 773ER comes standard with the 115,000lb variant. Physically, I believe they are the EXACT same engine, but just with different software on it.
Quoting CF6PPE (Reply 7): Check the following linked "GE Comparison Chart: Turbofans" for differences in the several different GE90 models - located at the end of the chart. (Note: The linked chart also includes the different CF34 and CF6 engine models.):
CFMitch56 From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 94 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (5 years 4 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 4018 times:
Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 10): RR offered to make a non-exclusive engine. GE and Pratt demand exclusivity. At that point, GE offered to become a risk sharing partner and loan Boeing a few Billion bucks. That sealed the deal.
Hypothetical: Would Pratt have succeeded in building an effective and marketable engine for the heaviest 777 models, or would it have been a flop? I base my question on the troubles P&W had getting the highest thrust PW4000 (4098 for the 777? and 4174 for the A330, maybe?) versions together for KE 777's and US A333s, maybe others. The story I remember about one/both cases was that the increase in engine power came at a disproportionately higher fuel consumption that actually negated the usefulness of the extra power.
Did Pratt ever discuss how they'd achieve the power needed for the longer-range 777 models? They'd hafta go bigger than 112" diameter, right? The GE90 goes up to 135".
Albird87 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (5 years 4 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 3698 times:
Quoting Gigneil (Reply 8): Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
that they had an exclusive contract on the A340-500 and A340-600.
No such contract... nobody else wanted to build an engine.
So couldnt that be considered an exlcusive?? I doubt GE and PW will build and engine now for the A345/6 now.
However..... there are a lot of customers i think that are RR 777s that could use the 77W/L. Now if RR could find lets say 100 orders for Boeing with the 77W/L and have an engine upgrade ready for the 77W/L, would Boeing ever consider in paying off GE to remove the exclusive or giving them comission?
The money from those orders would be pretty high and maybe with that, then you will find more orders trickle in. The only loser out of it would be GE but i guess there would be compensation for them also.
GEnxPower From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 121 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (5 years 4 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 3567 times:
Quoting AT (Thread starter):
1) Is that competitive? Had Boeing allowed all three manufacturers to provide engines, there would have been more competition, with more (and possibly cheaper) choices for the customers...
During the engine selection competition, Boeing decided that they probably will not sell enough of the 77W and 77L to warrant 2 engine companies to develop new engines for these new offerings. Hence, Boeing selected one manufacture over another. Apparently, for whatever reason, Boeing liked GE offering on 777W/77L and went with GE. It was almost the same situation in selection of Trent 500's on A346/A346.
The same reason was used on B737-300/400 on CFM engine selection on B737, which Boeing thought they would sell only about 200 to 300 of these plane. 7500 B737 deliveries and 3-4 years of backlog later, it would seem CFM got a great exclusive deal.
Right now B747-8i went thru the same engine selection process. GEnx-2B has been chosen as exclusive engine offering and the thought is that, there won't be too many of B747-8i in the future to warrant 2 different engine offerings.
Quoting AT (Thread starter): Commonality: 777 operators that hitherto were using RR or P&W engines now have to switch to GE if they order the LR.
777-200ER, 777-300 use the GE90-94B engines while 777-300ER and 777-200LR use GE90-115B engines. As Lightsaber mentioned, there are thrust control chips that can vary the engine's net thrust to go from GE90-94B to GE90-90B, or to go from GE90-115B to GE90-110B etc.
Engines are usually priced on max thrust produced. Simple : Bigger car, bigger price tag. Lowering the max thrust not just saves you on the sticker price, but it usually also improves your durability, fuel efficiency, cycle life, EGT Margin etc.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26726 posts, RR: 83 Reply 18, posted (5 years 4 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 3364 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 11): Whether they specifically wanted it that way or not, only Trent 900 power was offered on the A340-500 and A340-600...
That should be Trent 500 power, of course... An A340 with Trent 900s hanging off her would be something to behold - for the few moments the engines stayed on the wing.
Quoting Albird87 (Reply 16): However..... there are a lot of customers i think that are RR 777s that could use the 77W/L. Now if RR could find lets say 100 orders for Boeing with the 77W/L and have an engine upgrade ready for the 77W/L, would Boeing ever consider in paying off GE to remove the exclusive or giving them commission?
The costs would be very high to actually go back and complete the Trent 8115 certification and source the parts necessary to fill the orders. And then the payments to Boeing and GE to break the lease. Even if RR was able to actually get airlines to pay $30 million an engine plus a long maintenance deal, the $6 billion+ in revenue might just cover the cost, but GE would be able to offer GE90-11xBs for a great deal less then $30 million as well as cheaper maintenance deals, so I just don't see enough airlies still solely on RR power who need, but have not yet purchased, the 77L/77W/77F, needing 100 frames between them and willing to pay top price to get it.
Fruitbat From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 547 posts, RR: 6 Reply 20, posted (5 years 4 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3066 times:
Quoting GEnxPower (Reply 17): Apparently, for whatever reason, Boeing liked GE offering on 777W/77L and went with GE. It was almost the same situation in selection of Trent 500's on A346/A346.
Not quite - as Lightsaber says, Boeing liked the GE offering as it came with a suitcase full of revenue-sharing cash. Also, AFAIK the orginal forecast sales for the 77W/77L were high enough to be viable but low enough to make it a winner-takes-all scenario. GE won and are doing very well from better-than-expected sales.
RR did have an exclusivity deal on the A345/A346 but it wasn't tied to a risk/revenue deal (but I can be corrected on this again if need be!). Once the other engine manufacturers weighed it up they decided not to develop a competitor engine.
Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ... except the weasel.
Lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10696 posts, RR: 100 Reply 21, posted (5 years 4 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2951 times:
Quoting CFMitch56 (Reply 15): Would Pratt have succeeded in building an effective and marketable engine for the heaviest 777 models, or would it have been a flop?
A flop. After the PW4098, Pratt wasn't trusted on the 777. Customers really wanted a RR engine too. But Pratt was in the doghouse then. Only RR thought there would be enough sales for two engine vendors.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 863 posts, 
From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, 
From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3600 posts, 
As for CX, they eventually ordered the 777-300ER with GE power.
From Canada, joined Jun 2005, 1770 posts, 
From Australia, joined Oct 2005, 661 posts, 
Operationally, its a chip change. However, it also requires a license from GE to switch. (Any 77W/77L combined operator already negotiated the license). 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Norway, joined Sep 2007, 669 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
