RJ111 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2004, 3005 posts, RR: 7 Reply 1, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2914 times:
There's no obligation, Airlines will decide in most cases on the sheer economics of the two option and naturally this will be offer an advantage to the RR. But it will not be the be all and end all - far from it. It will probably benefit smaller airlines who have smaller fleets. But when you have more than 30 of the types this advantage diminishes quite a lot, and the merits of the two engines will be more important. The GE appears to be the popular choice on the 787 on merit alone.
WINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2737 posts, RR: 71 Reply 2, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2911 times:
Quoting JerseyFlyer (Thread starter): A number of airlines have, or are likely to, order both A350 and B787.
RR currently has exclusivity on A350 but competes with GE on B787.
Is there any evidence yet that airlines "obliged" to take RR on their A350s will be more likely to select RR on their 787s?
Well from the top of my mind, Singapore Airlines opted for RR to power their A350's and 787's. On the other hand Qatar opted to equip their 787 fleet with GE.
What Rolls Royce has managed to do is influence some airlines opting for A330's as interim lift to go with the Trent 700 apposed to PW or GE. This has been witnessed with Singapore Airlines, Aeroflot, Hawaiian, US Airways, and I'm sure that other have also done so or will do so in the future.
AirbusA6 From United Kingdom (England), joined Apr 2005, 1000 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2799 times:
Quoting WINGS (Reply 2): What Rolls Royce has managed to do is influence some airlines opting for A330's as interim lift to go with the Trent 700 apposed to PW or GE. This has been witnessed with Singapore Airlines, Aeroflot, Hawaiian, US Airways, and I'm sure that other have also done so or will do so in the future.
I would have thought that this was more down to the success of the T700 on the A330, as it does seem to be the best engine option...
it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
CHRISBA777ER From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 4795 posts, RR: 59 Reply 4, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2776 times:
I still have my suspicions that GE will announce a GENX derivative for the A350 sooner rather than later. I just think the market is too big to be beholden to one engine type. It would potentially open the door to a number of new orders for the A350 as there are airlines would would greatly prefer GE under the wings - AF/KL are the obvious one but there are number more.
WINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2737 posts, RR: 71 Reply 5, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2729 times:
Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 4): I still have my suspicions that GE will announce a GENX derivative for the A350 sooner rather than later. I just think the market is too big to be beholden to one engine type. It would potentially open the door to a number of new orders for the A350 as there are airlines would would greatly prefer GE under the wings - AF/KL are the obvious one but there are number more.
Correct.
I can easily think of three airlines ( TAP, TAM, Aer Lingus) that are traditionally pro-GE that are holding back their respective engine selection.
Will be interesting to see if GE will announce something at Farnborough regarding this point.
PM From Japan, joined Feb 2005, 4903 posts, RR: 57 Reply 6, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2575 times:
Quoting WINGS (Reply 2): Singapore Airlines opted for RR to power their A350's and 787's.
SQ haven't yet chosen an engine for their 787s.
Quoting WINGS (Reply 5): I can easily think of three airlines ( TAP, TAM, Aer Lingus) that are traditionally pro-GE
Hate to disagree with you but on what evidence can you say that TAM have traditionally been pro-GE? They have IAE on their A320s and chosen PW for their first batch of A330s before leasing some with GE and then switching back to PW again. Having GE on their small fleet of 77Ws is an unavoidable consequence of buying that model. There's no GE tradition I can see.
Parapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 383 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2558 times:
I am of the opinion that the Trent XWB core is a straight derivative of the 900 core. It is for this reason that Rolls could get on this aircraft so quickly .The Trent 1000 could not make the thrust levels neither can GenX. But there is another engine that could be hung under a 350. However GE only owns half (approx) of it -P&W the rest. IMHO GE is being a greedy bully here. They refuse (legal)permission for the plant to be reworked for a twin engined aircraft to cut off potental revenues to a US compeditor and at the sme time try to pressure Airbus into taking GenX for the smaller two 350,s. I applaud Airbus not budging on this -It is for GE to move on this one. Either build a new engine from scratch (they won't do this) or let P&W in -they should.
Baroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 9878 posts, RR: 46 Reply 8, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2333 times:
Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 4): I still have my suspicions that GE will announce a GENX derivative for the A350 sooner rather than later.
For my it will take longer than that to sort out the complex they have got themselves into with being sort of partners in the 77W program.
For another two cents, RR are not going to let out enough specifications about the TXWB for another year or so, which means either GE has to take a shot in, not exactly the dark but at least an amount of uncertainty.
You could easily win (or lose) at least 4 cents there Chris.
CHRISBA777ER From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 4795 posts, RR: 59 Reply 9, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2321 times:
Quoting Baroque (Reply 8): Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 4):
I still have my suspicions that GE will announce a GENX derivative for the A350 sooner rather than later.
For my it will take longer than that to sort out the complex they have got themselves into with being sort of partners in the 77W program.
For another two cents, RR are not going to let out enough specifications about the TXWB for another year or so, which means either GE has to take a shot in, not exactly the dark but at least an amount of uncertainty.
You could easily win (or lose) at least 4 cents there Chris.
I prefer to take a long term view on it - if you imagine that the A350 in all its iterations may well sell 800+ or even 1000+ in its buildspan, then I just find it really hard to imagine that for all their loyalty to Boeing, that GE wouldnt want a piece of that. Yes, its a mess right now, but I cannot help but think that long-term, a GE option is almost a neccessity. It is very much to the detriment of the A350 programme not to have them on board I feel, doesnt matter how good the TXWB is.
PM From Japan, joined Feb 2005, 4903 posts, RR: 57 Reply 10, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2257 times:
Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 9): if you imagine that the A350 in all its iterations may well sell 800+ or even 1000+ in its buildspan
That all?! They've sold half that already! So the A350 will sell no more than the 787 has sold already and way fewer than the 777? Come on. The A350 should be good for a couple of thousand over its life.
Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 9): I just find it really hard to imagine that [...] GE wouldnt want a piece of that
But if the total is only 800-1000 they've already pretty much missed the boat.
Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 9): It is very much to the detriment of the A350 programme not to have them on board
How so? Just which orders have Airbus lost because of it? Is it more or less detrimental to the programme than having no choice on the 777W?
You beat the drum of GE joining the A350 at Farnborough so often that I assume you have inside information. I therefore assume you must be right but as a total 'outsider' I can only say that it still looks unlikely to me. Neither side is making very encouraging noises and the scale of GE's involvement is hard to fathom. Are they really going to launch their engine on the back of an order from QF for the -1000? You've hinted as much elsewhere but that really would be flying in the face of received wisdom about GE/the GE90/the GEnx/the A3510.
Baroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 9878 posts, RR: 46 Reply 11, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2241 times:
Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 9): Yes, its a mess right now, but I cannot help but think that long-term, a GE option is almost a neccessity. It is very much to the detriment of the A350 programme not to have them on board I feel, doesnt matter how good the TXWB is.
All true, but is it a mess that can be solved by Farnborough time especially when RR are not being especially forthcoming about the TXWB? My 2 cents is that it is not.
Quoting Parapente (Reply 7): I am of the opinion that the Trent XWB core is a straight derivative of the 900 core.
Probably depends what you mean by straight. Straight in that both are or will be contra-rotating. Also common will be Trent family characteristics, but probably very different in sufficient important respects could be nearer the case. The T1000 is quite a bit ahead of the initial T900s (though by now perhaps not so much) and the TXWB is probably going to be even more ahead of the T1000.
When the T1700 was in the offing, it might have been true that the T1700 and T1000 would have been very similar aside from the air bleed. However many years it is from T1000 to TXWB actually running, make it unlikely that there will be much T1000 let alone T900. It is going to need a higher mass flow than either, and my guess is it will be a bit lighter than the T1000. Note that the T1000 is about a tonne lighter than the T900 or that is what RR seem to say. And they give no weight for the TXWB.
PM From Japan, joined Feb 2005, 4903 posts, RR: 57 Reply 12, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2212 times:
Quoting JerseyFlyer (Thread starter): Is there any evidence yet that airlines "obliged" to take RR on their A350s will be more likely to select RR on their 787s?
It seems unlikely that any airline will be 'obliged' to take any engine they don't want. But it has to be one of the factors when choosing an engine. If you are already in a contractual agreement with RR on the A350 it may 'help' things when you come to choose an engine for the 787.
What is interesting is that both Aeroflot and Singapore Airlines confirmed their A350 orders with RR but left open (and they're still open) the choice of engines for their 787s. That would suggest that there isn't much of a link between the two models.
Nor, to be honest, need there be. Airlines who will buy both with mostly be operating fairly large fleets and so, as has been said above, they can profitably operate two different engines.
That said, it does appear that a number of airlines are seeing some benefit in taking several versions of the RR Trent family. SQ have the 500, 700, 800, 900 and XWB. LH have the 500, 700 and 900. TG have the 500, 700, 800 and 900. BA have the 800, 900 and 1000. EK have the 700, 800 and XWB. But it is too soon to see firm evidence that RR are winning 787 orders on the back of A350 orders.
Stitch From United States, joined Jul 2005, 14916 posts, RR: 63 Reply 14, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2172 times:
Quoting Parapente (Reply 7): But there is another engine that could be hung under a 350. However GE only owns half (approx) of it -P&W the rest. IMHO GE is being a greedy bully here. They refuse (legal) permission for the plant to be reworked for a twin engined aircraft to cut off potental revenues to a US compeditor and at the sme time try to pressure Airbus into taking GenX for the smaller two 350's.
I too believe the GP7000 series would likely make a solid choice, especially if GE applies any improvements they develop for the GE90 to the engine.
Have the EU formally lifted their requirement that the GP7000 series be fitted in sets of four?
Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 9): I prefer to take a long term view on it - if you imagine that the A350 in all its iterations may well sell 800+ or even 1000+ in its build-span, then I just find it really hard to imagine that for all their loyalty to Boeing, that GE wouldn't want a piece of that.
I expect the A350 has more then that many sales in her, though I am of the opinion the models needing 95,000lbs or more will see total sales of about 800-1000, if that. As such, I can see GE being hesitant to build an all-new engine family if they can get the GEnx to ~80,000 to power the A350-800/A350-900.
Baroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 9878 posts, RR: 46 Reply 15, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2137 times:
Quoting PM (Reply 13): Quoting Baroque (Reply 11):
My 2 cents is that it is not.
Is that the same 2 cents as the (first) 2 cents in reply #8 or another 2 cents? This could start adding up. I hope you know what you're doing!
Oh hang the expense, at 2 cents even I can nearly afford it. And anyway, I am made marginally brave by the labyrinthine nature of the GE-77W deal not to mention how difficult RR have made it to figure out what the target is.
CHRISBA777ER From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 4795 posts, RR: 59 Reply 16, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2087 times:
Quoting PM (Reply 10): You beat the drum of GE joining the A350 at Farnborough so often that I assume you have inside information. I therefore assume you must be right but as a total 'outsider' I can only say that it still looks unlikely to me. Neither side is making very encouraging noises and the scale of GE's involvement is hard to fathom. Are they really going to launch their engine on the back of an order from QF for the -1000? You've hinted as much elsewhere but that really would be flying in the face of received wisdom about GE/the GE90/the GEnx/the A3510.
Aha - but you will note from my posts that I've said nothing will be signed at Farnborough, but that we may well see more encouraging noises and that we can look forward to something concrete later on - perhaps as early as May 2009. In terms of "insider" information - nope - we've not been asked to do anything on it, this is just me with my analyst hat on. I just think it’s too big a market not to and whatever difficulties there may be associated with it would be overcome quickly once people start talking.
I said 800-1000 A350s - probably the most conservative estimate you'll find. I expect it may well sell twice this amount, but I am the kind of person that works on worst case scenarios - i.e.: possibility of serious delays, Boeing getting the 787 very right and it being the absolute slam dunk they say it is going to be, (maybe with a reworked 783 with reasonable range/OEW and a CASM monster 787-11 etc), A330 owners not wanting to replace their fleets because they are still very capable, global recession driving a depression in new aircraft orders, oil prices or some other externality culling 25% of the world’s airlines etc. Call it an absolute worst case ballpark figure if you like. Like you say, they may sell twice that amount but these are uncertain times and I prefer to use worst case working.
Even at 1,000 A350s – (and how many has the 777 family sold to date) - It’s still a huge pie and I think the industry today is much more consumer driven than it was. The 727 and 737 were offered with one engine and nobody complained – one of the reasons the A320 and 757 did well in replacing them was having a choice of engine. Later models of 747 all had a choice of engines once Boeing realised that they needed to be all things to all men to see off the Tristar and DC10 etc. The A340 was supposed to have a choice of engines but PW screwed the pooch on their GTF offering – a GE offering on the A340NG may have helped, we don’t know.
I think the A350 needs to replace A330/340, 747 and 777 fleets and is designed to go after this (very wide) niche –all three types have a PW, GE and RR offering – how can you expect to target a niche such as this when you offer just 33% of the engine choice? I think the 77W would have sold even better had it been available with a “Trent 8015” – but this is a subfamily of a whole genre of planes – the 777 in other models had a choice of powerplants.
The A350 will likely be as numerous as the 777 if all goes well with her, but offering her with just Trents is a huge mistake for me, wonderful though that would be for RR. Not offering a choice just seems daft. GE has the GENX family which would lend itself nicely to development in the thrust ranges that would be required for the A350, or it may be that a scaled down GP7000 may be the way forward.
CHRISBA777ER From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 4795 posts, RR: 59 Reply 17, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2055 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 14): Quoting Parapente (Reply 7):
But there is another engine that could be hung under a 350. However GE only owns half (approx) of it -P&W the rest. IMHO GE is being a greedy bully here. They refuse (legal) permission for the plant to be reworked for a twin engined aircraft to cut off potental revenues to a US compeditor and at the sme time try to pressure Airbus into taking GenX for the smaller two 350's.
I too believe the GP7000 series would likely make a solid choice, especially if GE applies any improvements they develop for the GE90 to the engine.
My sentiment PRECISELY.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 14): Have the EU formally lifted their requirement that the GP7000 series be fitted in sets of four?
I doubt very much this will be a problem once the Airbus hierarchy start asking for it to be lifted.
Astuteman From United Kingdom (England), joined Jan 2005, 5654 posts, RR: 82 Reply 18, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2021 times:
Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 17): I too believe the GP7000 series would likely make a solid choice, especially if GE applies any improvements they develop for the GE90 to the engine.
My sentiment PRECISELY.
Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 17): I doubt very much this will be a problem once the Airbus hierarchy start asking for it to be lifted.
The problem witrh this scenario is that Airbus management seem to have very clearly told EA to "go forth and multiply" as far as the GP7000 goes.
The quote IIRC was "We want a next-generation on the A350"....
Stitch From United States, joined Jul 2005, 14916 posts, RR: 63 Reply 20, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1998 times:
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 18): The problem witrh this scenario is that Airbus management seem to have very clearly told EA to "go forth and multiply" as far as the GP7000 goes.
The quote IIRC was "We want a next-generation on the A350"...
And a GP7000 with new bits drawn from the GE90NG and GEnx lines, plus whatever (if anything) Pratt can add to the mix, then it is by definition a "next generation engine" as much as the Trent XWB likely truly is.
CHRISBA777ER From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 4795 posts, RR: 59 Reply 21, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1990 times:
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 18): The problem witrh this scenario is that Airbus management seem to have very clearly told EA to "go forth and multiply" as far as the GP7000 goes.
The quote IIRC was "We want a next-generation on the A350"....
Such as a GENX - fine enough (although short sighted in my opinion). Thats up to them. Personally i think its a poor call, unless they are convinced that GENX is the way forward and want to push GE to offer it -
Why is it a physical impossibility for GE to offer a GENX derivative for the A350?
Parapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 383 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1990 times:
Well we roughly agree. I repeat my "guestimate" that the XWB core is indeed a very updated 900 core -but fundamentally the same size (if this is not true we are saying that Rolls has just built 3 completely different engines (900/1000/XWB) in the "same" thrust bracket. This I do not believe -its simply not affordable. All the 1000improvements plus a little to the 900 core -plus a brand new fan. That is what I believe the XWB is. Thus the same arguement can be applied to the GP7000. They would do this in any event. Why? Because 1. There would be no point in hanging an uncompeditive engine on anything.Let alone the XWB. 2. If (above) I am right they will have to improve the 7000 in any event if they wish to stay in the 380 game.
Astuteman From United Kingdom (England), joined Jan 2005, 5654 posts, RR: 82 Reply 23, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1971 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 20): And a GP7000 with new bits drawn from the GE90NG and GEnx lines, plus whatever (if anything) Pratt can add to the mix, then it is by definition a "next generation engine" as much as the Trent XWB likely truly is.
Wasn't me that said it, Stitch.
Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 21): Such as a GENX - fine enough (although short sighted in my opinion). Thats up to them. Personally i think its a poor call, unless they are convinced that GENX is the way forward and want to push GE to offer it -
IIRC Airbus say they want a "generation beyond GEnx"..
Of course I've no idea how we define "a generation" 'cos engines don't really work like that.
But I get the impression Airbus are playing "hard-ball" on the A350 engines, and rightly so. Better the best engine 2 or 3 years later, than the "second-best" engine from the start.
GE are probably rightly playing hard-ball after being dumped from the lead on the old A350....
CHRISBA777ER From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 4795 posts, RR: 59 Reply 25, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1961 times:
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 23): Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 21):
Such as a GENX - fine enough (although short sighted in my opinion). Thats up to them. Personally i think its a poor call, unless they are convinced that GENX is the way forward and want to push GE to offer it -
IIRC Airbus say they want a "generation beyond GEnx"..
Of course I've no idea how we define "a generation" 'cos engines don't really work like that.
But I get the impression Airbus are playing "hard-ball" on the A350 engines, and rightly so. Better the best engine 2 or 3 years later, than the "second-best" engine from the start.
GE are probably rightly playing hard-ball after being dumped from the lead on the old A350....
It will be interesting to see what happens...
Rgds
Thing is, with the number of orders coming in - are you agreed that we need to see action on this sooner rather than later? I think, looking at the timeframe, that we should start hearing positive noises if GE are going to offer something that Airbus will be happy with, fairly shortly.
Proud to be European!
26 Scbriml: In allowing GE and PW to collaborate on an engine in competition with RR, the EU ruled the GP7000 could only be fitted on planes that required 4 engi
27 EA772LR: If I'm not mistaken, I believe Airbus told GE that the GEnx "won't do", that they needed something "more advanced, as the GEnx would be a generation
29 Astuteman: I certainly won't dispute that the programme will benefit from a second engine (not that it appears to be unduly suffering, mind ) It seems pretty cl
30 Baroque: With the existing core? And what do you make of RR talking about turbine entry temperatures going up ~50 C? Might that not indicate higher pressure r
31 EA772LR: I was hoping you'd agree... I think that's doable as well. I was just being conservative in my assumption as I'm no wiz when it comes to aircraft eng
32 Astuteman: Don't think so - hence my use of the term "scaled-up". From my seat, RR have followed GE's lead in going down the "technology stocking" route, and th
33 Revelation: What about QF? I think they will most likely end up with 787 and A350-1000. Did they make an engine choice on 787? Indeed, but what corporate entity
34 EA772LR: Yeah they chose the GEnx. "SYDNEY, Feb 27 (Reuters) - Australia's Qantas Airways Ltd. said on Tuesday it has selected General Electric's GEnx engine
35 PM: "Conservative"? Downright pessimistic! 1,074 OK. But not having a choice of engtine doesn't appear to have hurt the 737 either. It rather depends wha
36 FrmrCAPCADET: I had been led to believe that GE could come up with a competative engine for the first two 350s without spending a lot of money. But not for the larg
37 XT6Wagon: Its also one of the reasons that I don't see GE being all that excited to do anything with Airbus in the widebody market anytime soon. Airbus costs G
38 Baroque: Cost the dollars they had spent on the A350 - I rather doubt it - cost them anticipated profits from bleeding GEnxs, probably. But not real dollars??
39 PM: I suppose that's an important point. If Airbus don't consider that the version of the GEnx they are being offered matches the TXWB then there's rathe
40 CHRISBA777ER: But would you agree that this ballpark figure would be the absolute bare mininum you would expect the A350 to sell barring an asteroid or global pand
41 XT6Wagon: Nope, real money lost. Engine development isn't cheap and there is NO WAY GE was going to do a bleed air, small fan version of the GEnX just for the
42 Stitch: I see the combined market for the A350-900R, A350-900F and A350-1000 at under 1000 frames, assuming Boeing does absolutely nothing with the 777 and d
44 Baroque: Hang on a minute, that would need the GEnx to have been sized for the first of the A350s, which AFAIK it was not, it was sized for the 787. The A350
45 EA772LR: The engine GE was to put on the initial 350 had already been designed for the 787, so you are correct. No real dollars were lost, but a lot of potent
46 Moo: I heard a lot of this on A.net at the time, but never anything verifiable...
47 XT6Wagon: Yah, I've looked a little bit for it, but last I checked the search here is useless, and google so far has only had more general stuff from later in
48 Baroque: However, for your thesis to hold water, it would mean that the GEnx was sized in relation to the A330. Now that may well be the case and I don't know
49 Stitch: Absolutely. Yes and yes. I believe GE does not want to make an engine for the A350-1000 because they feel it will only sell "well" (sub-500). I also
50 Astuteman: Oh yes there is! They did! The bleed-air GEnx for the old A350 was a bleed-air version of the full-size 111" fan GEnx for the 787, rated to an equal
51 Fruitbat: If by "straight derivative" and "very updated" you mean "capable of delivering more thrust with technology that gets the benefit of 10 years ongoing
52 Baroque: Nor would a "(very) updated Trent 900 core" be a good basis for Airbus telling GE that they needed a new generation engine or whatever heresy it was
53 Parapente: Withall due respect I do not think some people understand the mind boggling cost of developing "clean sheet" designs. The 211/trent bust rolls.GE say
54 PM: I hope I'll be forgiven if I drift slightly off-topic here but it's Friday afternoon... Maybe it's just me (my fondness for RR is no secret) but am I
55 EA772LR: Agreed I think GE is reluctant to hop on the 350XWB, because they just spent a boat load of money the last decade designing the GE90-115B/GEnx and ar
56 Revelation: That's one way to look at it. But GE was on board for the "old" A350 and had lined up lots of potential business, and Airbus was the one who changed
57 FrmrCAPCADET: The dynamic in the negotiations regards whether or no GE will supply the engines for ALL variations of the 350. GE seems to think that they can affor
58 Fruitbat: Put the general arrangement drawings side by side, and I agree, it'll probably take a reasonably competent engineer to tell them apart. However a gen
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 105 posts, 
From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2737 posts, .gif){kind=small}
From United Kingdom (England), joined Apr 2005, 1000 posts, 
Correct.
From Japan, joined Feb 2005, 4903 posts, 
From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 9878 posts, 
it will take longer than that to sort out the complex they have got themselves into with being sort of partners in the 77W program.
From United States, joined Jul 2005, 14916 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Printer friendly format 
