Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Will RR Ever Offer The Trent XWB To Boeing?  
User currently offlineNCB From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (5 years 8 months 4 days ago) and read 7584 times:

It's a slow Saturday evening, so let's start an interesting topic.

We all know about the special agreement between Boeing and GEnx.

Will RR ever offer the Trent XWB for an eventual Y3/B777 upgrade to Boeing or will they make it an Airbus-only product as long as Airbus keeps it the exclusive engine for the A350XWB family, maybe for the A380NG?

RR must also not be very happy about Boeing making only GEnx available on the 4-engined B748...

36 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4787 posts, RR: 14
Reply 1, posted (5 years 8 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 7488 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

isn't the XWB exclusively on the A350 only because GE won't cough up a "better" version of the GEnx for the A350?

User currently offlineOsiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3192 posts, RR: 25
Reply 2, posted (5 years 8 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 7474 times:



Quoting NCB (Thread starter):
Will RR ever offer the Trent XWB for an eventual Y3/B777 upgrade to Boeing or will they make it an Airbus-only product as long as Airbus keeps it the exclusive engine for the A350XWB family, maybe for the A380NG?

I don't believe RR has signed any sort of exclusivity agreement with Airbus. I might be wrong, but I doubt it.

Quoting NCB (Thread starter):

RR must also not be very happy about Boeing making only GEnx available on the 4-engined B748...

I think you are wrong. The market there wasn't big enough for two engine makers and I have my doubts RR even wanted that market.



I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31117 posts, RR: 85
Reply 3, posted (5 years 8 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 7451 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

GE was already developing a bleed-air version of the GEnx for the original A350 (which they had a two-year exclusivity deal on), so making a version for the 747-8 family likely wasn't much of a hardship.

I think we could see Trent XWB power on a larger 787 Mk. II.


User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6938 posts, RR: 63
Reply 4, posted (5 years 8 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 7395 times:



Quoting NCB (Thread starter):
Will RR ever offer the Trent XWB for an eventual Y3/B777 upgrade to Boeing

No.

RR have a policy of designing specific engines to match the needs of each application. No Trent is on more than one platform. So RR will, I assume, bid to power whatever Boeing launches next but it won't be a TXWB.

That said, some of the TXWB technology will find its way into future RR engines but the next big RR fan on a Boeing widebody will neither be called the XWB nor be an XWB.

End of thread.  Wink


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21544 posts, RR: 59
Reply 5, posted (5 years 8 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 7296 times:



Quoting PM (Reply 4):
That said, some of the TXWB technology will find its way into future RR engines but the next big RR fan on a Boeing widebody will neither be called the XWB nor be an XWB.

It would more likely be the Trent 2000 if it were to go on a revised 787/enlarged 787.

I make this assumption based on the Trent 1700 (now XWB) for the A350 being the replacement for the Trent 700 used on the A330 series. They just added 1000, and so they would do the same for the Trent 1000.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31117 posts, RR: 85
Reply 6, posted (5 years 8 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 7237 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I have read that the Trent being developed for the now-canceled A340-500E and A340-600E had the codename "Trent 1500" (the original engine being the Trent 500).

So I suppose the A380-900 will get the "Trent 1900" based on the Trent XWB.

[Edited 2009-02-21 21:26:45]

User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10110 posts, RR: 97
Reply 7, posted (5 years 8 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 7114 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting PM (Reply 4):
RR have a policy of designing specific engines to match the needs of each application. No Trent is on more than one platform

True.
But an RB211 is...  Smile

http://www.rolls-royce.com/civil/pro.../largeaircraft/rb211_524/index.jsp

Quote:
Interchangeable between Boeing 747-400 and Boeing 767-300 (RB211-524H /-T).

They have done it before......

Rgds


User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6938 posts, RR: 63
Reply 8, posted (5 years 8 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 7079 times:



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 7):
They have done it before......

Oh, indeed. And I think they did offer the Trent 500 as an off-the-shelf engine for Japan's C-X. (The JSDAF chose General Evil's CF-6 instead...  Sad)

But the RR strategy is now to customise each engine to fit each application. To a degree, of course, there's nothing new in this - GE, PW and RR already do it - but, at least in terms of marketing, RR won't be offering an engine for more than one application.

The only exception I could see them making is putting an XWB on the A380 if they though the commonality could help them leverage more sales. But that doesn't appear to be the route they are following at present.

If RR had got on the 747-8 would it still have been called the Trent 1000? I think it might. But they didn't. So it isn't.

Moreover, regarding...

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 7):
Quote:
Interchangeable between Boeing 747-400 and Boeing 767-300 (RB211-524H /-T).

If we recall what a runaway success the RB211 was on the 767, there would seem little chance indeed of RR wanting to do it again!
 Big grin


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19942 posts, RR: 59
Reply 9, posted (5 years 8 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 7035 times:



Quoting PM (Reply 8):

If we recall what a runaway success the RB211 was on the 767, there would seem little chance indeed of RR wanting to do it again!

They can't have lost money on it. The engine was already developed.

And QF and BA loved them!


User currently offlineNCB From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (5 years 8 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 6994 times:

Airbus asked RR and GE to build the XWB engine to meet advanced specifications.

GE hasn't come on board even after 500 A350 orders because it doesn't want to invest in a new engine to meet these advanced specifications.

Airbus refused to take the modified bleed GEnx because it wouldn't meet the specifications.

What it means is that if RR proposes a Trent XWB-variant to Boeing, it would superseed the GEnx offering and eventually make a competitive Y3/B777NG.
That is the last thing Airbus would want.
If I were Airbus, I would ask for exclusivity on a pre-determined period of time (say till the end of the 2010-2020 decade).

Sure, GE can still develop the GEnx further to meet Y3/B777NG/XWB class thrust requirements and give Boeing the ability to offer a competitive Y3/B777NG to compete with the A350 but it will take at least a few years to get there and GE is not eager to invest in that yet...

Where they stand right now, Trent XWB is expected to achieve 2% lower SFC than GEnx.
That combined with a more efficient overall structure, just makes the A350XWB rival-less in its class.

That all could change, of course, if RR proposes a Trent XWB-variant...


User currently offlineNCB From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (5 years 8 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 6956 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 4):
That said, some of the TXWB technology will find its way into future RR engines but the next big RR fan on a Boeing widebody will neither be called the XWB nor be an XWB.

End of thread.

You can say that an apple is a banana, but it is still an apple.
We're talking about the technology, not names.  

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 2):
Quoting NCB (Thread starter):

RR must also not be very happy about Boeing making only GEnx available on the 4-engined B748...

I think you are wrong. The market there wasn't big enough for two engine makers and I have my doubts RR even wanted that market.

I think that the market is there. It doesn't look like the B748F will have any rivals in its class until 2020 at least. And we're talking about quads here, so selling engines for a quad means the same as selling engines for 2 twins.

With over 100 B748 orders, though the B748's short term vision is not absolutely secure, this is already a market for 400 engines. If the B748F survives the actual crisis, it will eventually prove to be a little succes on the long-term.

That is enough in my view for RR to offer a XWB Trent-variant that doesn't even require huge modifications as thrust requirements of the B748 on single engines are close to those of the A350 family.

The question is indeed:
Is it RR that refused to power the B748 to respect a mutual agreement with Airbus or is it Boeing that gave exclusivity to GE, or is it both?

Is this the point in history where the European manufacturer will exclusively work with the European engine-maker and the American manufacturer with the American engine-maker?

It certainly looks like it is to me...

[Edited 2009-02-22 02:19:40]

User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 12, posted (5 years 8 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 6826 times:



Quoting NCB (Reply 11):
Is this the point in history where the European manufacturer will exclusively work with the European engine-maker and the American manufacturer with the American engine-maker

Then again RR does have a US branch, the late Allison IIRC.

Added to which, some European airlines seem to fall over backwards trying to buy GE so that might happen, but it seems the less likely outcome.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 9):
Quoting PM (Reply 8):

If we recall what a runaway success the RB211 was on the 767, there would seem little chance indeed of RR wanting to do it again!

They can't have lost money on it. The engine was already developed.

And QF and BA loved them!

QF love them so much they keep buying GE for twins like the A330 and the B787! Tough love perhaps? Those Roller 767s never appear on the Syd Jakarta route, always GEs.


User currently offline9MMPD From Australia, joined Oct 2005, 286 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (5 years 8 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 6677 times:



Quoting Baroque (Reply 12):
Those Roller 767s never appear on the Syd Jakarta route, always GEs.

This has more to do with the issue of catering rather than performance. The QF RR powered 767s have different galleys than the GE ones hence why they are confined to Domestic ops and the odd New Zealand trip.


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31117 posts, RR: 85
Reply 14, posted (5 years 8 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 6347 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting NCB (Reply 11):
Is it RR that refused to power the B748 to respect a mutual agreement with Airbus or is it Boeing that gave exclusivity to GE, or is it both?

When he was head of GE Aircraft Engines, W. James (Jim) McNerney, Jr. successfully lobbied GE Chairman Jack Welch to make Boeing a deal that would win them exclusivity on powering the 777X, which would become the 77L, 77F and 77W.

BusinessWeek wrote an article where they claimed that the GE90 engine was considered a failure within GE due to the massive amounts of money GE spent in developing it (BW says $2 billion, but I have heard other reports it went to $3 billion) and that by securing the 777X deal, they only needed to spend another $500 million to make it happen and significantly increase total sales (in the end, they did so by a very significant amount).

This strategy might have influenced not just McNerney's successor at GE Aircraft Engines, but GE as a whole. So GE was willing to make a deal with Boeing for the 747-8 and Airbus for the A350. (see below)



Quoting NCB (Reply 11):
Is this the point in history where the European manufacturer will exclusively work with the European engine-maker and the American manufacturer with the American engine-maker?

When Airbus launched the original A350, they agreed to give GE a two-year exclusive sales window on engines. So a European manufacturer was quite happy to exclusively work with an American engine-maker, at least for a period of time.

And Airbus has consistently said they welcome GE power on the A350XWB, but they want a "new" engine for marketing reasons in addition to performance reasons.


User currently offlineFruitbat From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 551 posts, RR: 6
Reply 15, posted (5 years 8 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 5230 times:



Quoting NCB (Reply 11):
Is it RR that refused to power the B748 to respect a mutual agreement with Airbus or is it Boeing that gave exclusivity to GE, or is it both?

RR wanted to be on the 748, and weren't selected by Boeing, who decided that a sole engine deal was the way they wanted to go (a la 77L / 77F / 7W). So......for discussion......

....was this choice influenced by Boeing looking at forecast sales volumes and deciding that there was only room for a single engine supplier??

....and has the lack of second source had an adverse impact on 748 sales? (recognising of course that sole-engine deals are not necessarily a disadvantage, see 777 above and XWB, which is still de facto a sole-engine a/c).

Quoting NCB (Reply 11):
Quoting PM (Reply 4):
That said, some of the TXWB technology will find its way into future RR engines but the next big RR fan on a Boeing widebody will neither be called the XWB nor be an XWB.

End of thread.

You can say that an apple is a banana, but it is still an apple.
We're talking about the technology, not names.

To be fair to PM I think the "nor be an XWB" is a technology-related observation.

In common with all technology-based companies (e.g Sony, Apple, GE, etc.) current technologies being used / developed will be read across into future products where appropriate - especially in aerospace, evolution not revolution is the order of the day. Whatever flies on Y3 will be son of XWB/GEnX....but will also be son of RB211 / Trent 800 / CF6 / GE90....



Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ... except the weasel.
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31117 posts, RR: 85
Reply 16, posted (5 years 8 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 5157 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Fruitbat (Reply 15):
RR wanted to be on the 748, and weren't selected by Boeing, who decided that a sole engine deal was the way they wanted to go (a la 77L / 77F / 7W). So......for discussion....was this choice influenced by Boeing looking at forecast sales volumes and deciding that there was only room for a single engine supplier?

I would expect, all things being equal, Boeing would prefer more engine partners then less on a program. So even if Boeing felt they would only sell one 747-8 with GE power and one with RR power, that's still two planes instead of one.  Wink

Also, if Boeing really expected sales to be anemic, the cost-benefit analysis would have shown that and the program would not have been launched.

Therefore, I imagine the main driver behind a single-source engine for the 747-8 program was the same one behind the 777X program - the belief by the engine manufacturers that the total market prospects for the plane were either strong (in which case being sole-source would result in significant sales as it did for GE on the 777X) or were average (in which case being sole-source would be the best way to ensure recovery of the costs of the program and generate positive revenues).


User currently offlineFruitbat From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 551 posts, RR: 6
Reply 17, posted (5 years 8 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 5125 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 16):
Therefore, I imagine the main driver behind a single-source engine for the 747-8 program was the same one behind the 777X program

So GE are a risk/revenue partner on the 747-8 rather than a more "straightforward" sub-tier supplier?



Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ... except the weasel.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19942 posts, RR: 59
Reply 18, posted (5 years 8 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 5090 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 16):

I would expect, all things being equal, Boeing would prefer more engine partners then less on a program.

What I would like to know is why airliner manufacturers don't make their own engines. Car manufacturers do.

I know turbine design is a rather sophisticated process, but it does seem an interesting contrast and business model to offer different engine manufacturers on a single product.

On the other hand, for the 73G's B selected a sole engine manufacturer and there's DEFINITELY room in that market for multiple manufacturers!


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31117 posts, RR: 85
Reply 19, posted (5 years 8 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 5091 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Fruitbat (Reply 17):
So GE are a risk/revenue partner on the 747-8 rather than a more "straightforward" sub-tier supplier?

I do not know what deal, if any, GE made with Boeing to secure sole-source supplier status on the 747-8 program. It could be risk/revenue sharing, it could be time-to-market (GE had a bleed-air model in development for the A350 already), or it could just be McNerney playing favorites with his old company.

However, since he was passed over for GE's Chairmanship (why he ended up as Boeing's Chairman), maybe that last one not so much...  devil 


User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4787 posts, RR: 14
Reply 20, posted (5 years 8 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 4935 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 18):
On the other hand, for the 73G's B selected a sole engine manufacturer and there's DEFINITELY room in that market for multiple manufacturers!

wasn't that more a size issue with what would fit under the wing without major revamping for the available engines or the wing - isn't there some ancillary equipment in the CFM56 for the 737s which were put into a new position hence the elliptical nacelle


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31117 posts, RR: 85
Reply 21, posted (5 years 8 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 4812 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 18):
What I would like to know is why airliner manufacturers don't make their own engines. Car manufacturers do.

Boeing did for a time in the early part of the last century when they owned Pratt & Whitney. They also had their own airline - United Airlines.

US Anti-Trust Regulators forced Boeing to divest itself of both Pratt and United.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21544 posts, RR: 59
Reply 22, posted (5 years 8 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 4774 times:



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 18):
What I would like to know is why airliner manufacturers don't make their own engines. Car manufacturers do.

Not all do. Many share engines, or buy them from others.

Toyota sells engines around the world.

But I think that this is one problem with the auto industry. They would be better off buying engines from other companies that spend all their time building engines. It would mean faster integration of new technologies, cheaper repairs for customers, lower d-costs on new models (which would also lead to more model types and more specialty cars).

If GM tomorrow said they were spinning off their engine manufacturing facilities and design teams into a new company, it would be welcomed news.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4787 posts, RR: 14
Reply 23, posted (5 years 8 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 4590 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 22):
They would be better off buying engines from other companies that spend all their time building engines. It would mean faster integration of new technologies, cheaper repairs for customers, lower d-costs on new models (which would also lead to more model types and more specialty cars).

trannies from 3rd party sources or even other big OEMs have been a fixture of the auto industry for years, eg Jatco supplying the smaller Japanese firms or all those GM trannies in BMWs and many other high end Euro luxury cars.


User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 24, posted (5 years 8 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 4479 times:



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 18):
What I would like to know is why airliner manufacturers don't make their own engines.

In Boeing's case, they can't. The divestiture that Stitch talks about in Reply 21 is still in effect. Boeing can't legally build engines or run an airline (on the commercial side...I'm not sure it applies to military).

Airbus technically could, but why would they? Engines are a hugely difficult discipline unto themselves, on part with the aircraft itself if not more so. Airbus would have a *lot* of catching up to do to reach the other companies who've been doing it for decades, and I'm pretty sure their engine supplier/partners wouldn't be very happy about the competition.

Tom.


25 DfwRevolution : Why develop something in-house when you can just merge and acquire?
26 Fruitbat : OK we're going well off-topic here but I'm intrigued - does your comment relate to companies specifically mentioned in this thread or is it just a ge
27 KiwiRob : I think you will find that BMW exclusively Getrag & ZF transmissions, Mercedes builds their own, Jaguar use ZF and Jatco and I think used to buy Merc
28 Revelation : And Mullaly was passed up for Boeing CEO and took the job as Ford CEO - I wonder how that's working for him? Stay with BCA and deal with the 787 mess
29 Stitch : So far he has run Ford a fair bit more successfully then his peers at GM and Chrysler have done. So if he had not been passed over at Boeing, perhaps
30 Post contains links ADent : Only if you don't look at 328i's. They still use GM (built in France) automatic trannys for some cars, ZF for others. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM
31 DocLightning : Although having different options for a given plane is definitely a benefit to the airline. I think that only having a single engine option for a plan
32 Post contains links Cpd : And yet they shunned the GE/PW consortium for the A380, going with Rollers. I think that in this market, companies will do what is needed to survive,
33 Post contains links DEVILFISH : And for the latest in musical chairs.... http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ing-shakes-up-747-8-programme.html FLIGHTBLOGGER EXCLUSIVE: Boeing sha
34 Lufthansa : E46 4 cylinder 3 series for a start. I believe X5's also use a french GM box, though you may not get it in some markets. For example, USA 3 series wo
35 PM : I think I'd want the engine with which I'd be able to make the most money.
36 Lufthansa : ditto. Loyalty to engine types is pretty much a thing of the past. Look at QF constantly switching between GE and RR (even at the same time of orders
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Will BDL Ever See The AA A300 Again posted Sun Aug 19 2007 06:24:17 by Yankees
Will VS Ever Fly The A380? posted Sat May 19 2007 02:16:28 by Boeing77W
Will United Ever Offer Unlimited MP Upgrades? posted Fri Sep 15 2006 02:46:06 by Aero0729
Will UsAirways Ever Operate The CRJ-900? posted Wed Apr 6 2005 23:56:08 by Cumulonimbus
What Will Become Of All The 767's Belonging To NH? posted Thu Feb 17 2005 09:07:55 by Ktachiya
Will CLE Ever See The CO 7E7? posted Wed Jan 5 2005 04:34:27 by TriJetFan1
Will BA Ever Retire The 747-400? posted Fri Nov 21 2003 09:12:18 by United777
Ever Bought The Seat Next To You To Keep It Empty? posted Sat Nov 8 2003 15:05:58 by Atcboy73
Ever Have The Whole Plane To Yourself? posted Mon Sep 29 2003 07:00:27 by Zrs70
Will Spotting Ever Be The Same? posted Fri Nov 16 2001 03:02:18 by Brett80211