Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Did BA Change 777 Engines  
User currently offlineBoeing764 From Canada, joined Apr 2001, 297 posts, RR: 0
Posted (13 years 3 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2289 times:

Why did British Airways change the engines on their Boeing 777's from GE90's to Rolls Royce Trent's when they ordered more 777's in 1998?


From Dr. King's America to Nelson Mandela's Africa, the journey of equality moves on.
22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineViflyer From US Virgin Islands, joined May 1999, 500 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (13 years 3 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2178 times:

One word....politics.......RR (primairly a United Kingdom built enigne)....GE(A congomerant *spelling* engine)......simple old politics..



I reject your reality and subsitute my own
User currently offlineShankly From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2000, 1541 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (13 years 3 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2160 times:

Viflyer - wrong. I do not wish to start a nationalistic argument, but BA were simply not happy with the performance of the GE engines, particularly the build quality.

BA took the GE product at a time when bottom line price was the most important business operating criteria and quite frankly they were offered a good deal. Value is now more important than price, i.e. you gets what you pays for.

I suspect that the choice of GE also shook RR out of a bit of complacency.

Whatever, BA now have the finest airliner, the 777, with the finest aeroengine, RR.

Never happier than when I look out of that departure lounge window and see RR on the donks of my jet.



L1011 - P F M
User currently offlineViflyer From US Virgin Islands, joined May 1999, 500 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (13 years 3 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2129 times:

I stand corrected..


I reject your reality and subsitute my own
User currently offlineCenci From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 11 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (13 years 3 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2115 times:

i have to back up shankly in saying the decision was nothing to do with politics but was in fact concerned with the poor performance of the GE90 in terms of reliability and maintenance.

User currently offlineTEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (13 years 3 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2111 times:

If BA does not like the GE90 then plans to order the 777-300ER will not go through being that the sole powerplant for this aircraft is the GE90.

User currently offlineVoodoo From Niue, joined Mar 2001, 2074 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (13 years 3 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2089 times:

In its early days the GE90 gave the 777 the BA maintenance nickname: Cripple Seven


` Yeaah! Baade 152! Trabi of the Sky! '
User currently offlineVoodoo From Niue, joined Mar 2001, 2074 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (13 years 3 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2076 times:

I have heard Boeing will offer BA a lighter 777-300.
The Boeing-GE exclusivity agreement only covers
777s beyond a certain weight. Under this weight, R-R is free to power it.



` Yeaah! Baade 152! Trabi of the Sky! '
User currently offlineExpratt From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 311 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (13 years 3 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2067 times:

No doubt BA was influenced to buy the GE90s for their initial 777s when GE agreed to buy BA's Cardiff engine overhaul center for an overinflated price.

User currently offlineCapt.Picard From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (13 years 3 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2065 times:

Shankly,

I agree; I am not saying that British is best, but I also like to see RR badges on engines!! Big grin





Rgds,
CP


User currently offline0A340 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 266 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (13 years 3 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2021 times:

Facts:

BA had a substantial order for RR-equipped 744 (about 10). They decided in favour of more 777's instead. While Boeing had no problem with the conversion, RR would be left in the cold. So they ordered the 777s with RR engines!!!

Whether this has anything to do with the early teething problems encountered with the GE-90 (the only 777 engine to be developed from scratch) I don't know.

My 0.02 Euros

George


User currently offlineGKirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24914 posts, RR: 56
Reply 11, posted (13 years 3 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2016 times:

BA are much happier, I believe, with the RR engines on the 777 than the GE90s. If they are to order the 773, they wll try to get the a/c as light as possible so that the weight of the a/c is suitable for use with RR engines. I believe BA did not have any more 744s on order when they ordered the 777 with RR engines.


When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
User currently offlineRaggi From Norway, joined Oct 2000, 998 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (13 years 3 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1965 times:

The reason why BA went with the RR Trent is that they simply couldn`t cancel a multi-million order with RR....
They converted orders at Boeing for 744s to 772ERs, and if they had then decided to continue with the GE90 and leave RR out in the cold, the political pressure would have been too big....
Sure, BA experienced problems with the GE90 in it`s early days, but have they really expressed that they
" are much more happier with their RRs than their GEs " ??
As for the 773, BA should definetly go for the GE90-115B 773ER....ordering a clearly less capable aircraft just to get engines made in Derby, is not exactly smart...the 773ER will have the range required for most of BA`s routes and allow for a more flexible route planning...it can substitute the 744 on long routes as well...
well anyway... just my humble opinion  Smile


raggi



Stick & Rudder
User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6389 posts, RR: 54
Reply 13, posted (13 years 3 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1950 times:

Does somebody know why Boeing signed that engine contract with GE for the 773ER? As a businessman I always learned that giving the customer the most choises (when it was no big problem) will always improve sales prospects.

Could it be so, that Boeing is so money strapped that they needed GE's money tank to finish development of the 773ER? I can't believe that.

The 777 is such a successful product that even if they needed R&D money from outside, then they could easily have borrowed them on favourable commercial conditions elsewhere.

Just my $0.02, Preben Norholm



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineExpratt From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 311 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (13 years 3 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1934 times:

In exchange for engine exclusivity on the 777-300 and 737NG, GE paid for Boeing's flight test program for those airplanes. Boeing was not hard pressed for cash, but they were not about to throw away free money either.

User currently offlineAnzett From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (13 years 3 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1927 times:

I am afraid, you are all wrong with this one. The reason why British Airways changed from GE90 to Rolls Royce Trent engines on Boeingg 777s was pressure from shareholders at its Annual General Meeting (AGM). Many conservative shareholders questioned the management as to why the airline chose the General Electric's GE90 engines.

Subsequently, GE90 also had performance and reliability problems and with BA been a Rolls Royce customer helped the airline get a good deal.

This is my AUD 0.02 worth.

Regards,
Mr Airline


User currently offlineIahcsr From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 3409 posts, RR: 42
Reply 16, posted (13 years 3 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1917 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Just to add my own two bits worth on the matter....
If I recall correctly, both the PW and RR engine designs are already maxed out thrust-wise and both companies would have had to spend mega-bucks (or Euros...) to develop new models. The GE90, on the other hand, still had lots of room for growth. Given a choice, I'm sure Boeing would have prefered to offer more then one engine to customers.



Working very hard to Fly Right....
User currently offlineWingman From Seychelles, joined May 1999, 2219 posts, RR: 5
Reply 17, posted (13 years 3 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1895 times:

Plenty of other planes out there with sole powerplants, even some Airbus ones. As far as I know now, GE has worked out its issues and the engines are doing great. The only exploding engines I've heard of recently are the RRs, so shit hits the fan (no pun intended) no matter where your engine is built.

User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8504 posts, RR: 12
Reply 18, posted (13 years 3 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1900 times:

Whar the heck is a donk on an airplane?

And why are the PW and RR engines so much more limited than the GE90? The're almost the exact same size (yes, I know the GE's fan is a little larger).


User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 19, posted (13 years 3 months 4 days ago) and read 1883 times:

Everyone here is likely to be correct: this is a mix of politics, business, product performance, availibility and anything else you can think of. There were so many theories for the BA 777 GE engine choice and even more when they changed over to the RR Trent. No one will ever know the entire story.

Are the GE 777s flying certain routes for BA, while the RR 777s flying others? I know that the 5 "A market" aircraft, to use the original model language, fly mainly to the Gulf States, but what about the others?


User currently offlineDynkrisolo From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1861 posts, RR: 7
Reply 20, posted (13 years 3 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1853 times:

I agree with Dutchjet that it is a combination of factors. When you justify your decision to your board, you will likely to emphasize the positives of your choice and ignore the negatives. Even if you talk to BA people, I doubt you can get a consistent answer.

User currently offlineRaggi From Norway, joined Oct 2000, 998 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (13 years 3 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1828 times:

To make the Trent 800 and PW4000 produce 115000 lbs of thrust, they would need a substantial amount of upscaling and modification. The GE90, however, which was designed with every current and future version of the 777 in mind, will only need minor upgrades to produce the desired levels of thrust. This helps increase commonality. For instance Air France, which has GE90-92B (-94B on their latest 777s) powered 772ERs, will benefit from this. They have 10 773ERs on firm order powered by the GE90-115B. The current GE90s have a 123” fan. The –115B will have a 127” or 128” fan, and will also feature 3D technology being pioneered on the –94B. As said earlier, both RR and PW (with 110” and 112” fans, respectively) engines would need so much modifications, the result would be almost totally new engines. The deal may not be totally fair, but Boeing sought the best and to the greatest extent ” minimum change ” engine. Boeing might lose a few precious customers such as Cathay, SIA, Emirates, MAS and THAI, that might go for Trent 500 powered A345/346s instead. But airlines such as AA, UAL, DL, Korean and BA (they already have a bunch of GE90s) will most certainly go for the new 777s. (The A345/346 doesn’t offer PW engines either, which UAL favours. At least not yet… Big grin Just look at ANA and JAL…both of which have ordered the 773ER, despite the fact that they have PW on their 777s today.
In my opinion the deal between GE and Boeing makes sense. So far the new 777s have sold quite well, and look for more orders soon.



Stick & Rudder
User currently offlineLucifer From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 106 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (13 years 3 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1803 times:

Rolls still made the highest ever powered engine as a development of the Trent when trying to get the exclusivity themselves, obviously not now in production.

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...
Why Did BA Cease LGW-NQY/PLY Services? posted Fri Dec 15 2006 00:02:30 by 8herveg
Why Did Am Change Their Livery? posted Thu Sep 21 2006 20:37:40 by ATLFlyer323
Why Did BA Sell Go? posted Wed Aug 2 2006 15:55:05 by Baexecutive
Why Did BA Only Use Classics To USA? posted Sun Nov 13 2005 12:20:15 by B741
Why Did Maxjet Change Livery? posted Mon Oct 31 2005 00:56:23 by Cadet57
Why Did BA Stop Serving Pittsburgh? posted Wed Oct 12 2005 20:25:01 by Wrighbrothers
Why Did Comair Change Flight 5337 For 3 Days? posted Sun Apr 11 2004 03:03:07 by Nycfuturepilot
Why Did BA Quit KUL? posted Sun Mar 21 2004 01:12:12 by Horus
Why Did Spanair Change From SPP To JKK? posted Thu Mar 4 2004 20:37:01 by Capital146
Why Did BA Move Some Flights To Term 1 At LHR? posted Mon Feb 2 2004 08:13:25 by Mozart