TR From UK - England, joined May 2001, 952 posts, RR: 0 Posted (11 years 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 708 times:
SAS selects Rolls-Royce Trent 700 for new Airbus A330-300s
April 19, 2001 SAS decided to select the Rolls-Royce Trent 772B engine to power the new Airbus A330-300 aircraft fleet.
The SAS order is for 4 firm aircraft and additional options.
The potential value of the order to Rolls Royce is around $200 million, with the first aircraft entering service in August 2002.
Mike Terrett, Managing Director – Airlines, Rolls Royce, said: “SAS has a well-founded reputation for providing high quality service. The fact that it demands the same standards from suppliers was illustrated by the detailed evaluation it undertook prior to this selection. We are proud to welcome SAS to the Trent family of customers.”
Mr. Jan Stenberg, the CEO of SAS added: ”We chose the Trent 772B because it offered a significant advantage in revenue earning capability for our A330 operation. It's proven environmental credentials of low fuel burn and lowest noise, were major considerations, as was the Trent’s capacity for thrust growth.”
SAS will use the A330-300s mainly on routes from Scandinavia to North American destinations. The new fleet will replace its Pratt & Whitney powered Boeing 767s.
Trent 700 facts:
· SAS becomes the 18th Trent 700 customer/operator
· At 72,000lb thrust, the Trent 772B is the most powerful engine available on the A330 series
· Since entering service in 1995, Trent 700s have accumulated 1.2 million flying hours
· There are currently 71 Trent 700-powered A330s in service with 13 operators
· The Trent 700 has a market share of 34% of firm and option orders on the A330.
Raggi From Norway, joined Oct 2000, 946 posts, RR: 1 Reply 1, posted (11 years 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 638 times:
I was surprised that SK didn`t go for the market-leading PW...
The experience gained from operating PW4000s on their 767s could have made the introduction of A330 engines more easy, don`t you think?
I`m not saying that the Trent 700 is a bad choice, I would just have imagined that SAS would have remained loyal to PW, or decided for the CF6, which is the least fuel thirsty of the three available engines..
Good luck with the Trents,SAS
Maybe StarAlliance partner bmi`s RR choice have influenced SK`s decision?
FBWless From Sweden, joined Feb 2000, 174 posts, RR: 1 Reply 2, posted (11 years 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 624 times:
There was a rumor going around that SAS figures that their A333s will be worth more with RR Trents than with P&W or GE engines when they eventually will be replaced with another airliner.
TR From UK - England, joined May 2001, 952 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (11 years 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 619 times:
Hi Raggi
I think SAS´s loyalty to PW has been caused by the fact that the large fleet of DC-9 and MD-80s only could be powered by P&W. With this in mind I think SAS always got good deals with PW. Now the DC-9 and MD-80 fleet is being replaced by NG 737-600, -700 and -800s powered by CFMI which will also - of course - power the new A340s. I am not sure that SAS has that many relations with PW anymore so another engine supplier for the A330s seemed logical. However I agree with you on the GE-issue which uses less fuel than the Trent 772, which would suit better in SAS´s environmantal politics.
Raggi From Norway, joined Oct 2000, 946 posts, RR: 1 Reply 4, posted (11 years 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 599 times:
SAS also has IAE on their MD90s and will have on their A321s...IAE consists of both RR and PW...
Come to think of it, LH will have Trents on their 346s, and AC also have Trent 700s on their 333s, and 500s on their 345s....
Seems to me that the Trent family of engines are so far a great success....
CXA330-342 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 398 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (11 years 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 588 times:
The Trents also provide the A330 with more range. The GE and P&W engines on the baseline A330-300 give a range of 4500 to 4550 nautical miles, whereas the range with Trents is 4640 nautical miles. If SK is ordering the A330 will the highest MTOW option, there is a smaller difference in range and each engine allows the plane to fly around 5500 nautical miles.
FBU 4EVER! From Norway, joined Jan 2001, 998 posts, RR: 8 Reply 7, posted (11 years 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 566 times:
The SAS experience with the 767 PW's has not been an entirely satisfactory one.
The GE engines were mounted on our DC-10-30's were quite good,while the GE engines of the 737 fleet have left something to be desired.
Environmental issues do not centre on fuel consumption alone,but on the total value of emissions made by the engines.Fuel consumption alone was not a decisive criteria in this selection.
There is an option for SAS to go to the higher thrust rating of 75,000 lbs if need be.
All of these factors came into consideration when the engine choice was made for the 330,not "Money talks"!
A330/B777 From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 164 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (11 years 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 561 times:
Is there any likelyhood that they went with the RR engines because they might someday introduce A340NG's? It would be bothersome to have a fleet of one type, A330/A340, with three differant engines.
Does anyone know whether or not they have options on the new A340's?
TEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (11 years 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 554 times:
That would be a terrific idea if SAS ordered some RR Trent 500 powered A340-500/600s! Because they will have cockpit commonality with their A330s so aircrews can fly both aircraft, and maybe Airbus and Rolls Royce will give them a great deal!
FBU 4EVER! From Norway, joined Jan 2001, 998 posts, RR: 8 Reply 12, posted (11 years 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 527 times:
There are no plans or options for other versions of the A330/340 than the ones already on order or option.The present orders will give SAS an increase in capacity on the long-haul routes in the region of 50% over the next few years,the main effort now is to fill these seats before loking at larger planes.A recent bi-lateral agreement with Australia was signed some time ago,no plans of any flights there at the moment.If flights do materialize in the future,longer range might be desirable.
Sponsor Message: 
From UK - England, joined May 2001, 952 posts, 
From Norway, joined Oct 2000, 946 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Feb 2000, 174 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 82 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 251 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Printer friendly format 
