Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Did GE Put All Its Genx Eggs In 1 Basket?  
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 11327 times:

During the seventies, eighties, nineties GE became the dominant supplier of mid range turbofans with the CF6-50 and CF6-80 series, powering aircraft like the Boeing 747, 767, DC10, MD11, A300, A310, A330.

When the 7e7 & 747 Advanced were specified, GE went to work & came out with the brand new GENX engine, building on GE90-11X technology.



During the past decade production lines for CF6 ran down with the 747, 767, MD11, A300/A310 and RR became the preffered supplier for the A330.

After innitial talks with Airbus on the A330 and A350XWB, GE was contracted by Boeing to provide GENX engines for the 747-8 and 787.

On the 747-8 the GENX is the only offered engine. Sales on the 747-8 have slowed with only 3 747-8 (BBJs) having been sold during the last 2 yrs, with the cargo market collapsing & -8i sales being limitted to LH.

6 years down the road the 787 is delayed by at least 2.5 years and ramp-up numbers circulated aren't even close to those scheduled early on in the program. RR is the launch engine on the Boeing 787 but it seems GE sold more so far.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...le.2C_presorted_by_customer.5B3.5D

On the A350XWB talks with Airbus were ended with GE refusing to develop 1 engine to cover the complete A350 XWB family (A350-800, -900 and -900R / -900F / -1000 versions) and RR claims all engines for the 500 XWB's.

The GENX production line is stalling now & main competitor RR seems to grab market domination by supplying engines in the mid segment for the 787, A350 and A330.

I have the feeling GE put all its bets on the continued longer term succes of 747 and 777 and quick ramp up of 787 production. Looking at the current reality I wonder if GE put all its eggs in one basket & somebody dropped it.



Maybe a change in policy is in the air?

48 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineZSOFN From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1413 posts, RR: 6
Reply 1, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 11290 times:

I think describing the CF6 a mid-range turbofan says a lot about the amazing development we've seen over the last decade! It certainly was anything-but until the GE90 / Trents came along.

Ultimately this whole issue hangs on the 787. Perhaps the same could be said for RR and the A350 though; rather than singling out the GE / Boeing relationship, perhaps this is all a sign of closer aligment between engine and airframe manufacturers.


User currently offlineKappel From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 3533 posts, RR: 17
Reply 2, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 11204 times:



Quoting ZSOFN (Reply 1):
perhaps this is all a sign of closer aligment between engine and airframe manufacturers.

Perhaps, but it's not like Airbus doesn't want GE to provide engines to their aircraft. IIRC GE declined to offer an engine for the a340NG, and RR became the default engine for this series. Same with the a350. On the other hand, GE is exclusive on the 748 and 777LR aircraft. In the case of the 748 and a340NG, IMHO it's good that there is just one engine, as the sales are not stellar. On the other hand, sales might have been better with more eniges. Although the 777LR series would dispute that.

Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
RR claims all engines for the 500 XWB's.

There are still a couple of orders without engine selection. Maybe these airlines are waiting for GE to offer an engine for the a350.



L1011,733,734,73G,738,743,744,752,763,772,77W,DC855,DC863,DC930,DC950,MD11,MD88,306,319,320,321,343,346,ARJ85,CR7,E195
User currently offlineParapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1592 posts, RR: 10
Reply 3, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 11148 times:

The one blindingly obvious fit is the Genx-2b for the A330.Since this fabulous engine has (effectively) no home to go to at present this use stands out like a sore thumb.

This engine is the most advanced engine on the market-full stop. Add some wing tweaking and Airbus could practically sink Boeing (commercial aviation).When Boeing (as happened today) have sunk to the point that they are slagging airbus for being late developing blended winglets. (A technology they regected so fiercly that the employees had to leave and start up their own business) you know they are in trouble.It is Boeing (not GE) that has all its eggs in one (787) basket right now. A Genx-2b A 330 would punch a big hole in the bottom of that last basket.

But its not happeneing -it's not even talked about.I think we all know why.


User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7285 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 11098 times:



Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
On the A350XWB talks with Airbus were ended with GE refusing to develop 1 engine to cover the complete A350 XWB family (A350-800, -900 and -900R / -900F / -1000 versions) and RR claims all engines for the 500 XWB's.

Well GE was involved in the initial A350 and had an engine all set to go until Airbus changed its requirement, GE made a business decision and that is where we are, until they open their books we have to respect their decision. I don't think RR really cares whether they are the sole supplier by default.

Quoting Kappel (Reply 2):
On the other hand, sales might have been better with more eniges. Although the 777LR series would dispute that.

Well the 777W is also GE only and its sales have been pretty good, Airbus is targeting that a/c with the larger A350-1000 so it must be a segment worth fighting for.

Quoting Parapente (Reply 3):
A Genx-2b A 330 would punch a big hole in the bottom of that last basket.

Well since the majority of A330's are flying around with RR engines, and the proverbial a.net wisdom - 777W not withstanding - is that folks tend to say with their engine OEM, how much business really exist for GE to invest in making this engine A330 compatible, which RR customer is going to trade in the A330's or spend millions to switch engines?

I take the thread starter as starting a serious topic and not another bash GE for not offering an engine for the A350.


User currently offlineSwallow From Uganda, joined Jul 2007, 555 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 11071 times:

Given the high R&D costs of brining a big fan to market, maybe their cautious optimism is understandable. As has been pointed out, the big fan market seems to have split with GE wedded to Boeing and RR to Airbus (plus Boeing on the 787).

Both engine OEMs have felt the pain from recent delays; RR with the T900 and 1000 and GE with the GEnx. We don't know whether the TXWB will be spooling up on schedule; that remains to be seen.

GE put their eggs in a big basket. The customers are waiting, but the egg delivery van has not shown up yet.



The grass is greener where you water it
User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12589 posts, RR: 25
Reply 6, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 11014 times:



Quoting Par13del (Reply 4):
Well GE was involved in the initial A350 and had an engine all set to go until Airbus changed its requirement, GE made a business decision and that is where we are, until they open their books we have to respect their decision.

Indeed, and it's strange how the thread starter omitted this important twist of the plot line.

http://www.geae.com/aboutgeae/presscenter/genx/genx_20050728.html

GEnx was the launch engine and had 125+ orders for the A350-not-XWB.

Quoting Par13del (Reply 4):
I don't think RR really cares whether they are the sole supplier by default.

RR was there to fill the void and because of that, they should be rolling in the cash in the next decade.

I'm starting to wonder if RR are not beginning to fancy being the sole supplier, and will aim for such status on future airplane programs.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 10921 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 6):
Well GE was involved in the initial A350 and had an engine all set to go until Airbus changed its requirement, GE made a business decision and that is where we are, until they open their books we have to respect their decision.

Indeed, and it's strange how the thread starter omitted this important twist of the plot line.

Of course, but it's irrelevant. It was a program stopped before birth. It's about the XWB & if GE's decisions should be respected in hindsight. In my opinion they should have started to develop a 75-95 k lbs engine right away like RR did in order to:

   take a good share of the A350XWB market (now they driving loyal GE customers to RR)
   offer an engine for a Boeing 777-200 ER/LR upgrade (backlog 34 now?)
   offer an A380 alternative to the Trent XWB for future A380 versions
   have an engine ready for a 300-350 seat 787 HGW version the airlines keep asking for.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 6):
I'm starting to wonder if RR are not beginning to fancy being the sole supplier, and will aim for such status on future airplane programs.

Maybe RR will get lazy like GE became on the 777 & A350XWB. Competition is neccessary...

I have the feeling, and we discussed it here at the time, GE has been listening to itself more then to the market during the last 5 yrs & now unfortunately may have to play catch up. (or have they been working on something 90 klbs behind the curtains ? )

[Edited 2009-11-18 06:29:31 by keesje]

User currently offlineJfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8387 posts, RR: 7
Reply 8, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 10873 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The 747-8 seems like a dud unless some miracle happens with JAL, Cathay and BA ordering it, unlikely to happen. The 77W might sell 1000 units but this should not stop GE from offering it on the A350. GE is essentially removing itself from the future of Airbus widebodies since the A350 is that future save a few hundred A380's over the next 20 years.

The 787 will fly before 12/31/09 and GE will do very with it since several RR airlines, Qantas, purchased GE for their 787's. But why should that stop GE from an A350 engine option, teh A350 will sell unlike the A340-500/600.

This decision seems very unlike the Jack Welch era at GE, Jeff Immelt clearly is no Jack Welch.


User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12589 posts, RR: 25
Reply 9, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 10835 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 7):
take a good share of the A350XWB market (now they driving loyal GE customers to RR)

 checkmark 

Quoting Keesje (Reply 7):
offer an upgrade for Boeing 777-200 ER/LR upgrade (backlog 34 now?)

But they already own the LR market, and as you hint, not many want the ER even with new engine.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 7):
offer an A380 alternative to the Trent XWB for future A380 versions

Yes but there's the EA contract in the way

Quoting Keesje (Reply 7):
have an engine ready for a 300-350 787 version the airlines are asking for.

That's several years away.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 7):
Maybe RR will get lazy like GE

Being eager didn't help them on the A340-[56]00, did it?

Quoting Keesje (Reply 7):
GE has been listening to itself more then to the market during the last 5 yrs

GE will live or die with the decisions it makes. I've reread some of the quotes of the time where GE declined to make the XWB engine and they were quite convinced they would not make money overall if they spent a lot of money making an engine that would undermine the sales of the 777-200LR/F and 777-300ER.

Maybe by the time the larger A350XWB is nearing EIS and 787-10 is firmed up, GE will see a large enough market to go forward on.

Till then, RR makes hay while the sun shines!



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineFriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4107 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 10800 times:

I still believe the reason GE decided not to invest more into a better GEnx to power the A350 (the current models are not powerful enough to cover the entire family) is, at the time, Airbus' frequent mind-changing on the direction of the program and the aircraft specs. GE didn't want to invest millions in modifying the engine only to have Airbus change the specs again, rendering the new engine useless. Plus, uprating the GEnx would have encroached on the GE90 market...which could have hurt sales of 773ER, where GE was and still is making a killing. So, I think, given their current overall market situation, and the constant fluctuations in the A350 program at the time, GE made the right decision for them.

In this case, GE decided not to stretch themselves even thinner when they had a good seller in the 787 already. And, despite the delay, they still have a very healthy order book for GEnx engines, so I doubt if the boys in Cincinnati are second guessing themselves right now.


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 10730 times:



Quoting Revelation (Reply 9):
offer an upgrade for Boeing 777-200 ER/LR upgrade (backlog 34 now?)

But they already own the LR market, and as you hint, not many want the ER even with new engine.

Boeing needs a competative 300 seater. Either an 777-200 upgrade, or a bigger 787 with good payload range. Either will need a new engine & RR is probably offerering an XWB derivative pro actively as we speak..

Quoting Revelation (Reply 9):
Quoting Keesje (Reply 7):
Maybe RR will get lazy like GE

Being eager didn't help them on the A340-[56]00, did it?

~ 140 A340-500/600s have been ordered. That's about 600 engines. Not a hole lot, but quads have their advantages (for engine OEMS) and the GENX powered 747-8 isn't doing much better..

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 10):
Plus, uprating the GEnx would have encroached on the GE90 market...which could have hurt sales of 773ER,

I do not think so. The XWB-1000 will need about 88 klbs. The 777-300ER has 115 klbs..

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 10):
GE didn't want to invest millions in modifying the engine only to have Airbus change the specs again, rendering the new engine useless.

That was the story at the time. It proved untruth. Airbus specified, committed quickly to the new XWB spec and the airlines / lessors bought hundreds. Maybe not what GE expected but it happened non the less.

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 10):
GE made the right decision for them.

I think GE probably is doing a a tough evaluation right now & taking lessons learned. IMO it seems they might loose market dominance in a strategic segment based on a few dramatic miscalculations while having two fantastic engines ready (GE90-11x & GENX) to claim their share. I guess they will have to explain their stock holders to start with.



Luckely GE Aero is active in other segments too..


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31057 posts, RR: 87
Reply 12, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 10698 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Keesje (Reply 11):
I do not think so. The XWB-1000 will need about 88 klbs. The 777-300ER has 115 klbs.

It's up to 93 klbs now.




Of course GEnx production is "stalled" at the moment, but it will soon be ramping up with north of 1000 units currently ordered. And GE has stated that if they win the KC-X RFP they will improve the CF6-80 for the A330 family. And there are plenty of improvements that can be implemented on the GP7000 family.

GE was almost deeply burned on the GE90 program. If not for the 77L/77F/77W, they would have lost billions. This has evidently made them much more focused on a guaranteed RoI which is why they have not spent a great deal of money to improve the CF6 (future sales are limited) and why they wanted exclusivity on the 747-8 and a two-year window on the A350.

GE has also been skeptical about the A350XWB, it's order book not withstanding. They have a vested interest in not powering the A350XWB-1000 and a number of their engineers feel the A350XWB-800 is going to be the "A318" of the line, carrying too much weight to be economically desirable (with orders being shifted to larger models).


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15749 posts, RR: 27
Reply 13, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 10635 times:



Quoting Parapente (Reply 3):
It is Boeing (not GE) that has all its eggs in one (787) basket right now.

A basket with hundreds of orders no less. And the healthy backlog of 737s and 777s doesn't hurt either.

Quoting Parapente (Reply 3):
A Genx-2b A 330 would punch a big hole in the bottom of that last basket.

It wouldn't do the A350 any favors either. I don't think that it is likely to happen.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 11):
Boeing needs a competative 300 seater. Either an 777-200 upgrade, or a bigger 787 with good payload range.

The 787-10 will be coming sometime. Hopefully sooner rather than later.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 11):
I do not think so. The XWB-1000 will need about 88 klbs. The 777-300ER has 115 klbs..

88k isn't too far off of what is offered on the 77E now.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 10491 times:



Quoting BMI727 (Reply 13):
Quoting Parapente (Reply 3):
A Genx-2b A 330 would punch a big hole in the bottom of that last basket.

It wouldn't do the A350 any favors either. I don't think that it is likely to happen.

They proposed the GENX for the A330F & tanker a few yrs ago. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...genx-offered-for-future-a330s.html

They are now bidding for the KC-X together with Airbus against Boeing together with Pratt. A GENX powered KC-45A could be a killer against the Boeing KC767. Odd situation..

The longer I think about it the more likely it is GE is developing a bigger GENX engine. Either an 777 upgrade or bigger 787 must be powered.

A tuned down GE90 would be to big / heavy for the 787. If a bigger GENX is being developped they can still say "No" to Airbus . But can they say "No" to AF/KLM, ILFC, DL, SQ ? Are they in a position / is it a good idea ?

Quoting Stitch (Reply 12):
GE has also been skeptical about the A350XWB

Yes, they were. But was that a good idea? It seems not so IMO..


User currently offline413x3 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 1983 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 10405 times:



Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 8):
The 747-8 seems like a dud unless some miracle happens with JAL, Cathay and BA ordering it, unlikely to happen.

to who? The project was specifically to take advantage of next gen freighter to replace the 747-400ERF. Their secondary concern was selling passenger models. Eventually they will once the economy starts picking back up again. But the large number of orders for the 748 prove you completely wrong


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 10366 times:



Quoting 413x3 (Reply 15):
Their secondary concern was selling passenger models.

Boeings business plan was to sell twice as much passenger aircraft as freighters, but that was 2005..


User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10071 posts, RR: 97
Reply 17, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 10346 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting 413x3 (Reply 15):
The project was specifically to take advantage of next gen freighter to replace the 747-400ERF. Their secondary concern was selling passenger models

For what its worth, I don't believe that to be correct.
Boeing themselves said they originally, at launch, planned for 2/3 of all 748 orders to be passenger versions.
I believe they have subsequently said that they don't think that this ratio will be realised now.

This is just conjecture on my part, but I honestly and genuinely believe that Boeing thought they would make hay with the 748i, right at the time that it appeared that not only had Airbus dropped the ball on the A380 schedule, but had also dropped the ball on the A380 specifications

I have had it suggested to me by someone who should know, that the 748 programme engineers were gutted when the results of A380 flight testing started to become apparent.

That airframe is not just hitting its specs now, but will very evidently leave them far behind as the improvements that Airbus and the engine-makers kicked off initially as being vital to it's survival come to fruition.

Just my  twocents , but I think the 748i's primary target has jumped out of its way since it (the 748i) was launched

Rgds


User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10071 posts, RR: 97
Reply 18, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 10339 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Keesje (Reply 16):
Boeings business plan was to sell twice as much passenger aircraft as freighters, but that was 2005

Our posts crossed, but that was my understanding too...

Rgds


User currently offlineKhobar From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2379 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 10307 times:



Quoting Parapente (Reply 3):
But its not happeneing -it's not even talked about.I think we all know why.

Because the benefits are nowhere near what some people seem to think.

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 10):
GE didn't want to invest millions in modifying the engine only to have Airbus change the specs again, rendering the new engine useless.

Perhaps if they had some launch aid thrown their way it might help.  Wink


User currently offlineParapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1592 posts, RR: 10
Reply 20, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 10285 times:

Interesting link Keejse.I did not know that GE had offered it for the 330.As a combo on the military contest (with 330) it looks v strong indeed.If they do win it the engine must surely be offered across the range - why not?.I inderstand that the 330 is a mature plane with a 1,000 orders.But how mature I wonder.It is still selling like hot cakes and we just do not know how the 787 will perform (well I hope).

Where I do disagree is the point that the 330 will canabalise sales from the 350-800.They are completely different animals.One is an very long range plane for thin routes, the other is for medium range, medium/thick routes (200 or 300). This is 787 territory.No it won't match the 787 on long range - but with (as quoted) a 13% Sfc improvement -I question how much better the 787 will be in this role.And price?-after selling 1,000 already.No contest.

I fully understand that many airlines would not want 2 different engines.But A 13% is a hell of a lot,and B.It did not do the 2500 much harm on the A320 did it.So it can be done.


User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12589 posts, RR: 25
Reply 21, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 10279 times:

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 10):
I still believe the reason GE decided not to invest more into a better GEnx to power the A350 (the current models are not powerful enough to cover the entire family) is, at the time, Airbus' frequent mind-changing on the direction of the program and the aircraft specs. GE didn't want to invest millions in modifying the engine only to have Airbus change the specs again, rendering the new engine useless. Plus, uprating the GEnx would have encroached on the GE90 market...which could have hurt sales of 773ER, where GE was and still is making a killing. So, I think, given their current overall market situation, and the constant fluctuations in the A350 program at the time, GE made the right decision for them.

Having read

http://zap16.com/civ%20fact/civ%20airbus%20a350.htm and

http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FRA350.htm

and Wiki we see GE was willing to produce an engine sized 69k-75k for the original A350, and had >150 orders for it, and was willing to produce an engine sized 75k-84k for the A350XWB, but was not willing to produce an engine of size 93k for A350XWB-10.

It would be really hard for GE to make one double spool engine span 63k to 93k and the only application would have been for the -10, so in essence it was a special engine just for that model, since Airbus was not interested in having GE90 on the A350 and it probably was too large anyhow.

Given that only 75 out of 500 A350XWBs ordered are the -10, it's clear that it's going to be hard to get a good ROI for the -10 engine. Yes, I know orders will pick up for the -10, but either way you look at it, it was going to be very costly for GE to get on to the -10 and sales probably wouldn't justify it.

It's a shame Airbus insisted on a GEnx for the -10, because I don't know if GE will ever get onto the A350. I imagine whatever Boeing does to stretch the 787 won't require anything more than the 75k-84k engines GE was planning to build for the A350XWB-[89] and it's pretty clear any 777 replacement will start at 94k thrust range and go upwards from there, so there won't ever be one GE engine that will span the A350 product range.

Here's a table showing all the engines we're discussing:



















787-864k
747-868k
787-970k
A350-869k
A350-975k
A350XWB-875k
A350XWB-984k
A350XWB-1093k
777-277k
777-2ER94k
777-2LR110k
777-F110k
777-394k
777-3ER115k



[Edited 2009-11-18 10:06:58]


Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offline413X3 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 1983 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 10225 times:



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 17):
Boeing themselves said they originally, at launch, planned for 2/3 of all 748 orders to be passenger versions.
I believe they have subsequently said that they don't think that this ratio will be realised now.

I am talking about now though, I don't think anyone will expect to sell very many more 4 engine airplanes with oil prices hovering very high and demand not as strong in a bad economy


User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12589 posts, RR: 25
Reply 23, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 10133 times:

Seeing that GE has sold approx 104 x 4 = 416 engines for 747-8 and approx 376 x 2 = 752 engines for 787, maybe we should say that GE has all its GEnx eggs in 1.55 baskets?  Smile

As per my ramblings above, I can see how GE will continue to power 787, 747, 777 and the 777/747 replacement, but it seems A350 straddles the gap between 787 and 777 so I don't see how GE would come up with one engine that can cover the whole A350 line. Thus it looks like RR will have a nice, fat, juicy pie all to itself.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineKappel From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 3533 posts, RR: 17
Reply 24, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 9705 times:



Quoting Par13del (Reply 4):
Well the 777W is also GE only and its sales have been pretty good,

Yes, with 777LR I meant the 772LR and 77W. That is how Boeing designated these two aircraft.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 7):
Competition is neccessary...

Totally agreed.



L1011,733,734,73G,738,743,744,752,763,772,77W,DC855,DC863,DC930,DC950,MD11,MD88,306,319,320,321,343,346,ARJ85,CR7,E195
25 Manfredj : I can't help but to think there is something else behind this post. Are you asking if GE put all its eggs in one basket or are you telling them to sp
26 SEPilot : I think this is the crux of it. I have seen many other areas where Immelt is doing things that are harming the company; I cannot believe with all of
27 KELPkid : Bit of a recent history lesson here, but here goes: 1) Airbus introduces A350 as "warmed over" A330, airlines say no, leasing companies say no, howeve
28 Post contains links and images Keesje : When the XWB was specified GE and RR had the same starting position. GE said they were not sure & said they had a commitment towards the Boeing 777.
29 Ikramerica : Nice spin, Keesje. In reality: There is not enough of a market to develop a new engine simply to supply the A350-1000. A good portion of A350-1000 or
30 Revelation : I too agree that Airbus was in effect asking GE to invent an all-new engine in the 94k thrust class small enough to fit onto the A350 and be competit
31 PM : Until last weekend I would have agreed with you but if RR are now boasting of 1,000 TXWB sales then all or virtually all of those airlines must have
32 Jfk777 : I am quite aware of the historic clients GE has for its engines, but brevity preffered on a forum of this type. GE had to get Qantas for teh 787 beca
33 PM : I actually tend to prefer accuracy. Er, right...
34 Revelation : Could very well be a great seller, but GE would be needing to put money in now that it will not see any return on till mid 2015 at the earliest, and
35 PM : Agreed. Correct. Agreed. No argument here. For what it's worth, I think GE have already missed the boat on at least the first generation of A350s. (W
36 Revelation : No, I don't feel that way at all, and said so in an earlier post. Of course I don't expect you to have memorized all my posts, so no problems at all.
37 PM : It's interesting how RR were the only one of the three (if I remember correctly) who didn't demand exclusivity on the 777NG. Nor did they demand it o
38 Stitch : Rolls-Royce might just have different RoI targets than GE does. GE is also probably a bit gun-shy after having dodged a bullet with the success of the
39 Revelation : You say that as if it's a good thing! Maybe it's the cynical American coming out of me, but from what I see, every corporation I know of does its bes
40 PM : Well, it's much more satisfying outselling GE on the A330 than it would have been gaining exclusivity from the get-go! And it makes it interesting. 7
41 Autothrust : Oh yeah, compared with the A350XWB the 747-8 promised a excellent RoI. Twin widebody(though competitor of the 777) against a warmed over VLA which on
42 Kmz : what about the possibility, that Airbus in the end accepts two types of engines for the XWB?. It might be better for the airlines to have two efficien
43 CHRISBA777ER : What about if Airbus offered an A332NG - the current A332 with a tweaked wing and GENX-2s under the wings. Would complement the A358 nicely which is b
44 Post contains links and images Keesje : I think Boeing thinks the market is big enough. a330 / 787 / A350 sales confirmed this. I think the A350 has significantly higher payload / range the
45 Revelation : I guess this is turning into a hamster wheel... Round and round we go... But anyhow, I'll keep playing... GE already has a good share of A330 and 787
46 Stitch : The GEnx-2B67 is a derivative of the GEnx-1Bxx developed for the 787. And one 747-8 equals two 787s or A350XWBs in terms of unit sales and maintenanc
47 Revelation : Yep, this shows the GEnx eggs are not in just one basket, and those baskets plus the GE90 basket are pretty damn big.
48 Jambrain : Not to me it's not clear, if you are assuming 787-10 is happening (with new engine / wing and bogey) then yes but 789 (around 290 seats) to 350-10 si
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 Doesn't LY Repaint All Its Fleet In New Colours? posted Mon Nov 28 2005 21:39:26 by LY777
Did PIA Put PTV's In Their 777's? posted Sun Nov 23 2003 19:08:51 by PIA777
Will Swiss Put The New Business Class In Its 330s? posted Sun Aug 3 2003 06:24:35 by Jcs17
Did Virgin Retire All Of Its B 747 Classics? posted Mon Apr 8 2002 14:38:38 by United Airline
Why Did NWA Drop The "Orient" In Its Name? posted Fri Dec 28 2001 12:30:00 by Tg 747-300
When Did Continental Retire All Of Its B 747s? posted Wed May 16 2001 04:12:02 by United Airline
When Did Swissair Put An End To Its B 747s? posted Sat Nov 4 2000 11:56:14 by United Airline
All NWA B747-200 In LGW posted Thu Oct 16 2008 13:07:31 by Nwab787techops
LH Going All Airbus (at Least In MUC) posted Wed Sep 24 2008 07:48:54 by Columba
Were All 737 Fuselages Built In Wichita? posted Tue Jul 1 2008 11:52:47 by Timz