Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Rolls Royce Sulky About Absence On Airbus 320 NEO  
User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 16424 times:

The RB285 wasn't ready, the GTF wasn't interesting to RR, Airbus pushed A320 replacement at least 10 ahead.

http://www.onenewspage.com/news/Busi...Airbus-Plan-Stalls-Rolls-Royce.htm

GE and Pratt move on while RR remains committed to support the V2500 customers?

 



27 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2011 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 16286 times:

It's a difficult choice for both the engine and airframe manufacturers.

It's easier for CFM tomplot a future, I guess having a 'junior partner' helps, Safran might have a 50% stake, but there's no way they could break off and produce their own engine if they disagreed with what GE wanted to do.

IAE have 2 main partners, with divergant ideas for the future. PW have put all their eggs in the GTF basket, RR clearly have no faith in it, and clearly have no interest in producing it, even under the IAE banner...



it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently offlinequeb From Canada, joined May 2010, 655 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 16037 times:

The observations of Leeham News:

Quote:
1- When we were at the Airbus Innovation Days in May, Tom Williams, the EVP of programs, told us that Airbus had ruled out RR as a NEO provider because the fuel burn of the Rolls’ proposed two- or three-stage engines was 2%-3% higher than those offered by Pratt & Whitney’s GTF or CFM’s Leap-X; and that commercial terms RR wanted weren’t acceptable to Airbus. We had actually heard about a month before RR was out of consideration by Airbus but couldn’t confirm it at that time. After speaking with Williams and around the Farnborough Air Show in July, RR first went public with its view that re-engining the A320 and 737 classes didn’t make sense and Airbus and Boeing should wait and do new airplanes. Call us skeptical, but we can’t help but think there is a cause-and-effect, here.

2- Airbus officials said at Farnborough it has the business case for re-engining (which is repeated in the Wall Street Journal article) and that the question for them is whether they can find the resources (ie, engineers) to proceed. John Leahy, COO-Customers, was more direct, in his typical way. He said Airbus had to be convinced it had the A380 and A400M programs under control before releasing the engineers to a NEO project. We learned earlier this week that officials believe it likely they will find the resources to proceed.
http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2010...peaks-out-on-neo-vs-new-airplanes/

This explains why RR "doesn't want" the A320NEO ...


User currently offlineparapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1548 posts, RR: 10
Reply 3, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 15777 times:

Well there is no doubt that RR does not have an engine at present either way full stop.

As for the "stated" 2-3% fuel burn differential.We are only talking paper projections from all 3.The difference is that the other 2 can offer some hard "reality".But I am not so sure that it is even 2 companies.Cfm won the 919 pitch for the engines fair and square.They have accepted the very short lead times - indeed they have shown that the core of the new engine is even working now.

This is not the case for P&W.The engine (2 engines) they are building at the moment are too small.This would need to be a third iteration of GTF power - 3 engines with only a handfull sold of any (and no more at Farnbrough).This would be economics of the madhouse!

No, Cfm have this one sewn up - if either A or B choose to offer a further engine option.

As previously discussed it is more than likley that any re- engine would be aimed at filling the 757 gap (ie A321er/NG). There may be a big market waiting there - there may not.Either way hardly enough for 2 new engines on one sub-type aircraft - that will be replaced either way in the not too distant future.

If Airbus do it (and Boeing for that matter) it's got to be the LEAP-X. Good luck to them.

As for the smaller sub-types...A heavier different aircraft that will cost significantly more,with a whole new spares/engineering back up,all the teething and training issues - when the average sector length (think fuel burn) these aircraft fly is about as long as my arm! _whats the point - none.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12333 posts, RR: 25
Reply 4, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 15514 times:

Quoting parapente (Reply 3):
This is not the case for P&W.The engine (2 engines) they are building at the moment are too small.This would need to be a third iteration of GTF power - 3 engines with only a handfull sold of any (and no more at Farnbrough).This would be economics of the madhouse!

Madhouse or not, you have to see the end game for PW is to get the GTF onto the A320 and/or B373 re-engine or replacement programs. That's the only way it will all make sense.

Quoting parapente (Reply 3):
As previously discussed it is more than likley that any re- engine would be aimed at filling the 757 gap (ie A321er/NG).

That's one place it will help, but there are others. For instance B6 flying A320 trans-cons in the US and not always making it due to headwinds.

Quoting parapente (Reply 3):
As for the smaller sub-types...A heavier different aircraft that will cost significantly more,with a whole new spares/engineering back up,all the teething and training issues - when the average sector length (think fuel burn) these aircraft fly is about as long as my arm! _whats the point - none.

WN flies 737-700s on some pretty long sectors and is investigating taking in the 737-800 for high-density routes, some being LGA to Florida etc.

It seems to me the cards are stacked. Airbus will make the NEO announcement around year end, Boeing will have to follow some time shortly thereafter.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6116 posts, RR: 34
Reply 5, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 14942 times:

Quoting parapente (Reply 3):
As for the smaller sub-types...A heavier different aircraft that will cost significantly more,with a whole new spares/engineering back up,all the teething and training issues - when the average sector length (think fuel burn) these aircraft fly is about as long as my arm! _whats the point - none.

The point is very simple... because a business case has been made for re-engining...

"The business case is really very convincing [for the re-engining]," said Airbus Chief Executive Tom Enders, at the Farnborough Air Show outside London last month.

As others have posted, RR are just in a royal funk that they are not able to provide an engine for A (and B if they go forward) re-engine program.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlinePW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 2366 posts, RR: 11
Reply 6, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 14223 times:

Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but I do get a distinct feeling here that RR is out of the equation with respect to the A320 / B737 NEO. More importantly, that thus also includes their IAE partnership.

If IAE would have a NEO, then obviously there is nothing to loose for RR and there should be no reason for them to be so vocal at this point in time. It appears that Pratt will not offer the GTF through IAE . . .

Regards,
PW100



Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2011 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 14041 times:

http://www.glgroup.com/News/Pratt--W...-Than-CFM-International-49952.html

GLG group aren't very confident about Pratt's chances either

Quote:
Pratt & Whitney’s capital outlay for (potentially) four new engines against one CFM engine will be difficult to cover, especially if within a decade the move to a clean sheet replacement emerges – does Pratt & Whitney have the financial and engineering resources to partake? Probably, but that doesn’t mean they can deliver – the woeful PW4098 and PW6000 engines are proof of that.



it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 13772 times:

Rolls invested a lot in open rotor technology (option 30) and kind of skipped option 20 (improved Trent 1000 technology)

http://www.transporttimes.co.uk/_/f/...OBERT%20NUTTALL%20Presentation.pdf

If Boeing goes for an all new narrowbody maybe they can benefit from their R&D investments.



User currently offlinequeb From Canada, joined May 2010, 655 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 13102 times:

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 7):
GLG group aren't very confident about Pratt's chances either

Another objective analysis of Fleetbuzz Editorial...   


User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6116 posts, RR: 34
Reply 10, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 12961 times:

Quoting keesje (Reply 8):
If Boeing goes for an all new narrowbody maybe they can benefit from their R&D investments.

The link you posted really doesn't show anything. That RR didn't win the 919 campaign and isn't on the NEO indicates that their Option 15 didn't leave much of an impression. So what R&D investments, exactly, are you talking about that Boeing can benefit from? Certainly P&W and CFM can match the Option 20. P&W and CFM are currently ahead in the NB sphere and, even if Boeing decides to go for an all new NB, they are poised to reamain so.

Quoting queb (Reply 9):
Another objective analysis of Fleetbuzz Editorial...

Certainly a colourful article but it does raise valid questions.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30548 posts, RR: 84
Reply 11, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 12796 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting queb (Reply 9):
Another objective analysis of Fleetbuzz Editorial...     

In this case, Saj is not just dumping on a company out of spite. It's pretty clear that the PurePower GTF is Pratt's last chance to stay in the commercial aircraft game in any meaningful way.

After botching the PW8000 SuperFan (which helped leave the A340-300 vulnerable to the 777-200ER) and undermining the A318 due to the issues with the PW6000, Airbus is not enamored of them.

And they didn't cover themselves with roses on the 777 program, either. The PW4090 suffered from high NOx emissions and the need for frequent overhauls, which have not enamored them with carriers like JL who use them on domestic missions where they rack up the cycles. And then there was the PW4098 fiasco, creating an engine so poor they had to take them all back. As lightsaber noted, Pratt muffing the PW4098 allowed the GE90 to stay alive long enough for them to eventually take over the market with the LR777 program.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30548 posts, RR: 84
Reply 12, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 12392 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

As an add-on comment, if the A320 NEO will be LEAP-X only, that probably takes a fair bit of pressure off Boeing having to launch Y1 since LEAP-X is going to work for the 737NG. And yes, while LEAP-X on the A320 NEO will likely have higher BPR and TPR than the one on the 737NG, it's the same now with the CFM56 family and that has not proven to be a significant handicap to 737NG sales.

User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12877 posts, RR: 100
Reply 13, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 12274 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting queb (Reply 2):
the fuel burn of the Rolls’ proposed two- or three-stage engines was 2%-3% higher than those offered by Pratt & Whitney’s GTF or CFM’s Leap-X;

And my little birdies are very confident on the GTF beating promise.   

For once, RR and GE are the ones missing promise (on the 787).   

Quoting parapente (Reply 3):
This is not the case for P&W.The engine (2 engines) they are building at the moment are too small.

True, but Pratt has been doing the 'paper engineering' for a 33k GTF for the A321 since 1998 (possibly earlier). While it must be a different size, this is more like the PW4062 and the PW4168. A relatively easy up-size.

Then again, the PW4172/PW4175 shouldn't have been a challenge.   

Quoting queb (Reply 9):
Another objective analysis of Fleetbuzz Editorial..

   Yea... he... does not give Pratt the 'benefit of the doubt.'

There is reason to be skeptical.

But there is a *huge* business case for an A320/A321 re-engine. As Airbus was ramping up for the A380, they were deciding on the big plane or a variety of upgrades including an A320/A321 engine upgrade. Back in 2000/2001!

Airbus is very excited about the GTF. The basic physics are easy to understand (why it is a leap forward in fuel burn).

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
It's pretty clear that the PurePower GTF is Pratt's last chance to stay in the commercial aircraft game in any meaningful way.

   However, this time my contacts are not 'crying in their cokes' as they were on the PW6000. They are exceptionally confident on the PW1000G for the C-series.

But after the PW4062 compressor surge, PW4090 durability, PW4098, PW6000, PW4168A/PW4175...

Pratt needs a home run to be taken seriously.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
After botching the PW8000 SuperFan

Botch implies the engine went beyond the paper stage. Pratt did a few gearbox tests and realized they had promised more than they could deliver, so they didn't sign the paper to commit to the engine development. Airbus was upset as they were progressing with A343 engineering without an engine. GE scored a nice win there...

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
As lightsaber noted, Pratt muffing the PW4098 allowed the GE90 to stay alive long enough for them to eventually take over the market with the LR777 program.

Yep. An accurate summary of my previous posts on the PW4098.   

But Airbus is excited about what the GTF will do for the A320 mission capabilities. Without the GTF, GE would have held off on the LEAP-X.

It is sad RR isn't ready for a competitive 3-spool. I've seen a few of their concepts and I am excited. For short missions, the triple spool has many benefits for a narrowbody. If you had asked me to predict the next two A320 engines, I would have given a Pratt/RR fight a chance.    Ok, CFM has too many 'easy' launch customers, so knocking GE off the A320 was unlikely (very remote actually...).

The flight test and test stand work must be as good as my 'rumor mill' suggests. Otherwise Airbus would have a different tone. Now the A320RE comes down to availability of engineers.

This helps explain why so many of the 'job shopper' engineers we just 'released' are heading towards Airbus Wichita....   

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15715 posts, RR: 26
Reply 14, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 12228 times:

Quoting keesje (Reply 8):
Rolls invested a lot in open rotor technology (option 30) and kind of skipped option 20 (improved Trent 1000 technology

Well, that probably won't pay off for them. At least not anytime soon.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 12):
that probably takes a fair bit of pressure off Boeing having to launch Y1 since LEAP-X is going to work for the 737NG.

I thought someone said that Boeing could put a GTF on there too.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 15, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 12172 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 14):
I thought someone said that Boeing could put a GTF on there too.

Yes, they did. It was Boeing, in fact.

Tom.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30548 posts, RR: 84
Reply 16, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 12129 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 14):
I thought someone said that Boeing could put a GTF on there too.
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 15):
Yes, they did. It was Boeing, in fact.

And Pratt, for that matter.

Still, looks like LEAP-X is guaranteed on both platforms.


User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 11528 times:

It seems nobody has doubts on the CFM leapx. Perhaps based on the rock solid reputation of the CFM56s and rheden perception they are just scaling down the GENX...

User currently offlineparapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1548 posts, RR: 10
Reply 18, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 10946 times:

Re above 2 posts.I don't believe anybody here believes that this re-engine (if it happens) will ever be for more than one engine.So yes it has to be LEAP-X.They won the 919 contest fair and square - so congrats to them - It then gave them this opportunity - cograts again.

I don't want to see RR publically crying into their beer.It's not like them. It's a done deal - get over it.It's not as if suddenly every A320 customer is suddenly going to switch anyway.As discussed it only makes sense in certain applications/routes.

Both GE/Snemca (Cfm) and RR have placed their bets long term on open rotor technology (I wonder why   indeed they are even working together -RR/Snemca on blade configurations).

The difference is that Cfm got on with the task of creating the nex gen core straight away - whilst RR vacilitaed (still are) between 2 spool or 3.This has cost them dearly re 919 I suspect.Well they now have plenty of time to continue "pondering" as this window of opportunity is now firmly shut!

Those who "know" here always say that fitting a new engine onto an old body never creates quite the same efficiency as new/new.This seems logical.I wonder what sort of performance people think we can expect from 321er/NG or 737-900er/NG aircraft? And does anybody have a view on how big or otherwise the 757 replacement market will be between 2015 -2025?

BTW I recall that airbus created a double bogey undercarriage for the 320 years ago (for Air India?).Is this what they will use for the undercarriage do you think? (wondering about pavement loading here).


User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 10568 times:

Quoting parapente (Reply 18):
They won the 919 contest fair and square - so congrats to them - It then gave them this opportunity - cograts again.

PW won the MS21, CSeries and MRJ. They'll have to come up with solid reliability data for the GTF yesterday IMO. Or Irkut and Bombardier start talking to GE.



User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 20, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 9939 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 16):
Still, looks like LEAP-X is guaranteed on both platforms.

Agreed. Only a "head-in-sand-do-nothing" response from both Airbus and Boeing will offer RR any relief in the next decade. It is astonishing that RR could be the odd man out in the largest, and likely most profitable, engine segment there is! CFM could be handed a de facto monopoly in this segment if P&W fails to deliver on the GTF.



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 21, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 9483 times:

Here's a thoughtful look at the commercial conundrum RR faces.
Rolls-Royce Poised To Miss The Narrowbody Market?

Quote:
Clearly, Rolls-Royce has its eyes on the 787 program and the A350XWB, the latter upon which it has a default monopoly and with widebody deliveries due to surge within the next decade, it’s easy to see why they are prepared to forgo the narrowbody segment and dismiss re-engining propositions by saying they “can’t make the business case work.”

On the flip side, the narrowbody segment is bigger and will account for a higher dollar-value in sales – has Rolls-Royce sat on the sidelines for a little too long?

Its not only the higher sales and cash flow; its the follow-on MRO.



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19378 posts, RR: 58
Reply 22, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 9475 times:

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 21):
Here's a thoughtful look at the commercial conundrum RR faces.
Rolls-Royce Poised To Miss The Narrowbody Market?

On the flipside, PW has the opposite problem. The only current widebody on which PW is selling engines is the A380, and that's a joint venture with GE.

GE is the only engine manufacturer that seems to have its fingers in both markets.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30548 posts, RR: 84
Reply 23, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 9427 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 21):
Here's a thoughtful look at the commercial conundrum RR faces.

Somewhere in Japan, a nuclear event is being detected as PM reads Saj's latest...  


Seriously, I'm not so much sure that it's a case of Rolls-Royce being "asleep at the switch" as them possibly just being caught out by what may very well be a near-term decision by both Airbus and Boeing to re-engine the A320 and 737 families instead of just soldiering on with what they have until next decade, at which time Rolls may very well have planned to have their new generation of engine ready, be it a double or triple-spool design.

As much as we diss them (and I'm as guilty of it as anyone else), P&W's PurePower GTF family and the C-Series, MRJ and MS-21 have somewhat had the effect of being the cat amongst the A320 and 737NG family pigeons. NH has purchased the MRJ and LH / RJET the CSeries to fill missions and markets they feel the A320 and/or 737NG are too large for. And QR may eschew the A320/737 completely in favor of using the CSeries as their single-aisle family, at least in the near term.

CFM appears to have moved the LEAP-X forward (they're just now getting ready to put the CFM56-7BE Evolution into service on the 737NG) both for the C919 program and to address a possible PurePower application on the A320 (if not also the 737NG).


User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2011 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 9369 times:

Maybe it's fair to say that the 3 engine manufactures can't be on every programme out there. They just don't have the resources, or can't make the numbers add up. Thus instead of 3 ways flights in every segment, we have 2 way fights on even monopoly providers.

RR may have a healthy position on widebodies, and a lucrative monopoly on the A350, but seems to have been sidelined on narrowbodies.

PW missed out on the next generation of widebodies, so HAS to generate a dominant position on the next generation of narrowbodies with its GTF

GE is on the generation of both narrow and wide bodies, but even they have missed out on a programme (the A350) as they can't make ir work for them.

Certainly bad news for RR Deutschland though...



it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
25 Post contains images PM : Hanging the CFM56 on the 737 appears to have been modestly successful... Er, not quite. They are still picking up orders on the A330. LOL! In fact, I
26 Post contains images lightsaber : More to do with GE's solid customer base. Right now, on their own, neither Pratt nor RR bring a large loyal customer base. The thought is that having
27 Post contains links parapente : http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ave-7-8-million-price-premium.html Hmmm not cheap - but then they never said it would be.People will still have
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...
Rolls Royce RB-211 Engines On The L-1011 posted Thu May 2 2002 03:55:07 by Jhooper
Rolls Royce Engines Not Preferred On 747s? posted Fri May 4 2001 00:39:14 by Airmale
Airbus Worries About Strikes On Production posted Thu May 10 2007 17:57:27 by Lumberton
Airbus A350 Engine Rolls Royce Deal posted Fri Jul 7 2006 19:16:13 by Keesje
Rolls Royce Deliver The First Trent 900 To Airbus posted Tue Feb 24 2004 12:09:59 by BDRules
UA Service On An Airbus 320, From OAK-ORD-BTV posted Wed Jul 17 2002 03:26:33 by Sfo747
Rolls-Royce Engines On BA 777er's? posted Wed Aug 15 2001 21:46:14 by US A333 PIT
Rolls-Royce Engines On The MD-11 posted Fri Sep 29 2000 10:40:18 by GUNDU
Rolls-Royce Outlines View Of Next-generation Engin posted Fri Mar 19 2010 02:54:09 by sirtoby
Qantas Talks Straight On Airbus Problem posted Wed Oct 14 2009 20:13:31 by Baroque
Rolls-Royce Engines On The MD-11 posted Fri Sep 29 2000 10:40:18 by GUNDU
Rolls-Royce Outlines View Of Next-generation Engin posted Fri Mar 19 2010 02:54:09 by sirtoby
Qantas Talks Straight On Airbus Problem posted Wed Oct 14 2009 20:13:31 by Baroque