Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
GE Engines For The A350-1000?  
User currently offlineaviationweek From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2010, 55 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 9289 times:

Airbus is coming under pressure from a key A350XWB customer to boost the capability of its largest variant, which could be the opening for GE to return to the program and rival the incumbent Rolls-Royce Trent XWB with a more powerful engine.

Guess which customer? Answer might be found here http://bit.ly/f0iKrg

20 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinembj2000 From Germany, joined Dec 2005, 426 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (4 years 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 9122 times:

From the article:
GE, which is still working the business case, says it “continues to discuss the A350-1000 with Airbus as the aircraft’s specifications evolve.”

Is this a new statement from GE, have they possibly changed their minds?



Like most of life's problems, this one can be solved with bending -- Bender Unit 22
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5478 posts, RR: 31
Reply 2, posted (4 years 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 8804 times:

It looks like if GE gets onboard the 350, it would be with two engine families, the GenX and GE-90. I thought Airbus wanted one family across the whole line...not that they've signed on yet.


What the...?
User currently onlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4964 posts, RR: 40
Reply 3, posted (4 years 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 8762 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 2):
GE-90


It will not be a GE-90 imho, but a totally new engine which could also serve the B777-NNG and/or the B787-10 at some point in time.  .


User currently onlineparapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1664 posts, RR: 10
Reply 4, posted (4 years 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 8657 times:

Re Reply 3. The two requirements are too far apart I think. A 773er in any guise needs at least 110,000 lbs thrust.A 787-10 far less.90K?. No if Boeing wanted to do that (-10 varient) it would be the XWB for sure.

I read somewhere that RR had added further stages to the top end XWB plus some other mod's.I recall it as I began to wonder just how much comonality it would have with the other 2 models.

The other thing mitigating against the GE-90 (in any guise) is that it is on (exclusively) the 773er (in any guise) already.

If you want this load/range it is far more likley that the 773erNG will deliver it than an over engined 351 IMHO.It also keeps comonality with the biggest part of your existing and future fleet.Are we sure this is not just another airline trying to create a battle - for a better price? (ie Knowing that in reality only Boeing is in the market they want?)

They are only talking about one very long and dense route.It's not as if every destination is as demanding as this one.

Horses for courses surely?The 350 can and is trying to be many,many things,from a 788 compeditor right through to a 773er compeditor.Now thats a hell of a lot as it stands. To suggest it might also be a" 773LR" (NG) compeditor is stretching the imagination I think!


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31420 posts, RR: 85
Reply 5, posted (4 years 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 8653 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The advantage to GE offering an overhauled GE90-11xB for both the 777-300ERX and the A350-1000 is that if Airbus says "no", the A350-1000 customers might very well cancel and buy the 777-300ERX. This would allow the 777-300ERX to continue to sell as the A350-1000 would replace the 777-300 and 777-200ER and 777-300ER operators would replace those frame with the 777-300ERX.

User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (4 years 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 8571 times:

I think Boeing needs a new engine for a new 290-340 seat aircraft, 90-1000 klbs.

Either for a 777-200 upgrade or a higher weight 787 version.

Maybe Rolls Royce is offering Boeing such an engine already, based on the Trent XWB.

The 777 backlog currently runs unrtil 2014. Boeing was thinking about increasing the 777 production rate.

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/6420ap_wa_boeing_hiring.html

  


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31420 posts, RR: 85
Reply 7, posted (4 years 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 8530 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Boeing has already ceded the 777-200ER replacement market to the 787-9 and the A350-900. If GE makes a GE90 Mk. II, I am pretty sure it won't hang off the 777-200ER. I am sure, however, that it will hang off the 777-200LR and 777 Freighter.

That could make the 77L a bit more popular since it would handily out-lift an A350-900 from those hot and high Asian airports, but I don't see it generating significantly more sales of the type. And what freighter operator wouldn't want more power if they needed it? The improvements said engine would bring to the 77L and 77F should kill the launches of the A350-900R and A350-900F, so the 777 family (77F, 77L, 77W) would be in the same position it is today - one with no direct competition.

Which is why I would not be surprised if Boeing doesn't help pay for the engine if GE balks.


User currently offlinefrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1715 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (4 years 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 8259 times:

We've discussed this topic only recently in another thread: EK Defines It's A350-1000 And 77W Requirement

General opinion was: Airbus should concentrate on getting the -1000 on current spec, trying to avoid delays. Which IMO will be hard enough as it is: according to the article in the OP design freeze should have occurred mid-2010, and detailed design will now be completed by the end of 2011. This as a result of additional resources for the development of the A350-900, which EIS has already slipped from mid Q2 2013 to the end of that year. EIS for the -1000 may IMO slip to the second half of 2016, maybe even early 2017

Trying to givie the A350-1000 the same payload/range as the 777-300ER or even the NG version will require such an engineering effort, not just by Airbus but also RR, that I doubt it can happen before the end of this decade. And I'm sure EK knows this as well, so why are publicly pushing for this? Just to give Boeing some additional inspiration?



146,318/19/20/21,AB6,332,343,345,388,722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9,742,74E,744,752,762,763,772,77E,773,77W,AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E90,F50/7
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1001 posts, RR: 51
Reply 9, posted (4 years 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 8176 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 5):
This would allow the 777-300ERX to continue to sell as the A350-1000 would replace the 777-300 and 777-200ER and 777-300ER operators would replace those frame with the 777-300ERX.


Of the 60 A-market 777-300 that were delivered, I'm skeptical that any would have been sold had the -300ER variant been available all along.

Also, is there any reason I can't post more than a single paragraph?  Sad

[Edited 2010-11-30 11:46:38]

[Edited 2010-11-30 11:47:20]

User currently offlinecloudyapple From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2454 posts, RR: 10
Reply 10, posted (4 years 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 8108 times:

Quoting aviationweek (Thread starter):
Guess which customer?

Where have you been?

EK Defines It's A350-1000 And 77W Requirement (by sunrisevalley Nov 25 2010 in Civil Aviation)



A310/A319/20/21/A332/3/A343/6/A388/B732/5/7/8/B742/S/4/B752/B763/B772/3/W/E145/J41/MD11/83/90
User currently offlinefruitbat From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 552 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (4 years 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 7907 times:

From the article:

"Airbus could entice GE onto the program to offer a derate of the 777-200LR/300ER’s GE90-115B engine"

Why on earth would Airbus settle for something based on (at EIS) 20 year old technology? At the very least they'd be looking for something that is based on the GEnX in order to have something that would be competitive with the Trent XWB.

Normally Max Kingsley-Jones writes some good stuff but IMO he's miles off on this one.

Now if GE were to offer a GEnX v2 at 100k for this application.........but can they justify the investment for the return? Actually, more to the point, can RR if it's THAT different to the XWB for the -800 and -900?



Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ... except the weasel.
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5478 posts, RR: 31
Reply 12, posted (4 years 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 7842 times:

It looks like for GE or RR would have to create an all new engine for Airbus to make the -1000 EK dreams of. Going by the GE90 model, it is possible to make money with one engine family for one airline family. If they do, that would certainly put the spurs to Boeing to NG, stretch or replace the 77W. Of course, that would mean yet another all new engine...unless the GE90 has some serious efficiency left to be wrung out of it.

I wonder if it's getting a bit late for Airbus to change their -1000 plans...and would they want to? How many planes does EK need for the DXB-LAX route?



What the...?
User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4871 posts, RR: 14
Reply 13, posted (4 years 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 7284 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 9):
Of the 60 A-market 777-300 that were delivered, I'm skeptical that any would have been sold had the -300ER variant been available all along.

Given that a big chunk of those customers are East asian carriers who use them on regional routes I doubt they would have gone for a 77W, you already have one of those operators paper derating their 772ERs specifically for regional routes.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31420 posts, RR: 85
Reply 14, posted (4 years 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 7050 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 9):
Of the 60 A-market 777-300 that were delivered, I'm skeptical that any would have been sold had the -300ER variant been available all along.

I am in full agreement. The 777-300 was created to replace the 747-200 on regional missions.



Quoting fruitbat (Reply 11):
Why on earth would Airbus settle for something based on (at EIS) 20 year old technology? At the very least they'd be looking for something that is based on the GEnX in order to have something that would be competitive with the Trent XWB.

The GEnx is based on the GE90. And the Trent XWB is based on the Trent 800.  

Seriously, such an engine would have significant changes. New fan. New materials. New technologies. It would very much be a "21st Century Engine" internally and would be significantly more fuel efficient than the current GE90 model.


User currently offlinefrmrCapCadet From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1743 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (4 years 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 6913 times:

It has long struck me that Airbus should/should have allowed RR to have a monopoly on the 350-10 ensuring it a good profit on this comparitively niche aircraft, and allowed both GE and RR to compete on the smaller models. I somehow suspect that bad blood got in the way of this compromise.


Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31420 posts, RR: 85
Reply 16, posted (4 years 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 6894 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting frmrCapCadet (Reply 15):
It has long struck me that Airbus should/should have allowed RR to have a monopoly on the 350-10 ensuring it a good profit on this comparitively niche aircraft, and allowed both GE and RR to compete on the smaller models. I somehow suspect that bad blood got in the way of this compromise.

Airbus played up the A350 as "the next generation after the 787" so they didn't want 787 systems and technologies on it.

So they didn't want an up-rated GEnx, but instead a brand new engine. They will certainly prefer not to have the GE90 Mk II on the plane, but if that is what it takes to win orders against the 777-300ERX, I am sure they will swallow their pride.


User currently offlineCFBFrame From United States of America, joined May 2009, 531 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (4 years 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 6702 times:

Maybe the real message here to Boeing is that the A350-1000 will not match the 77W, so if Boeing wants to continue owning this section of the market make the upgrade slightly better than the current config and EK will have no where else to go. This is Boeing's opportunity to hold a price premium, if they can keep GE in check. There's more to this story and Max has chosen not to spell it all out. May be a way for Boeing to make up for all those penalty payments they will be making on the 787!!!

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31420 posts, RR: 85
Reply 18, posted (4 years 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 5027 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

With Airbus considering MTOW boosts to improve the A350-1000's competitiveness against the 777-300ER, Rolls-Royce may have to develop a new high-thrust variant of the XWB for that model. If true, this could very well allow GE into the program, using the "GEnx Mk. II" for the A350-800 and A350-900 and the "GE90 Mk. II" for the A350-1000 (and 77F/77L/77W).

User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5220 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (4 years 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 5013 times:

Quoting CFBFrame (Reply 17):
so if Boeing wants to continue owning this section of the market make the upgrade slightly better than the current config and EK will have no where else to go.

It is bigger than EK. A 5t MEW reduction plus a 4% improvement in SFC translates into an annualised operational saving based on 5760 hrs/ frame of $1.75m to $1.9m based on $90/ barrel fuel. Based on a 20-yr frame life and the probable year over year increase in fuel prices it seems to me that the payback will be handsome to all operators of the type. This sort of improvement would probably get holdouts like QF aboard.


User currently offlinefruitbat From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 552 posts, RR: 6
Reply 20, posted (4 years 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 4771 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 14):
Seriously, such an engine would have significant changes. New fan. New materials. New technologies. It would very much be a "21st Century Engine" internally and would be significantly more fuel efficient than the current GE90 model

Too right - the point I was trying to make was that the article's suggestion that GE will get on the -1000 with a "de-rated GE90" is, well, wrong.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 14):
The GEnx is based on the GE90. And the Trent XWB is based on the Trent 800.

Insofar as the GE engines have 2 shafts and the Trents have 3, I agree.......  



Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ... except the weasel.
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...
Etihad's Order Includes The A350-1000? posted Tue Jul 22 2008 17:45:53 by TriniA340
Is Emirate Already Decided For The A350 XWB? posted Wed Aug 15 2007 21:57:17 by Carls
No GE Nx For The XWB posted Tue Jun 5 2007 20:06:35 by BrianDromey
Airbus Sticks With Panels For The A350 posted Mon Jun 4 2007 21:30:09 by T773ER
Randy's Blog: "Twin Engines For The Long-Haul" posted Fri Jan 12 2007 22:49:27 by Leelaw
Airbus Gives The Go-ahead For The A350 posted Fri Dec 1 2006 14:11:39 by Gh123
Is Bangkok Airways Going For The A350? posted Fri Dec 30 2005 16:40:57 by Beaucaire
Can QR Change The LoI For The A350 To The 787-10? posted Thu Dec 22 2005 20:03:04 by NYC777
Apparently SU Went For The A350 posted Sat Nov 5 2005 00:00:52 by Kevin
Why Aluminum-lithium For The A350? posted Tue Nov 1 2005 17:44:24 by BoeingBus