According to the Press Release the 61 aircraft comprise those on order and those on option:
"The order, originally announced in September 2007 and worth in excess of $5 billion at list prices if all options are exercised, is for Trent 900 engines to power 12 Airbus A380 aircraft, with a potential additional seven options, and Trent 1000 engines to power 24 Boeing 787 Dreamliners, with 18 options. The contracts include TotalCare® long-term support agreements."
jfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 7342 posts, RR: 7 Reply 2, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 4091 times:
Quoting GSTBA (Thread starter): The article states that the contract is to supply engines for up to 61 aircraft.
BA only have 12 A380's and 24 x 787's on order
Could a additional order be imminent?
Was there really any doubt Rolls would get this BA order ? Remember 15 years ago when the 777 were GE engined and the outcry of how could BA have "yankee" engines.
The reason the deal is up to 61 aircraft is BA has options for more A390 and 787's.
VV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 6617 posts, RR: 17 Reply 3, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 4010 times:
Quoting jfk777 (Reply 2): Remember 15 years ago when the 777 were GE engined and the outcry of how could BA have "yankee" engines.
That is not what I remember.
The deal to install GE engines in BA's initial order for 772s was, of course, very complex. It also involved the GE purchase of the BA Nantgarw (Cardiff) Aero Engine maintenance facility. My recollection is that this also involved at that time significant welcome further investment by both GE and by Nordam Europe in the facility creating many new high tech jobs.
Since then the plant near Cardiff has been grown from a local, basically single airline operation into what is claimed by the Welsh Development Agency to be the world's largest aero engine maintenance facility - scroll down to "GE Aviation" here:
Is it possible that the uproar was only in the USA and was about an American company creating new, high tech jobs in the UK and not creating them in the USA?
jfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 7342 posts, RR: 7 Reply 5, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3516 times:
jfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 7342 posts, RR: 7 Reply 6, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3503 times:
Quoting VV701 (Reply 3): Is it possible that the uproar was only in the USA and was about an American company creating new, high tech jobs in the UK and not creating them in the USA?
Very few in the USA would worry about an American firm creating good jobs in the UK, as many UK firms have created "good jobs" for US citizens in the USA.
Quoting VV701 (Reply 3): The deal to install GE engines in BA's initial order for 772s was, of course, very complex. It also involved the GE purchase of the BA Nantgarw (Cardiff) Aero Engine maintenance facility. My recollection is that this also involved at that time significant welcome further investment by both GE and by Nordam Europe in the facility creating many new high tech jobs.
You are RIGHT, GE did pay BA a HUGE pile of money for the facility. When BA re-ordered 777 in 1999 whose engines did they order, the UK brand, Rolls baby Rolls. About half the 777 -200(ER) fleet is GE and the other Rolls.
PM From India, joined Feb 2005, 6715 posts, RR: 66 Reply 7, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3061 times:
Quoting jfk777 (Reply 2): Remember 15 years ago when the 777 were GE engined and the outcry of how could BA have "yankee" engines.
No. I certainly remember nothing as crass as "Yankee". I do remember concern that BA shunning RR would handicap imminent sales of the Trent 800. And that's what happened with ANA dropping plans to buy RR and ordering PW instead.
Quoting jfk777 (Reply 6): When BA re-ordered 777 in 1999 whose engines did they order, the UK brand, Rolls baby Rolls.
A decision not unconnected to BA's unhappiness with their early GE90s and the cancellation of a large order for 747s which would have had RR.
Acey559 From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1336 posts, RR: 2 Reply 8, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3015 times:
Not to stray too far off topic, but are there any indications coming in so far as to how BA likes their GE90-115s on the 77E?
PM From India, joined Feb 2005, 6715 posts, RR: 66 Reply 9, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2982 times:
Quoting Acey559 (Reply 8): Not to stray too far off topic, but are there any indications coming in so far as to how BA likes their GE90-115s on the 77E?
GE90-115s on a 77E would take it into outer space! If you mean 77W ( ) then I can only assume they are as impressed and as happy with them as every other operator. It appears to be an outstanding engine.
jfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 7342 posts, RR: 7 Reply 10, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2761 times:
Quoting PM (Reply 9): GE90-115s on a 77E would take it into outer space! If you mean 77W ( ) then I can only assume they are as impressed and as happy with them as every other operator. It appears to be an outstanding engine.
The GE 90 is the only engine on the 777-300ER.
Quoting PM (Reply 7): No. I certainly remember nothing as crass as "Yankee". I do remember concern that BA shunning RR would handicap imminent sales of the Trent 800. And that's what happened with ANA dropping plans to buy RR and ordering PW instead.
I used hte term "yankee" being American to state the way the Brits felt about teh BA decision.
The BA decision has been blaimed for why ANA ourchased P&W and not RR on their 777's. All 3 Japanesse airline ordered P&W: ANA, JAL and JAS. They built one overhaul facility for all 3 instead of each airline doing their own engine maintanence. RR was able to "recover" a few years later when they sold Singapore Airlines a whole fleet of 777 with RR engines.
Acey559 From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1336 posts, RR: 2 Reply 11, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2662 times:
Haha Yep that's the one, I always confuse the -200 and -300ER. It's good to hear that they're happy with them, hopefully it's the re-start of a good relationship between BA and GE.
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10649 posts, RR: 100 Reply 12, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2573 times:
Quoting VV701 (Reply 1): Trent 900 engines to power 12 Airbus A380 aircraft, with a potential additional seven options
I'm surprised at only 7 options... Cest la vie. That just gives another opportunity for the BA executives to drink... er... I mean negotiate if they order more A380s.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26681 posts, RR: 83 Reply 13, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2492 times:
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 12): I'm surprised at only 7 options... Cest la vie.
I'm starting to think BA will be adding a good bit more 777-300ERs to their fleet as 747-400 replacements. They're also going to need to add more 787-8s and 787-9s to complete their 767-300ER and 777-200ER fleet replacement. I'm sure Boeing would work wonders for a 100-frame combined order of 788s, 789s and 77Ws.
tistpaa727 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 306 posts, RR: 2 Reply 14, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2464 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 13):
I'm starting to think BA will be adding a good bit more 777-300ERs to their fleet as 747-400 replacements. They're also going to need to add more 787-8s and 787-9s to complete their 767-300ER and 777-200ER fleet replacement. I'm sure Boeing would work wonders for a 100-frame combined order of 788s, 789s and 77Ws.
I thought there were rumblings of a 350 purchase to replace the 777 and 747...
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26681 posts, RR: 83 Reply 15, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2415 times:
Quoting tistpaa727 (Reply 14): I thought there were rumblings of a 350 purchase to replace the 777 and 747...
That is certainly what the Airbus Aficionados are hoping for, and I am certainly not dismissing the chances of an A350 order at BA out of hand, but with BA having already ordered the 787, it makes sense to me to stay with that airframe - especially since Boeing can leverage a mighty impressive package deal building on the foundation they already have.
The 787-8 already offers a significant capacity boost beyond what BA's 767-300ERs already have. BA does not fly ULR ops - and I don't believe they will start them anytime soon - so the A350-800HGW's range is superfluous.
As for the 777-200ER fleet, BA runs a relatively low-density configuration right now and with identical cabin length, BA should be able to put the same number of seats in a 787-9 as they do a 777-200ER. And payload lift, even from those "hot Asian airports" should not be a problem for the 787-9 in a BA config.
And I expect BA will fall in love with the 777-300ER just as every other operator pretty much has, so I could see them order a score or more beyond their initial "toe in the water" purchase+lease deal.
Boeing's ramping 777 production to 100 frames a year starting when the current backlog is about exhausted. As messed up as the 787 program is, I don't see Boeing needing to place some 500 777s as compensation to 787 customers between 2015 and 2020 and I can't see them just hoping that the A350-1000 suffers a multi-year EIS delay and a significant performance miss that would spur a 77W order surge.
It therefore seems reasonable that Boeing has deals lined up with customers for a significant number of 777s being ordered over the next few years. And I could very much see BA as one of those large (double-digit) 77W orders.
Sketty222 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1772 posts, RR: 4 Reply 16, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2333 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 13): They're also going to need to add more 787-8s and 787-9s to complete their 767-300ER
On a side note, I've also heard from internal people at BA that the 767's are to have a cabin re-fit at Boeings expense as compensation for the further delay to the 787
Quoting Stitch (Reply 15): I am certainly not dismissing the chances of an A350 order at BA out of hand, but with BA having already ordered the 787, it makes sense to me to stay with that airframe - especially since Boeing can leverage a mighty impressive package deal building on the foundation they already have
Will BA and IB being owned by IAG have an affect on the order as many have stated that they will order jointly. I know that BA have a much bigger LH fleet than IB but they are an all Airbus operation. Could we see IB ordering the 787/9 and the A380, maybe even taking some of the BA options?
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26681 posts, RR: 83 Reply 17, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2306 times:
I would expect IB to stay Airbus, to be honest. So that would give IAG the ability to secure a great deal from Boeing for BA and from Airbus for IB.
CFBFrame From United States of America, joined May 2009, 531 posts, RR: 3 Reply 18, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2153 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 17): I would expect IB to stay Airbus, to be honest. So that would give IAG the ability to secure a great deal from Boeing for BA and from Airbus for IB.
If what you say is true the IB orders will help to build additional RR orders. If on the other hand the orders are 77Ws for both airlines that would be a major slap for Airbus and RR.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26681 posts, RR: 83 Reply 19, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2114 times:
Quoting CFBFrame (Reply 18): If what you say is true the IB orders will help to build additional RR orders. If on the other hand the orders are 77Ws for both airlines that would be a major slap for Airbus and RR.
I just don't see the 77W or the A35J being an option for IB, since they'd take a performance penalty due to ambient temperature and altitude. So I see them replacing their A346s with A388s.
PM From India, joined Feb 2005, 6715 posts, RR: 66 Reply 20, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2016 times:
Quoting jfk777 (Reply 10): The GE 90 is the only engine on the 777-300ER.
Really?
Quoting jfk777 (Reply 10): I used hte term "yankee" being American to state the way the Brits felt about teh BA decision.
I am British. I was in Britain at the time of the decision. The 'Brits' (whoever they are) didn't feel much about the BA decision. I think you're dreaming.
Quoting jfk777 (Reply 10): The BA decision has been blaimed for why ANA ourchased P&W and not RR on their 777's.
From FLIGHT 11th January 1995:
A senior ANA source reveals that the carrier had settled on the Rolls-Royce Trent 800 for its 777s, when, to ANA's astonishment, British Airways announced that it was spurning the Trent for the General Electric GE90. Concerned about BA's true rationale, ANA re-examined its decision and switched to the Pratt & Whitney PW4000 as the perceived most conservative choice. It is unknown by how much that decision swayed Japan Airlines when it later also picked the PW4000, but it seems certain that the BA move was even more costly for R-R than has been hitherto appreciated.
BoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1010 posts, RR: 2 Reply 21, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1955 times:
Quoting PM (Reply 20): I am British. I was in Britain at the time of the decision. The 'Brits' (whoever they are) didn't feel much about the BA decision. I think you're dreaming.
I am British too and was also in Britain at the time of the decision and there was defiantly a negative reaction to the GE engine order.
Sponsor Message: 
From UK - England, joined Apr 2010, 399 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 6617 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 7342 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Jun 2006, 382 posts, 
From India, joined Feb 2005, 6715 posts, 
) then I can only assume they are as impressed and as happy with them as every other operator. It appears to be an outstanding engine.
er... I mean negotiate if they order more A380s. 
From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1010 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
