Ducker From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 137 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (14 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 3429 times:
Probably the price offered to the airlines by either manufacturer for each engine type was the deciding factor. Mechanics who are familiar with either or both can advise which may be more reliable, but I think that both will do the job/
Jet Setter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (14 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3418 times:
All UK airlines chose Rolls-Royce engined 757s (and most other types as well) because in addition to being reliable and efficient the prestigious name is a tremendous reassurance to passengers and is often promoted in airline literature. Eg fly to .... on our modern fleet of Rolls Royce powered 757s - it is a sense of national pride - very few UK airlines chose another engine type where RR is available!
Boeing757/767 From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 2269 posts, RR: 2 Reply 3, posted (14 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 3414 times:
I live in Connecticut, home of Pratt & Whitney, and I won't get into an us vs. them discussion.
The fact is, both engines have the same reliability. It comes down to cost and service agreements.
I'd say folks are proud to see the Pratt Eagle on the engines! Although RR has outsold the PW2000 overall, some of the largest 757 operators -- Delta, United and Northwest -- are P&W customers. American operates the RB211.
Jim From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 455 posts, RR: 1 Reply 4, posted (14 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3414 times:
Sorry to burst your bubble B757/767, but they do not have anywhere near the same reliablity! The PW2000 series has some serious problems. We at Delta had a real problem in the early 90's keeping them on the wing. They have some type of vibration problem which we haven't licked, but it is causing us major pylon fatigue problems. I've heard that RR 757s don't have this problem.
The way it was explained to me, Delta went with the PW for 2 reasons. First, we had had real problems with the RRs on the L1011, so we shied away. But the RB211 on the 757 is derated to about 80% of the thrust used by the L10, so it just purrs along.
Second, PW made some serious promises about fuel economy, which they are still paying Delta for! The engine is a dog. It is so unreliable the FAA was considering removing it fromthe ETOPS list! That's one of the reasons that ATA sold Delta its PW ETOPS 757s and bought (guess) RR powered ones. UAL was very upset with us at Delta 'cause it could have cost them their ETOPS rating.
Ducker From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 137 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (14 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3400 times:
Still, I think the choice of RR or P&W is based on financial considerations for the most part. Two examples come to mind:
1) AA. The airline chose the -535 for their 757's when the order was anounced in 1988, AA had chosen the F100, with RR Tay's. AA probably was able to negotiate lower prices per engine with RR, for purchasing a much larger amount of engines in total. It was a smart move. In 1981, AA had announced options for 757's with PW2037's, but did not order the planes.
2) UPS. They ordered 30 757PF's with PW2040 engines. Their follow-on order for 757's had RR -535. UPS, however, was also purchasing RR Tay's for their 727 re-engining. Again, a lower price to UPS for purchasing a larger total of engines? UPS must get the best deal, because they don't seem purchase only for engine type commonality (767 freighters with CF6-80, A300-600 with PW4158, RR and PW 757's).
As for BA, I'm sure the RB211-535 was a deciding factor in their launch order of the 757 in 1978. Their predecesor, BOAC, ordered their earliest 707's in the late 1950's because Boeing decided to offer the RR Conway on the 707, which the UK govt. might have insisted on? The later 707-320 ordered by BOAC had JT3D-7 engines. I, too, live in Connecticut, and hope that P&W does well, but they have to compete.
Navion From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1002 posts, RR: 1 Reply 7, posted (14 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3391 times:
I remember reading (about 5 years ago) an article in Air Transport World which showed the PW engine didn't have the experience of the RR and in fact had suffered some teething problems early on in it's career. However, they went on to show the PW engine was lighter and in fact allowed more payload to be carried if you were going transatlantic (for example). I know Finnair flies over me here in Ft. Lauderdale during the season rather dependably and that's quite a long haul. I know companies like United, Delta and Northwest continue (or have continued) to buy the PW powerplant on their 757's so they must be pretty good.