Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
China Southern Different Engines On A330-200  
User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3254 posts, RR: 1
Posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 10285 times:

Why do they have the more popular Rolls Royce engines on the first batch of A330s and the less than stellar PW4000 on the new aircraft? Politics? I guess Pratt offered China something else in return?

32 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineaerokiwi From New Zealand, joined Jul 2000, 2714 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 10246 times:

Quoting skipness1E (Thread starter):
I guess Pratt offered China something else in return?

Or maybe Rolls offered a sweety deal the first time round. The implication that PW had some political wrangling helping it out while RR didn't is unfair.

In all likelihood the PW option probably just suited them best given mission profile, financing, maintenance etc


User currently offlinerutankrd From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 2995 posts, RR: 7
Reply 2, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 10176 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 1):
Or maybe Rolls offered a sweety deal the first time round. The implication that PW had some political wrangling helping it out while RR didn't is unfair.

In all likelihood the PW option probably just suited them best given mission profile, financing, maintenance etc

Surely its what ever the CAAC say they can have.

Got to keep it in mind the Chinese regionals remain government departments and are far from independent of the CAAC.
Just nice differing liveries.


User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3254 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 10173 times:

Dude it's well know the PW offering doesn't compare well to the GE and RR engines. The only people who bought it did so for commonality with existing fleets and even then, some broke ranks later. Look at US Airways who went Trent for the A332s haivng bought PW powered A333s earlier.

Seems unusual to go the other way !


User currently offlineaerokiwi From New Zealand, joined Jul 2000, 2714 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 9768 times:

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 3):
Dude it's well know the PW offering doesn't compare well to the GE and RR engines.

So no facts at all then. Excellent.


User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3254 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 9667 times:

Oh I'm sorry, have a look at market share on the A330.

User currently offlineLuftyMatt From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2009, 428 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 9603 times:

Quoting skipness1E (Thread starter):
Why do they have the more popular Rolls Royce engines on the first batch of A330s and the less than stellar PW4000 on the new aircraft? Politics? I guess Pratt offered China something else in return?

Very good question, it doesn't really make sense. Have they converted some of the RR fleet to PW as well, or is this not the case?

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 3):
Dude it's well know the PW offering doesn't compare well to the GE and RR engines. The only people who bought it did so for commonality with existing fleets and even then, some broke ranks later. Look at US Airways who went Trent for the A332s haivng bought PW powered A333s earlier.

You're right about that. I spoke to US airways captains, who said the Rolls Royce engines were far superior to the Pratt option.



chase the sun
User currently offlinezkojq From New Zealand, joined Sep 2011, 1222 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 9366 times:

Here is the press release from shortly after the deal was announced:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...-turns-to-pw-for-new-a330s-328416/
China Southern chairman Si Xianmin said:

Quote:
We selected Pratt & Whitney because the advanced technology of the PW4170 Advantage70 engine will generate significant benefits for our customers in terms of operational needs and cut our carbon dioxide output.

I was under the impression that the Rolls Royce Trents had the lowest fuel burn of all the engines for the A330, though I could be wrong.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 3):
Seems unusual to go the other way !

Yes, very.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 3):
Dude it's well know the PW offering doesn't compare well to the GE and RR engines.

The way I understood things, the GE engines didn't compare well to the Rolls Royce and P&W ones. Most people consider the Rolls Royce Trent 700 to be the superior engine, though occasionally P&W and GE beat Rolls Royce on price/financing. For more indepth information we will need airliners.net member PM to explain.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 5):
Oh I'm sorry, have a look at market share on the A330.

If you look at overall market share for the A330 and compare that to market-share on A330s delivered in the last few years or so, the difference is reasonably substantial. Rolls Royce claims to have a 50% market-share in overall A330 deliveries, but of A330s delivered in the last year or so it is more like 75%.

[Edited 2012-05-06 06:38:56]


Air New Zealand; first to fly the Boeing 787-9. ZK-NZE, NZ103 AKL-SYD, 2014/08/09. I was 83rd to board.
User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2013 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 9175 times:

I imagine Pratt were more desperate for the business, and made China Southern an offer they couldn't refuse, as this is a rare situation where one engine is vastly more popular than the other options, and one presumes must be superior.


it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3254 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 9134 times:

Quoting LuftyMatt (Reply 6):
Have they converted some of the RR fleet to PW as well, or is this not the case?

No, the majority A332 / A333 fleet will remain Rolls powered. Politics I suspect.....


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13130 posts, RR: 100
Reply 10, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 9103 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting zkojq (Reply 7):
I was under the impression that the Rolls Royce Trents had the lowest fuel burn of all the engines for the A330, though I could be wrong.

Which length of mission? For shorter missions, the Rolls Royce have a fuel burn advantage. For longer missions, Pratt has a maintenance and fuel burn advantage. The RR burn less during climb but more during cruise.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 9):
No, the majority A332 / A333 fleet will remain Rolls powered. Politics I suspect.....

Yet Pratt sells... The downside for Pratt is the T700 has far superior hot/high. (Ironic considering that was the goal of the PW4173... but due to hot compressor bleeds and contracts requiring the PW417X family use the same nacelle as the PW4168, it wasn't possible.)

Quoting zkojq (Reply 7):
The way I understood things, the GE engines didn't compare well to the Rolls Royce and P&W ones.

The GE's were third string until the latest PIP. Come on, a 59F limit for normal thrust versus 86F? That is less thrust for a hot takeoff than the Pratts. However, after the latest PIP, GE is competitive again, but the minor player.

RR has an excellent product on the A330. Due to their superior mid-range economics, most airlines will select them. But the Pratt's do well on longer missions that do not push the hot/high takeoff limits.

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 8):

I imagine Pratt were more desperate for the business,

I find this ironic, as this was a common claim from Pratt about RR on prior bidding... How the tables have turned.  

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlinezkojq From New Zealand, joined Sep 2011, 1222 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 8726 times:

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 9):
No, the majority A332 / A333 fleet will remain Rolls powered.

Correct. For the record:
-China Southern currently has 22 A330s in their fleet.
-8 are powered by Pratt & Whitney engines.
-14 are powered by Rolls Royce engines.
-2 more Pratt & Whitney powered A330s to be delivered.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 10):
Which length of mission? For shorter missions, the Rolls Royce have a fuel burn advantage. For longer missions, Pratt has a maintenance and fuel burn advantage. The RR burn less during climb but more during cruise.

That would make sense as their flights to Auckland (probably the longest flights that their A330s fly) nearly always are operated by Pratt & Whitney powered A330s.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 10):
The GE's were third string until the latest PIP. Come on, a 59F limit for normal thrust versus 86F? That is less thrust for a hot takeoff than the Pratts. However, after the latest PIP, GE is competitive again, but the minor player.
RR has an excellent product on the A330. Due to their superior mid-range economics, most airlines will select them. But the Pratt's do well on longer missions that do not push the hot/high takeoff limits.

Very interesting, thanks for sharing, Lightsaber.



Air New Zealand; first to fly the Boeing 787-9. ZK-NZE, NZ103 AKL-SYD, 2014/08/09. I was 83rd to board.
User currently offlineaerokiwi From New Zealand, joined Jul 2000, 2714 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 8611 times:

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 5):
Oh I'm sorry, have a look at market share on the A330.

Which doesn't tell you squat if a particular airline has a particular mission profile that one engine is better suited to. But no, for you it's...

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 9):
Politics I suspect.....

With zero evidence to back that up. Maybe the Pratts are just the better engine in this instance? Most engines do have sweet spots in their performance that doesn't require a political conspiracy to explain.


User currently offlineac033 From Hong Kong, joined Jun 2008, 110 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 8090 times:

Quoting skipness1E (Thread starter):

Why do they have the more popular Rolls Royce engines on the first batch of A330s and the less than stellar PW4000 on the new aircraft? Politics? I guess Pratt offered China something else in return?

One simple reason, the PW birds enable them to fly CAN-AMS,CAN-AKL,CAN-LHR, CAN-CDG direct were previously operated by 77B. So they could free up the 77B for North America destinations.

Quoting zkojq (Reply 11):
That would make sense as their flights to Auckland (probably the longest flights that their A330s fly) nearly always are operated by Pratt & Whitney powered A330s.

I think CAN-CDG is a bit longer, and eventually CAN-LHR would be the longest


User currently offlineneutronstar73 From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 506 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 7427 times:

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 12):

I think you have hit the nail on the head. The P&W engine option is probably better under certain conditions than the Trent. And it probably has zero to do with politics.


User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3254 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 5882 times:

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 14):
I think you have hit the nail on the head. The P&W engine option is probably better under certain conditions than the Trent. And it probably has zero to do with politics.

I wasn't sneering at the politics, it's a perfectly normal thing when dealing with China.

Etihad started off with PW and changed to Rolls Royce.
USAirways started off with PW and changed to Rolls Royce.
Swiss got the PW Swissair A332s and changed to Rolls Royce for their A333s.

PW :
Swissair,
Austrian,
NWA (even their DC10s were PW powered),
TAM (who also have GE A332s for some reason)
Kingfisher,
China Southern

GE :
Qatar
TAP
Air Europa
Qantas
Jet Airways
Air Algerie

RR :
Gulf Air
Oman Air
Emirates
Air China
China Eastern
China Southern
Air Transat
Air Canada
Lufthansa
BMI
Airtours
Monarch
Virgin Atlantic
Swiss
Saudia
Avianca
US AIrways
Aeroflot
SAS
Turkish
Egypt Air
Cathay Pacific
South African
Sri Lankan
Cyprus
Yemenia
Singapore

Looking at the list, I am struggling to see what the mission that the PW engine excels at might be.

[Edited 2012-05-07 06:19:21]

User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13130 posts, RR: 100
Reply 16, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5636 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 15):
I am struggling to see what the mission that the PW engine excels at might be.

Cold takeoff long haul.

Many of the switches were due to Pratt delivering 5k less thrust than promise which certainly impacted EY and US's decision.

But that is a small window. The Pratts were supposed to be 73k thrust engines with another 2k of 'hidden thrust for hot/high. In other words, about 0.5k less hot/high thrust than the RR engines. Instead of being 0.5k less, with enough fuel burn improvement to make high MTOW hot/high missions at the same payload, Pratt has 9% less thrust.   That starts to impact the mission.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 15):
PW :
Swissair,
Austrian,
NWA (even their DC10s were PW powered),
TAM (who also have GE A332s for some reason)
Kingfisher,
China Southern

Add:
Korean Air.
Asiana (A333 only, IIRC)

US gave Pratt an ultimatum, meet promise or we switch. Pratt didn't meet thrust (but met fuel burn).
Etihad isn't a surprise, they need to hot day takeoff the RR provide.
Swiss was a shock for Pratt. It made sense for them from a maintenance spares commonality (with LH) and lease rates (due to better resale) point of view.

Where is PM?

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlinePresRDC From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 661 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 5473 times:

As I've said numerous times, the engine selection decision has much less to do with engine performance than one would expect. An engine selection decision is a financial decision and an engine contract is, at its core, a financial document. Engineers don't like to hear this, but it's true and, when it comes time to actually close (and then paper) an engine deal, there are few, if any, engineers in the room on either side.

The reason why RR has the A330 market share that it does is that it has a far higher tolerance for absorbing negative engine margin (i.e. a loss at the point of sale) than its competitors, both of whom are part of large conglomorates, which impose stricter financial performance requirements. Recall too that RR is sitting on the sidelines of the A320neo and 737 MAX competitions and, as such, has more resources (and more of an incentive) to agressively pursue A330 deals.

Almost every time that title to an aircraft transfers from the airframer to the airline (or leasing company), the engine OEM loses money and must record a loss on its books. It is a complex three party transaction, where the engine OEM sells the engines to the airframer at a negotiated (and not end user specific) price. This transaction occurs approximately 3 months prior to delivery. The engine OEM does typically make a profit on this sale, but it is a short lived profit.

In order to win the business, the engine OEM agrees to provide a monetary payment to the airline, equal to a percentage of the price at which the engine OEM sells the engine to the airframer (in the contract, this is expressed in absolute terms, not as a percentage). This payment is typically wired to the airframer about a week prior to title transfer, which, in turn, reduces the price of the aircraft by the amount of the payment. This is critical for airlines to be able to obtain financing for aircraft, as this payment reduces the amount of financing needed and, notwithstanding pre-delivery payments (which too can be financed), forms a downpayment. Typically, this payment is greater than the cost of manufacture, meaning that the engine OEM ultimately records a loss at the time of aircraft title transfer. Percentages vary over time, but 70% for a contested A330 campaign is not a bad ballpark. That would easily be north of US$20 million per aicraft.

Airframers actually have agreements with engine OEMs that allow the airframer to provide an estimated percentage of discount to potential customers to help market the aircraft. While the engine OEM is not contractually bound to offer that percentage to an airline, the engine OEM has been pre-positioned with the customer and it is rare that the percentage offered is much different from what the airframer advertises.

How does the engine OEM make money? In the aftermarket, mostly through the sale of parts. Life limited parts (LLPs) have the highest margins. Long term maintenance contracts (typically power-by-the-hour deals) are tools to capture spare parts revenue over an extended period of time. Very little money is made on the "wrench turning" aspect of an overhaul. RR, in particular, is very good about getting customers to sign up for long term maintenance contracts at the time of engine selection. This helps them to be more aggressive with the percentage offered. They well know how to make up the gap.

So, airlines don't care about performance? No, they do, but the engine contracts typically provide performance guarantees that provide financial compensation in the event the engines do not perform as expected. These are usually based on certain mission parameters, such as sector times, derate, altitude, etc. If two enigne models perform reasonably similarly, these guarantees will make up for any shortfall. After the percentage of payment, performance guarantees are the next most heavily negotiated issue. Typical guarantees include fuel consumption (how this is calculated is a huge negotiating point), oil consumption, EGT margin (more of a measure of overhaul quality), in-flight shutdown, aborted takeoff, etc.

Because of the need to record a loss at the time of title transfer, engine OEMs, especially P&W and GE, are reluctant to enter in to too many deals for deliveries close in proximity. There is a budget each year for how much in losses the company could take and sales objectives were prioritized based on this budget. Simply put, they cannot enter into an unlimited number of deals where a loss will be incurred in a given time. That's not how you return value to shareholders.

Oh, and politics absolutley does come into play in engine decisions. The U.S. Government, through the Commerce Department, offers a commercial advocacy program, whereby they will work to convince the political decision makers (many airliens are still at least partially state controlled) to "Buy American." They won't take sides betwee P&W and GE, but they will certainly lobby for both over RR. You can be assured that the British Government does the same for RR. Secretary Clinton was present in Kuala Lumpur when P&W and MAS signed their most recent A330 engine selection contract.

As for why China Southern selected P&W over RR for its second A330 order, I will leave you all to speculate. It was a bit of an outlier.

[Edited 2012-05-07 21:20:15]

User currently offlinePresRDC From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 661 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 5466 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 16):
US gave Pratt an ultimatum, meet promise or we switch. Pratt didn't meet thrust (but met fuel burn).
Etihad isn't a surprise, they need to hot day takeoff the RR provide.
Swiss was a shock for Pratt. It made sense for them from a maintenance spares commonality (with LH) and lease rates (due to better resale) point of view.

Neither deal made economic sense for Pratt. They were not worth the negative engine margin, especially with the GTF R&D spend going on at the same time. Again, it came down to money, not performance.


User currently offlinegokmengs From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1123 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 5451 times:

Quoting PresRDC (Reply 17):

Great post. Welcome to my Respected User list. Thanks



Gercekleri Tarih Yazar Tarihide Galatasaray
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13130 posts, RR: 100
Reply 20, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 5446 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PresRDC (Reply 17):
The reason why RR has the A330 market share that it does is that it has a far higher tolerance for absorbing negative engine margin (i.e. a loss at the point of sale) than its competitors, both of whom are part of large conglomorates, which impose stricter financial performance requirements. Recall too that RR is sitting on the sidelines of the A320neo and 737 MAX competitions and, as such, has more resources (and more of an incentive) to agressively pursue A330 deals.

We can agree financial performance is key. But performance impacts costs. For example, GE often can win contracts with financing incentives (that are still profitable for the financial arm GECAS). However, until recently, their A330 engine had such poor hot/high performance that going toe to toe with RR didn't cut it. Adding fuel stops adds costs.  
Quoting PresRDC (Reply 18):
Neither deal made economic sense for Pratt. They were not worth the negative engine margin, especially with the GTF R&D spend going on at the same time. Again, it came down to money, not performance.

I agree money is important. However, for US, the lack of thrust meant reduced payload and thus impacted money. But money (USD) is the final column. Pratt would have had to go further into negative margin than RR. So they walked away.

Quoting PresRDC (Reply 17):
Oh, and politics absolutley does come into play in engine decisions. The U.S. Government, through the Commerce Department, offers a commercial advocacy program, whereby they will work to convince the political decision makers (many airliens are still at least partially state controlled) to "Buy American." They won't take sides betwee P&W and GE, but they will certainly lobby for both over RR. You can be assured that the British Government does the same for RR.

They also sway decisions with export financing.

In some ways, fuel burn is easier. A 1% drop in fuel burn on the A332 is about $400k per airframe in savings or $3 to $4M at negotiation. But the RR and Pratt are similar with RR having an advantage on shorter missions and Pratt on longer. I'm afraid with all the PIPs, I'm not certain of the break even range, but it is greater than TCON length missions.

I'm certain China Southern is receiving an excellent financial deal. Since Pratt has so few engines going out the door, they are ironically in a position to absorb more 'negative margin.'

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6920 posts, RR: 63
Reply 21, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 5063 times:

Quoting skipness1E (Thread starter):
less than stellar PW4000

Less than accurate.  
Quoting skipness1E (Reply 3):
it's well know the PW offering doesn't compare well to the GE and RR engines.

Then you should have no trouble providing a reliable source.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 3):
The only people who bought it did so for commonality with existing fleets and even then, some broke ranks later. Look at US Airways who went Trent for the A332s haivng bought PW powered A333s earlier.

You can't have it both ways. US had no PW 'commonality' to maintain.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 3):
Seems unusual to go the other way !

Very. China Southern are the only A330 customer to go RR-PW. But Air Asia X surprised everyone (well, me) by ordering GE for their A332s after choosing RR for their A333s.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 5):
have a look at market share on the A330

At present PW have 21% of firm orders and GE have 20%.

Quoting LuftyMatt (Reply 6):
Have they converted some of the RR fleet to PW as well, or is this not the case?

Engine conversions are extremely rare and have only ever been done to odd frames in excetional circumstances. I'm only aware of four. None has involved an existing customer changing their mind.

Quoting zkojq (Reply 7):
The way I understood things, the GE engines didn't compare well to the Rolls Royce and P&W ones.

That has tended to be the case. (As Lightsaber knowledgeably explains.)

Quoting ac033 (Reply 13):
the PW birds enable them to fly CAN-AMS,CAN-AKL,CAN-LHR, CAN-CDG direct

Can the RR planes not do that?

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 15):
Etihad started off with PW and changed to Rolls Royce.

No, they didn't.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 15):
Swiss got the PW Swissair A332s and changed to Rolls Royce for their A333s.

In no small part because Lufthansa's fleet was RR-powered.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 15):
Looking at the list

...which is incomplete.

Quoting PresRDC (Reply 17):
The reason why RR has the A330 market share that it does is that it has a far higher tolerance for absorbing negative engine margin (i.e. a loss at the point of sale) than its competitors, both of whom are part of large conglomorates, which impose stricter financial performance requirements.

If this is true, why have we not seem the same thing elsewhere - on the Trent 1000, for example?


User currently offlinezkojq From New Zealand, joined Sep 2011, 1222 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 4951 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 21):
Very. China Southern are the only A330 customer to go RR-PW. But Air Asia X surprised everyone (well, me) by ordering GE for their A332s after choosing RR for their A333s.

Me also.

Quoting PM (Reply 21):
No, they didn't.

Well actually they did. Etihad leased four A330-223s from TAM (PT-MVA, PT-MVB, PT-MVD and PT-MVE which were re-registered A6-EYX, A6-EYY, A6-EYB, and A6-EYA respectively) and two from other lessors lessors (A6-EYV, A6-EYW) during the early to mid 2000s. As they were leased Etihad didn't get to choose the engines as such.



Air New Zealand; first to fly the Boeing 787-9. ZK-NZE, NZ103 AKL-SYD, 2014/08/09. I was 83rd to board.
User currently offlinebreiz From France, joined Mar 2005, 1917 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 4874 times:

As reported by others, there are several potential explanations.
One thing which is for sure though, is that the Chinese in their very diplomatic way to do things internationally, tend to keep everybody both happy and on their toes. So they usually order similar amounts of stuff from the various suppliers available. 50 Boeings there, and 50 Airbus here, and 50 PW to go with, and 50 GE to follow, and 50 RR after, and so on...


User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3254 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4758 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 21):
Less than accurate.

Well you have your opinion, I have mine. My list was Euro-centric and I am happy for you to add the ones I missed with the provisio that we keep to first customer and not second hand for consistency. I missed Korean for example.
It is possible to seperate out A330-=x0x / x2x / x4x if anyone has the time and de-duping ability to give a view on market share by aircraft built rather than customer.

Quoting PM (Reply 21):
At present PW have 21% of firm orders and GE have 20%.

If this is correct, the balance would be Rolls Royce on 59%, having more than twice the market share of Pratt and Whitney?

Quoting PM (Reply 21):
No, they didn't.

My mistake, they had leased in both CF6 and PW4000 powered examples before their own Trent airframes arrived.

Quoting PM (Reply 21):
In no small part because Lufthansa's fleet was RR-powered.

I am aware of that, what they did not do, was stay with PW which was the whole point of my argument. Indeed one wonders why given Swiss' existing relationship with Lufthansa, why the LH order was not for PW as well?


25 Post contains links lightsaber : My understanding is Pratt assumed too much it was their order. RR offered a much more competitive deal. With a 100% fleet replacement, there was litt
26 skipness1E : Very interesting Lightsaber thanks. I didn't realise airliners.nut had engine fan-boys as well as airliner fan-boys, I have no axe to grind and was ju
27 PresRDC : The deal essentially fell into P&W's lap. To this day, no one at P&W really knows what happened. I think it fair to say that no one was more
28 trex8 : I vaguely remember seeing something about Lufthansa Technik wanting to get more into RR engine work and so having LH as an in house customer , most o
29 ATA L1011 : Their original -40's were that they retired in 02, but the later -30's that they purchased later on that served to the near end of NWA were all GE po
30 Post contains images lightsaber : Better to be lucky than good? Any way, its good to see a few more Pratts enter the fleet. Interesting theory. I wonder if it applies to their taxes?
31 trex8 : How does the Ge compare in terms of fuel burn to its competitors?
32 PM : My information is always two or three weeks behind so a few more planes may now have flown but, for all intents and purposes, planes built and flown
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...
China Southern Moving In On Australia/New Zealand posted Mon Oct 10 2011 23:45:21 by rising
FI: Airbus Coy On A330-200 Freighter posted Mon Jul 31 2006 20:45:06 by Leelaw
Crew Rest Areas On A330-200 posted Sat May 6 2006 17:42:13 by Raffik
Why Small Engines On A340-200/300? posted Sat Oct 22 2005 07:13:29 by AirCanada014
China Southern To Order 10x A330. posted Mon Sep 5 2005 16:50:45 by WINGS
Air China To Order 20 Airbus A330-200 posted Thu Jul 21 2005 18:15:25 by Beaucaire
Anyone Flown On A330-200 Or 300? posted Wed Dec 17 2003 14:21:22 by Lauda777
China Southern Buys 10 A330-200 posted Tue Oct 23 2007 16:39:32 by Asiaflyer
US Airways A330-200 On CLT-PHL Starting In May posted Wed Feb 24 2010 08:42:46 by RyeFly
MEA Have Exercised Option On 5th A330-200? posted Thu Sep 11 2008 06:28:51 by BrightCedars
Crew Rest Areas On A330-200 posted Sat May 6 2006 17:42:13 by Raffik
Why Small Engines On A340-200/300? posted Sat Oct 22 2005 07:13:29 by AirCanada014
China Southern To Order 10x A330. posted Mon Sep 5 2005 16:50:45 by WINGS
Air China To Order 20 Airbus A330-200 posted Thu Jul 21 2005 18:15:25 by Beaucaire
Anyone Flown On A330-200 Or 300? posted Wed Dec 17 2003 14:21:22 by Lauda777
China Southern Buys 10 A330-200 posted Tue Oct 23 2007 16:39:32 by Asiaflyer
US Airways A330-200 On CLT-PHL Starting In May posted Wed Feb 24 2010 08:42:46 by RyeFly
Anyone Flown On A330-200 Or 300? posted Wed Dec 17 2003 14:21:22 by Lauda777
China Southern Buys 10 A330-200 posted Tue Oct 23 2007 16:39:32 by Asiaflyer
US Airways A330-200 On CLT-PHL Starting In May posted Wed Feb 24 2010 08:42:46 by RyeFly
FI: Airbus Coy On A330-200 Freighter posted Mon Jul 31 2006 20:45:06 by Leelaw
Crew Rest Areas On A330-200 posted Sat May 6 2006 17:42:13 by Raffik
Why Small Engines On A340-200/300? posted Sat Oct 22 2005 07:13:29 by AirCanada014
China Southern To Order 10x A330. posted Mon Sep 5 2005 16:50:45 by WINGS
Air China To Order 20 Airbus A330-200 posted Thu Jul 21 2005 18:15:25 by Beaucaire
Anyone Flown On A330-200 Or 300? posted Wed Dec 17 2003 14:21:22 by Lauda777
China Southern Buys 10 A330-200 posted Tue Oct 23 2007 16:39:32 by Asiaflyer
US Airways A330-200 On CLT-PHL Starting In May posted Wed Feb 24 2010 08:42:46 by RyeFly