JakeNorton From Australia, joined Feb 2013, 10 posts, RR: 0 Posted (2 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 14918 times:
Boeing has chosen General Electric as its sole engine partner for the forthcoming 777X, indicating that the US aircraft maker was going ahead with the next generation of its most profitable plane.
"This decision to work with GE... reflects the best match to the development programme, schedule and airplane performance," Bob Feldmann, the vice president and general manager of 777X development, said in a statement.
Rolls-Royce and Pratt & Whitney had supplied engines for early versions of the 777, but GE was picked as sole supplier for the longer-range versions of the aircraft that went into service in the mid-2000s.
The wide-body 777 is one of the most successful jets of all time in terms of sales, and airlines are eager for a version that can go farther on less fuel with more passengers.
"We are aggressively moving forward on our (development) plan and will continue to refine requirements with customers," Feldmann said.
The next steps for the 777X would include approval from Boeing's board for offering the plane to customers and launching it as a committed plane programme. The planes are expected to enter service at the end of the decade.
However, at least one major Boeing customer, aircraft leasing company International Lease Finance, has urged the company not to rush into development of a new 777 model, saying the current 365-seat 777-300ER would work well into the next decade.
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10671 posts, RR: 100 Reply 1, posted (2 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 14937 times:
While not a surprise, I hoped for a 787 like RR/GE split. This will simplify the resale (leasing) of the airframe. I would have thought the numbers high enough to open up competition. Good news for GE.
flightsimer From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 409 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (2 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 14552 times:
I bet RR and/or Pratt are rolling over in their 777 graves over the fact they refused to do the risk sharing GE did with Boeing on the -200LR and -300ER.
I'm not surprised about this. Now all Boeing needs to do is just buy GE's aviation department and get it over with. Except for the 787, GE is pretty much the sole power plant on every plane made by Boeing.
chiad From Norway, joined May 2006, 907 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (2 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 14297 times:
Quoting flightsimer (Reply 3): I bet RR and/or Pratt are rolling over in their 777 graves over the fact they refused to do the risk sharing GE did with Boeing on the -200LR and -300ER.
For RR sake I think they are pretty satisfied with the A350 share they have.
100% of 617 frames so far (unless Pratt actually comes up with something).
How many large engines RR and GE actually produce per year?
sweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1550 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (2 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 14198 times:
I have one question, how large market supports 2 or more engines options? Say you will sell 250 planes, would that even repay the huge cost for GE or RR? Where is the cross section when a engine program has ROI?
goosebayguy From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2009, 222 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (2 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 14173 times:
For the XWB RR are planning on producing one engine a day. However thye have not built any new facilities to cope with that plan. RR needs to urgently build a new production line in Derby with test facilities to cope. They have the land and could produce a world beating line but they seem to be procrastinating here.
zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7725 posts, RR: 73 Reply 7, posted (2 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 13566 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 2): Not a surprise. With current 777s using GE power, it will be easiest for LR777 customers to move to the 777X by staying with GE.
Why ? it is unlikely the 777X and its associated engine will have little in terms of parts communality. The 747-8 only has 15% parts communality with the 744....
IMHO the 777X is essentially a new type from a parts/maintenance point of view.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
timboflier215 From United Kingdom, joined exactly 8 years ago today! , 1238 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (2 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 13359 times:
Disappointing, though not a surprise. The 77W has shown that engine loyalty is now virtually meaningless, with staunch RR customers (hello AA, BA, SQ, CX) all eventually holding their noses and ordering ac with GE engines. And, from all accounts, they love the ac and the engines.....
Airbus/RR haven't quite had the same breakthroughs with the A350, as yet.
StickShaker From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 622 posts, RR: 3 Reply 10, posted (2 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 13183 times:
Quoting flightsimer (Reply 3): I bet RR and/or Pratt are rolling over in their 777 graves over the fact they refused to do the risk sharing GE did with Boeing on the -200LR and -300ER.
Has there been any indication that GE will be a risk sharing partner on the 777X program ?
Did GE demand exclusivity on the 777X or did Boeing just grant it anyway ?
Quoting sweair (Reply 5): I have one question, how large market supports 2 or more engines options? Say you will sell 250 planes, would that even repay the huge cost for GE or RR? Where is the cross section when a engine program has ROI?
Thats a good question - there must be some point on the curve (numbers of frames) at which a given program cannot support more than one engine. No problem on narrow body programs but much more difficult on larger wide bodies.
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10671 posts, RR: 100 Reply 12, posted (2 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 11414 times:
Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 11):
I'll Bet Boeing gave GE exclusivity to demand that they NOT field an engine for the A350 or any other Airbus Wide bodies
Not required to stop GE on the A350. GE has the resources to only develop the 3 LEAPs, Tech-X, improve the GEnX (PIPs), and either the 777X or A350, not anything more. I'm actually shocked how much GE is taking on!
Quoting sweair (Reply 5): I have one question, how large market supports 2 or more engines options?
Each vendor needs to sell over 400 engines (200 airframes) typically.
Quoting chiad (Reply 4): For RR sake I think they are pretty satisfied with the A350 share they have.
100% of 617 frames so far (unless Pratt actually comes up with something).
RR is sitting pretty. The resources required to develop the 777X engine will keep GE off the A350 and I doubt Pratt could find enough launch customers unless RR 'drops the ball.' My rumor mill has RR doing well, so that makes the A350 a 'lock' for them.
Pratt is doing well with the PW1000G family. They're on the A320NEO, Bombardier C-series, E-jet re-engine, MRJ, and Irkut MS-21. It will be a while before we see a Pratt widebody engine. Sad, considering what the JT9D enabled...
timboflier215 From United Kingdom, joined exactly 8 years ago today! , 1238 posts, RR: 1 Reply 13, posted (2 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 10880 times:
So to summarise where each engine manufacturer is at on the major projects, now this news is confirmed.
Pratt & Whitney
MRJ (sole supplier)
C-Series (sole supplier)
E-Jets (sole supplier)
Irkut MS-21
A320neo
A330 (though effectively out of it)
A380 (JV)
Rolls-Royce
787
A330
A350 (sole supplier)
A380
And a stake in Pratt's GTF as their contribution to the NB market.
kordcj From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 71 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (2 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 10879 times:
I thought GE and Airbus had a falling out of sorts over the A350. I remember reading that somewhere that no GE engines would be used on the A350. But then again tha was probably close to 3 years ago and things certainly could have changed.
The most obvious proof for intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't tried to contact us.
timboflier215 From United Kingdom, joined exactly 8 years ago today! , 1238 posts, RR: 1 Reply 15, posted (2 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 10824 times:
I believe Airbus wanted GE on the A350, but GE did not want to build an engine for the -1000 (due to it competing with the 777X).
Airbus said they would not accept GE producing engines only for the -800 and -900, so the A350 is now RR only.
yellowtail From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 5159 posts, RR: 2 Reply 16, posted (2 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 10824 times:
Quoting JakeNorton (Thread starter): However, at least one major Boeing customer, aircraft leasing company International Lease Finance, has urged the company not to rush into development of a new 777 model, saying the current 365-seat 777-300ER would work well into the next decade.
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 12): RR is sitting pretty. The resources required to develop the 777X engine will keep GE off the A350 and I doubt Pratt could find enough launch customers unless RR 'drops the ball.' My rumor mill has RR doing well, so that makes the A350 a 'lock' for them.
Pratt is doing well with the PW1000G family. They're on the A320NEO, Bombardier C-series, E-jet re-engine, MRJ, and Irkut MS-21. It will be a while before we see a Pratt widebody engine. Sad, considering what the JT9D enabled...
Might we end up one day with GE powering Boeing aircraft, RR powering Airbus, and P&W Bombardier, Embraer etc?
Quoting flightsimer (Reply 3): Now all Boeing needs to do is just buy GE's aviation department and get it over with.
or GE buy Boeing? Now wouldn't that be a technology titan?
When in doubt, hold on to your altitude. No-one has ever collided with the sky.
BlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1704 posts, RR: 4 Reply 17, posted (2 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 10656 times:
Quoting kordcj (Reply 14): I remember reading that somewhere that no GE engines would be used on the A350
GE was willing to provide engines for the original A350 only. Once it was dropped in favour of A350XWB, Airbus asked for GE engine for the whole family. However, GE was willing to offer GENx for -800 and -900 only. Therefore, Airbus said "no, thanks" and went with TXWB as sole engine for the A350XWB.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26699 posts, RR: 83 Reply 18, posted (2 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 10205 times:
Quoting flightsimer (Reply 3): I bet RR and/or Pratt are rolling over in their 777 graves over the fact they refused to do the risk sharing GE did with Boeing on the -200LR and -300ER.
Even if Pratt was willing, considering their misses on the PW4000-112 series, I expect Boeing was not enamored of giving them the exclusive.
The LR777 family was going to be sole-source, anyway, since GE and Pratt demanded exclusivity (GE had taken a bath on the GE90 and Pratt's customers were not pleased with the PW4098).
Quoting StickShaker (Reply 10): Has there been any indication that GE will be a risk sharing partner on the 777X program?
Did GE demand exclusivity on the 777X or did Boeing just grant it anyway?
Haven't heard either, but I would not be surprised if GE was willing to put money into the 777X based on how well it paid off with the LR777.
Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 11): I'll Bet Boeing gave GE exclusivity to demand that they NOT field an engine for the A350 or any other Airbus Wide bodies
GE wasn't going to build an engine for the A350XWB, regardless. They felt the A350-800 was a dog and they didn't want to build an engine for the A350-1000 so they viewed their market would have been the A350-900 and they probably didn't like the RoI.
Quoting kordcj (Reply 14): I thought GE and Airbus had a falling out of sorts over the A350.
GE agreed to develop an engine for the original A350 family if they were granted a two-year exclusivity deal from EIS. Airbus agreed and GE landed a nice fat engine order from QR (who launched the original model with a nice fat airframe order).
JordanFittz From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2012, 7 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (2 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 9848 times:
Quoting goosebayguy (Reply 6): For the XWB RR are planning on producing one engine a day. However thye have not built any new facilities to cope with that plan. RR needs to urgently build a new production line in Derby with test facilities to cope. They have the land and could produce a world beating line but they seem to be procrastinating here.
This is utter nonsense. RR have opened a new facility at Seletar Aerospace Park in Singapore capable of producing and testing large Trent engines at high volume. Seletar have recently begun to produce Trent 900's for the A380.
There is also significant investment going into the facilities in Derby to enable production of the Trent XWB at the rates which will be required in the next few years.
You forgot the small engines. GE has an incredible amount on their plate. Heck, I didn't even mention the helicopter engines that they dominate.
Quoting yellowtail (Reply 16): Might we end up one day with GE powering Boeing aircraft, RR powering Airbus, and P&W Bombardier, Embraer etc?
Airbus and Pratt have a very good relationship. If Pratt does well with the PW1100G, I fully expect Pratt to be invited on larger Airbus platforms. I see no reason Airbus will play favorites like Boeing has. That had to do with cost of borrowing as well as technical/performance issues.
odwyerpw From Mexico, joined Dec 2004, 641 posts, RR: 3 Reply 21, posted (2 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 9462 times:
Quoting JakeNorton (Thread starter): However, at least one major Boeing customer, aircraft leasing company International Lease Finance, has urged the company not to rush into development of a new 777 model, saying the current 365-seat 777-300ER would work well into the next decade.
Translation: "ILFC has a boat load of 777 models that they need to continue to lease out into the next decade at decent rates"
PRATT'S customers were not pleased with the 4090?? and Which customers would that be?
We're doing pretty well with our 4090's and always have been. The engine is robust with a bulletproof core and has a good service history. The 94" PW 4056-4062 is the engine on the KC46 tanker and GTF technology has yet to be put to a Large engine YET. Pratt has the f119 and the F135 cores to yet build a Large commercial engine but I suspect they have their hands full developing the F135 engine for the F-135 Fighters.. The exclusivity agreement with GE came about
before the 777-Lr's were brought out and to be frank Unite was hacked off about it to the point that we bypassed the airplane all together even though we could have used the airplane. This was when Lou Mancini of Boeing was still the VP of Engineering at United So that was a FEW years ago, . as the 777-200 LR wasn't even on the Street yet.
MIflyer12 From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 136 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (2 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 7762 times:
Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 11): I'll Bet Boeing gave GE exclusivity to demand that they NOT field an engine for the A350 or any other Airbus Wide bodies
That would make for a powerful 'restraint of trade' case against Boeing. I'll hope their lawyers have better control over the marketers/negotiators to prevent something like that.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26699 posts, RR: 83 Reply 24, posted (2 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 7702 times:
Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 22): PRATT'S customers were not pleased with the 4090?? and Which customers would that be?
Those with PW4090's who run up against Nitrous Oxide emissions limits at the top end of the thrust setting and had to overhaul them a fair bit more often than planned due to the fuel injector guide swirlers lasting some 33% of planned cycle life (which was not much fun for JL and their high-cycle domestic 777 ops.. Also those with PW4098's who saw the fuel burn 2% higher than the 4090 as opposed to the expected 2% lower.
[Edited 2013-03-17 13:23:49]
25 hawkercamm: Personally I think this is a strategic mistake by Boeing. To exclude PW on the B737max albeit cause they went the sub optimal route in terms of BPR wi
26 timboflier215: Yes, absolutely; I wanted to focus on the most major projects, but it is absolutely clear that GE are going to be number 1 for the foreseeable future
27 Stitch: Pratt's VP of Next Generation Engines sounded bullish back in 2009 about getting a the PW1100 on the 737NG, but I expect that the reality proved more
28 ferpe: Perhaps they should but looking a bit back RR was in dire straits before 30-40 years ago and is doing fine since many years, in fact they have not be
29 timboflier215: True (and sad), but as part of the deal, RR did buy a stake in the GTF program. I think they both probably realised IAE was dead with no offering on
30 tistpaa727: BINGO! Yet most of the media reports I've read have focused on this ILFC quote spinning it to spell doom for the 777X.
31 ferpe: For the technically minded I put an analysis of the GE9X in Tech/Ops, quite a nice engine GE9X Analysis (by ferpe Mar 17 2013 in Tech Ops)
32 trex8: Per Boeing order site. ILFC have only ordered 28 77Ws and all have been delivered. Even if you add 772ERs they have 43 delivered only and the last of
33 CXB77L: Restraint of trade clauses in contracts are not illegal per se, and are in fact quite common. Under Australian law at least, restraint of trade claus
34 StickShaker: I had the impression that GE's contribution to the 77W/77L R&D was crucial in getting the program launched - not sure how accurate that is - just
35 jakenorton: I agree as Boeing lately has started to lose some territory with the invention of the A380
36 Stitch: When Boeing started serious work on the 777-200X (777-200LR) and 777-300X (777-300ER), they approached GE, RR and PW for engines in the 105,000 to 11
37 XT6Wagon: Its still easier to stay with GE even with 0% commonality. You already have your contacts with sales, service, support at GE. Also parts commonality
38 StickShaker: Thanks for the extra details Stitch. Cheers, StickShaker
39 GDB: In fairness, BA got their 777-300ER's as apart of the grovel package for 787 delays, they were not picked in an evaluation against other types, the s
40 scbriml: I don't see any benefit in that for Boeing - GE's already on two Airbus widebodies and the lack of a GE offering on the A350 hasn't hampered sales on
41 strfyr51: We FLY the PW4090 and you didn't answer the question. Who might those airlines BE?? It ISN'T United so Who else that you can really name or is that J
42 Stitch: Per lightsaber, who worked for Pratt, Japan Airlines was very upset about the poor cycle life of the fuel injector guide swirlers on their domestic 7
43 msp747: As others have noted, Pratt took themselves out of the running. IMO, I think Boeing was interested in how a geared turbofan would do on this plane. O
Sponsor Message: 
From Australia, joined Feb 2013, 10 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10671 posts, 
From Norway, joined May 2006, 907 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1550 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2009, 222 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7725 posts, 
, 1238 posts, 
Sad, considering what the JT9D enabled... 
From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1704 posts, 
From Mexico, joined Dec 2004, 641 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
