Hkg_clk From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2001, 999 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (13 years 1 month 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1550 times:
I guess it all comes down to price. It was reported at the time that the RR engine deal was one of the most hotly contested engined deals ever. BA probably just accepted the bid that made the most financial sense.
See my homepage for a comprehensive guide to spotting and photography at HKG
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13253 posts, RR: 77
Reply 7, posted (13 years 1 month 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1506 times:
Enginesrus is correct, and the GE90 buy was not a popular move anyway.
I've heard tales of dodgy dealings with the GE90 deal in 1991, but I'm not going to repeat them as I've no way of knowing if they were true.
B757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 22
Reply 9, posted (13 years 1 month 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1489 times:
Another reason for the switch to RR was the decision to cancel/convert some 747-400 orders. The 747's would have been RR powered. Since BA had the engines on order as well and I believe had already partially paid for them, it made sense to simply convert the order to engines for the newer 777's.
Dynkrisolo From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1866 posts, RR: 7
Reply 11, posted (13 years 1 month 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1406 times:
Dash 80, I am afraid your statement is baseless. Lately, the three B777 engines have very similar IFSD rates. All three are well below the 0.02 per 1000 EFH rate that is required for 180 ETOPS rating. I believe the GE90 is actually in the middle of the pack, in terms of IFSD rate, but I have to check.
Dash 80 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 309 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (13 years 1 month 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1285 times:
The reason I said the GE90 is bad-ass is because it's the most powerful jet engine out there with the GE90-115B rated @ 115,000 lb-thrust. You don't have to break it down or nothing, I am just making an observation.