Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Story Behind BA 777 Engines  
User currently offline9V-SVE From Singapore, joined Nov 2001, 2066 posts, RR: 2
Posted (12 years 5 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1648 times:

Why did they order the GE90? They are a huge RR costumer. Then why did they switch to RR?

18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineNdebele From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 2898 posts, RR: 23
Reply 1, posted (12 years 5 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1543 times:

Margret Thatcher (again) ???

User currently offlineDavid_itl From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 7329 posts, RR: 14
Reply 2, posted (12 years 5 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1512 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!


First part:

1) BA had a maintenance operation in Cardiff.

2) BA sold it to General Electric.

3) BA orders General Electric engines.

Items 2) and 3) being purely coincidental  Wink/being sarcastic

Second part:

Don't know why but perhaps the RR engines are more powerful?

David/MAN: 248 and counting


User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9483 posts, RR: 42
Reply 3, posted (12 years 5 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1509 times:

BA switched from a British manufacturer to an American one because of Margaret Thatcher? Er... I don't quite follow.

User currently offlineNdebele From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 2898 posts, RR: 23
Reply 4, posted (12 years 5 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1489 times:

Yes, David, because as we all know, Thatcher is anti-british... NOT! Afaik, BA switched from GE to RR, or am I wrong (again) ???

User currently offlineEnginesrus From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 82 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (12 years 5 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1436 times:

As near as anyone can tell, BA had horrendous teething problems with the GE90s and promptly switched to the Trents when they had the chance. Both engines are equally powerful.

User currently offlineHkg_clk From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2001, 999 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (12 years 5 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1430 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
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13046 posts, RR: 78
Reply 7, posted (12 years 5 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1386 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.


User currently offlineEugdog From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2001, 518 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (12 years 5 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1377 times:

The RR Trent engine is based on the dependable RB211 engine. The GE90 is a wholly new engine with better specific fuel consumption.

This explains the teething problem with the GE90.

BA is private company and such considerations as engine choices should be made by management without government intervention.


User currently offlineB757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 23
Reply 9, posted (12 years 5 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1369 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.


"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
User currently offlineDash 80 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 309 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (12 years 5 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1359 times:

Simply put, the GE90 is one bad-ass engine!


...where the rubber hits the runway...
User currently offlineDynkrisolo From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1848 posts, RR: 8
Reply 11, posted (12 years 5 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1286 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.

User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4072 posts, RR: 19
Reply 12, posted (12 years 5 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1284 times:

BA'S RR 777 engines are rated at 95000lbs of thrust each whereas the GE -90s are a mere 90000lbs.


The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineDonder10 From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 6659 posts, RR: 22
Reply 13, posted (12 years 5 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1275 times:

Can BA make Kuala Lumpar with a fulll load direct with the GE engines?

User currently offlineCharliecossie From Germany, joined Oct 2001, 479 posts, RR: 9
Reply 14, posted (12 years 5 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1272 times:

Um, BA don't fly to KL anymore.


User currently offlineFlagshipAZ From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3419 posts, RR: 14
Reply 15, posted (12 years 5 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1261 times:

A quick look at Bill Harms' website revealed 29 777s with GE engines, while another 16 are equipped with RR engines. Anyone know if BA has more 777 on order, with either powerplant? Regards.


"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." --Ben Franklin
User currently offlineDynkrisolo From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1848 posts, RR: 8
Reply 16, posted (12 years 5 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1211 times:

Nope, that's all BA has ordered (45). It probably will have to wait a year or two before BA is financially sound enough to make additional orders.

User currently offlineNdebele From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 2898 posts, RR: 23
Reply 17, posted (12 years 5 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1199 times:

What do you think will happen to those GE-powered 777s when it comes to D-checks? Afaik, engines are removed for D-check. So will they put RR-engines even on the now GE-powered 777s after D-check?

User currently offlineDash 80 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 309 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (12 years 5 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1165 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.


...where the rubber hits the runway...
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...
BA 777 Engines posted Fri Sep 10 2004 21:24:21 by EZYAirbus
BA 777 Engines posted Thu Apr 25 2002 18:24:41 by Boeing767-300
BA 777 Engines posted Sat Jan 16 1999 02:26:25 by cv990
Why Did BA Change 777 Engines posted Wed May 2 2001 08:27:58 by Boeing764
DTW & IAH Spotters, BA 777 On Its Way posted Sun Dec 10 2006 14:15:58 by SpeedBird203
BA 777 In CPH posted Thu Nov 30 2006 09:58:26 by AbleToFly
BA 777 Back To SEA posted Mon Oct 30 2006 03:41:45 by Suprazachair
BA 777 & 747 At MCO On 10-23? posted Tue Oct 24 2006 07:56:33 by Swatpamike
BA 777 Seating posted Tue Sep 12 2006 20:24:29 by PSAHO88
BA 777 & VS A340 @ EWR Today posted Thu Aug 10 2006 17:28:48 by Rw774477