seachaz From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 214 posts, RR: 9 Posted (10 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 7032 times:
On the way into work today saw the not so unfamiliar site of an engine on its way up I-405 to Paine Field, got me wondering whats the entire shipment process for a Trent to make it to the Everett Assembly lines? Plane or boat across the Atlantic? What's the port of entry? Are they shipped whole partially disassembled from the RR factory? On the flip-side how about GE and PW shipping their engines to Airbus?
bikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1591 posts, RR: 4 Reply 1, posted (10 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 7036 times:
These large engines are too expensive to ship by anything other than by air.
Don't know the port of entry, but when Boeing Propulsion was at Boeing Field, the Antonov would deliver the engine there. It may be that they still fly the engine there and then truck them up to Everett via 405.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16819 posts, RR: 57 Reply 2, posted (10 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 6945 times:
Quoting seachaz (Thread starter): Are they shipped whole partially disassembled from the RR factory?
I know that newer GE engines are designed so that the propulsor can be disconnected easily from the core for shipping. Is this also the case with RR engines?
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26700 posts, RR: 83 Reply 3, posted (10 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 6876 times:
Quoting bikerthai (Reply 1): Don't know the port of entry, but when Boeing Propulsion was at Boeing Field, the Antonov would deliver the engine there. It may be that they still fly the engine there and then truck them up to Everett via 405.
If they deliver to BFI, to get to I-405 they'd either have to drive south on I-5 to the I-405 interchange and then drive back up, or come across I-90 or SR-520. I would therefore expect them to just drive straight up I-5 to Everett.
I would therefore imagine they are flown to SEA and then via I-405. The GE90 fan casing can be removed to allow transport via 747 freighter:
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16819 posts, RR: 57 Reply 4, posted (10 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 6797 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):
If they deliver to BFI, to get to I-405 they'd either have to drive south on I-5 to the I-405 interchange and then drive back up, or come across I-90 or SR-520. I would therefore expect them to just drive straight up I-5 to Everett.
Why wouldn't they just fly it to Everett? That seems to be an unnecessary step.
canoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2657 posts, RR: 12 Reply 5, posted (10 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 6781 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 4): Why wouldn't they just fly it to Everett? That seems to be an unnecessary step.
My question too. I was up there a month ago doing the Boeing tour and they had 4 of them sitting out in front of the 777 assembly line when we started. I neglected to ask. But, it isn't uncommon to see sections occasionally on 405 or I-5.
PAE isn't a normal airport of entry (it is a landing rights airport, which means that you can clear US customs there, but only via prior arrangement with US Customs, and usually an extra fee). You could fly it there, but why not just land at SEA, where you can clear customs on the field, and then truck it the rest of the way?
Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
seachaz From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 214 posts, RR: 9 Reply 7, posted (10 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 6769 times:
Just for clarification I'm not sure what make/model engine I saw today, looked to be of the Trent 1000/GEnx size though. Have also seen some GE-90-110/115b on 405 in the past (hard to miss) and other various engines coming up I-5 from as far south as Portland.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16819 posts, RR: 57 Reply 8, posted (10 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 6752 times:
Quoting KELPkid (Reply 6): PAE isn't a normal airport of entry (it is a landing rights airport, which means that you can clear US customs there, but only via prior arrangement with US Customs, and usually an extra fee). You could fly it there, but why not just land at SEA, where you can clear customs on the field, and then truck it the rest of the way?
Why not land at SEA, clear customs, and then fly to PAE? Even if it's a foreign operator, they aren't taking any new cargo aboard for the short domestic leg.
KELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 5932 posts, RR: 4 Reply 9, posted (10 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 6747 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 8): Why not land at SEA, clear customs, and then fly to PAE? Even if it's a foreign operator, they aren't taking any new cargo aboard for the short domestic leg.
Compare the costs per flight hour of a monster like the AN-124 or an IL-76 versus calling the local cartage trucking company sometime... Get back to me with the results You're probably paying around $1000 or so just to fire up the engines in the airplane....
Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16819 posts, RR: 57 Reply 13, posted (10 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 6002 times:
Quoting KELPkid (Reply 9): Compare the costs per flight hour of a monster like the AN-124 or an IL-76 versus calling the local cartage trucking company sometime... Get back to me with the results You're probably paying around $1000 or so just to fire up the engines in the airplane....
Compared to unloading, loading, securing, and driving? Just rolling the thing off the plane has to be worth $1000.
zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7725 posts, RR: 73 Reply 15, posted (10 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 5911 times:
I do not understand why they would not go by ship. I can understand for an AOG situation for them to go by air. For new build aircraft, they have enough advance warning of them to save a lot by sending them by ship.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
OldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3206 posts, RR: 66 Reply 16, posted (10 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5842 times:
[quote=DocLightning,reply=4]Why wouldn't they just fly it to Everett? That seems to be an unnecessary step.[/quote
Boeing practice has been to build up all engines for both Everett and Renton at the Propulsion Systems Division (PSD).
The bare engine is received from the manufacter, then is equipped at PSD (accessories, cowlings etc) so that they can be installed directly on the Everett and Renton assembly lines. The advantage was that the engine build-up experts were all in one place and could shift easily from one engine type to another as required by rate and production sequencing.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
bond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5098 posts, RR: 8 Reply 17, posted (10 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 5733 times:
Quoting bikerthai (Reply 1): These large engines are too expensive to ship by anything other than by air.
Not sure what you mean by this?
Quoting zeke (Reply 15): I do not understand why they would not go by ship. I can understand for an AOG situation for them to go by air. For new build aircraft, they have enough advance warning of them to save a lot by sending them by ship.
Agreed, except if you went by boat the whole way to the West Coast, it would be mean going via the Panama Canal of course, but this is done all the time for other cargo.
Jimbo
I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
krisyyz From Canada, joined Nov 2004, 1575 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (10 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 5721 times:
Can't speak about how RRs get to Boeing, but a few months ago I was boarding a KL 74M and I clearly saw two RR engines being loaded into the main deck compartment. They looked to be Trent 700s but that's just a guess based on their size.
Dalmd88 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 2365 posts, RR: 15 Reply 19, posted (10 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 5698 times:
Quoting zeke (Reply 15): I do not understand why they would not go by ship. I can understand for an AOG situation for them to go by air. For new build aircraft, they have enough advance warning of them to save a lot by sending them by ship.
I think it has to do with inventory costs. On very high dollar items no company wants to show ownership of the item for a long inventory time frame. A ship journey would be considered an inventory time for the engine company. They want to build the engine and off load it to the customer fast so they get paid.
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 20, posted (10 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 5597 times:
Quoting zeke (Reply 15): I do not understand why they would not go by ship. I can understand for an AOG situation for them to go by air. For new build aircraft, they have enough advance warning of them to save a lot by sending them by ship.
Dalmd88 nailed it:
Quoting Dalmd88 (Reply 19): I think it has to do with inventory costs.
Shipping is something like 28-48 times slower than air freight. There's a *huge* cost associated with having that many engines in transport and not actually paid for yet.
canoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2657 posts, RR: 12 Reply 21, posted (10 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 5567 times:
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 20): Shipping is something like 28-48 times slower than air freight. There's a *huge* cost associated with having that many engines in transport and not actually paid for yet.
Any idea how many they ship at a time? When I was there last month they had 4 engines in a row sitting on the ramp outside the production floor.
I would hope they're sync'd up to the production rate and shipping in pairs to match the rate that airplanes need them. However, they may be trying to capture some batch savings by putting multiple engines on one freighter...anyone know how many Trent's fit on one air freighter?
Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 21): When I was there last month they had 4 engines in a row sitting on the ramp outside the production floor.
I'd expect 2-4 to be there at any one time but that's just a guess...the 737 has a much higher rate so they have more engines in the factory at any one time.
bikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1591 posts, RR: 4 Reply 24, posted (10 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4908 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 3): I would therefore expect them to just drive straight up I-5 to Everett.
Drove both routes many times. 405 have no tunnels (I-5, seattle conventionl).
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 8): Why not land at SEA, clear customs, and then fly to PAE? Even if it's a foreign operator, they aren't taking any new cargo aboard for the short domestic leg.
Why pay landing fees at both locations?
Quoting zeke (Reply 15): I do not understand why they would not go by ship. I
Just figure a 25 million dollar engine for example. At 3% annual interest, you are paying $2000 each day the engine sits around. For a 30 day journey, you are looking at $60,000 dollars before you figure shipping costs, insurance, etc.
25 tdscanuck: Real world inventory holding costs (when you roll all the other stuff besides just interest in) are going to be 10+%. You'll spend hundreds of thousa
26 bond007: Except that when it's on a ship you are paying none of the 'real world inventory holding costs', since it's almost all included as part of the actual
27 KELPkid: Tom's point was, though, that the engine manufacturer doesn't get paid until the airframer receives the engine. From the engine manufacturer's point
28 bond007: Agreed, but they are shipping costs, not inventory costs. The cost if keeping inventory is much higher, and includes those same costs. Insurance depe
29 bikerthai: These comment is actually more complicated, I think. The engines are typically purchased separately from the airplane. So I would think, the Engine m
30 zeke: With all those unfinished 787s sitting around PAE, the engines that would have been made to keep up with the production must be sitting around somewh
31 bikerthai: I remember in the early 90's with the Boeing Machinist Strike, they had many engines stacked up in the parking lot. The larger one required special p
32 BreninTW: A lot of this discussion has been about the costs and time taken to ship the engines. However, I think there may be another factor: Turbulence vs. rou
33 bond007: With the huge ships we are talking about here, I cannot imagine this is even the slightest factor. There are no sudden movements on those beasts even
34 tdscanuck: I don't think it's physically possible for a large ship to encounter the type of sharp acceleration peaks a truck or airplane goes through. Even if i
35 bikerthai: Will those large engines even fit in a standard container? If not, then the price of shipping goes up. Perhaps they can ship the engines in one of th
36 Mark2fly1034: Why not have a lot arrive at some airport the same day and send them by train?
37 bikerthai: Production rate for these airplanes do not warrant more than one a day. Even the with the 737, you don't need more than 3-4 a day. If a lot of these
38 KELPkid: See this: Freight rail cars in the US have sprung suspensions If the load needs to be protected from damage in transit, rail isn't the best way to go
39 bikerthai: Or an air suspended trailer on a flat bed train car. Also, on trucks, there is less chance of some miscreant staking out a rail line to put holes in
40 jetlife2: The comments about how GE90's can be shipped by air are accurate, they can be split easily and transported by 747/777 freighter. However, this is not
41 n92r03: The OP asked about shipping to Boeing... The video below is to Airbus, but at 2:40 it shows on a truck, truck onto a ferry, then trucked to Airbus. ht
42 DocLightning: If you go by sea, you will need to go through the Panama Canal to get to the Port of Seattle, which is a huge detour. If it's properly secured and ot
43 trex8: In a previous thread on engine discounts from the OEM it was stated that airlines actually pay full price for the engine to the airframe manufacturer
44 Viscount724: AC had a 77W divert to Fairbanks, Alaska with engine problems on a ICN flight in September 2008. One engine had turbine damage and required an engine
45 mingocr83: Well...shipping here is fairly simple. Based on the urgency for a lean operation in the Assembly line, the shipping is negotiated with a Air Freight S
46 dlednicer: Small quibble - I-405 southbound went through the Wilburton Tunnel in Bellevue, until the tunnel was removed in August 2008. I've seen semi-tractors
47 HAWK21M: Has to be shipped as QECAs [Quick engine change assemblies].Cant be in modular breaks.
48 bikerthai: Well, I guess now we know what will limit the size of the next generation of engines. Not it's efficiency, rather how it will be shipped. bt
49 Starlionblue: This is not actually a new thing in aviation. Rocket stages have been limited by transportation options as well.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 214 posts, 
Get back to me with the results 
From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2008, 228 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7725 posts, 
From Canada, joined Nov 2004, 1575 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
