N1120A
Topic Author
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

NW, PW And The 757

Thu Jul 14, 2005 2:22 am

Ok, a question here for those in fleet planning and the like. Northwest has a pretty well known deal with PW where Pratt pays NW for the significant difference in fuel consumption between the PW2000 and the RB211 on the 753. The question is two fold. First, does Pratt also pay NW for the difference in fuel consumption on the 752 and second, do any other airlines have this arangement?
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
PSU.DTW.SCE
Posts: 6091
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 11:45 am

RE: NW, PW And The 757

Thu Jul 14, 2005 2:26 am

I don't believe this arrangement exists on the 752's.
The reasoning behind this, as at the time, the 753 was only offered with the RR engines, thus NW was the launch customer for the PW 753's, and is the only operator of this type (I believe).

NW initially went with the PW engines on the 752 fleet since they had PW engines on the DC-10-40's at the time and were a happy PW customer.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: NW, PW And The 757

Thu Jul 14, 2005 2:29 am

Not to mention the whole fleet of 747s at that time.

NW and Pratt go way back, NW was the reason why the DC10-40 was offered with the Pratts as well.

N
 
N1120A
Topic Author
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: NW, PW And The 757

Thu Jul 14, 2005 2:31 am

Quoting PSU.DTW.SCE (Reply 1):
NW initially went with the PW engines on the 752 fleet since they had PW engines on the DC-10-40's at the time and were a happy PW customer.

I am well aware of NW's allegience to PW (except on the A32S) being as strong as United's

Quoting PSU.DTW.SCE (Reply 1):
and is the only operator of this type (I believe).

Yes they are

Quoting PSU.DTW.SCE (Reply 1):
The reasoning behind this, as at the time, the 753 was only offered with the RR engines, thus NW was the launch customer for the PW 753's,

Actually, it was always offered with PW2000 power. It just happens there is something on the line of a 3% difference in SFC between them, which is an absolute disaster. PW pays NW for the difference. The reason I asked about the 752 is because there is also a wide gap (though not as wide) there and PW did give UA a sweetheart deal on their PW2040 powered ETOPS birds after losing DL's patronage.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
mlsrar
Posts: 1384
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 7:41 am

RE: NW, PW And The 757

Thu Jul 14, 2005 2:34 am

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 2):
NW was the reason why the DC10-40 was offered with the Pratts as well

JL was influential as well in the production of the -40, being a large PW customer as well.

NW was also the force behind enumerating what was to become the DC-10-20 into the DC-10-40.
I mean, for the right price I’ll fight a lion. - Mike Tyson
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11740
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: NW, PW And The 757

Thu Jul 14, 2005 2:39 am

????

The pw2038 has 7% lower fuel burn than the RB211 on the B752! Pratt isn't paying for fuel burn now. The engineers on this engine are damn proud of the fuel burn. But... Initially the Pw2038 missed its TSFC target by ~4% (oops...). As is normal in engine contracts, Pratt had to pay for a 3% fuel miss (4% minus a 1% contract "fudge factor.") Also, until the late 1990's, the pw4038 wasn't meeting maintenance goals, so Pratt was having to pay NW back for extra shop time. In fact, for a while the pw2038 was a shop queen.  cry  In effect, Pratt forfitted its Profit on the NW PW2038's for quite a bit due to excess shop time.

NW and UA tend to be happy Pratt customers as Pratt and them have a very good working relationship. (Not perfect, but good.)

As to the pw4042 (the B753 engine), Pratt hasn't been paying out much warantee.

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
Tornado82
Posts: 4662
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 10:19 am

RE: NW, PW And The 757

Thu Jul 14, 2005 7:50 am

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 5):
The pw2038 has 7% lower fuel burn than the RB211 on the B752

7% difference between 2 engines on the same bird is a hell of a difference!!! Engine commonality amongst fleets is one thing, but with a 7% burn difference its surprising anybody could pass up the PW's if that's the case.
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: NW, PW And The 757

Thu Jul 14, 2005 8:37 am

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 5):
The pw2038

Something I'm not aware of (a possibility) or do you mean PW2037?  Wink
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
User avatar
United_fan
Posts: 6358
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2000 11:11 am

RE: NW, PW And The 757

Thu Jul 14, 2005 9:32 am

Wasn't it a former NW executive who once said "If I want a lightbulb,I'll buy a GE,if I want a jet engine I'll buy a Pratt & Whitney"
Champagne For My Real Friends,and Real Pain For My Sham Friends
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11740
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: NW, PW And The 757

Thu Jul 14, 2005 10:56 am

Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 6):

7% difference between 2 engines on the same bird is a hell of a difference!!! Engine commonality amongst fleets is one thing, but with a 7% burn difference its surprising anybody could pass up the PW's if that's the case.

Unless the Pratt is a shop queen.  Sad And note I pointed out it was only a 3% difference at entry into service (when many airlines commited to an engine) and since then RR might have improved the fuel burn (post 2001). At $20 to $25/bbl for oil, the RR was cheaper even with this great of a fuel burn difference. (Recall, a missed flight is DAMN expensive and the pw2037 missed a few!) The RB211 is using a core designed for 58k of thrust lopping along at ~38k. So its quite a bit heavier. (Note: they did modify the high turbine quite a bit to reduce the thermo hit.) One has to consider the times the airlines committed to their purchase decision.

Note: Recall the pw2037 was the world's first in service commercial engine with mono-crystal turbine blades*. That's a 2% to 3% drop in fuel burn on its own!

Just for a tidbit on the difference in reliability circa 1998, the RB211 on the 752 was getting ~ 12,500 to 15,000 cycles between overhauls (in other words, regularly hitting the engine cycle limit). The Pratt? About 3,750.  embarrased  Ok, the pw2037 has improved since then, but its still only about half of the RR numbers. Recall that those overhauls are a couple of million too...  dollarsign  Recall, 1 cycle=1 cold takeoff, but a hot/high takeoff might count for 3 or more cycles! (More is possible, but rare) Convieniently the FADAC does the math for you...

If the Pratt had been half reliable, it would have owned the 757 market. The pw2037 is the dog of the Pratt Stable and a good part of the reason airlines have gone to other engine vendors. Poor reliabilty costs. Pratt knows there is no longer any acceptible excuse for poor reliability. Will they be given a chance again? I'm hearing from people in the know there will be one last chance, possibly announced later this year.  Smile Note I said possibly.

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 7):
Something I'm not aware of (a possibility) or do you mean PW2037?

Umm... its the upthrust...  embarrassed  I don't know why I always give this engine an extra 1k of thrust... oops. pw2037 is correct (Hey, in my own defense its an engine I haven't worked on. ok? If I screwed up on the pw6022/6024, pw4062, 4168 (wanna be 4172), 4090, 4098, 8163, 8157, 8133, V2500 A7, A9, or A12 I would have no excusse. Whew! Yes, most of those are paper engines/changes and I'm still under NDA for the sonic cruiser. naa naa)

Quoting United_fan (Reply 8):
"If I want a lightbulb,I'll buy a GE,if I want a jet engine I'll buy a Pratt & Whitney"

Love the quote!  bigthumbsup 


Lightsaber

*yea, a few caviats there on the single crystal bit...
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
N1120A
Topic Author
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: NW, PW And The 757

Fri Jul 15, 2005 7:42 am

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 5):
The pw2038 has 7% lower fuel burn than the RB211 on the B752!

How can you explain the fact that all of the longest ranged 752s are RB211 powered then?
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
GQfluffy
Posts: 3072
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 1:25 pm

RE: NW, PW And The 757

Fri Jul 15, 2005 7:45 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 3):
PW did give UA a sweetheart deal on their PW2040 powered ETOPS birds after losing DL's patronage.

What's this all about? I've never seen a RR-powerd 757 in DL colors. Are you refering to the GE 767s and RR 777's?

fluffy

[Edited 2005-07-15 00:46:32]
This isn't where I parked my car...
 
N1120A
Topic Author
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: NW, PW And The 757

Fri Jul 15, 2005 7:51 am

Quoting GQfluffy (Reply 11):
I've never seen a RR-powerd 757 in DL colors. Are you refering to the GE 767s and RR 777's?

I am refering to the fact that they switched from PW4000 power to CF6 power on the 767s after taking delivery of several PW4000 powered birds because of the way PW dealt with them.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 817Dreamliiner, Adipasquale, AsiaTravel, BreninTW, BrianDromey, Google Adsense [Bot], LA704, LG777, MrBren, oldannyboy, PlanesNTrains, smi0006, speedbored, XAM2175, Yahoo [Bot] and 223 guests