|Quoting Glom (Reply 4):|
3 engine choices for the A330. Why isn't there the same choice in new aircraft? You'd think there'd be a third choice for the 787/A350 market.
Never again. Boeing offered three engines on the 777 and Airbus offered three on the A330. It was (and in some ways still is) a bloodbath. None of the three could expect to make any kind of money with fierce three-way competition, it was and is more expensive for the manufacturers, and sharing the sales meant no-one sold all that many.
addressed this by buying exclusivity on the second generation of 777s.
Boeing addressed it by refusing to even consider three engine types for the 787. They toyed with just one or a maximum of two - which is why it was always going to be such a blow for whoever was going to be squeezed out.
Airbus didn't expressly comment on not having a third choice for the A350 (that I'm aware of) but, since they were piggy-backing on 787 engines, it was a moot point.
Boeing insisted on just one engine type on the 747-8.
Finally, just look at the numbers. Something like 550+ A330s have been sold so far. For just one engine manufacturer that would be good business - say 1,100+ engines. But the way it is, even the most successful engine on the A330 (the RR
Trent) has not yet reached 250 airframes. To put that in context, the TriStar - which sold fewer than half the number of A330s (so far) gave RR
business worth some 800 RB211s. They aren't even up to 500 on the A330 yet. GE
are in even worse shape with fewer than 300 engines sold on the programme.
No, the days of a three-way race have long gone and won't come back.