skipness1E
Topic Author
Posts: 3370
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 9:18 am

China Southern Different Engines On A330-200

Sun May 06, 2012 7:00 am

Why do they have the more popular Rolls Royce engines on the first batch of A330s and the less than stellar PW4000 on the new aircraft? Politics? I guess Pratt offered China something else in return?
 
aerokiwi
Posts: 2251
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2000 1:17 pm

RE: China Southern Different Engines On A330-200

Sun May 06, 2012 7:22 am

Quoting skipness1E (Thread starter):
I guess Pratt offered China something else in return?

Or maybe Rolls offered a sweety deal the first time round. The implication that PW had some political wrangling helping it out while RR didn't is unfair.

In all likelihood the PW option probably just suited them best given mission profile, financing, maintenance etc
 
rutankrd
Posts: 2569
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2003 6:08 am

RE: China Southern Different Engines On A330-200

Sun May 06, 2012 7:44 am

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 1):
Or maybe Rolls offered a sweety deal the first time round. The implication that PW had some political wrangling helping it out while RR didn't is unfair.

In all likelihood the PW option probably just suited them best given mission profile, financing, maintenance etc

Surely its what ever the CAAC say they can have.

Got to keep it in mind the Chinese regionals remain government departments and are far from independent of the CAAC.
Just nice differing liveries.
 
skipness1E
Topic Author
Posts: 3370
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 9:18 am

RE: China Southern Different Engines On A330-200

Sun May 06, 2012 7:46 am

Dude it's well know the PW offering doesn't compare well to the GE and RR engines. The only people who bought it did so for commonality with existing fleets and even then, some broke ranks later. Look at US Airways who went Trent for the A332s haivng bought PW powered A333s earlier.

Seems unusual to go the other way !
 
aerokiwi
Posts: 2251
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2000 1:17 pm

RE: China Southern Different Engines On A330-200

Sun May 06, 2012 10:50 am

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 3):
Dude it's well know the PW offering doesn't compare well to the GE and RR engines.

So no facts at all then. Excellent.
 
skipness1E
Topic Author
Posts: 3370
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 9:18 am

RE: China Southern Different Engines On A330-200

Sun May 06, 2012 11:29 am

Oh I'm sorry, have a look at market share on the A330.
 
Luftymatt
Posts: 381
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 7:27 pm

RE: China Southern Different Engines On A330-200

Sun May 06, 2012 11:49 am

Quoting skipness1E (Thread starter):
Why do they have the more popular Rolls Royce engines on the first batch of A330s and the less than stellar PW4000 on the new aircraft? Politics? I guess Pratt offered China something else in return?

Very good question, it doesn't really make sense. Have they converted some of the RR fleet to PW as well, or is this not the case?

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 3):
Dude it's well know the PW offering doesn't compare well to the GE and RR engines. The only people who bought it did so for commonality with existing fleets and even then, some broke ranks later. Look at US Airways who went Trent for the A332s haivng bought PW powered A333s earlier.

You're right about that. I spoke to US airways captains, who said the Rolls Royce engines were far superior to the Pratt option.
chase the sun
 
User avatar
zkojq
Posts: 2236
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:42 am

RE: China Southern Different Engines On A330-200

Sun May 06, 2012 1:32 pm

Here is the press release from shortly after the deal was announced:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...-turns-to-pw-for-new-a330s-328416/
China Southern chairman Si Xianmin said:

Quote:
We selected Pratt & Whitney because the advanced technology of the PW4170 Advantage70 engine will generate significant benefits for our customers in terms of operational needs and cut our carbon dioxide output.

I was under the impression that the Rolls Royce Trents had the lowest fuel burn of all the engines for the A330, though I could be wrong.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 3):
Seems unusual to go the other way !

Yes, very.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 3):
Dude it's well know the PW offering doesn't compare well to the GE and RR engines.

The way I understood things, the GE engines didn't compare well to the Rolls Royce and P&W ones. Most people consider the Rolls Royce Trent 700 to be the superior engine, though occasionally P&W and GE beat Rolls Royce on price/financing. For more indepth information we will need airliners.net member PM to explain.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 5):
Oh I'm sorry, have a look at market share on the A330.

If you look at overall market share for the A330 and compare that to market-share on A330s delivered in the last few years or so, the difference is reasonably substantial. Rolls Royce claims to have a 50% market-share in overall A330 deliveries, but of A330s delivered in the last year or so it is more like 75%.

[Edited 2012-05-06 06:38:56]
First to fly the 787-9 with Air New Zealand and ZK-NZE (2014-10-09, NZ103)
 
AirbusA6
Posts: 1484
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 5:53 am

RE: China Southern Different Engines On A330-200

Sun May 06, 2012 3:25 pm

I imagine Pratt were more desperate for the business, and made China Southern an offer they couldn't refuse, as this is a rare situation where one engine is vastly more popular than the other options, and one presumes must be superior.
it's the bus to stansted (now renamed National Express a6 to ruin my username)
 
skipness1E
Topic Author
Posts: 3370
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 9:18 am

RE: China Southern Different Engines On A330-200

Sun May 06, 2012 3:37 pm

Quoting LuftyMatt (Reply 6):
Have they converted some of the RR fleet to PW as well, or is this not the case?

No, the majority A332 / A333 fleet will remain Rolls powered. Politics I suspect.....
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11744
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: China Southern Different Engines On A330-200

Sun May 06, 2012 3:45 pm

Quoting zkojq (Reply 7):
I was under the impression that the Rolls Royce Trents had the lowest fuel burn of all the engines for the A330, though I could be wrong.

Which length of mission? For shorter missions, the Rolls Royce have a fuel burn advantage. For longer missions, Pratt has a maintenance and fuel burn advantage. The RR burn less during climb but more during cruise.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 9):
No, the majority A332 / A333 fleet will remain Rolls powered. Politics I suspect.....

Yet Pratt sells... The downside for Pratt is the T700 has far superior hot/high. (Ironic considering that was the goal of the PW4173... but due to hot compressor bleeds and contracts requiring the PW417X family use the same nacelle as the PW4168, it wasn't possible.)

Quoting zkojq (Reply 7):
The way I understood things, the GE engines didn't compare well to the Rolls Royce and P&W ones.

The GE's were third string until the latest PIP. Come on, a 59F limit for normal thrust versus 86F? That is less thrust for a hot takeoff than the Pratts. However, after the latest PIP, GE is competitive again, but the minor player.

RR has an excellent product on the A330. Due to their superior mid-range economics, most airlines will select them. But the Pratt's do well on longer missions that do not push the hot/high takeoff limits.

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 8):

I imagine Pratt were more desperate for the business,

I find this ironic, as this was a common claim from Pratt about RR on prior bidding... How the tables have turned.  

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
User avatar
zkojq
Posts: 2236
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:42 am

RE: China Southern Different Engines On A330-200

Sun May 06, 2012 10:10 pm

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 9):
No, the majority A332 / A333 fleet will remain Rolls powered.

Correct. For the record:
-China Southern currently has 22 A330s in their fleet.
-8 are powered by Pratt & Whitney engines.
-14 are powered by Rolls Royce engines.
-2 more Pratt & Whitney powered A330s to be delivered.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 10):
Which length of mission? For shorter missions, the Rolls Royce have a fuel burn advantage. For longer missions, Pratt has a maintenance and fuel burn advantage. The RR burn less during climb but more during cruise.

That would make sense as their flights to Auckland (probably the longest flights that their A330s fly) nearly always are operated by Pratt & Whitney powered A330s.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 10):
The GE's were third string until the latest PIP. Come on, a 59F limit for normal thrust versus 86F? That is less thrust for a hot takeoff than the Pratts. However, after the latest PIP, GE is competitive again, but the minor player.
RR has an excellent product on the A330. Due to their superior mid-range economics, most airlines will select them. But the Pratt's do well on longer missions that do not push the hot/high takeoff limits.

Very interesting, thanks for sharing, Lightsaber.
First to fly the 787-9 with Air New Zealand and ZK-NZE (2014-10-09, NZ103)
 
aerokiwi
Posts: 2251
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2000 1:17 pm

RE: China Southern Different Engines On A330-200

Sun May 06, 2012 11:22 pm

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 5):
Oh I'm sorry, have a look at market share on the A330.

Which doesn't tell you squat if a particular airline has a particular mission profile that one engine is better suited to. But no, for you it's...

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 9):
Politics I suspect.....

With zero evidence to back that up. Maybe the Pratts are just the better engine in this instance? Most engines do have sweet spots in their performance that doesn't require a political conspiracy to explain.
 
ac033
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 4:40 pm

RE: China Southern Different Engines On A330-200

Mon May 07, 2012 1:41 am

Quoting skipness1E (Thread starter):

Why do they have the more popular Rolls Royce engines on the first batch of A330s and the less than stellar PW4000 on the new aircraft? Politics? I guess Pratt offered China something else in return?

One simple reason, the PW birds enable them to fly CAN-AMS,CAN-AKL,CAN-LHR, CAN-CDG direct were previously operated by 77B. So they could free up the 77B for North America destinations.

Quoting zkojq (Reply 11):
That would make sense as their flights to Auckland (probably the longest flights that their A330s fly) nearly always are operated by Pratt & Whitney powered A330s.

I think CAN-CDG is a bit longer, and eventually CAN-LHR would be the longest
 
neutronstar73
Posts: 660
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 7:57 pm

RE: China Southern Different Engines On A330-200

Mon May 07, 2012 3:18 am

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 12):

I think you have hit the nail on the head. The P&W engine option is probably better under certain conditions than the Trent. And it probably has zero to do with politics.
 
skipness1E
Topic Author
Posts: 3370
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 9:18 am

RE: China Southern Different Engines On A330-200

Mon May 07, 2012 1:18 pm

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 14):
I think you have hit the nail on the head. The P&W engine option is probably better under certain conditions than the Trent. And it probably has zero to do with politics.

I wasn't sneering at the politics, it's a perfectly normal thing when dealing with China.

Etihad started off with PW and changed to Rolls Royce.
USAirways started off with PW and changed to Rolls Royce.
Swiss got the PW Swissair A332s and changed to Rolls Royce for their A333s.

PW :
Swissair,
Austrian,
NWA (even their DC10s were PW powered),
TAM (who also have GE A332s for some reason)
Kingfisher,
China Southern

GE :
Qatar
TAP
Air Europa
Qantas
Jet Airways
Air Algerie

RR :
Gulf Air
Oman Air
Emirates
Air China
China Eastern
China Southern
Air Transat
Air Canada
Lufthansa
BMI
Airtours
Monarch
Virgin Atlantic
Swiss
Saudia
Avianca
US AIrways
Aeroflot
SAS
Turkish
Egypt Air
Cathay Pacific
South African
Sri Lankan
Cyprus
Yemenia
Singapore

Looking at the list, I am struggling to see what the mission that the PW engine excels at might be.

[Edited 2012-05-07 06:19:21]
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11744
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: China Southern Different Engines On A330-200

Mon May 07, 2012 9:21 pm

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 15):
I am struggling to see what the mission that the PW engine excels at might be.

Cold takeoff long haul.

Many of the switches were due to Pratt delivering 5k less thrust than promise which certainly impacted EY and US's decision.

But that is a small window. The Pratts were supposed to be 73k thrust engines with another 2k of 'hidden thrust for hot/high. In other words, about 0.5k less hot/high thrust than the RR engines. Instead of being 0.5k less, with enough fuel burn improvement to make high MTOW hot/high missions at the same payload, Pratt has 9% less thrust.   That starts to impact the mission.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 15):
PW :
Swissair,
Austrian,
NWA (even their DC10s were PW powered),
TAM (who also have GE A332s for some reason)
Kingfisher,
China Southern

Add:
Korean Air.
Asiana (A333 only, IIRC)

US gave Pratt an ultimatum, meet promise or we switch. Pratt didn't meet thrust (but met fuel burn).
Etihad isn't a surprise, they need to hot day takeoff the RR provide.
Swiss was a shock for Pratt. It made sense for them from a maintenance spares commonality (with LH) and lease rates (due to better resale) point of view.

Where is PM?

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
PresRDC
Posts: 512
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 1999 5:00 am

RE: China Southern Different Engines On A330-200

Tue May 08, 2012 4:13 am

As I've said numerous times, the engine selection decision has much less to do with engine performance than one would expect. An engine selection decision is a financial decision and an engine contract is, at its core, a financial document. Engineers don't like to hear this, but it's true and, when it comes time to actually close (and then paper) an engine deal, there are few, if any, engineers in the room on either side.

The reason why RR has the A330 market share that it does is that it has a far higher tolerance for absorbing negative engine margin (i.e. a loss at the point of sale) than its competitors, both of whom are part of large conglomorates, which impose stricter financial performance requirements. Recall too that RR is sitting on the sidelines of the A320neo and 737 MAX competitions and, as such, has more resources (and more of an incentive) to agressively pursue A330 deals.

Almost every time that title to an aircraft transfers from the airframer to the airline (or leasing company), the engine OEM loses money and must record a loss on its books. It is a complex three party transaction, where the engine OEM sells the engines to the airframer at a negotiated (and not end user specific) price. This transaction occurs approximately 3 months prior to delivery. The engine OEM does typically make a profit on this sale, but it is a short lived profit.

In order to win the business, the engine OEM agrees to provide a monetary payment to the airline, equal to a percentage of the price at which the engine OEM sells the engine to the airframer (in the contract, this is expressed in absolute terms, not as a percentage). This payment is typically wired to the airframer about a week prior to title transfer, which, in turn, reduces the price of the aircraft by the amount of the payment. This is critical for airlines to be able to obtain financing for aircraft, as this payment reduces the amount of financing needed and, notwithstanding pre-delivery payments (which too can be financed), forms a downpayment. Typically, this payment is greater than the cost of manufacture, meaning that the engine OEM ultimately records a loss at the time of aircraft title transfer. Percentages vary over time, but 70% for a contested A330 campaign is not a bad ballpark. That would easily be north of US$20 million per aicraft.

Airframers actually have agreements with engine OEMs that allow the airframer to provide an estimated percentage of discount to potential customers to help market the aircraft. While the engine OEM is not contractually bound to offer that percentage to an airline, the engine OEM has been pre-positioned with the customer and it is rare that the percentage offered is much different from what the airframer advertises.

How does the engine OEM make money? In the aftermarket, mostly through the sale of parts. Life limited parts (LLPs) have the highest margins. Long term maintenance contracts (typically power-by-the-hour deals) are tools to capture spare parts revenue over an extended period of time. Very little money is made on the "wrench turning" aspect of an overhaul. RR, in particular, is very good about getting customers to sign up for long term maintenance contracts at the time of engine selection. This helps them to be more aggressive with the percentage offered. They well know how to make up the gap.

So, airlines don't care about performance? No, they do, but the engine contracts typically provide performance guarantees that provide financial compensation in the event the engines do not perform as expected. These are usually based on certain mission parameters, such as sector times, derate, altitude, etc. If two enigne models perform reasonably similarly, these guarantees will make up for any shortfall. After the percentage of payment, performance guarantees are the next most heavily negotiated issue. Typical guarantees include fuel consumption (how this is calculated is a huge negotiating point), oil consumption, EGT margin (more of a measure of overhaul quality), in-flight shutdown, aborted takeoff, etc.

Because of the need to record a loss at the time of title transfer, engine OEMs, especially P&W and GE, are reluctant to enter in to too many deals for deliveries close in proximity. There is a budget each year for how much in losses the company could take and sales objectives were prioritized based on this budget. Simply put, they cannot enter into an unlimited number of deals where a loss will be incurred in a given time. That's not how you return value to shareholders.

Oh, and politics absolutley does come into play in engine decisions. The U.S. Government, through the Commerce Department, offers a commercial advocacy program, whereby they will work to convince the political decision makers (many airliens are still at least partially state controlled) to "Buy American." They won't take sides betwee P&W and GE, but they will certainly lobby for both over RR. You can be assured that the British Government does the same for RR. Secretary Clinton was present in Kuala Lumpur when P&W and MAS signed their most recent A330 engine selection contract.

As for why China Southern selected P&W over RR for its second A330 order, I will leave you all to speculate. It was a bit of an outlier.

[Edited 2012-05-07 21:20:15]
 
PresRDC
Posts: 512
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 1999 5:00 am

RE: China Southern Different Engines On A330-200

Tue May 08, 2012 4:17 am

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 16):
US gave Pratt an ultimatum, meet promise or we switch. Pratt didn't meet thrust (but met fuel burn).
Etihad isn't a surprise, they need to hot day takeoff the RR provide.
Swiss was a shock for Pratt. It made sense for them from a maintenance spares commonality (with LH) and lease rates (due to better resale) point of view.

Neither deal made economic sense for Pratt. They were not worth the negative engine margin, especially with the GTF R&D spend going on at the same time. Again, it came down to money, not performance.
 
gokmengs
Posts: 894
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 2:48 am

RE: China Southern Different Engines On A330-200

Tue May 08, 2012 4:27 am

Quoting PresRDC (Reply 17):

Great post. Welcome to my Respected User list. Thanks
Gercekleri Tarih Yazar Tarihide Galatasaray
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11744
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: China Southern Different Engines On A330-200

Tue May 08, 2012 4:33 am

Quoting PresRDC (Reply 17):
The reason why RR has the A330 market share that it does is that it has a far higher tolerance for absorbing negative engine margin (i.e. a loss at the point of sale) than its competitors, both of whom are part of large conglomorates, which impose stricter financial performance requirements. Recall too that RR is sitting on the sidelines of the A320neo and 737 MAX competitions and, as such, has more resources (and more of an incentive) to agressively pursue A330 deals.

We can agree financial performance is key. But performance impacts costs. For example, GE often can win contracts with financing incentives (that are still profitable for the financial arm GECAS). However, until recently, their A330 engine had such poor hot/high performance that going toe to toe with RR didn't cut it. Adding fuel stops adds costs.  
Quoting PresRDC (Reply 18):
Neither deal made economic sense for Pratt. They were not worth the negative engine margin, especially with the GTF R&D spend going on at the same time. Again, it came down to money, not performance.

I agree money is important. However, for US, the lack of thrust meant reduced payload and thus impacted money. But money (USD) is the final column. Pratt would have had to go further into negative margin than RR. So they walked away.

Quoting PresRDC (Reply 17):
Oh, and politics absolutley does come into play in engine decisions. The U.S. Government, through the Commerce Department, offers a commercial advocacy program, whereby they will work to convince the political decision makers (many airliens are still at least partially state controlled) to "Buy American." They won't take sides betwee P&W and GE, but they will certainly lobby for both over RR. You can be assured that the British Government does the same for RR.

They also sway decisions with export financing.

In some ways, fuel burn is easier. A 1% drop in fuel burn on the A332 is about $400k per airframe in savings or $3 to $4M at negotiation. But the RR and Pratt are similar with RR having an advantage on shorter missions and Pratt on longer. I'm afraid with all the PIPs, I'm not certain of the break even range, but it is greater than TCON length missions.

I'm certain China Southern is receiving an excellent financial deal. Since Pratt has so few engines going out the door, they are ironically in a position to absorb more 'negative margin.'

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
User avatar
PM
Posts: 4820
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 5:05 pm

RE: China Southern Different Engines On A330-200

Wed May 09, 2012 7:13 am

Quoting skipness1E (Thread starter):
less than stellar PW4000

Less than accurate.  
Quoting skipness1E (Reply 3):
it's well know the PW offering doesn't compare well to the GE and RR engines.

Then you should have no trouble providing a reliable source.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 3):
The only people who bought it did so for commonality with existing fleets and even then, some broke ranks later. Look at US Airways who went Trent for the A332s haivng bought PW powered A333s earlier.

You can't have it both ways. US had no PW 'commonality' to maintain.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 3):
Seems unusual to go the other way !

Very. China Southern are the only A330 customer to go RR-PW. But Air Asia X surprised everyone (well, me) by ordering GE for their A332s after choosing RR for their A333s.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 5):
have a look at market share on the A330

At present PW have 21% of firm orders and GE have 20%.

Quoting LuftyMatt (Reply 6):
Have they converted some of the RR fleet to PW as well, or is this not the case?

Engine conversions are extremely rare and have only ever been done to odd frames in excetional circumstances. I'm only aware of four. None has involved an existing customer changing their mind.

Quoting zkojq (Reply 7):
The way I understood things, the GE engines didn't compare well to the Rolls Royce and P&W ones.

That has tended to be the case. (As Lightsaber knowledgeably explains.)

Quoting ac033 (Reply 13):
the PW birds enable them to fly CAN-AMS,CAN-AKL,CAN-LHR, CAN-CDG direct

Can the RR planes not do that?

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 15):
Etihad started off with PW and changed to Rolls Royce.

No, they didn't.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 15):
Swiss got the PW Swissair A332s and changed to Rolls Royce for their A333s.

In no small part because Lufthansa's fleet was RR-powered.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 15):
Looking at the list

...which is incomplete.

Quoting PresRDC (Reply 17):
The reason why RR has the A330 market share that it does is that it has a far higher tolerance for absorbing negative engine margin (i.e. a loss at the point of sale) than its competitors, both of whom are part of large conglomorates, which impose stricter financial performance requirements.

If this is true, why have we not seem the same thing elsewhere - on the Trent 1000, for example?
 
User avatar
zkojq
Posts: 2236
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:42 am

RE: China Southern Different Engines On A330-200

Wed May 09, 2012 10:24 am

Quoting PM (Reply 21):
Very. China Southern are the only A330 customer to go RR-PW. But Air Asia X surprised everyone (well, me) by ordering GE for their A332s after choosing RR for their A333s.

Me also.

Quoting PM (Reply 21):
No, they didn't.

Well actually they did. Etihad leased four A330-223s from TAM (PT-MVA, PT-MVB, PT-MVD and PT-MVE which were re-registered A6-EYX, A6-EYY, A6-EYB, and A6-EYA respectively) and two from other lessors lessors (A6-EYV, A6-EYW) during the early to mid 2000s. As they were leased Etihad didn't get to choose the engines as such.
First to fly the 787-9 with Air New Zealand and ZK-NZE (2014-10-09, NZ103)
 
User avatar
breiz
Posts: 1416
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:12 pm

RE: China Southern Different Engines On A330-200

Wed May 09, 2012 11:34 am

As reported by others, there are several potential explanations.
One thing which is for sure though, is that the Chinese in their very diplomatic way to do things internationally, tend to keep everybody both happy and on their toes. So they usually order similar amounts of stuff from the various suppliers available. 50 Boeings there, and 50 Airbus here, and 50 PW to go with, and 50 GE to follow, and 50 RR after, and so on...
 
skipness1E
Topic Author
Posts: 3370
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 9:18 am

RE: China Southern Different Engines On A330-200

Wed May 09, 2012 1:37 pm

Quoting PM (Reply 21):
Less than accurate.

Well you have your opinion, I have mine. My list was Euro-centric and I am happy for you to add the ones I missed with the provisio that we keep to first customer and not second hand for consistency. I missed Korean for example.
It is possible to seperate out A330-=x0x / x2x / x4x if anyone has the time and de-duping ability to give a view on market share by aircraft built rather than customer.

Quoting PM (Reply 21):
At present PW have 21% of firm orders and GE have 20%.

If this is correct, the balance would be Rolls Royce on 59%, having more than twice the market share of Pratt and Whitney?

Quoting PM (Reply 21):
No, they didn't.

My mistake, they had leased in both CF6 and PW4000 powered examples before their own Trent airframes arrived.

Quoting PM (Reply 21):
In no small part because Lufthansa's fleet was RR-powered.

I am aware of that, what they did not do, was stay with PW which was the whole point of my argument. Indeed one wonders why given Swiss' existing relationship with Lufthansa, why the LH order was not for PW as well?
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11744
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: China Southern Different Engines On A330-200

Wed May 09, 2012 2:18 pm

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 24):
why the LH order was not for PW as well?

My understanding is Pratt assumed too much it was their order. RR offered a much more competitive deal. With a 100% fleet replacement, there was little reason to remain loyal to an engine.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 24):
If this is correct, the balance would be Rolls Royce on 59%, having more than twice the market share of Pratt and Whitney?

The T700 is the engine to beat on the A330. That there is no question. But that is not to say there are not opportunities. It is possible, as with Pratt orders, that this time RR assumed the order was 'a given' and Pratt offered a more competitive deal. With all the engine vendors providing 'power by the hour' arrangements, there is less of a cost penalty to switch engines than before.

GE was just late to the game with acceptable hot/high performance. The latest PIP fixed that. (A wee bit late...) RR was first to the plate with thrust to 86F with good fuel burn (excellent climb fuel burn).

We now have the resale value card coming into play. For that, there is really only one engine: T700.

Lightsaber

Quoting PM (Reply 21):
Quoting ac033 (Reply 13):
the PW birds enable them to fly CAN-AMS,CAN-AKL,CAN-LHR, CAN-CDG direct

Can the RR planes not do that?

Pratt engines have a 2% cruise fuel burn advantage (but a climb fuel burn penalty) versus the T700. For those lengths of missions, there is about a 1t payload advantage for the Pratts:
http://www.airbus.com/support/mainte...cal-data/aircraft-characteristics/

By the latest airbus charts, it looks like 5500nm is the break even T700/PW4170A. Combined with the hot/high advantage of the T700, that doesn't leave much space. It also shows the latest GE having about another 1t advantage over the Pratt's at range (GE recently implemented a PIP that overcame their prior issues).

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
skipness1E
Topic Author
Posts: 3370
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 9:18 am

RE: China Southern Different Engines On A330-200

Wed May 09, 2012 4:44 pm

Very interesting Lightsaber thanks. I didn't realise airliners.nut had engine fan-boys as well as airliner fan-boys, I have no axe to grind and was just intrigued. I appear to have kicked a hornets nest and insulted it's mother all at the same time.
 
PresRDC
Posts: 512
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 1999 5:00 am

RE: China Southern Different Engines On A330-200

Wed May 09, 2012 6:55 pm

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 20):
I'm certain China Southern is receiving an excellent financial deal. Since Pratt has so few engines going out the door, they are ironically in a position to absorb more 'negative margin.'

The deal essentially fell into P&W's lap. To this day, no one at P&W really knows what happened. I think it fair to say that no one was more surprised than P&W to have won this campaign. It came totally out of the blue.

Quoting PM (Reply 21):
If this is true, why have we not seem the same thing elsewhere - on the Trent 1000, for example?

I'm not familiar with Trent 1000 campaigns. I think part of the reason that RR can be more aggressive than P&W and GE has to do with U.K. accounting treatment of the aftermarket portion of the deal. I am not an accountant and have a very limited understanding of how this works, but this is what I was told when I asked.

Quoting breiz (Reply 23):
As reported by others, there are several potential explanations.
One thing which is for sure though, is that the Chinese in their very diplomatic way to do things internationally, tend to keep everybody both happy and on their toes. So they usually order similar amounts of stuff from the various suppliers available. 50 Boeings there, and 50 Airbus here, and 50 PW to go with, and 50 GE to follow, and 50 RR after, and so on...

This has definitely been the pattern in the narrowbody market, specifically, in my exeprience, with single aisle Airbus engine selections. That said, with the exception of the second China Southern A330 and five A330-200s operated by Hong Kong Airlines/Hainan, the China A330 fleet is 100% RR powered.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 25):
My understanding is Pratt assumed too much it was their order. RR offered a much more competitive deal. With a 100% fleet replacement, there was little reason to remain loyal to an engine.

It wasn't so much that P&W assumed it was their deal, but rather that the delivery dates did not well align with other pending orders such that the negative margin hit would have been too great. P&W would have loved to win the deal at a lower negative margin, but that wasn't likely to happen.

Although a year or so later, P&W decided to compete very aggressively to retain the MAS business and won, but it was an extremely costly deal that was very aggressively contested by RR. P&W also has been successful retaining KAL business on subsequent orders.
 
trex8
Posts: 4577
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: China Southern Different Engines On A330-200

Thu May 10, 2012 12:42 am

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 24):
I am aware of that, what they did not do, was stay with PW which was the whole point of my argument. Indeed one wonders why given Swiss' existing relationship with Lufthansa, why the LH order was not for PW as well?

I vaguely remember seeing something about Lufthansa Technik wanting to get more into RR engine work and so having LH as an in house customer , most other things being equal, they went RR.
 
User avatar
ATA L1011
Posts: 1267
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2001 6:47 am

RE: China Southern Different Engines On A330-200

Thu May 10, 2012 1:59 am

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 15):
NWA (even their DC10s were PW powered)

Their original -40's were that they retired in 02, but the later -30's that they purchased later on that served to the near end of NWA were all GE powered.

[Edited 2012-05-09 19:00:15]
Treat others as you expect to be treated!
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11744
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: China Southern Different Engines On A330-200

Thu May 10, 2012 4:12 am

Quoting PresRDC (Reply 27):
The deal essentially fell into P&W's lap. To this day, no one at P&W really knows what happened. I think it fair to say that no one was more surprised than P&W to have won this campaign. It came totally out of the blue.

Better to be lucky than good?   Any way, its good to see a few more Pratts enter the fleet.

Quoting PresRDC (Reply 27):
I think part of the reason that RR can be more aggressive than P&W and GE has to do with U.K. accounting treatment of the aftermarket portion of the deal.

Interesting theory. I wonder if it applies to their taxes?

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
trex8
Posts: 4577
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: China Southern Different Engines On A330-200

Thu May 10, 2012 3:16 pm

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 20):
In some ways, fuel burn is easier. A 1% drop in fuel burn on the A332 is about $400k per airframe in savings or $3 to $4M at negotiation. But the RR and Pratt are similar with RR having an advantage on shorter missions and Pratt on longer. I'm afraid with all the PIPs, I'm not certain of the break even range, but it is greater than TCON length missions.

How does the Ge compare in terms of fuel burn to its competitors?
 
User avatar
PM
Posts: 4820
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 5:05 pm

RE: China Southern Different Engines On A330-200

Fri May 11, 2012 10:15 am

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 24):
It is possible to seperate out A330-=x0x / x2x / x4x if anyone has the time and de-duping ability to give a view on market share by aircraft built rather than customer.

My information is always two or three weeks behind so a few more planes may now have flown but, for all intents and purposes, planes built and flown are...

x0x (GE) = 221 (25.4%)
x2x (PW) = 205 (23.5%)
x4x (RR) = 445 (51.1%)

RR have by far the lion's share of the backlog.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 24):
If this is correct, the balance would be Rolls Royce on 59%, having more than twice the market share of Pratt and Whitney?

Correct.

Who is online