aa737
Posts: 830
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 5:49 am

Airplane Cominality V. Engine Cominality

Thu Dec 07, 2000 8:17 am

I have read a bunch of posts on this forum over the period of a few months and some people mention that airlines are willing to fly both the A340 and the 777 just for the RR engine cominality rather then a mix of RR powered 777s and GE powered 777LRs.

I was under the impression that it would be more economical to have the same airframe, even if it ment that there would be 2 types of engines. I would think it would be better to have 772ER and LR versions with RR engines on the 773ERs and GEs on the 777LRs.

Would it really be worth flying 772ERs and A346s just so that you could keep RR engines on both planes? I would think the costs of keeping pilots for both types, as well as mechanics trained for both types would be much greater then just operating multiple engine types.

So which is better, engine or airframe cominality?
 
chiawei
Posts: 924
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2000 9:07 am

RE: Airplane Cominality V. Engine Cominality

Thu Dec 07, 2000 8:39 am

Personally, I think Airframe Commonality would be refered. Since the airlines can be more flexible with their crew and aircraft deployment. For example, on some day Virgin can fly A346 to JFK due to high demand, and the same crew can fly A343 back the next day if the demand is low.

Engine commonality is important, but i personally think that fleet commonality is more important.
 
CV990A
Posts: 1385
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 1999 6:04 am

RE: Airplane Cominality V. Engine Cominality

Thu Dec 07, 2000 8:57 am

I would think that airframe/ cockpit commonality is important, but some airlines prefer a single engine manufacturer (ie BA with RR) for national reasons, or simply because their mechanincs are trained on one family of engines only and the costs of training on a new engine may outweigh the crew training required.
Kittens Give Morbo Gas
 
L-188
Posts: 29874
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Airplane Cominality V. Engine Cominality

Thu Dec 07, 2000 11:56 am

Being dedicated to one engine type is less common today then it was is the past and will continue to grow less so.

The Reasons are Federal Express and UPS. Since it is now possible to get parts overnight airlines don't have to stock a certian $amount of parts on hand at each station. This makes the accountants very happy and doesn't tye up as much of the airlines money.

OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
FLY DC JETS
Posts: 191
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2000 1:13 pm

RE: Airplane Cominality V. Engine Cominality

Thu Dec 07, 2000 8:56 pm

Another important thing to remember is the increasing number of carriers who choose to outsourse their engine maitainence to other companies. As this practice has increased, airlines are not faced the significant costs of different types. With the 777LR Boeing and GE have structured contract proposals to some airlines in such a way that they wont even have to touch the engine.
 
Guest

RE: Airplane Cominality V. Engine Cominality

Thu Dec 07, 2000 9:33 pm

Look at United, their entire fleet of aircraft except the 737-300/500s and a few DC-10s are powered by reliable Pratt & Whitney engines. They did this to save money on training and spare parts by sticking with one manufacturer.
 
eg777er
Posts: 1782
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2000 11:11 pm

RE: Airplane Cominality V. Engine Cominality

Fri Dec 08, 2000 4:49 am

Usually it's Airplane Commonality that wins over the engines.

However, in the one case which is so famous, the 777X, you have to take into account the enormous disappointment that some operators have had with their GE90 fleets - British Airways being the prime example. They have now switched to RR-powered 777s.

I don't think that an airline would switch from an all-Boeing fleet of RR-777s to the A340NG JUST to get the Trent, but in the case of airlines who already have any airbus in thier fleet - A320. A330 powered by either IAE or RR engines they would prefer to add the A340NG even if they have an existing 777 fleet.

For example, Emirates have the RR-777 but they decided to buy A340-500s becuase thier A330s and 777s are RR powered.

 
Guest

RE: Airplane Cominality V. Engine Cominality

Fri Dec 08, 2000 5:26 am

Here is another example, Singapore Airlines has a fleet of RR Trent powered 777s, instead of ordering the GE90 777X they went for the new RR Trent powered A340-500.
 
Guest

RE: Airplane Cominality V. Engine Cominality

Fri Dec 08, 2000 5:40 am

Here is another example, Singapore Airlines has a fleet of RR Trent powered 777s. Instead of ordering the GE90 777X they went for the new RR Trent powered A340-500.
 
User avatar
sammyk
Posts: 1560
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 1999 11:31 am

RE: Airplane Cominality V. Engine Cominality

Fri Dec 08, 2000 6:08 am

Tedski, Singapore went with the A340-500 before the 777-200LR was even available. There really was no competition. Also note, they only ordered 5 firm and 5 options.

Eg777er, are you sure the A340-500 was ordered for its common engine, or for getting around ETOPS on long routes to Australia?

Sammy
 
exPratt
Posts: 306
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2000 6:15 am

RE: Airplane Cominality V. Engine Cominality

Fri Dec 08, 2000 6:56 am

Singapore Airlines bought the Rolls Royce Trent engines for its 777s because Rolls offered Singapore a great deal. Singapore was traditionally a Pratt & Whitney customer. Pratt, thinking that it had the inside track to Singapore, did not make its offer for the PW4090 engine as lucrative as Rolls did for the Trent. Unfortunately for Pratt, Singapore Airlines purchase of Trents also lead to other airlines in the region such as MAS to also buy Trents.
 
Guest

RE: Airplane Cominality V. Engine Cominality

Fri Dec 08, 2000 7:21 am

What about Cathay Pacific, they also went for the RR Trent powered A340NG over the GE90 777X, and they too have a fleet of RR Trent powered A330s & 777s.