I had wondered how well Spirit would do launching the A320NEO in the United States. They don't have the hub network, spare aircraft and fleet size to deal with entry into service problems as well as some larger airlines. The PW1100G is proving to be a significant maintenance burden. I read in another article that there have been 43 engine removals worldwide on the A320NEO fleet. That is going to take significant resources and cost to support. Having to lease capacity from another airline is not that much of a surprise given the problems that spirit is facing. 4 out of 5 A320NEOs grounded at the same time is going to cause significant problems for them to try to run a full schedule. I would be surprised if Spirit has more than 5-6 spare airplanes in their entire fleet.

F9 mgmt must be patting themselves on the back on their engine choice...

Snapped this one at PBI of N901NK

Well, at least the PW1100G issues are being identified.

Sigh... It is a challenge being a Pratt fan.

Lightsaber

It is good that they are identified, designing and delivering a fix is the nightmare PW have put their customers and OEM's in. They should stop designing and building engines on their own and re-introduce partners like they did with IAE, they don't seem to have the skills on their own. Come on CT do better!

At least they get a better seat on Mia air!

Why aren't the C-series P&Ws having this problem? How about the MC-21's engines? I've started to hear rumors its engines might also be affected.

lightsaber wrote:

Well, at least the PW1100G issues are being identified.

Sigh... It is a challenge being a Pratt fan.

Lightsaber

Yea - this is not great for PW. Hopefully all the issues get worked out (but as a Boeing fan, if they don't, it works in the 737MAX favor). Is the C Series PW having the same issues?

jbs2886 wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

Well, at least the PW1100G issues are being identified.

Sigh... It is a challenge being a Pratt fan.

Lightsaber

Yea - this is not great for PW. Hopefully all the issues get worked out (but as a Boeing fan, if they don't, it works in the 737MAX favor). Is the C Series PW having the same issues?

Airbus offering engine choice is a very good thing. While they are suffering along with the airlines, engine choice is the great leveler in the industry. I don't see this as an A vs B discussion. The C Series is feeling an impact too. The upside is that eventually reliability will improve. We haven't seen how the LeapX compares to the CFM56 reliability numbers. I kind of doubt that either the LeapX or PW1100G will achieve 40,000 hours on wing without an engine change like the CFM56 has anytime soon.

Yeah charting a couple of planes wouldn't have helped any Delta passengers out, they dropped the ball big time and only bringing in 100 747's would fix. Apples to oranges.

With all the testing before certified, why is this still a problem? The engine should not be used - period.

lightsaber wrote:

Well, at least the PW1100G issues are being identified.

Sigh... It is a challenge being a Pratt fan.

Lightsaber

This string of problems is catching a lot of people by surprise...unfortunately, most of those people seem to work for Pratt.

I think one expectation that the GTF had was that it would be as reliable as the gearbox. Since it allows the core to run at pretty much its peak efficiency speed, it wouldn't need to rely on exotic processes or materials to get the job done, like the LEAP. Lower temps and pressures would mean greater reliability without needing to go bleeding edge on tech.

Unfortunately, it's looking more and more that in focussing so much on the gearbox, they neglected other things. I mean...fan blades...? They've been making those for half a century or more and yet while GE has been putting composite blades on it's engines for quite some time now, and putting blisk fans into production, and Rolls has been doing some nifty alloy 3d blades, Pratt is having problems producing something they should have put to bed a very long time ago.

Then the shaft problems and the bleed door problems. Bleed doors...? How could something as basic as that be a problem in this day and age?

You're right, Lightsaber...being a Pratt fan is a tough job lately. I remember how cool it was as a kid flying on 732's and 727's, those screaming JT8's with the eagle on the side blasting us into the sky. Now...?

The neo will survive just fine. If nothing else, GE will have to ramp up LEAP production.

I have all my digits crossed that some hidden gremlin isn't going to screw up the CSeries...or I should say, another hidden gremlin. This engine is make or break for BBD as a commercial aircraft maker.

So far, the program has suffered through two major engine issues. I'm not sure it can take another one.

Most models, except for the Dreamliner, tend to have engine exclusivity. I have to wonder why Airbus didn't put Pratt & Whitney and GE/Safran-Snecma (CFM) to a competition for exclusivity on the A320family neo. In a previous competition, GE beat out P&W to supply engines for the 77L/77W, and Rolls Royce has engine exclusivity on the A330neo and A350XWB. (Likewise, P&W has exclusivity with the CSeries and E-Jet E2.) The trend is to harmonize engine with plane. I expect that almost all future customers for the A319/320/321neo will select the LEAP.

I am a finance guy so trying to understand this.

What kind of responsibility would Airbus or Pratt have when the airline has loss of revenues and or expenses incurred getting charters due to a defect or design flaw, ie with an engine.

Are they responsible to just fix the issue or would they be responsible for a "loaner" like your luxury car dealer provide you while your car is out.

thanks!

MaksFly wrote:

I am a finance guy so trying to understand this.

What kind of responsibility would Airbus or Pratt have when the airline has loss of revenues and or expenses incurred getting charters due to a defect or design flaw, ie with an engine.

Are they responsible to just fix the issue or would they be responsible for a "loaner" like your luxury car dealer provide you while your car is out.

thanks!

Consequential damages normally are not awarded unless they are within the contemplation of the parties to the underlying contract, and how this concept is applied varies from state to state (contract law and the law of damages being creatures of state law). Consequential damages may also be disclaimed in a contract.

Another way of looking at it is that this is a known risk that would be addressed in the contracts among Airbus, Pratt and the launch customer, all of them being sophisticated players who pay good lawyers to anticipate and allocate risk. The financial obligations of each of those parties would be defined. So either it is or it isn't Pratt's responsibility, but it's assuredly in the contracts.

lightsaber wrote:

Well, at least the PW1100G issues are being identified.

Sigh... It is a challenge being a Pratt fan.

Lightsaber

Right? I'm rooting for this engine. Looks like they got the gearbox right (so far) but otherwise, it looks to me like PW forgot how to build an engine. First the casing, then the rotor (hint; that's the whole actual heat engine), now the bleed valves. What else have they stuffed up so far?

wjcandee wrote:

MaksFly wrote:

I am a finance guy so trying to understand this.

What kind of responsibility would Airbus or Pratt have when the airline has loss of revenues and or expenses incurred getting charters due to a defect or design flaw, ie with an engine.

Are they responsible to just fix the issue or would they be responsible for a "loaner" like your luxury car dealer provide you while your car is out.

thanks!

Consequential damages normally are not awarded unless they are within the contemplation of the parties to the underlying contract, and how this concept is applied varies from state to state (contract law and the law of damages being creatures of state law). Consequential damages may also be disclaimed in a contract.

Another way of looking at it is that this is a known risk that would be addressed in the contracts among Airbus, Pratt and the launch customer, all of them being sophisticated players who pay good lawyers to anticipate and allocate risk. The financial obligations of each of those parties would be defined. So either it is or it isn't Pratt's responsibility, but it's assuredly in the contracts.

Got it, so essentially it varies from deal to deal, but it is 100% defined in the original purchase agreements.

Is there an industry standard that they lean one way or the other typically though? Thanks.

Real shame to have grounded airplanes that are brand new and I'm sure were highly anticipated. Even bigger issue for an airline the size of Spirit with lots of flying and not a huge fleet size i.e. spares.

DocLightning wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

Well, at least the PW1100G issues are being identified.

Sigh... It is a challenge being a Pratt fan.

Lightsaber

Right? I'm rooting for this engine. Looks like they got the gearbox right (so far) but otherwise, it looks to me like PW forgot how to build an engine. First the casing, then the rotor (hint; that's the whole actual heat engine), now the bleed valves. What else have they stuffed up so far?

We were talking about this at work today; it's not like bleed valves are a new thing in engines...

Bomby wisely spent the down time refining its C-Series before sending it to the launch customer, and so it has had very-few teething pains on the airframe, and they are lucky to have a very-patient launch customer who appreciates their responsiveness and quality.

Boeing, OTOH, rushed the 787, with the resulting meltdown. The drama on a.net and in the business press would have you think that they'd end up delivering 3 paid-for aircraft. And once in service, truly stupid stuff went wrong with it, just like with the GTF. But now, just a couple of years later, the thing is a mature program that can be evaluated on its in-service merits, really without any speculation about anything else going wrong with it. If oil was at $120/bbl, it would be selling. Since oil is at $50/bbl, the gee-wizardry of the thing is less compelling, and people are holding onto their last-generation aircraft longer. If oil goes up, and in the natural order of things, it will likely gain substantially-more orders over the next couple of years.

And so will go the GTF. Pratt will get the thing fixed, and the manufacturing fixed, and this will all hopefully be forgotten as the GTF becomes a mature system. That said, can't be a fun time right now for the Pratt engineers and supply-chain folks.

If the Wiki is right, there are 17 different models of in the PW1000G family, but only one has been certified, the PW1127G... which is on LH's A320neos (since LH was the launch customer). So... why aren't LH's frames with the same engine OTS?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_PW1000G

wjcandee wrote:

MaksFly wrote:

I am a finance guy so trying to understand this.

What kind of responsibility would Airbus or Pratt have when the airline has loss of revenues and or expenses incurred getting charters due to a defect or design flaw, ie with an engine.

Are they responsible to just fix the issue or would they be responsible for a "loaner" like your luxury car dealer provide you while your car is out.

thanks!

Consequential damages normally are not awarded unless they are within the contemplation of the parties to the underlying contract, and how this concept is applied varies from state to state (contract law and the law of damages being creatures of state law). Consequential damages may also be disclaimed in a contract.

Another way of looking at it is that this is a known risk that would be addressed in the contracts among Airbus, Pratt and the launch customer, all of them being sophisticated players who pay good lawyers to anticipate and allocate risk. The financial obligations of each of those parties would be defined. So either it is or it isn't Pratt's responsibility, but it's assuredly in the contracts.

True,but it's also not hard for an airline to point out to a vendor that the vendors product is now costing the airline some serious $$$$ and if they ever want to sell another engine to said airline they better figure out some way to compensate the airline.

As you said, it is probably spelled out in the contracts, but there are times you eat the near term bullet to get the long term business.

Smart management at Pratt would have insurance coverage for this fact pattern.

Well, here comes a "Unintended Consequence of Us Choosing the Wrong Engines for Our New Airplanes" fee...

wjcandee wrote:

Pratt will get the thing fixed, and the manufacturing fixed, and this will all hopefully be forgotten as the GTF becomes a mature system.

First flight of the PW1100G on the A320neo was on 25th of September 2014. This summer it will be three years with real world, engines on aircraft data. Any problems Pratt didn't discover during testing of the engine on the ground, or on their 747 testbed aircraft, they should have identified a couple of years ago. The Pratt engine on the Cseries is basically the same engine and had its first flight one year earlier than the A320neo (4 years ago this summer).

With all these Pratt engine problems, Airbus is running out of ceo backlog. At this time, Airbus should be producing way more neos. The few Pratt neos that are actually flying is doing so at low altitude, avoiding hot climate airports (including Qatar), and having the new engines replaced because of "random malfunctions", not scheduled replacement of early delivered engines.

I don't believe any longer that they have problems ramping up production. The reason we are not seeing way more on wing PW1100G is because of design faults. The question is, can they find fixes to these problems (within the current certification) without going back to the drawing board and doing a complete redesign (new certification required)?

Maybe it's time for the company board to tell the CEO and the senior management to find themselves a new job?

WPvsMW wrote:

Smart management at Pratt would have insurance coverage for this fact pattern.

There's no insurance realistically available for this type of situation.

Sounds like they spent all the R&D money on the gearbox and everything else was designed/built cheap

Given Pratts repeatedly 'less than stellar' performance introducing new civilian engines since the days when they ruled the world with the JT8D, it makes you wonder how they perform in their less transparent core business - military engines.
If I were a US taxpayer I would be concerned whether I was getting value for money.

The GTF system has a planetary gear train. It's not really a "gearbox".

reidar76 wrote:

I don't believe any longer that they have problems ramping up production. The reason we are not seeing way more on wing PW1100G is because of design faults. The question is, can they find fixes to these problems (within the current certification) without going back to the drawing board and doing a complete redesign (new certification required)?

I'm sorry, you're making assumptions that are incorrect.

Current PW1100G issues are pretty well documented:

PW1100G Combustion Chamber Failure
PW1100G Bearing Failure

The bearing failure is causing the biggest headache.

Non of these issues are related to design faults and can be resolved by introducing stronger materials. We're talking about manufacturing issues here, a "complete redesign" is out of the question.

IIRC, rotor deformity during thermal cycles, "solved" by dampers and stronger bearings, was a design fault. "Solved" in quotes because dampers and stronger bearings seem to be downstream from the (thermal) root cause that would cause the rotor to deform.

WPvsMW wrote:

IIRC, rotor deformity from thermal cycles, "solved" by dampers and stronger bearings, was a design fault. "Solved" in quotes because dampers and stronger bearings seems to be downstream from the root cause.

It was talking about current issues. The rotor-bowing was discovered in 2015 and resolved by August 2016. Hence not current anymore. Current issues are early bearing failures and faster than expected combustion chamber degradation.

jbs2886 wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

Well, at least the PW1100G issues are being identified.

Sigh... It is a challenge being a Pratt fan.

Lightsaber

Yea - this is not great for PW. Hopefully all the issues get worked out (but as a Boeing fan, if they don't, it works in the 737MAX favor). Is the C Series PW having the same issues?

I believe Air Baltic had to replace one of the engines on their 1st CS300 already and I'm not sure on Swiss's issues but one would have to assume with limited deliveries they will all have the same short comings. When you think of the sample size has Bombardier delivered 8 total planes to date versus whatever Airbus has pumped out your sample size gets skewed. I'd venture to guess it's a company wide issue.

LAX772LR wrote:

PW4090
...PW4098
......PW4173
.........PW6000
............PW1100G

Anyone care to guess which engine OEM has a snowball's chance of appearing on the MOM, regardless of what that airframe evolves into being?

The JT9D didn't go so well for Pratt either. All those 747's parked up with concrete blocks suspended from their engine pylons.

Well as usual management is lying about the reality of the situation... NK pilots are tired of being treated like mediocre pilots when they fly for the most profitable airline in America....

From their MEC:
"Fellow Spirit Pilots,

As you may be aware, on Friday the VP Flight Operations notified the MEC Chairman of Spirit’s intent to contract out revenue flying utilizing Miami Air pursuant to CBA Section 1.B.2. The initial plan was one round trip flight each on Friday and Saturday. On Saturday, the MEC was first notified of the intent to use Miami Air again on the 9th and later in the evening we were notified of the intent to Miami Air again on the 10th.

The company asserts that this outsourcing is due to:

· The A320 Neo aircraft being out of service, and therefore we are currently operating without any spares.
· “Limited crew resources”

Your MEC leadership and our attorneys are monitoring this situation closely to ascertain the true cause of this situation, the Company’s intent, and identify any potential violations of the CBA.

It is obvious that the timing of this could hardly be worse. The MEC has been hearing for months from Spirit management about the difficulty they are having getting open time trips covered while denying at the bargaining table any difficulties with attracting or retaining pilots. Regrettably, we cannot help but be concerned that the use of a narrow exception in our agreement intended to deal with unanticipated staffing or equipment shortages is actually a warning shot coming over the weekend immediately prior to the Negotiating Committee's expected receipt of the company’s economic proposal on Monday.

The MEC urges all pilots to continue to remain professional in the face of what may well be a significant misapplication of the contract. You can be sure your MEC will not be intimidated, and that actions such as these only help to strengthen our resolve to obtain an industry standard contract. The pilots in the service of Spirit Airlines are integral to the success of this company and we will not be deterred by hostile tactics.

Until then, fly safe. Fly the contract.

In unity,

Your MEC leadership"


This is not the first time this happens, a few years ago they lost millions due to an operational meltdown and blamed it on the weather, when the reality was that they furlough their own employees in the busiest time of the year... but hey whos counting...

JoeCanuck wrote:

I think one expectation that the GTF had was that it would be as reliable as the gearbox. Since it allows the core to run at pretty much its peak efficiency speed, it wouldn't need to rely on exotic processes or materials to get the job done, like the LEAP. Lower temps and pressures would mean greater reliability without needing to go bleeding edge on tech.

Having the core run at optimum speed means the bearing speed is higher. Not exactly a high tech thing but still a difference that apparently was not adequately tested, given the large number of failures being seen in the field.

reidar76 wrote:

First flight of the PW1100G on the A320neo was on 25th of September 2014. This summer it will be three years with real world, engines on aircraft data. Any problems Pratt didn't discover during testing of the engine on the ground, or on their 747 testbed aircraft, they should have identified a couple of years ago. The Pratt engine on the Cseries is basically the same engine and had its first flight one year earlier than the A320neo (4 years ago this summer).

With all these Pratt engine problems, Airbus is running out of ceo backlog. At this time, Airbus should be producing way more neos. The few Pratt neos that are actually flying is doing so at low altitude, avoiding hot climate airports (including Qatar), and having the new engines replaced because of "random malfunctions", not scheduled replacement of early delivered engines.

Hmm, how ironic would it be if it turns out Al-Baker was right about not taking the A320neo due to issues with its launch engine?

WPvsMW wrote:

Smart management at Pratt would have insurance coverage for this fact pattern.

The same smart management that confirmed the design, testing and production plan.

Revelation wrote:

Hmm, how ironic would it be if it turns out Al-Baker was right about not taking the A320neo due to issues with its launch engine?

Given his past reactions, many thought he was over reacting. In hindsight it sounds like he made the right decision. If Spirit has 80% of its A320neo fleet of 5 grounded at once, then that certainly made Al-Bakars concerns valid and seem right. Now did he predict the future or did he get lucky? That is stirring the pot.

Boeingphan wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

Well, at least the PW1100G issues are being identified.

Sigh... It is a challenge being a Pratt fan.

Lightsaber

Yea - this is not great for PW. Hopefully all the issues get worked out (but as a Boeing fan, if they don't, it works in the 737MAX favor). Is the C Series PW having the same issues?

I believe Air Baltic had to replace one of the engines on their 1st CS300 already and I'm not sure on Swiss's issues but one would have to assume with limited deliveries they will all have the same short comings. When you think of the sample size has Bombardier delivered 8 total planes to date versus whatever Airbus has pumped out your sample size gets skewed. I'd venture to guess it's a company wide issue.

Swiss has 7 and Air Baltic 3....10 delivered. All 10 fly every day, all day.

Frame 904, one of the three in the above picture, did an engine run at DFW yesterday evening. Flight 8904 left for FLL shortly thereafter with what I assumed to be the same ship. Filed altitude was FL290, in keeping with the restriction.

Pratt and Airbus need to provide a generic back up fleet of appropriate 320s. Lawsuits, insurance, promises, contracts don't help the ultimate customers, spare planes within an hour of any disabled plane would. And it wouldn't take all than many extra old 320s.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Pratt and Airbus need to provide a generic back up fleet of appropriate 320s. Lawsuits, insurance, promises, contracts don't help the ultimate customers, spare planes within an hour of any disabled plane would. And it wouldn't take all than many extra old 320s.

Spirit did order more A320ceos as a result of A320neo engine problems at opportunistic prices according to this article.

The order tally for A320neo aircraft fell by 8 units in March: hardly enough to dent a backlog of over 3,500 orders but enough to highlight the unexpected extra availability of current-generation A320s as Airbus keeps assembly lines flowing.

Chinese lessor CALC and U.S. budget carrier Spirit Airlines are among customers seizing the chance to pick up extra A320s powered by an earlier generation of engines at what some industry sources describe as "opportunistic" prices.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-airbu ... SKBN1782FU

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1359943

Those A320ceos ordered could be a part of a compensation deal for late A320neo deliveries and for all the engine problems.

What type of aircraft have been chartered to fill in for the NEOs? It would be pretty funny if it is 737s.

kurtverbose wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

PW4090
...PW4098
......PW4173
.........PW6000
............PW1100G

Anyone care to guess which engine OEM has a snowball's chance of appearing on the MOM, regardless of what that airframe evolves into being?

The JT9D didn't go so well for Pratt either. All those 747's parked up with concrete blocks suspended from their engine pylons.

Yip, SAA was the launch customer for the -200Super B. We had already received our first one (aircraft #2) while the first model was still doing certification tests. We suffered for many years while P&W tried to sort the problems out on those JT9 D's and I was personally involved in many an engine change. We also ended up with one or two gliders because their engines had been robbed to keep the fleet flying. Those first engines only produced about 40 500 lbs thrust and JNB being hot and high caused a lot of problems.

FlyUSAir wrote:

Yeah charting a couple of planes wouldn't have helped any Delta passengers out, they dropped the ball big time and only bringing in 100 747's would fix. Apples to oranges.

Did somebody ask for 100 747s?

According to a NK pilot on another forum, the 737s got nothing to do with the A320neo:

The outsourcing of flying to Miami Air has nothing to do with the issues with the PW NEO engines causing the NEO aircraft to be grounded.

I have never heard the issue with the engines being the bleed air valves being frozen shut. Operating at FL300 is for the #3 bearing issue that is recurring on the PW engines, but not the bleed air valves.

Only two of the aircraft are in temporary storage. Yes there was point during the weekend during which 4 of 5 NEOs were out of service. 904 was placed back into service Sunday night after receiving an engine from 901 which is in temporary storage.
Spirit has taken delivery of two additional A319s to cover the flying that was to be done by NEO aircraft that are out of service.

Ref http://a380.boards.net/post/91699

Storage seem just to be temporary until a replacement engine arrives.

KarelXWB wrote:

According to a NK pilot on another forum, the 737s got nothing to do with the A320neo:

Well we are seeing NK management vs pilot union politics at play. NK's pilots believe outsourcing has nothing to do with the A320neos and that NK is purposely outsourcing some flying to save some money and/or because they are having issues crewing the fleet (which would put NK pilots in a better negotiating position in regards to their contract).

NK management says it is because of issues with the A320neo fleet.

Who is right? Who knows.