Hopefully, this is not going to be a continuation of the problems experienced on the RR powered 787's. Is the XWB engine very different from the 900/1000 models on the 787?
It seems as though to was a New York Madrid flight which diverted to Boston, I would guess it was last night. I can't see anything on AV Herald so far.
https://goo.gl/en2VXo

Seems like such a silly article. How does an in-flight shutdown cause this much drama towards a company? The Trent XWB has been absolutely outstanding from EIS and has shown very few problems. That's not to say problems won't occur but it certainly doesn't explain why a simple unfortunate thing deserves this media drama.

Ooooh so what? "A GEnx engine has a shutdown... GE is in big trouble now". My golly media gets on my nerves sometimes.

I'm sure the XWB will be free of any 1000 related issues. RR is good at what they do, just like any other engine manufacturer, and they'll get whatever needs sorting out done.

Was anything changed in the engine for the enhanced A350? I'm not aware of anything. This could be a bird for all I know.

Changes were structure and wingtips as well as underside laminar flow (called wingtwist to avoid a Northrop patent).

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

Was anything changed in the engine for the enhanced A350? I'm not aware of anything. This could be a bird for all I know.

Yes there is, the newer engines had some changes which reduces fuel burn a couple of percent.

I think the share price would have gone down even without this event, just like it will go up again.

zeke wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

Was anything changed in the engine for the enhanced A350? I'm not aware of anything. This could be a bird for all I know.

Yes there is, the newer engines had some changes which reduces fuel burn a couple of percent.

I think the share price would have gone down even without this event, just like it will go up again.

If the share prices drop because of this, I would say it is time to pick-up some shares.

LoganTheBogan wrote:

Seems like such a silly article. How does an in-flight shutdown cause this much drama towards a company? The Trent XWB has been absolutely outstanding from EIS and has shown very few problems. That's not to say problems won't occur but it certainly doesn't explain why a simple unfortunate thing deserves this media drama.

This might be the first ever known instance of an in flight shut down for the Trent XWB. After 3 years in service and almost 200 pairs working the skies, it is still a pretty damn good engine, I'd say.

"Rolls said dispatch reliability has been 99.9 percent, with zero in-flight shutdowns." - July, 2018

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/air-transport/2018-07-17/trent-xwb-reaches-500th-engine-milestone-two-million-hours

No not the first IFSD on the Trent XWB. They have not stated the nature of the technical fault that resulted in the diversion, it is an assumptiin that the engine was shutdown. All they have said there was a technical fault and it diverted, could have been an accessory like a hydraulic pump that had the issue.

The shares have already rebounded, after the 40 points drop it's now back up to just minus 12 points.

The stock market is simply hyper reactive when it comes to RR after all the bad financial news caused by the RR Trent 1000 engine issues.

I find it interesting how the stock markets new about this incident and its cause before the aviation community did. The article in the OP also was a reaction to the sudden drop of the shares, not so much a reaction to the incident causing the drop.

Please remember that this aircraft EC-MYX just went into service a few weeks ago on August 23rd according to data from flightradar 24.

There's a little more info here: https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/ ... story.html

From Hickley's link:
Smoke with fuel or oil smell in cabin. Passengers bused back to JFK.

So now I'll need to find out what changed in the engine and subsystems. This could be just a fuel injector failing (GE90 at EIS has gumming of cooling fuel issues that resulted bin high fuel injector replacements). Note:. I speculate and do not know anything. I really don't know anything of the improvements done.

Lightsaber

Lets hope it is not a serious issue, Rolls Royce and the industry in general don't need anymore serious engine problems. The share price will usually drop immediately on the hint of something negative, and as been pointed out,the RR price has been particularly sensitive for obvious reasons.

A large drop in the share price would only make sense if this is due to a design problem. Isn't this more pointing towards a production issue given the fact that this engine was more or less brand new? (2-3 months old)

WholaLottaLove wrote:

A large drop in the share price would only make sense if this is due to a design problem. Isn't this more pointing towards a production issue given the fact that this engine was more or less brand new? (2-3 months old)

With the Trent issues, shareholders are extremely sensitive to new problems at RR. When this news broke and they caught whim of it, they began to assume the worst so they just dumped shares.

Is the RR Trent XWB too big for the 787? I think RR need to sell that model to Boeing. Why is there such a problem with the 787 version vs the A350?

Another report: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... sign-fears

The market fear is that the known T1000 issues have migrated to TXWB, but it's too early to conclude that.

The market is known for knee jerk reactions.

https://avherald.com/h?article=4bd97c82 says:

An Iberia Airbus A350-900, registration EC-MYX performing flight IB-6252 from New York JFK,NY (USA) to Madrid,SP (Spain) with 265 passengers and 11 crew, was enroute at FL410 about 70nm southeast of Halifax,NS (Canada) when the crew reported they had needed to shut the left hand engine (Trent XWB) down. The aircraft drifted down to FL250, turned around, the crew decided to return to New York's JFK Airport but when already cleare direct to New York Airport changed their mind to divert to Boston,MA (USA). The aircraft was recleared direct Boston, the crew advised they would be able to vacate the runway, no assistance was needed. The aircraft landed on Boston's runway 33L about 96 minutes after leaving FL410, vacated the runway and taxied to the apron with emergency services in trail.

Passengers reported the captain announced one of the engines had lost power and was shut down, they were diverting to Boston.

The report of loss of power is different than the earlier Boston Globe report:

Passengers “knew something was up” when a smoke- and gaslike odor filled the cabin, Miller said. The crew did not mention the issue until “a bit later,” Miller wrote in a Twitter direct message early Wednesday.

Smoke in the cabin can come from a few different sources, loss of engine power is more definitive.

WholaLottaLove wrote:

A large drop in the share price would only make sense if this is due to a design problem. Isn't this more pointing towards a production issue given the fact that this engine was more or less brand new? (2-3 months old)

Again, we don't even really know if this is an engine problem.

A lot of the tech did flow back from TXWB to T1000 via the T1000-TEN program.

uta999 wrote:

I think RR need to sell that model to Boeing. Why is there such a problem with the 787 version vs the A350?

In short, a different coating is used on the T1000 Package C (and perhaps Package B?) blades, and that coating wears away too quickly, leading to blade cracking.

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Roy ... e_cracking

Doesn't look related to the A350's engines. That said, IB right now has both of its A350s flying only MAD-JFK. They'll likely need to substitute an A346 or A333 in.

Now that a BA 787 also had a diversion, how are the shares doing?

ikolkyo wrote:

Aircellist wrote:

Now that a BA 787 also had a diversion, how are the shares doing?

There was no engine failure.

Fumes in the cockpit do not relate to the engines? Sorry for my ignorance…

I think the article was planted by some RR friends in the media to take the pressure off their issues.

Still in boston,Hard to judge by the photo but it seems to be an engine/engine-related issue.
https://twitter.com/WandrMe/status/1040321475977330691

Put it this way, would the shares go up after every successful take-off or landing?

Aircellist wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

Aircellist wrote:

Now that a BA 787 also had a diversion, how are the shares doing?

There was no engine failure.

Fumes in the cockpit do not relate to the engines? Sorry for my ignorance…

Unlike other aircraft types there are no cabin air off takes on 787 engines so any fumes onboard cannot be related to the engines.

When are they going to paint the rest of the plane?

uta999 wrote:

Is the RR Trent XWB too big for the 787? I think RR need to sell that model to Boeing. Why is there such a problem with the 787 version vs the A350?

The XWB is newer, has much less in service time and the problems are durability based so I remain unconvinced that they know it isn’t a problem there too.

The timelines don’t work out for me.

The first reports of corrosion issues in the Trent’s were in 2016. The EASA and FAA restrictions occurred in April of this year. The package C engines had about 3 or so years of wingtime when that came down.

The XWB first ran in 2010, entered service in 2015. It wouldn’t be totally shocking if 3 or so years into things we start to see similar issues

Why? Because the idea that they made major materials changes that solved a corrosion problem they didn’t know they had yet given the above timeline doesn’t hold up.

If they did fix it they either got very lucky and basically fixed it by accident or they flat lied to regulators and airlines because they had a known problem, fixed it on their next engine and didn’t disclose to the airlines until engines were breaking in flight.

To me the more likely alternative given how ham fisted their response new to the breaking engines has been thus far is that they didn’t know jack squat until 2016-17. Otherwise they would have at least been buoidng up capacity to deal with their current disaster.

So unless they got really really lucky and just happened to fix a materials based defect for reasosns unrelated to the actual problem I would guess all the modern Trent engines have some level of corrosion issues buried within them.

Thats why shareholders are a bit skittish. If there is a problem on the XWB engine that means there is likely a problem on the Trent 7000 and the Ten. All of these engines predate the first known report of corossion issues.

I don’t see any other explanation. Either RR got very lucky and swapped out the materials from the Trent 1000 that are responsible for the problem or they are just lying/hoping it doesn’t also occur on the derivative types. I would suspect the next 12-24 months will tell that tale. But if the XWB goes down with corrosion problems RR will need government money to remain viable IMHO.

LoganTheBogan wrote:

Seems like such a silly article. How does an in-flight shutdown cause this much drama towards a company? The Trent XWB has been absolutely outstanding from EIS and has shown very few problems. That's not to say problems won't occur but it certainly doesn't explain why a simple unfortunate thing deserves this media drama.

Ooooh so what? "A GEnx engine has a shutdown... GE is in big trouble now". My golly media gets on my nerves sometimes.

I'm sure the XWB will be free of any 1000 related issues. RR is good at what they do, just like any other engine manufacturer, and they'll get whatever needs sorting out done.

Unfortunately in the same way that Elon Musk smoking a joint sent Tesla's shares down

bigjku wrote:

I don’t see any other explanation. Either RR got very lucky and swapped out the materials from the Trent 1000 that are responsible for the problem or they are just lying/hoping it doesn’t also occur on the derivative types. I would suspect the next 12-24 months will tell that tale. But if the XWB goes down with corrosion problems RR will need government money to remain viable IMHO.

You would also be assuming that regulators are in on this as they haven't placed any of the Trent 1000 restrictions on the XWB.

bigjku wrote:

uta999 wrote:

Is the RR Trent XWB too big for the 787? I think RR need to sell that model to Boeing. Why is there such a problem with the 787 version vs the A350?

The XWB is newer, has much less in service time and the problems are durability based so I remain unconvinced that they know it isn’t a problem there too.

The timelines don’t work out for me.

The first reports of corrosion issues in the Trent’s were in 2016. The EASA and FAA restrictions occurred in April of this year. The package C engines had about 3 or so years of wingtime when that came down.

The XWB first ran in 2010, entered service in 2015. It wouldn’t be totally shocking if 3 or so years into things we start to see similar issues

Why? Because the idea that they made major materials changes that solved a corrosion problem they didn’t know they had yet given the above timeline doesn’t hold up.

If they did fix it they either got very lucky and basically fixed it by accident or they flat lied to regulators and airlines because they had a known problem, fixed it on their next engine and didn’t disclose to the airlines until engines were breaking in flight.

To me the more likely alternative given how ham fisted their response new to the breaking engines has been thus far is that they didn’t know jack squat until 2016-17. Otherwise they would have at least been buoidng up capacity to deal with their current disaster.

So unless they got really really lucky and just happened to fix a materials based defect for reasosns unrelated to the actual problem I would guess all the modern Trent engines have some level of corrosion issues buried within them.

Thats why shareholders are a bit skittish. If there is a problem on the XWB engine that means there is likely a problem on the Trent 7000 and the Ten. All of these engines predate the first known report of corossion issues.

I don’t see any other explanation. Either RR got very lucky and swapped out the materials from the Trent 1000 that are responsible for the problem or they are just lying/hoping it doesn’t also occur on the derivative types. I would suspect the next 12-24 months will tell that tale. But if the XWB goes down with corrosion problems RR will need government money to remain viable IMHO.

Basically all you’ve just said is complete rubbish. Most of the problems associated with the T1000 issues at the moment have nothing to do with blade corrosion. You’ve obviously not even read the Ads as you don’t know their contents.

RB211trent wrote:

bigjku wrote:

uta999 wrote:

Is the RR Trent XWB too big for the 787? I think RR need to sell that model to Boeing. Why is there such a problem with the 787 version vs the A350?

The XWB is newer, has much less in service time and the problems are durability based so I remain unconvinced that they know it isn’t a problem there too.

The timelines don’t work out for me.

The first reports of corrosion issues in the Trent’s were in 2016. The EASA and FAA restrictions occurred in April of this year. The package C engines had about 3 or so years of wingtime when that came down.

The XWB first ran in 2010, entered service in 2015. It wouldn’t be totally shocking if 3 or so years into things we start to see similar issues

Why? Because the idea that they made major materials changes that solved a corrosion problem they didn’t know they had yet given the above timeline doesn’t hold up.

If they did fix it they either got very lucky and basically fixed it by accident or they flat lied to regulators and airlines because they had a known problem, fixed it on their next engine and didn’t disclose to the airlines until engines were breaking in flight.

To me the more likely alternative given how ham fisted their response new to the breaking engines has been thus far is that they didn’t know jack squat until 2016-17. Otherwise they would have at least been buoidng up capacity to deal with their current disaster.

So unless they got really really lucky and just happened to fix a materials based defect for reasosns unrelated to the actual problem I would guess all the modern Trent engines have some level of corrosion issues buried within them.

Thats why shareholders are a bit skittish. If there is a problem on the XWB engine that means there is likely a problem on the Trent 7000 and the Ten. All of these engines predate the first known report of corossion issues.

I don’t see any other explanation. Either RR got very lucky and swapped out the materials from the Trent 1000 that are responsible for the problem or they are just lying/hoping it doesn’t also occur on the derivative types. I would suspect the next 12-24 months will tell that tale. But if the XWB goes down with corrosion problems RR will need government money to remain viable IMHO.

Basically all you’ve just said is complete rubbish. Most of the problems associated with the T1000 issues at the moment have nothing to do with blade corrosion. You’ve obviously not even read the Ads as you don’t know their contents.

In that case I am sure it will be 100% fine. I don’t hold out to be an engine expert. But the timelines don’t square unless they basically fixed the problem by luck as they iterated the engine. The problems (whatever they are) weren’t widely known until 2016-2018.

But I am sure a company would never ever sweep something like this under the rug. They would be 100% forthright if there was a problem that would likely put them out of business right? They say the engines are fine. We can just take their word for it.

Boeing was excoriated here and righty so for the 787 battery and electrical issues. As was th FAA for letting it get past them. Is it beyond the realm of possibility that RR and the EASA are choosing to close their eyes and hope for the best to a degree?

If the Trent was fundamentally flawed Europe would lose its only jet engine maker and all of its widebody programs would feel significant pain as RR is basically the exclusive provider on all of them with some variant of the engine. Is it 100% isnane that maybe all the parties involved just didn’t want to look that hard in 2017-18 timeframe when the XWB was in a critical ramp up phase?

I don’t trust any large companies on a fundemantal level. Not when faced with something that could put them out of business. And I don’t trust regulators when you are dealing with too big to fail entities. That goes for both sides of the pond.

Maybe they are 100% fine. Maybe they aren’t. Think through the implications of any of the stakeholders admitting in the last 24 months that there was a problem or that they didn’t know if there was or was not a problem. It would take a big pair of brass balls for anyone in the EASA, RR or Airbus to come out and say it because it has hugely negative outcomes. What I am suggesting isn’t outside of the realm of possibility. Similar things have happened before and the survival instinct makes people do things you otherwise wouldn’t consider.

And BTW Airbus just dumped their head of sales from RR a day after the first inkling of an engine issue arose on the XWB.

bigjku wrote:

[

The XWB is newer, has much less in service time and the problems are durability based so I remain unconvinced that they know it isn’t a problem there too.

The timelines don’t work out for me.

The first reports of corrosion issues in the Trent’s were in 2016. The EASA and FAA restrictions occurred in April of this year. The package C engines had about 3 or so years of wingtime when that came down.

The XWB first ran in 2010, entered service in 2015. It wouldn’t be totally shocking if 3 or so years into things we start to see similar issues

We shouldn’t compare the history of TXWB and T1000 by the number of years in service, rather we should compare their history over operating hours.

Roughly 40% of the 787 orders are equiped with the T1000, while all of the A350 orders are TXWB.

The blade corrosions issue was discovered in 2016, and so 400 787s were delivered by then in which 40% were T1000. This leaves us with 160 operational T1000 engines when the time the first cracking blade was discovered.

The Trent XWB is already past that number ( currently 200).

Eyad89 wrote:

bigjku wrote:

[

The XWB is newer, has much less in service time and the problems are durability based so I remain unconvinced that they know it isn’t a problem there too.

The timelines don’t work out for me.

The first reports of corrosion issues in the Trent’s were in 2016. The EASA and FAA restrictions occurred in April of this year. The package C engines had about 3 or so years of wingtime when that came down.

The XWB first ran in 2010, entered service in 2015. It wouldn’t be totally shocking if 3 or so years into things we start to see similar issues

We shouldn’t compare the history of TXWB and T1000 by the number of years in service, rather we should compare their history over operating hours.

Roughly 40% of the 787 orders are equiped with the T1000, while all of the A350 orders are TXWB.

The blade corrosions issue was discovered in 2016, and so 400 787s were delivered by then in which 40% were T1000. This leaves us with 160 operational T1000 engines when the time the first cracking blade was discovered.

The Trent XWB is already past that number ( currently 200).

Durability issues would come to light based on the hours and age on a specific engine rather than total fleet hours would they not?

bigjku wrote:

And BTW Airbus just dumped their head of sales from RR a day after the first inkling of an engine issue arose on the XWB.

You're making things up. Airbus didn't "dump" him. His resignation was his own decision and Enders expressed regret for that. This has more to do with Airbus's top management issues than the incident with the XWB.

Erebus wrote:

bigjku wrote:

And BTW Airbus just dumped their head of sales from RR a day after the first inkling of an engine issue arose on the XWB.

You're making things up. Airbus didn't "dump" him. His resignation was his own decision and Enders expressed regret for that. This has more to do with Airbus's top management issues than the incident with the XWB.

I am sure he 100% quit on his own. Lots of people just walk away from top level jobs 9 months into them for personal reasons.

And you are right it may be down to the top management fighting at Airbus. But he hasn’t done well selling planes either. Maybe he just stinks at the job. Or maybe he has a credibility problem with airlines given where he came from. And maybe there might be issues coming that would make him a poor person to try and smooth the waters.

I grant it’s 100% speculation. But regulatory capture by the industry happened on the 787 and we all accept that right? Just suggesting we examine everyone’s motivations here before we accept corporate statements and regulatory silence that everything is “fine”.

bigjku wrote:

I grant it’s 100% speculation. But regulatory capture by the industry happened on the 787 and we all accept that right? Just suggesting we examine everyone’s motivations here before we accept corporate statements and regulatory silence that everything is “fine”.

Not sure what you're trying to say here, but are you implying that the 787 is still flawed in some way because you know, corporate statements and regulatory silence?

Lots of speculation here and some blatant fanboy garbage, attacking both RR and Eric Schultz that is bordering on libellous. If it had any kind of basis in fact then it would be worth discussing but as it stands, making allegations of lying and outright fraud are not for this forum and moderators should take a look at it.

We know nothing as yet of why the plane diverted. Was it (for instance) as simple as an oil leak or low quantity indication? That might explain the need to put into BOS if the engine was windmilling dry.

Aircellist wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

Aircellist wrote:

Now that a BA 787 also had a diversion, how are the shares doing?

There was no engine failure.

Fumes in the cockpit do not relate to the engines? Sorry for my ignorance…

no bleed air to cabin connection.

RB211trent wrote:

Most of the problems associated with the T1000 issues at the moment have nothing to do with blade corrosion.

Care to expand on what is publicly known about these other problems?

Revelation wrote:

RB211trent wrote:

Most of the problems associated with the T1000 issues at the moment have nothing to do with blade corrosion.

Care to expand on what is publicly known about these other problems?

I believe you are referring to turbine issues Revelation.

I think if you search compressor issue you may find the info you are looking for.

Guys the lead XWB engines have done 1500 cycles plus.

This event was after 50 cycles, no way on earth can that be a design issue. Logic dictates that.

I know lots of you guys are not Engineers. But seriously.

lowbank wrote:

Guys the lead XWB engines have done 1500 cycles plus.

This event was after 50 cycles, no way on earth can that be a design issue. Logic dictates that.

I know lots of you guys are not Engineers. But seriously.

Exactly, search compressor issues and you can get all the info you want. The ADs are accessible to anyone, and before anyone goes any further the compressor of the T1000 and XWB are not the same.

I remember reading somewhere that Airbus wanted a different coating on the blades and RR complied. Maybe Airbus engineers didn't trust the coating on the 1000.

Balerit wrote:

I remember reading somewhere that Airbus wanted a different coating on the blades and RR complied. Maybe Airbus engineers didn't trust the coating on the 1000.

An airframer doing detailed engineering on an engine? That is HUGE liability.

What they will do is demand a higher TRL level that is achieved via component and engine testing.

AirFramers and engine vendors work together, but that is the engine external subsystems, nacelles, pylons, fuel system, The internal guts of an engine require expertise. Coatings for a high temperature turbine are proprietary and would be only in the expertise of the engine companies.

The 787 coating wasn't fully tested for sulfur. This is an issue that only extremely low sulfur fuels may be used in the EU and thus the testing wasn't representative of global use.


I have trouble beating up RR when they weren't allowed to do appropriate testing. The 787 coating would be fine if it was only used with ultra low sulfur fuel.

Lightsaber

lowbank wrote:

Revelation wrote:

RB211trent wrote:

Most of the problems associated with the T1000 issues at the moment have nothing to do with blade corrosion.

Care to expand on what is publicly known about these other problems?

I believe you are referring to turbine issues Revelation.

I think if you search compressor issue you may find the info you are looking for.

Thanks for the clue. I found the ADs mentioned above. At the time of the ETOPS reduction I didn't pick up on the resonance issue, I thought it was the same corrosion issue.

RB211trent wrote:

lowbank wrote:

Guys the lead XWB engines have done 1500 cycles plus.

This event was after 50 cycles, no way on earth can that be a design issue. Logic dictates that.

I know lots of you guys are not Engineers. But seriously.

Exactly, search compressor issues and you can get all the info you want. The ADs are accessible to anyone, and before anyone goes any further the compressor of the T1000 and XWB are not the same.

I think the Intermediate Compressors on The Trent 1000 and the XWB are very closely related. Rolls is concerned the blade cracking will occur in the XWB as the fleet ages. By then they should have a good fix from the 1000, but it will require an accelerated shop visit to fix the issue.

As for the IB A350 in BOS. I heard it was a auto rollback shutdown. The Trent family has lots of built in protections. If the engine sees certain faults it will auto shutdown to prevent damage. A vibe problem is one possible example. Delta shipped up the engine change kit this week in the event of an engine change. As of Friday I had not heard any updated info.

Dalmd88 wrote:

RB211trent wrote:

lowbank wrote:

Guys the lead XWB engines have done 1500 cycles plus.

This event was after 50 cycles, no way on earth can that be a design issue. Logic dictates that.

I know lots of you guys are not Engineers. But seriously.

Exactly, search compressor issues and you can get all the info you want. The ADs are accessible to anyone, and before anyone goes any further the compressor of the T1000 and XWB are not the same.

I think the Intermediate Compressors on The Trent 1000 and the XWB are very closely related. Rolls is concerned the blade cracking will occur in the XWB as the fleet ages. By then they should have a good fix from the 1000, but it will require an accelerated shop visit to fix the issue.

As for the IB A350 in BOS. I heard it was a auto rollback shutdown. The Trent family has lots of built in protections. If the engine sees certain faults it will auto shutdown to prevent damage. A vibe problem is one possible example. Delta shipped up the engine change kit this week in the event of an engine change. As of Friday I had not heard any updated info.

Sir with all due respect.
You make a statement of fact about some concern.
We understand the root cause, we have developed a test, I am currently involved on another Trent redesign and one of the first tests was to confirm we didn’t recreate the T1000 issue.
Do you honestly think we just float along with our fingers crossed.

This all bears the signs of financial speculators making a short term gain at the expense of panicky investors, spread a rumour that RR have another mess on their hands, share prices immediately marked down and someone clears a short position they had on their books that was previously looking like a loss maker.

Question - why would the passengers be bussed back to JFK when IB flys to BOS as well as BA 4x daily, EI 3x daily & Level, and the plethora of other n/s BOS-Europe options? What a nightmare experience for the passengers!

Bongodog1964 wrote:

This all bears the signs of financial speculators making a short term gain at the expense of panicky investors, spread a rumour that RR have another mess on their hands, share prices immediately marked down and someone clears a short position they had on their books that was previously looking like a loss maker.

In general GE seems to have the much more effective Astroturfer Corps.
Not only in the "sanitizing public appearance" but also in the "smear the competition" department.

StTim wrote:

WIederling wrote:

Bongodog1964 wrote:

This all bears the signs of financial speculators making a short term gain at the expense of panicky investors, spread a rumour that RR have another mess on their hands, share prices immediately marked down and someone clears a short position they had on their books that was previously looking like a loss maker.

In general GE seems to have the much more effective Astroturfer Corps.
Not only in the "sanitizing public appearance" but also in the "smear the competition" department.

Agree - Not sure it is just Astroturfer Corps or an inherent process of the American press etc to highlight non US company issues over and above their own. It seems to happen in many industries. I am not saying they do not publish issues that say Boeing or GE have - but they really go after an issue if it is PW, RR or Airbus etc.

BP learn't to their considerable cost the hazards of doing business in the US, they couldn't get any movement even on the most blatantly fraudulent claims, recently it has been Bayer in the dock over glyphosate with a $289m judgement against them for one single claim not backed by any scientific grounds.