With Airbus building the last A388 in 2021, what will happen to Engine Alliance and their GP7000?

Will they come out with a new engine or figure out some other plane to put the GP7000 on? Will the GP7000 be discontinued?

EA is a JV between Pratt and GE formed specifically to come up with something for the A380 to counter RR.
EA has already stated it was reluctant to fund further upgrades for an A380neo for example.
Basically the JV will largely be dissolved and simply retain support function for remaining operators.

I would like to confirm whether the majority of deployed A380's have EA engines installed.

Take wiki for whats its worth at 2017 EA 60%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_Alliance_GP7000

Is the GP7000 still being built?

hOMSaR wrote:

Is the GP7000 still being built?

Considering the entire remaining backlog has been RR for some time, I’m going to guess it’s a no.

hOMSaR wrote:

Is the GP7000 still being built?

One of the many recent A380 threads said the last GP7200 was built in 2017 for the last EK frame under contract by EA.

EA was repeatedly injected into the engine contest for the 20+18 A380 order that never was closed.

In particular, we read:

Airbus sales chief John Leahy told Bloomberg TV it’s perfectly possible that Emirates will switch to the U.S. companies, whose GP7200 powered its first 90 A380s. “Absolutely EA has a chance of getting back in,” he said Friday. “The fact is that in the contract it’s clear that they have an engine choice.”

In retrospect it seems he needed some sort of staking horse to motivate RR to do something more with the T900, but came up short.

EA itself said:

The Engine Alliance told Bloomberg that it’s well-positioned to meet A380 engine-selection requirements, adding that GE, Pratt and their partner companies and suppliers have “retained the tooling and capability” to build the GP7200 and are prepared to adjust production accordingly.

Which is a tacit admission that the GP7200 wasn't being built as of January 2018.

Ref: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... 0-contract

I'm curious about the background here. Why did they bother with the joint venture? GE clearly had the capability to build engines of this scale on their own. Pratt did too - at least technically. Thanks.

N328KF wrote:

I'm curious about the background here. Why did they bother with the joint venture? GE clearly had the capability to build engines of this scale on their own. Pratt did too - at least technically. Thanks.

Cost and risk sharing... On a project they (somehow) knew wouldn't amount to much.

GEUltraFan9XGTF wrote:

N328KF wrote:

I'm curious about the background here. Why did they bother with the joint venture? GE clearly had the capability to build engines of this scale on their own. Pratt did too - at least technically. Thanks.

Cost and risk sharing... On a project they (somehow) knew wouldn't amount to much.

Well it ensured RR would not have the market to itself, and it ensured that it would not be split three ways. I'm sure Airbus wanted American engine options to market the A380 to airlines in the US too.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

GEUltraFan9XGTF wrote:

N328KF wrote:

I'm curious about the background here. Why did they bother with the joint venture? GE clearly had the capability to build engines of this scale on their own. Pratt did too - at least technically. Thanks.

Cost and risk sharing... On a project they (somehow) knew wouldn't amount to much.

Well it ensured RR would not have the market to itself, and it ensured that it would not be split three ways. I'm sure Airbus wanted American engine options to market the A380 to airlines in the US too.

A joint venture provides an illusion of separation, and more palatable to GE's biggest customer Boeing.

Given the trend for major customers to negotiate separately for lifetime engine package deals with each new model acquisition, an engine choice allows customers to play off the two.

In hindsight, if both had known the volume of A380's to be delivered, would either have made an offer?

787 and A320NEO engine issues has made the finance and leasing industries keen to see dual engine offerings, and in the future, may even incentivise splitting engine orders. Fragmentation lowers volumes and adds costs, especially during 3Q and 4Q life stages, but as the big players increasingly 'fix' engine costs for their planned ownership period, plus a little beyond, who cares?

EA contacted customers last year, outlining ongoing support, as well as offering various support packages for those currently 'freestyling'.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

GEUltraFan9XGTF wrote:

N328KF wrote:

I'm curious about the background here. Why did they bother with the joint venture? GE clearly had the capability to build engines of this scale on their own. Pratt did too - at least technically. Thanks.

Cost and risk sharing... On a project they (somehow) knew wouldn't amount to much.

Well it ensured RR would not have the market to itself, and it ensured that it would not be split three ways. I'm sure Airbus wanted American engine options to market the A380 to airlines in the US too.

If Airbus thought they would sell the A380 to an American passenger carrier, their marketing people were smoking dope. Some strong stuff, too.

GF

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

GEUltraFan9XGTF wrote:

Cost and risk sharing... On a project they (somehow) knew wouldn't amount to much.

Well it ensured RR would not have the market to itself, and it ensured that it would not be split three ways. I'm sure Airbus wanted American engine options to market the A380 to airlines in the US too.

If Airbus thought they would sell the A380 to an American passenger carrier, their marketing people were smoking dope. Some strong stuff, too.

GF

That they thought that the A380 would eventually bring big profits to Airbus indicates massive hallucinogenic use.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

GEUltraFan9XGTF wrote:

Cost and risk sharing... On a project they (somehow) knew wouldn't amount to much.

Well it ensured RR would not have the market to itself, and it ensured that it would not be split three ways. I'm sure Airbus wanted American engine options to market the A380 to airlines in the US too.

If Airbus thought they would sell the A380 to an American passenger carrier, their marketing people were smoking dope. Some strong stuff, too.

GF

In early 2000's The picture what a lot different. Easy to look back now and say that. 2 engines where not able to fly like they do now, the world of travel was different.

grbauc wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Well it ensured RR would not have the market to itself, and it ensured that it would not be split three ways. I'm sure Airbus wanted American engine options to market the A380 to airlines in the US too.

If Airbus thought they would sell the A380 to an American passenger carrier, their marketing people were smoking dope. Some strong stuff, too.

GF

In early 2000's The picture what a lot different. Easy to look back now and say that. 2 engines where not able to fly like they do now, the world of travel was different.

The writing was on the wall. The 773 had already come out. The 77W was under development. The 772 had been in service 5 years.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

The writing was on the wall. The 773 had already come out. The 77W was under development. The 772 had been in service 5 years.

order of things.

kickoffs:
1996..98: A340-5/600
2000: A380, 770-300ER

EA when formed was not supposed to supply engines for the A380. The GP 7000 was first intended for the canceled 747X project, that was announced in 1996.

hOMSaR wrote:

Is the GP7000 still being built?

I don’t think so. As I see, all the remaining A380 orders will only be powered by RR 900.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Well it ensured RR would not have the market to itself, and it ensured that it would not be split three ways. I'm sure Airbus wanted American engine options to market the A380 to airlines in the US too.

If Airbus thought they would sell the A380 to an American passenger carrier, their marketing people were smoking dope. Some strong stuff, too.

GF

That they thought that the A380 would eventually bring big profits to Airbus indicates massive hallucinogenic use.

HE thought that the A380 would eventually bring big profits to Airbus...it was Forgeard's ego trip initially...and then they all hitched on...one man's 'vision'...one company's delusion and belated regret...


Faro

The last EA-powered A380 for EK (msn 221) was delivered in February 2017.

The very last EA-powered A380 (msn 254) was delivered to QR in April 2018.

If my numbers are right, 131 A380s flew with EA and RR will fall just short of that with 123.

mjoelnir wrote:

EA when formed was not supposed to supply engines for the A380. The GP 7000 was first intended for the canceled 747X project, that was announced in 1996.

There has also been talk of it being used on a stretch version of the MD-11, called the MD-12 at the time. At Boeing it was mooted as a possible engine for the 767-400ERX

The main attraction of the engine was price. As it used existing subassemblies from GE and Pratt, the development cost was kept down even though it was not quite the optimised motor had it been a clean sheet design such as IAE produced with the V2500 or BMW-Rolls Royce with the BR715. It made sense to build a best-of type of project using the strengths of the two EA partners.

grbauc wrote:

In early 2000's The picture what a lot different. Easy to look back now and say that. 2 engines where not able to fly like they do now, the world of travel was different.

I disagree the picture back in the 2000's looked a lot like it does today especially as it pertains to US airlines. The only 2 airlines that had 747s was NW and UA, fast forwarded the mid 2000's and many carriers are mired in bankruptcy both NW and UA are parking their 747s replacing them with A330s or 77Es. In fact it was in th early 2000s that tUA started placing some 77Es on routes that traditionally had been flown with a 744 and if I'm not mistaken NW was doing the same thing with their A330s. If the mergers had never happened in the US the A380 still would have never found a home here. Neither DL, CO, US, AA, NW or UA needed an aircraft of that size. Boeing knew this which is why they opted for the 787 Dreamliner program while Airbus figured at least UA and NW then as a result of the mergers DL and UA would select the A380 as the replacement for their aging 744s. DL selected the A359/A330NEO while UA has gone with the 77W and Dreamliners.

Looking back on that time frame there was zero chance but Airbus's executives and sales team had their head in the clouds with this dream that their A380 would supplant the 747 in the US, but the US market had already begun replacing 4 engine aircraft with 2 engine aircraft.

GEUltraFan9XGTF wrote:

N328KF wrote:

I'm curious about the background here. Why did they bother with the joint venture? GE clearly had the capability to build engines of this scale on their own. Pratt did too - at least technically. Thanks.

Cost and risk sharing... On a project they (somehow) knew wouldn't amount to much.

Makes me wonder why they took the risk at all then....

PM wrote:

The last EA-powered A380 for EK (msn 221) was delivered in February 2017.

The very last EA-powered A380 (msn 254) was delivered to QR in April 2018.

If my numbers are right, 131 A380s flew with EA and RR will fall just short of that with 123.

So it is safe to assume at this point that the GP7000 program is more successful than T900

par13del wrote:

I would like to confirm whether the majority of deployed A380's have EA engines installed.

Plus remember all the problematic early A380's were RR. The low build number A380's that were overweight and had hand built electrical harnesses were all RR engined. Going forward, most of the earliest 20 frames or so are likely to be retired at the next scheduled D check to be parted out. That means the Engine Alliance frames will have an even larger preponderance among the A380 fleets in the future.

Jefford717 wrote:

So it is safe to assume at this point that the GP7000 program is more successful than T900

I suppose it depends how you look at these things.

RR gained ten airline customers and EA five. (Both can claim EK.) The 90 EA-powered planes for EK kind of distorted the numbers.

In truth, I think it's a stretch to argue that either programme was a success.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

par13del wrote:

I would like to confirm whether the majority of deployed A380's have EA engines installed.

Plus remember all the problematic early A380's were RR. The low build number A380's that were overweight and had hand built electrical harnesses were all RR engined. Going forward, most of the earliest 20 frames or so are likely to be retired at the next scheduled D check to be parted out. That means the Engine Alliance frames will have an even larger preponderance among the A380 fleets in the future.

Wrong..... Emirates took low build number A380's with EA engines....

Fiend wrote:

Wrong..... Emirates took low build number A380's with EA engines....

converting between engine types seems to not be a big issue.
One could see consolidation towards one engine type?

flyingclrs727 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Well it ensured RR would not have the market to itself, and it ensured that it would not be split three ways. I'm sure Airbus wanted American engine options to market the A380 to airlines in the US too.

If Airbus thought they would sell the A380 to an American passenger carrier, their marketing people were smoking dope. Some strong stuff, too.

GF

That they thought that the A380 would eventually bring big profits to Airbus indicates massive hallucinogenic use.

They did actually sell to Fedex and UPS, and we knkw how that went. But the fact remains that they did have orders from US carriers.

TWA772LR wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

If Airbus thought they would sell the A380 to an American passenger carrier, their marketing people were smoking dope. Some strong stuff, too.

GF

That they thought that the A380 would eventually bring big profits to Airbus indicates massive hallucinogenic use.

They did actually sell to Fedex and UPS, and we knkw how that went. But the fact remains that they did have orders from US carriers.

But those orders were cancelled after the CATIA snafu. FedEx and UPS switched to Boeing freighters. Airbus' window of opportunity for the A380F was short, and was missed.

jayunited wrote:

grbauc wrote:

In early 2000's The picture what a lot different. Easy to look back now and say that. 2 engines where not able to fly like they do now, the world of travel was different.

I disagree the picture back in the 2000's looked a lot like it does today especially as it pertains to US airlines. The only 2 airlines that had 747s was NW and UA, fast forwarded the mid 2000's and many carriers are mired in bankruptcy both NW and UA are parking their 747s replacing them with A330s or 77Es. In fact it was in th early 2000s that tUA started placing some 77Es on routes that traditionally had been flown with a 744 and if I'm not mistaken NW was doing the same thing with their A330s. If the mergers had never happened in the US the A380 still would have never found a home here. Neither DL, CO, US, AA, NW or UA needed an aircraft of that size. Boeing knew this which is why they opted for the 787 Dreamliner program while Airbus figured at least UA and NW then as a result of the mergers DL and UA would select the A380 as the replacement for their aging 744s. DL selected the A359/A330NEO while UA has gone with the 77W and Dreamliners.

Looking back on that time frame there was zero chance but Airbus's executives and sales team had their head in the clouds with this dream that their A380 would supplant the 747 in the US, but the US market had already begun replacing 4 engine aircraft with 2 engine aircraft.

I should of said WHEN THE A380 was concieved it was a different world!!!!! 1994 and launched in 2000. So pre 2001 that changed the world of travel. THE US airline map was very different.

WIederling wrote:

Fiend wrote:

Wrong..... Emirates took low build number A380's with EA engines....

converting between engine types seems to not be a big issue.
One could see consolidation towards one engine type?

Converting engine types is a massive issue and has only happened on a handful of occasions mainly on aircraft not yet delivered (A380 msn 4 and 7 for example) in service the modification needs certifying. Very costly and it won’t happen.