Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
EMBSPBR
Topic Author
Posts: 718
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 9:03 pm

Pratt & Whitney reduces life limits for A220, E190/E195-E2 engines

Sun Jun 02, 2019 2:06 am

Pratt & Whitney reduces life limits for A220, E190/E195-E2 engines:

Source: https://atwonline.com/engines/pratt-whi ... e2-engines

This sounds no good ...

Excerpt:

"Pratt & Whitney has reduced life limits on PW1500G and PW1900G geared turbofan (GTF) high-pressure compressor (HPC) front hubs after excessive corrosion was discovered during a routine overhaul, and the FAA plans to mandate the change."

Lightsaber, could you please help us here ??? A PIP on the way ??? :cry:
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 20919
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Pratt & Whitney reduces life limits for A220, E190/E195-E2 engines

Sun Jun 02, 2019 2:24 am

A maintenance warranty bill for a new hub. So when these must be over hauled, Pratt will have to discount the parts. Power by the hour will only care that it is an early engine pull.

This sort of stuff isn't a big deal. The rest of the engine is fine. This is about a $180,000 part having to be replaced early.

Think about your car breaks. Say Ford does a notice your break rotors cannot be turned (milled down) and must be replaced early, but every other Sunday, a mechanic is looking at the breaks anyway so. So when your break pads hit 4mm, you pay for early break pads at 90% of the normal price, but Ford pays for new break rotors. You get a 40% discount on labor due to the early maintenance too.

Lightsaber

Late edit:. To further extend the analogy, your break rotors will corrode past safe in say 20 months, but this is taxi duty. So you will still get to 90% of the maintenance duty.

This will cost Pratt about $70,000 per engine. :yawn:

The base material will get a material change, but that will take, I estimate, 30 months to design, test, and certify. So all engines built until end of 2021 get early overhauls.

This was found at an overhaul, so not a big deal. This sorta stuff makes the month for material and process engineers.
I cannot wait to get vaccinated to live again! Warning: I simulated that it takes 50%+ vaccinated to protect the vaccinated and 75%+ vaccinated to protect the vac-hesitant.
 
User avatar
EMBSPBR
Topic Author
Posts: 718
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 9:03 pm

Re: Pratt & Whitney reduces life limits for A220, E190/E195-E2 engines

Sun Jun 02, 2019 2:32 am

lightsaber wrote:
This sort of stuff isn't a big deal. The rest of the engine is fine. This is about a $180,000 part having to be replaced early.
Lightsaber

Late edit:. To further extend the analogy, your break rotors will corrode past safe in say 20 months, but this is taxi duty. So you will still get to 90% of the maintenance duty.

This will cost Pratt about $70,000 per engine. :yawn:


Could this be predicted?
Does it require new material so that the life of the part is within the old specifications?
I am good at structures, motors I confess not so much ...
 
User avatar
Nomadd
Posts: 437
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2017 3:26 pm

Re: Pratt & Whitney reduces life limits for A220, E190/E195-E2 engines

Sun Jun 02, 2019 2:32 am

I hope they're not "break" rotors.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 20919
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Pratt & Whitney reduces life limits for A220, E190/E195-E2 engines

Sun Jun 02, 2019 2:51 am

EMBSPBR wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
This sort of stuff isn't a big deal. The rest of the engine is fine. This is about a $180,000 part having to be replaced early.
Lightsaber

Late edit:. To further extend the analogy, your break rotors will corrode past safe in say 20 months, but this is taxi duty. So you will still get to 90% of the maintenance duty.

This will cost Pratt about $70,000 per engine. :yawn:


Could this be predicted?
Does it require new material so that the life of the part is within the old specifications?
I am good at structures, motors I confess not so much ...

This is stress corrosion. Obviously a coating didn't work as well as predicted. But failure margin will be estimated and these will be safe to fly upon.

GE has had far worse found in their compressors. It happens. I would need more information to suggest fixes.

Lightsaber
I cannot wait to get vaccinated to live again! Warning: I simulated that it takes 50%+ vaccinated to protect the vaccinated and 75%+ vaccinated to protect the vac-hesitant.
 
airnorth
Posts: 465
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 7:30 am

Re: Pratt & Whitney reduces life limits for A220, E190/E195-E2 engines

Sun Jun 02, 2019 3:17 am

lightsaber wrote:
EMBSPBR wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
This sort of stuff isn't a big deal. The rest of the engine is fine. This is about a $180,000 part having to be replaced early.
Lightsaber

Late edit:. To further extend the analogy, your break rotors will corrode past safe in say 20 months, but this is taxi duty. So you will still get to 90% of the maintenance duty.

This will cost Pratt about $70,000 per engine. :yawn:


Could this be predicted?
Does it require new material so that the life of the part is within the old specifications?
I am good at structures, motors I confess not so much ...

This is stress corrosion. Obviously a coating didn't work as well as predicted. But failure margin will be estimated and these will be safe to fly upon.

GE has had far worse found in their compressors. It happens. I would need more information to suggest fixes.

Lightsaber


Thanks very much for the detailed information!
Great analogy too btw, sometimes it is difficult to "translate" into layperson terms and language, makes perfect sense to me!
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21962
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

Re: Pratt & Whitney reduces life limits for A220, E190/E195-E2 engines

Sun Jun 02, 2019 4:40 am

lightsaber wrote:
This is about a $180,000 part having to be replaced early.


How much is the engine itself worth?
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
wingnutmn
Posts: 528
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 10:27 am

Re: Pratt & Whitney reduces life limits for A220, E190/E195-E2 engines

Sun Jun 02, 2019 5:40 am

DocLightning wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
This is about a $180,000 part having to be replaced early.


How much is the engine itself worth?


Around $8-10 million. Cheaper if you know someone on the inside.

Wingnut
Any landing you can walk away from is a good landing! It's a bonus if you can fly the plane again!!
 
User avatar
Channex757
Posts: 2419
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:07 am

Re: Pratt & Whitney reduces life limits for A220, E190/E195-E2 engines

Sun Jun 02, 2019 5:41 am

I think the analogy that fits here is the timing belt on a car. It might have a life limit of 50K miles or so many years. Now it's been reduced to 25K, but Ford/GM/Toyota/whoever will give you a discount for getting it done by offering cheaper parts come service time.

Don't get it done and you are on your own with a very expensive bang potentially in your near future. It's much more complicated IRL but Pratt will get this sorted out as it's not like an immediate failure item. Just a component which is life limited anyway that isn't lasting quite as it should, and advanced monitoring has picked this up way early in the engine's life.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3638
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: Pratt & Whitney reduces life limits for A220, E190/E195-E2 engines

Sun Jun 02, 2019 8:46 am

Channex757 wrote:
I think the analogy that fits here is the timing belt on a car. It might have a life limit of 50K miles or so many years. Now it's been reduced to 25K, but Ford/GM/Toyota/whoever will give you a discount for getting it done by offering cheaper parts come service time.

Don't get it done and you are on your own with a very expensive bang potentially in your near future. It's much more complicated IRL but Pratt will get this sorted out as it's not like an immediate failure item. Just a component which is life limited anyway that isn't lasting quite as it should, and advanced monitoring has picked this up way early in the engine's life.


You obviously have not been to GM/Ford in a while.
 
SteelChair
Posts: 1472
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

Re: Pratt & Whitney reduces life limits for A220, E190/E195-E2 engines

Sun Jun 02, 2019 11:16 am

Seems like just yesterday PW was telling the world that they had spent 20 years developing this engine, telling everyone it was all figured out. Its quite obvious at this point that the GTF is still a development engine.

Frankly, PW is an embarrassment.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2939
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Pratt & Whitney reduces life limits for A220, E190/E195-E2 engines

Sun Jun 02, 2019 11:28 am

SteelChair wrote:
Seems like just yesterday PW was telling the world that they had spent 20 years developing this engine, telling everyone it was all figured out. Its quite obvious at this point that the GTF is still a development engine.

Frankly, PW is an embarrassment.


I think they were referring the to the gearbox design - that has been pretty robust has it not?
 
spartanmjf
Posts: 522
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 11:31 am

Re: Pratt & Whitney reduces life limits for A220, E190/E195-E2 engines

Sun Jun 02, 2019 3:01 pm

Channex757 wrote:
...Just a component which is life limited anyway that isn't lasting quite as it should....


A 50% reduction in life is more than 'quite as it should' according to most accepted manufacturing standards.....
"Nuts to the man in 21D!"
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 20919
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Pratt & Whitney reduces life limits for A220, E190/E195-E2 engines

Sun Jun 02, 2019 7:33 pm

DocLightning wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
This is about a $180,000 part having to be replaced early.


How much is the engine itself worth?

The estimates I've seen have these engines costing $2.5 million to build, and declining. To put it in perspective, a CFM-56 (-5 or -7) cost about $1.6 million to build.

An overhaul bill is about $3 million for a full overhaul.

If the other aspects of the GTF (seals/shaft Dynamics and combustor) had been right, customers would be relieved this isn't an issue.

The timing belt analogy is perfect. Instead of a 250,000 mile/400,000km, it has to be replaced at half that. But this is taxi duty doing 50,000+ miles or 80,000+ km per year. Before getting to that time, an incredible amount of maintenance is done on the vehicle. FWIW, I was shocked what taxis sold for locally until I found out that was with a 250,000 mile service plan/warrantee included!

Lightsaber
I cannot wait to get vaccinated to live again! Warning: I simulated that it takes 50%+ vaccinated to protect the vaccinated and 75%+ vaccinated to protect the vac-hesitant.
 
smartplane
Posts: 1607
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Pratt & Whitney reduces life limits for A220, E190/E195-E2 engines

Sun Jun 02, 2019 8:13 pm

lightsaber wrote:
The estimates I've seen have these engines costing $2.5 million to build, and declining. To put it in perspective, a CFM-56 (-5 or -7) cost about $1.6 million to build.

An overhaul bill is about $3 million for a full overhaul.

If the other aspects of the GTF (seals/shaft Dynamics and combustor) had been right, customers would be relieved this isn't an issue.

Narrow body engines are quickly following in the footsteps of WB, with an increasing percentage of customers and leasing companies opting for power by the hour / prepaid engine maintenance contracts.

These issues won't financially catch up with those customers until the fixed price component of the contract is due for re-negotiation. And some customers with multi-unit orders and foresight, will be locked into completing deliveries with no escalation (other than agreed factors like inflation / currency movements), for the balance of the order.

Whether the owner pays for the work or not, they will still be due some compensation for AOG.
 
KFLLCFII
Posts: 3608
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 7:08 am

Re: Pratt & Whitney reduces life limits for A220, E190/E195-E2 engines

Sun Jun 02, 2019 9:00 pm

morrisond wrote:
SteelChair wrote:
Seems like just yesterday PW was telling the world that they had spent 20 years developing this engine, telling everyone it was all figured out. Its quite obvious at this point that the GTF is still a development engine.

Frankly, PW is an embarrassment.


I think they were referring the to the gearbox design - that has been pretty robust has it not?


The 4 basic stages of an internal combustion engine:

Intake
Compression
Ignition
Exhaust

If Pratt can't get those all reliably down, the gearbox may as well be welded to front of the nosecone as a shiny hood ornament because that's about all it's good for at this point.
"About the only way to look at it, just a pity you are not POTUS KFLLCFII, seems as if we would all be better off."
 
SteelChair
Posts: 1472
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

Re: Pratt & Whitney reduces life limits for A220, E190/E195-E2 engines

Sun Jun 02, 2019 11:59 pm

lightsaber wrote:
DocLightning wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
This is about a $180,000 part having to be replaced early.


How much is the engine itself worth?

The estimates I've seen have these engines costing $2.5 million to build, and declining. To put it in perspective, a CFM-56 (-5 or -7) cost about $1.6 million to build.

An overhaul bill is about $3 million for a full overhaul.

If the other aspects of the GTF (seals/shaft Dynamics and combustor) had been right, customers would be relieved this isn't an issue.

The timing belt analogy is perfect. Instead of a 250,000 mile/400,000km, it has to be replaced at half that. But this is taxi duty doing 50,000+ miles or 80,000+ km per year. Before getting to that time, an incredible amount of maintenance is done on the vehicle. FWIW, I was shocked what taxis sold for locally until I found out that was with a 250,000 mile service plan/warrantee included!

Lightsaber


Perhaps you would care to comment:

I've heard colloquially for years that, generally speaking, PW lets an operator measure/inspect/reuse many more components than GE/CFM. Thus, PW overhauls are much cheaper but their engines are less reliable and their engines tend to use a little more fuel (blades are "more" worn out). Comparatively, GE/CFM makes an overhauler throw out many more components and replace with new. Thus their overhauls are more expensive but their engines run much longer on the wing and tend to have relatively better fuel consumption. Again, these are general starments. Would you tend to agree?
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24989
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Pratt & Whitney reduces life limits for A220, E190/E195-E2 engines

Mon Jun 03, 2019 1:33 am

lightsaber wrote:
DocLightning wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
This is about a $180,000 part having to be replaced early.

How much is the engine itself worth?

The estimates I've seen have these engines costing $2.5 million to build, and declining. To put it in perspective, a CFM-56 (-5 or -7) cost about $1.6 million to build.

An overhaul bill is about $3 million for a full overhaul.

Makes one wonder why bother with overhaul when price of new (plus markup) is relatively close to overhaul.

Customer gets a zero-time engine with latest PIPs and no worries about quality of overhaul, manufacturer gets more volume for the production line, the whole pesky problem of finding cheap manpower to do overhauls and/or union blowback goes away.

Of course that strategy blows up when PW cuts its time on wing in half, sigh.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 20919
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Pratt & Whitney reduces life limits for A220, E190/E195-E2 engines

Mon Jun 03, 2019 1:39 am

Revelation wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
DocLightning wrote:
How much is the engine itself worth?

The estimates I've seen have these engines costing $2.5 million to build, and declining. To put it in perspective, a CFM-56 (-5 or -7) cost about $1.6 million to build.

An overhaul bill is about $3 million for a full overhaul.

Makes one wonder why bother with overhaul when price of new (plus markup) is relatively close to overhaul.

Customer gets a zero-time engine with latest PIPs and no worries about quality of overhaul, manufacturer gets more volume for the production line, the whole pesky problem of finding cheap manpower to do overhauls and/or union blowback goes away.

Of course that strategy blows up when PW cuts its time on wing in half, sigh.

Customers pay $8 million or more for new. I was quoting Pratt's price. So pay $3 million or $8.

However, in the past airlines have been able to buy spare engines. ANA had managed to negotiate spare engines for a few percent less than the cost of an overhaul. For years their 777s were flying on "spare" engines.

RR charges steep maintenance fees to minimize that practice.

Those that bought power by the hour have little to worry. Others will get partial reimbursement.

Lightsaber
I cannot wait to get vaccinated to live again! Warning: I simulated that it takes 50%+ vaccinated to protect the vaccinated and 75%+ vaccinated to protect the vac-hesitant.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 20919
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Pratt & Whitney reduces life limits for A220, E190/E195-E2 engines

Mon Jun 03, 2019 1:53 am

SteelChair wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
DocLightning wrote:

How much is the engine itself worth?

The estimates I've seen have these engines costing $2.5 million to build, and declining. To put it in perspective, a CFM-56 (-5 or -7) cost about $1.6 million to build.

An overhaul bill is about $3 million for a full overhaul.

If the other aspects of the GTF (seals/shaft Dynamics and combustor) had been right, customers would be relieved this isn't an issue.

The timing belt analogy is perfect. Instead of a 250,000 mile/400,000km, it has to be replaced at half that. But this is taxi duty doing 50,000+ miles or 80,000+ km per year. Before getting to that time, an incredible amount of maintenance is done on the vehicle. FWIW, I was shocked what taxis sold for locally until I found out that was with a 250,000 mile service plan/warrantee included!

Lightsaber


Perhaps you would care to comment:

I've heard colloquially for years that, generally speaking, PW lets an operator measure/inspect/reuse many more components than GE/CFM. Thus, PW overhauls are much cheaper but their engines are less reliable and their engines tend to use a little more fuel (blades are "more" worn out). Comparatively, GE/CFM makes an overhauler throw out many more components and replace with new. Thus their overhauls are more expensive but their engines run much longer on the wing and tend to have relatively better fuel consumption. Again, these are general starments. Would you tend to agree?

Pratt customers have the option to rebuild and utilize used parts. GE went so out if hand that Pratt certified their own CFM-56 turbine blades as GE was charging too much.

Rebuilds are held to strict fuel burn and reliability standards. The V2500 is certainly reliable. Pratt suffered reliability due to using older technology secondary subsystems.

But GE certainty let's used parts go into engines.

Used parts do cost fuel burn. This is why engines have variable overhaul intervals.

Both a V2500 and CFM-56 will go the same time to first overhaul, 20,000 cycles, up to about 36,000 hours (neither is really making 40,000 hours).

The GE will get more new parts and go about 16,000 to next overhaul.

Some Pratt customers rebuild new (JAL and ANA for example always did and sold parts to others,).

Some rebuilt a mix, going about 12,000 cycles,but getting new fuel burn.

Some went to maximize the economy of maintenance and would be back in the shop in 6,000 to 8,000 cycles. But fewer do this as fuel prices drive for efficiency.

But compressors get rebuilt using the same hub at least once. Oops, not now and the overhaul will be a little earlier.

Pratt used to suffer fuel burn penalty after overhauls as you described. But in about 2005 the reformed the process. Old parts had to be brought back into full compliance with the engine internal aerodynamics for a new build. Pratt also found how the tested engines wasn't right for a rebuild prior to return to service. They came up with a new testing protocol that helped new engine fuel burn a little and rebuild a lot. Basically, the spend more fuel in the shop to break in the engine right which turned out to be more critical for the rebuild.

Lightsaber
I cannot wait to get vaccinated to live again! Warning: I simulated that it takes 50%+ vaccinated to protect the vaccinated and 75%+ vaccinated to protect the vac-hesitant.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24989
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Pratt & Whitney reduces life limits for A220, E190/E195-E2 engines

Mon Jun 03, 2019 2:41 am

lightsaber wrote:
Customers pay $8 million or more for new. I was quoting Pratt's price. So pay $3 million or $8.

However, in the past airlines have been able to buy spare engines. ANA had managed to negotiate spare engines for a few percent less than the cost of an overhaul. For years their 777s were flying on "spare" engines.

RR charges steep maintenance fees to minimize that practice.

Those that bought power by the hour have little to worry. Others will get partial reimbursement.

Lightsaber

Thank you once again for such great info.

I didn't realize the engines had that kind of mark up.

I thought I read they were sold roughly at cost and the after market brought in the profits.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
WholaLottaLove
Posts: 55
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2016 10:46 pm

Re: Pratt & Whitney reduces life limits for A220, E190/E195-E2 engines

Mon Jun 03, 2019 5:12 am

Revelation wrote:
I didn't realize the engines had that kind of mark up.

I thought I read they were sold roughly at cost and the after market brought in the profits.


I think the business model still is to initially sell the engine at cost and then make your profits in the aftermarket. However, if an airline buys a new engine (for example as a spare engine) then the mark up can be very high.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15540
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Pratt & Whitney reduces life limits for A220, E190/E195-E2 engines

Mon Jun 03, 2019 5:48 am

lightsaber wrote:
This is stress corrosion. Obviously a coating didn't work as well as predicted. But failure margin will be estimated and these will be safe to fly upon.

GE has had far worse found in their compressors. It happens. I would need more information to suggest fixes.

Lightsaber


Basically the same as what is happening on the Trent 1000 as well.

Sulfidation causing coatings like diffused aluminide and silicone aluminide to be eaten away quicker leaving the underlying material unprotected.

KFLLCFII wrote:
The 4 basic stages of an internal combustion engine:

Intake
Compression
Ignition
Exhaust


I prefer suck, squeeze, bang, blow
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 20919
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Pratt & Whitney reduces life limits for A220, E190/E195-E2 engines

Mon Jun 03, 2019 6:05 am

Revelation wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
Customers pay $8 million or more for new. I was quoting Pratt's price. So pay $3 million or $8.

However, in the past airlines have been able to buy spare engines. ANA had managed to negotiate spare engines for a few percent less than the cost of an overhaul. For years their 777s were flying on "spare" engines.

RR charges steep maintenance fees to minimize that practice.

Those that bought power by the hour have little to worry. Others will get partial reimbursement.

Lightsaber

Thank you once again for such great info.

I didn't realize the engines had that kind of mark up.

I thought I read they were sold roughly at cost and the after market brought in the profits.

Oh, engines basically go for cost, but that is after lengthy negotiating. Pratt is partially in trouble as they limit spare sales after what ANA did, so now airlines only get to buy a few spare engines cheap and then the rest are pricey.

The engines on the airframe are at near cost. Any engine not the most popular on an aircraft, if there is a choice, goes at a loss.

Unfortunately, talking engine price has five answers, all are true depending on negotiations. Airlines pay upfront on in maintenance. The cheapest engines go out on the airframe. The spares go out cheap too. But typically all other engines are sold at 250% of part value plus assembly.

RR has been selling more on maintenance. This makes it easy to get them out the door, but makes resale tougher as 2nd hand buyers will not pay heafty maintenance contracts.

It is a razor blade business (sell the razor cheap, but not the replacement blades). The trend to power by the hour makes it more complicated.


Lightsaber
I cannot wait to get vaccinated to live again! Warning: I simulated that it takes 50%+ vaccinated to protect the vaccinated and 75%+ vaccinated to protect the vac-hesitant.
 
Carmitage
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 1:24 pm

Re: Pratt & Whitney reduces life limits for A220, E190/E195-E2 engines

Mon Jun 03, 2019 7:00 am

Sounds a similar problem to the Trent 1000 (as mentioned above) - how come that cost RR £1.5bn and yet everyone so far on this topic is so relaxed that it isn't a big deal for P&W. What is different?
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24989
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Pratt & Whitney reduces life limits for A220, E190/E195-E2 engines

Mon Jun 03, 2019 7:03 am

Thanks again for the very informative post.

Hopefully I didn't butcher your post too much by cutting out the part that made things clearest to me:

lightsaber wrote:
The cheapest engines go out on the airframe. The spares go out cheap too. But typically all other engines are sold at 250% of part value plus assembly.

This is the part that killed off my earlier argument.

The airline has a lot of negotiating power when they buy the aircraft, but after that point, the engine maker has the power.

The engine maker prices off the shelf engines at such a price that overhauling is a better decision, and overhauling brings in tons of revenue through all the parts it sells.

I can imagine no matter what some expensive parts such as casings would get reused under any other business model so overhauling will always have a place.

PBTH does make it interesting in that older aircraft come with expensive maintenance contracts (or no engines!).

How does this benefit the engine maker?

Does it benefit them to incentivize the retirement of the older airframes and their engines earlier in favor of younger airframes with newer engines?

I would think that would take a lot of those expensive reusable parts (casings, etc) out of the market earlier rather than later.

PS: I caught what you wrote about PW certifying blades for CFM because CFM was overcharging -- fascinating!
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
smartplane
Posts: 1607
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Pratt & Whitney reduces life limits for A220, E190/E195-E2 engines

Mon Jun 03, 2019 1:04 pm

lightsaber wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Thank you once again for such great info.

I didn't realize the engines had that kind of mark up.

I thought I read they were sold roughly at cost and the after market brought in the profits.

Oh, engines basically go for cost, but that is after lengthy negotiating. Pratt is partially in trouble as they limit spare sales after what ANA did, so now airlines only get to buy a few spare engines cheap and then the rest are pricey.

The engines on the airframe are at near cost. Any engine not the most popular on an aircraft, if there is a choice, goes at a loss.

Unfortunately, talking engine price has five answers, all are true depending on negotiations. Airlines pay upfront on in maintenance. The cheapest engines go out on the airframe. The spares go out cheap too. But typically all other engines are sold at 250% of part value plus assembly.

RR has been selling more on maintenance. This makes it easy to get them out the door, but makes resale tougher as 2nd hand buyers will not pay heafty maintenance contracts.

It is a razor blade business (sell the razor cheap, but not the replacement blades). The trend to power by the hour makes it more complicated.

Depending on the customer's and air frame OEM negotiating power, and volume involved, engines on air frame can be at or even below cost, after retrospective credits. In some cases, the air frame OEM may fund some of the engine OEM's retrospective credits to their mutual customer.

If a customer cancels or defers orders, they effectively pay more for the air frames and engines already delivered, than if the full order was completed.

Engine maintenance contract negotiations often take longer to conclude than finance and legal issues, because it sets the scene for lifetime ownership costs.

Some airlines will negotiate a fixed price / fixed period contract, flat, like EK with RR, while others will take fixed price for single or multiple finite periods. The trend is to fix longer and flatter, especially where aircraft are leased.
 
stephanwintner
Posts: 79
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2019 5:04 pm

Re: Pratt & Whitney reduces life limits for A220, E190/E195-E2 engines

Mon Jun 03, 2019 4:10 pm

Revelation wrote:

PBTH does make it interesting in that older aircraft come with expensive maintenance contracts (or no engines!).

How does this benefit the engine maker?

Does it benefit them to incentivize the retirement of the older airframes and their engines earlier in favor of younger airframes with newer engines?

I would think that would take a lot of those expensive reusable parts (casings, etc) out of the market earlier rather than later.

PS: I caught what you wrote about PW certifying blades for CFM because CFM was overcharging -- fascinating!


Assuming the PBTH supplier - e.g. Pratt - has their business under control, and has priced their service correctly, then I don't think PBTH incentivises early engine retirements.

Whether it's under PBTH or "normal" circumstances, the game becomes optimizing return on investment. You have a fleet, with some new engines, some at various ages. Dependent on detailed part lifing, the objective is to extract as much life as you can from each part, while keeping performance up (fuel burn low) and (fleetwide) as many engines making money as possible. That means minimizing both scheduled and unscheduled removals. And it does depend on operator use - two airlines may fly the same engine quite differently.

Some parts are cycle limited (LCF). Others are limited by creep or HCF, which is more about hours. Creep and LCF interact too (yay). One engine design may face very different lives, depending on how it's used, which may dictate different overhaul intervals and (fleetwide) overhaul strategies.

Yes, under certain circumstances, you'd want to retire, say, A320 CEOs in order to move towards A320NEOs faster. But, what is your unscheduled rate, how fast is Airbus delivering the planes, how much can you sell the old planes for, etc. You have sunk costs, you want to extract as much value as practicable from that before sinking money into new planes.

That's all true under both PBTH and "normal" circumstances.
 
SteelChair
Posts: 1472
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

Re: Pratt & Whitney reduces life limits for A220, E190/E195-E2 engines

Mon Jun 03, 2019 6:41 pm

lightsaber wrote:
SteelChair wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
The estimates I've seen have these engines costing $2.5 million to build, and declining. To put it in perspective, a CFM-56 (-5 or -7) cost about $1.6 million to build.

An overhaul bill is about $3 million for a full overhaul.

If the other aspects of the GTF (seals/shaft Dynamics and combustor) had been right, customers would be relieved this isn't an issue.

The timing belt analogy is perfect. Instead of a 250,000 mile/400,000km, it has to be replaced at half that. But this is taxi duty doing 50,000+ miles or 80,000+ km per year. Before getting to that time, an incredible amount of maintenance is done on the vehicle. FWIW, I was shocked what taxis sold for locally until I found out that was with a 250,000 mile service plan/warrantee included!

Lightsaber


Perhaps you would care to comment:

I've heard colloquially for years that, generally speaking, PW lets an operator measure/inspect/reuse many more components than GE/CFM. Thus, PW overhauls are much cheaper but their engines are less reliable and their engines tend to use a little more fuel (blades are "more" worn out). Comparatively, GE/CFM makes an overhauler throw out many more components and replace with new. Thus their overhauls are more expensive but their engines run much longer on the wing and tend to have relatively better fuel consumption. Again, these are general starments. Would you tend to agree?

Pratt customers have the option to rebuild and utilize used parts. GE went so out if hand that Pratt certified their own CFM-56 turbine blades as GE was charging too much.

Rebuilds are held to strict fuel burn and reliability standards. The V2500 is certainly reliable. Pratt suffered reliability due to using older technology secondary subsystems.

But GE certainty let's used parts go into engines.

Used parts do cost fuel burn. This is why engines have variable overhaul intervals.

Both a V2500 and CFM-56 will go the same time to first overhaul, 20,000 cycles, up to about 36,000 hours (neither is really making 40,000 hours).

The GE will get more new parts and go about 16,000 to next overhaul.

Some Pratt customers rebuild new (JAL and ANA for example always did and sold parts to others,).

Some rebuilt a mix, going about 12,000 cycles,but getting new fuel burn.

Some went to maximize the economy of maintenance and would be back in the shop in 6,000 to 8,000 cycles. But fewer do this as fuel prices drive for efficiency.

But compressors get rebuilt using the same hub at least once. Oops, not now and the overhaul will be a little earlier.

Pratt used to suffer fuel burn penalty after overhauls as you described. But in about 2005 the reformed the process. Old parts had to be brought back into full compliance with the engine internal aerodynamics for a new build. Pratt also found how the tested engines wasn't right for a rebuild prior to return to service. They came up with a new testing protocol that helped new engine fuel burn a little and rebuild a lot. Basically, the spend more fuel in the shop to break in the engine right which turned out to be more critical for the rebuild.

Lightsaber


Thanks for that additional detail. Your responses here have been very informative, and consistent from what I have heard from other quarters.

I'm still of the opinion that GE is the class of the 3 engine makers though. Yeah, they cost more, but so does Lexus, Apple, Starbucks, etc.
 
User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 3018
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: Pratt & Whitney reduces life limits for A220, E190/E195-E2 engines

Mon Jun 03, 2019 7:18 pm

stephanwintner wrote:
Revelation wrote:

PBTH does make it interesting in that older aircraft come with expensive maintenance contracts (or no engines!).

How does this benefit the engine maker?

Does it benefit them to incentivize the retirement of the older airframes and their engines earlier in favor of younger airframes with newer engines?

I would think that would take a lot of those expensive reusable parts (casings, etc) out of the market earlier rather than later.

PS: I caught what you wrote about PW certifying blades for CFM because CFM was overcharging -- fascinating!


Assuming the PBTH supplier - e.g. Pratt - has their business under control, and has priced their service correctly, then I don't think PBTH incentivises early engine retirements.

Whether it's under PBTH or "normal" circumstances, the game becomes optimizing return on investment. You have a fleet, with some new engines, some at various ages. Dependent on detailed part lifing, the objective is to extract as much life as you can from each part, while keeping performance up (fuel burn low) and (fleetwide) as many engines making money as possible. That means minimizing both scheduled and unscheduled removals. And it does depend on operator use - two airlines may fly the same engine quite differently.

Some parts are cycle limited (LCF). Others are limited by creep or HCF, which is more about hours. Creep and LCF interact too (yay). One engine design may face very different lives, depending on how it's used, which may dictate different overhaul intervals and (fleetwide) overhaul strategies.

Yes, under certain circumstances, you'd want to retire, say, A320 CEOs in order to move towards A320NEOs faster. But, what is your unscheduled rate, how fast is Airbus delivering the planes, how much can you sell the old planes for, etc. You have sunk costs, you want to extract as much value as practicable from that before sinking money into new planes.

That's all true under both PBTH and "normal" circumstances.


It really shines a light on the logistics behind operating a vast fleet of aircraft, and why any unscheduled maintenance item or other delays can seriously harm your high level view of your operation.
 
Waterbomber2
Posts: 1445
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:44 am

Re: Pratt & Whitney reduces life limits for A220, E190/E195-E2 engines

Mon Jun 03, 2019 8:18 pm

lightsaber wrote:
DocLightning wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
This is about a $180,000 part having to be replaced early.


How much is the engine itself worth?

The estimates I've seen have these engines costing $2.5 million to build, and declining. To put it in perspective, a CFM-56 (-5 or -7) cost about $1.6 million to build.

An overhaul bill is about $3 million for a full overhaul.

If the other aspects of the GTF (seals/shaft Dynamics and combustor) had been right, customers would be relieved this isn't an issue.

The timing belt analogy is perfect. Instead of a 250,000 mile/400,000km, it has to be replaced at half that. But this is taxi duty doing 50,000+ miles or 80,000+ km per year. Before getting to that time, an incredible amount of maintenance is done on the vehicle. FWIW, I was shocked what taxis sold for locally until I found out that was with a 250,000 mile service plan/warrantee included!

Lightsaber


Most timing belts have to be replaced at 60.000 miles/100.000km. Never heard of a timing belt lasting 250.000 miles.
250.000 miles is more like for timing chains, but most car engines would need a major overhaul or replacement by that mileage anyway...

Just saying... check your ODO meter and service manual today, a broken timing belt is not only a major cost center, it can be dangerous if it happens while your car is in gear.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos