User avatar
zkojq
Posts: 3831
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:42 am

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Fri Sep 06, 2019 12:31 pm

lightsaber wrote:

As noted, a nothingburger on the GEnX (I happen to agree the TXWB issues aren't worth discussing).


Exactly my point: both issues are equally irrelevant.
First to fly the 787-9
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17920
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Fri Sep 06, 2019 12:59 pm

grbauc wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
OMG, I missed quotes, STC is playing hardball!

“if there is one cent missing from the final payment” yet airlines are often willing to accept a machine they know has problems.

He said Emirates will do not do so any longer.

“Is that not unreasonable?” he asked. “We have 615 people on 15 or 20 of these [A380] aircraft that we own flying around, and if an engine doesn’t work or a part fails, they are stranded at Heathrow or Frankfurt or Auckland. The consequential damage to us is huge because I have to get rid of 615 passengers. I have to disperse them on other carriers, which I have to pay. I have to pay the punitive damages that the Europeans or New Zealand is imposing on us under their consumer protection legislation.”


https://finance.yahoo.com/amphtml/news/ ... 015708.htm

STC just declared he is a graduate with honors of the AAB school of negotiation! Wow! Basically singled out he won't accept A380s. Probably not anything until contracts are resolved.

Did he send EK inspectors to AAB's school of carpet inspection.

Lightsaber


I could be wrong but he STC seems to be like a guy that’s DESPERATE and under extreme pressure and he pointing the finger at everyone else. He is acting out of character that I’ve seen since following him.
Surprising what he’s making public basic stuff almost weird. Reeks of desperation to me.


EK is the #1 buyer of widebodies. They are using every excuse to put their contracts in play. I believe STC is making it impossible for Airbus/RR to put pressure on EK from the cancelled A380s.

The A330, 787, and 777 will all have to cut production without the EK order. STC is playing kingmaker. He has tremendous negotiating power today. I joke he is using AAB's tactics (for my impression is that he is), because this is his final major play at EK. His legacy is dependent upon negotiating a great deal. Since, in my opinion, EK must shrink, EK can delay their order by years. So this isn't a bluff. EK, Airbus, Boeing vendors all have thousands, if not tens of thousands of jobs in play.

This is the prisoner's delima on a grand scale. The issue is, STC doesn't lose what so ever by waiting and using the power of the purse to force Airbus, RR, Boeing, and GE to negotiate, adding terms as he goes along.

From the quotes, it seems as if RR is not willing to meet EK's guarantees. From the known major T900 issues and continued problems on the T1000, of course STC is concerned. If the T1000-ten has turbine issues, so will the T7000. They are the same part numbers! (In other words, when RR has a turbine blade made by Hitchner to RR specifications, that blade is made for either engine).

Careful with the word desperate. That implies willing to do anything. Get out your popcorn, this is going to be brutal.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
User avatar
AECM
Posts: 208
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:52 am

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Fri Sep 06, 2019 1:42 pm

lightsaber wrote:
grbauc wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
OMG, I missed quotes, STC is playing hardball!

“if there is one cent missing from the final payment” yet airlines are often willing to accept a machine they know has problems.

He said Emirates will do not do so any longer.

“Is that not unreasonable?” he asked. “We have 615 people on 15 or 20 of these [A380] aircraft that we own flying around, and if an engine doesn’t work or a part fails, they are stranded at Heathrow or Frankfurt or Auckland. The consequential damage to us is huge because I have to get rid of 615 passengers. I have to disperse them on other carriers, which I have to pay. I have to pay the punitive damages that the Europeans or New Zealand is imposing on us under their consumer protection legislation.”


https://finance.yahoo.com/amphtml/news/ ... 015708.htm

STC just declared he is a graduate with honors of the AAB school of negotiation! Wow! Basically singled out he won't accept A380s. Probably not anything until contracts are resolved.

Did he send EK inspectors to AAB's school of carpet inspection.

Lightsaber


I could be wrong but he STC seems to be like a guy that’s DESPERATE and under extreme pressure and he pointing the finger at everyone else. He is acting out of character that I’ve seen since following him.
Surprising what he’s making public basic stuff almost weird. Reeks of desperation to me.


EK is the #1 buyer of widebodies. They are using every excuse to put their contracts in play. I believe STC is making it impossible for Airbus/RR to put pressure on EK from the cancelled A380s.

The A330, 787, and 777 will all have to cut production without the EK order. STC is playing kingmaker. He has tremendous negotiating power today. I joke he is using AAB's tactics (for my impression is that he is), because this is his final major play at EK. His legacy is dependent upon negotiating a great deal. Since, in my opinion, EK must shrink, EK can delay their order by years. So this isn't a bluff. EK, Airbus, Boeing vendors all have thousands, if not tens of thousands of jobs in play.

This is the prisoner's delima on a grand scale. The issue is, STC doesn't lose what so ever by waiting and using the power of the purse to force Airbus, RR, Boeing, and GE to negotiate, adding terms as he goes along.

From the quotes, it seems as if RR is not willing to meet EK's guarantees. From the known major T900 issues and continued problems on the T1000, of course STC is concerned. If the T1000-ten has turbine issues, so will the T7000. They are the same part numbers! (In other words, when RR has a turbine blade made by Hitchner to RR specifications, that blade is made for either engine).

Careful with the word desperate. That implies willing to do anything. Get out your popcorn, this is going to be brutal.

Lightsaber


Another thing that bugs my mind regarding RR is why the T1000 is having issues while the XWB is performing on spec. Why can't they get it right with the 1000 like the XWB.. what't the limitation? :scratchchin:
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21214
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Fri Sep 06, 2019 2:01 pm

lightsaber wrote:
The A330, 787, and 777 will all have to cut production without the EK order. STC is playing kingmaker. He has tremendous negotiating power today. I joke he is using AAB's tactics (for my impression is that he is), because this is his final major play at EK. His legacy is dependent upon negotiating a great deal. Since, in my opinion, EK must shrink, EK can delay their order by years. So this isn't a bluff. EK, Airbus, Boeing vendors all have thousands, if not tens of thousands of jobs in play.

This makes me think of the final major play of the Leahy and Enders eras, the deal to "secure the future of the A380".

It wasn't a bluff, but it was a deal that Leahy and Enders replacements ended up unwinding with relative ease, or did they?

Its presumed unwinding is why we find ourselves having this discussion.

Ironic, eh?

Maybe business executives should think of the long term futures of their companies rather than exiting with a flourish.

Yet egos such as STC, Leahy and Enders are part of what we find fascinating about this form of big stakes poker.

If we "follow the money" it seems STC would have to declare breech of contract on a lot of business to do anything other than take the RR+Airbus package.

Doing that would cause grave damage to EK's future dealings with RR+Airbus.

Yet there probably is enough wiggle room to move business around without actually declaring breech of contract to have a lot of leverage.

And as you point out, playing for time while implying the threat of breech of contract is another form of exercising leverage.

People seem to forget how long it took to close the deal to "secure the future of the A380".

It took many months of setting up the alleged GP7000 revival as a staking horse, calling for "copper bottom guarantees" etc before it closed.

We probably need to go to Amazon and put popcorn on automatic delivery.
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
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2298
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Fri Sep 06, 2019 2:13 pm

If the airlines want bleeding edge technology they must accept one (or more) of:

- unexpected issues being fixed during development which push back EIS.
- unexpected issues during initial operation, which will cause reliability issues.
- paying the OEMs considerably more so they can properly resource developement.

Time vs. Quality vs. Cost. The immutable triangle of any project. The airlines want to have and eat all three corners of their cake.


Otherwise they should STFU and quit whining like little btches. If Tim Clark tried to develop an turbofan to meet his own needs, it'd melt the heads of everyone in EK.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17920
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Fri Sep 06, 2019 2:35 pm

Revelation wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
The A330, 787, and 777 will all have to cut production without the EK order. STC is playing kingmaker. He has tremendous negotiating power today. I joke he is using AAB's tactics (for my impression is that he is), because this is his final major play at EK. His legacy is dependent upon negotiating a great deal. Since, in my opinion, EK must shrink, EK can delay their order by years. So this isn't a bluff. EK, Airbus, Boeing vendors all have thousands, if not tens of thousands of jobs in play.

This makes me think of the final major play of the Leahy and Enders eras, the deal to "secure the future of the A380".

It wasn't a bluff, but it was a deal that Leahy and Enders replacements ended up unwinding with relative ease, or did they?

Its presumed unwinding is why we find ourselves having this discussion.

Ironic, eh?

Maybe business executives should think of the long term futures of their companies rather than exiting with a flourish.

Yet egos such as STC, Leahy and Enders are part of what we find fascinating about this form of big stakes poker.

If we "follow the money" it seems STC would have to declare breech of contract on a lot of business to do anything other than take the RR+Airbus package.

Doing that would cause grave damage to EK's future dealings with RR+Airbus.

Yet there probably is enough wiggle room to move business around without actually declaring breech of contract to have a lot of leverage.

And as you point out, playing for time while implying the threat of breech of contract is another form of exercising leverage.

People seem to forget how long it took to close the deal to "secure the future of the A380".

It took many months of setting up the alleged GP7000 revival as a staking horse, calling for "copper bottom guarantees" etc before it closed.

We probably need to go to Amazon and put popcorn on automatic delivery.

I agree egos trying to set a legacy create long term issues. However, at this point STC must unwind over-investment in A380s as well as too much money spent on DWC (for what it will do for ten years).

I agree with putting the popcorn on auto order. STC's only true leverage is time vs. Airbus and RR.
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
Scotron12
Posts: 102
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:13 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Fri Sep 06, 2019 2:48 pm

Can anyone explain why RR and Airbus are singled out in this thread?? It is quite fascinating to see.

Yes...I am an Airbus fan...but also Boeing too...but the bias is not very pleasant from a so called aviation website.
 
HaulSudson
Posts: 69
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 6:02 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Fri Sep 06, 2019 2:55 pm

It's quite ironic that bean counting and financial engineering world champ GE appears to have less technical troubles - for now.


But that can change, very quickly (ask RR).
The new 777X engine might already be a prime contender.


Hence, STC may learn that he's looking smart, pissing off his counterparts, until he looks stupid.

He's selling a commodity, his counterparts aren't.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17920
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Fri Sep 06, 2019 3:45 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
If the airlines want bleeding edge technology they must accept one (or more) of:

- unexpected issues being fixed during development which push back EIS.
- unexpected issues during initial operation, which will cause reliability issues.
- paying the OEMs considerably more so they can properly resource developement.

Time vs. Quality vs. Cost. The immutable triangle of any project. The airlines want to have and eat all three corners of their cake.


Otherwise they should STFU and quit whining like little btches. If Tim Clark tried to develop an turbofan to meet his own needs, it'd melt the heads of everyone in EK.

This is negotiations in the press. Develop a thick skin. It is a buyers market for widebodies right now.

RR and Pratt delivered unacceptable quality. Pratt is out of the widebody market due to such quality lapses on the PW4097 and PW4175.

Airlines are in a tough business. Engine vendors had better stop contractually over promising. I'm working true bleeding edge technology. We only signed up for 85% availability in a prototype. ;)

RR skipped high sulfer fuel testing. A standard test at Pratt. This is on RR. The sand wear is due to pushing existing compressor design rules and pushing efficiency by reducing the compressor FOD bleed. A poor design decision.

GE, CFM, and T700 set the global standards. Pratt performed hot/ high testing too late and the seal qualification wasn't specified correctly.

It isn't the airlines job to overpay or design. It isn't the airlines job to understand TRL levels.

The 787 engines missed promise and it has been problematic upgrade after problematic upgrade. RR has insufficient spare engines on the T1000, as Pratt did on the PW1100G that resulted in a mass grounding.

If you want to tell the #1 buyer to shut up, feel free. Any salesperson/VP at Boeing/Airbus/RR/GE had better know that would be the end of their career.

We are talking orders for $10 billion+ USD. Whomever loses this negotiation loses over a thousand jobs (probably more) as A330, 787, and/or 777 could drop. Or Dubai osses thousands of jobs.

STC has a job to do the best for his employer. He chose to negotiate a la AAB. Hopefully with a purpose.

If EK does not firm up the A330NEO orders, that line must sluw down (job losses). The T900 powered A380s:
1. Are not needed (or at least two dozen may go).
2. Are no where near durability and the failures have grounded several EK A380s.

At some point customers speak up. STC made a mistake of ordering too many A380s. EK doesn't need any more A380s, not one more in this market.

RR and Airbus could hold EK's deposits. EK could pull the AAB move of not accepting any A380s are find ways to minimize payments to Airbus.

Reliability and fuel burn on a minor PiP on the T900 should have been met. No bleeding edge there

Can we agree we shouldn't be here. We are. So get out the popcorn, this will be a multi year event in my opinion.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17920
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Fri Sep 06, 2019 3:53 pm

Scotron12 wrote:
Can anyone explain why RR and Airbus are singled out in this thread?? It is quite fascinating to see.

Yes...I am an Airbus fan...but also Boeing too...but the bias is not very pleasant from a so called aviation website.

EK has received all deliveries from Boeing until the 779. At this point the LOI for the 787 is a negotiating point. EK and RR are unable to come to terms on the A339/A359 order. So at this point, EK is in public negotiations with Airbus/RR but also refusing to sign the delivery deal with Boeing until more is known on the 779.

Boeing/GE will have made a counter offer. While I expect EK to shift from 777x to 787, it is less near term impact.

Without the EK A330NEO order, the A330 line must be slowed. There is a near term impact greater on Airbus/RR. If EK firms up a 787 order, it secures that line rate long enough to have an impact.

RR has missed engine performance and was called out by STC.

So in many ways, posters are projecting their economic desires. I see it as EK must cut costs and Sir Tim Clark is being a tough negotiator.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
h1fl1er
Posts: 121
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 5:58 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Fri Sep 06, 2019 5:17 pm

lightsaber wrote:
Scotron12 wrote:
Can anyone explain why RR and Airbus are singled out in this thread?? It is quite fascinating to see.

Yes...I am an Airbus fan...but also Boeing too...but the bias is not very pleasant from a so called aviation website.

EK has received all deliveries from Boeing until the 779. At this point the LOI for the 787 is a negotiating point. EK and RR are unable to come to terms on the A339/A359 order. So at this point, EK is in public negotiations with Airbus/RR but also refusing to sign the delivery deal with Boeing until more is known on the 779.

Boeing/GE will have made a counter offer. While I expect EK to shift from 777x to 787, it is less near term impact.

Without the EK A330NEO order, the A330 line must be slowed. There is a near term impact greater on Airbus/RR. If EK firms up a 787 order, it secures that line rate long enough to have an impact.

RR has missed engine performance and was called out by STC.

So in many ways, posters are projecting their economic desires. I see it as EK must cut costs and Sir Tim Clark is being a tough negotiator.

Lightsaber


Agree; STC wanted 380s with updated engines. Didn't get it. Got caught by the 380 close. Stuck with money in AB or RR's hands he's going to have to fight over.

As a stopgap, they LOId some 350s and 339s. But he's so PO'd at RR that he's rethinking this. The 359 is his best bet bc the RRs there don't have issues, but the cost per frame is why the order split was so lopsided for 339. He didn't want either of these planes- he wanted 380s with PIPs and RRs.

He's gonna wait and see how the 77x program unfolds before committing to anything IMO. The remnants of his 380 order could honestly end up in court. He doesn't want 339 or 359 in his fleet or he'd have been buying them outright already. Now he's trying to find a way to get his money back and hanging it on RR is one way to try.

He also doesn't want the 789 despite it being the standout in price, performance, and GENX reliability versus the rest. I guess too small for his preferences and the 78x does not have the payload range he wants. So kinda if you put yourself in his shoes, he has no plane he particularly wants to buy. Add this in with the 77x program delays, he cannot be happy. 748s are a pipe dream, their economics are horrible. This is a guy who has a VLA airline and VLAs don't exist anymore...in a pickle he is.
 
ewt340
Posts: 788
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Fri Sep 06, 2019 5:23 pm

Revelation wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
There have been many issues with regards to EK and DWC recently and it looks as if EK might be realising they are in too deep for the current market, it seems as if its behaviour mirroring, he's being given a hard time so he's giving people a hard time, unfortunately for EK they will (or already have) lost their influence over A&B with regards to aircraft design/performance.

Everyone knew EK was a growth company.

Like most growth companies they grow till they hit their peak, then they need to transition to becoming a mature company, or risk losing the gains made during the growth period.

I think most of us knew EK would have a hard time recognizing when to make the switch.

Their very identity seems to be wrapped around being a growth company, transitioning to maturity is hard.

Personally, I think STC is not wrong about vendors not living up to their sides of the relationship at a time where the penalty for not performing is higher than ever.

Personally, I don't think he is trying to shed orders in the way some suggest, but I do feel he is pushing for better terms across the board.

All this shows he does have the kind of leverage some suggest he does not have.

Clearly he has great influence on how the 777x program progresses.

Clearly he is holding the draw down of the A380 program hostage till he signs an agreement transferring orders to A330/A350.

That's a lot of leverage, even before you consider what impact his orders could have on A330/A350/B787.


I think we all know (including Emirates) when they would stop growing like they did before, which sadly were around the time A380 got canceled because of their decision to not to order more of it.

I think significant percentages of their B777X orders, especially the -8 are on the shaky ground. We know Emirates are willing to do drastic things with their decision.
 
User avatar
JerseyFlyer
Posts: 1374
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:24 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Fri Sep 06, 2019 6:59 pm

Pellegrine wrote:
Are there problems with the RR T1000-TENs or was it just the original packages?


I recall talk about the first few delivered TENs maybe needing some special TLC "at the first shop visit" or somesuch. There was something from SQ a few weeks ago that seemed to confirm this.
 
User avatar
Faro
Posts: 1911
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:08 am

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Fri Sep 06, 2019 7:06 pm

If EK are effectively considering downsizing their 779X order, that is ominous news for B and GE...the whole 777X program seems to be entering an distinctly uncomfortable period its life...hope they manage to ride it out...


Faro
The chalice not my son
 
majano
Posts: 135
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2018 10:45 am

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Fri Sep 06, 2019 9:11 pm

h1fl1er wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
Scotron12 wrote:
Can anyone explain why RR and Airbus are singled out in this thread?? It is quite fascinating to see.

Yes...I am an Airbus fan...but also Boeing too...but the bias is not very pleasant from a so called aviation website.


As a stopgap, they LOId some 350s and 339s. But he's so PO'd at RR that he's rethinking this. The 359 is his best bet bc the RRs there don't have issues, but the cost per frame is why the order split was so lopsided for 339. He didn't want either of these planes- he wanted 380s with PIPs and RRs.

He's gonna wait and see how the 77x program unfolds before committing to anything IMO. The remnants of his 380 order could honestly end up in court. He doesn't want 339 or 359 in his fleet or he'd have been buying them outright already. Now he's trying to find a way to get his money back and hanging it on RR is one way to try.

He also doesn't want the 789 despite it being the standout in price, performance, and GENX reliability versus the rest. I guess too small for his preferences and the 78x does not have the payload range he wants. .

This is the type of biased nonsense that frustrates new visitors to the site. Clark's very first quoted comment in the Reuters article was directed at GE, but by hook or crook, RR is singled out for all sorts of ridicule. All this despite the fact that the Trent Xwb is by a country mile the most reliable of recently introduced large civilian jet engines measured by inflight shutdown (ifsd) so far. There is a very recent thread right here discussing that very topic. Things could change going forward with wear and tear.

Without any sort of backing, this poster claims that Genx reliability stands out above the rest. I am not expecting any moderation from the said poster, but his false claim cannot be left to stand.

As Astuteman said above, if Clark was indeed looking for an engine that would deliver first up, then the A350 would stand without competition. The Trent Xwb is available only on the A350.

Now, as so many posts have tried to point out, there is more than meets the eye in Clark's posturing.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21214
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Fri Sep 06, 2019 9:22 pm

Faro wrote:
If EK are effectively considering downsizing their 779X order, that is ominous news for B and GE...the whole 777X program seems to be entering an distinctly uncomfortable period its life...hope they manage to ride it out...

IMO 777X will be fine. It has orders from blue chip carriers such as BA, LH, SQ, CX, all of whom are already A350 operators, so their general approach to the market is working.

The EK 777Xs are already being built, and maybe they don't take up as many as thought up front, in the long term it will have a great opportunity to prove itself.

Image

Ref: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... gt-460122/
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
 
h1fl1er
Posts: 121
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 5:58 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Fri Sep 06, 2019 11:03 pm

majano wrote:
This is the type of biased nonsense that frustrates new visitors to the site. Clark's very first quoted comment in the Reuters article was directed at GE, but by hook or crook, RR is singled out for all sorts of ridicule. All this despite the fact that the Trent Xwb is by a country mile the most reliable of recently introduced large civilian jet engines measured by inflight shutdown (ifsd) so far. There is a very recent thread right here discussing that very topic. Things could change going forward with wear and tear.

Without any sort of backing, this poster claims that Genx reliability stands out above the rest. I am not expecting any moderation from the said poster, but his false claim cannot be left to stand.

As Astuteman said above, if Clark was indeed looking for an engine that would deliver first up, then the A350 would stand without competition. The Trent Xwb is available only on the A350.

Now, as so many posts have tried to point out, there is more than meets the eye in Clark's posturing.


RR was singled out for ridicule? LOL. I mean their engines are performing horribly except for the XWB.

I never said GENX reliability stood out above the rest, I said the 789's price, performance AND GenX reliability placed it above the other options and I then I said he didn't want that plane. Or the 78x.

He's not looking for an engine; he wants a plane. The 350 is not that plane and neither is any other currently in-production frame.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 8910
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Fri Sep 06, 2019 11:47 pm

majano wrote:
Without any sort of backing, this poster claims that Genx reliability stands out above the rest. I am not expecting any moderation from the said poster, but his false claim cannot be left to stand.

Well, if we leave out the technical stuff, GENX 787's are not parked because of icing problems, I think if we are not being sensitive we could state and accept the obvious, RR powered 787's have been grounded for months while engines are repaired.
 
Waterbomber2
Posts: 419
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:44 am

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Sat Sep 07, 2019 1:06 am

If I were Airbus and RR, I would be offering EK an A380 with Trent 7000's today in a combo with A339's.
Airbus know how to do NEO's, they can have it ready within 2-3 years, probably even before the EIS of the B779, and RR can use the additional sales.
Combined with the features of the A380 Plus, the total cost reduction could be 12%ish per flight and even 20% on a per seat basis. Such an A380 could go from a fuel burn of 12 tons an hour to 10.5 tons an hour, which puts it in a new league. In addition, if development costs can be kept low, capital costs would be low compared to the B779 and A350's.

Airbus won't make tons out of the deal, but it could make up the difference with the A339's and it could be enough to make a serious dent in EK's appetite for B777X's to keep them engaged, while new sales prospects could be pursued. For instance, such an aircraft could be of interest to QF for their Project Sunrise. The Trent 7000 and Plus mods could squeeze out enough range to make it work operationally, but also commercially. Everyone on the kangaroo route would want to be on it.
It could also be an asset for the likes of BA, with a fuel burn lower than their B744's.
 
User avatar
flee
Posts: 979
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:14 am

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Sat Sep 07, 2019 1:21 am

lightsaber wrote:
At some point customers speak up. STC made a mistake of ordering too many A380s. EK doesn't need any more A380s, not one more in this market.

IIRC, STC did mentioned in their final A380 order that he hoped that the last 50 might be the Neo versions. So they did over order to encourage RR to offer a Neo.

In his latest rant, STC also mentioned the cost and penalties (from regulators) for airlines in the event of aircraft failures. He is suggesting that the aircraft OEMs get away with these failures at much lower cost than airlines do and wants some redress. So yes, the situation of not delivering on promises appears to have reached a critical point.
 
jetwet1
Posts: 2885
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 4:42 am

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Sat Sep 07, 2019 1:31 am

lightsaber wrote:

RR and Pratt delivered unacceptable quality. Pratt is out of the widebody market due to such quality lapses on the PW4097 and PW4175.

Airlines are in a tough business. Engine vendors had better stop contractually over promising. I'm working true bleeding edge technology. We only signed up for 85% availability in a prototype. ;)

RR skipped high sulfer fuel testing. A standard test at Pratt. This is on RR. The sand wear is due to pushing existing compressor design rules and pushing efficiency by reducing the compressor FOD bleed. A poor design decision.

GE, CFM, and T700 set the global standards. Pratt performed hot/ high testing too late and the seal qualification wasn't specified correctly.

It isn't the airlines job to overpay or design. It isn't the airlines job to understand TRL levels.

The 787 engines missed promise and it has been problematic upgrade after problematic upgrade. RR has insufficient spare engines on the T1000, as Pratt did on the PW1100G that resulted in a mass grounding.

If you want to tell the #1 buyer to shut up, feel free. Any salesperson/VP at Boeing/Airbus/RR/GE had better know that would be the end of their career.



Lightsaber


The important part in all that is, it's not EK or any airlines job to ensure the aircraft are delivered as contractually promised, it's down to the airframe and engine manufacturer, it has amazed how for decades airlines have taken delivery of aircraft that in no way, shape or form meet their contracted performances.

When airlines start rejecting deliveries of aircraft that are offered with only one engine choice, which happen to not meet performance targets, airframe manufacturers will wake up a little.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 8910
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Sat Sep 07, 2019 3:02 am

Waterbomber2 wrote:
If I were Airbus and RR, I would be offering EK an A380 with Trent 7000's today in a combo with A339's.
Airbus know how to do NEO's, they can have it ready within 2-3 years, probably even before the EIS of the B779, and RR can use the additional sales.

None of what you suggest is new tech, why would Airbus and RR not think of such before making the decision to shut down the line?
Do you really believe that shutting down the line was not the last option, that they overlooked this NEO option?
If that is the case, then something else must have been going on when they made the decision, we know EK was pushing for a NEO, Plus or whatever improvement other than more seats via 11 across.
 
2175301
Posts: 1472
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Sat Sep 07, 2019 3:19 am

jetwet1 wrote:
lightsaber wrote:

RR and Pratt delivered unacceptable quality. Pratt is out of the widebody market due to such quality lapses on the PW4097 and PW4175.

Airlines are in a tough business. Engine vendors had better stop contractually over promising. I'm working true bleeding edge technology. We only signed up for 85% availability in a prototype. ;)

RR skipped high sulfer fuel testing. A standard test at Pratt. This is on RR. The sand wear is due to pushing existing compressor design rules and pushing efficiency by reducing the compressor FOD bleed. A poor design decision.

GE, CFM, and T700 set the global standards. Pratt performed hot/ high testing too late and the seal qualification wasn't specified correctly.

It isn't the airlines job to overpay or design. It isn't the airlines job to understand TRL levels.

The 787 engines missed promise and it has been problematic upgrade after problematic upgrade. RR has insufficient spare engines on the T1000, as Pratt did on the PW1100G that resulted in a mass grounding.

If you want to tell the #1 buyer to shut up, feel free. Any salesperson/VP at Boeing/Airbus/RR/GE had better know that would be the end of their career.



Lightsaber


The important part in all that is, it's not EK or any airlines job to ensure the aircraft are delivered as contractually promised, it's down to the airframe and engine manufacturer, it has amazed how for decades airlines have taken delivery of aircraft that in no way, shape or form meet their contracted performances.

When airlines start rejecting deliveries of aircraft that are offered with only one engine choice, which happen to not meet performance targets, airframe manufacturers will wake up a little.


It's a bit more complicated than that. In many cases the Airline orders the engines separately from the air-frame. Airbus, Boeing, etc. has an air-frame that meets specs... and the engines that the airline chose, if they had a choice, don't. I do believe that in such a case the airline is legally required to take the air-frame - with the engines, and then get compensation from the engine manufacturer for the cost of the deficiencies. Unfortunately, it appears that the engine manufacturers may not be paying the full cost of the disruptions caused by their engines not meeting specifications.

It would be a lot simpler IF all aircraft had engine options and IF the airline could choose the engine towards when the air-frame starts assembly... But, the engine makers don't have the capability to have a stock of engines available like that, and current practice is that engines are chosen at time of order of the aircraft.

Have a great day,
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1570
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Sat Sep 07, 2019 3:54 am

I have no idea why Emirates does not have a huge fleet of GE powered 787-10's.

Looking at Emirates route map 90% of the routes are within the 787-10's brochure range. Even better more than 50% of the routes are within the 787-10's range with maximum payload. So payload range is clearly not an issue.

We would all agree the 787-10 is the most efficient widebody when it comes to medium haul.
 
ewt340
Posts: 788
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Sat Sep 07, 2019 4:45 am

RJMAZ wrote:
I have no idea why Emirates does not have a huge fleet of GE powered 787-10's.

Looking at Emirates route map 90% of the routes are within the 787-10's brochure range. Even better more than 50% of the routes are within the 787-10's range with maximum payload. So payload range is clearly not an issue.

We would all agree the 787-10 is the most efficient widebody when it comes to medium haul.


It's not big enough to replace A380 or B777-300ER. There are around 50-200 seats difference between B787-10 and other aircrafts they currently use.

In places like LHR or SYD, they have slots restrictions, they need to pump as much as A380 into those slots to get as much profits out of them.
 
chiki
Posts: 333
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2013 4:32 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Sat Sep 07, 2019 5:15 am

ewt340 wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
I have no idea why Emirates does not have a huge fleet of GE powered 787-10's.

Looking at Emirates route map 90% of the routes are within the 787-10's brochure range. Even better more than 50% of the routes are within the 787-10's range with maximum payload. So payload range is clearly not an issue.

We would all agree the 787-10 is the most efficient widebody when it comes to medium haul.


It's not big enough to replace A380 or B777-300ER. There are around 50-200 seats difference between B787-10 and other aircrafts they currently use.

In places like LHR or SYD, they have slots restrictions, they need to pump as much as A380 into those slots to get as much profits out of them.
A previous post said they have 72% load factor which is enough to fill 7810 with former 773 passengers

Sent from my SM-J415F using Tapatalk
 
majano
Posts: 135
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2018 10:45 am

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Sat Sep 07, 2019 5:22 am

par13del wrote:
majano wrote:
Without any sort of backing, this poster claims that Genx reliability stands out above the rest. I am not expecting any moderation from the said poster, but his false claim cannot be left to stand.

Well, if we leave out the technical stuff, GENX 787's are not parked because of icing problems, I think if we are not being sensitive we could state and accept the obvious, RR powered 787's have been grounded for months while engines are repaired.

Fine. However there are many other widebody types that are not parked due to engine problems. It is not only the GENX 787s.
 
majano
Posts: 135
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2018 10:45 am

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Sat Sep 07, 2019 5:42 am

h1fl1er wrote:
majano wrote:
This is the type of biased nonsense that frustrates new visitors to the site. Clark's very first quoted comment in the Reuters article was directed at GE, but by hook or crook, RR is singled out for all sorts of ridicule. All this despite the fact that the Trent Xwb is by a country mile the most reliable of recently introduced large civilian jet engines measured by inflight shutdown (ifsd) so far. There is a very recent thread right here discussing that very topic. Things could change going forward with wear and tear.

Without any sort of backing, this poster claims that Genx reliability stands out above the rest. I am not expecting any moderation from the said poster, but his false claim cannot be left to stand.

As Astuteman said above, if Clark was indeed looking for an engine that would deliver first up, then the A350 would stand without competition. The Trent Xwb is available only on the A350.

Now, as so many posts have tried to point out, there is more than meets the eye in Clark's posturing.


RR was singled out for ridicule? LOL. I mean their engines are performing horribly except for the XWB.

I never said GENX reliability stood out above the rest, I said the 789's price, performance AND GenX reliability placed it above the other options and I then I said he didn't want that plane. Or the 78x.

He's not looking for an engine; he wants a plane. The 350 is not that plane and neither is any other currently in-production frame.

This is what you said: "He also doesn't want the 789 despite it being the standout in price, performance, and GENX reliability versus the rest. I guess too small for his preferences and the 78x does not...."
If you wish to dial it back a bit, it is fine.
 
Scotron12
Posts: 102
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:13 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Sat Sep 07, 2019 6:53 am

Only RR engine EK operate is the T900 on their latest A380s. All the rest are GE.

What is the specific issue with the T900 that he doesn't like? Seems to be no issues for BA..LH & SQ??
 
justloveplanes
Posts: 995
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 5:38 am

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Sat Sep 07, 2019 6:57 am

majano wrote:
h1fl1er wrote:
majano wrote:
This is the type of biased nonsense that frustrates new visitors to the site. Clark's very first quoted comment in the Reuters article was directed at GE, but by hook or crook, RR is singled out for all sorts of ridicule. All this despite the fact that the Trent Xwb is by a country mile the most reliable of recently introduced large civilian jet engines measured by inflight shutdown (ifsd) so far. There is a very recent thread right here discussing that very topic. Things could change going forward with wear and tear.

Without any sort of backing, this poster claims that Genx reliability stands out above the rest. I am not expecting any moderation from the said poster, but his false claim cannot be left to stand.

As Astuteman said above, if Clark was indeed looking for an engine that would deliver first up, then the A350 would stand without competition. The Trent Xwb is available only on the A350.

Now, as so many posts have tried to point out, there is more than meets the eye in Clark's posturing.


RR was singled out for ridicule? LOL. I mean their engines are performing horribly except for the XWB.

I never said GENX reliability stood out above the rest, I said the 789's price, performance AND GenX reliability placed it above the other options and I then I said he didn't want that plane. Or the 78x.

He's not looking for an engine; he wants a plane. The 350 is not that plane and neither is any other currently in-production frame.

This is what you said: "He also doesn't want the 789 despite it being the standout in price, performance, and GENX reliability versus the rest. I guess too small for his preferences and the 78x does not...."
If you wish to dial it back a bit, it is fine.


I think he means if you divided up price, performance and reliability into 33% weighted factors, that total for the 789 will be the highest of any aircraft available for purchase today. Aside, sales seem to confirm this, though there is some 789 to 78x conversions happening. I don't think he meant the GEnx by itself was the standout most reliable engine.
 
justloveplanes
Posts: 995
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 5:38 am

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Sat Sep 07, 2019 7:06 am

RJMAZ wrote:
I have no idea why Emirates does not have a huge fleet of GE powered 787-10's.

Looking at Emirates route map 90% of the routes are within the 787-10's brochure range. Even better more than 50% of the routes are within the 787-10's range with maximum payload. So payload range is clearly not an issue.

We would all agree the 787-10 is the most efficient widebody when it comes to medium haul.


When this is all done, this A/C might get an order increase.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 1433
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Sat Sep 07, 2019 7:06 am

EK has a huge 77W fleet, but I do not recall any blog or article where STC has specifically mentioned the GE90-115, has there been?
 
astuteman
Posts: 6882
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Sat Sep 07, 2019 7:15 am

Waterbomber2 wrote:
If I were Airbus and RR, I would be offering EK an A380 with Trent 7000's today in a combo with A339's. .


I'm am confident that a re-engine A380 is never going to happen, but if it were, and if engine track record were the driving issue, then surely an A380 with Trent XWB's would have been the obvious answer.
The engine has

a stellar track record
is in service in numbers with QR in the same environment
would confer at least 5% fuel burn advantage
has already been on the airframe
gives him a payload/range boost.

It ain't going to happen, but in terms of lowest risk to both the OEM's and the customer, I would have thought this was it.

Rgds
 
User avatar
PM
Posts: 5082
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 5:05 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Sat Sep 07, 2019 7:27 am

Scotron12 wrote:
Only RR engine EK operate is the T900 on their latest A380s. All the rest are GE.

There are NO GE powered A380s... :shakehead:
 
Scotron12
Posts: 102
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:13 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Sat Sep 07, 2019 8:57 am

PM wrote:
Scotron12 wrote:
Only RR engine EK operate is the T900 on their latest A380s. All the rest are GE.

There are NO GE powered A380s... :shakehead:


My bad...should have been particular and said GE/PRATT on their other A380s....all their 777s are of course GE. :white:
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 17376
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Sat Sep 07, 2019 9:15 am

Scotron12 wrote:
My bad...should have been particular and said GE/PRATT on their other A380s...


You should have been even more particular - you mean Engine Alliance! :wink2:
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
Faro
Posts: 1911
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:08 am

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Sat Sep 07, 2019 9:26 am

Revelation wrote:
Faro wrote:
If EK are effectively considering downsizing their 779X order, that is ominous news for B and GE...the whole 777X program seems to be entering an distinctly uncomfortable period its life...hope they manage to ride it out...

IMO 777X will be fine. It has orders from blue chip carriers such as BA, LH, SQ, CX, all of whom are already A350 operators, so their general approach to the market is working.

The EK 777Xs are already being built, and maybe they don't take up as many as thought up front, in the long term it will have a great opportunity to prove itself.



That is where I think the potential problem lies...in the word "long term"...despite the blue chip customers, sales have not been regular, sustained...like with the A350, the price tag is a big deterrent...there are less pricey options available today for high-capacity long-haul...

EK was the 777X champion and main protagonist...that gives the market confidence in the product...that proposition now appears to have a not-insignificant wobble factor to it...and the overall rhythm of sales will reflect this...I am not saying the 777X program is doomed, far from it...what I am saying is that the lack of sales momentum makes break-even point for the program stretch out into a more distant and uncertain future...and this is never good for such huge program investments as the 777X/GE9X...

On the other hand, perhaps we have come to expect a similar, 77W-like success for the 777X program...which for the moment is not the case...325 orders 6 years after launch in 2013...of which perhaps 30-50 under threat at EK...and 19 already axed at EY...maybe the 77W was unusually well-timed in that respect...time will tell...


Faro
The chalice not my son
 
Scotron12
Posts: 102
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:13 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Sat Sep 07, 2019 10:02 am

scbriml wrote:
Scotron12 wrote:
My bad...should have been particular and said GE/PRATT on their other A380s...


You should have been even more particular - you mean Engine Alliance! :wink2:


Yikes! Back to school for me :banghead:
 
User avatar
Faro
Posts: 1911
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:08 am

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Sat Sep 07, 2019 10:04 am

lightsaber wrote:
RR skipped high sulfer fuel testing. A standard test at Pratt. This is on RR. The sand wear is due to pushing existing compressor design rules and pushing efficiency by reducing the compressor FOD bleed. A poor design decision.

GE, CFM, and T700 set the global standards. Pratt performed hot/ high testing too late and the seal qualification wasn't specified correctly.



I am absolutely shocked by this...how on earth can a prestigious, blue chip company as RR simply skip a test that proved to be critical to endurance and reliability?...a poor design decision or late qualification testing can happen to any manufacturer, but simply skipping a development test?...incomprehensible...


Faro
The chalice not my son
 
majano
Posts: 135
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2018 10:45 am

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Sat Sep 07, 2019 10:31 am

justloveplanes wrote:
majano wrote:
h1fl1er wrote:

RR was singled out for ridicule? LOL. I mean their engines are performing horribly except for the XWB.

I never said GENX reliability stood out above the rest, I said the 789's price, performance AND GenX reliability placed it above the other options and I then I said he didn't want that plane. Or the 78x.

He's not looking for an engine; he wants a plane. The 350 is not that plane and neither is any other currently in-production frame.

This is what you said: "He also doesn't want the 789 despite it being the standout in price, performance, and GENX reliability versus the rest. I guess too small for his preferences and the 78x does not...."
If you wish to dial it back a bit, it is fine.


I think he means if you divided up price, performance and reliability into 33% weighted factors, that total for the 789 will be the highest of any aircraft available for purchase today. Aside, sales seem to confirm this, though there is some 789 to 78x conversions happening. I don't think he meant the GEnx by itself was the standout most reliable engine.

You may be correct that is what he meant, but it is not what he said. Other than the semantics, the main issue with the claim is the fact that it is without any backing.

The price charged for aircraft orders is proprietary, so any claim around price is speculative at best. This perrformance, is it payload / range, trip fuel burn, fuel burn per passenger etc.? What is it and what verifiable source is the poster relying on? Engine reliability, we know that the Trent Xwb is ahead.

Your point that the 789 is ahead in the market at the moment is indisputable. But that fact does not make these baseless claims true. An aircraft acquisition decision involves much more than three criteria.
 
Scotron12
Posts: 102
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:13 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Sat Sep 07, 2019 11:02 am

Faro wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
RR skipped high sulfer fuel testing. A standard test at Pratt. This is on RR. The sand wear is due to pushing existing compressor design rules and pushing efficiency by reducing the compressor FOD bleed. A poor design decision.

GE, CFM, and T700 set the global standards. Pratt performed hot/ high testing too late and the seal qualification wasn't specified correctly.



I am absolutely shocked by this...how on earth can a prestigious, blue chip company as RR simply skip a test that proved to be critical to endurance and reliability?...a poor design decision or late qualification testing can happen to any manufacturer, but simply skipping a development test?...incomprehensible...


Faro


Baffles me too...how RR got themselves in this disaster that is the T-1000!!

AFAIR they have put a cost of £1.5B to rectify issues which they say will be resolved early 2020.

Of course no costing as to the reputational damage this has cost RR.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17920
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Sat Sep 07, 2019 12:01 pm

Faro wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
RR skipped high sulfer fuel testing. A standard test at Pratt. This is on RR. The sand wear is due to pushing existing compressor design rules and pushing efficiency by reducing the compressor FOD bleed. A poor design decision.

GE, CFM, and T700 set the global standards. Pratt performed hot/ high testing too late and the seal qualification wasn't specified correctly.



I am absolutely shocked by this...how on earth can a prestigious, blue chip company as RR simply skip a test that proved to be critical to endurance and reliability?...a poor design decision or late qualification testing can happen to any manufacturer, but simply skipping a development test?...incomprehensible...


Faro

I forget the year, but before sometime in the 1980s, high sulfer testing was just ordering a few tankers of LAX jet fuel (the refinery was buying high sulfer fuel), so RR may never have had a test until the EU mandated really low limits. Pratt along the way started having sulfer added to fuel per some customer's demand.

Development testing is routinely skipped as low risk. Pratt now tests RR and GE engines as a for profit service. So the team has become really good at coming up with new tests to sell customers. ;)

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21214
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Sat Sep 07, 2019 12:54 pm

Waterbomber2 wrote:
If I were Airbus and RR, I would be offering EK an A380 with Trent 7000's today...

If you were AIrbus and RR, you would know they tried to make that happen in 2014-6 and could not close the business case. It could not have been hard since TXWB had already flown on A380, yet they still could not come up with the justification to spend the money to do what would in essence be a testing campaign.

Faro wrote:
That is where I think the potential problem lies...in the word "long term"...despite the blue chip customers, sales have not been regular, sustained...like with the A350, the price tag is a big deterrent...there are less pricey options available today for high-capacity long-haul...

EK was the 777X champion and main protagonist...that gives the market confidence in the product...that proposition now appears to have a not-insignificant wobble factor to it...and the overall rhythm of sales will reflect this...I am not saying the 777X program is doomed, far from it...what I am saying is that the lack of sales momentum makes break-even point for the program stretch out into a more distant and uncertain future...and this is never good for such huge program investments as the 777X/GE9X...

On the other hand, perhaps we have come to expect a similar, 77W-like success for the 777X program...which for the moment is not the case...325 orders 6 years after launch in 2013...of which perhaps 30-50 under threat at EK...and 19 already axed at EY...maybe the 77W was unusually well-timed in that respect...time will tell...

Given that 777X is a "pricey option available today for high-capacity long-haul" I think the fact that Boeing has secured orders from many airlines that could have just added A35X has to be encouraging. It's being ordered by the non-EK firms that coined the term "Emiritization". I'm not sure the pace of orders is problematic. BA's order a few months ago despite being an A35X customer and while still not having in flight data has to be seen as a very positive sign.
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
SEPilot
Posts: 5450
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Sat Sep 07, 2019 1:43 pm

Faro wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Faro wrote:
If EK are effectively considering downsizing their 779X order, that is ominous news for B and GE...the whole 777X program seems to be entering an distinctly uncomfortable period its life...hope they manage to ride it out...

IMO 777X will be fine. It has orders from blue chip carriers such as BA, LH, SQ, CX, all of whom are already A350 operators, so their general approach to the market is working.

The EK 777Xs are already being built, and maybe they don't take up as many as thought up front, in the long term it will have a great opportunity to prove itself.



That is where I think the potential problem lies...in the word "long term"...despite the blue chip customers, sales have not been regular, sustained...like with the A350, the price tag is a big deterrent...there are less pricey options available today for high-capacity long-haul...

EK was the 777X champion and main protagonist...that gives the market confidence in the product...that proposition now appears to have a not-insignificant wobble factor to it...and the overall rhythm of sales will reflect this...I am not saying the 777X program is doomed, far from it...what I am saying is that the lack of sales momentum makes break-even point for the program stretch out into a more distant and uncertain future...and this is never good for such huge program investments as the 777X/GE9X...

On the other hand, perhaps we have come to expect a similar, 77W-like success for the 777X program...which for the moment is not the case...325 orders 6 years after launch in 2013...of which perhaps 30-50 under threat at EK...and 19 already axed at EY...maybe the 77W was unusually well-timed in that respect...time will tell...


Faro

The 77W hit a sweet spot in the market with no competition, a situation that is unlikely to ever happen again. It offered stellar range AND CASM that only the A380 could beat, but not by enough of a margin to justify the huge increase in capacity and cost. Until the 787 and A350 became available if you wanted to fly long-haul, your choices were the 77W, the A340, the A380, or the 747. Out of those the 77W was an easy choice, and the one most airlines made. And the time period where this was the choice was long enough for the 77W to pile up very impressive sales. And it still compares well enough to the new offerings (787, A350 and 77X) that airlines flying them will be in no hurry to replace them.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
Scotron12
Posts: 102
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:13 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Sat Sep 07, 2019 2:32 pm

Who else are candidates for the 779 apart from the airlines that have already ordered it??

Unless airlines can fill it, and EK is certainly one of them, I cannot see any that would need it.
 
Waterbomber2
Posts: 419
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:44 am

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Sat Sep 07, 2019 3:13 pm

par13del wrote:
Waterbomber2 wrote:
If I were Airbus and RR, I would be offering EK an A380 with Trent 7000's today in a combo with A339's.
Airbus know how to do NEO's, they can have it ready within 2-3 years, probably even before the EIS of the B779, and RR can use the additional sales.

None of what you suggest is new tech, why would Airbus and RR not think of such before making the decision to shut down the line?
Do you really believe that shutting down the line was not the last option, that they overlooked this NEO option?
If that is the case, then something else must have been going on when they made the decision, we know EK was pushing for a NEO, Plus or whatever improvement other than more seats via 11 across.


This is indeed not new tech and definitely not what I'm talking about in other threads about innovation in aerospace.

You are making a good point about Airbus having thought about this NEO option before shutting down the line. However I see a lot of contextual reasons that could have made the A380 Trent 7000 neo idea foolish back then, but very reachable today:

-RR was battling Trent 1000 issues, so it would have been foolish to NEO the A380 with a derivative of such an engine. With most of the issues now on the way out and with the better performance of the TEN, the Trent 7000 is ready for the market and for an A380NEO.
-Airbus still had a sizeable backlog of A380's and weren't worried about shutting down production, and EK basically had no choice.
-the B777X wasn't doing too well apart from the ME3 orders
-Airbus was too busy as it was dealing with A320neo PW GTF issues, the development of the A350 and its ramp up, and development of the A330neo. There was no room for an A380neo. Today with all those programs stable, there is room for it.
-Previously, EK had no interest in anything smaller than a B77W. That changed and they're now looking into the A339 and B787. Having a common engine with those would make the A380 very attractive as the risk for EK and the lessors would be a lot lower when the highest value parts have a broader market. I would even suggest going a step further and installing the same avionics as the A350 to have a broader market for those as well, but only if the impact on development and certification is minimal.

So perhaps it's time to consider this option seriously.

EK still has more than a dozen of routes that are waiting for the A380 and their commercial success is built on people choosing them for the A380 as part of their itinerary. Not everyone cares of course, but those that do are those who are making EK sustainable (profitable is another story).
If you remove that factor, they would be no different than any Chinese or other Asian airline.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1570
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Sat Sep 07, 2019 3:21 pm

Faro wrote:
I am absolutely shocked by this...how on earth can a prestigious, blue chip company as RR simply skip a test that proved to be critical to endurance and reliability?...a poor design decision or late qualification testing can happen to any manufacturer, but simply skipping a development test?...incomprehensible...

I pointed this out in this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1416427

RR used grandfathering and used results from a similar engine. RR has just got lucky that they haven't had fatalities with an aircraft gliding into the ocean. They are just as guilty as Boeing with the 737MAX.

Looking back at that post it is laughable seeing WIederling trying to defend RR. Boy was he wrong saying that the skipped test was "only for soot" :lol:
 
WIederling
Posts: 8729
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Sat Sep 07, 2019 3:36 pm

lightsaber wrote:
I forget the year, but before sometime in the 1980s, high sulfer testing was just ordering a few tankers of LAX jet fuel (the refinery was buying high sulfer fuel), so RR may never have had a test until the EU mandated really low limits. Pratt along the way started having sulfer added to fuel per some customer's demand.

Development testing is routinely skipped as low risk. Pratt now tests RR and GE engines as a for profit service. So the team has become really good at coming up with new tests to sell customers. ;)


Back when...
Hydrocarbon Fuels used to have lots of sulfur from the raw materials.
( Bunkeroil still does. gives good energy content :-)
Obiously your testing suite must check for the effects of elemental sulfur in fuel used.

But
Was testing for sulfur as an atmospheric pollutant done in those times?

Hmm. Anything around to read up on that topic?
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17920
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Sat Sep 07, 2019 3:56 pm

Scotron12 wrote:
Who else are candidates for the 779 apart from the airlines that have already ordered it??

Unless airlines can fill it, and EK is certainly one of them, I cannot see any that would need it.

That depends if the 779 meets or beats, a la 77W, the promised performance. If it beats, US3, ME3, EU3, CH3, ANA, JAL, TK, ET, and possibly a few more. If it only makes promise, fewer.

The A380 failed as the reduced cost per passenger wasn't much versus the 77W; the A380 might offer more comfortable, but it actually burn more fuel per passenger than the 77W.

There will, eventually, be a freight version if the 777x and that adds all the freight companies as there won't be any efficient competition. IMHO, they freighter is launched as soon as Boeing accepts the 748F line needs to be scheduled for shutdown.

Look at the sales history of the 77W and how many bought the plane Late. e.g., UA and AA.

The 777 is amazingly maintenance cost effective and the 777x us bringing over 787 maintenance diagnostics and software to reduce costs.

For example, I personally worked a component on the GE9x where the maintenance plan blew me away. We were required to use a standard electrical motor as the actuator that collected data during qualification testing that is put into software for predictive maintenance so that GE could tell the vendor (company I worked for) how their parts were doing durability wise in service and the airlines get 400+ flight notice a part is in need of replacement. The electric motors are far better characterized than RR's on the Txwb.

So I believe the next widebody after the 777 and 787 to make airlines happy on maintenance is the 777x. Yes, I know the 787 was a maintenance headache the first 3 years. Now it is the opposite. Yes, the A350 is great, but IMHO GE/CFM leads the industry on predictive maintenance.

Costs are fuel crew and maintenance as the top three for a widebody.

I think the 777x will sell several hundred more. How many hundreds is determined by if or how much promise is exceeded. Obviously an A346 level miss hobbles the program. Equally obvious, a 77W like exceedance catapults sales.

The 777x is the first wing I've seen that has the aspect ratio to add underside laminar flow other than near the wing root to engines. I see people hung up here on how little added fuel benefit aspect ratio adds. But now consider underside laminar flow which can improve a high aspect ratio wing by to reduce total drag 9%. No, that isn't a typo. But you need the enabling technology first (high aspect ratio wing). There is a reason I believe all aircraft after the 777x will receive folding wingtips from now on.

Now Boeing will not acheive 9%. The wing isn't setup for that full amount.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
musman9853
Posts: 777
Joined: Mon May 14, 2018 12:30 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Sat Sep 07, 2019 5:49 pm

SEPilot wrote:
The 77W hit a sweet spot in the market with no competition, a situation that is unlikely to ever happen again. It offered stellar range AND CASM that only the A380 could beat, but not by enough of a margin to justify the huge increase in capacity and cost. Until the 787 and A350 became available if you wanted to fly long-haul, your choices were the 77W, the A340, the A380, or the 747. Out of those the 77W was an easy choice, and the one most airlines made. And the time period where this was the choice was long enough for the 77W to pile up very impressive sales. And it still compares well enough to the new offerings (787, A350 and 77X) that airlines flying them will be in no hurry to replace them.



Not to mention airlines are still taking newbuild 77ws even when 787/a350 etc are available
Welcome to the City Beautiful.

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