The issues surrounding the Pratt & Whitney geared turbofan engines, which power the - Airbus A320neo family, Airbus A220 and Embraer E2-Ejet- have led to a number of aircraft being grounded across several carriers around the world.

Air Baltic took to social media to vent out their frustration, mentioning they needed to wet-lease a couple aircraft due to almost a dozen of their A220's being grounded.

https://twitter.com/airBaltic/status/16 ... 5783756800
https://airinsight.com/airbaltic-shows- ... -aircraft/
https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/airb ... e-aircraft

Likewise Turkish Airlines too is seeking to get spare engines from P&W, as mentioned at CAPA summit in New Delhi.
Spirit Airlines too warned it would scale back growth due engine malfunction issues.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ify%20wall

IndiGo has about 37 of their total fleet of 305 aircraft grounded due to the engine issues of P&W, and did the right thing of opting for CFM Leap for all their future A320/321neo family deliveries.

https://www.livemint.com/news/india/ind ... 77503.html

GoFirst (GoAir), probably seems to have faced the biggest brunt of these engines issues, as it has a whooping 50% of its fleet grounded due to the P&W engine issues- 30 out of its nearly 60 odd fleet is grounded.

This is has significantly impacted the airlines operations and thus its financial performance too. The airline was already trying to recover from the lows of the pandemic and this was another blow to the airline.

So much so, GoFirst has decided to sue Pratt&Whitney, as they aren't meeting the contractual obligations of servicing, replacing and compensating the defected engines. The airline has claimed compensation and free replacement, as per the contract, but P&W doesn't seem to fulfil those obligations and thus the legal action.

The airline recently had 2 of their A320neo's repossed by lessors, as the airline wasn't able to keep paying for grounded aircraft, and another six are likely to be repossessed. Doesn't reflect well on P&W tbh for an airline to face the brink of closure due to their defected GTF engines.

https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/indi ... ine-issues
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/in ... s?from=mdr
https://inshorts.com/en/news/pw-refusin ... 8376235498
https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/ec ... 675365.ece

KLM has its Embraer E2's grounded due same reason
https://www.airdatanews.com/most-of-klm ... ot-flying/

Air Tanzania and Air Senegal are together planning to take legal action against engine maker Pratt&Whitney over the engine issues.
https://www.theeastafrican.co.ke/tea/bu ... ms-4163878

I'm honestly surprised how this is not much talked on here on a.net. It's airlines around the world. And for the fact that some of the carriers are talking of legal action means the engine maker has royally screwed up somewhere.

ps- This is not the inflight shutdown issues of the P&W engines that were happening a few years back. This is got to do with the turnaround time for the engine maintenance , where they have to be inspected much earlier (reduced hours) than promised along with the long, complex and extensive servicing man-hours needed for the engines.

This got to do not with only the turnaround time for engine maintenance, but also the worldwide shortage of spare parts to repair the engines.
Covid impact on production rate in 2020-2021 and strategic metals supply disruption due to Russian invasion of Ukraine are disturbing the production of spare parts and it won't be solved anytime soon.
I know that some Part Numbers are in worldwide shortage just because a single, small, metallic sub-component is in shortage.
Airbus and Pratt&Whitney will have to maintain a tricky balance between in-service support and production ramp-up.

PW now has 11 GTF service centers around the world, which is double the number in 2019. So possibly there is a backlog, or this isn't enough with the more frequent service cycles of the GTF. As well as the global supply chain shortage noted by others above. May be a perfect storm.

PW has never achieved the level of reliability attained by GE or CFM. This is not widely known among enthusiasts. Based upon past performance, the chances of the GTF being reliable are slim. Their military engines also tend to get beaten out when their is a competitor.

SteelChair wrote:

PW has never achieved the level of reliability attained by GE or CFM. This is not widely known among enthusiasts. Based upon past performance, the chances of the GTF being reliable are slim. Their military engines also tend to get beaten out when their is a competitor.

In the wide body segment PW has lost the battle already. GE/CFM rules the waves, with 20-25% left for RR.

On the military side, PW seems to have a large political / military lobby, otherwise I can't understand the selection of any PW engine above the rival GE engine.
See the present issues with the F-135, the TF-30 disaster at the F-14 (compressor stalls at high angles of attack), etc.
I personally witnessed the early "not so" reliable (understatement) JT-9D series at the 747-100 and early -200 series, followed by the defection of many airlines to GE (and RR for the commonwealth airlines).
Also the PW 4000 series proved less reliable (ring case mods, present fan issues) than the competing GE CF6-80 and GE90 series.
On the 787 (the last type that offered a choice of engines) the only choice is between the GEnX and the RR trent (PW didn't even offered an engine )

.

Interesting going back on this site 10 years and reading the prognostications of the GTF vs LEAP battles. Those enamored by the PW brochures were rightly impressed with the fuel gains promised, and have been met. Then there the nagging issues that crept years ago.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=557987&p=7987091&hilit=gtf+vs+leap#p7987091

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1372379&p=19795549&hilit=gtf+vs+leap#p19795549

I believe PW will get it right, just hope it does not tarnish it reputation, we have seen airlines such as Indigo say "enough". The real question is what are GTF operators such as Delta seeing mx wise. Delta will not be as vocal.

I'm afraid they are toast. Sad, really.

But then, how reliable are the Canada branch engines? I believe the PT-6 would not have had that enduring 60-years run without being reliable?

And then again, what happened that "reliable engines" became "unreliable engines"?

Aircellist wrote:

I'm afraid they are toast. Sad, really.

But then, how reliable are the Canada branch engines? I believe the PT-6 would not have had that enduring 60-years run without being reliable?

And then again, what happened that "reliable engines" became "unreliable engines"?

The standard for reliability has increased incredibly over the years. So what was seen as reliable is now seen as unreliable.

I view the PW poor reliability as kind of a metaphor. They've been unreliable for over 50 years now, the JT9 and PW 4000 always lagged the CF6, and the 2037 has never been close to CFM levels of reliability. What's going to suddenly change now? It's somewhat analogous to the ATC system in the USA, which has been decaying for years. The difference is that PW is in business (well kind of) and could lose in the marketplace (except in the military where they have political cover).

How does one get large "too big to fail" institutions to change for the better? Or do the institutional investors and governments just shrug and accept the mediocrity?

tomcat wrote:

Aircellist wrote:

I'm afraid they are toast. Sad, really.

But then, how reliable are the Canada branch engines? I believe the PT-6 would not have had that enduring 60-years run without being reliable?

And then again, what happened that "reliable engines" became "unreliable engines"?

What makes you think they are toast? Air Baltic will keep accepting new A220 in their fleet this year for example so they don't consider yet that this is a hopeless situation. But granted, such a poor performance in the reliability department will not help the case of the E2 and of the A220. I wonder if Airbus might investigate an alternative engine with CFM for the A220. Considering the ambitions of Airbus for the A220 and the planned rate increase for the A320, it might take years before PW will catch-up with the demand, unless more and more customers opt for the Leap on their A320s. Offering the Leap on the A220 as an alternative could help relieving PW and maintaining a healthy competition on the engine choice for the A320 family.

Because of poor reliability, they have been driven out of large engine tenders, and because of same they are now actively being chosen out of mid-size engine tenders. The PT-6 might not still win tenders for 60 years more…

I hope I am wrong, but I could see P&W being dismantled and their technologies being sold to someone else who could maybe make them really reliable.

Agreed, PWs designs and reliability have been in the doldrums for decades. They made a decent radial engine but then poor management decisions at the top resulted in what you see today. It has been a shady organization run by shady individuals. But lets give Raytheon more time to turn it around. The merger was barely a few years ago.

747classic wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

PW has never achieved the level of reliability attained by GE or CFM. This is not widely known among enthusiasts. Based upon past performance, the chances of the GTF being reliable are slim. Their military engines also tend to get beaten out when their is a competitor.

In the wide body segment PW has lost the battle already. GE/CFM rules the waves, with 20-25% left for RR.

.

A source for this claim please? I have seen on another board a claim that RR delivered a higher number of wide-body engines in 2022, so just trying to reconcile in my mind, not disputing.

Back on topic, the sheer number of aircraft and variety of airlines affected as cited by the OP sounds high. As a proportion of the in-service fleet of GTF powered aircraft, is it at unacceptable levels? This is to the forum at large

I've been predominantly flying various P&W engines over the last decade that has given me the following personal impression, the fuel flow on the A320/321Neo's is impressively low but they do seem rather temperamental starting from the dual cooling starting onwards unlike the CEO's CFM and IAE engines. I recently picked up a new Neo from Hamburg, within ten hours of delivery the abrasive liner had come away and bent most of the N1 fan blades thus requiring an engine rebuild on an aircraft less than ten hours old. Apparently this is a fairly common occurrence. Widebody wise on the A330 RR has circa 70% of the CEO market while Pratt has about 15% - as a pilot, in my experience the RR Trent was definitely more enjoyable to fly with.

SteelChair wrote:

This is not widely known among enthusiasts.

What gives you THAT idea?

Older enthusiasts would easily remember the abject disasters that were the PW4173, PW2040, and especially PW4098... all of which contributed to both Boeing and Airbus's movement away from PW on any new widebody model/variant for nearly the last quarter century.

SteelChair wrote:

and the 2037 has never been close to CFM levels of reliability.

True, but in fairness, the PW2037 should be compared to the RB211 more so than any CFM product.

Egyptair has 8 A220’s out of 12 grounded for engine issues, only 4 are flying, this is causing problems in training and crewing. I’ve been in one of them and we went back to the gate after we heard a loud bang during engine 2 start, it was inspected and a ground run made and then we left with a considerable delay.

Does the new GTF Advantage fix any of the issues happening today for the A320neo? I'm not sure what the plan is for the A220/E2 version of the engine but they need to get on that quick.

tomcat wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

This is not widely known among enthusiasts.

What gives you THAT idea?

Older enthusiasts would easily remember the abject disasters that were the PW4173, PW2040, and especially PW4098... all of which contributed to both Boeing and Airbus's movement away from PW on any new widebody model/variant for nearly the last quarter century.

Let's not forget the PW6000 also. Which makes me wonder how PW managed to convince Airbus to select the GTF for the A320NEO. I would have thought Airbus would have managed to force them to develop the GTF under the IAE umbrella.

Simple- because of the LEAP. Airbus was comfortable giving them a chance, but would never agree for it to be the sole engine choice (as the PW6000 was going to be for the A318).

Also Airbus did push heavily for PW to develop/market the GTF under IAE with RR’s assistance. But of course ultimately it is PW’s tech and decision and the only thing Airbus could technically do was not allow the GTF on the Neo, and I fully understand PW’s desire to not share the design with a competitor. Airbus didn’t want to do that so they would not be left out in case the engine did perform (PW also was pushing heavily at the time to get on the 737, and was committed to C Series).

majano wrote:

747classic wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

PW has never achieved the level of reliability attained by GE or CFM. This is not widely known among enthusiasts. Based upon past performance, the chances of the GTF being reliable are slim. Their military engines also tend to get beaten out when their is a competitor.

In the wide body segment PW has lost the battle already. GE/CFM rules the waves, with 20-25% left for RR.

.

A source for this claim please? I have seen on another board a claim that RR delivered a higher number of wide-body engines in 2022, so just trying to reconcile in my mind, not disputing.

Back on topic, the sheer number of aircraft and variety of airlines affected as cited by the OP sounds high. As a proportion of the in-service fleet of GTF powered aircraft, is it at unacceptable levels? This is to the forum at large

With the 787 deliveries halted for more than half of 2022 I'd suspect more RR engines to be delivered. It was still pretty close because of the old GEs on the 767F.

Are there supply/parts/overhaul and shop capacity issues, especially for the smaller Pratts? Absolutely.

That's something that can't be remedied overnight. Some overhaul shops are just getting going, Delta Techops being one.

No real issues on the Airbus side. Last figures I saw for tdr had the CFM and IAE above 99.8%, the LEAP 99.5% and GTF 99.4%.

None of the new engines get anywhere near the on wingtime of the CFM, IAE or RB211 and I suspect they never will.

LaunchDetected wrote:

This got to do not with only the turnaround time for engine maintenance, but also the worldwide shortage of spare parts to repair the engines.
Covid impact on production rate in 2020-2021 and strategic metals supply disruption due to Russian invasion of Ukraine are disturbing the production of spare parts and it won't be solved anytime soon.
I know that some Part Numbers are in worldwide shortage just because a single, small, metallic sub-component is in shortage.
Airbus and Pratt&Whitney will have to maintain a tricky balance between in-service support and production ramp-up.

Not due to the conflict, but rather the sanctions from the conflict. Russia gladly sell the metals needed, but the government won’t let P&W buy them, or pay for them.

su184 wrote:

Egyptair has 8 A220’s out of 12 grounded for engine issues, only 4 are flying, this is causing problems in training and crewing. I’ve been in one of them and we went back to the gate after we heard a loud bang during engine 2 start, it was inspected and a ground run made and then we left with a considerable delay.

They're not even 2 years in and collecting dust in the desert. Hopefully MS is collecting something for them not operating. I noticed them pulling older A320s back into service.

Chaostheory wrote:

No real issues on the Airbus side. Last figures I saw for tdr had the CFM and IAE above 99.8%, the LEAP 99.5% and GTF 99.4%.

Hmmm interesting.

Chaostheory wrote:

None of the new engines get anywhere near the on wingtime of the CFM, IAE or RB211 and I suspect they never will.

What is the real-world on wingtime of the new stuff?

Great engine, sips fuel but has its fair share of issues. High N2 vibrations on take-off exceeding the threshold of 5 units are not very uncommon. Usually corrected by reducing the rate of climb and reducing engine RPM. There is a certain amount of lag that you feel sometimes for the engines to spool up and down when fighting gusts during approaches. My airline has 37 of these beauties lined up and neatly packed (close to a year now) at various airports across the country.

zkojq wrote:

What is the real-world on wingtime of the new stuff?

Speaking to CFM rep I think in 2019, the LEAP, on paper, would need removal at 10k cycles for HPT disk LLPs. In reality though early LEAP engines had issues with bearings etc which meant some were coming off within a year. I think Easyjet had a few instances of such failures where they were sending engines/modules to somewhere in Texas for repair.

That's compared to 20k llp cycle limits for the equivalent ceo engines.

Wasn't there not a time that GE was going to produce an updated and more powerful CF34 that powered the CRJ-900/-1000 and E-Jets...? It was 5 to 10 percent more efficient too if memory serves me right.

Chaostheory wrote:

zkojq wrote:

What is the real-world on wingtime of the new stuff?

Speaking to CFM rep I think in 2019, the LEAP, on paper, would need removal at 10k cycles for HPT disk LLPs. In reality though early LEAP engines had issues with bearings etc which meant some were coming off within a year. I think Easyjet had a few instances of such failures where they were sending engines/modules to somewhere in Texas for repair.

That's compared to 20k llp cycle limits for the equivalent ceo engines.

Interesting, thanks.

Are there any actual statistics to bring this discussion to a factual basis? Does anyone know these and can share?

There's a lot of gut feelings and the occasional inside info. The latter might be correct but lacks the larger picture (i.e. fleet wide dispatch reliability, maintenance intervals, fraction of unavailable engines, etc.)

On very much the same note, where's lightsaber?

Hawaiian has 4 321s out of service because they need engines. And yes, there are supply chain issues, but the root causes are all the reliability issues with the engine. EGT margins are creeping up way way faster than Pratt said they would. This is because the hot section on the engines are degrading faster. N2 vibration is an issue because of a piston seal design on the high pressure compressor that during certain throttle settings causes high N2 vibration and after a certain amount of high vibration events, the engine has to be removed and sent for a shop visit. The # 3 bearing seal issue that’s been ongoing since EIS has not had a final definitive fix to correct the problem. Hot starts are becoming a thing more recently.

About 1/2 the fleet is on watch for these issues and at any moment any given engine can just call it quits.

ETOPS is a concern because “Hawaii”.

It just seems like Pratt has been dropping the ball on the engineering, design and development of this engine.

Chaostheory wrote:

No real issues on the Airbus side. Last figures I saw for tdr had the CFM and IAE above 99.8%, the LEAP 99.5% and GTF 99.4%.

I doubt parked planes are included in those stats

JerseyFlyer wrote:

Chaostheory wrote:

No real issues on the Airbus side. Last figures I saw for tdr had the CFM and IAE above 99.8%, the LEAP 99.5% and GTF 99.4%.

I doubt parked planes are included in those stats

Of course not, or I hope not. Dispatch reliability, as well as any scientific statistic data, has a precise defined criteria regarding the data chosen. In general dispatch reliability shows the percentage of scheduled departures that do not incur a delay/cancellation/diversion/etc. Now the emphasis is on scheduled. An aircraft with two good engines can be scheduled on a flight and then either fullfill the scheduled flight or not. An aircraft with only one good engine can not be scheduled, so will not go into this statistic.
The real number we need to know is the operational availability of GTFs compared to other engines. The reason for low operational availability can but does not have to do anything with design issues btw. As an example: Old cars (50+ years old) do have a very low operational availability that is mostly attributed to the lack of spare parts and not to the bad design (in general). Durability issues also lead to reduced operational availability: If you have to go and get your engine checked after every flight, you can still have 100% (or at least almost) dispatch reliability but your operational availability is abysmal. Fighter jets tend towards this category, especially in active combat zones under enemy fire. One indication is from WWII. The amount of produced aircraft compared with the actually active ones at a given time.

FluidFlow wrote:

JerseyFlyer wrote:

Chaostheory wrote:

No real issues on the Airbus side. Last figures I saw for tdr had the CFM and IAE above 99.8%, the LEAP 99.5% and GTF 99.4%.

I doubt parked planes are included in those stats

Of course not, or I hope not. Dispatch reliability, as well as any scientific statistic data, has a precise defined criteria regarding the data chosen. In general dispatch reliability shows the percentage of scheduled departures that do not incur a delay/cancellation/diversion/etc. Now the emphasis is on scheduled. An aircraft with two good engines can be scheduled on a flight and then either fullfill the scheduled flight or not. An aircraft with only one good engine can not be scheduled, so will not go into this statistic.
The real number we need to know is the operational availability of GTFs compared to other engines. The reason for low operational availability can but does not have to do anything with design issues btw. As an example: Old cars (50+ years old) do have a very low operational availability that is mostly attributed to the lack of spare parts and not to the bad design (in general). Durability issues also lead to reduced operational availability: If you have to go and get your engine checked after every flight, you can still have 100% (or at least almost) dispatch reliability but your operational availability is abysmal. Fighter jets tend towards this category, especially in active combat zones under enemy fire. One indication is from WWII. The amount of produced aircraft compared with the actually active ones at a given time.

At Hawaiian the A330 fleet is picking up the slack. So the flight schedule is not being impacted. This is not ideal because the A330 is too much airplane for the A321 routes, but…. Better than cancelling flights.

BOSAero wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

JerseyFlyer wrote:

I doubt parked planes are included in those stats

Of course not, or I hope not. Dispatch reliability, as well as any scientific statistic data, has a precise defined criteria regarding the data chosen. In general dispatch reliability shows the percentage of scheduled departures that do not incur a delay/cancellation/diversion/etc. Now the emphasis is on scheduled. An aircraft with two good engines can be scheduled on a flight and then either fullfill the scheduled flight or not. An aircraft with only one good engine can not be scheduled, so will not go into this statistic.
The real number we need to know is the operational availability of GTFs compared to other engines. The reason for low operational availability can but does not have to do anything with design issues btw. As an example: Old cars (50+ years old) do have a very low operational availability that is mostly attributed to the lack of spare parts and not to the bad design (in general). Durability issues also lead to reduced operational availability: If you have to go and get your engine checked after every flight, you can still have 100% (or at least almost) dispatch reliability but your operational availability is abysmal. Fighter jets tend towards this category, especially in active combat zones under enemy fire. One indication is from WWII. The amount of produced aircraft compared with the actually active ones at a given time.

At Hawaiian the A330 fleet is picking up the slack. So the flight schedule is not being impacted. This is not ideal because the A330 is too much airplane for the A321 routes, but…. Better than cancelling flights.

You are speaking of pre planned substitution though? So it has nothing to do with dispatch reliability because the A330 was preassigned for the A321? That is an operational availability problem for the A321. It is a dispatch reliability problem if (for example) the A321 is standing at the gate and people board the aircraft and upon starting up the engine it fails, or it fails during take off and they have to turn around, or it fails during cruise but has to divert to SFO instead of flying to SEA. These cases hurt dispatch reliability because the A321 was scheduled for the flight but could not make it as desired. This is a very big difference compared to a parked A321 that can not be scheduled for a flight. Then it causes no dispatch reliability drop but it hurts operational availability because the aircraft is not available for the operations it should fly.

A very good example is the 737 Max case. The engines were not suffering from dispatch reliability but operational availability as the airframe was grounded. The CFMs were perfectly fine and did all the missions they were assigned to, but the aircraft could not be assigned to commercial flights because they were grounded, hurting operational availability.

CFM estimates potentially 10C loss in first 1000 cycles (harsh environment) for our LEAP 33k engines. What sort of margin loss is the GTF experiencing?

MON wrote:

I recently picked up a new Neo from Hamburg, within ten hours of delivery the abrasive liner had come away and bent most of the N1 fan blades thus requiring an engine rebuild on an aircraft less than ten hours old.

This wouldn't have been in BWI would it?

It's disappointing. I had hoped to see the fuel savings of the GTF tech adoped in other sizes by other manufacturers. But the rest of the engine around the gearbox not being as reliable as hoped is casting doubt the whole affair. One would think with CFM pushing the edges of material science with the Leap-1B that CFM would have the issues on single-aisle planes, not PW.

10 years ago, few of us fans of aeronautics would have predicted thes outcomes we've seen in the single-aisle space the last 5 years..

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

It's disappointing. I had hoped to see the fuel savings of the GTF tech adoped in other sizes by other manufacturers. But the rest of the engine around the gearbox not being as reliable as hoped is casting doubt the whole affair. One would think with CFM pushing the edges of material science with the Leap-1B that CFM would have the issues on single-aisle planes, not PW.

10 years ago, few of us fans of aeronautics would have predicted thes outcomes we've seen in the single-aisle space the last 5 years..

There are certainly issues with the CFM Leap-1B. Lots of unscheduled removals at my carrier, and sometimes a week or two waiting for a replacement engine.

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

10 years ago, few of us fans of aeronautics would have predicted thes outcomes we've seen in the single-aisle space the last 5 years..

Oh 10 years we would have all predicted PW would make a mess of things, that’s their M.O.. We just all thought the gearbox would be the issue not the rest of the engine.

william wrote:

I believe PW will get it right, just hope it does not tarnish it reputation, we have seen airlines such as Indigo say "enough".

I'd say we're past the point of their reputation being tarnished. Incumbents have a huge advantage, when an airline switches engine vendors the whole industry takes note.

william wrote:

The real question is what are GTF operators such as Delta seeing mx wise. Delta will not be as vocal.

They are not as vocal since they aren't as dependent on the one platform in the same way an airline like Air Baltic is.

tomcat wrote:

I wonder if Airbus might investigate an alternative engine with CFM for the A220. Considering the ambitions of Airbus for the A220 and the planned rate increase for the A320, it might take years before PW will catch-up with the demand, unless more and more customers opt for the Leap on their A320s. Offering the Leap on the A220 as an alternative could help relieving PW and maintaining a healthy competition on the engine choice for the A320 family.

Seems very unlikely. Airbus says repeatedly the gate towards future investment in A220 is its profitability. It'll take a lot of time and money to get a LEAP onto an A220 in the current regulatory climate, and while the result may be better reliability, it might not be better economy. Being in early on the GTF program let them get an engine optimized for their platform, they don't have the volume to get that from CFM. Bottom line is adding a 2nd engine would push the program break-even point out even further, which would make the company less inclined to invest more money into the program. Personally I think it's sink or swim with the one engine, the program is too small to support multiple engines. CFM is also tight on production capacity, so it might not solve another issue, GTF's limited production capacity. There's problems no matter where you look.

tomcat wrote:

Let's not forget the PW6000 also. Which makes me wonder how PW managed to convince Airbus to select the GTF for the A320NEO.

GTF was the shiny new toy, the latest "game changer". Seems PW hit on the performance side, and made a reliable gear which was the main concern, but screwed up on the basics in a way no one predicted. Things like leaking seals and bowing shafts were not expected.

BOSAero wrote:

EGT margins are creeping up way way faster than Pratt said they would. This is because the hot section on the engines are degrading faster. N2 vibration is an issue because of a piston seal design on the high pressure compressor that during certain throttle settings causes high N2 vibration and after a certain amount of high vibration events, the engine has to be removed and sent for a shop visit. The # 3 bearing seal issue that’s been ongoing since EIS has not had a final definitive fix to correct the problem. Hot starts are becoming a thing more recently.

Ugh! These issues seem to be taking an incredibly long time to address.

Remember that the lifecycle for these products is 30-40 years (or more). The P&W GTF has certainly had more than its fair share of issues in the years following EIS, which have been compounded by shortages of spare engines and spare parts. In the long term, these issues will be resolved, and I believe that making the investment in the GTF technology was the right move for P&W despite the EIS challenges. A lot of engines were nightmares in the first ~5 years, but reliability improvements were made, PIPs introduced, MRO network made more agile, and now those engines are the leader on their platform. The Trent 700 comes to mind as an engine that really hit its stride from a commercial and performance standpoint on the back-half of its lifecycle.

Also, I think all it will take is a sustained spike in the price of oil for airlines to suddenly tolerate the P&W GTF challenges and ultimately pursue its stellar fuel consumption. It's easy to moan about the GTF and point at the LEAPs on other A320neos with oil at $75/bbl, but the calculus will change when oil hits $100+, especially if the reliability issues are resolved and Pratt can provided spare engines to its operators.

IND96 wrote:

Remember that the lifecycle for these products is 30-40 years (or more). The P&W GTF has certainly had more than its fair share of issues in the years following EIS, which have been compounded by shortages of spare engines and spare parts. In the long term, these issues will be resolved, and I believe that making the investment in the GTF technology was the right move for P&W despite the EIS challenges. A lot of engines were nightmares in the first ~5 years, but reliability improvements were made, PIPs introduced, MRO network made more agile, and now those engines are the leader on their platform. The Trent 700 comes to mind as an engine that really hit its stride from a commercial and performance standpoint on the back-half of its lifecycle.

The aggravating factor is that the lack of reliability is what is largely causing the shortages of spare engines and spare parts. It's a vicious circle. They have contractual obligations to deliver new engines, but all that does is put more engines into the field which puts more pressure on the supply chain since the demand for spares is higher was ever anticipated. GTF had EIS on A320neo in Jan 2016 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_PW1000G ) so your five year window is already up, we're already in year eight now.

Polot wrote:

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

10 years ago, few of us fans of aeronautics would have predicted thes outcomes we've seen in the single-aisle space the last 5 years..

Oh 10 years we would have all predicted PW would make a mess of things, that’s their M.O.. We just all thought the gearbox would be the issue not the rest of the engine.

Agreed, that gearbox looked like the most likely component on the engine to make a debut in the FAAs airworthiness directive registry.

IND96 wrote:

Remember that the lifecycle for these products is 30-40 years (or more). The P&W GTF has certainly had more than its fair share of issues in the years following EIS, which have been compounded by shortages of spare engines and spare parts. In the long term, these issues will be resolved, and I believe that making the investment in the GTF technology was the right move for P&W despite the EIS challenges. A lot of engines were nightmares in the first ~5 years, but reliability improvements were made, PIPs introduced, MRO network made more agile, and now those engines are the leader on their platform. The Trent 700 comes to mind as an engine that really hit its stride from a commercial and performance standpoint on the back-half of its lifecycle.

Exactly! Today's cultural short term-ism makes mountains out of mole hills.

To be quite frank, Qantas chose the A220 and Qantas tend not to back duds. They wouldn't have gone with the aircraft had they had concerns about the engines.

There is a lot of 'art' vs 'tech' in engines, most of the design can be done digitally for performance. However, in service tests coatings, blades, bearings, and things like vibration. In the GTF, the fan turns slower, probably no problems. But the compressor and turbines are now at new higher RPM's, meaning balancing needs to be perfect or else vibration arises. Lots of new territory compared to existing engine design.

It went into service in 2016, so 7 years of shakedown so far, probably 3 more years of teething. It took RR over 5 years of pain to get the 1000 engine right on the 787. The big problem for the manufacture is the amount of parts made under warranty vs sales, the loss of market share means fewer engines to cover fixed costs, so there is a tendency to raise prices, but that erodes share as well. It is a brutal situation for the manufacturer.

Salukpilot, no it was not BWI.

ClassicLover wrote:

To be quite frank, Qantas chose the A220 and Qantas tend not to back duds. They wouldn't have gone with the aircraft had they had concerns about the engines.

Everyone has hits and misses. QF ordered 787 with RR engines, almost lost an A380 after the engine exploded, etc.

ClassicLover wrote:

IND96 wrote:

Remember that the lifecycle for these products is 30-40 years (or more). The P&W GTF has certainly had more than its fair share of issues in the years following EIS, which have been compounded by shortages of spare engines and spare parts. In the long term, these issues will be resolved, and I believe that making the investment in the GTF technology was the right move for P&W despite the EIS challenges. A lot of engines were nightmares in the first ~5 years, but reliability improvements were made, PIPs introduced, MRO network made more agile, and now those engines are the leader on their platform. The Trent 700 comes to mind as an engine that really hit its stride from a commercial and performance standpoint on the back-half of its lifecycle.

Exactly! Today's cultural short term-ism makes mountains out of mole hills.

To be quite frank, Qantas chose the A220 and Qantas tend not to back duds. They wouldn't have gone with the aircraft had they had concerns about the engines.

It's not like they had much of a choice, the competition is also using the same basic engine.

Revelation wrote:

ClassicLover wrote:

To be quite frank, Qantas chose the A220 and Qantas tend not to back duds. They wouldn't have gone with the aircraft had they had concerns about the engines.

Everyone has hits and misses. QF ordered 787 with RR engines, almost lost an A380 after the engine exploded, etc.

Actually they ordered GE for the 787. You may be thinking of ANZ
https://www.qantas.com/au/en/qantas-exp ... 787-9.html

JerseyFlyer wrote:

Revelation wrote:

ClassicLover wrote:

To be quite frank, Qantas chose the A220 and Qantas tend not to back duds. They wouldn't have gone with the aircraft had they had concerns about the engines.

Everyone has hits and misses. QF ordered 787 with RR engines, almost lost an A380 after the engine exploded, etc.

Actually they ordered GE for the 787. You may be thinking of ANZ
https://www.qantas.com/au/en/qantas-exp ... 787-9.html

Also NZ has switched to GE on their 78J order.

https://www.geaerospace.com/press-relea ... ing-787-10