|Quoting ChaosTheory (Reply 117):|
Of course, having made the original claim that the T500 was the "dog" of the Trent family, the onus is on you to back it up with something a little more substantive.
When Airbus and RR
get infront of customers and start off stating engine maintenance costs are too high, the onus is off me. I don't have anything more substantive as this is something RR
would naturally keep 'close to the chest' unless it was best in class. Instead, I propose that the lack of information, which is readily available for many other engines other than the T500, indicates a problem in cycle life.
Tell me the T500 cycle life and I'll shut up (unless its really low).
What I can show you is PIPs for the other engines. For the T700, from Wikipedia:
In 2009 Rolls-Royce introduced an upgraded version of the engine dubbed the Trent 700EP (enhanced performance) which incorporated a package of improvements derived from later members of the Trent engine family (especially the Trent 1000). These included elliptical leading edges and optimised fan and high pressure turbine tip clearances. Together the improvements provided a 1.2% improvement to the Trent 700's specific fuel consumption. Some of the improvements were also made available as a retro-fit kit to existing airlines.
That package was, per my rumor mill, also to enhance overhaul intervals.
Let's take a step back. Airlines always want their greatest cost concerns addressed in a PIP. Thus, they will be. That T700 PIP was for fuel burn (mostly), but everything I heard also had it extending cycle life and possible hour life.
I can find PIPs for the T700, T800, T900, T1000, and scheduled ones for the TXWB. But not the T500. Why?
I know this was during a decade where wide body engine service lives were extended dramatically. Thus no-POP
=low relative overhaul interval. The exception is the RB211 on the 757... RR
messed up and delivered a 15,000 cycle overhaul interval engine with over 30,000 of on wing life. Ooops (fuel burn could have been lower, but once airlines had that service interval, they weren't going to give it up).
Oh, if I go to RR
, I find that was the 2nd PIP for the T700, with them bragging engines are breaking 34,000 hours on wing:
Where is the bragging for the T500?:
Now the engine is claimed to be reliable and fuel efficient and that is true. But notice no durability claims?
The A340-600 has less of a resale market than it should. If there is any 'onus,' it is to explain the lack of said resale market and the 440 pax configuration. In all the numbers, the resale value of this aircraft it down much lower than it should be for the stated costs. So... there is a HIGH cost that must be explained. While airframe maintenance will be a little higher due to higher part costs (due to lower production rates), that wouldn't explain it...
You're perfectly allowed to dismiss my rumor mill. But over 85% of the time they are right. If Airbus/RR is speaking in public about addressing high T500 maintenance costs, that is an issue. But it isn't Totalcare. That is a management umbrella for maintenance RR
has made HUGE
profits off of by managing engine maintenance *very* well. The Total care cost is but a small multiple of the average engine maintenance costs (to pay for risk and profit). Thus the Totalcare package costs are a function of the engine overhaul interval and overhaul costs. Since the T500 is related to the T700 and T800, I have no reason to suspect, other than low 'economy of scale effects', a high overhaul cost.
Thus by simple engine maintenance cost logic, that means a short overhaul interval. Or do you know something about the overhaul costs I don't? Its simple math. GE
, and RR
all over similar packages. They all charge about 20% above the anticipated maintenance costs for their packages similar to TotalCare. Yet, since they service engines in bulk, this is lower engine service costs than a small airline doing it on their own (large airlines should have similar costs to GE
, and RR
Since the expected A346 resale market is these small airlines, TotalCare should be an advantage to selling used airframes, not an impedance.
Everything but overhaul interval I should be able to find on the web (day to day maintenance, vendors, etc.). I also work for a vendor on the T500. We're not hearing issues about ourselves or our competitors on short component lives... Which puts the issue into RR
built parts or the core of the overhaul.
I could point out engine after engine on parts that had to be fixed. I see no danger to the T500, just something that is going in for overhaul early. That wouldn't make the news. RR
would deal with it quietly on totalcare.
|Quoting ChaosTheory (Reply 117):|
Couldn't be more clear cut for me ie. that the first tier TotalCare package provided by N3 is too much for many carriers. It is worth mentioning at this point that TotalCare has also had a negative impact on the lease and rental values of A330 and 777 aircraft on the second hand market with many airlines preferring GE and PW models to RR due to the more flexible nature of the MRO option available.
Since the T700 resale market is healthy, the onus is back on you with the T500.
|Quoting ChaosTheory (Reply 117):|
Furthermore, a google search doesn't reveal anything about the T500s less than stellar maintenance requirements, nor is there anything in my aviation week or flightglobal collection going back to 2005.
Day to day its fine. It just requires more overhauls. Normally, airlines will drop off totalcare to cheaper options when able. The fact the T500 hasn't shows the costs are high and staying on 'Total care' is the cheapest option.
Reliability makes the news. Both the T500 and BMR715 have great reliability. But the BMR715 has an 8,000 cycle life vs. 20,000 for its competitors. I know the complains on 'TotalCare' on the BMR715 are purely cycle life related. Something RR
has promised to fix (or SA
)">DL would not have excepted the ex-WN/FL airframes without a sharp drop in Totalcare costs).
must drop their total care costs, which probably means a PIP for the T500. Or is there a business case?
brags how longer time on wing directly reduces maintenance costs:
Additionally, the -115B allows 10 percent longer time-on-wing, which translates to 10 percent less in maintenance costs.
And PIPs since then are rumored to extend time on wing. Heck, the GE
-90-115B must be disassembled for shipment back for overhaul on most aircraft which increases the transit costs by about $15,000 (my estimate, thumb in the wind) each way. While only adding a percent or so to the overhaul costs, it overcomes that.
I cannot provide proof. But circumstantial evidence has pointed to a maintenance cost issue on the T500 since 2005. The lease cost discount for the A346 vs. the 77W is greater than the fuel burn difference. Thus, we *know* that cost difference is in maintenance or ATC fees. The market is rational.
Or do you have proof of higher costs somewhere else?
The T500 will receive an improvement and the first of the new 'elliptical leading edge blades' are going into T500s:
At a technology level already in the T900EP (circa 2009). Cutting 0.5% in fuel burn, pretty much all from cold section leading edge or hot section tip clearences, should extend engine overhaul intervals 25% to 33%. (Juts using 'rules of thumb.') This should cut Total care power by the hour by 20% to 25%!
T700 has a new build standard in 2015 (T700EP2).
|Quoting tortugamon (Reply 143):|
I wonder what SAA will do when they replace these A340s. They certainly work well from JNB but most assume they are too big.
The A359 will have excellent hot/high performance and is the best choice IMHO. Otherwise, the 788. But I think economics would go with the A359 for SA
|Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 142):|
A more leisure oriented config should make the aircraft more attractive to some of them. And even some demand gives much better residual value than no demand.
Alas, after researching, I think the T700EP2 package, with its further $250k in fuel burn reduction per year (see last link). For all but hot/high, the 787, A330 with T700EP2, or A359 will be the frames to beat and any used frame will compete with them.
Sigh... My beloved PW4170A (s/b PW4175) is in deep trouble with the T700EP2.