747ADV engines

[Chambudzi]

I see Boeing have awarded GE the contract to hang its engines on the B747 ADV.
No doubt BA and Cathay will be squealing about Rolls Royce again but it I believe that it wont make any difference this time round.

[Hotel Mode]

And Boeing can then repeat the wonderful sucess that is the 777-200LR. Airlines want a choice of engines because their systems are set up to cope with 1 set of spares, which is why BA are only operators of 767's with RR's.

[alangirvan]

Even the 777-300ER only has 108 orders. (From Boeing release of today celebrating one year of service). I wonder if sales would have moved a bit faster if airlines had been able to run an engine competition.

[Sootikin]

> which is why BA are only operators of 767's with RR's.

I assume you've never heard of Yunnan and QANTAS.
I guess you meant to type "...which is why BA are THE MAIN operators of 767's with RR's."

[Torquelink]

It does seem strange that Boeing would repeat the "mistake" of the B777-300ER/-200LR. Of course, could be that GE are being flash with the cash again. It was rumoured that they pumped $500m into airframe development in order to get exclusivity on the 777ER/LR. If that's the case how can a relative minnow like RR compete?

:{

[littleprince]

Any idea how much it costs to design/integrate/flighttest/support a second engine type? And comparatively how many/few extra orders (hence profit) this will/might bring? The trend towards sole supplier deals speaks for itself on the cost benefits balance.

Also airlines these days can buy engine maintenance from third parties or can even lease engine usage by the hour and not having to worry too much about maintenance. Some of them even have joint stock of spare parts and they get delivered with a simple phone call. So i think engine commonality is probably not the biggest issue when they buy planes these days.

[Torquelink]

Littleprince

I've no idea how much it would cost but I suspect an awful lot, and I accept that commonality is not as important as it once was. But customer preference is. From personal knowledge I can tell you that the B777-300ER would have picked up a lot more orders more quickly if it had also been offered with Trents as well as / instead of GE90s and Boeing must be very grateful that the A346/5 are no real competition at all!

Presumably, Boeing must have decided that a second engine type on the B744Adv would not add sufficient incremental orders to justify it. Of course, these things have a habit of becoming self-fulfilling prophesies and I suspect they'll be "proved" right i.e. restriction to a single engine type will limit total sales and we'll never know what would have happened if they'd offered the same engine choices as on the 787.

[Jetstar81]

BA can swap the engines between the 744 and the 763 which is why the choise of RR on both

[Chambudzi]

Littleprince knows what he is talking about.
We have Torquelink worrying that Boeing offers the 777-300ER with only GE engines and then they get "only" 108 sales in a year. He then denounces this as a "mistake". Boeing must be very happy with this very 'route specific' addition to the 777 range of A/c and if they get another 108 orders next year they will be delighted.
What we have here is GE helping out financially to get the 747 ADV off the ground and looking for a head start. Boeing offer the A/c with GE engines at a lowest possible price. Great for the operators who dont care what engine type is used so long as they work
Cathay, Qantas and BA want it with RR engines and in the 80s Boeing would have bent over backwards to accomadate!!!!!!. They know better now so they say "no sweat Mr Loyalty". "You can have any engine you want but we aint paying for it" and suddenly loyalty goes down the cr@p hole.
Mr John of HAEKO/CATHaY in the 1980s threatened to NOT buy 747-400 unless they had RR engines (Like--- Cathay could have afforded NOT to buy the 747-400 to compete with its immediate competitors) We have moved on since then and the 747 ADV will be designed to fit competitavly between the 400 and the 380. The REAL operators will have to buy it to maintain their edge and it will be offered initially at lowest price with GE engines.
If SIA buy it, then Qantas will have to do the same, so will BA, Cathay and even the Virgin "Pullover'. What will loyalty be worth then when SIA say we couldnt care less if it has a RR engines or GE engines. Best price, earliest delivery, will be all that matters.
Chambudzi

[MarkD]

chambudzi

who are the airlines most usually quoted as being first in line to kick the tires of 747A? That would be BA and CX. SQ and QF are 380 customers, with possible 777s heading QF's way if D&G is to be believed.

UA and the other US 747 operators can't get shot of them fast enough, as did AC north of the border.

So who are the real operators you refer to then? Perhaps the Japanese airlines, who are conscious of Boeing's links to Japanese heavy industry. Who else?

Also, I understand the pax 744 has only 4 Philippine Air orders (of dubious likelihood of completion) apart from CAL orders currently under construction.

The problem for Boeing is that they have done such a good job pushing 207min ETOPS that 4-for-longhaul is a harder sell for an aircraft for the segment above 773. The ability of Airbus to offer A387 could squeeze 747A even harder if AI could get around to pleading with the Germans to let Chirac have his way and appoint another Frenchman for the top job.

[747FOCAL]

:E

If BA, Cathay or Qantas could swap those RR powered 744s for GE powered 744s they would do it in a second. There is a reason why RR powered 747s and 767s are valued between 20% and 30% less than the GE powered.

Did I hear someone say "mistake" and "777" in the same sentance? One can only say those two words in a sentence that also includes the A340. :\ I.E. Singapore mistakenly bought A340s and traded them for 777s would be more appropriate. :p

[Chambudzi]

Thanks for some sense 747FOCAL'
MarkD, just because a company is buying 380s doesnt mean they wont want the 747ADV. Comparing the two as if they are competitors is like saying the 757 is a competitor to the 767. Lets look ar one company--SIA. They have about 50 747-400s right now and want to sell them as they are considered 'guzzlers.' They are buying 10 A380s which dont replace the 50 747s. Does that leave space for a few 747ADV or not. I dont have a crystal ball but companies will buy the plane and it will fill a niche.

[Lost_luggage34]

Slight thread creep here but having worked for a certain Big Airline which favours RRs, is there a big difference from the drivers perspective ?

Always something I wanted to know but never really got a definitive answer.

I know it is a little like comparing apples with oranges. The design of the inards and control systems being intrinsically different, but perhaps someone can satisfy my curiosity ?

[MarkD]

chambudzi

I'm just saying - seems odd to tell two airlines who haven't ordered *any* A380s yet that they have no say in the engine choice. That's all. 747Adv has a good chance of going ahead if only because Boeing won't want another SC "talk it up and abandon it" fiasco but BA/CX will be crucial orders to kickstart it.

As for GE value over RR, BA look set to run their RR 767 and 747s into the ground if their pronouncements on fleet renewal and the LH refurb for the 767s the RAF turned down are to be any guide so am not sure they give a damn what the second hand value of an RB211-524 is.

As for CX - they wanted RR A346s, they got them, for better or worse. If they ever want RR 380s, Airbus will provide. Depends on how much CX loves their Trents I suppose!

As for SQ ordering 777/747A/A380 - totally possible. However, their fleet is pretty mongrel as it is! They seem to make money anyhow so good luck to them.

747Focal

Shut up. Still waiting for the evac test and you giving us a vacation from your fanboy love for all things Boeing.

[747FOCAL]

MarkD,

Your a cheeky monkey aren't you. :E Telling one to shut where I am from will get you a wishbone on the mellon.

Its a fact. You ask any airplane financer or salesman.....RR powered 744s and 767s are valued at 20%-30% less than GE OR PW versions for than matter.

They have a blue book for aircraft. Look it up for yourself before you make a fool out of yourself. :}

This has nothing to do with the A380 EVAC test. For me that is not a B or A thing, that is my own personal opinion based on some years of experience. Just like you got an A**hole, I got the right to my opinion.

:E

[speed freek]

And the fun begins.....hope I never meet you lot in the pub!! :}

747Focal,

Why is there a value difference? Always thought the Brits made better engines. eg. Trent 800 sales compared to GE90 and PW4000.

There is a history in this industry of single engine choices for aircraft. I'm sure it goes back further but I can't think further back than the Tristar, which came with RB211s or RB211s. So not much of a choice there. Some people say that's the real reason that the aircraft wasn't as successful as it could be. We may never know.

How airlines buy aircraft now doesn't make much sence anymore. eg. By the time the A380s arrive, Emirates will operate 777-200/200ER/300s, A330-200s, A340-500/(maybe the 600) all with Trents. Recently the ex SIA A340-300s arrived bringing with them GEs. Very recently the 777-300ERs arrived, again GEs. They operate one PAX A310, GE, but 3 freighter A310s are due, PW powered. Eventually the A380s will arrive, and it'll be GP powered. What I'm getting at is, as someone said earlier, fleet commonality isn't important anymore.

And that's my two pence!

Cheers.

[Torquelink]

Chambudzi

Following your reasoning, the 787 should have a single engine type. I'm not disputing that the 777-300ER is now picking up orders. What I said is that it would have picked up more orders more quickly if it had an engine choice. Also, most airlines would tell you that the competition between engine manufacturers delivers lower prices.

747FOCAL

Don't dispute valuation differential - historically - bit different now. SAA operate both 524H-Ts and CF6-80 powered 744s - ask them which they prefer. Cargolux switched from GE to RR and CR2 will probably tell you how they're getting on too.

[747FOCAL]

Torquelink,

Lets just say I am in a position to know more than most when it comes to how aircraft are valued and why.

Part of the reason behind the devaluation is the low numbers of RR powered vs their GE and PW powered cousins. Aircraft configurations in low numbers have historically been worth less.

Another part of the devaluation is much darker and if one were to search around here they may figure it out. All RR powered 747, 767 operators are very concerned about this problem and will do almost anything to remove themselves from it.

Qantas recently tried to trade in some of their 744s for 777s and were told a resounding "NO". Its getting harder and harder to place aircraft that have this problem.

:ok:

[casual observer]

bit different now. SAA operate both 524H-Ts and CF6-80 powered 744s - ask them which they prefer. Cargolux switched from GE to RR and CR2 will probably tell you how they're getting on too

Air New Zealand and Qantas operate both RR- and GE-powered B747-400s, ask them which they prefer. ;)

IIRC, Cargolux was the launch customer for the RB.211-524H-T which had a new core from the Trent 700. The original -524H had a lot of HP turbine durability issues, IIRC. The launch of the 524H-T was meant to address those issues. So, Cargolux didn't order the -524H-T based on proven performance.

However, your other example, SAA switched from Rolls to GE. And so did Qantas and Air New Zealand.

Aircraft residual value is a strong function of market presence. When there are significantly fewer RR-powered -400s than either GE- or P&W-powered -400s, it's inevitable the latter two will command a residual value advantage over the RR-powered -400s.

[747FOCAL]

and when one is facing phaseout when the other two are not.........

[Torquelink]

747FOCAL

And "the problem" is? - don't keep us in suspense

I may not have detailed knowledge of how Appraisers arrive at their values (although I doubt detailed knowledge comes into it!) but I know what the market is actually offering today and RR-powered aircraft would sell at a premium to PW powered if not to GE powered.

[barit1]

A bit of well-buried history:

1983-84, Delta & All Nippon were gung-ho to re-engine their TriStars. They needed one more operator to make the program viable - TWA - but TWA was in no position to embark on same.
In fact, Harry Stonecipher's MD-80 lease program was the only thing that kept TWA's head above water for a while.

[747FOCAL]

Torquelink,

Have you seen an aicraft pricing guide? I have one sitting on my desk, actually from two different sources, and they both show RB211-524 powered 747-400s and 767s as +20% less value than a comparable GE or Pratt.

If you would read back, I said search around PPRUNE and you will find what I am talking about. I am not going to do it all for you. Try and learn something while your at it. :\ :ok:

[SUB]

744 RR engines are always are having problems with :

1. attrition liner damage/replacement
2. ogv infill panel seperation/ogv cracking
3. titanium acoustic panel delamination
4. ice breaker panel delamination

5. thrust rev motor failure
6. flex drive cable breaking/seizure
6. thrust rev sense line failure/leaking
7. bleed valve sense line failure/leaking
8. selector seq valve malfunction
9. sense line clamp failure

10. interservices structure cracking
11. N1 fan vibrations

744 GE engines nothing goes wrong except the odd thrust rev does not deploy and a bit of anti ice fluid poured into the cdu can fix this.

GE engines a little bit harder to work on with but a better fuel burn than RR.

[747FOCAL]

SUB,

Like to more about #3. I.e. What part of the engine and how bad it is.

Thanks

[gas path]

Acoustic panel:
Aft of the fan attrition liner, are honeycombe panels which on pre sb engines there were 9 of them that were bonded onto the fan case with additional bolts for security, over time they would suffer from disbond due to their being too rigid and start to break up losing the top skin and damaging the the underlying honeycombe. The fix was for 'bluefill'. (which compromised the acoustic properties... thats the bit FOCAL has been hinting at:hmm: ) The later post mod panels are 1/3rd the size and bonded in with BMS5-95 which is flexible. I've only seen a couple of the post mod panels replaced and that was due to impact damage (bird strike).
Not seen a cracked OGV for years.
The T/R can be a pain (designed by Nordam I think) AFAIK we have incorporated the mods and SB's for the sense pipes etc at overhaul so sense line failure thankfully is thing of the past. But! they tried to be clever and it's all prox. switches, what's wrong with a good old fashioned mechanical micro switch? that would have cured 99% of T/R problems.:{
Other than that they stay on wing for a long time and suffer little in the way of performance degradation over the life of the engine.
And the best thing from a maintenance point of view they are sooooo simple to work on!:cool:

[747FOCAL]

gas path,

You gave them a piece, but not exactly what I am hinting at. Breakdown in acoustics is not the RR problem I am getting at. It's the darn ******* and no amount of acoustic panels can be put in the engine as it is today to change that. Now if you add 5 foot of tailpipe completly lined with the right acoustic panels then you might have something.........:E