Taco, why should we have to do the research to back up
your accusations? I'd like to see you back up this statement in particular:
The operational shortcomings experienced by the GenX, Trent, Leap and GTF are disgraceful, and in the case of those engines installed on ETOPS certified aircraft, the industry and traveling public have been most fortunate that there have been no dual engine failures or ditchings.
I have considerable first hand experience with the GEnx - and your statement is demonstrably false. The GEnx had one of the smoothest EIS of any commercial engine
ever. The IFSD rate out of the box was very, very good - much better than the minimum 180 minute ETOPS requirement - and while time on wing was a bit disappointing initially it's rapidly improved and is now doing quite well in that regard. In fact the really only meaningful issue with the GEnx was Ice Crystal Icing (ICI) - something that is still poorly understood (and not covered by the regulations). Further, although ICI caused some temporary thrust losses and engine damage, there were no shutdowns, and a fix was identified and certified. The Trent 1000 on the 787 has had it's issues, but they are mainly related to an unexpected wear out mode that didn't show up until the engine had been in service for years - out of the box the Trent 1000 was quite good. The LEAP has had a reasonably smooth EIS (getting/keeping production up to speed has been a problem but the engine itself has been reasonably trouble free). Only the GTF has had major issues (not exactly a surprise given it's totally new technology - there is a reason why Boeing decided to pass on the first iteration of the GTF).