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).
Thanks tdracer, you provided most of the evidence for my POV for me. You did miss one though - the GenX fan blade icing incident in January 2016 that resulted in loss of a fan blade, and worse, resulted in an engine seizure. Fortunately, the other engine was original spec and not a modified PIP2 engine. But I am given to understand the even this original engine had some damage to it. Feel free to correct me on that point if I’m in error. But at the end of the day, if this aircraft had been fitted with PIP2 engines on both sides, it would have been a hull loss.
Regulatory bodies have been in the business of certifying turbine engines for civilian use for what, approximately 58 years? It is not acceptable that the Trent and GenX were certified right away for 180 minutes given the unreliability demonstrated by these engines. I mean, one engine that wears out prematurely? After six decades of turbine engine design, construction and certification, excessive engine wear slips by and then is written off as a “whoopsies”? And the other engine that sneezes and coughs if you fly in ice crystals or can pack it in completely if the fan blades ice up?
Turbine D & tdracer: respectfully, you both must be engineers if you can so blithely dismiss these serious engine issues as “temporary thrust losses and engine damage”. What you both are elucidating is called “the normalization of deviance” when you suggest that dual thrust loss is somehow fine, especially so if it’s just temporary.
BTW, 41 years in the pointy end. My post-retirement job makes me privy to incident reports/technical bulletins, etc.
Taco