Burnt fingers ...
The GE CF6 and Pratt's JT9 both stemmed from the USAF's "Giant Freighter" contest, won by Lockeed with what became the Galaxy. GE won the engine contest, so both Boeing and P&W, as the losers, had problems. Boeing's answer was to propose a low-wing variant of their Freighter proposition, keeping the "upper deck" flight deck location (saving on design time & cost), for which Pan Am's Juan Trippe fell - hard ! And every self-respecting airline followed suit ...
(The high flight deck from the military proposal and its upward-hingeing nose gave an easy-loading, full-length cargo hold, whence the 747F, of course.)
P&W were forced to develop and deliver their engine to suit the Pan Am/Boeing schedule, at their own expense, while GE could benefit from the C-5 development programme (government finance, of course). Unable to keep to the schedule while Boeing turned out 747s which therefore had to have concrete blocks hung on the pylons while Pratt did their best to catch up, the JT9 clearly suffered from the rush, as well as having to be financed from company (United Technologies) funds.
Meanwhile, Boeing too was bleeding money, resulting in the famous 50% workforce cut, and even so nearly went under. Badly stung by the too-rushed JT-9 effort, Pratt was clearly well behind the financial drag curve as well and has, at least on the civil side, moved very cautiously ever since; one lesson being that the military paid better, at lower risk.