infrequentflyer789
With an investor hat on, I think my biggest concern would be that even if the current AD regime has plugged the safety gap, how are RR making a profit on PBH contract on an engine that only does 70 cycles on the wing ? If the engine is safe but it and its contracts become a financial millstone round RR's neck, then it's no better for the company.
Yes, as an investor, there is a big concern. First, to develop a new engine, certify it, and then put it on the wing of a new aircraft being certified usually involves an investment of $2B US. And then, the first engines are usually sold at a loss as you are not far enough down the learning curve to produce a profit. Then there is the matter of how big the program will be (there is competition), e.g., a large number of engines over a long period of time. And finally there is the matter of the "Total Care" program.
The engine service program (Total Care) is really (should be) the big money maker but it is based on an actuary type system, the expected performance of the engine in the field over a time period before significant servicing, repair or replacement parts are required. These contracts typically are 10 years or more and the amount charged per engine to the airlines doesn't go up much over time to cover the cost of a bad start.
So with the problems at the moment, there is a significant setback of the new engine sales break-even point and the service end of the business is getting hit with costs that were not expected. Both are negatives on the bottom line.
There is always the possibility that when all costs are added up and the program doesn't produce enough profitable sales in the long run, the money lost will never be recovered.