Mad - The only differentiation in 'USE' between airlines and GA jets would be reduced thrust departures and possibly a more vigorous inspection program.
So I'll give it to you that an airline submits an operating - maintenance program that helps the engine manufacturer feel more comfortable about allowing longer cycle limits. I am just curious what information the engine guys are crunching.
It's not hard to figure out that an airliner can push the engines out as far as the mechanic with a boroscope will allow based on visible evidence of damage, etc.
At issue are components like bearings, that can't be inspected, that are just allowed to run out say 4-5 times farther on an airliner, based on what?
I see it like this. Obviously the manufacturer doesn't want broken parts bringing down planes, but at the same time the airlines won't accept 3500 engine overhauls due to the obvious cost. I surmise that the engine manufacturers are being really conservative with corporate jets. (Greed)
So what's fair is fair, if the airlines can run their engines out until the mechanics see a problem, corporate should to. In fact I might talk to my local FSDO about this.