tdracer,

Spot on re the 3 or 4 engines....
In fact it was common policy to stagger the engines so none had same or similar times, just in case .. The bigger the turbo compound engines got the bigger the fireworks display when they let go.

As you said, the goalposts keep moving.

The issues with the Package C engines, for the most part, is resolved/managed. The current issues with the TEN engines (which effect 4 of our 787's) was only communicated by RR a week ago (at best). And lets not forget, the TEN engines were touted by RR to be the fix for the Pack C issues. In reality, they're even worse.

Could the GE's have issues? Of course. Could the the Trent 800 engines (on our 772's) also have unknown issues? Hard to say. Does a 737-800 have cracked pickle forks?! Perhaps all 737 NG operators should have held onto their Classic 300/400's for an extra decade "just in case". There comes a point when holding onto old frames "just in case" is simply not viable. Especially when the Engine manufacturer sells you (and ever other Airlines) a lie that the newer version of an Engine has resolved the issues at hand. I guarantee, every 787 operator worldwide would happily operate a fleet of old, reliable 767's with the benefit of hindsight.

The lease 772's from Singapore got parked up in the desert. We still have the -300 lease from EVA. I doubt any 772's will get parked up anytime soon. With 8 orders for 787-10's and another 12 options... there's enough orders to start replacing RR 789's before retiring the 772's.

Imagine that... surely then Air NZ's line of "we have commercial agreements with RR" with regards to compensation go out the window and the lawyers get called in. It's already beyond a joke, if they start getting rid of 5 year old air frames (5 years as of 2019) it's time to nail RR to the wall.

Because ANZ is a FAR superior product, you should try it. I do it out of Melbourne.

Not saying they'll do it, but certainly possible given how many options we have. By the time the last 787-10 (or 9) is delivered from the Firm orders, our original 787's will be close to 10 years old. If we're still dealing with engines issues from RR by then, and have been unable to retire the 772's then I see it as a definite possibility. But that's just my own speculation.

TD I agree over 20, 40 and even more so 50 years the main engine providers have been amazing in their ability to improve reliability and performance

But the latest offerings have all had issues

RR - we know all about

PWh- PW1100G so bad that Qatar are switching to CFM Leap

GE - real problems with the 9X

SAFFRAN - had to pay Dassault $280 million due to their inability to get the "Silvercrest" to work

Even with the Trent issues, it's shutdown rate is still better - by a long shot - than anything that was available 40 years ago. We used to think it was good when we had a shutdown ever 10,000 hours, now if it's every 100,000 hours we get worried, and if it's worse than that you get ETOPS limitations (which is the current Trent status).
Yes, Pratt is struggling with their GTF - something that doesn't surprise me in the least. But since Pratt has pretty much bet the farm on the GTF concept, they'll either figure it out or be forced out of the commercial engine business.
GE is looking quite strong currently - 'real problems with the 9X'? REALLY? You're going to criticize an uncertified engine that is still in the development stage and is at least a year away from entry into service because it's behind schedule? Welcome to the real world...
The LEAP has had an uneventful EIS (MAX aircraft issues not withstanding - the engine has been good). The GEnx had issues with Ice Crystal Icing (which some 30 year old engine designs have also struggled with) but those have been sorted - and the basic engine has been excellent with a shutdown rate around 1/200,000 hours (disclaimer - I don't have access to the latest data since I retired but I've seen no indications it's gone down hill since then).
There is a rather predictable shutdown characteristic for new engines after initial EIS. The initial shutdown rate isn't very good as certain teething pains occur - as much as they try, it's very had to predict and account everything that's going to happen in the real world. As those issues are worked out, the shutdown rate gradually improves until it plateau's - and it'll stay pretty steady around that number for many years. Then, gradually, the rate starts getting worse again as the engine find their way to second tier operators who don't maintain them as well, and things simply get old and wear out. Some very popular, currently very reliable engines had plenty of issues early on (GE90 and PW2000, and PW4000/49" immediately come to mind).

Mattyj, the 787 was designed for the engines to be 'plug and play' - not even the pylon should need to change between GE and Rolls. That being said, I don't know that the task of switching out engine manufactures was ever certified. Further, the LRU cost of a GEnx-1B or Trent 1000 is close to $20 million (USD) - changing out your fleet has a huge price tag, especially if no one really wants your old engines...