Thai ditches Rolls engines and goes with GE
If you want, you can go right back to piston times, when there were comparable long-term issues with production engines. Not for nothing were the last few years of piston aircraft production just thrown away worthless when the first jets appeared.
Last edited by WHBM; 18th Feb 2024 at 17:03.
Hard to keep overview. When we look for issues of the newer engines, what are the troubles? Lets leave A380 away, cause noone will cancel an order because of RR engine
Wanna know if RR is especially hit by tech trouble.
- P&W GTF for Airbusses: a variety of issues can be called a crisis on its own
- RR Trent 1000: Turbine trouble on B787, iirc?
- RR XWB: Issues in Hot and Sandy Environment for A350? Also Turbines trouble? Emirates fell off from A350 because of these?
- GE GEnx: don't remember
- How about RR Trent 7000 for A330neo?
- and GE LEAP?
Wanna know if RR is especially hit by tech trouble.
And Saffran had to pull their engine off the new Falcon BJ altogether and its been replaced by ...RR.......
For other problems Google is your friend
For other problems Google is your friend
Well, I think I was wrong with assuming RR of recently having multiple safety issues. So that's not the factor here. Apart from Trent 1000 IPT and IPC cracking, affecting B787 ETOPS range, the XWB and -7000 models (A330neo) are fine.
It's just the (precautionary) short on-wing time on A350-1000 for hot and sandy env that piecced off Sandy Tim. While Quatar an Ethihad operate them with no reported complaints.
And now Thai? But looks like the pricing negotiations were the cause. Again, bean counters ignore a wonderful aircraft and an engine company that puts safety over profits?
It's just the (precautionary) short on-wing time on A350-1000 for hot and sandy env that piecced off Sandy Tim. While Quatar an Ethihad operate them with no reported complaints.
And now Thai? But looks like the pricing negotiations were the cause. Again, bean counters ignore a wonderful aircraft and an engine company that puts safety over profits?
For any aircraft manufacturer it feels advisable to have more than one engine supplier on future programs again.
Thread Starter
The new GE engines have been pretty good - the GEnx and the LEAP (the LEAP is basically the same technology as the GEnx, just downsized).
Although the GEnx struggled early one with durability issues (i.e. time on wing before overhaul), it's reliability out of the box was quite good (much better than required for 180 minute ETOPS). They had some early gearbox issues with GEnx-1B on the 787 (driving those big generators) that caused a few shutdowns but were able to sort that fairly quickly. I've been out of the loop since I retired, but before GE had made big improvements in their time-on-wing such that it was comparable with earlier engines.
GE did have some serious reliability and durability issues with the GE90 early on (bad enough that - after being the launch customer for BA on the 777, BA switched to Rolls), but they managed to sort them out fairly quickly and by the time they introduced the GE90-115B, it was an impressively good engine.
Rolls has struggled with turbine reliability on their newer products, and of course Pratt's geared turbofan has had its own sets of problems.
The problem with that is that developing a new engine has become so costly. Engine companies like having an aircraft program devoted to their engine.
Although the GEnx struggled early one with durability issues (i.e. time on wing before overhaul), it's reliability out of the box was quite good (much better than required for 180 minute ETOPS). They had some early gearbox issues with GEnx-1B on the 787 (driving those big generators) that caused a few shutdowns but were able to sort that fairly quickly. I've been out of the loop since I retired, but before GE had made big improvements in their time-on-wing such that it was comparable with earlier engines.
GE did have some serious reliability and durability issues with the GE90 early on (bad enough that - after being the launch customer for BA on the 777, BA switched to Rolls), but they managed to sort them out fairly quickly and by the time they introduced the GE90-115B, it was an impressively good engine.
Rolls has struggled with turbine reliability on their newer products, and of course Pratt's geared turbofan has had its own sets of problems.
For any aircraft manufacturer it feels advisable to have more than one engine supplier on future programs again.
Rolls had the "sandwich" fan blades, Pratt the powder it just feels safer to have two to pick from.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What often happens is that one airframe and/or engine manufacturer see a certain deal as something they strategically wish to win. So in this case Boeing and GE have gone out of their way to win the order, and Airbus/RR would not come down any further. History is full of such deals on all sides.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
XWB is a mighty fine engine, doing very well in service, but in this case I suspect R-R were not prepared to give the level of discount on the total package that Thai wanted, and thus Boeing/GE got the deal. Its quite likely that this is almost a loss leader!
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Bangkok
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is highly unlikely that TG was looking for the cheapest bidder. That would be a complete change of course for them.
Tight on topic, Trent XWB for A350 was unacceptable for Thai. If it wasn't financial reasons, it it tech problems? The XWB didn't show any after i spent some searching, it's just Emirates complaining about the short of wing inspection cycles. Dont know if this is out of caution and could be extended in future.
Other latest RR models seem to have no operational issues, with the exception of 787 Trent1000 and its IPC and IPT blade issues.
If Thai aims for 787 and the GEnx, are these safer?
2x Shaft cracks, but found pre-delivery. Don't know if a permanent fix was found.
1x icing issues with damage in flight, but sorted out meanwhile by design change. both also happened on 747-8 in operation.
Haven't found the Generator Gearbox issues brought up by tdracer. But I believe its real, and resolved.
Any other restrictions on the 787 GEnx?
If they aim for 777-X, a whole new set of uncertainty lies ahead of them. But that's not the plane to look for if you originally wanted A350, right?
Other latest RR models seem to have no operational issues, with the exception of 787 Trent1000 and its IPC and IPT blade issues.
If Thai aims for 787 and the GEnx, are these safer?
2x Shaft cracks, but found pre-delivery. Don't know if a permanent fix was found.
1x icing issues with damage in flight, but sorted out meanwhile by design change. both also happened on 747-8 in operation.
Haven't found the Generator Gearbox issues brought up by tdracer. But I believe its real, and resolved.
Any other restrictions on the 787 GEnx?
If they aim for 777-X, a whole new set of uncertainty lies ahead of them. But that's not the plane to look for if you originally wanted A350, right?
Thread Starter
