and also ahead of guarantees on sfc as well. The 115 is doing a GE an awful lot of good - under promising and over delivering on fuel burn rather than the other way round. RR build great engines too but haven't always met fuel burn expectations - even if managing to meet specific guarantees. The 115 is showing former RR core clients such as SQ and CX that there are seriously competitive alternatives. The next test will be the GenEx vs Trent 1000 where, rumours have it, both have yet to meet sfc targets but the GE is closer than the RR.

How much of this is the engine core and how much the aircraft nacelle? or is all this undressed early test cell stuff?

Iomapaseo,

To be honest I don't really know - just picked up snippets from friends in Seattle that following air tests on their respective 747 testbeds the GE engine is 1 - 2% off and the Trent 3 -4% off. which would, I guess, suggest that they are complete fully-dressed propulsion package results. Having said that, RR don't seem unduly worried saying they'll meet guarantees by first delivery (but see my earlier posting re GE beating their guarantees). Would be good if someone from RR and GE on the forum and in the know could give us an update . . .

Torquelink

Thanks, that really answered my question:ok:

There was indeed a lot going on when BA ordered the GE90 on their first 777s. GE made a high offer for the BA engine overhaul shop, supposedly as a separate deal (yeah right..) but also if I remember right, Lord King was annoyed with the UK government for allowing more US airlines into Heathrow? The combination of those plus a very good commercial offer from GE got them the deal, or that is what we in Derby were told at the time.:ugh:

The result was a GE order on the 777 which caused a huge shock at RR...still us boys from Derby have done OK with the Trent family since!:D

Easy 69. Are you a fan of conspiracy theories? It is ridiculous to think that the decision not to put an engine on the ER and LR are linked to the roll-back events. RR was not aware of a problem on the Trent 800.

It should also be pointed out that there is yet no evidence that there is a problem with the Trent 800 engine.

The report clearly states "in the fuel path of the FOHE". Similarly the Y-MMM AAIB report states "ice in the fuel feed system". As the Trent 800 FOHE passed all its certification tests with respect to icing the question is how is the fuel system generating larger than expected quantities of ice.

The suggested operational changes are in response to the AAIB report which called for "operational changes to reduce the risk of ice formation".

There is still a long way to go before it is determined (if it ever will be) where the ice formed and where it is causing the blockage. Even if the blockage is at the FOHE it doesn't necessarily mean the problem is a Trent 800 problem. This is clear from the AAIB reports.

All the discussion above about technical considerations and the GE exclusivity on the larger 777 models is a bit wide of the mark. It was a commercial negotiation driven by Boeing that led to this, based primarily on what would offer the best financial return to Boeing. Which is a fair enough way to go (well, as a sales person I would say that).

The 777-300ER has hit good sales targets for Boeing, but the 777-200LR has been a poor performer. It's a limited market for ultra long haul, as Airbus also demonstrate with the A340-500. Rolls Royce got the exclusivity on that by the way, it cuts both ways. It is not in the airframe manufacturers interest to have a limited-production model dissipate technical resources over two or three engine models, if they can avoid it.

It is, as always, an interesting spectator sport to see two supremely professional organisations slug it out commercially. For those who have been around longer the most surprising thing is the demise of Pratt & Whitney from former supreme leader to one who is steadily vanishing. It must be years since P&W actually made a New Business sale, all they are left with is a half share in the GP7200.

In the City AM financial world daily newspaper there was an informed story yesterday about financial difficulties at GE that are causing questions, especially at their leasing arm GE Capital, who have financed a good proportion of the world airliner fleet, so more to watch there.

WHBM

Agree re exclusivity - see my earlier post 21.

Re Pratt: maybe the PW1000G (GTF) technology will, eventually, see them dine at the top table again - they seem to think the technology would result in significant sfc improvements for big (80k/lb thrust) engines too?

Can't believe GE / GECAS are in any serious trouble - we'll all be holding onto our hats if they are . . .