I believe that you are quite correct in that the IPT Blade material has less corrosion resistance. Material selection is now so important that there are a number of limitations and final section is validated during development testing. It is probable that the level of sulphidation experienced by certain operators was not seen in development. I understand there is a solution which takes time to introduce in service. RR will be monitoring the safety situation extremely closely as part of their safety processes.

People said the same with the early JT9D on the 747. Which of course was eventually overcome. That said, it did turn off a notable proportion of 747 users from P&W, who initially had a monopoly on the aircraft, and led to two competitors getting onto it.

So in other words, much like RR then? (Bear in mind the picture displayed is NOT from the incident A/C).

If it’s the same issue that affected ANA, then it is an engine swap fleet wide, with the old engines going of for some major disassembly. In ANA’s case RR handled the situation to the apparent satisfaction of ANA.

Pulling off the same level of customer service worldwide across the whole 787 fleet will be a bigger job. The fact that RR are reported to have made a statement to the stock exchange about the issue suggests that this could cost a big widget of cash, something that indicates a large amount of unplanned engine work.

If they have to divert staff off production lines to get enough manpower together to do the required rework, that’ll have a knock on impact on their production delivery. Better hope Airbus don’t resolve their production issues with the A350!

RR like any other company these days does not have large numbers of people on hand “just in case” something like this happens. Could be a lot of overtime being done in Derby this winter, might be a good year next year for the local car dealers / shops / etc.

So to reiterate, not causing engine “disintegration” (it’s potential IPT cracking), and not causing “engine swaps fleet wide” - ergo, it’s much like the GEnx (minus the AD.)

Yes, there is a supply issue, one that’s been known about for quite some time. Current manufacturer blades have full length blade coatings, and the new variant, “-TEN” engine, likewise, is unaffected by this issue. Yes again, I’m sure some sleepless nights for RR execs....

Anti Icing System Failure

Air NZ calls in leased planes and crew to help maintain flight schedule"

Wonder if RR will pickup the tab? :}

I would imagine so, surely, particularly because they cannot provide spare engines?

I doubt that any of us can define the "tab"

Certainly it can not be as fleeting as profit and loss or dependent on definitions of how best to minimize interruptions in a business plan.

All RR will be liable for is the cost of the repair + on/off and transportation.

Assuming they don't hope ever to sell any more engines ...

RR will do whatever is necessary to make amends for this incident and preserve future business with this airline plus other customers who have bought aircraft with this engine and others that are considering it.

Of course, but all short of significantly affecting their stock price.

That's what matters to the outsider investors.

Wouldn't RR have made some sort of provision for this, however small? I thought a large part of their current production was not sold but sort of rented, based on time on the wing. I think if I was renting engines out, I would anticipate having to recover and fix the odd engine here and there and would hedge against those costs.

Just had an e-mail saying Hi-Fly, a Portuguese ad-hoc charter are supplying an A330 and an A340 to operate AKL - SYD (some) and AKL - PER (most of) for the foreseeable future.

The trans pacific are mainly operated by the 773 and 772; the 789 is used for Singapore, Japan, Australia and some PI flights.

Most (all?) Tent 1000s are on TotalCare which, in effect and depending upon which TC version, requires RR to provide serviceable powerplants at all times for a fixed hourly / cyclic fee. If they cannot do so for anything other than e.g. force majeure or operator fault they pick up the tab for most of the consequential losses. The IPT blade corrosion issue is so extensive that they have run out of both shop capacity and spare engines - hence aircraft grounded by a number of airlines including Air NZ. The shop capacity issue has also impacted other engines and TC programmes because there is no capacity to undertake scheduled SVs on other Trent models. RR are buying / leasing in other Trent models from the used / part-out market in order to try to support the TC programmes. The T1000 TEN is, apparently, not entirely immune which implies similar issues may arise on the TXWB and T7000. This is all going to cost them a bundle.

You've said that twice now - care to elaborate?

Yeah I've been hoping that myself. As the OP and SLF I felt terrible misleading you guys so devoted literally hours to trying to find a match on the images from another story or incident (the pic I chose was unique but google isn't infallible) , looking at Trent 1000 pics (learnt all about composite ceramic exhaust cones which was a bonus lol) , reading the report on the Scoot incident Nov 16 in Singapore and seeing almost identical vane (edit - per Turbine D's arrogant and condescending post this is the wrong term, clearly everyone except me realised that so since this is my last ever post in this elitist forum I'll leave it as a reminder of my nativity in thinking my genuine attempt to contribute might be accepted) damage, trying to corroborate Stuff's sources, reloading those pages daily looking for a retraction or update which - being New Zealand where news agencies still have standards - there will be once they know they were mislead, I was unable to prove they weren't genuine.

They may well BE wrong, I'm just saying it'd be a LOT less work if we knew why they can't be from the Air NZ plane pretty please cos I'm exhausted! :)

Infieldg,
Err, when you look in the tailpipe of the engine, you are looking at blades (they rotate) not vanes (they are stationary) that guide the air into the blade rotor. So, unless the entire last stage rotor was wiped out, you are looking at blades not vanes. Terminology is important so as not to cause confusion...

Sure..
While we all recognise the speed of social media these days, the speed of publication is suspiciously quick, especially given that it's Stuff.co.nz we're talking about here, not the NZ Herald (who, interestingly have not run the photos), or other "mainstream" (fake news Mr T?) news outlets. What are the chances that a (crap) website scooped the majors?
Secondly, as both flights are subject to a TAIC (NZs AAIB/NTSB etc) investigation, all evidence is sub-judice. It'd be a brave person to leak under those circumstances. (though it is possible someone could be that stupid..)
Third, because even the company doubts the veracity of the photos...(be careful, that pause is there for a reason...)

Mr Morgan may have corroborated the decription of the event, I'm unaware that any AirNZ rep has confirmed the photos are the incident engine.
Where are the photos of the second engine?

Infieldg, no-one thinks you misled the viewers, you have posted apparently the ONLY photos taken of the engine (just the two then?), as reported by the NZ equivalent of the Daily Mail. Recently we had a P-3 Orion circling Auckland on ONE engine during an emergency. Stuff post Airbus pictures when they report a Boeing issue without a second thought. Think of their pictures as "representative", not necessarily "actual". With that in mind, save your energy, a retraction you will not see.
If your mental well-being is predicated on acceptance by this crowd, I'd suggest another website.

Cloud, you'd have some inside word wouldn't you?