.....Board see someone being too frugal...

In normal words, a scapegoat....

I am not sure you are very familiar with design, testing, manufacturing and servicing of commercial turbofan engines in the aircraft engine industry today. First of all, Rolls Royce is in the process of restructuring their business organizations to eliminate duplications and eliminating businesses that don't contribute much to bottom line profitability with the goal of reducing costs to become more competitive in the marketplace. So are both GE and Pratt & Whitney. It is not unusual today in any business that wants to survive as a viable future business, even businesses that are not producing jet engines. Although there are technical issues on current engines in the field to be resolved, Rolls Royce has to stay cost competitive in the marketplace so don't confuse that business goal with a technical problem that will be resolved.

Secondly, you and infrequentflyer789 should understand that there have been over 30,000 CFM56 engines operating in the field since 1982. An aircraft with CFM56 engines takes off every three minutes 24-7, 365 days a year somewhere in the world, think about that for a moment. The idea that the CFM56 management structure should be overhauled, as suggested, because of two unfortunate technical incidents in 2018 is a bit of an overkill. Southwest Airlines had ultrasonically inspected 17,000 fan blades as a result of the first failure but before the second failure took place. No fan blades exhibiting fatigue cracks were found in any of the blades inspected. The CFM56 engines in the field have accumulated more than 30 million flight hours without any indication of the fan blade failures experienced in these two events. If anything, there may be improvements capable of being made to the engine inlet cowl to improve durability and absorb more of the energy when a fan blade is released, some potential improvements learned as result of these two incidents.

If they won't take the time to make/test safe aircraft engines, they shouldn't be in business.

Too many businesses taking short cuts these days, the race to the bottom seems to put a low priority on safety as a result.
Agile methodologies are not conducive to a quality product, instead putting the focus on finishing within a timeframe that is usually cast by a beancounter.

In your jet engine experience, how much time do you estimate it takes, a year, two years, five years, ten years, twenty years or 50 years to make a turbo jet engine that never has a technical problem? I am really interesting in knowing your opinion as it will be indicative of your knowledge of the aircraft engine business...

Dee Vee

The operable word here is "If"

The authorities as well as others on this forum don't agree with you

time to move on unless/until new facts are in evidence

How do you test an engine which is to be run 18 hours a day, over a period of four years, after which it is overhauled and parts replaced as a matter of course as part of the design ? And then do it for a population count of a few thousand engines to get all the performance flaws which only appear after tens of millions of miles ?

Put every engine on an aircraft wing and fly it around empty for fours years and then only put it on a passenger aircraft ?

Clearly, you have no idea what you're talking about in the context of aerospace and think you're buying something like a fridge.

Given that nobody has sustained any injury, nor any airframe been breached, one cannot say the engines are not safe.

Which is more than can be said for another manufacturer's product.

"Rolls Royce operations head Simon Kirby to leave in summer after only 19 months in role."

I wonder how many squintillions his severance package will be!

What? Jealous? Moi?

Mac

Boeing sends exec to help Rolls-Royce fix 787 engine woes
 

https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...87-engine-woes

damage limitation for the Boeing Brand - ?

Not a big deal, it's done frequently when big money is at stake. It tends to answer questions faster

Boeing has dispatched a prominent executive to help..

LMFAO!

It probably is a big deal for an Airline when nearly half its 787 fleet are unavailable, engineless, or being worked on, scheduled maintenance, or just swapping engines at any one time. Add to that the massive cost of temporarily retraining idle pilots on to their previous type. And leasing a number of those types to cover your schedules.
Presumably being billed to RR?
Is there actually a definitive technical fix in the pipeline??

There's an Air Austral 787 parked outide the Monarch Engineering at BHX hangar enginless. Both I believe have been transferred to Derby. It's been there for weeks.

Saw G-VBOW of Virgin without donks at LHR this week, plus looked like three others at the hangar, are there really four parked up without engines?

G-VWHO B789 not flown since 07/10/2017
G-VBOW B789 not flown since 19/04/2018
G-VFAN B789 not flown since 30/04/2018

I read that ETOPS on the RR powered 787 has been reduced to 60 minutes. I was surprised when I flew from SCL to MEL 10 days ago that it was a RR powered 787. I spoke to the pilot as to how come they were operating a route which required ETOPS 280 with the RR engines. He said that it was ok as the operation hours on these engines were lower that any of the engines which had to be shutdown by ANA or ANZ. LATAM were pulling the aircraft out of service when the operating hours got closer to the historical shut-down hours. This made me very nervous. My view is that defective engine design is defective, unreliable is unreliable, to operate these engines at ETOPS 330 in my view is against ETOPS principles even if it is within the regulations. There are so many factors that you cannot predict exactly as to after how many hours the defect will cause a failure. Just like in QF32 where RR gambled that their known oil pump defect would not fail early and lost the bet. Because the QF A380's were being used differently to the SQ and other A380's and therefore the engine failed earlier. They cannot be 100% sure that there will not be some previously unknown factor that will be different on the LATAM 787's which will mean they will fail earlier than the ANA and ANZ. I do not want to be 280 minutes from the nearest airport when one engine has to be shutdown and the other has the same design defect. Lucky it was a daytime flight and I told my wife that we needed to make sure one of us was always awake and if anything unusual seemed to be happening to wake me immediately if I was asleep.

correct ETOPS has been reduced to 60 mins but only on certain marks of the RR Trent 1000 engines and date of manufacture (so not all RR 787's affected)

Giant Bird is correct thinking this is abusing the spirit of ETOPS rules. The risk may be small, but the practice carries the potential for a massive corporate disaster.