PW GTF-CFM LEAP market share

AirInsight has an interesting analysis of the market share of the GTF vs the LEAP on the A320neo family. This was completed while the Singapore Air Show was underway and orders still being announced.

The analysis only covers the neo family, where there is competition between CFM International and Pratt & Whitney. CFM is exclusive on the Boeing 737 and COMAC C919 and PW is exclusive on the Mitsubishi MRJ and the Bombardier CSeries. PW shares the engine supply position on the Irkut MS21 with a Russian powerplant.

Thus, the neo family competition provides a better snapshot of how the two engines stack up in the view of customers.

A couple of points of note for the AirInsight analysis: GECAS buys only GE engines, so PW had no chance in this exclusive-supplier scenario; and Republic’s CFM selection was part of a financial rescue package involving GECAS (which leases A319s and A320s with CFM engines to Republic subsidiary Frontier Airlines) and CFM (which restructured CFM maintenance agreements). We detailed the Republic order at the time. We also wrote this piece about how the GE powerhouse combines to win deals. The family deal with GECAS and the rescue package for Republic account for 280 of the 533 LEAP engines ordered to-date.

Separately, we’ve been provided some diagrams by CFM for publication about the LEAP and how its architecture and technology benefit from the GE90 and GEnx. These illustrations are below the jump.

13 comments on “PW GTF-CFM LEAP market share

  1. So they seem undecided how many fan blades the LEAP will have?

    Ref for the diagram is CFM56-_5b_ which would indicate targeting of
    Airbus customers or the LEAP family in general ?

    “.. operating at lower temps than GE90/GENX”

    Isn’t that valid for all NB engines in comparison to typical WB engines?

  2. It is not listed, but I thought the LEAP-1A engine had a TAPS-II combuster, and improvement over the TAPS combuster of the GEnx-2B.

  3. With the exception you noted of GECAS, I believe leasing companies have bought more PurePower than LEAP. I speculate that the GTF is the technically more interesting product, while GE/CFM offer the more attractive finance package. The latter kicks in on direct sales but not so much on leases.

  4. Uwe :
    Interesting damage scenario.
    Bloomberg: “6 rivetes.. ..could give below ultimate load.. ..could lead to in-flight loss of the radome in case of rapid decompression,…”

    Radio news here reported that Airbus had already handed out change advisories to customers some time ago. The issue was found via _internal_ design revue. ( not EASA )

      • I don’t think the cracks in the rib/wing join ‘feet’ is solved until the cracked ‘feet’ have been replaced (hopefully a new design and material), and Airbus is assured the same problem won’t happen again to the remaining current designed ‘feet”. Then the question is who pays for all of this? Airbus? Customers/airlines?

        Last I heard on the tail shim problem on the B-787 is the fix is being accomplished on airplanes still at Boeing. The airplanes already delivered to NH have shown no signs of this problem, nor is it on every airplane at Boeing. That makes it sound like a QA problem from a subcontractor. But, I really don’t know.

  5. KC135TopBoom :
    That makes it sound like a QA problem from a subcontractor. But, I really don’t know.

    Boeing has already said the error occurred at their South Carolina integration site. At one point that operation was a supplier joint venture, but is now a wholly owned Boeing facility. This error was caused by Boeing production employees.

Leave a Reply: Note Reader Comment Rules

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s