Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
Leeham News and Analysis
- Bjorn’s Corner: New engine development. Part 5. Turbofan design problems April 26, 2024
- Airbus 1Q2024 results: Airbus CEO: “A350 in-service experience drives positive reputation and orders” April 25, 2024
- A350-1000 or 777-9? Part 3 April 25, 2024
- Boeing CEO promises company is turning around…again April 24, 2024
- Solid start for stand-alone GE Aerospace despite cuts to LEAP output April 23, 2024
HOTR: Rolls 787 engine orders tank last 5 year
By the Leeham News team
Sept. 29, 2020, © Leeham News: Engine orders for Rolls-Royce on the Boeing 787 tanked in the last five years—pre-COVID.
An analysis reveals that over this period, Boeing booked 952 orders for 787. Of these, 755 selected the GEnx. A mere 80 orders were placed with RR. There were 117 orders for which engines were not selected. This gives GE a 90% share of the selected campaigns.
It gets worse.
Of the 80 aircraft that went to Trent 1000, Boeing removed 44 under ASC 606 accounting rules as too shaky to consider firm orders anymore. These include Avianca, Latam, Norwegian Air Shuttle, etc., which either went into bankruptcy or are restructuring as a result of COVID.
Under this scenario, GE’s share is closer to 95% in last five years.
RR’s Trent 1000 on the 787 is a thorn in the company’s side because of serious technical issues that grounded up to 50 aircraft. Groundings began several years ago. RR continues to deal with the financial fall-out. Some customers switched from RR engines to GEnx in follow-on orders for the 787.
Base-case, worst-case
With Airbus now delivering but a fraction of RR-powered A330neos and A350s, the company faces a base-case, worst-case outlook in the near- and medium-term. Even the base-case isn’t all that good.
In its half-year results, published Aug. 27, RR wrote:
“In assessing the adoption of the going concern basis in the condensed consolidated financial statements, the Directors have considered the forecast cash flows of the Group and the liquidity available over an eighteen-month period to 28 February 2022,” RR said.
“They have paid particular attention to the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on the Group’s Civil Aerospace and ITP Aero businesses and have assessed both a base case scenario (which reflects the Directors current expectations of future trading) and a severe but plausible downside scenario (which envisages a “stress” or “downside” situation and is further explained below) when evaluating the potential impact of these scenarios on the Group’s future financial performance and cash flows.
“We expect the Civil Aerospace business to be most significantly impacted. The key judgement is the severity, extent and duration of the disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and therefore the timing of recovery of commercial aviation to pre-crisis levels, including whether a widespread “second wave” of restrictions will occur.”
Return to Normal
The company continued, “The Group’s base case scenario assumes a deep impact with slow recovery and no second wave of global lockdown restrictions: widebody capacity returns to 75% of the pre-crisis baseline in H2 2021 and over 90% in H2 2022, with a slower growth to a full recovery to 2019 levels of widebody activity by 2024.”
Boeing doesn’t see the widebody market returning to normal until 2025, CEO David Calhoun said on the 2Q2020 earnings call in July.
Severe but plausible downside scenario
Rolls-Royce added that, “Due to the inherent uncertainty over the severity, extent and duration of the disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and therefore the timing of recovery of commercial aviation to pre-crisis levels, the Directors have also considered a severe but plausible downside scenario.
“This severe but plausible downside is based in principle on a general assumption that there will be a ‘second wave’ of COVID-19 infections that results in further stringent lockdown restrictions, including restrictions on travel between countries, being re-introduced across many parts of the world in 2020 or during the first part of 2021, with a gradual recovery of the global economy and the Group taking place once those restrictions are lifted.”
If this happens, RR foresees widebody flying hours using RR engines decreasing by 64% in 2020 vs 2019. Usage is forecast to increase by 28% in 2021 vs to 2020.
Qatar Airways 2019-20 Results
Qatar Airways published on Sunday its financial results for the fiscal year that concluded on Mar. 31st, 2020. The airline published an operating loss of 1,129m Qatari Rial ($310m) on 50,951m Qatari Rial ($14.0bn) in revenues. Unlike most other airlines that publish operating earnings, this figure does not include General Administrative expenses.
After accounting for Administrative expenses, other incomes (mostly Duty-Free at the Doha Hamad international airport), financial expenses, and losses in associates, the net loss is 7,007m Qatari Rial ($1.9bn).
This figure, however, does not include losses on the numerous equity investments Qatar Airways has in other airlines, such as Cathay Pacific, IAG, and Latam Airlines. Those losses amount to 11,918m Qatari Rial ($3.3bn). Qatar Airways’ Total Comprehensive Loss for the year was 19,457m Qatari Rial, or $5.3bn.
Qatar was one of the few long haul carriers that tried to maintain most of it’s routes, allowing transit through Doha for foreign Nationals stranded through the world
https://oxfordbusinessgroup.com/news/qatar-s-covid-19-lifeline-international-travellers
I hope the dual cases of BCA and RR get taught widely and often in the future to show just how seriously damaging the hubris of relegating engineering rigour can be to an engineering based business.
On the bright side for RR, they do seem to make strong steps forward following crises (of which there have been too many).
No sure I see a bright side for either one.
Now all the pundits are clamoring for an Ultra fan and none of the previous stuff has been anything but a loss (with the engine business model it has to stay on wing 20 years to get ROI)
GE at least has 150 or so 747-8 to spread GenX over, that is another 600 engines.
Articles such as the following also point to the potentially clouded future (or zero future) for RR engines:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/richardaboulafia/2019/11/18/re-engined-airbus-a350-could-be-heavy-blow-for-rolls-royce-big-win-for-ge-and-global-trade/#34c075082b4a
The EU needs to maintain a significant presence in the jet engine segment. There’s still Safran, of course, but perhaps a company like Siemens could start to show a greater interest?
MTU aero engines (https://www.mtu.de/)
Haevily involved in the GTF, but also miniority in GE9x and more
MTU is also in the VF program
And GE has bought up the Italian concern Avio.
The aviation engine business isnt aligned along EU v US like the airframe business. There is plenty of cross border partnerships as other point out… Germany, France, Italy, Japan etc
Actually the air-frame business is cross world.
787 is built in Japan (wings and wing box), Italy (rear non pressurized section and tail feathers)
767 and 777 have large Japanese presence.
Airbus assembles A320 in 4 countries
A large portion of all Airbus is US sourced (30%?)
Political battles rage is between UK/Germany/France/Spain (not EU) and the US.
@Bruce
I had a good laugh last year reading this all bluff and bluster piece from Richard Aboulafia.
How can you call yourself an industry “analyst” not knowing that RR has an exclusive engine deal with Airbus for the A350-1000?
https://www.flightglobal.com/paris-a350-1000-delayed-to-2017-as-rolls-raises-xwb-thrust/100596.article
https://www.flightglobal.com/paris-a350-1000-delayed-to-2017-as-rolls-raises-xwb-thrust/100596.article
–
Also, GE can’t just offer a modified GEnx engine for the A350-900 — it’s not powerful enough. In fact, Airbus would want an engine derived from the GE9X to power the A350-900, not the GEnx.
Now, it’s easy to see why Richard Aboulafia tends to be talking down both Airbus and RR as he seems to have an overly excessive U.S. centric point of view.
Even Richard Aboulafia should be able to grasp that an UltraFan-powered A350-1000 and an UltraFan-powered A350-2000 stretch would essentially terminate the 777-9 model.
Adding a premature shutdown of the 777X programme (possible freighter version excluded) to the 737 MAX fiasco would not be good for the aerospace industry in the U.S.
Hence, it makes sense, from Richard’s point of view, to spread FUD about RR and the UltraFan as he appears to be the de-facto mouthpiece of the American aerospace industry (spaceflight excluded).
Meanwhile; due to the escalating Covid-19 crisis :
RR is likely to receive handsome payouts from the U.K. Government and likely to receive some aid from a few governments in the EU as well. They will survive.
Both GE and P&W are likely to receive handsome payouts from the U.S. Government. They will survive.
You miss that P&W or GP Alliance could offer a GTF on the A350-800/900
PW acualy has GTF in numbers in the real world.
That would be a game changer on the A350, it could buck up A330 sales.
Well, the Engine Alliance has ceased production of engines and P&W didn’t want to work with IAE partner RR on the PW1000G GTF engine — so, why would P&W now suddenly want to partner with GE on an all new widebody engine, with the risk of letting GE get hold of P&W’s GTF secrets.
Not a given, but GE has failed to do GTF.
They have worked with P&W and the GP program was much more successful than the Trent 900.
I am not saying they will but there is a history between the two that was very positive.
You need to be aware that P&W while technically the lead, has the same V2500 working group on the GTF. That is MTU and as i recall, 3 Japanese engine mfgs.
You bring the tech, GE has access to Boeing.
The EA was a shotgun marriage, GE I assume are happy it is over not to see a GE90/GE9X copy with geared fan popping out of PWA, just like when the US Navy decided that they should have “a great Engine war” by having PWA produce the F404 just resulting in a few build but the design evolved into the F119/F135 saving PWA when its Commercial Turbofan Engines lost market appeal. The DoD/USAF tried all tricks available to keep it alive and succeded.
“”an UltraFan-powered A350-1000 and an UltraFan-powered A350-2000 stretch””
How big (diameter) would the UltraFan be?
I don’t think an A350-2000 is needed.
It’s Airbus MO to increase MTOW and with it its range. They did it with the A220, A321LR, XLR, A330neo too. All together they match if every model gets more range. For NB it’s great because it’s unmatched. but for WB it doesn’t make sense to fly around the world twice.
Next time Airbus should design a much lighter model and then do their MO with increasing MTOW to really improve the model.
But it seems Airbus got some Boeingitis, it can be seen on the 9-abreast A350, the 11-abreast A380neo. Of course it’s not easy to compete against cheaters for decades.
https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/press-releases/2020/11-02-2020-intelligentengine-rr-starts-manufacture-of-world-largest-fan-blades.aspx
Think you can pick your Ultrafan diameter in the future to suit your Aircraft requirements on thrust, Engine mass and SFC within the laws of physics. The key advance is the core Engine with its high pressure ratio to get a high thermodynamic efficiency, then you fit as large fan with desired gear ratio you can handle to get the thrust and propulsive efficiency you can squeeze out from the installation you choose. The Ultrafan is a family not a single application for the A350-1000.
OV,
the Ultrafan is vaporware, and will remain so as long as RR is in deep financial trouble. they do not have the financial resources to bring it to market.
GE is certainly working on a geared fan, and could conceivably license the tech from PW or do a joint GE core/PW fan engine.
what is lost on everyone, it seems, is that large twin aisle aircraft in general (A350-1000/777) are going the way of the dodo and that large single aisle (180-240 seat) and medium twin (220-320 seat) is where the market will be for the forseeable future.
the market for the Ultrafan/next GTF/GE geared fan engine is going to be in the 35-50k and 65-80k thrust range, not the 95-110 range needed for an a350-1000/2000
@bilbo
If the next single aisle aircraft is going to fueled by LH2, the MTOW would be significantly lower than the MTOW of the current A320neo. Thus, the thrust requirement should be no more than 25,000 lbf.
What is lost on you, apparently, is that your 35-50,000 lbf thrust class engine fits the thrust requirements for the discontinued Boeing NMA aircraft concept. In fact, the first LH2-powered aircraft could very well EIS before any NMA aircraft takes to the skies for the first time.
What is also lost on you, apparently, with your 65-80,000 lbf thrust class engine (i.e. 787 thrust requirements) is that the UltraFan engine is just too big for the 787 as it sits too close to the ground — not enough ground clearance (i.e. similar to the 737 MAX situation).
If the next single aisle engine(s) will be for the first LH2 fueled aircraft, then the logical first UltraFan engine application would be for a single common engine for the A350neo — thrust requirements: 84,000 lbf (A350-900.) to 97,000 lbf (A350-1000).
Now, RR is starting ground tests of the UltraFan engine demonstrator engine next year. In fact, RR appears to be unique in that they are actually building a prototype engine — an engine that has an all new fan, compressor and core.
When did GE and P&W last do something similar for a civilian engine development programme — to actually develop and flight-test a full prototype engine, not just bits and pieces.
Of course, the geared fan was tested extensively by P&W, but they didn’t do much core developing…..
–
https://www.cleansky.eu/the-uhbr-engine-flight-testing-programme-gathers-momentum
–
So, partly thanks to funding from EU’s cleansky programme, RR has been able to develop the UltraFan engine uninterrupted since 2013.
The launch of the first engine application might be delayed a couple of years, but I see no reason why the first UltraFan-powered A350neo should not be flying well before 2030.
Meanwhile, GE also seems to have non trivial financial problems.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ge-bet-on-aviation-to-pull-through-its-troubles-then-coronavirus-hit-11587985201
Have to disagree on the PW GTF core. It is in fact all new, though who designed what part is in the mix of MTU and the Japanese mfgs.
That core has been spun off as a new stand alone jet engine in the form of the new PW800
LH2 is now, and always will be, 20 years out as a commercial aviation fuel. handling of LH2 is not now and never will be idiot proof, and the world is full of idiots. engineering a mechanically robust, low maintenance, easy to maintain, affordable to manufacture LH2 storage and delivery system into an airplane intended to fly 10,000 cycles between major maintenance events is a “never gonna happen” proposition. all you need to do is look at space flight where not one rocket launch leaves the ground without multiple days of test to ensure the integrity of the seals in the LH2/LOX systems.
the next small aircraft from Airbus is about 18 months from market right now (A220-500), or would be if not for COVID.
the A321/322 replacement will be a conventional tube and wing with a composite wing and maybe GLARE or panelized composite fuselage, folding wing tips and a GTF @ ~40k thrust. I would like to see them go bold with an overwing engine mount which would forever free them from the tyranny of long landing gear.
The A330 will fade out, the A350 will be on the market for at least another 20 years with a re-engine in about 7-10. 50/50 on whether it is a GE or RR engine.
Boeing will have to move soon on a 737 replacement, something to cover the -800 to 757 space and abandon the low end. potentially side by side double bubble fuselage solution and overwing engines to optimize turn time by having twin aisles and keeping the low fuselage for ease of baggage handling and ground service.
the 787 has room for a re-engine, the current engines are ~111″ fans and they have 12″ of excess ground clearance to the 17″ standard. fiddle with the nacelle design similar to what was done with the 737NG and you could increase the fan diameter by 26-28″ keeping the same engine centerline giving you a 137-139″ fan without much difficulty. raise the engine centerline as they did on the 737 and the sky’s the limit.
It’s notable that R-R’s recent press releases are often about expansions or successes outside the civil aviation sector. This is currently about 50% of the business and it looks like their long-term strategy is to grow the other parts of the business to reduce the overall influence (both positive and negative) of the unstable, cyclical and unreliable civil aviation market.
What do the contestable/non-contestable market share figures for 787 engines look like? The difference is aircraft financed by GECAS, which (being a subsidiary of GE) has a published policy of never buying anything that does not have GE engines.
Or you could say RR outside business are what took its eye off the ball.
Contrary maybe RR should exit the engine business, its just does seem to be their forte.
Last really good engine was the Merlin, and its only beat out Allison due to Allison being hobbled by the AAC insistence on Turbo chargers vs the successful Superchargers both the Brits and the US Navy used.
Otherwise it was a bankruptcy and total loss of engines for single aisle, even selling out VF program.
As usual, your hysterical agenda-driven diatribes against RR once again demonstrates a lack of industry insight/knowledge.
All three engine OEMs are pushing the boundaries of engineering, all three have encountered problems. All three will sort them out.
As for RR, they have delivered more than 2000 Trent 700 engines. The Trent 700 engine has been RR’s best-selling engine, helping to increase its widebody market share from 13 percent in 1995 – when the engine was first introduced – to more than 35 percent market share of engines installed in the passenger fleet for widebody aircraft. In fact, RR projected before Covid-19 hit the industry, that they would have more than 50 percent market share of widebody engines by the mid 2020s.
As for RR engine reliability:
https://www.aerotime.aero/aerotime.team/22761-aeroflot-flies-trent-700-engine-for-50k-hours-without-overhaul
OV-O99:
I am not arguing the Trent 700 is a good engine, its the preferr3d engine on the A330CEO for good reason. Once RR sorted out the RB211 issues, the form was a good engine and the original Trents were successful if not always as fuel efficient as the competation.
But the Trent 7000 is a decedent of a failure. Trent 10 or not, the A330NEO would be better off with a GENx engine, the operators want it, they just can’t get it.
Plenty of US planes used turbo superchargers mostly radials but even with the Allison engine, prime example was Lockheed Lightning.
A single stage supercharger was standard on all types of high performance planes
The later Kingcobra even had a 2 stage supercharger like the later Merlin made by Packard ( which never had a turbo charger)
Rolls was first with the turbofan Conway and they even started using carbon fibre in it ( a British invention).
Even the Spey was better for the fighter-bomber Phantoms like it was for Corsair II.
US manufactures built RR engines under license but gave it their own names for some military jets, Grummans early navy jets
Duke:
You miss the fact that the US AAC dictated the form the V-1710 was to be used in. In fact Allison desperately wanted to develop the super chargers (and two stage) but the AAC was paying for it and dictated what direction they had to go.
Clearly the UK got it right as did the USN.
When the Army Air Corp failed in their stupidity, they then morphed over to the Merlin without skipping a beat.
Allison was not allowed to do a War Emergency rating like the Merlin was until late in 1943 as I recall.
The Allison was simpler, more modular, more robust, better time on wing and it could run with almost no coolant and much easier to repair and maintain.
The Merlin was a magnificent development, though the carb issues were a serious problem until a brilliant lady figured out a solution. But it was inferior to the Allison.
The Super Turbo in fact worked well on the P-38 due to the frame layout.
Sadly, at least in Europe, the AAC failed to train pilots in how to use the P-38.
Equally good, it was then free to run wild in the Pacific Theater manned by experienced pilots who knew how to run it and use it (as well as an assist from Lindbergh in how to get range out of it)
If the AAC had turned the P-38 loose in Europe in 1943 as a separate enemy to attack Luftwaffe formation in advance of an attack, the air war would have been won much sooner.
The P-51 and Spitfire when it could were clearly better close escort fighters and easier to train new pilots for.
The P-38 and P-47 were far better free lance attack.
Rolls-Royce has 100% market share on Airbus widebody aircraft.
None on narrow body and that is where the numbers are for sales.
Not to mention A330 buyers and prospective buyers are clamoring for a GE or PW engine.
AFAIK, the CF6-80E1 engine and the PW4100 engine are no longer in production. The only A330ceo engine now being manufactured is the Trent 700 engine for the A330 MRTT.
The USAF KC46 is powered by PW4062 turbofans, still in production, as is the CF6 for the 767 freighters
Correct, it is the older versions CF6-80C2 and PW4062 that still are in production. CF6-80E1 and PW4172 are finished in serial production.
Which is rather worrying, when you think about it.
More leverage for Boris, if things get ugly with the EU.
All Airbus wings are also UK-made. It’s true that Airbus owns some of the facilities involved, but I’m sure Airbus would (currently) prefer if they were somewhere within the EU.
Airbus gets its parts from all over the world , there isnt this ‘from the EU’ idea you have in your head.
Recent discussions on the 787 manufacturing shows they too have major sections from all around the world , including from ‘in the EU’. Individual countries champion their manufacturers who want to get on as many programs as they can
I don’t have a “in the EU” idea in my head: I have a “better in the EU than in a country with an increasingly hostile attitude toward the EU” idea in my head.
I can imagine that China has a similar attitude right now: they’re (currently) dependent on US manufacturers for engines for their Comacs, yet trade relations between the two countries are souring by the minute.
Bad situation for RR..
but at least they are on the A350 and not on the 777x. I can see a A330NEO revival after 2023, 1000 A330CEO’s need to be replaced.
The 787 backlog has been shrinking / “tanking” over the last 10 years.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/e3c0d808c4cb030baa7f6d07943ddb59.png
It seems that in 10 years Boeing has burned down the backlog vs tanking.
Of course there is a leveling off, but the 787 is viable for 15 years at least.
Put a GTF on it and its off to the races again (that assume Boeing can manage to figure out how to make an aircraft to specification)
RR seems to have been in a hurry to be the first Engine onto the different B787 models and somewhere it the setup with attracting ANA and SQ as key customers its engineering focus/oversight was lost on some critical parts.
Maybe the top design engineers was not allowed to change the design in time and was allowed to move to the T-XWB.
RR works hard to solve it all but with limited shop capacity and holding the MRO business all to themselves and a few select partners hurt the Airlines needing huge MRO shop volumes for all Trent Engines simultaneously. Hopefully lessons will be learned and the Ultrafan be as successful as the RB211-535, T700, T-XWB.
What is amazing is that its a basic aspect of jet engine design, like a 088 level course in a US University (that is not even Junior level, its a revamp to high school).
Until a year ago they did not even understand it was a harmonic issue (the second one, not the blade corrosion which is also level 050)
The Germans figured out harmonics on the ME262 engine (of which design went on to be the engine form we see today (core still) .
The British have made basic engineering mistakes on much more prestigious projects (also involving RR):
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3629306/Royal-Navy-s-advanced-destroyers-break-Gulf-water-WARM-bungling-defence-chiefs-admit.html
The problems with the Rolls-Royce engines on the British Royal Navy Type 45 destroyer are all caused by the intercooler supplied from the USA by Northrup Grumman. Tons of info online.
Yes, the gas turbine performance relies on intercooling, which was known to degrade in warmer temperatures, so the design was to anticipate the degradation and make up the difference with diesel generators.
In practice the degradation is more than expected so turbine performance falls off more sharply, at a higher load than the diesels are able to pick up. This can be managed but the generator capacity will be upgraded to compensate instead.
The problem was caused by the N-G intercooler specs not accounting for very warm waters, and not having sufficient operating margin to deal with them.
That was built to customer specifications (which didn’t allow for the heat of operations in the Middle East).
If the intercooler is too small you can boost the Engine Power by Clean water injection into the burner housing increasing steam massflow thru the turbines. It is an old GE trick for its stationary gas turbines and you might need to adjust the turbine nozzle areas to keep pressures withing limits. Another method is clean water mist mix into the intake air that will evaporate and lower the air temperature.
But the RN might go for an additional intercooler designed by ex. RR engineers at Ricardo and made by Alfa Laval (known for cow milk room heat exchangers..)
The intercooler is integrated with the engine and the ship, thus too difficult to change. The solution as already contracted and scheduled, is to remove the two existing diesels and replace them with three more powerful units that fit within the same physical space.
The reduction in intercooling reduces the power output of the turbine, so it must be de-rated accordingly. Since the Type 45 is a turbo electric design, it must have another source to retain full capability.
The point was that RR was blamed in the press for producing an unreliable engine, but the truth was more complex (as it almost always is).
..”was built to customer specifications (which didn’t allow for the heat of operations in the Middle East)’
The first failure occurred (2010) when a ship was in the Mid Atlantic and was closest to a Canadian port for repairs. So the idea of ‘heat of the middle east’ while also likely wasnt the core of the problem which was the ‘recuperator’ ( The section made by the W …or Westinghouse Electric, now owned by Northrop Grumman). The extra fuel efficiency is around what was expected, 25%+
I have been doing more reading on the WR-21 on the Type 45.
While I don’t know where the fault is (its a weird Northrop Grumman and RR collaboration on a variation of the RB211) its clear that its not just the inter cooler. The RB211 itself is solid, the WR-21 is anything but.
The Type 45 is an all electric power system (Turbines and Diesel engines drive Generators)
Of the power available, non modified Type 45 has 43 Mega Watts from the WR-21. The diesels add a mere 4 mega Watts.
The WR-21 had a lot of mods to allow it to run at lower power outputs than you would get out of a Turbine – all for efficiency purposes.
Its not working. They have had one totally failure in mid Atlantic (which is NOT warm water) . How you can have a total power failure with 4 engines is beyond me.
There is no notation it was the electrical conversion or distribution (AC to DC and then back to AC on a bus) , just the “engines” .
With any engine, if you are having cooling problems, you just take load off (in this case with two mother motors driving the ship slow down, turn off the Radar would be the two big users).
They can’t seem to do that so its a complex interrelationship between the methods they used to get low output efficiency not the just the inter-cooler itself.
The diesels are being replaced and one or two added. Again that is odd as Wartsilla is a well known and highly regarded engine maker. Mostly RR has mated up with MTU engines (driving generators normally) .
Worst case with the Wartsilla you can take load off and that should be a non issue and you can see overload coming. With a diesel that is not an issue even if it is for the WR-21.
For all of them to fail reportedly twice now, stunning.
And they are lucky to have two in service now (out of 6) and have spent extended periods just welded to a pier and not even being worked on.
Any ship worth a damn should have 4 or 5 out of 6 running fine.
The Type 31 has given up on that system and is standard RB211 driving into a gear box with aux generators and electric motors to boost.
TW, as we’ve discussed before, the harmonic issues were subtle, not obvious or fully developed until the engine had significant operational hours in certain environments. If you can foresee those kinds of issues, you should make your case to RR and ask them to hire you as a consultant.
It’s easy to demean the work of others that is incomprehensible to you. But in that case the fault is with you, not with them. They attempted something extremely difficult and didn’t get it quite right. Then they stood behind their error and worked to correct it.
Your commentary is derisive, comparing them to high school students lacking in knowledge from 80 years ago, but without offering any contribution or solution of your own. So who deserves the greater respect?
I have to disagree it was a discussion.
I would call it a never ending excuse of failures for what is supposed to be experts. The military refers to it as reinforcing failure. Commanders who do that are fired (or loose the war).
I was excellent at my work and did not make excuses for failures.
I expected not to make rookie mistakes. The science in jet engine of harmonics leading to blade cracking is well understood back wot WWII at the gestation of jet engines.
Its as basic as torque force needed to clamp, crimping terminals correctly over greasing bearings.
You should note I never faulted RR for the 777 engine shutdown.
While it was a design choice, it was well proven and had a perfect track record. It took incredibly unusual set of circumstances to reveal the fault path possible.
Equally so on the oil pipe on the Trent 900. Nothing wrong with the design. Mfg specs were at fault which is an RR issue but unlike Boeing, limited to a single part.
You should get a commercial pilots license before you comment on any aircraft subject (or private with an instrument rating). I have both as well as a very successful landing in an MD-11 flight simulator.
TW, as always the issue is not in your criticism itself, but in the representation of derisive and unsubstantiated opinion as fact.
No one here has defended the RR issues as being other than significant errors. “Rookie” errors is not substantiated by the truth of what happened. It’s only substantiated by your lack of understanding of the subject, and is motivated by the overall negativity of your opinion. Neither of which is ever altered in the slightest by the balancing information presented here.
Existing modes and causes of harmonics are well understood, but this was a new one with a different cause, that wasn’t foreseen. Your ridicule would be warranted if you had foreseen it, or even had the ability to foresee it.
So you could be reasonable and acknowledge that engineers, with far greater knowledge than you, made a mistake that was discovered in hindsight. They are absolutely at fault, and have owned up to that responsibility. But implying that they are clueless, or that you could have done better, is way over the top.
Does a license for a Borg Cube count? 😂
Oh yes! I could fix a bad piece of Switchgear but totally inept at Rubics Cube.
I find the comments snarky that go join this or be that or Rob decides you can’t comment.
I was an engineer (no letters) for 10 years, worked on spinning machinery for 35, drove a lot of big iron before and during.
So yes I know what quality machinery is, what goes into it. RR did a horrible job on the Trent 1000, its issues aside, GE had 60+ % of the 787 market for a reason (better SPC and maint costs)
RR taughted that the 3 Spool while it cost more up front and overhaul, returned SFC as well as one wing time. It never did on the Trent 1000. The Trent 10 never caught up with GE on SFC (no idea on its longevity or maint but it has to exceed SFC to make up for the other costs).
RR reminds me of Cat. Snooty. Used to be good stuff, but it never was better than anyone else and John Deere matches and exceeds them in the area that they compete directly in (engines and machinery) – Cummins matches and exceeds them in engines..
Rob:
While you espouse great management spin (pun intended in the case of RR) once again you try to deflect.
Of course they admitted it, they had engines blowing up. They had no choice. They covered up the Trent 900 issues because Clark was in political cahoots with them.
The same as Boeing and two MAX crashes. Kind of hard to cover up. And same aspects, well understood principle and in fact they have the same setup on 767/757 that does not do what MCAS 1.0 did.
I spent a career working on as well as assessing spinning equipment and how good or bad it was. I am in fact very well qualified to assess it and can determine it was a huge mistake.
It was so bad, they knew about it on the Trent 1000 and duplicated it on the Trent 10. Each time they built a program that predicted how long you could try to run them and each time they failed in the real world.
This is life safety stuff. Norwegian had one engine go that was well below the supposed safe limit. The other engine was even further into the danger zone.
When your first engine is so bad you just replace it, and then repeat the mistakes and it never even comes up to snuff, you have a huge problem.
Its going to be a few years before we know on the A350.
Equally you miss that it was both corroded blades to start with, then cracking blades (of which there were at least 4 in flight failures).
So spin it away to your hearts content, the assessment is spot on.
TW, this is all again your opinion, with no substantiating facts. I gave you the factual evidence of what actually happened with the harmonic problem, as has been reported in the press.
If you have evidence for what you’ve said here, please provide it. Also below, you were asked for evidence of your engine SFC claims. If you have it, please provide it.
If you don’t have it, then all you have to do is stop insisting your version is the truth, but rather is your judgement or opinion. I don’t think you realize how much that insistence demerits your statements here.
No one cares what you did in your career, or how you think that qualifies you to make these statements. There is no qualification that justifies an untruth. The statements are either true or they’re not. They’re either factually supported or they’re not. That’s all that matters, or is of interest here.
I have never restricted or objected to your right to comment here, although you have suggested several times that I should not. But when you deride others as an argument to make your points, I will call you out every time. That’s what you did here, and all your other statements are an attempt to justify it. But it has no justification, it’s just plain wrong.
Rob:
Its only wrong from your viewpoint.
The facts disagree. When your view disagrees with the facts, then its an opinion.
You may well want to believe the Fox can Guard the Hen house. The facts say you will be chicken less very fast.
Or as my wrestling coach used to say, Spit in one hand and wish in the other and see which one fills up first.
It is not that easy to predict the LCF/HCF Life of blades and disks as you can pretty easy calculate the harmonic frequecies but the amplitude and damping with friction resulting in 6-component strains is another order of difficulty not to mention acustic induced vibrations at certian operating conditions (just ask PWA…). Still I agree you should avoid harmonics at max continous thrust rpm’s.
Claes, do you happen to know to what “derivative order” aeroengine manufacturers typically go when modelling the vibrational behavior of engine parts?
Do they go any/much further than jerk (third derivative of position w.r.t. time)?
I ask this because, in the semiconductor equipment manufacturing industry, at least one company I know uses vibrational modeling up to 6th-order derivatives (4, 5 and 6 are referred to as “snap”, “crackle” and “pop”, respectively).
I have seen rules avoiding the 6 lowest harmonics, all depending on the steady state effective and 1st principal stress levels that peak at max rpm. It is really hard to predict blade attachment damping and stress levels as the friction helps the hoop stress cross the blade attachment lowering the disk hoop stress by this effect. You always will excite some combination of vibration modes as you rev up but to calculate the exact HCF stress levels is hard. Even during startup, ref RR RB211 sub idle stalls. You instrument and normally the instrucmentation will effect the readings so you do detailed FEM analysis with the instrumentation modelled and you then have to go thru rpm, Mach and Reynolds numbers for “forced response analaysis” with different friction values.
CFMI got caught on the CFM56-3B British Midland where a vibration mode in the fan blade tips occured only at altitude, hence very important to spend time at simultaed alitude test rigs (Arnold army base)
You also have to run flutter analysis to verify that you have aero damping for the different mode shapes in addition run acoustic analysis to see if these “not-per rpm” excitations can cause you problems. Ref PWA on A220 PW1500G fan blades on Swiss Aircrafts.
(The different engine chambers works as organ pipes and waves gives both a rotating and counter rotating frames of reference vibration force, check Joe Alford), (more than high-school math involved…)
“Last 5 years” and “… over this period, Boeing booked 952 orders for 787.”
Going by Wikipedia:EN:787 data I don’t see more than 400 orders for the 787 in the referenced interval or ~~80 per year.
Who cares about the past. NEW orders are what count.
According to wikipedia the 787 has 1510 orders. In 2007 it had close to 500 orders. So less than 100 orders between 2008 and 2015 can’t be true.
It could be true as the plane was grounded because of many issues …not a good environment to close deals. The buyers might have waited till they had fixed the production and battery issues, which they did.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/e3c0d808c4cb030baa7f6d07943ddb59.png
~900 orders around the fake roll out in 2007.
Flatliner for 5 years, less than 100 / a till today.
i.e. the majority of orders was done on over promises later aided by (contract) conditions favorable to not cancel.
What is missing here is that RR came out with a new engine to cure the problems with the old one and failed at that as well (while most of it was new they used the very same core parts that failed).
First time in Aviation history an engine was dropped and not corrected it was so bad (it missed its fuel burn that they could never figure out so all new)
That in turn means that same engine is on the A330NEO in a bleed air version (it has to be fixed as well though they have the time now)
And it never matched GE on SFC on the GenX, so you can see A330 buyers thinking, hmmm, 2-3%, whey are we forced into running this dog?
Its not that the Trent 10/7000 can’t be fixed mechanically, its in the end the incredibility cost (can you say Edsel?) and the fact it never will be as good as GenX SFC wise.
Could you show us the SFC for the different engines mentioned.
Rudolf:
I do not, for the most part the information is closely held by the mfgs and Airlines.
So its picked up by snippets from discussion and articles read over a long period of time.
I am trying to capture those now for listing.
Overall the Trent 900 ran 2-3% behind the GP7000. Clark said the new rev Trent 900 would be 5% bewter., At a minum thats a 7% jump and impossible with a derivative engine).
RR did try to get the Trent 10 up to GENx (also about 2-3% better) and failed (GE has pipped the GenX.
So RR apparently finally met the minimums they guaranteed Boeing with the Trent 10, but they never caught up to the improved GenX.
As Trents are heavier, cost more and cost more overhaul, in order to make up for that they need to return better SFC. The Trent 700 as discussed did that, the newer ones are beat out by the GE (and even on the 757 the RB211 was never as fuel efficient as the PW2000 (better in other ways to start but PW cleaned up the issue.
“What is missing here is that RR came out with a new engine to cure the problems with the old one”
No they didnt come out with a new engine the Ten was just an upgrade package. We have covered this in detail many times before.
GE has had to make major changes to its 787 engine as well including ‘back fitting’ to those in service….but their PR calls it durability upgrades and the american media swallows that as they follow anything Bloomberg says.
While Rolls was doing a new engine for the A350 they were able to use some new tech for the Ten as well. GE was doing 2 very different cores for its Leap A and B versions simultaneously so wasnt in a position to use its tech advances until the GE9X was built. Which we now have in the air on the plane it was designed for. It will move the goalposts for efficiency , thats if there isnt any unforeseen problems, and Bloomberg accurately reports them.
Duke:
As discussed preios9uly, 75% is an all new engine. That clearly is not a PIP, or its the Mother Of All PIPs.
Its much like saying the original Trent series was not a new engine.
While it was developed off the RB211 concept, it was all new.
To be fair it is an upgrade comparable to the 788 -> 789 “upgrade”. Nothing much stayed the same.
( What commonality between the 1945 1200 and the Super Beetle 1303 from 1972)
But I do not see any proof of TW’s allegation that the TEN carries over all the issues coming up for the earlier Trent 1000 models.
Same issues, just not enough time on wing to correct it.
As there have been multiple fixes put in and there are few Trent 10 flying, RR is going to be able to stay ahead on it.
RR lost ANA and NZ which would be two early users.
Norwegian is not taking 787s and those were RR powered (Tens as the Trent 1000 is no longer made)
Same with the 7000, not man flying and with Covd fixes can be put in so it will never rise to the public disaster levels though its going to cost a lot of fix all the overall engines out there.
There is a reason A330NEO operators want a choice, desperately.
Economic as well as they can see it does not add up on SFC to a GenX engine (which GE has a bleed air version available)
Regrading future engines for the A350 variants, you should not forget the Ultrafan. I have to admit that there is a lot of silence around it over the past half year and that can mean pretty much everything.
If RR finds there will be large enough a time frame to recoup the investments for such engine before LH2 kicks in, this is the engine that has a chance to dominate the wide-body market for quite some time with uncontested performance.
It might also win a significant share of the 787 business.
And maybe the design would also be viable for LH2, which rises its chances even more.
There is actually a number of articles in regards to RR and Ultrafan. It is progressing to a prototype running next year I believe (prototype, not a flyable configuration for any aircraft)
People throw it out as a panaceas, but RR has never recouped the Trent 1000 and will never recoup the Trent 10 costs.
How can it then come out with an Ultra Fan and why wold anyone buy it? RR has lost huge confidence and GE has the 787 market sowed up.
The Trent 7000 has not recouped its costs either and never will at the A330NEO burn rate.
The A350-800/900 have a different engine than the A350-1000. Its going to be 15 years before they recoup the costs of those engines.
An Ultra would make those dinosaur to (assuming it works) .
They put a lot of money into the Trent 900 revamp that did not work and never will sell now either.
Well its a start in addressing Grandfather and Pilots issues, hope to see FLCH revisited
https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/us-bill-details-certification-and-training-upheaval-in-737-maxs-wake/140365.article
Have to see what this does to the ODA program if anything and returning to full FAA control.
Tragically this was known and documented
https://www.oig.dot.gov/sites/default/files/FAA%20Oversight%20of%20ODA%20Final%20Report%5E10-15-15.pdf
but Boeing “won” and forced congress to take FAA streamlining and delegation even further, out of economical and competitive necessity.
https://thehill.com/policy/transportation/319723-boeing-urges-congress-to-streamline-aircraft-certification-process
.. while doing stock buy backs, dividents and very high executive bonusses ..
Capitalism easily beat longer term safety concerns.
This comment misconstrues the intent of both the audit and the article. The audit was to show that FAA lacked the internal staffing to properly conduct internal controls reviews of ODA delegates, and provide them with guidance and feedback as to the conduct of their activities. Although there was improvement needed across the board, Boeing was viewed to be the best of the investigated manufacturers in this regard.
The report makes 9 recommendations, of which FAA had addressed 6 by the time of publication of the report, with 3 in progress. FAA concurred with the results. There was no direct link to safety incidents or the suitability or reform of the ODA system, as implied. Only that the internal controls process could be improved.
The Congressional testimony in the article from John Hamilton was regarding the struggle to perform multiple certification paths with multiple regulators. That was the focus of Boeing’s request for legislative changes. They were asking for additional FAA support from Congress, not trying to remove it.. The article makes clear that Congress itself wanted to go further to reduce bureaucracy at FAA.
This is part of the hypocrisy of the House report. The changes that wound up in the 2018 bill had full bipartisan support and went beyond Boeing’s request. Yet the claim is that Boeing forced Congress to change the law? There is an accurate term for this that involves bovine defecation.
This is why FAA and Dickson have pushed back on those claims. They are a simplistic representation of what actually happened. Yes, change is needed and improvements can be made. FAA will support that, as will Boeing.
Another OIG report revealed what actually happened in the MAX certification failures. No mention whatever of stock buybacks, dividends or executive bonuses as probable causes. The report findings are where the focus should be. The new legislation references this and tries to address those issues. I suspect it will have support from FAA and Boeing.
It alters the reporting lines to increase FAA awareness, improves communication requirements, and helps to ensure that interference of the kind that occurred at Charleston, which was clearly wrong, does not happen.
Notably it does not alter the purpose, intent, or responsibilities of the ODA program or delegates. If anything, it strengthens them. Congress, FAA and Boeing all remain confident in the success and efficacy of the ODA program.
“Congress, FAA and Boeing all remain confident in the success and efficacy of the ODA program.”
With all we have seen, has been investigated and reported by various committees and auditors, we can bury the perception those 3 entities operated in an independent, objective workflow to ensure the latest requirements regarding certification, delegation and grandfathering of requirements and design were accomplished.
Congress, FAA and Boeing agreeing, has internationally become insufficient until a convincing framework of objectivity, independence and transparency has been established and proven itself by results rather than long sentences and impressive wording 😉
Keesje, these are your beliefs and as such are fine. The response of EASA and other international regulators belies your claims that the actions taken are not acceptable on the international stage. I believe they are.
If your view was shared, the MAX would not be returning to service and no one would do business with Boeing. That clearly is not the reality, as I’ve pointed out many times.
It is the reality you would like to see, and would wish to happen. That’s up to you to decide for yourself, but it’s important that the representations made for the actual reality are truthful.
Rob:
In fact the EASA does not accept the FAA analysis and tests and did their own analysis and testing as did Canada.
Per agreement previous the EASA and Canada recognized the FAA certification’s with mini um review and that is no longer true.
The FAA still accepts EASA etc.
And factually, the move to remove the ODA from he FAA was pushed by Boeing as an efficiency measure.
Of course the Fox wants to guard the hen house, it thinks there is free dinner. Well it is, unless you are the Hens.
TW, EASA and Canada participated in all aspects of the MAX recertification at the invitation of the FAA, in order to have an open and transparent process. They have checked the conclusions of the FAA and concurred, with no significant disagreements and no lack of trust. This was a mutual benefit and we may see similar cooperation continue in the future. To imply otherwise is disingenuous.
Almost all the certification work was carried out by Boeing and FAA, as has always been the case, and must also legally be the case. That information was provided to any regulator who wished to be involved.
The regulator reciprocation agreements still stand and no entity has moved to dissolve them. It would be impractical to do so, no regulator wants to take on the full burden of the others. What will happen now, hopefully, is more openness and more sets of eyes on controversial elements.
@keesje
Further to the gist of your comment on Boeing motives/values, you may have noticed in the Leeham Twitterfeed — and/or in the WSJ — that Boeing has decided to move all Dreadliner production to Shoddyville.
God help us all.
Here’s a futher interesting article in that regard:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tedreed/2020/09/20/in-the-south–boeing-battles-labor-while-airbus-battles-boeing/#2916f5232623
Back when it was called un-ducted fan there were reported instances of adverse physical reaction among ground staff during tests due to effects of resonance. Has this been addressed?
That is related to the square wave created by the blades crossing the discontinuous airflow over the pylon. As well as the interaction of counter-rotating blades, which produce a triangular sawtooth waveform. Both of which create dissonance in the human perception of sound.
There has been public research into noise reduction that considers the pylon as a source, and looks at blade position, pitch, speed, and sizing, so as to find the combinations that produce minimum noise and/or maximum performance.
But many of the noise reduction claims are proprietary, so we don’t know how much progress has been made. Probably won’t know until there is public testing.
Thanks for the explanation.
Its been abandoned for Electric and then H2.
The un-ducted fan is a propulsive method. H2 and electricity are energy sources. They are not exclusive, you could run the UDF on H2 or electricity.
Here is a recent article that looks at the propeller in terms of whether it could make a comeback, as cruise speeds decrease due to environmental concerns.
https://res.mdpi.com/d_attachment/energies/energies-13-04157/article_deploy/energies-13-04157-v2.pdf
Figures 3, 4, and 5 show the evolution and relationship of engine types. The turbofan diameter increase has steadily raised the basic turbojet efficiency curve, while turboprop advances (including the un-ducted propfan) have extended the speed capabilities of high-efficiency propellers. Currently the two curves cross around Mach 0.78.
Larger turbofans (such as Ultrafan) should raise the efficiency curve further, but if the cruise speeds end up at Mach 0.70 or below, the UDF is a possible contender.
The gearbox driven GTF increases the turbofan efficiency rather than diameter, by lowering the fan speed. But it also enables larger turbofans like the Ultrafan.
The article notes the shift in development that occurs with oil prices. High prices spur turboprop research, low prices spur turbofan research. That has implications for the potential shift to H2, as prices will be initially quite a bit higher.
Rob:
You miss the pointy.
All 3 are attempts at CO reduction. It matters not if its an different form of energy use or more efficient.
If Unducted was 50% more efficient CO would be 50% reduced.
The reality is that while they are more efficient, the mounting was driven to the rear of the aircraft due to the speed.
1. Said mounting had a higher penalty weight wise by quite a bit over a pylon under wing.
2. As there is no way to adapt different open rotor designs to the same air frame (each mount is unique unlike a Pylon setup) each engine was one off to an air frame.
Trent XWB 84k has IPC blade cracking issues potentially similar to T1000, see EASA AD 20-120. That makes it third (forth) engine after T900 and T1000 (B&C and TEN/7000) with different IPC cracking issues.
Having been involved in the performance and economic evaluation side for BCA in the initial years of the 787 I had the clear impression that the GENX engine was superior to the RR engine in fuel burn and perhaps only slightly better, if at all, on maintenance. In-service experience has shown that this is correct and airlines like NZ and BA have had to suffer for it. GE has generally done of working the bugs out of their early build units of any model than is the case for RR and PW. This has made life very difficult for their customers. the RB-211 was an initial disaster for EA on the L-1011 (I saw a very long line of engineless L10’s on the ramp in MIA when I arrived there to start my aviation career. Once they started flying again, you had a very high chance of your L10 scheduled flight actually operating with a spare DC8-60.
Pratt’s experience with the early 2037’s was not good either. After I joined NWA, one night NW had two ships divert to FAR and BIL with engine issues that required sending spares (and mechanics) from MSP to do an open air engine change on both aircraft in -30F temps with high winds. Not fun.
Then there is the issue of the GTF which has bedeviled early operations of both the A320NEO family along with the CS100/300 (now A220).
Northwest
Yes, many Engine types have inital problems and some are solved by time and others with an improved model, like the RB211-535E4. PWA has a history of starting pretty bad and with massive amount of service engineering, service bulletines and workshops get back on track. Even now they make sure to have enough Engine shop capacity worldwide for the geared turbofans by signing up licence agreements with many independents besides having joint airline shops. CFMI also works to have good and massive global MRO shop coverage for the LEAP Engines.
I don’t have problems with Jet Engines and developmental issues. Clearly the 787 pushed both GE and RR into a fast development patch for new engines.
GE clearly had an unforced errors on the shaft coating change on the GenX.
RR clearly wanted market share and put themselves at the head of the Q though they never got better than 45% and it was more like 40% (before the issues started)
PW clearly had issues on the GTF. But the core is fine as is the GTF itself.
RR clearly has issues with its engineers. Missing a common corrosion aspet was bad.
Missing blade crack in the core, that is really really bad. Both your engineers and your design program has a flaw.
The fact that they simply replaced the Trent 1000 tells you that too many basics of that engine were badly designed and SFC was never going to improve.
To follow it up by transferring the blade crackling issue into the Trent 10, unfathomable.
I had a manager whose solution to any equipment failure was to replace it, with the same equipment.
Then when the replacement unit did the same thing the excuses flowed.
Now sometimes you get there. I had Cast Irion secional boilers craking inone building (that is a mess and when both are leaking in the middle of winter really a crisis)
I had them apply all the remedies to deal with it and they still cracked.
So I came up with a program to replace them. But the key was, I came up with a boiler type that was crack proof, you could dump cold water into the thing at full 200 deg output and it would not crack.
Was there an answer on the cracking? Yep. In this case, it was a decision of spending $50,000 for engineers who would still not figure it out. The boiler mfg was a good one, lots in service with no issues, so in this case it was not the boiler quality, it was an X aspect no one knew how to catch and non of the known solution worked.
Or we could take that $50,000 and replace them with a known solution.
The key is you either understand the issue and fix it, or you find a solution that does not care. But you figure it out first.
Unless the problem is not known and doesn’t develop until numerous hours in service under specific conditions, as has been reported in this case. Then maybe it’s not possible to “figure out it out first”.
An error was made, yes. In fact more than one. The running implication here is that the harmonic problem was basic and obvious, but we know that was not the case. Or at least some here do.
The many anecdotes of how one person saved the day in opposition to others who knew better, more or less confirms the need to be always right, and for opinion to be elevated over fact. I doubt that was how others involved saw those situations.
But as with Boeing, the fact is ultimately what matters, and the fact is RR will continue to have customers and produce good engines. The view that they are worthless will not prevail because it lacks merit.
I do not think the RR T1000 TEN has exactly the same problems compared to the -C. The only public one is the HPT blade premature detoriation, the rest are probaly design improvements onto the IPC to increase margins and probably some Life Limited parts life increases
https://www.rolls-royce.com/products-and-services/civil-aerospace/airlines/trent-1000-updates-hub.aspx#section-modules
Still when you add more cooling the HPT blades you loose some fuel burn.
IPC on TEN is suffering from blade (stage 1 and 2, EASA AD 2019-0282) and IPC rotor front seal cracking (EASA AD 2019-0248). This is all public information.
Boeing will consolidate 787 production in S.C., leaving Everett, WSJ reports
https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-to-move-all-787-dreamliner-production-to-south-carolina-11601425533?mod=business_lead_pos6
and
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-will-consolidate-787-production-in-s-c-leaving-everett-wsj-reports/
Would anyone here be surprised ?
Talk about digging your own grave.
Well, at least that rules out Qatar Airways taking more Dreadliners.
Well they could change their mind when the next biggie hurricane comes ashore in that area…like Hurricane Hugo in 89, a Cat 4 which came ashore Sullivans Is SC. ( which opp Fort Sumpter)
Records show its had 25 since the 1850s
Yeah, I thought of that too.
Just imagine what a hurricane could do to to a huge, flat-roofed building…
Of course, theoretically, Airbus has a similar problem in Mobile…though their facilities there are smaller and of less significance.
Done deal:
https://www.heraldnet.com/news/wall-street-journal-reports-boeing-to-end-787-production-in-everett/
Boeing was always headed this way and there never was anything going to dissuade them.
Wrongway Calhoun has the company in a spin and its not going to get out until it crashes.
Again to be factual rather than derogatory, Calhoun was on record as not wanting to close either location, which was an understandable viewpoint. Shared by Scott Hamilton in an opinion piece and by others here as well.
If true, this is disappointing and it hurts Boeing as well as many people who will lose their jobs, and a community which also will be harmed by it. It represents the direness of the market at present.
It is not an opportunity to gloat in personal satisfaction that the worst-case outcome has come true. To do that again shows that elevation of opinion over the impacts of fact or reality are most important.
Actually, to be factual you can’t believe anything Calhoun says is the truth.
He is as complicit in MAX crashes as any member of the board and Boeing previous management .
He agreed with the Chair of the Board and Boeing CEO in one position until it was beaten out of them by the public.
Equally, either he is a complete incompetent as he claims he did not know what was going on while on the board (that was his job) or is lying .
You judge people by their actions not what moving lips say.
What you want to believe is certainly your right, me? I don’t believe in the Easter Bunny, Santa Clause or the Tooth Ferry.
“Actually, to be factual you can’t believe anything Calhoun says is the truth.”
You state this is factual, but in fact it’s your opinion. There is also ample evidence that it’s false, it would be easy to produce thousands of true statements from Calhoun.
However I think you probably are not able to distinguish between the two, as you see your opinion as being equivalent to fact. So this discussion is ultimately pointless.
You should sit down with a good text on epistemology sometime. There is a difference between an innocent error of knowledge, and a malicious error of value or intent, wherein the error of knowledge is also put forth to achieve a specific goal or purpose.
Has anyone else noticed that Locutus has been particularly testy and acrid for the past few days?
Perhaps his regenerative cycle is no longer within parameters, leading to sub-optimal emotional responses?
Bryce, we all had a 90 minute presidential tutorial last night in the tactics you employ here. Interrupt, disrupt, imply negative conclusions without proof or facts, insult, deride your opponent, and shift the discussion from the factual argument at all costs.
It didn’t work last night, and it doesn’t work here either. The world got to see the nature of that character on full display last night, and it wasn’t a good look. Nor does it look any better on you.
Whatever you may think of me and my statements, I have never advocated for any negative outcome, or hoped for failure, for Boeing or Airbus or RR or the FAA or any other entity. Nor have I gloated when the positive outcomes I’ve advocated have come true.
That’s because I know the outcomes are not related to my opinion of them, they are just a result of the facts. To the extent that I’ve been right or wrong, it’s just a matter of identifying the governing facts, not a matter of my personal view or insight. Nor would I ever claim otherwise.
This is a huge difference between us that I would not expect you to understand. Our philosophies are fundamentally different. That will always be. We co-exist here but are unlikely to ever agree except when the facts become fundamental to the discussion.
In fact, telling Bryce he is representative of last nights debate is a lie. He is not. So you continue to insult people.
Someone saying something is not a fact.
Their actions are facts.
The facts are that Boeing and the FAA are under a microscope on the MAX. Bank robbers if they know they are being watched do not rob (pun intended) banks.
Its what people do and how the system does or does not work when extreme scrutiny is not being put on them. A staged publicity stunt is not proof of anything.
Public integrity wise the reason ODA reported to the FAA direly was to stop just the practices Boeing wants to hide.
If Boeing made fence posts little if any public hazard is at risk.
They don’t, they make aircraft. The public has a right to safe aircraft and its representatives are supposed to setup an agency to make that true.
Much like the failure to get double hulled tankers that were fought tooth and nail by the oil companies, Boeing has pressure congress and succeeded in corrupting the ODA program.
Your view is not anyone’s view but yours and as you do not support with facts, its an opinion.
Intelligent design is a view, its not supported by science (facts) . Anyone is entitled to believe (faith) in Intelligent Design, that does not make it fact.
You can’t make geological predictions based on Intelligent Design. You can based on Geology.
TW, this is deflecting criticism rather than answering. If my facts are wrong, you are always welcome to point that out, by providing evidence.
Bryce uses insults and derision as a part of his arguments. Not just with me, but with others here as well. As do you, and you have both been cautioned for it, including today. You know that perfectly well. So it is a fact and not an insult.
The irony is that Trump and your friend KAC use those tactics for issues where you disagree with them, so you don’t like it. But you’ll do it to someone else if the opportunity arises. Yet if it’s wrong, it must be wrong in all cases.
So to be honest and ethical and avoid hypocrisy, you just don’t use those methods, period. They aren’t needed anyway, if you learn to build a good case for your views.
You must be aware that most others here don’t engage in that behavior. So no reason for you to either.
@TW
Subtleties of semantics are lost on many/most people.
For example, many people can’t (or don’t want to) identify/grasp the differences between the following:
(1) A insulted B.
(2) A said/did something to which B took insult.
(3) B adopted an insulted stance vis-à-vis A.
(2) and (3) are particularly interesting, because they regularly occur in the case of people who like/need to put themselves into a victim role.
Also very interesting how some people are allergic to heterogeneity and/or dissonance. They seek to define/invent some form of “objective” consensus, which they’ll then use as a tower into which they lock themselves. In an effort to increase their sense of security in their tower, they’ll preach to and chide dissonant passersby…who, of course, are actually laughing at the pathos of the whole situation. Such tower behavior is commonly displayed by zealots of all types.
Bryce, disagreement and dissent are fine. They just don’t need to be cast in terms of insult, derision or ridicule. You could take that lesson from many people here, not just me. Or from Scott, who has repeatedly said he doesn’t want that behavior here.
Blaming the “victim” has diminished value in today’s world. The intent of your remarks is very clear, and that intent is isolated to you and a very few others here. If you persist, then you’ll be called out on it.
How much has the A380 cost to engine makers? They have effectively paid huge subsidies to Airbus on the cost of over 200 complete aircraft which will now never grow old. Roll Royce developed a new version for Emirates which they are paying performance penalties for and the order was cut short.There will shortly be a mountain of spare engines and parts available from donors who have died young . This must be a disaster.
I believe you are right.
Even before Covd it was probably a loss though a much larger one for RR as you pointed out, a new Trent 900 variant and not meeting specs.
It was truly stunning when CK claimed a 7% improvement on an upgraded engine.
Bryce, tone down your comments.
Hamilton