Rolls Royce tackles Trent engine issues as profits take flight

By Tom Batchelor

February 23, 2024, © Leeham News:  The turnaround at Rolls Royce is well-underway as the company revealed a more than doubling of its annual profit – ahead of expectations – at its full year 2023 results announcement on Thursday.

Just a year after the incoming CEO Tufan Erginbilgic warned that the engine group was a “burning platform”, revenues climbed to £15.4bn ($19.4bn at current rates), up from £12.7bn ($16bn) in 2022, and profits soared by 143% to £1.6bn ($2bn), from £652m ($823m). Analysts had estimated profits closer to £1.3bn ($1.6bn) for 2023.

Rolls Royce key financial indicators for 2023. Click to enlarge. Credit: Rolls Royce

Key financial indicators for Rolls Royce in 2023. Click to enlarge. Credit: Rolls Royce

RR delivered a total of 458 engines last year, including 262 destined for large civil aircraft, alongside orders for around 700 powerplants.

Speaking during a briefing call, former BP executive Erginbilgic called it a “transformation” which had “delivered a record performance in 2023”.

Notably, progress is being made on improvements to the Trent XWB-97 and Trent 1000 engines, designed to address durability issues reported by customers operating widebodies in dry and dusty environments.

“We are creating momentum and a track record of significant delivery,” Erginbilgic said, though “bottlenecks” caused by both labor and parts shortages would continue to be a factor into 2026.

“We expect the supply chain to remain challenging for another 18-24 months,” he said.

Transformation plan

The 143% year-on-year rise in operating profit has been driven by Erginbilgic’s cost-cutting plan as well as improved pricing on RR products.

It was also helped by the recovery of large engine flying hours (EFH) in civil aerospace to 88% of 2019 levels, up from 65% in 2022, and increased aftermarket profits.

“We have a growing market share in [the] widebody [market] and we expect to benefit from a continuing recovery in global travel, and in particular international travel in Asia,” he told analysts.

“In defence we see more long term support for defence and governmental spending resulting from geopolitical tensions.”

Rolls Royce’s Civil Aerospace division has performed particularly well. Click to enlarge. Credit: Rolls Royce

The company’s operating margin has risen from 5.1% in 2022 to 10.3% last year, and free cash flow is up from £505m ($637m) to nearly £1.3bn ($1.6bn).

Civil Aerospace has been the star of the show, with an operating margin of 11.6% – up 9.1 percentage points. Operating profit rose in this division from £143m to ​​£850m, a near 500% increase.

Defence and Power Systems also delivered higher margins compared to last year.

The transformation was reflected in the company’s share price of 368 pence on Thursday – a high last seen in 2018.

Erginbilgic called it a “significant step up in performance” as the company seeks to become “competitive, resilient, and growing”.

Engine issues

The fly in the ointment for RR remains durability issues affecting some of its engines.

Emirates Airline president Sir Tim Clark publicly scolded RR last year for the durability of the Trent XWB-97 engine, which powers the Airbus A350-1000.

However, it is hoped that a £1bn ($1.3bn) program to improve on-wing time will yield results, with “big improvements” promised for both the Trent XWB-97 and Trent 1000, one of two engine options for the Boeing 787 Dreamliner.

The Trent XWB-97 will benefit from a new coating for the high-pressure turbine (HPT) blade that is more resilient. That should result in a doubling of the time-on-wing in “non-benign” environments (i.e. the sandy and dusty conditions of Emirates’ Dubai base), and increase this by 50% in “benign” environments.

Finalising work on the project will take two-to-three years before it is then brought to market, but Erginbilgic said he met with Sir Tim last week and that the airline chief was “very happy” with the planned improvements.

RR is also certifying a new Trent 1000 TEN (Thrust, Efficiency and New technology) blade for the 787 program, having already certified the same blade improvement for the Trent 7000, which powers the Airbus A330neo. RR has retrofitted 20% of that installed fleet.

Erginbilgic acknowledged the timeframe for the Trent 1000 TEN had slipped from an expected certification in 2023, but that the upgraded blade, when it arrived, would double time-on-wing for the powerplant.

Guidance for 2024

RR is forecasting an operating profit of £1.7bn-£2bn ($2.15bn-$2.5bn) in 2024, with free cash flow rising to £1.7bn-£1.9bn ($2.15bn-$2.4bn).

Large EFHs in the civil aerospace division are expected to match or exceed the pre-COVID benchmark (100-110% of 2019’s level), with 500-550 forecasted engine deliveries and 1,300-1,400 total shop visits.

The company is targeting an operating profit of £2.5bn-£2.8bn ($3.2bn-$3.5bn), operating margin of 13-15%, free cash flow of £2.8bn-£3.1bn ($3.5bn-$3.9bn) by 2027.

The latest numbers suggest it is well on its way to achieving this.

51 Comments on “Rolls Royce tackles Trent engine issues as profits take flight

  1. Great to see further investment in bringing the Trent engines up to (or closer to) specification (as it should be, should always have been). The Trent 7000 upgrade solution seems to be working.

    I do worry about the sole source engine supplier effect on Airbus widebody sales campaigns if RR are perceived by airlines to be uncompetitive against GE. It puts Airbus in a pickle/disadvantage, and potentially RR on any future sole-source type contracts. Once bitten; twice shy.

    • FS:

      Airbus at least has its A350 in production. The 777X is not, so they have something of a captive audience.

      The A330NEO has its adherents and I don’t see that changing. It should have been driven out of production by the 787 but Boeing messed that up royally hugely twice and sub mess up two or three times.

      It will be interesting to see what they do with the A330CEO as it has engine options that go to none if they shift the A330MRT to that hull.

      • Rolls must get back in the narrow body/regional jet segment.
        When your missing out on 85% of the total airline market, you will always be a niche player in the engine powerplant business..
        Thankfully, the A350 is doing quite well for them. The 330 neo remains the big unknown for sustainability, and future orders.
        As for the 787;
        Sadly,I just don’t see a resurgence in orders for them to regain market share,with only a few undecided customers remaining.

        • I don’t know its sad, maybe a hard blow RR won’t recover, but the Trent 1000 was a failure and the TEN no better. A case of the market having a say and GE beat them.

          Its not that GE did not have problems, the turbine shuck maybe the worst but that was an odd shift into what is known as Industrialization (a good topic for Bjorn to cover). The odd part being you certify and engine then you change it for mass production which should not be allowed. Certify your mass productions engine. Or a final certification with a focus on all the changes you made and what else it affects in the engine.

          Unlike Boeing which has not suffered for their failures as they have the only aircraft in that segment people want in numbers. The A330NEO will bump along but like RR, its going to be a distance 2nd.

          • “Unlike Boeing which has not suffered for their failures …”???

            @Frank P
            Do you agree?? 😂

      • AB are currently conducting a ‘study’ to transition their MRTT to the a330neo airframe, so as expected it’s on the cards… Surprised it wasn’t done earlier really. It’s an end-of-decade target so the engine should be humming along nicely by then. Disappointing it wasn’t from day one. Make me wonder about the validity of certification – seems to mean less and less these days

        Regarding the 777x, there’s a lot of faith in it (orders wise) from the middle east carriers, who are the most vocal when things are underperforming. Hopefully GE have really learned from their current engines regarding hot/dusty conditions and have pre-engineered a durable solution into the engine. Time will tell. The certification testing never seems to hold true in real world conditions (in that part of the world at least).

  2. RR had a reputation on very long time on wing especially the RB211-535E4 vs early PW2000. Their business model requires long time on wing with power by the hour contracts where they want 35000-45000 hrs on wing. Their 3 shaft engines are more complex and the repair development were not on par with the CF6-80C2 hence more expensive to overhaul at heavy shop visits. RR cannot do much about the complexity but they can improve time on wing and reparability of expensive parts by learning from the industry and work hard.

    • You can add in that the RB211 got better SFC than its rivals.

      That in turn meant better overall economics and return.

      GE has figured out how to get the big engines to exceed that with better reliability.

      • The old CF6-80C2 had a problem of a not stiff and round engine core causing deformations and increased clearances between blades and seals hence loosing SFC. The RR RB211 had a totally different design with soft bearings and pretty large play between blades and seals that did not rub out keeping its performance better. GE learned and the GE90 was designed different and did not rub out, RR did not really grasp the improvements happening at GE but did the Trent500/Trent900 for 4 engine Airbuses that became too expensive to operate/ send to heavy maintenance. Now with the Ultrafan do they have a geared GE9X waiting for a 787-10/A350-1000 reengine decision. Emirates could in theory reengine 75 A380’s with Ultrafans but the fleet is too small for the expense.

        • claes:

          RR cannot afford to make an advance engine for the A380. No market let alone for the cost.

          The A350 cannot afford an advance either, they need to get the numbers well up before an NEO, let alone an RR NEO on top of an RR choice. Shooting yourself in the foot.

          And the question is will the advance be any better than the Trent 1000/ -97?

          A 787 Advance would be interesting but that is 10 years out for a 787NEO – and likely longer.

          It may well depend on if the A330NEO sales pick up or go along at lower non threatening levels.

          • The sfc vs range is important, hence the A350-1000 with a 10% reduction in SFC would make a huge impact on flights longer than 13-15 hrs. The economics of flying non stop without refuel in Qatar, Dubai or Abu Dhabi would have a huge impact on the ME3 airliners besides Singapore, Cathay and the big Europan widebody airlines.

          • claes:

            It does not matter what SFC would do, its what RR needs out of the program as they have built two engines for the A350.

            Minimum of 15 years and more like at least 20 before you see an NEO.

            And as the recent engines have shown (as have past) new engines and new tech mean a drop in reliability and or SFC does not immediately live up to billing.

            P&W got SFC better than LEAP but the reliability and less time on wing does not make up for it.

            LEAP is not as good as GTF per SFC but its got better reliability though still less than the CFM-56.

            Given time they will sort it out. RR does not have the money to dump into a new engine nor is Airbus going to want to NEO the A350, they both want to make some money first.

            And would you want to shoot some of your best customers in the foot? If you can over fly the ME then you don’t need Emirates, Qatar or Ethihad.

          • @TW, I think different. RR wants really bad to increase time on wing and want to use the Ultrafan technology to achive that. I also claim that cruise SFC for very long flights is very important and the A350-1000 with a new wing and engine will be that standard to measure against. The issue is how much more can they charge for an optimized SYD-LHR aircraft and how much more is needed to certify the Ultrafan. Time will tell.

  3. I wonder how much long-term benefit there will be from the cost-cutting at RR.

    • Me too. When profits soar (in any big business) I always wonder if or what production system is getting shorted for profit’s sake.

      • RR is a mess and its not just jet engines. It has its fingers in all sort of ship board systems including diesels.

        We saw what you got before cost cutting.

        As noted in the past this is just a one off sample, what RR does in the next 5 years is what counts.

    • On one hand everyone I know in RR where I live has lost / is losing their job in H1/2024. That said, they are all in general R&D and not linked to a specific business unit. The new strategy requires all R&D to be sponsored by a business unit. I have started to interview RR staff who have/will be laid off to see if I can use any in my team and there are some pretty good people in that group.

      On the other hand I spoke to a senior manager in the MTU Marine Diesel Engine unit and he thought the strategy was the right one and was something which should have been done years ago. This person was not a beancounter but in engineering.

      The “burning platform” was interpreted by many as “RR is going bust”, while the actual message was “we must do much better because investors are investing in our competitors and not us”. The numbers look good, but more importantly they finally seem to have clear answers and actions on their Trent engine reliability issues, but time will tell if these are the correct answers.

      • Fully agree that its going to take time to see if RR has any real change going.

        To me they should divest the non core businesses and focus on jet engines or go with the defense end but pick a focus. They are scattered all over the map.

  4. The article has some confusing elements I will try to straighten out.

    The Trent 1000 is no longer produced. The Trent 1000 TEN (for the 787-10, ungh) is the current engine.

    That means a major change to the TEN which was supposed to fix the 1000 issues once and for all (it failed as the one part it used was the core and that was where the latter issues came from).

    So now a new fan blade to fix other deficienceis. Wow.

    The Trent 7000 is a bleed air version of the Trent TEN. Its the main reason the A330NEO had a long delays as they had to build the TEN first before they had the basis for the 7000.

    From the verbiage it looks like not only problems on the -97 but continuing problems on the TEN and 7000.

    They will sell very few TENs and buyers are shifting to the GE with new 787 orders.

    7000 of course is A330NEO builds and those have been slow though picked up a bit of steam.

    Its Ironic that the A330NEO is now touted as a shorter range SFC advantage when its claim to fame as per above was its better on wing time and SFC advantage in longer range ops.

    The GenX is better on all counts including SFC and why would you guy a more expensive engine when you get the lower cost one that is better?

    • @TW, I think you exaggerate the problems RR is facing in its business operations. You always do. I know you are rooting for the home team of GE and PW but they are having the same durability issues in ALL their latest offering (PW – GTF, GE somewhat better but stilled troubled with its LEAP engine, also the GEnX , and even the yet to be deployed GE9X for the B777X has had to be reworked). The problems of durability seems to plague or the newer high bypass ratio engines.

      RR’s problems have been the most publicized and they have spent the past 4-5 years fixing them, taking big financial hit while they did so, especially in the pandemic shutdown where they were losing their prime source of revenue (PBTH) as planes were grounded. They have been responsible and taken their charges upfront, not hiding it as some others in the industry have been doing. RR has sold off some assets, raised additional capital to shore up their balance sheet so they are looking fine, especially now that they are back spitting cash from their PBTH contracts.

      On the issue of SFC we have very little REAL information as most of what you tend to cite are the marketing blurbs from GE so I will take your claims with a pinch of salt on who is performing better on that metric. What we do know for sure is that none of the large engines are meeting their advertised SFC figures but I am almost certain the airlines are receiving financial remedies from the engine manufactures on this matter in terms of adjustments to their billed charges under the PBTH type contracts that all the engine manufacturers offer their customers.

      RR will do fine, they will continue to make improvement insertions through PiPs throughout the life of their engines, just like GE and PW also do. Under their new CEO they are also focusing on their margins and thus willing to walk away from some contracts (painful for Airbus in the case of the A350-1000 loss at Emirates), but I am sure they will work that situation of the A350s going forward. They’ve certainly lost the battle on the B787 but I sure they will pick up a few orders, but all is not lost since the same TEN engine is essentially on the A330s and therefore make up the investment on that engine through those sales (I expect in the region of 400-500 A330NEOs to eventually be sold so nearly 1000 airframes will end up having the TRENT 1000/TEN/7000 on wing (including B787 orders approx 400 so far), when all is said and done, not bad for a “failed engine.”

      Overall RR’s business is healthy, with their PEARL line in great shape, as is their Allison line, the Maritime, Diesel and Nuclear, power, and military engine lines.

      • Frankly I am not rooting for GE or P&W though I would like to see P&W do far better with the GTF as its the first change in better engine architecture than we have seen in forever.

        My sources on GE are not from GE, they are from industry articles. Meeting contract specs vs exceeding them are two different matters. GE has been a 2-3% better than RR on SFC no matter which variant (a couple of PIPs on GE and a whole new engine for RR on the 787).

        The same was true of the GP7000. It had better SFC and as good on wing time and its a less costly engine to overhaul. Emirates dumped it as they thought they could convince RR to do an all new engine on the A380. Then TC claimed they had gotten a miraculous 7% improvement over the GP7000 with the 900+ (in his mushroom driven hallucinations).

        RR did not even manage to match GE with the Trent 10, and that was an all new engine (various definitions of all new but at 75% new that is well withing the definition)

        As for RR, its not just one problem, its a string of problems and failures. The Trent 900 has also had problems that Emirates elected to suppress as they were the ones stupid enough to buy into the 900+ that never produced what Clark claimed it would and suffered fan blade issues.

        Of course they are trying to fix their engines, if they didn’t /don’t want to go out of the engine business (at least yet)

        As for write downs. I have made no bones that Boeing approach is a tax dodge atrocity that should not be allowed.

        Writing stuff off does not make you some kind of morally pure.

        As the Trent TEN is an all new engine not getting any orders on the 787, hmmm. The 1000 was a failure and the TEN was an all new.

        Airbus gave RR an exclusive on the A330NEO and they still are fixing problems with the 7000.

        Allison they got from the US and have been running on the American Glory (it was a great company).

        No disagreement on Pearl.

        Maritime? Whatever, its not an engine business.

        Nukes? Handed to them by the UK. Well yea.

        Diesel: Why are they bothering. There are lots of diesel engine mfgs in the world.

        Military engines: Those are all aero derivative off the old RB211 and the GE LM set the standard there and continues to do so. Frankly both are getting old in the tooth and should be replaced.

        • RR Maritime engines power a number of warships that includes the new USN Constellation class, the MT30 series of engines derived from the RB211/Trent aero engines.

          Nuclear power besides powering UK submarines and the upcoming AUKUS submarines includes their Small Nuclear Reactor models that are poised to be built to generate commercial electricity in the UK and other parts of the world that are looking for “green” electricity generating plants.

          RR military engines are not derivatives of the RB211. These include the lift fans on the F35B, the EJ200 engines on the Typhoons and the RB199 on the Tornados, plus a number of engines for helicopters built with partners like SNECMA, Honeywell etc.

          Diesels are important for their maritime sales, Naval and commercial ships that use them extensively (MTU).

          Don’t understand why you sneer at RR exclusive on the A330NEO while don’t doing same for GE on their exclusive on the B737MAX or the B777X.

          Also USA companies have bought many UK and other non USA companies and added them to their portfolio so I don’t understand the jingoistic nature of your comment on that matter. Allison is a RR subsidiary, if it was performing badly I am sure you would be adding it to your list of RR woes.

          Like I pointed out, RR is going to do okay on the Trent 1000 range of engines anyway you look at it. Engines on 1,000 airframes is nothing to dismiss, I am sure they will at least break even on that engine.

          Issues with the Trent 900 are solved, Emirate is quite happy with their A380 equipped with those engines. If not they would have retired them and only retained the GP engined airframes.

          All I am saying is you are over exaggerate the problems RR has with its engines. RR real problem in the commercial aircraft business is its absence from the single isle market, where the volume business in engines is. I think they know that and I am sure they are seeking an opportunity to offer Boeing or Airbus an engine solution in that market, just as GE is trying to become a second engine source on the A350 range.

          • Branaboy:

            You don’t want to get me started on the so called Constellation Frigates. Suffice to say the F-100 would have been vastly better, now we have another LCS in the making.

            I don’t see where a fan is a military engine. Agreed that RR has its fingers in other engine programs. Few are RR, its all collaborations. Same with Allison that they are living off the glory of that formerly great American company (who continue to make the best truck automatic transmissions in the world).

            As for Diesles, as much as I love them, its a so what for RR. Its not like there are not at least 8 major engine mfgs in the world specializing in ship power plants. Its a diversion from jet engine as all that stuff needs investment and to be competitive you have to be cutting edge.

            The Military jet engines/turbines programs might have tech you can use in civilian engines, but diesels surely do not.

            If anything they should go cutting edge and start moving to Trent for the jet engine power systems. The RB211 is dated like the CF6. Granted you would have to make the Trent reliable so that would be a good reason not to move there. The Gen X is a natural.

            The Trent 1000 is a dead end and has been replaced. Its all a lost cause you have to support despite the low numbers.

            The NEW Trent 10 and the 7000 continue to have problems. You get few on a 787 and it all depends on A330 sales.

            Emirates is not going to say a thing about the 900+ powered A380s. They are the newest A380 in the fleet. The 900+ was TC brain child and he is the last to admit he messed up. Silence is not an indicator and the 900+ reports last year of issues confirms it. They pushed that engine too hard trying to make TC happy and they got an inferior engine to the GP7000.

            I have no idea where you get the idea I am sneering on the RR exclusive to the A330NEO. GE and RR have engaged in a fight of exclusivity. Its the A330NEO I don’t believe in. It will limp along but clearly airlines want the 787 (and you can list your reasons – its just a fact).

            As for single aisle engines, RR is now where PW used to be but they have no magic sauce. PW has a lot more experience on GTF in the that size area.

            Why would Boeing pick an all new engine with no development time on it? The airlines are not going to want to go through that pain anytime in the next 25 years either.

            RR is heavily dependent on the UK Defense side and that is in a huge mess. The UK wants to do it all and is doing none of it well.

            I would be impressed if they simply focused on fleet and air power. Sadly the great British Armored formation are down to a single Brigade.

            As for Green Nuke, I will believe it when I see it.

          • @TW

            For the 787 customers, it never hurts as BA/BCA is responsible to figure out how to have the 787 program *breakeven*, one day. 😄

          • @TW

            Remember, BA/BCA’s objective is higher “fake” cash flow from timing difference by PFS, not “real” profitability (before messaged by magic black box program accounting).

    • Large factor is GE has the better PR department.
      ( Similar but apparently better than Boeing.)

      AirFrance loses the fan on a GE engine over Greenland
      and RR receives a shitstorm in return.

      man, that is PR “Durchgriff”!

    • Let me say I am not one to panic at the media presentation I know I am more likely to perish driving to the airport than in a plane crash. But “Boeing will fix its planes” was the mantra after the MCAS debacle and now we have the mid-cabin exit door plug debacle. Each problem is statistically small, smaller than as I said the chance of dying in a car wreck, but the succession of (seemingly) unrelated problems is likely an indication of some circumstance that relates them together. Perhaps we should ask Boeing management what cause might be common to both debacles, before yet a third debacle occurs?

      • Mike:

        I fully believe it will happen but its going to take some time.

        You have to axe the perpetrators which would be not only Calhoun and his E suite clowns but the board.

        Clearly those conversations are taking place, not because the board is any good but they do not want to go down with Calhoun.

        Firing the MAX Manager was the first step, then it will be Stan and then Calhoun which is going to take 3-6 months.

        Each time its clear the pain is not going away, its another level.

        I doubt the board will resign, its a good old boys club. So its partly a matter of replacing Calhoun and if that person is a Liquidate type or a real reformer.

        Even under full reform its a 5 year job to get back to a semblance of the right operations.

        • I really want to believe you! Thanks for your confidence.

          Will Boeing ever really get back to being an aircraft company that makes money (as opposed to a financial company that tries to make planes)?

          • BA/BCA might have pushed out all design/engineering talents who have hands-on experience of successful clean-sheet aircraft programs.

          • Do note there is eternal optimism from our poster based more on emotional attachments than rational analysis.

        • Mike:

          It can, I don’t know it will, its not going to be fast.

          When your first step is to fire the guy in charge of your MAX builds, hmmm, why was he not fired before if he is the reason for the failures?

          Trying to make as short and example as I can. Years back they had an AWACs ingest birds and Crash at Elmendorf. They blamed it on a sergeant who had like 17 jobs and no resources for Goose control let alone no focus on it.)

          That is the classic blame the lowest guy you can on the totem pole. As I recall when it blew up in their faces they fired the colonel of the squadron and put a nasty letter of reprimand in the generals file (career termination by other means)

    • Joe:

      No question RR will fix its engines but how long it takes I have a lot less faith in. They have been struggling with the Trent 1000 -TEN and the 7000 is a consequences of that. Clearly the -97 has its issues and ballpark, even the improvements are nothing to write home about.

      Better is not what its past competition set the bench mark for and with.

      There is no entry for them into Single Aisle so they will alwyas miss out on the big part of the market.

      They could have gone joint with P&W on the GTF and I think that program would have been better off with two takes on engineering. Granted the GTF has 5 other partners but they are associated unlike the V-2500.

      Boeing will fix its aircraft system but how soon as they have the overhanging failure of upper management they have never addressed.

      Until they do that its going to be messed up.

      I have seen people who wanted to be managers and sold their soul and integrity and that needs to be gone.

      • Boeing has made the decision to strageically sole source itself to GE. I know RR has a minority position on the B787…but in the grand scheme of things that is a round-off error.
        At best the next engine installations will be offered mid-2030s with the exception of a possible second installation on an A220-500.
        RR will need to maximize its Airbus installations and make lemonade of their current market position.

      • Don’t forget the RR German Pearl engines that one day can makes its way into single aisle jetliners from its business jet domain today. They did it with the BR710 to BR715 that eventaully became a reliable engine on the 717. A new advanced carbon wing 150 seater with just transcontinental range only needs 18k engines. If PWA does not shape up the PW1500G quickly customers might get an option to select RR a Pearl engine.

        • claes:

          The BR series is a bit of a puzzler. Business jet engine are not in the same durability class as a commercial jet engine, but the BR700-715 did just that.

          The BR-725 was picked for the B-52NEO though its not rated as high as the 715 (also weighs less)

          I will be the first to admit the Pearl is a head scratcher for me. Business jets simply do not use engines in the hours per day like a commercial jet does.

          I have not heard of anything negative about the Br-700/Pearl engines.

        • I am not sure who is going to make the 150 seater you alluded to. Airbus is not going to cannabilize the A220. Embraer is not likely to try and enter that market given what happened to Bombardier. The only real possibility would be Boeing offering something…and that is a reach given their position.

          As it stands, PWA does offer a common core with the A220 engine on the G500/600. The stillborn MRJ engine never entered service on civil airliners but the core debuted on the G400 and the Falcon 8X. The duopoly in the core single-aisle market is a very high entry to barrier.

          If there is ever going to be a second engine on the A220 it is likely a de-rated version of the Leap. The Pearl engine on the G700 would need a new low spool designed from scratch.

          • We will see the future of the A220 as Airbus decides the next iteration of the A220 when they do the A320neo successor. They want to reduce cost to build the A220 and by selecting common parts with the A320neo successor they will get it. The engine selection is a big one and I think an even more efficient 18k engine will be sufficient for the A220-300 successor.

          • claes:

            I do not begin to see any parts commonality between any future version of the A220 and the A320 successor.

            There may be control concepts that shift to the A220 version.

            The A320 series is going to split between the A320 and A321 with the A320 being replaced by the A220-500.

            The A321 would get a new wing at some point. I don’t see any replacement for it in the next 20 years.

          • @TW, in a commercial airliner you have maybe 1500-3000 components with their own CMM’s (from Honeywell, Liebherr, Crane, Eaton, Thales, Fokker, UTX, SAFT, Parker, Unison…) They make up a good part of the price and maintenance cost of an aircraft. If you manage the suppliers of those components well, 80-90% can be common between a A220neo and a A321neo successor.

  5. RR stock is at a six-year high, can I say that same for BA or RTX?? It is the best-performing stock in Europe last year. What a “debacle”?? Who is living in alternate reality?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *