Re: A340-500/600 vs. B777-200X/B747-200X etc.

Date:         16 Nov 97 19:58:45 
From: (H Andrew Chuang)
Organization: Concentric Internet Services
References:   1 2
Followups:    1
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

In article <airliners.1997.2594@ohare.Chicago.COM>,
ALWahoo <> wrote:
>> I am not too sure why GE and P&W both
>>are abandoning the ultra-long-range market (i.e., the A340-500/600 and
>P&W is not abandoning the ultra-long-range market - at least not on the 777.
>However, the competitive pressures between the three manufacturers on the 777
>ensures that no-one will be making any money on these engines any time soon.
>Since P&W and GE have shareholders that require higher returns than RR, both
>U.S. manufacturers are a little gun shy about throwing more money at a losing
>proposition.  The A340 story is a long and sordid one but is not yet over...

Both GE and P&W are unwilling to commit to ~105K-lb-thrust engine
necessary for the B777-200X/300X program.  The argument is the projected
market size does not justify the development costs.  I can
understand that the B777-200X to be very small (which, I belive, Boeing
estimated at around 200 units for the next 20 years), but the B777-300X
should be a winner.  There are about 1,200 B747s ordered.  Most of
them can be replaced by the B777-300/-300X.  From a marketing
perspective, GE and P&W are allowing R-R to have a monopoly in this
market (i.e., B777-200X/300X and A340-500/600).  Had GE committed
to a higher thrust engine, I strongly believe American would go with GE
instead of R-R.  IMHO, AA is too important a customer to the GE90
program; without AA, the GE90 is pretty much destined to be the big
loser in the B777 competition.