Date: 19 Aug 98 16:01:27 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Organization: Concentric Internet Services References: 1 2 3
View raw article or MIME structure
In article <airliners.1998.1256@ohare.Chicago.COM>, Karl Swartz <kls@ohare.Chicago.COM> wrote: >>BA (replace 10s and 763s) > >Why would you expect BA to replace their 767-300(ER)s? The newest was >delivered just 18 months ago, and the oldest is less than nine years >old. With their oddball Rolls-Royce engines (China Yunnan's three >examples are the only other 767s with RB.211s), BA's 767s probably have >a very low second-hand value. Agree. >>BA will choose again the 777 even if they may change the engine supplier. > >Anybody have a conjecture on whether BA will pick the Trent or the >PW4000 -- or decide to stick with the GE90 after all? I think the Trent is in the lead, but I think GE must be doing serious damage control. (Also, don't forget BA is highly skilled in threatening its suppliers. ;-) If BA does choose the Trent, it will further reduce the competitiveness of the GE90. (Long time ago, I said "GE90" sounded to much like "JT9D" which is one of the most troublesome turbofan engines. I jokingly predicted the GE90 would take the same path as the JT9D. I guess my "prophecy" is about to be fulfilled. ;-) In the past two years, GE's new engine sales are impressive solely due to the CFM56. Even the once-popular CF6 has not been doing very well. GE is losing grip on the high-thrust end while P&W is losing grip on the low-thrust end. The two American engine companies have given too many opportunities for Rolls-Royce to catch up. Even five years ago, I would not have thought Rolls-Royce could be a long-term viable competitor. Now, I think P&W is in serious trouble if they don't do something about their commercial product line soon.