Re: pre-Farnborough comments [long]

Date:         19 Aug 98 16:01:27 
From: (H Andrew Chuang)
Organization: Concentric Internet Services
References:   1 2 3
Next article
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.


>>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.