Date: 27 Aug 99 03:08:18 From: H Andrew Chuang <email@example.com> Organization: Concentric Internet Services References: 1 2 3
View raw article or MIME structure
Steve Howie wrote: > Tim Lee <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > >Frankly, 6.5 tons is not a huge amount - not at this stage of > >development, anyway. Believe me, more was shaved off the A340-200 before > >EIS... and RR have never delivered an engine that doesn't do as > >advertised. Especially in reliability terms - go ask BA what they think > >of the GE90 on 777 - they love it so much that they are dumping it in > >favour of Trent on the new order. > > Hmm ... wonder what's going to happen to the GE overhaul facility in > Wales if thats the case. Didn't GE set the place up to specifically > service the GE engines BA bought? No, it isn't just for BA's GE engines. In fact, the facility maintains GE's competitors' engines. It was part of GE's plan to become the world's largest after-market engine service provider. Many questioned the deal at the time when BA ordered the GE engines. However, now GE Engine Services account for half of GE Aircraft Engines revenue, and more than half of the income (i.e., it's a more profitable operation than selling engines). In retrospect, both GE and BA came out winners in that deal. Do also remember, BA's switch to the Trent wasn't strictly technical. The switch allowed BA to not pay R-R a hefty payment for cancelling RB.211-powered B747-400s.