Re: Singapore Airlines The A340 vs 777 saga continues

Date:         27 Aug 99 14:03:36 
From:         Terry Schell <tschell@uwf.edu>
Organization: Florida State University
References:   1 2 3 4
Followups:    1
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure


James Matthew Weber wrote:
> By almost all accounts the GE90 is capable of providing the 115,000
> pounds thrust, and then some. It is probably the only offer that was
> also capable of providing an engine with an in-service date that would
> be competitive with the A340-500/600. It also offers better fuel
> economy than the RR or current PW products. On an ultra long range
> aircraft, fuel economy is a major issue. GE also has a much better
> developed service/support organization to look after  the engine,
> which should reduce the pain that non-GE operators see if they buy the
> aircraft.
>
> My own belief is GE got the business in part because the other choices
> were not especially viable in the eyes of Boeing... PW was almost
> certain to have problem with In-Service Date, RR didn't provide any
> growth capability, which would effectively lock the aircraft into a
> 1999 configuration indefinitely.

What I don't understand is why GE wanted the exclusive contract.  They
have a great deal of evidence that their competitors could not bring a
product to market in a timely and cost-effective fashion.  GE had to
realize that they could crush any offering by RR or PW because of their
vastly lower development costs.

If I was a GE executive I would not push an exclusive agreement which
irritates your potential customers and has the appearance of
anti-competitive practices... when you would eventually win all of the
contracts based on your product.

It would have looked a lot better for Boeing and for GE if the GE90 was
*defacto* the only engine for this airframe, rather than forcing it to
be the only engine with exclusive contracts.