British Airways orders plagued Trent engines

By: cloud_9 - 6th January 2011 at 23:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

I think your title is somewhat exaggerating the situation...the Trent engine is hardly "plagued", is it?

The incident involving the QF A380 will no doubt have been discussed at length between BA and RR in order to gain reassurances from them because after all safety is BA's highest priority, but seeing as this contract has been under negotiation since September 2007, I think it would have been highly unlikely for an airline such as BA to simply stop negotiations just because of an incident involving the same engine type!

By: symon - 6th January 2011 at 23:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

And considering BA's long standing relationship with RR, it is of little surprise that they went with the Trent 900.

By: nJayM - 6th January 2011 at 23:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

BA is correct to go with RR

Keep an eye on these thrusters...;)

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/07/business/global/07engine.html?src=busln

The Trent series of engines is reputable and deployed across many aircraft across the globe.

Safety concious BA (2 crashes since inception) is quite correct to go with RR. They need each other's loyalty to help make the UK economy 'rock and roll' again.

In quoting from http://www.rolls-royce.com/civil/new..._statement.jsp

"The Trent 900 incident is the first of its kind to occur on a large civil Rolls-Royce engine since 1994. Since then Rolls-Royce has accumulated 142 million hours of flight on Trent and RB211 engines."

By: Bmused55 - 7th January 2011 at 07:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

British Airways orders plagued Trent engines

Sensationalist clap trap

By: mrtotty - 7th January 2011 at 10:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

In fairness, the title, while sensationalist, might be one invented by the press and not Mr AlphaChi 1989. It sounds like something typical of the BBC to me.
I would travel on a RR Tent-powered A380 with confidence, but in general conversation with a non-aviation-enthusiast friend who is contemplating a trip down under recently, I was told that to fly an A380 is dangerous.
She could only have gained that ridiculous assertion from the media.

By: wozza - 7th January 2011 at 19:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Safety concious BA (2 crashes since inception) is quite correct to go with RR. They need each other's loyalty to help make the UK economy 'rock and roll' again.

As much as i agree that it is 'quite correct' I don't think BA gives much of a thought to 'buying British.' This decision just follows a series of other cold, calculated financial decisions which suggest that Rolls-Royce is a more commerically attractive proposition. Loyalty probably doesn't come into it, other than in the sense that there may be savings to be had from existing Rolls-Royce experience and I don't know.. maybe you could suggest there's an element of a gamble in trying someone new which could have financial implications.

Agree on the sensationalist media headline talk - but is this not the depressing way of the world in every other industry/area of popular discourse?

By: TRIDENT MAN - 7th January 2011 at 20:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Ok just as an example BA's early B777's had the GE90 and after a lot of troubble with the engine BA opted for Trent's on it's later aircraft, to me that says it all.:)

By: nJayM - 7th January 2011 at 21:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Economic loyalty not simple old fashioned loyalty I guess

As much as i agree that it is 'quite correct' I don't think BA gives much of a thought to 'buying British.' This decision just follows a series of other cold, calculated financial decisions which suggest that Rolls-Royce is a more commerically attractive proposition. Loyalty probably doesn't come into it, other than in the sense that there may be savings to be had from existing Rolls-Royce experience and I don't know.. maybe you could suggest there's an element of a gamble in trying someone new which could have financial implications.

Agree on the sensationalist media headline talk - but is this not the depressing way of the world in every other industry/area of popular discourse?

The title of the thread is sensationalist - absolutely, couldn't agree more.

Okay maybe my use of loyalty was too old fashioned, but for BA to stay with RR is in effect an 'economic loyalty' and also it may help add positive PR to the current very negative press on the Trent 900 (Airbus A380).

What better way if RR who are now not purely an aero-engine manufacture but heavily in to actual customer service possibly working side by side with BA engineers and making sure quality was constantly improving and getting first hand forward R&D information to feed back to RR Derby.

In addition more positive PR for RR - RR engineers could boldly state that they were happy to constantly fly RR powered BA Airbus A380s on business and personal journeys - that is where the two work hand in hand. An old saying "putting your money where your mouth is".

I certainly with no hesitation would fly a BA Airbus A380 powered by RR Trent 900s.

Airline fleets do look for service economies and this can embody a safety factor as well - covered in the recent post on Easy Jet's decision to gradually standardise on Airbus A320s.

Another example in the SAS fleet apart from the 4 x Airbus A330s that have RR engines, 8 x Airbus A321 have engines from Aero Engines, the 26 x MD8X have P&W engines the rest of the fleet (88) have CFM engines from Snecma/GE.

Norwegian too have their entire fleet of (54) 737s powered by CFM engines from Snecma/GE.

CFM - Snecma/GE must/may provide these Scandinavian airlines with an economic benefit from going CFM - Snecma/GE.

I'd rather they both had RR engines and I amusingly told my (much younger than me) cousin who is a first officer on Norwegian 737s (formerly at SAS possibly going back again to SAS soon)

By: wozza - 9th January 2011 at 21:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

, but for BA to stay with RR is in effect an 'economic loyalty' and also it may help add positive PR to the current very negative press on the Trent 900 (Airbus A380).

I very much like this 'economic loyalty' but would stop there in the sentence. Just in my mind this story had overtures of BA helping out it's old 'friend' - where as the relationship is most likely to be very economic in nature and BA would, having shown it's teeth of late, drop any paraiah that wasn't of any financial benefit to it... both gain from the relationship economically, and thus the order of Trent engines can be seen to fit this relationship.

By: rdc1000 - 10th January 2011 at 12:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Ok just as an example BA's early B777's had the GE90 and after a lot of troubble with the engine BA opted for Trent's on it's later aircraft, to me that says it all.:)

I actually suspect the original GE90 engine order was more to do with BA selling a significant section of their Engine Overhaul business to GE. I think it was widely seen that Staus-Quo would be reinstated once the sale had gone through and the original 10 aircraft had been delivered, and indeed it was.

By: Ship 741 - 10th January 2011 at 16:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

The whole issue of "economic loyalty" is somewhat troubling to me.

Furthermore, IMHO its a shame BA didn't stick with GE on their 777's. It was an all-new engine at the time, as opposed to the RB-211 rehash that the Trent is. Any gestation pains the GE90 had at service entry were sure to be blown out of proportion by a sympathetic (to RR) British press.

Plus, BA could have avoided the only hull loss accident on the 777 to date if they had not switched to Trents.

I should add that I have no affiliation with either of the companies, but as an observer it appears to me that GE is the class of the aviation engine field with 50% of the industry leading CFM56, the GE90, the GEnx (the only all-new engine on the 787), and the arguably the most reliable fighter engines available. It is indeed hard not to see GE as the pre-eminent gas turbine engine manufacturer when evaluated unemotionally.

By: wozza - 10th January 2011 at 21:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Any gestation pains the GE90 had at service entry were sure to be blown out of proportion by a sympathetic (to RR) British press.

Plus, BA could have avoided the only hull loss accident on the 777 to date if they had not switched to Trents.

It is indeed hard not to see GE as the pre-eminent gas turbine engine manufacturer when evaluated unemotionally.

1) BA were able to evaluate the long-term pros/cons of each engine "unemotionally" to use your word without press emotions coming into it.

2) I think this is pure conjecture, highly contentious and debatable... too much of a 'what if' vaguery to be a valid point.

3) I would suggest your views are clouded by some sort of emotion. One engine does not fit all sizes... Different engines will suit different operations in different ways. I'm no technical expert but I dare say something like flight patterns would come into it, as well as the economics of maintenance which will vary between engine manufacturer for each airline, discounts offered at purchase... it's a minefield!