The Norwegian airline has made a u turn and decided to replace the engines in 21 Dreamliner aircraft. The billing bill ends with the supplier.

The problem with the Boeing 787 dream plan will not end. Now it's the engine manufacturer Rolls Royce who has to blame because the Trent 1000 engine has proven to be far less durable than expected, Finansavisen writes.

It's are the blades in the engines turbines that are the main problem. Cracks are formed and the leaves crumble up. Several companies have experienced hot running in the engines and have put Dreamliners on the ground

turnaround

In December, Technical Director Erik Nordby said that the speedy engine wear would cause problems and increase the maintenance burden also for Norwegian.

At that time, there was no alternative for Norwegian to change the engines.

Now Norwegian has made a u turn and sends the bill to change all the engines to Rolls-Royce

Enhanced edition

- All 21 Dreamliners must be sent to the workshop to get a new, upgraded version of the airplane engine, Trent 1000 TEN (Trust, Efficiency and New Technology), says Communications Manager Lasse Sandaker-Nilsen to Finansavisen.

- Replacement takes place according to a plan for motor exchange where the costs are covered by an agreement with the supplier, says Sandaker-Nilsen.

Expensive motor exchange

The list price for one engine is around NOK 3.4 billion. Thus, it will cost 6.8 billion for each aircraft when both engines need to be replaced.

How this will affect the regularity of Norway's tight route is still uncertain, but CEO Bjørn Kjos said earlier this month that there will be no delays in the summer due to a pilot shortage and that there are no planned deviations in the summer program and hiring different plane in 2018.

Norwegian gets 11 new Dreamliners delivered from the Boeing factory this year. All of these will get the new engines. The engines to be replaced are from just a few months old and up to four and a half years old.

https://www.nrk.no/norge/ma-bytte-motor ... 1.13859142

The price for one engine is not 3.4 billion. Depending on the exchange rate, it is probably around 20-25 million US dollars. Maybe around 30 million US.

SKCPH wrote:

The price for one engine is not 3.4 billion. Depending on the exchange rate, it is probably around 20-25 million US dollars. Maybe around 30 million US.

Personally I'd of said a bit less than that.

SKCPH wrote:

The price for one engine is not 3.4 billion. Depending on the exchange rate, it is probably around 20-25 million US dollars. Maybe around 30 million US.

The article just said that the price for one engine is 3.4. billion NOK which is the currency in Norway - the Norwegian krone.

SKCPH wrote:

The price for one engine is not 3.4 billion. Depending on the exchange rate, it is probably around 20-25 million US dollars. Maybe around 30 million US.

He was talking of "NOK". There are more currencies in the world than just "USD".

Gruß, masi1157

Curious as to why there are issues with the blades on this one engine....seems a major cock-up by RR and a costly one to boot!

Yeah but 3.4 billion NOK is still 300MUSD. That's not the right number either.

SKCPH wrote:

The price for one engine is not 3.4 billion. Depending on the exchange rate, it is probably around 20-25 million US dollars. Maybe around 30 million US.

Right, this was a slip, although it's not the core of the message.

The linked article quotes NOK 160 million per enginge - divide that by 8 and you'll roughly get the USD price.

The article says “Dyrt motorbytte
Listeprisen for én motor ligger på rundt 160 millioner kroner. Dermed vil det koste totalt 6,8 milliarder kroner å skifte ut begge motorene på alle de 21 flyene.”

Which says

“Expensive motor exchange
The list price for one engine is around 160 million kroner. Thus, it will cost a total of 6.8 billion kroner to replace both engines on all 21 aircraft.”

Just under US$20 million per engine list price

What a disaster, RR has really dropped the ball on this one. I’m surprised that the Trent XWB is fairing so well since the 2 engines are similar in some ways. RR needs to pick it up quick.

ikolkyo wrote:

What a disaster, RR has really dropped the ball on this one. I’m surprised that the Trent XWB is fairing so well since the 2 engines are similar in some ways. RR needs to pick it up quick.

Given how reliable the XWB engine has been I do not see the similarities.....

This will probable not be all new engines. Just revised engines with new fan blades. Still very expensive as it mains a nearly compleet new build up of the engine.

zeke wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

What a disaster, RR has really dropped the ball on this one. I’m surprised that the Trent XWB is fairing so well since the 2 engines are similar in some ways. RR needs to pick it up quick.

Given how reliable the XWB engine has been I do not see the similarities.....

My point is that they were developed just a few years apart and you’d think the XWB would be using some of the same material for turbine blades as the T1000, seems it’s nkt the case obviously.

Title's sort of a let-down.... thought it meant that they were going to switch to GE. Oh well.

Bet some airlines are wishing that Boeing really had come through with that common pylon +24hr change.

tvh wrote:

This will probable not be all new engines. Just revised engines with new fan blades. Still very expensive as it mains a nearly compleet new build up of the engine.

While most in-service T1000 engines are getting refurbished, Norwegian is getting the newest T1000 TEN.

KarelXWB wrote:

tvh wrote:

This will probable not be all new engines. Just revised engines with new fan blades. Still very expensive as it mains a nearly compleet new build up of the engine.

While most in-service T1000 engines are getting refurbished, Norwegian is getting the newest T1000 TEN.

This seems the first time that new build T1000 TEN are being used to help deal with the T1000 sulferisation issue on the medium speed turbine? Presumably this gives Norwegian the benefit of the TEN's better sfc in exchange for a cartload of cash? It gives RR some T1000 engines to overhaul for spares to reduce the off-wing time for the airlines yet to receive the improved coating on their replacement blades.

masi1157 wrote:

SKCPH wrote:

The price for one engine is not 3.4 billion. Depending on the exchange rate, it is probably around 20-25 million US dollars. Maybe around 30 million US.

He was talking of "NOK". There are more currencies in the world than just "USD".

Gruß, masi1157

The current exchange rate would make each engine cost over 421 million US dollars if it was 3.4 billion NOK. So no something is off in the totals. I would assume the total was for 42 engines to replace 42 old engine that would be around 10 million per engine.

The article has been uppdated:

To NRK, communications manager Lasse Sandaker-Nilsen says that the 13 Boeing 787-9 engines should be upgraded to a newer version of the Trent 1000 TEN (Trust, Efficiency and New Technology).

- The company's 8 Boeing 787-8 aircraft will also receive upgraded Rolls Royce engines, but not Trent TEN.


The list price for one engine is around 160 million NOK. Thus, it would cost a total of 6.8 billion NOK to replace both engines on all 21 aircraft.

Now we know why the A330neo engines were so delayed.

Is this the European equivalent of an AD, or is DY doing this for their own needs? Also, if the engines are going back to the manufacturer as they must be, the cost isn't that important. It's not as if they will be thrown away. They will replace the worn parts and send them back out. So, he cost is only to replace the parts involved and check over the engine. In fact, DY will probably get some of their own engines back unless it says in their contract in this scenario they get "new" engines.

This is not a new story. Launch customer NH discovered corrosion and cracking on some of its Trent 1000-powered 787s in 2016. The solution by Rolls-Royce is to replace the turbine blades with modified ones over a three-year period, with the work done in the course of normal maintenance. It's not clear, though, how much liability R-R has for any cancelled flights.

Mortyman wrote:

The Norwegian airline has made a u turn and decided to replace the engines in 21 Dreamliner aircraft. The billing bill ends with the supplier.

The problem with the Boeing 787 dream plan will not end. Now it's the engine manufacturer Rolls Royce who has to blame because the Trent 1000 engine has proven to be far less durable than expected, Finansavisen writes.

It's are the blades in the engines turbines that are the main problem. Cracks are formed and the leaves crumble up. Several companies have experienced hot running in the engines and have put Dreamliners on the ground

turnaround

In December, Technical Director Erik Nordby said that the speedy engine wear would cause problems and increase the maintenance burden also for Norwegian.

At that time, there was no alternative for Norwegian to change the engines.

Now Norwegian has made a u turn and sends the bill to change all the engines to Rolls-Royce

Enhanced edition

- All 21 Dreamliners must be sent to the workshop to get a new, upgraded version of the airplane engine, Trent 1000 TEN (Trust, Efficiency and New Technology), says Communications Manager Lasse Sandaker-Nilsen to Finansavisen.

- Replacement takes place according to a plan for motor exchange where the costs are covered by an agreement with the supplier, says Sandaker-Nilsen.

Expensive motor exchange

The list price for one engine is around NOK 3.4 billion. Thus, it will cost 6.8 billion for each aircraft when both engines need to be replaced.

How this will affect the regularity of Norway's tight route is still uncertain, but CEO Bjørn Kjos said earlier this month that there will be no delays in the summer due to a pilot shortage and that there are no planned deviations in the summer program and hiring different plane in 2018.

Norwegian gets 11 new Dreamliners delivered from the Boeing factory this year. All of these will get the new engines. The engines to be replaced are from just a few months old and up to four and a half years old.

https://www.nrk.no/norge/ma-bytte-motor ... 1.13859142

I completely disagree with Mr. Erik Norby when he said that the Norwegian cannot change the engine manufacturer (if that's what he is talking about). It is possible, but it may not cost effective because it would take a lot of NRE and a lot of certification time to do the swap.

masi1157 wrote:

SKCPH wrote:

The price for one engine is not 3.4 billion. Depending on the exchange rate, it is probably around 20-25 million US dollars. Maybe around 30 million US.

He was talking of "NOK". There are more currencies in the world than just "USD".

Gruß, masi1157

But there is only one exchange rate and the math doesn't add up.

Mortyman wrote:

The article has been uppdated:

To NRK, communications manager Lasse Sandaker-Nilsen says that the 13 Boeing 787-9 engines should be upgraded to a newer version of the Trent 1000 TEN (Trust, Efficiency and New Technology).

- The company's 8 Boeing 787-8 aircraft will also receive upgraded Rolls Royce engines, but not Trent TEN.


The list price for one engine is around 160 million NOK. Thus, it would cost a total of 6.8 billion NOK to replace both engines on all 21 aircraft.

Which is still unaccurate/BS as it:
* ignores the residual value of the removed engiens;
* ignores the service time Norwegian has already "enjoyed" on the removed engines.

Neither of this is really of any interest to Norwegian, as they are probably in a PBTH (Power By The Hour) deal with RR (GoldCare?), so really it is up to their power supplier (RR) to get the improve dengines on their planes. Possibly Norwegian will have to pay a slighlly higher monthly fee for the improved performance of the new hardware.

wedgetail737 wrote:

Mortyman wrote:

The Norwegian airline has made a u turn and decided to replace the engines in 21 Dreamliner aircraft. The billing bill ends with the supplier.

The problem with the Boeing 787 dream plan will not end. Now it's the engine manufacturer Rolls Royce who has to blame because the Trent 1000 engine has proven to be far less durable than expected, Finansavisen writes.

It's are the blades in the engines turbines that are the main problem. Cracks are formed and the leaves crumble up. Several companies have experienced hot running in the engines and have put Dreamliners on the ground

turnaround

In December, Technical Director Erik Nordby said that the speedy engine wear would cause problems and increase the maintenance burden also for Norwegian.

At that time, there was no alternative for Norwegian to change the engines.

Now Norwegian has made a u turn and sends the bill to change all the engines to Rolls-Royce

Enhanced edition

- All 21 Dreamliners must be sent to the workshop to get a new, upgraded version of the airplane engine, Trent 1000 TEN (Trust, Efficiency and New Technology), says Communications Manager Lasse Sandaker-Nilsen to Finansavisen.

- Replacement takes place according to a plan for motor exchange where the costs are covered by an agreement with the supplier, says Sandaker-Nilsen.

Expensive motor exchange

The list price for one engine is around NOK 3.4 billion. Thus, it will cost 6.8 billion for each aircraft when both engines need to be replaced.

How this will affect the regularity of Norway's tight route is still uncertain, but CEO Bjørn Kjos said earlier this month that there will be no delays in the summer due to a pilot shortage and that there are no planned deviations in the summer program and hiring different plane in 2018.

Norwegian gets 11 new Dreamliners delivered from the Boeing factory this year. All of these will get the new engines. The engines to be replaced are from just a few months old and up to four and a half years old.

https://www.nrk.no/norge/ma-bytte-motor ... 1.13859142

I completely disagree with Mr. Erik Norby when he said that the Norwegian cannot change the engine manufacturer (if that's what he is talking about). It is possible, but it may not cost effective because it would take a lot of NRE and a lot of certification time to do the swap.

He was not talking about changing manufacturer

Sooner787 wrote:

scotron11 wrote:

Curious as to why there are issues with the blades on this one engine....seems a major cock-up by RR and a costly one to boot!

Virgin Atlantic would agree with you. They have several 789's grounded due to the same RR engine issue.

Not sure how many VS Dreamliners are still parked

BA agrees....

I count 4 747-400s from Wamos covering Norwegian flights currently. Is this the reason, or is it something else?

masi1157 wrote:

SKCPH wrote:

The price for one engine is not 3.4 billion. Depending on the exchange rate, it is probably around 20-25 million US dollars. Maybe around 30 million US.

He was talking of "NOK". There are more currencies in the world than just "USD".

Gruß, masi1157

I know a guy that can get one for 3.3 billion. PM if interested.

PW100 wrote:

Mortyman wrote:

The article has been uppdated:

To NRK, communications manager Lasse Sandaker-Nilsen says that the 13 Boeing 787-9 engines should be upgraded to a newer version of the Trent 1000 TEN (Trust, Efficiency and New Technology).

- The company's 8 Boeing 787-8 aircraft will also receive upgraded Rolls Royce engines, but not Trent TEN.


The list price for one engine is around 160 million NOK. Thus, it would cost a total of 6.8 billion NOK to replace both engines on all 21 aircraft.

Which is still unaccurate/BS as it:
* ignores the residual value of the removed engiens;
* ignores the service time Norwegian has already "enjoyed" on the removed engines.

Neither of this is really of any interest to Norwegian, as they are probably in a PBTH (Power By The Hour) deal with RR (GoldCare?), so really it is up to their power supplier (RR) to get the improve dengines on their planes. Possibly Norwegian will have to pay a slighlly higher monthly fee for the improved performance of the new hardware.

Unless you are a Boeing Tier 1 customer, you have to opt out of WB engine maintenance. Your options are to own or lease the engine. Whether the airline chooses to own or lease the engine, increasingly the financier / leasor calls the tune on the maintenance package selected.

Engine maintenance contracts include confidentiality clauses, which might explain why the press release was withdrawn and re-issued.

Presumably there are finite supplies of completely new engines, as well as components to upgrade new engines, which will dictate RR's options.

Every engine will be upgraded / replaced. The priority will reflect pressure from the airline and Boeing. For the few who opted out of engine maintenance, they may wait longer.

Engine under performance, including durability and degradation, are incorporated in both the supply and maintenance contracts (though not necessarily the same measures), including remedies.

Very much doubt RR will be able to extract higher monthly PBTH fees for new, upgraded, or used, upgraded engines.

RR has been assisting PW with technical and manufacturing solutions for an engine issue. Wonder if PW are returning the favour?

On the money side, as has been suggested it will be a matter between Norwegian and RR. The list price of new engines is not relevant.

On the unexpected New Zealand contained failure caused by just one turbine blade failing, this resulted in an AD that to avoid a double engine failure risk, airlines were instructed to promptly ensure that engines with similar high hours on them were not paired on one aeroplane. Also an AD on some other RB211/Trent engine models required inspection of said blades.

I suspect that the NZ event was a shock to all concerned, and has put more pressure on RR which had already stepped up manufacturing of more of the up-graded blades. There are apparently some 600 T1000 engines needing new blades. Is that number correct, anyone? That is a lot of blades in addition to the existing ramp up of production. It may be that RR was not expecting the rate of failure that has very recently come to light in NZ. The normal stock of complete T1000 engines held by RR as ready-to-use spares is manifestly too few to address the current situation. Hence the airlines are having issues.

Back to the money side, it is unclear whether RR's specification for fuel has been fully respected by all airlines, and so it may perhaps be a shared cost. A I have written before, most sulfer can easily be extracted from crude oil, but this is not universally done. Then you can have inadvertent mixing of good and bad fuel along the long supply chain!

This added, it is from 2 years ago:
It has been suggested that the corrosion is caused by sulpher, which may be sulphuric acid. Years ago the UK started importing oil from Liberia (North Africa). There was trouble because this oil contained a high sulpher content. I guess that vehicle exhaust pipes were corroding at a higher rate than normal. It also messed up rubber seals used in oil pumps on our domestic oil fire boilers. I wonder what the RR specification is for engine fuel? I also wonder why ANA are making such big trouble for RR? In the normal course of events, such turbine blades would be replaced during routine maintenance over a period of many years, as required by the hours flown and flight cycles.

Given that the earliest 787 deliveries were to ANA, some of these engines will have clocked up quite a few hours and cycles, but many will be nearly new. Does this account for the initial rush to replace some high hours/cycles blades, but the quoted 4 years to do them all?

Further info on sulphur in fuel. It comes out of the ground in the crude oil, in the form of Hydrogen Sulphide as a gas (one breath dulls your senses, 2nd breath kills you), or as a very fine powder in the oil. Some oil refineries have the plant to take this latter out by use of a Catalytic Converter, of huge dimensions. The resulting large heap of sulphur as a powder is then put through a Prilling Tower to pelletise it to be used as an agricultural fertiliser. 100% of sulphur may not removed, for reasons of cost.

Sooner787 wrote:

scotron11 wrote:

Curious as to why there are issues with the blades on this one engine....seems a major cock-up by RR and a costly one to boot!

Virgin Atlantic would agree with you. They have several 789's grounded due to the same RR engine issue.

Not sure how many VS Dreamliners are still parked

From what I hear the number varies daily, can be as low as 6 out of their 14 flying on one day... They've leased 4 former Air Berlin A332's to cover, which gives a fairly good idea, they'll also have some more slack in the A340 fleet, with one returning from the desert (although one A346 is due to leave later this year anyways) - added to any slack they previously had in the fleet.

Egerton wrote:

It may be that RR was not expecting the rate of failure that has very recently come to light in NZ.

Is there a category for Corporate Understatement of the Year award?

lowfareair wrote:

I count 4 747-400s from Wamos covering Norwegian flights currently. Is this the reason, or is it something else?

My daughter has just endured 10 hours on one of those planes, and according to her it was beyond awful. There were passengers fighting in the aisles, no IFE, no hot food, and the FAs spent most of their time upstairs relaxing (or hiding) in an empty business class lounge. And on top of that she got food poisoning.

I got grief because I told her she was lucky to be flying in the "Queen of the Skies"

Planesmart wrote:

Unless you are a Boeing Tier 1 customer,...

Aren't these under Gold Care? Maybe Boeing is pushing RR to replace engines as it cannot meet Gold Care service level.

Egerton wrote:

Back to the money side, it is unclear whether RR's specification for fuel has been fully respected by all airlines, and so it may perhaps be a shared cost. A I have written before, most sulfer can easily be extracted from crude oil, but this is not universally done. Then you can have inadvertent mixing of good and bad fuel along the long supply chain!

This added, it is from 2 years ago:
It has been suggested that the corrosion is caused by sulpher, which may be sulphuric acid. Years ago the UK started importing oil from Liberia (North Africa). There was trouble because this oil contained a high sulpher content.

I'm sorry Liberia has not and does not produce crude oil in any appreciable...if any at all...quantity as of January 2018. You must be thinking of Libya. Also, sour oil is easily dealt with by refineries that are set up to remove the sulfur. Global jet fuel specifications have a limit on sulfur content, so none of this is new.

scotron11 wrote:

Curious as to why there are issues with the blades on this one engine....seems a major cock-up by RR and a costly one to boot!

Unfortunately? The material they used? Seemed like a good idea that the time. Maybe the proposed materials and alloys for the blades had a Lot of promise.
But! Until Promise turns into reality? It's pretty much a "crapshoot" ! Especially when you don't KNOW? What you don't KNOW!! And? Until they figure out the right alloy? They're going to be doing a LOT of back tracking work and research.
I'm glad United has held off on taking delivery of the A350 until it's a more mature airplane and has a more mature engine? Or?
The sectors they would have deployed the airplane to? Might have been in "Deep Kimchee"!

Maximum sulfur content in jet fuel (Jet A and A1) is 0.3%. But usually it is somewhat lower, between 0.05 and 0.1% (or 500 - 1000 PPM - parts per million).

As comparison, current road diesel is limited to 15 PPM sulfur in the USA, Canada and many other countries, and 10 PPM in the EU (= ULSD or ultra low sulfur diesel).

Many countries have less stringest limits for domestic heating oil, diesel for agriculture, marine diesel etc.

Desulfurication is done with all grude oil at all refineries - at least for oil consumed in the developed world. But it comes at a rather high cost and other inconveniences. If Jet fuel had sulfur content reduced to ULSD level, then many fuel pumps in the aircraft would have to be redesigned due to lower lubricity of the fuel. It would also add some 5% to the aviation generated greenhouse effect, mostly due to more energy needed at the refineries.

The much higher sulfur content allowed in jet fuel compared to road diesel is due to the fact that it is mostly spread at high altitude as a thin layer of "fertilizer" rather than much more concentrated from exhurst pipes at road level.

Gasoline, however, is by nature almost sulfur free.

strfyr51 wrote:

scotron11 wrote:

Curious as to why there are issues with the blades on this one engine....seems a major cock-up by RR and a costly one to boot!

Unfortunately? The material they used? Seemed like a good idea that the time. Maybe the proposed materials and alloys for the blades had a Lot of promise.
But! Until Promise turns into reality? It's pretty much a "crapshoot" ! Especially when you don't KNOW? What you don't KNOW!! And? Until they figure out the right alloy? They're going to be doing a LOT of back tracking work and research.
I'm glad United has held off on taking delivery of the A350 until it's a more mature airplane and has a more mature engine? Or?
The sectors they would have deployed the airplane to? Might have been in "Deep Kimchee"!

Go on, I'll bite...

The problem is this. RR changed a coating process on some turbine blades, and it is this that is causing the erosion issue.That problem is well in the past at RR.

The next problem is that those blades are deep within the engine. That means the engine needs serious shop time to strip and replace the sections affected. It's also winter and shop time is at a premium.

The Trent XWB and Trent 1000-TEN are unaffected, as is the forthcoming Trent 7000. EASA recently released an AD on affected engine serial numbers and it wasn't a huge number at all. The problem is being tackled and Rolls Royce have put aside sufficient money to cover the problem. gain, it's shop time that is the issue as not everywhere is qualified to overhaul Trents.

lowfareair wrote:

I count 4 747-400s from Wamos covering Norwegian flights currently. Is this the reason, or is it something else?

The "Bomb Cyclone" hit JFK/EWR, where Norwegian has a large focus of operations, including a crew base. It put about 8 aircraft each with a full crew out of position, then they had two aircraft go tech. It's been a snowball effect. With no spares, and now still one aircraft down, they are still trying to recover their operation a week later.

Channex757 wrote:

Thanks for the summary and detail Channex757, appreciated

Pellegrine wrote:

Egerton wrote:

Back to the money side, it is unclear whether RR's specification for fuel has been fully respected by all airlines, and so it may perhaps be a shared cost. A I have written before, most sulfer can easily be extracted from crude oil, but this is not universally done. Then you can have inadvertent mixing of good and bad fuel along the long supply chain!

This added, it is from 2 years ago:
It has been suggested that the corrosion is caused by sulpher, which may be sulphuric acid. Years ago the UK started importing oil from Liberia (North Africa). There was trouble because this oil contained a high sulpher content.

I'm sorry Liberia has not and does not produce crude oil in any appreciable...if any at all...quantity as of January 2018. You must be thinking of Libya. Also, sour oil is easily dealt with by refineries that are set up to remove the sulfur. Global jet fuel specifications have a limit on sulfur content, so none of this is new.

Thanks, I meant Libya. Your point? You appear to agree that some refineries (or oil field plants) are set up to remove or reduce sulfur, and by extension, some are not. My point was that it is not universally done. The fact that specifications have limits on sulfur is not in dispute. My point was that it is unclear (to me) if the RR specification was fully respected.

Egerton wrote:

Pellegrine wrote:

Egerton wrote:

Back to the money side, it is unclear whether RR's specification for fuel has been fully respected by all airlines, and so it may perhaps be a shared cost. A I have written before, most sulfer can easily be extracted from crude oil, but this is not universally done. Then you can have inadvertent mixing of good and bad fuel along the long supply chain!

This added, it is from 2 years ago:
It has been suggested that the corrosion is caused by sulpher, which may be sulphuric acid. Years ago the UK started importing oil from Liberia (North Africa). There was trouble because this oil contained a high sulpher content.

I'm sorry Liberia has not and does not produce crude oil in any appreciable...if any at all...quantity as of January 2018. You must be thinking of Libya. Also, sour oil is easily dealt with by refineries that are set up to remove the sulfur. Global jet fuel specifications have a limit on sulfur content, so none of this is new.

Thanks, I meant Libya. Your point? You appear to agree that some refineries (or oil field plants) are set up to remove or reduce sulfur, and by extension, some are not. My point was that it is not universally done. The fact that specifications have limits on sulfur is not in dispute. My point was that it is unclear (to me) if the RR specification was fully respected.

Commercial engine manufacturers do not provide specifications for fuel used, they'll say which types can be used...although those are nearly uniform. Those specifications are already established. This is RR's problem, not a fuel refinery's. Otherwise, we would be seeing problems with other engines.

prebennorholm wrote:

Maximum sulfur content in jet fuel (Jet A and A1) is 0.3%. But usually it is somewhat lower, between 0.05 and 0.1% (or 500 - 1000 PPM - parts per million).

As comparison, current road diesel is limited to 15 PPM sulfur in the USA, Canada and many other countries, and 10 PPM in the EU (= ULSD or ultra low sulfur diesel).

Many countries have less stringest limits for domestic heating oil, diesel for agriculture, marine diesel etc.

Desulfurication is done with all grude oil at all refineries - at least for oil consumed in the developed world. But it comes at a rather high cost and other inconveniences. If Jet fuel had sulfur content reduced to ULSD level, then many fuel pumps in the aircraft would have to be redesigned due to lower lubricity of the fuel. It would also add some 5% to the aviation generated greenhouse effect, mostly due to more energy needed at the refineries.

The much higher sulfur content allowed in jet fuel compared to road diesel is due to the fact that it is mostly spread at high altitude as a thin layer of "fertilizer" rather than much more concentrated from exhurst pipes at road level.

Gasoline, however, is by nature almost sulfur free.

Thank you very much for this info.

For those interested in more detail https://www.transportpolicy.net/standar ... -gasoline/

The issue of sulfur as a lubricant explains why my 2003 diesel car started to eat fuel pumps when the allowed ppm dropped lower and lower.
Ditto UK oil fired domestic boilers had the same trouble. The current pumps have a different code number stamped on them, to avoid old stocks being used.

Pellegrine wrote:

Egerton wrote:

Pellegrine wrote:

I'm sorry Liberia has not and does not produce crude oil in any appreciable...if any at all...quantity as of January 2018. You must be thinking of Libya. Also, sour oil is easily dealt with by refineries that are set up to remove the sulfur. Global jet fuel specifications have a limit on sulfur content, so none of this is new.

Thanks, I meant Libya. Your point? You appear to agree that some refineries (or oil field plants) are set up to remove or reduce sulfur, and by extension, some are not. My point was that it is not universally done. The fact that specifications have limits on sulfur is not in dispute. My point was that it is unclear (to me) if the RR specification was fully respected.

Commercial engine manufacturers do not provide specifications for fuel used, they'll say which types can be used...although those are nearly uniform. Those specifications are already established. This is RR's problem, not a fuel refinery's. Otherwise, we would be seeing problems with other engines.

And if you declare the type of fuel to be used, you fixed the specifications, because each type has a specification.

Egerton wrote:

Thanks, I meant Libya. Your point? You appear to agree that some refineries (or oil field plants) are set up to remove or reduce sulfur, and by extension, some are not. My point was that it is not universally done. The fact that specifications have limits on sulfur is not in dispute. My point was that it is unclear (to me) if the RR specification was fully respected.

So you think every operator across the world (NZ, NH, VS, Thai...) violated RR specs.

bluefltspecial wrote:

lowfareair wrote:

I count 4 747-400s from Wamos covering Norwegian flights currently. Is this the reason, or is it something else?

The "Bomb Cyclone" hit JFK/EWR, where Norwegian has a large focus of operations, including a crew base. It put about 8 aircraft each with a full crew out of position, then they had two aircraft go tech. It's been a snowball effect. With no spares, and now still one aircraft down, they are still trying to recover their operation a week later.

Ugh, I have a flight with them tomorrow EWR-BCN and I'm not seeing where the plane flying the originating BCN-EWR will come from. The only 789 line that made sense was LAX-BCN-FLL-BCN-EWR, but the LAX flight was switched to a Wamos 747 at the last minute and is currently 17 hours delayed.

Can I go out on a limb and say they are refusing to cancel bookings unless the flight is severely delayed?

Richard28 wrote:

Channex757 wrote:

Thanks for the summary and detail Channex757, appreciated

The knock-on problem is that the EASA Directive states that aircraft should not be flown with two of the affected group of engines fitted. So that's the second part of the problem.

Limited availability of shop time to rebuild the affected engines, and some airlines not having any unaffected engines to replace the ones covered by the AD. Even if the engines fitted are perfectly fine at this stage, if one or more is in the group of serial numbers specified then the plane can't fly without a "good" one. Any spare capacity Rolls Royce has was used up.

I notice some careful wording of the Norwegian statement too. Seems like they have struck a deal with Rolls Royce for the upgrades but are spinning it like they have had their demands met and have conquered meek RR. How very Viking of them.....

dtw2hyd wrote:

So you think every operator across the world (NZ, NH, VS, Thai...) violated RR specs.

Thanks for the question, dtw2hyd.

This is what I wrote in by post #31:

"Back to the money side, it is unclear whether RR's specification for fuel has been fully respected by all airlines, and so it may perhaps be a shared cost. As I have written before, most sulfer can easily be extracted from crude oil, but this is not universally done. Then you can have inadvertent mixing of good and bad fuel along the long supply chain!"

If you or anyone can please advise me:
1. The RR fuel spec for the T1000 in respect of sulfur? Or alternatively do RR just specify as prebennorholm in his post #38 has set out as not more than 0.3% sulfur?
2. That all aero fuel for jets is compliant world wide with either the RR fuel spec, or not more than 0.3% ?
3. That all makers of all aero fuel for jets have the facility and use it to always deliver either the RR spec or not more than 0.3% for sulfur ?
4. That there has been no mixing of fuel in the supply chain (which by the way comprises may different specs of oil and oil products) ?
5. That either the RR spec or not more than 0.3% sulfur was always respected by the airlines with those engines ?

Then my curiosity going back 2 years on this issue will be satisfied.

By the way, the amazing achievement of only 5 deaths in 2017 on commercial airlines https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ie-444560/ was achieved by the no blame culture being in force in most nations (France's legal system is an exception). If that means grounding airliners, so be it.

Know this might be a bit of a tangent but was curious if continued engine problems would be enough for airlines to switch engine suppliers midway through the planes life cycle (i.e. Norwegian etc maybe switch to the General Electric GEnX) or if it's too costly/requires too much re-engineering to make that feasible.