kalvado wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Bloomberg: IndiGo Says Has Made 69 Pratt Engine Replacements in 18 Months gives us the impact that the PW1100G problems have had on Indigo:

• 69 engine replacements in 18 months
• 3 in-flight engine shutdowns
• 3 flights cancelled after engine issues discovered
• 3 aircraft withdrawn from service

Not a good look for Pratt and Airbus.

69 out of 48 engines on 24 aircraft?? That's impressive...

It probably means the same airplane has had multiple engine changes. In 18 months, that is bad and going to lead to significant out of service time

Turnhouse1 wrote:

My question was more are the 43 affected engines the last 43 off the line, or a batch of 43 which was manufactured some months ago? I.e. If P&W finish an engine tomorrow will it have this defective part in it or is current production ok?

The way AD is worded, this is serial number XXX and above; I read it as all engines produced after certain changes in design/technology/whatever, which incorporate that change.

Anyone know if the issues as bad as the Trent 1000 or are the areas of the engine involved a simpler part switch and not complete teardown and rebuild?

From what I understand all the engines that are affected are the ones with the new 'final' fix for the bearing seal. It was this fix that has gone wrong. Now Pratt will have to re-do what was supposed to fix a previous problem.

Hawaiian has one of its two delivered 321s affected by the AD. It's grounded until the engines are replaced. No more 321s will be delivered either until the new fix is complete. HA will keep the single good 321 flying, and substitute 330s and 767s on the routes that were to be flown by the additional 321s.

HAL

DocLightning wrote:

It's getting awfully hard to be a Pratt fanboy.

They made a beautiful gearbox and seem to have forgotten that the rest of the engine has to work, too.

Meanwhile, over here in CFM FanboyLand, I'm having a GREAT TIME! Especially after a certain someone said it was guaranteed the LEAP would miss advertised fuel targets at launch, while the Pratt was guaranteed to beat its estimates.....I wonder who that was who told me I was wrong..

There is nothing much to celebrate in CFM FanboyLand. The LEAP-1A missed its initial fuel burn due to an open compressor bleed valve, which required a redesign. CFM had to reblade the low-pressure compressor. Furthermore all LEAP variants are having some reliability issues related to several components and is running behind production schedule related to industrial "challenges", forcing Airbus and Boeing to park gliders until engines arrive. While PW1100G is having its own reliability and production issues, it does exceed initial fuel burn projections.

General question really.
It is clear that P&W have continuing and possible serious issues yet to be overcome.
It is equally clear that CFM have fairly big problems of their own- see above and Reuters elsewhere.
GE have on top of that have their hands very full with producing a new engine (the biggest engine in the World) to a very tight schedule
Rolls is in no better position with the coating materials issue on ( a lot of) their T1000 engines ( will it appear on wxb's?)

When considering the 797 are any of the Engine manufacturers in any position to start another giant project??
R&D is One thing but committing to a vast new project is very much another.
One might think they could do with a year off right now just to sort things out a bit!

parapente wrote:

One might think they could do with a year off right now just to sort things out a bit!

They could probably do with getting rid of the idiots that think Microsoft Excel should be used as a cornerstone of their work processes.

parapente wrote:

General question really.
It is clear that P&W have continuing and possible serious issues yet to be overcome.
It is equally clear that CFM have fairly big problems of their own- see above and Reuters elsewhere.
GE have on top of that have their hands very full with producing a new engine (the biggest engine in the World) to a very tight schedule
Rolls is in no better position with the coating materials issue on ( a lot of) their T1000 engines ( will it appear on wxb's?)

When considering the 797 are any of the Engine manufacturers in any position to start another giant project??
R&D is One thing but committing to a vast new project is very much another.
One might think they could do with a year off right now just to sort things out a bit!

As the 797, or MoM has not been launched and if it will be launched ir will take quite a few years to design it, the engine makers will get their break.

Would be good to know this

Stitch wrote:

QXAS wrote:

My question: How on earth did this engine get ETOPS certified with its downright lousy reliability?

Because it obviously did not show that "lousy" reliability during the certification program. Just as the GEnx never showed a high-altitude icing problem or the Trent 1000 a blade sulfidation issue during their certification testings.

These tests are done with a handful of engines over a handful of thousands of hours. Once you're at "production scale", you have hundreds of engines with hundreds of thousands of cumulative hours and issues that take time to develop start appearing.

Indeed... which does unfortunately beg the legitimate question if ETOPS certifications are now given a tad too easily/early in the programme (ETOPS certification from da one!) and would it not be better perhaps to monitor actual on-wing & in-service performance for -say- 18 months or so??

I do agree with QXAS that having these ETOPS certified engines flying 200 pax over the ocean would not seem very confidence inspiring at the moment.....

HAL wrote:

From what I understand all the engines that are affected are the ones with the new 'final' fix for the bearing seal. It was this fix that has gone wrong. Now Pratt will have to re-do what was supposed to fix a previous problem.

If what you write is true, it's a terrible situation to be in. The first article in this thread says the AD resulted after "a higher than normal number of inflight shutdowns and aborted takeoffs were reported on aircraft using the latest build-standard engines". It's hard to ask for forgiveness once. It's almost impossible to ask for forgiveness a second time for the same sin. Aborted takeoffs and IFSDs are no trivial matter. Customers will be upset. The airlines will be upset. Lots of revenue is being lost. ETOPS is yanked and one wonders how it can be restored given that PW has shown an inability to fix problems.

It it related to this patent?
https://www.google.com/patents/US20130259659
Found it while googling "knife edge seal".

Revelation wrote:

HAL wrote:

From what I understand all the engines that are affected are the ones with the new 'final' fix for the bearing seal. It was this fix that has gone wrong. Now Pratt will have to re-do what was supposed to fix a previous problem.

If what you write is true, it's a terrible situation to be in. The first article in this thread says the AD resulted after "a higher than normal number of inflight shutdowns and aborted takeoffs were reported on aircraft using the latest build-standard engines". It's hard to ask for forgiveness once. It's almost impossible to ask for forgiveness a second time for the same sin. Aborted takeoffs and IFSDs are no trivial matter. Customers will be upset. The airlines will be upset. Lots of revenue is being lost. ETOPS is yanked and one wonders how it can be restored given that PW has shown an inability to fix problems.

What we know is that one of the main problems was the carbon seal on the #3 bearing; that is supposedly fixed. This knife edge hub seal is a different seal. However, sometimes a modification to fix one thing causes unintended consequences in other section(s). We will have to wait to find out the actual facts.

speedygonzales wrote:

It it related to this patent?
https://www.google.com/patents/US20130259659
Found it while googling "knife edge seal".

knife edge type seals as a derivative of labyrinth seals aren't really brand new.

Is it legitimate to ask of double digit engine improvements may be inappropriate, and decreasing safety? Efficiency, Reliability and Safety may be a classic tradeoff sort of problem. The industry may be asking too much from engines and their manufacturers.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Is it legitimate to ask of double digit engine improvements may be inappropriate, and decreasing safety? Efficiency, Reliability and Safety may be a classic tradeoff sort of problem. The industry may be asking too much from engines and their manufacturers.

I don't think it is too much to ask, but the schedules seem overly optimistic. Also, IMO, the fire and hire engineers when needed has bitten P&W. I can't feel particularly sorry for the bean counters.

reidar76 wrote:

It's very disappointing that there is still these kind of major problems with the PW1100G. Let's remind ourselves that it's now 3.5 years since this engine had its first flight on the A320neo. How long can this go on before PW goes out of business?

P&W will be fine. 1) they are a subsidiary of United Technologies, which is a huge industrial conglomerate. 2) Don't forget that P&W is supplying the engine for the F-35 fighter, this contract alone is worth many, many billions of dollars. P&W also supplies the engines for the F-22, F-15, F-16, C-17, KC-46, etc.

HAL wrote:

From what I understand all the engines that are affected are the ones with the new 'final' fix for the bearing seal. It was this fix that has gone wrong. Now Pratt will have to re-do what was supposed to fix a previous problem.

Hawaiian has one of its two delivered 321s affected by the AD. It's grounded until the engines are replaced. No more 321s will be delivered either until the new fix is complete. HA will keep the single good 321 flying, and substitute 330s and 767s on the routes that were to be flown by the additional 321s.

HAL

What was the planned delivery schedule for HA A321's over the next few months? Is this going to impact the start dates of KOA-LAX or LIH-OAK?

WkndWanderer wrote:

HAL wrote:

From what I understand all the engines that are affected are the ones with the new 'final' fix for the bearing seal. It was this fix that has gone wrong. Now Pratt will have to re-do what was supposed to fix a previous problem.

Hawaiian has one of its two delivered 321s affected by the AD. It's grounded until the engines are replaced. No more 321s will be delivered either until the new fix is complete. HA will keep the single good 321 flying, and substitute 330s and 767s on the routes that were to be flown by the additional 321s.

HAL

What was the planned delivery schedule for HA A321's over the next few months? Is this going to impact the start dates of KOA-LAX or LIH-OAK?

HA23 OAK-OGG cancelled today; PDX-OGG is happening. N202HA is flying, 204 appears to be grounded at HNL.

WkndWanderer wrote:

What was the planned delivery schedule for HA A321's over the next few months? Is this going to impact the start dates of KOA-LAX or LIH-OAK?

HAL's delivery schedule for 2018 is pretty aggressive. 9 more were scheduled to arrive before the end of the year. At the moment the schedule can be flown using the 767 and 330 to backstop. But as time goes on, this will be impossible as there isn't enough slack in the current fleet to support all the new 321 flying that's been announced.

ucdtim17 wrote:

HA23 OAK-OGG cancelled today; PDX-OGG is happening. N202HA is flying, 204 appears to be grounded at HNL.

204 is indeed grounded awaiting its new engines. HA23 was canceled today for reasons not related to the 321 engine issue, but ground damage while under tow.

KarelXWB: And the "industrial issues" are related to how CFM will be able to meet demand by Airbus and Boeing, not any intrinsic problem with the engine.
Quote:
"As LEAP engine production cranks up and airlines respond to an unexpectedly strong rise in traffic numbers, CFM has been responding to higher demand for current-generation engines. .....Planemakers have meanwhile begun sounding out CFM about pushing single-aisle aircraft production plans higher, beyond their targeted levels of up to 60 aircraft a month each for Airbus and Boeing by 2019.
"We are answering requests of the airframers for information about our ability to support possible higher rates. These are nothing but the standard discussions we have with manufacturers,” Bastin said.
Industry sources say Airbus is evaluating the case for raising A320 production as high as 70 jets a month. The industry is already accelerating at a record pace on the back of demand led by emerging markets, but engine makers have been particularly wary about overtaxing their suppliers.

Looks like to me, having manufacturers asking you to up your production to meet demand is somewhat a good "problem" to have.....

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Is it legitimate to ask of double digit engine improvements may be inappropriate, and decreasing safety? Efficiency, Reliability and Safety may be a classic tradeoff sort of problem. The industry may be asking too much from engines and their manufacturers.

Reliability falls and maintenance overhaul costs go up when engines are pushed too hard. Usually it isn’t safety. Engines running hotter tends to increase wear, increase the frequency of boroscope inspections that reduce the amount of time on wing.

I don’t think efficiency improvements are tied directly to what is going on.

325i wrote:

Hi Folks, "shades of Lockheed L-1011 and Rolls Royce with the RB.211"

Or shades of 747-100 fan distortion on take off power...


I guess PW tried to operate like a software company: "Why use beta testing and quality assurance, when your customers can do it for free?"

I hope they resolve this ASAP and definitively ... They might never recover from this huge blunder as hundreds of frames will be affected, and the cost can scale into the millions pretty fast.

Best Regards

TRB

azjubilee wrote:

ucdtim17 wrote:

HA23 OAK-OGG cancelled today; PDX-OGG is happening. N202HA is flying, 204 appears to be grounded at HNL.

204 is indeed grounded awaiting its new engines

There's some cool pictures on IG this morning of N204HA in the hangar awaiting its dual engine change: https://www.instagram.com/p/BfGDGPcj7GV/?hl=en

How sad, brand spanking new aircraft already needing a double engine change. What a joke.

Pratt details engine glitch affecting Airbus jet deliveries is a bit misleading because it doesn't really detail the actual glitch, but gives more numbers on the impact.

With regard to the glitch:

Pratt & Whitney said on Monday it expects to present a fix to European regulators this week for a problem with its new geared turbofan jet engine that halted deliveries of Airbus’ (AIR.PA) latest version of its most popular aircraft model.
...
Pratt said the latest problems were discovered in January and early February, and stem from an engineering change the company made last summer to the “knife-edge seal” in the high-pressure compressor near the rear of the engine.

Not sure what the time between presenting a fix and it being accepted and then retrofitted might be. Interesting to read about the time between introduction (last summer) and discovery (late Jan) suggests a fair bit of latency.

And the numbers:

On Monday, Pratt said the issue affects 43 engines on 32 A320neos. Pratt said it was evaluating another 55 engines delivered to Airbus that are part of the group thought to have the problem.

Airbus said last week there were currently 113 Pratt-powered A320neo aircraft flying with 18 customers.

Seems to be news that more engines are being evaluated, no?

Revelation wrote:

With regard to the glitch:

Pratt & Whitney said on Monday it expects to present a fix to European regulators this week for a problem with its new geared turbofan jet engine that halted deliveries of Airbus’ (AIR.PA) latest version of its most popular aircraft model.
...
Pratt said the latest problems were discovered in January and early February, and stem from an engineering change the company made last summer to the “knife-edge seal” in the high-pressure compressor near the rear of the engine.

Not sure what the time between presenting a fix and it being accepted and then retrofitted might be. Interesting to read about the time between introduction (last summer) and discovery (late Jan) suggests a fair bit of latency.

The glitch is exactly as I expected upthread: a change in the manufacturing process of one or more components that turns out to be faulty.

P&W does change some components from time to time, and apparently something went wrong here. Hence a selected batch of engines are not safe.

It also explains why the issue wasn't found during flight testing: it's a new component introduced years after flight testing.

And the numbers:

The numbers were already given in the opening post of this thread.

Fir what's it's worth, analysts are less concerned:

Pratt has delivered about 550 engines so far and said in January it aims to double output this year. “It seems reasonable to conclude that only 30 to 40 engines or 15 to 20 aircraft are affected at this point, which is a small number,” analyst Carter Copeland and Melius Research wrote in a note published Monday.

Clearly the scale is much smaller than the bearing seal and combustion chamber issues, which affected all engines.

Seems to be news that more engines are being evaluated, no?

These would be engines that have been delivered to Airbus, but not yet to the customers.

KarelXWB wrote:

Revelation wrote:

With regard to the glitch:

Pratt & Whitney said on Monday it expects to present a fix to European regulators this week for a problem with its new geared turbofan jet engine that halted deliveries of Airbus’ (AIR.PA) latest version of its most popular aircraft model.
...
Pratt said the latest problems were discovered in January and early February, and stem from an engineering change the company made last summer to the “knife-edge seal” in the high-pressure compressor near the rear of the engine.

Not sure what the time between presenting a fix and it being accepted and then retrofitted might be. Interesting to read about the time between introduction (last summer) and discovery (late Jan) suggests a fair bit of latency.

The glitch is exactly as I expected upthread: a change in the manufacturing process of one or more components that turns out to be faulty.

With respect, I'm not sure if we can take "engineering change" to mean "change in the manufacturing process".

In my world, an engineering change can result in a change in the manufacturing process, or it could result in a change in the materials used, or a fairly large number of other things.

neutronstar73 wrote:

KarelXWB: And the "industrial issues" are related to how CFM will be able to meet demand by Airbus and Boeing, not any intrinsic problem with the engine.
Quote:
"As LEAP engine production cranks up and airlines respond to an unexpectedly strong rise in traffic numbers, CFM has been responding to higher demand for current-generation engines. .....Planemakers have meanwhile begun sounding out CFM about pushing single-aisle aircraft production plans higher, beyond their targeted levels of up to 60 aircraft a month each for Airbus and Boeing by 2019.
"We are answering requests of the airframers for information about our ability to support possible higher rates. These are nothing but the standard discussions we have with manufacturers,” Bastin said.
Industry sources say Airbus is evaluating the case for raising A320 production as high as 70 jets a month. The industry is already accelerating at a record pace on the back of demand led by emerging markets, but engine makers have been particularly wary about overtaxing their suppliers.

Looks like to me, having manufacturers asking you to up your production to meet demand is somewhat a good "problem" to have.....

I was not referring to future production rates, but to the fact that CFM cannot meet current production rates that have been planned years ago. Hence the gliders in Renton and Toulouse. CFM acknowledged the issue last month, and it is just one of several LEAP issues the company is dealing with right now.

Revelation wrote:

With respect, I'm not sure if we can take "engineering change" to mean "change in the manufacturing process".

In my world, an engineering change can result in a change in the manufacturing process, or it could result in a change in the materials used, or a fairly large number of other things.

The engineering change clearly resulted in the knife-edge seal failure, so one or more components have been changed.

VV wrote:

OK. Understood. "Faulty engines" means with the latest discovered flaw mentioned in the AD. Is that correct?

That would be correct.

Do the PW1500G and PW1900G share the same design? If so is there any risk they have the same issue?

I'm unable to answer that question as nothing has been mentioned about the PW1500G and PW1900G models.

azjubilee wrote:

WkndWanderer wrote:

What was the planned delivery schedule for HA A321's over the next few months? Is this going to impact the start dates of KOA-LAX or LIH-OAK?

HAL's delivery schedule for 2018 is pretty aggressive. 9 more were scheduled to arrive before the end of the year. At the moment the schedule can be flown using the 767 and 330 to backstop. But as time goes on, this will be impossible as there isn't enough slack in the current fleet to support all the new 321 flying that's been announced.

ucdtim17 wrote:

HA23 OAK-OGG cancelled today; PDX-OGG is happening. N202HA is flying, 204 appears to be grounded at HNL.

204 is indeed grounded awaiting its new engines. HA23 was canceled today for reasons not related to the 321 engine issue, but ground damage while under tow.

What exactly is the time frame for the engine change and where are they coming from? If there are already 43+ in service that are known to be bad, another 55+ affected that are with Airbus and that can't be used for new builds, much less existing frames, and P&W hasn't even submitted the plan for a production fix yet, it doesn't seem to me like there would be a surplus of extra unaffected engines just laying around for the taking, especially for the dual replacement for ETOPS usage HA would need?

KarelXWB wrote:

Revelation wrote:

With respect, I'm not sure if we can take "engineering change" to mean "change in the manufacturing process".

In my world, an engineering change can result in a change in the manufacturing process, or it could result in a change in the materials used, or a fairly large number of other things.

The engineering change clearly resulted in the knife-edge seal failure, so one or more components have been changed.

Yes, but the change could be a "change in the manufacturing process" or a change in the materials used, or some combination of these, or one or more other things too.

They could have been addressing a functionality issue, or a durability issue, or a cost of materials issue, or a cost of manufacturing issue, etc, we just don't know.

WkndWanderer wrote:

azjubilee wrote:

WkndWanderer wrote:

What was the planned delivery schedule for HA A321's over the next few months? Is this going to impact the start dates of KOA-LAX or LIH-OAK?

HAL's delivery schedule for 2018 is pretty aggressive. 9 more were scheduled to arrive before the end of the year. At the moment the schedule can be flown using the 767 and 330 to backstop. But as time goes on, this will be impossible as there isn't enough slack in the current fleet to support all the new 321 flying that's been announced.

ucdtim17 wrote:

HA23 OAK-OGG cancelled today; PDX-OGG is happening. N202HA is flying, 204 appears to be grounded at HNL.

204 is indeed grounded awaiting its new engines. HA23 was canceled today for reasons not related to the 321 engine issue, but ground damage while under tow.

What exactly is the time frame for the engine change and where are they coming from? If there are already 43+ in service that are known to be bad, another 55+ affected that are with Airbus and that can't be used for new builds, much less existing frames, and P&W hasn't even submitted the plan for a production fix yet, it doesn't seem to me like there would be a surplus of extra unaffected engines just laying around for the taking, especially for the dual replacement for ETOPS usage HA would need?

Not sure... this is a developing story. As for the source of the HA replacements, not exactly sure either, but logic tells me they aren’t affected by the AD.

azjubilee wrote:

WkndWanderer wrote:

azjubilee wrote:

HAL's delivery schedule for 2018 is pretty aggressive. 9 more were scheduled to arrive before the end of the year. At the moment the schedule can be flown using the 767 and 330 to backstop. But as time goes on, this will be impossible as there isn't enough slack in the current fleet to support all the new 321 flying that's been announced.



204 is indeed grounded awaiting its new engines. HA23 was canceled today for reasons not related to the 321 engine issue, but ground damage while under tow.

What exactly is the time frame for the engine change and where are they coming from? If there are already 43+ in service that are known to be bad, another 55+ affected that are with Airbus and that can't be used for new builds, much less existing frames, and P&W hasn't even submitted the plan for a production fix yet, it doesn't seem to me like there would be a surplus of extra unaffected engines just laying around for the taking, especially for the dual replacement for ETOPS usage HA would need?

Not sure... this is a developing story. As for the source of the HA replacements, not exactly sure either, but logic tells me they aren’t affected by the AD.

HA is greatly affected by the AD. N204HA has been grounded pending a dual change and they are not taking any deliveries until a fix is found. They are now down to just one A321NEO.

ucdtim17 wrote:

WkndWanderer wrote:

HAL wrote:

From what I understand all the engines that are affected are the ones with the new 'final' fix for the bearing seal. It was this fix that has gone wrong. Now Pratt will have to re-do what was supposed to fix a previous problem.

Hawaiian has one of its two delivered 321s affected by the AD. It's grounded until the engines are replaced. No more 321s will be delivered either until the new fix is complete. HA will keep the single good 321 flying, and substitute 330s and 767s on the routes that were to be flown by the additional 321s.

HAL

What was the planned delivery schedule for HA A321's over the next few months? Is this going to impact the start dates of KOA-LAX or LIH-OAK?

HA23 OAK-OGG cancelled today; PDX-OGG is happening. N202HA is flying, 204 appears to be grounded at HNL.

202 heading back to OAK now. A330 subbing on OGG-PDX. https://flightaware.com/live/flight/HAL ... /PHOG/KPDX

According to Avherald.

http://avherald.com/h?article=4b4c4509&opt=0

I read this article that talks about more compensation is going to IndiGo. It also reaffirms the 10 to 1 sales numbers from early 2017 for CFM vs PW on the A320neo. PW has won some orders in late 2017, but halting deliveries, grounding airplanes and suspending ETOPS may hurt sales.

If the latest problem leads to penalty payments to IndiGo and other customers, it wouldn’t be the first time Pratt was on the hook financially. Greg Hayes, chief executive officer of United Technologies, said last April that Pratt incurred costs that weren’t material to retrofit the engines and for “helping the airlines through some of this.”

The early glitches at Pratt led many customers to wait on the sidelines: The competing CFM engine outsold the GTF on the A320neo by a 10-to-1 margin in early 2017. Pratt won several key orders late in the year as the earlier issues subsided, and executives at Airbus and United Technologies said the manufacturer seemed to be moving on from a difficult chapter.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... new-orders

A year ago when all the IFSD issues started, I was wondering how the A320neo PW planes were able to meet ETOPS reliability targets

viewtopic.php?t=1353643

It took a while for them to take action. The IFSDs described in AvHerald have been going over a year, but the risk must have increased


Several occurrences of engine in-flight shut-down (IFSD) and Rejected Take-Off (RTO) have been reported on certain Airbus A320neo family aeroplanes. While investigation is ongoing to determine the root cause, preliminary findings indicate that the affected engines, which have high pressure compressor aft hub modification embodied from ESN P770450, are more susceptible to IFSD.

Oh my word.
Am I glad I don’t work for Pratt on that project.
The stress levels must be massive, as a fellow aerospace engineer, I really feel for those guys.

Doing another rushed redesign and manufacturing route is the most stressed job I have ever had. Even under that pressure it can take months.
I am working on a fast modification on one of our engines which is really stressful but with no build stop issues it’s a massive level below Pratt’s workers.

Newbiepilot wrote:

I read this article that talks about more compensation is going to IndiGo. It also reaffirms the 10 to 1 sales numbers from early 2017 for CFM vs PW on the A320neo. PW has won some orders in late 2017, but halting deliveries, grounding airplanes and suspending ETOPS may hurt sales.

If the latest problem leads to penalty payments to IndiGo and other customers, it wouldn’t be the first time Pratt was on the hook financially. Greg Hayes, chief executive officer of United Technologies, said last April that Pratt incurred costs that weren’t material to retrofit the engines and for “helping the airlines through some of this.”

The early glitches at Pratt led many customers to wait on the sidelines: The competing CFM engine outsold the GTF on the A320neo by a 10-to-1 margin in early 2017. Pratt won several key orders late in the year as the earlier issues subsided, and executives at Airbus and United Technologies said the manufacturer seemed to be moving on from a difficult chapter.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... new-orders

We might not get to say this ever again, so I'll put it in big letters...

Ali Al-Baker was right!

Revelation wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

I read this article that talks about more compensation is going to IndiGo. It also reaffirms the 10 to 1 sales numbers from early 2017 for CFM vs PW on the A320neo. PW has won some orders in late 2017, but halting deliveries, grounding airplanes and suspending ETOPS may hurt sales.

If the latest problem leads to penalty payments to IndiGo and other customers, it wouldn’t be the first time Pratt was on the hook financially. Greg Hayes, chief executive officer of United Technologies, said last April that Pratt incurred costs that weren’t material to retrofit the engines and for “helping the airlines through some of this.”

The early glitches at Pratt led many customers to wait on the sidelines: The competing CFM engine outsold the GTF on the A320neo by a 10-to-1 margin in early 2017. Pratt won several key orders late in the year as the earlier issues subsided, and executives at Airbus and United Technologies said the manufacturer seemed to be moving on from a difficult chapter.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... new-orders

We might not get to say this ever again, so I'll put it in big letters...

Ali Al-Baker was right!

It’s Akbar Al Baker...not Ali Al-Baker

lowbank wrote:

Oh my word.
Am I glad I don’t work for Pratt on that project.
The stress levels must be massive, as a fellow aerospace engineer, I really feel for those guys.

Doing another rushed redesign and manufacturing route is the most stressed job I have ever had. Even under that pressure it can take months.
I am working on a fast modification on one of our engines which is really stressful but with no build stop issues it’s a massive level below Pratt’s workers.

I work with a lot of former pratt employees, they aren't treated that well in general. Meanwhile, I have co-workers leaving to work for GE. If Pratts management fails to adequately shield their workers from this stress they will likely lose a lot of talent.

hayzel777 wrote:

It’s Akbar Al Baker...not Ali Al-Baker

Thanks for the correction.

I guess I let the enthusiasm about him actually being right overwhelm me!

Jouhou wrote:

I work with a lot of former pratt employees, they aren't treated that well in general. Meanwhile, I have co-workers leaving to work for GE. If Pratts management fails to adequately shield their workers from this stress they will likely lose a lot of talent.

That's what I hear too. PW left it late to fill the positions they need to ramp up the GTF, so the ones in place are over worked, then they see newbies getting strong offers to fill the empty seats, so they feel even more mistreated, so they look elsewhere, and then they leave, and the cycle repeats.

reidar76 wrote:

It's very disappointing that there is still these kind of major problems with the PW1100G. Let's remind ourselves that it's now 3.5 years since this engine had its first flight on the A320neo. How long can this go on before PW goes out of business?

Until the US Air Force stops purchasing engines.

So lets recap, Airbus at this time is not accepting GTF engines from P&W for a short time, and as a result some A320s and A321s presently being assembled are being towed to the far end of the airport, parked with no engines on them. Hence the term "gliders".

When Airbus will accept new GTF engines is presently unknown.

Seems like the PW1500G on the CSeries is not affected by this issue

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... es-445889/

william wrote:

So lets recap, Airbus at this time is not accepting GTF engines from P&W for a short time, and as a result some A320s and A321s presently being assembled are being towed to the far end of the airport, parked with no engines on them. Hence the term "gliders".

I would go with "undetermined" rather than "short". We have one quote with Pratt saying they're presenting a solution to the authorities this week, but we have no idea how long it will be to get that fix approved, get the needed parts into the field to fix the parked jets, get new-built engines to hang on the gliders, etc.