I've noticed that in the past, Pratt & Whitney powered most of Boeing's planes. But now they only power one (two?), which is (are) the the 763F (and PW4090 on the 777-200ER as well?).

Yet Airbus actually have a stronger hold in P&W than Boeing do, as P&W not only power the A330 with the PW4168, they also have the PW1200G series.

In the competition for the 777X's engines, I've read somewhere that Pratt & Whitney's design had better maintenance and fuel efficiency than GE's or RR's proposals, yet "Boeing rejected Pratt and went on to talk with Rolls-Royce and General Electric" or something like that.

My question, what are Boeing's feelings toward P&W?

This kind of issue has been discussed numerous times on A.net. Large companies are beholden to their shareholders. They don't make multi-billion dollar business decisions because someone has a "grudge". The make decisions based on the best business decision for the company, customers, and shareholders.

I'm not familiar with the specific rationale of why PW wasn't selected for the 777X, but it wasn't over a "grudge". It was because of a business analysis of all the factors.

The PW4000 is also the engine choice on the KC-46. The 777-200ER is no longer produced.

Also, the airlines customers are who select what engine to use from the available options.

stratclub wrote:

Also, the airlines customers are who select what engine to use from the available options.

Yes, but the OP is pointing out that PW isn’t even offered on most current models.

Did Pratt ever make a serious offer to power the 737MAX with a GTF variant? I see it as a market that could justify offering a choice of two engines.

It's ok. They have over 3,000 F-35 engines to build for the next 25 years.

If Boeing had a grudge against Pratt, it would have been in the late 1960s when serious technical issues with the JT9D-3 resulted in a significant slowdown in the early production run of the 747-100.

Pratt stuffed the PW 4098 on the 777-300 pretty fierce, but then GE stuffed the GE90-77B on the 777-200 so...

The most-likely reason Boeing selected the GE9X for the 777X was the family commonality with the GE90-11xB that powers the 777-200LR, 777-300ER and 777 Freighter. Most 777X customers already operate one or more of those models so they already have a relationship with GE and that family commonality made the GE9X the least risky option for Boeing (and their customers) which would give it the nod, even if it was not the most technically advanced or offered the absolute best performance.

Erebus wrote:

Did Pratt ever make a serious offer to power the 737MAX with a GTF variant?

I expect they looked into it, but it subsequently proved untenable.

Bob Saia, who was head of the GTF program at the time, noted in 2009 on an aviation podcast that PW believed they could fit the PW1000 engine on the 737 by mounting it very close to wing to improve clearance for the 96" nacelle. But I never heard anything from Pratt after that.

In 2012, Mike Bair, then VP of Advanced 737 Product Development, noted that while Boeing and CFM had an exclusivity contract on powering the 737, if another engine OEM offered an engine with better performance and commercial terms than the CFM offer, then Boeing was free to go forward with it. Speculation that the GTF would have to be 3-5% better in SFC whereas at the time Airbus was seeing around a 1.5% advantage on the A320neo. CFM also offered better commercial terms than PW on the A320neo and IAE on the A320ceo at the time so PW offering better commercial terms for the 737 than CFM was unlikely.

Stitch wrote:

In 2012, Mike Bair, then VP of Advanced 737 Product Development, noted that while Boeing and CFM had an exclusivity contract on powering the 737, if another engine OEM offered an engine with better performance and commercial terms than the CFM offer, then Boeing was free to go forward with it. Speculation that the GTF would have to be 3-5% better in SFC whereas at the time Airbus was seeing around a 1.5% advantage on the A320neo. CFM also offered better commercial terms than PW on the A320neo and IAE on the A320ceo at the time so PW offering better commercial terms for the 737 than CFM was unlikely.

Thanks for that info. It would seem that the conditions mentioned by Bair are escape clauses to allow Boeing to terminate the exclusivity contract and switch engine supplier, but I still see little reason in why Boeing couldn't offer both in the first place. There are other Boeing airframes where engine choice is offered even though the advantage isn't quite as big what is mentioned here. And as you've shown with the A320 case, inferior commercial terms should not necessarily mean that the airframer drop the offering entirely.

There is also the shop visits, which are not cheap . .

According to CFM, the Leap-1A will require two less shop visits over its life cycle compared to the PW1100G. “That’s two out of five or six, so that’s a big percentage which is huge,” says Chahrour. CFM also estimates the reliability of the Leap will be better with a forecast of 10 fewer engine-related delays per engine per year. http://aviationweek.com/commercial-avia ... -pratt-gtf

Note that this article also says LEAP will burn 2 to 2.5% less than the GTF, which might not be realized on the A320NEO

PW2000s power some 757s too.

BWIAirport wrote:

PW2000s power some 757s too.

But haven't the PW2000 been shut out of production?

acjbbj wrote:

BWIAirport wrote:

PW2000s power some 757s too.

But haven't the PW2000 been shut out of production?

Probably, with both the 757 and the C17 now out of production. I thought we were talking about all historic applications for Boeing, not current ones.

No grudge between them. They just don't have a great commercial product that fits right now. It's a cycle, they'll get back in once they figure out their GTF issues.

Erebus,

The installation shortcomings in the 737 probably preclude offering both engines. The mounting would have to very different to accommodate the GTF’s larger fan.

GF

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Erebus,

The installation shortcomings in the 737 probably preclude offering both engines. The mounting would have to very different to accommodate the GTF’s larger fan.

GF

Quite right. Ground clearance on the Max was a major issue, even with the increased height of the nose gear.

Erebus wrote:

It would seem that the conditions mentioned by Bair are escape clauses to allow Boeing to terminate the exclusivity contract and switch engine supplier, but I still see little reason in why Boeing couldn't offer both in the first place.

CFM has a contract to be sole-supplier for the 737 family (including MAX). For Pratt to become another option, they would have to offer an engine better than CFM's in terms of both performance and commercial terms. It sounds like at the time Pratt couldn't hit the performance (with the latest reports, they might now) and commercial terms goals so Boeing stayed with CFM as sole-supplier. Of course, Pratt might very well have decided that the goals they had to meet were such that the investment might have been too much at that stage as they were already working on six versions of the engines for five different platforms (A220, A320, MRJ, E-Jet and MC-21).

Stitch wrote:

CFM has a contract to be sole-supplier for the 737 family (including MAX).

Sorry, I misunderstood you the first time. But just to confirm, are you saying that CFM locked in the exclusivity to power all 737 variants (classics onward) including any possible future iterations based on the type so long as they don't fall behind on those performance and commercial terms? That would make sense then why Pratt wasn't on board with the MAX.

Erebus wrote:

Sorry, I misunderstood you the first time. But just to confirm, are you saying that CFM locked in the exclusivity to power all 737 variants (classics onward) including any possible future iterations based on the type so long as they don't fall behind on those performance and commercial terms? That would make sense then why Pratt wasn't on board with the MAX.

That appears to be the case. So we won't see a new engine OEM option until the 737 is replaced with NSA (New Small Airplane).

BoeingGuy wrote:

This kind of issue has been discussed numerous times on A.net. Large companies are beholden to their shareholders. They don't make multi-billion dollar business decisions because someone has a "grudge". The make decisions based on the best business decision for the company, customers, and shareholders.

I'm not familiar with the specific rationale of why PW wasn't selected for the 777X, but it wasn't over a "grudge". It was because of a business analysis of all the factors.

The PW4000 is also the engine choice on the KC-46. The 777-200ER is no longer produced.

Because of issues with the PW4098, all Pratt customers expressed to Boeing they were willing to switch engine vendors.
RR customers expressed a preference for RR, but GE won the exclusive.

Pratt was completely out of the running.

Pratt voted themselves off the 737-300 by cancelling the JT10D and CFM has kept the exclusive and thus won initial A320s.

When the 787 was bid, Pratt failed on the PW4175. So customers voted them off the island.

The PW1100G had issues (a few still grounded), but beat fuel burn promise.

This isn't a vendetta. Once upon a Time both Boeing and Pratt were part of the United Aircraft trust.

GE brought GEFC to the table. UTX needs a leasing arm tin my opinion.

RR has loyal customers for a reason. The T700 and T800 are outstanding. The T1000 will be fixed. All indications are the TXWB is outstanding too.

Pratt is in rebuild mode with the PW1100G, PW1500 and PW800.

Thanks to the V2500, PW300, and PT6, they have a distribution network.

Pratt must bid agressive on the MoM. They must earn onto a Boeing product.

Lightsaber

No, they're not GE with Airbus.

acjbbj wrote:

I've noticed that in the past, Pratt & Whitney powered most of Boeing's planes. But now they only power one (two?), which is (are) the the 763F (and PW4090 on the 777-200ER as well?).

Yet Airbus actually have a stronger hold in P&W than Boeing do, as P&W not only power the A330 with the PW4168, they also have the PW1200G series.

In the competition for the 777X's engines, I've read somewhere that Pratt & Whitney's design had better maintenance and fuel efficiency than GE's or RR's proposals, yet "Boeing rejected Pratt and went on to talk with Rolls-Royce and General Electric" or something like that.

My question, what are Boeing's feelings toward P&W?

Boeing and Pratt have a good relationship. GE was the prime mover of the 1 engine per model campaign and It didn't even work because Rolls got in on a lot of airplanes. The B777 originally came with the PW 4077/4090.the GE and Rolls. GE Got the B737 and the Later B777's the new B767 Based KC-46? Comes equipped with PW engines. No telling what the B797 might come equipped with. PW has the Geared Fan coming into vogue. Rolls is also working on it as well.
So far? GE hasn't announced one. (Not that they Won't)

strfyr51 wrote:

GE hasn't announced one. (Not that they Won't)

Nothing formally announced, but GE is said to be bidding for 797 work through CFM, even though the thrust requirement may be slightly more than the 50klb thrust limit of the joint venture. I presume it would be something that uses LEAP technology, but scaled up.

Yep. A lot of buzz regarding CFM maybe using a scaled-up Leap engine.

The problem really is on Pratt's end. Since the PW40xx (and the PW4400 series for the MD-11), they haven't really produced an engine as reliable as Rolls Royce or General Electric. On the 777 (-200/-200ER/-300), in terms of engine mass, the PW4000 series was by far the heaviest engine, while the Rolls Royce Trent 800 series was by far the lightest, which put P&W at a clear disadvantage there, and Pratt & Whitney never got above 90,000 lbs of thrust on its engines for the 777-200(ER), and while they did reach 98,000 lbs of thrust on the -300, it came at a significant fuel burn disadvantage, whereas GE reached 94,000 lbs and RR 93,400 lbs with a significantly lighter engine than GE or P&W. (Rolls Royce was also the preferred engine choice on the A330ceo.) While they were competitive on the 747 and 767 (JT9D first, PW4000 later), they have been left in the dust since on wide-body engines. About the only type where Rolls Royce was at a disadvantage was the 767, where its RB211-524H was developed for the 767 primarily as a BA spec (for commonality with the 747). The A320neo issues are not helping P&W either. (This is in contrast to P&W Canada, which has a virtual lock on turboprop engines and is dominant in the business jet market as well.)

For purposes of this, one should distinguish P&W US and P&W Canada---as they are geared toward different market segments; only P&W US targets mainline aircraft.

Yeah, their only holdouts in the widebody market are the 767 frames for cargo and military, as well as the A332/A333.

And hopefully they'll be able to scale up the GTF well.

The freight 767's are GE, only the KC has PW

http://www.boeing.com/farnborough2014/p ... 3_2014.pdf

JayinKitsap wrote:

The freight 767's are GE, only the KC has PW

http://www.boeing.com/farnborough2014/p ... 3_2014.pdf

There is of course the rumor that Boeing approached Fedex and others with the idea of doing a freighter based on the 767-2C. That would have the same PW engines the KC-46 has. Unfortunately that would also mean they'd come with the fixed duct and no thrust reverser like the KC-46. (That's an easy fix though) and in truth, they should be able to throw on any other engine pylon + engine config with not too much certification work / engineering work. But due to convenience I would suspect they'd stick to the PW4000 series.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

in terms of engine mass, the PW4000 series was by far the heaviest engine

No it wasn't, by a longshot:
PW4090 = 15,095lbs
GE90-94B = 17,400lbs

aemoreira1981 wrote:

Pratt & Whitney never got above 90,000 lbs of thrust on its engines for the 777-200(ER)

Both the PW4092 and PW4098 were initially offered for the 77E.

The former failed oxides emissions, and thus could not be operated at max thrust in the USA and several other countries.
The only two airlines to show interest in the latter for the 77E were LA and UA; the former not ordering 77Es and the latter settling on only the 4090.