Entering text into the input field will update the search result below

More Trent engine issues for Rolls-Royce

Apr. 02, 2019 5:07 AM ETThe Boeing Company (BA) Stock, RYCEY StockBA, RYCEY, RYCEFBy: Yoel Minkoff, SA News Editor24 Comments
  • Singapore Airlines has found "premature blade deterioration" during routine inspections of some Trent 1000 TEN engines, leading the carrier to ground two Boeing (NYSE:BA) 787-10 aircraft in a widening turbine problem for Rolls-Royce (OTCPK:RYCEY).
  • Blade wear has prompted previous groundings of the planes for early repairs and lead to accounting charges at Rolls-Royce totaling hundred of millions of pounds.
  • It also comes at an inopportune time for Boeing, which faces a global grounding of its best-selling 737 Max after two crashes raised safety concerns with regulators.

Recommended For You

Comments (24)

Have a tip? Submit confidentially to our News team. Found a factual error? Report here.

Will look at GE if below 9.40
Boeing needs to get this right.

The approval of the FAA is necessary so if another incident takes place (G-D forbid) they can't point fingers at BA.

Pilot error may be fully to blame but BA needs to take responsibility that sufficient training was not provided. No excuses for an error of omission. The result speaks for themselves.

I own a fair amount of BA and want this situation solved (correctly) so I can move on.
I was waiting for this … also waiting for issues with the Trent 7000 issues on the A330NEO. Airbus delayed production for these same reasons, and yet here they are again. This is not looking good for RR.

Best to give the pertinent facts, and cease spreading what equates to fake news.

Fact. More than a year ago, RR stated that they had not seen any durability issues with Trent 1000 TEN, a younger engine. BUT RR had taken precautions to design & introduce a new standard of blade to this engine type ( to be available in 2019).

During recent routine inspections of RR T-1000 TEN engines on SIA’s B787-10 fleet, premature blade deterioration (NO cracking : & NO risk) ) was found on some engines. Fact : It was recently confirmed that RR had said that, since T- 1000 TEN’s EIS, it has informed operators that the HPT turbine blades in those early engines would have a limited life.

FAC T : Working with operators, RR have been sampling a small portion of the T-1000 TEN fleet that has flown in 'more arduous conditions'. This effort has shown that a small number of these engines need to have their blades replaced earlier than initially scheduled. No big deal. No woes. All was anticipated.

FACT : In line with this announced limited turbine blade life, RR is now working closely with customers to deliver an "accelerated programme" of implementation of the enhanced blade. This SIA issue is NOT deemed an incident.
And the over-all T-1000 (TEN or not) pales into insignificance with the ICI & 'core-icing' issues which are plaguing rival GEnx, & for which NTSB & FAA are rejecting more software fixes (non of which work or have worked) and demanding 'permanent solutions' (meaning hardware solutions). This aspect is not good for GE or Boeing.
FACT ; final point. Best to brush up on facts, before rushing headlong into error.

Delays on T-7000 production were due to a momentary unavailability in certain production-test facilities (not research test-bed).
All suggestions that T-7000 had blade-cracking issues were flawed, proved to be unfounded, and officially and publicly confirmed as such, all capped with certification. Final certification -- check-it out -- incl. certification & ETOPS (now 'beyond 180' minutes) , were achieved in time for Christmas 2018, with ultimate confirmation in January, 2019. RR had promised this, and took time to be sure that ALL paper-work be double-checked, to avoid admin. hassle in this process.

As a precaution, RR had done in-house 'revetting' of T-7000. And, the 'final-final' enhanced blades for T-1000 -TEN or not, will be available for T-7000 engines, for homogeneity across the T-1000-TEN & T-7000 ranges. All the above can be verified in the public domain.
The icing issues with GE weren't just software related, it also involved some mechanical as well … they're still flying with no reported issues. In the meantime, some 787-10s are being grounded, so can't brush over that like it's not an important issue...
Good news for GE!
A few valid points of ‘gloss’, which help to kick out some pre-conceived ideas pushed around the media & blogs on B787’s, & their engines. I do not deal in lies or falsehood. It bothers me not that various Cheer Leaders do not like the writings of those who disagree with them. They can check out these points, for example.

The ‘electrical’ generators, though located in the engines are under the responsiblity of Boeing as airframe items ; nothing to do with GE or RR.

APU issues are ring-fenced as the responsibility of Boeing, & the supplier (Hamilton Sundstrand, subsidiary of UTC), not of RR ; same for the gear-boxes (TGB) of the RR T-1000's ; corrosion in those gear boxes caused RR much inconvenience ; NOT RR's fault/responsibility at all. Ask Virgin. This airline and a few others had issues with some 17 TGB’s

But the superficial scoop merchants assumed that, when the issues arose with these pieces of equipment on T-1000 engines, …. it was all RR’s fault. No. The scoop-merchants were just too intellectually lazy, and, perhaps, biased, to verify.
Good news for GE ?

Some people should ask themselves why :
• without hesitation, when EK (Emirates) refused recently to confirm its MoU for the 40 x B787-10’s, …. despite GE’s price low--balling, that Airline Co. had no hesitation in opting straightaway for 40 x A330-900’s, powered by RR T-7000, alongside the 30 x A350-XWB-900’s, powered by RR T-XWB-84 ;

• when LH recently made its order for 40 WB’s, it topped up the previous A350-XWB-900 order with 20 more of the same, powered by RR T-XWB-84, …..
• and took its first ever B787’s, …… 20 of the -9 variant, all to be powered by RR T-1000-TEN, and NOT GEnx-1B.
Just the facts.
Yup, that's what the article says.
Singapore Airline grounded 2 787.
Yup, that's what the article says.
Yes. Only 2, … thereby quashing all the hype-headlines from various scoop-merchants and exaggerators noticed eslewhere.

Of course, there will be knock-on inconveniences for passengers, to be kept to a minimum, via perfectly adequate SIA fleet aircraft .
Let's be honest here, the Trent 1000 has been a financial disaster for RR costing them tens of millions in reparations for airlines who have grounded aircraft. There's no exaggeration here as you suggest … grounding an aircraft for an extended period waiting for an engine is hardly a "knock-on convenience" for anyone.

Related Stocks

SymbolLast Price% Chg
To ensure this doesn’t happen in the future, please enable Javascript and cookies in your browser.
Is this happening to you frequently? Please report it on our feedback forum.
If you have an ad-blocker enabled you may be blocked from proceeding. Please disable your ad-blocker and refresh.