lost_in_translation

BA has the TotalCare package with RR so RR is responsible for organising the maintenance check and this isn't going to be BA's problem in terms of cost either. Issue is obviously when all of the engines develop an issue at the same time - it's not like RR has all the parts lying around already for 380 engines which cost $40m each

Airprox

As I understand it from someone who works for one of the big two engine manufacturers, BA has a bespoke arrangement with both RR and GE for their engines. Normally when engines go back to the manufacturer for mx then parts are taken off and swapped around between various engines etc, refurbished, certified and used again. BA will only allow either brand new parts in their engines, or parts that have only been in BA engines before. RR and GE in the UK therefore both keep a huge separate stock of BA only parts. Not that it makes any difference to needing new bits to fix this issue, just an interesting observation about BA.

vibrex

As far as I can tell BA 787-8 are using Trent 1000-A and Trent 1000-A2 and 787-9 using Trent 1000-J2 and Trent 1000-J3

mcgahat

And this is becoming a bigger and bigger problem for RR from a friend that works there.....just cant get engines out it seems.

JDiver

LHR-CAI operated by a wet-leased A340 from Air Belgium today through Wednesday, at least. The Trent engine issue is pinching BA, at least during high season. link

OverTheHorizon

This actually gives me even more of a safe, warm feeling when flying BA

SW7London

This sounds good, however if RR or GE certify a part then presumably the part is airworthy. I cant see either manufacturer keeping a separate pool of spare engine parts (there are a lot of them!) for even other "large" carriers - ie QF, LH, AA, UA etc - this must be a pretty unique thing for BA - else there would be dozens of pools.

Given BAs propensity to cut costs everywhere it can I cant see them wanting to keep this dedicated pool arrangement - particularly as I cant see how it improves safety?

Wonder if anybody from BA could comment/confirm this?

This sounds like the sort of thing nationalised airlines such as BA, QF used to be pre privatisations - this would be such an unnecessary cost these days!

Howard Long

Lucanesque

Should we expect a load of 789 equipment changes then? Got my first First on a 789 at the end of the month, I'm crossing everything and hoping it's not swapped!

VSLover

well it only means loads of crumbs left behind from prior flight and a non-vacuumed space around engine really. plus they probably didnt even bother to wipe down the engine completely

Dubh

still done today by the bigger airlines. If RR, GE or P&W are not managing the pool stock on their behalf then they are doing it themselves. Lufthansa for example would repair a huge percentage of their components,including turbine hot section, themselves. There are even independents like Chromalloy that would also do it for you, although maybe not on the newer fleet like the one in question.

SW7London

Thanks - but would they keep spares and only use spares from their "pool"? If LH needed a part downroute and it was only available from say CX or QF surely they would use the part?

Maybe I misunderstood the post I was replying to but I thought it suggested BA only use parts they have serviced, or parts from within their pool of parts. I would have thought this would be unnecessarily restrictive and expensive! I know some airlines however still maintain/repair parts.

BOH

Are you sure this isn't more about ensuring a guaranteed parts availability than any form of safety reason? If a part from a RR / GE / PW engine is returned from BA and refurbished and tested to known approved procedures by the OEM then it does not create any additional safety if that part is only returned to BA. Nor does it mean less safety if BA use a refurbished part that has been in service with another airline first. It is the traceability of that part (aviation is incredibly tight on this to point of obsessive) AND that it is always refurbished and tested to approved procedures that is 100% the issue, not that it has only been in service with BA before.

I have worked in aviation (and equally safety critical rail control systems) industries for over 30 years and have never heard of this being safety related. Ensuring availability of spares at all times, yes absolutely....but never on it somehow creates extra safety.

Tiger_lily

Dubh

You could argue that last point either way to be honest, but you are correct with your statement about traceability and component provenance. Its 20 years since I worked on aeroengines (I moved on to the land based powergen side of things). This whole industry is further complicated by PMA parts and DER approved repairs - I.e. non OEM. Obviously under a Total care or Power by the hour arrangement you are only going to get OEM parts etc.