4 ms·

That seems like a complicated way to sell airplanes - why is that ???. It is like me buying a car from Ford and saying I don't want the Ecoboost turbo 4 but ra

That seems like a complicated way to sell airplanes - why is that ???. It is like me buying a car from Ford and saying I don't want the Ecoboost turbo 4 but rather that V8 from the Raptor.

0xcafecafe 6y ago
This might be due to a car being a more common retail purchase compared to a plane. Airlines might want to customize their plane for the usage and different engines might provide different benefits.
- croutonwagon 6y ago
  I’m guessing it has most to do maintenance training and supply chains. If x carrier standardized on PW or Rolls engines, it makes sense to try and keep their fleet on that engine. It simplifies maintenance, what parts need to be kept in stock etc. If you have a fleet of rolls engines and one batch of planes running PW then you have to set aside entire storage, training and supply chains for a single batch. From Boeing’s perspective, they can sell more airframes with a modular setup that allows the carriers to choose their powerplants. Especially in a worldwide setup where a rolls Royce may be cheaper in one market and a PW cheaper in another across a pond
re-actor 6y ago
Most car models come with various engine options, sure you can't get a V8 in your focus but you can choose between various displacement Gas/Diesel/Hybrid options. In fact the current model year ford focus ships with 14 engine variations.
dd82 6y ago
https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/38156/why-bother-having-different-engine-options-on-one-aircraft https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/38156/why-bothe... might be helpful
- dmurray 6y ago
  One of the answers [0] on that page even discusses the next step in decoupling airframes from engines - sorry, I meant decoupling their supply: Power Generation as a Service complete with on-demand billing and feature locking. It's not well sourced, nor highly upvoted, but fascinating if true. > These days, the engines are often leased, not bought, as part of a "power generation package"...The only physical difference between two "different versions" of a particular engine type, with different advertised power ratings, may [be] the electronic engine control system. In that situation, the airline might negotiate a "total power generation" deal where they only pay for the "higher rated" engine when they actually use it. [0] https://aviation.stackexchange.com/a/38196 https://aviation.stackexchange.com/a/38196
  - tibbydudeza 6y ago
    Used to work for a bank many moons ago and we bought a new mainframe (Unisys) and few months down the line we had major month end batch processing issues. So they payed Unisys a not so small chunk of money to "unlock" the second CPU board which was always present inside the mainframe that was installed. As a PC guy I was gobsmacked.
numpad0 6y ago
Cost, supplier redundancy, antitrust laws
nradov 6y ago
Many boats are the same way. You buy a hull and then mount whichever outboard motor you want.
JCM9 6y ago
It’s a standard thing in aviation. The companies that make “airplanes” are usually not the ones that make airplane engines that go on those planes. For big airliners the engine makers are GE, Rolls Royce and Pratt and Whitney. Same concept applies to small general aviation aircraft where the two big engine makers are Lycoming and Continental Aerospace. The engines are still type rated for the specific aircraft. Some aircraft might only have one engine type rated so there isn’t much choice. Others might have multiple engines to choose from, from multiple manufacturers. That’s the case with many commercial airliners.
bombcar 6y ago
There are a number of reasons - but one is that some AIRLINES will prefer to stay with an engine manufacturer across all their planes if at all possible, as it reduces maintenance training and headaches.
vl 6y ago
It’s actually antitrust at work - United Aircraft and Transport Corporation was split in 1934 into Boeing for airframes, United for airline, and holding called United Aircraft Corporation that owned Pratt & Whitney for engines.
wsc981 6y ago
These kinds of systems do allow for corruption of course [0]. --- [0]: https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/general/1181845/rolls-royce-admits-bribery-in-thailand https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/general/1181845/rolls-r...

That seems like a complicated way to sell airplanes - why is that ???. It is like me buying a car from Ford and saying I don't want the Ecoboost turbo 4 but rather that V8 from the Raptor.

0xcafecafe 6y ago

This might be due to a car being a more common retail purchase compared to a plane. Airlines might want to customize their plane for the usage and different engines might provide different benefits.

croutonwagon 6y ago
I’m guessing it has most to do maintenance training and supply chains. If x carrier standardized on PW or Rolls engines, it makes sense to try and keep their fleet on that engine. It simplifies maintenance, what parts need to be kept in stock etc. If you have a fleet of rolls engines and one batch of planes running PW then you have to set aside entire storage, training and supply chains for a single batch. From Boeing’s perspective, they can sell more airframes with a modular setup that allows the carriers to choose their powerplants. Especially in a worldwide setup where a rolls Royce may be cheaper in one market and a PW cheaper in another across a pond

re-actor 6y ago

Most car models come with various engine options, sure you can't get a V8 in your focus but you can choose between various displacement Gas/Diesel/Hybrid options. In fact the current model year ford focus ships with 14 engine variations.

dd82 6y ago

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/38156/why-bother-having-different-engine-options-on-one-aircraft https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/38156/why-bothe... might be helpful

dmurray 6y ago
One of the answers [0] on that page even discusses the next step in decoupling airframes from engines - sorry, I meant decoupling their supply: Power Generation as a Service complete with on-demand billing and feature locking. It's not well sourced, nor highly upvoted, but fascinating if true. > These days, the engines are often leased, not bought, as part of a "power generation package"...The only physical difference between two "different versions" of a particular engine type, with different advertised power ratings, may [be] the electronic engine control system. In that situation, the airline might negotiate a "total power generation" deal where they only pay for the "higher rated" engine when they actually use it. [0] https://aviation.stackexchange.com/a/38196 https://aviation.stackexchange.com/a/38196
- tibbydudeza 6y ago
  Used to work for a bank many moons ago and we bought a new mainframe (Unisys) and few months down the line we had major month end batch processing issues. So they payed Unisys a not so small chunk of money to "unlock" the second CPU board which was always present inside the mainframe that was installed. As a PC guy I was gobsmacked.

numpad0 6y ago

Cost, supplier redundancy, antitrust laws

nradov 6y ago

Many boats are the same way. You buy a hull and then mount whichever outboard motor you want.

JCM9 6y ago

It’s a standard thing in aviation. The companies that make “airplanes” are usually not the ones that make airplane engines that go on those planes. For big airliners the engine makers are GE, Rolls Royce and Pratt and Whitney. Same concept applies to small general aviation aircraft where the two big engine makers are Lycoming and Continental Aerospace. The engines are still type rated for the specific aircraft. Some aircraft might only have one engine type rated so there isn’t much choice. Others might have multiple engines to choose from, from multiple manufacturers. That’s the case with many commercial airliners.

bombcar 6y ago

There are a number of reasons - but one is that some AIRLINES will prefer to stay with an engine manufacturer across all their planes if at all possible, as it reduces maintenance training and headaches.

vl 6y ago

It’s actually antitrust at work - United Aircraft and Transport Corporation was split in 1934 into Boeing for airframes, United for airline, and holding called United Aircraft Corporation that owned Pratt & Whitney for engines.

wsc981 6y ago

These kinds of systems do allow for corruption of course [0]. --- [0]: https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/general/1181845/rolls-royce-admits-bribery-in-thailand https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/general/1181845/rolls-r...