Skip to comments.
Rolls-Royce suspends A380 engine production
The Register ^
| October 6, 2006
| Lester Haines
Posted on 10/06/2006 7:56:40 AM PDT by magellan
Rolls-Royce has suspended production of its Trent 900 engine for a year in the wake of this week's announcement by Airbus parent company EADS that the A380 "Superjumbo" delivery schedule had been put back for a third time.
The Trent 900 is one of two engine models due to be bolted to the A380 - the other being the GE-P&W Engine Alliance GP7200
The implications for the workforce at the Derby plant which produces the Trent 900 are unknown. According to the BBC, Rolls-Royce said "it was too early to say what impact the decision to cut output would have on its employees".
The company added: "We are waiting for more details about requirements from Airbus. Once we are clear on that and any potential impact on future workload, we will consult with the unions."
Rolls-Royce did stress, however, that the Derby plant - which is home to 11,000 workers - also made engines for Boeing and Bombardier, and that the Trent 900 currently accounts for only a fraction of the firm's total sales, while all civil engine output "accounted for only about 20 per cent of the company's turnover".
The first Airbus A380 is now slated for delivery in October 2007. There have been mutterings of discontent among airlines waiting to get behind the controls of the behemoth, with hefty compensation claims likely over the now considerably delayed delivery schedule.
TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption
KEYWORDS: a380; airbus; airbust; boeing
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-39 last
To: Sundog
I wonder if Mythbusters ever gave this one a shot...
21
posted on
10/06/2006 8:52:47 AM PDT
by
trashcanbred
(Anti-social and anti-socialist)
To: Larry Lucido
22
posted on
10/06/2006 8:54:45 AM PDT
by
Fresh Wind
(Democrats are guilty of whatever they scream the loudest about.)
To: RightWhale
You'll end up like that Chevy that had a JATO unit and ended up making a
small crater in the wall of a cliff four miles down the road.Must be true, I heard it on Paul Harvey.
But then Paul also said a Colt Python is so small it can be hidden in coins and slipped though airports securtiy.
23
posted on
10/06/2006 8:55:06 AM PDT
by
ASA Vet
(Never pet a burning dog)
To: HEY4QDEMS
I have read on other threads that the 797 story is a hoax?
24
posted on
10/06/2006 9:09:29 AM PDT
by
AxelPaulsenJr
(Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.)
To: AxelPaulsenJr
25
posted on
10/06/2006 9:41:10 AM PDT
by
HEY4QDEMS
(Sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.)
To: TommyDale
It won't work either because of a design flaw.
26
posted on
10/06/2006 9:45:34 AM PDT
by
chiefqc
To: TommyDale
" No problem. Airbus will replace the Rolls Royce engines with giant rubber bands. " and that is the base model
The high performance model is with squirrels in cages.
To: Prophet in the wilderness
Either the rubber band model or the high performance squirrel cage version would cause the tails or wings to snap off...
28
posted on
10/06/2006 9:55:25 AM PDT
by
TommyDale
(Iran President Ahmadinejad is shorter than Tom Daschle!)
To: MeanWestTexan
t's the death rattle of Airbust..( Old Europe ) and its flying white elephant.
Socialism at its finest.
To: magellan
GE-90, baby.
There is no substitute.
30
posted on
10/06/2006 10:13:42 AM PDT
by
Pukin Dog
(Being a Liberal is just a coping mechanism for low self esteem and/or bad parenting.)
To: ASA Vet
The bullets for the 2" Colt Python cost $$$$ each, and have the power of a .25 or maybe a little less. Check with your jeweller if you want the reloading dies.
31
posted on
10/06/2006 10:18:43 AM PDT
by
RightWhale
(Repeal the law of the excluded middle)
To: sgtbono2002
747 required major airport upgrades too.
32
posted on
10/06/2006 11:12:51 AM PDT
by
jpsb
To: antiRepublicrat
I'd hate to see the manufacture of those wonderful engines in trouble.It wouldn't be a first for them. Except last time it was Rolls Royce that had the problems, and the airframe manufacturer who suffered.
33
posted on
10/06/2006 11:21:16 AM PDT
by
PAR35
To: Pukin Dog
AMEN....
I wonder if the military could use those if Boeing were to build Military 777s ?
34
posted on
10/06/2006 12:00:34 PM PDT
by
Prophet in the wilderness
(PSALM 53 : 1 The FOOL hath said in his heart , There is no GOD .)
To: Pukin Dog
BTW ... GE is using the core architecture of the GE-90 for the GenX engines for the 787 and 747-8I.
35
posted on
10/06/2006 12:04:08 PM PDT
by
Prophet in the wilderness
(PSALM 53 : 1 The FOOL hath said in his heart , There is no GOD .)
To: Seaplaner
Hahaha...but travel time increases somewhat as well...
To: magellan
The implications of the A380 WhaleJet(TM) delays are cascading through their suppliers. This will further increase the costs of the program. Yes, I read an article today that described the A380 problems as an "industrial disaster".
Boeing announced the first orders for it's new 747-8 passenger version today.....
37
posted on
10/06/2006 3:24:50 PM PDT
by
Jorge
To: TommyDale
Phooi, certainly you mean le bands rubbeur.
To: Seaplaner
Look on the bright side, mon ami. With no engines, the fuel economy improves substantially, n'est ce pas?
Mais oui, et aussi, without engines that whole "weight" issue may be eliminated. Two birds with one stone. Those French, masterful engineers!
39
posted on
10/07/2006 7:30:01 AM PDT
by
JayNorth
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-39 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson