Economic loyalty not simple old fashioned loyalty I guess

As much as i agree that it is ‘quite correct’ I don’t think BA gives much of a thought to ‘buying British.’ This decision just follows a series of other cold, calculated financial decisions which suggest that Rolls-Royce is a more commerically attractive proposition. Loyalty probably doesn’t come into it, other than in the sense that there may be savings to be had from existing Rolls-Royce experience and I don’t know.. maybe you could suggest there’s an element of a gamble in trying someone new which could have financial implications.

Agree on the sensationalist media headline talk – but is this not the depressing way of the world in every other industry/area of popular discourse?

The title of the thread is sensationalist – absolutely, couldn’t agree more.

Okay maybe my use of loyalty was too old fashioned, but for BA to stay with RR is in effect an ‘economic loyalty‘ and also it may help add positive PR to the current very negative press on the Trent 900 (Airbus A380).

What better way if RR who are now not purely an aero-engine manufacture but heavily in to actual customer service possibly working side by side with BA engineers and making sure quality was constantly improving and getting first hand forward R&D information to feed back to RR Derby.

In addition more positive PR for RR – RR engineers could boldly state that they were happy to constantly fly RR powered BA Airbus A380s on business and personal journeys – that is where the two work hand in hand. An old saying “putting your money where your mouth is”.

I certainly with no hesitation would fly a BA Airbus A380 powered by RR Trent 900s.

Airline fleets do look for service economies and this can embody a safety factor as well – covered in the recent post on Easy Jet’s decision to gradually standardise on Airbus A320s.

Another example in the SAS fleet apart from the 4 x Airbus A330s that have RR engines, 8 x Airbus A321 have engines from Aero Engines, the 26 x MD8X have P&W engines the rest of the fleet (88) have CFM engines from Snecma/GE.

Norwegian too have their entire fleet of (54) 737s powered by CFM engines from Snecma/GE.

CFM – Snecma/GE must/may provide these Scandinavian airlines with an economic benefit from going CFM – Snecma/GE.

I’d rather they both had RR engines and I amusingly told my (much younger than me) cousin who is a first officer on Norwegian 737s (formerly at SAS possibly going back again to SAS soon)

Try these great pics of more…..

Some great pics not videos of difficult airports at URL –

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/pictures/view/31294/

Of course in the right experienced hands these dangers will be minimised to a great extent.

Here is a real example of where a Skycat would be just the ticket

Here is a real example of where a Skycat would be just the ticket.

See URL http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1574
or http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=105909

Getting the complete payload from a major airport in Pakistan (delivered from USA by Qatar Airways Boeing 777-300ER) would be ideal for a future Skycat which could get it right into the flood stricken area very quickly.

Thank goodness for moderation – A Fokker 100 being renamed a TUxxx

Thank goodness for moderation on this thread – A Fokker 100 being renamed a TUxxx – amusing to say the least.

Unless the URL for the video (useful post by Bmused55 – Tx) was originally completely misreported it is/was a Fokker 100.

Tx Deano

Interesting if the traditionalists allow it to develop

Interesting and as someone has already said above there have been several attempts previously.

My initial reaction is that similar to the awareness and available R&D regarding electric and hybrid motor vehicles that has been around for several decades all over the globe including UK, yet development has never been supported by ‘Detroit’ and traditional internal combustion proponents and permitted to emerge to be cost effective for the consumer.
Why? It’s easy to churn out slightly new variants on the same old ‘stuff’.

From civilian PAX and transport of freight it has great potential especially where it will not be required to fly in very adverse weather at great altitudes. Will airlines, road haulage, rail, shipping and air freight agents allow it to swamp their business ?
What will Boeing, Airbus, RR, GE, PW do with the oodles of R&D and production already in the pipeline ?

From a military perspective I am less convinced of it’s effectiveness as in hostile environments it certainly isn’t stealth and can be taken out very easily. To move troops and heavy equipment within safe zones possibly or within e.g. in the UK you could see it being used to move large payloads from one military base to another.

From a humanitarian aid relief support vehicle it has great potential.

Like in 1955 the famous UK invention the Hovercraft (some of these concepts are supposedly used in this HAV) yet limited applications have emerged, since.

Helium being a ‘noble’ gas it is in principle inert which makes it a plus point.

Shall look forward to the summer when a full size prototype shows itself.