I hear the same from most of the larger engine OEMs. New engines are not the major income source and may even be sold at a loss. Overhaul is the profit maker.

I also remember the visceral dislike of PMA’s. The reason, they said, was the PMA parts would fail and then GE would figure that out after spending big $ on diagnosis and troubleshooting and engineering support. Was it true or just perception, I don’t know. PMA parts are supposed to be identical. But it was an asymmetric market because nobody expected the PMA sellers to figure out what happened to a fleet of engines that started having issues.

The power by the hour programs meant that the market for PMA’s to sell into was much smaller, consisting of older airliners, cargo in many cases, nearing retirement. So there was less incentive to get PMA approval, etc, etc.

Just on the single engine forums, hearing more talk about just getting hots every 1800 or so and foregoing overhauls. An owner flown PT6 is just a baby even after 20-40 years of careful use. The critical parts just need to be monitored, and there are some parts that time out, but usually pretty high hours and cycles. Have to think about it, but will probably go the hot route ourselves when the time comes. The scariest time to fly a PT6 is within 100 hours of a mechanic touching it. Otherwise, they run pretty much forever.

How many blades and what shop?

Also, how recently?

Mike C.

1.1 MM overhaul cost for a -67 is absolutely nuts. Was this a first run engine? If so, why would they throw their money away? I very much doubt they will see a 1.1 million increase in value on the airplane. Not to mention the lost capital earnings.

PT-6 engines run a hrlluva lot longer than that if monitored and HOTs done every 1800 hours.

Yes, it was first run. So far we are not seeing many late model PC-12's ran past TBO.

Expensive shop with expensive blades.

What makes a shop expensive is high labor rates, rigid policies and criteria, and inflexibility in solutions.

For example, there are now rework options for -5D HT blades that Tarver found, including regrowing them when out of limits. I suspect that wasn't an option through SA.

Being a DOF (designated overhaul facility) of Pratt is the same thing as saying "we no longer have the flexibility of an independent shop". DOF really means "we will charge as much as Pratt and follow their policies to do it".

Mike C.

Expensive shop with expensive blades.

What makes a shop expensive is high labor rates, rigid policies and criteria, and inflexibility in solutions.

For example, there are now rework options for -5D HT blades that Tarver found, including regrowing them when out of limits. I suspect that wasn't an option through SA.

Being a DOF (designated overhaul facility) of Pratt is the same thing as saying "we no longer have the flexibility of an independent shop". DOF really means "we will charge as much as Pratt and follow their policies to do it".

Mike C.

Perhaps I am missing something, but wouldn't you rather engine makers were breaking even or losing money with OEMs, rather than making money BOTH at the OEM stage and the maintenance stages?

Here’s a hot I am doing now. I use the same exact shops SA uses to overhaul everything with a combination of new and used overhauled parts. I feel my quality is the same or higher as SA with a $100k delta in cost. So yes, I think the profit and overhead makes up the majority of the cost of overhaul. This engine is so pretty it belongs in the PWC museum!

Expensive shop with expensive blades.

What makes a shop expensive is high labor rates, rigid policies and criteria, and inflexibility in solutions.

For example, there are now rework options for -5D HT blades that Tarver found, including regrowing them when out of limits. I suspect that wasn't an option through SA.

Being a DOF (designated overhaul facility) of Pratt is the same thing as saying "we no longer have the flexibility of an independent shop". DOF really means "we will charge as much as Pratt and follow their policies to do it".

Mike C.

The reality is that the airframers play the engine makers against each other.

The airplane maker can only support one engine installation per airframe model (air transport exception discussion to follow) and they know the engine manufacturers are between a rock and a hard place as they need to get their engine on as many platforms as possible to be profitable, yet have to place their bets on whether a particular airplane design is viable (and marketable). It gets worse if an airframer wants an engine not yet in production as engine development cycles average 12 years, while airframers average 6.

Even on the transport side, Boeing and Airbus ideally want to only have a single engine offering, but as the major airlines drive engine selection, Boeing and Airbus leverage the big 3 engine makers (RR, GE, and PW) for both lead application and follower sales. If you look back at the transport market for the past 30 or 40 years, you’ll notice the likelihood that engines from the big three are available for all models is nil. Mostly, you’ll have two choices, as GE and PW know even a large production run of commercial jets struggles to support three engine models. RR knows it too, but the Queen was backstopping their decisions, which made them a bit bolder than the competition, which couldn’t rely on Europe or Congress to bail them out.

So, to answer your question, the engine makers give the original airframe install away as they know they’ll recoup their investment from the operators downstream. If you’re one of those operators, then you know you’ll be paying the bill.

For those that feel for the OEM’s, don’t forget that many of these engines were designed through government projects. If nothing else, many of the core modules of those engines were tested in early cruise missle/drone technologies. They are typically cost plus contracts. Williams International comes to mind. Much of the P&W JT8D technology came out of J75/J79 programs.

How much of Pratt's overhead is because of liability?

If a Pratt powered airplane crashes, they get sued.

I'm not defending them, just pointing out that they have a cost of doing business that goes far beyond the cost to produce the components they sell.

Some of these figures ($$$) are hard for me to wrap my head around. Just amazing how expensive it is.