My mission is to protect aircraft buyers, we do this for our clients, we do this for our https://jetacq.com/go-or-no-go/ clients and we do this by sharing the knowledge gained by daily experience. I write articles for magazines and of course share here on Beechtalk to get the word out about issues facing aircraft buyers.

The latest major issue we are seeing is the cost and time of having any engine work done on Pratt engines.

We are seeing some scary numbers for overhauls, we currently have a first run -67P at Pratt and the bill is over $1M!

We have another at Pratt for Hot, it's not too bad because they are warranting a large portion of the CT blade replacement. If this wasn't the case, this would have been a very expensive first hot.

The extra tariffs on China produced components are currently paused, but they could come back. The CT blades come from China and represent the most expensive component in that engine.

It's not just cost, we have a client with a Mustang engine off for HSI at Pratt and it has been nothing but problems.

These issues are compounded by a short supply of rental engines.

We are seeing the same for tariffs on the outstanding engines we have with them. $400,000 per, mostly from Canadian tariffs.

About 20 years ago, Pratt bought the only authorized overhauler of their turbine stators. Then they promptly jacked the prices, and scrapped many otherwise overhaulable stators. Supply and demand...

We were paying $350-400k for an overhauled JT15D-4 in 2009. And we thought that was nuts.

Yep! I haven't heard a solid number on JT15's, if you do, please share!

JT15D-5D. Normal overhaul including a few new blades, the usual hard parts etc. 970k each.


Robert T

Should be good news for GE and the Catalyst

At those prices I would bet that more airplanes will be scrapped in favor of newer versions with engines on some pay to play programs.

That is probably Pratt’s goal.

What do these eye-watering numbers do to the TP market long-term?

I suspect it will help airframes with low-time engines since the replacement cost is sky rocketing.

For older airframes with older engines, I think it will lead to some perfectly good planes being turned into beer cans early due to the prohibitive cost of overhauls, especially twins. Planes on the MORE program are going to become much more common but buyers will pay less since the risk of that plane’s value going to zero is higher.

SETP owners seem much more reluctant to run engines beyond TBO. I think these overhaul costs will shift that mindset toward being more open to running past TBO. You are going to see more Meridians and TBMs listed with 4,000+ hours SMOH.

It's not just Pratt and Turbines. The Cirrus SR22T that I'm a part owner of has a TSIO550K Continental and the cost for a factory reman is 105K.

This response is not going to make me any friends…..

Having spent my professional career working for turbine engine OEM’s, here are a few points to consider:

Engines for installation on new airframes are usually sold to the airframer at or below cost

The propulsion companies also pay the airframers non-recurring engineering (NRE) just to get on the airframe. The NRE is for propulsion system installation, integration, and certification. These payments may be a million for a light turboprop to $500+ million for a Boeing or Airbus commercial transport

The upfront cost must be recouped. The company banks on spares sales not only paying back the initial investment (which can be a period of upwards of 20 years), but also providing cash flow for day-to-day operations. Spare part prices typically are 10x - 12x the fully burdened cost of producing the part. The company assumes at least two complete overhauls for every engine delivered

All this works for consumables, but not necessarily for larger more complex parts like frames and cases. Parts like these (usually the largest and most complicated in the engine), are designed to be repairable and not life limited, so the company normally doesn’t stock replacement hardware. Depending on the design of the stators, for example, they may be refurbished, as opposed to being replaced

Life limited parts (like disks and shafts) are expensive to produce due to their critical nature. This drives their base costs way up, which makes their sales prices insane (remember 10x -12x markups?)

If the stars align, the propulsion OEM can survive for decades on the success of a single design (JT8D, CFM56, TFE731, PT6, for example), stave off bankruptcy, and cover lots of less successful activities.

Art

How many blades and what shop?

Also, how recently?

Mike C.

I retired from Cessna as a Propulsion Engineer in 2002 and worked several PT6 programs (425, F406, 435 (cancelled), 208 (product support)).
If we were buying engines at or below cost and they were helping with our non-recurring, it was a closely guarded secret, at least at my level. When we went to a motive flow fuel system starting with the 425, a different small spring was required in the engine fuel system. We referred to it as the $150 spring.
I did learn that there are a lot of different ways to calculate costs.

When I worked at GE Aircraft Engines in the early 2000’s we were told a similar story to what Art says. Engine companies were not making money on the new engines, and engineering costs were high, but the chance to sell parts and overhaul (or power by the hour programs) made the overall business profitable.

To the extent that airlines bought power by the hour programs (ie, fixed part cost per hour of flight) it seemed pretty transparent and aligned. But that model has never mapped well to the older, low utilization owner-flown small jets and turboprops.

I just heard from a friend with a PC-12 NGX

Repair/ overhaul of their engine after hired pilot induced catastrophic thermal damage. 3M plus

New engine 2.8M plus but I think production is already allocated for new airframes.