Rolls and Pratt mid-size engine JV abandoned due to regulator concern?

Member for

10 years 7 months

Posts: 840

In October 2011 Rolls and UTC, which owns U.S. engine maker Pratt & Whitney, announced plans to form a partnership to develop engines for 120-230 seat passenger aircraft that in future years would replace new, revamped versions of the Airbus A320 and Boeing 737 narrow-body planes. However, on Thursday the two firms said following discussions, they had decided not to proceed with the partnership "because of the current regulatory environment". Seems a bit odd, as Pratt is not currently an OEM in that market segment, so it shouldn't reduce competition. GE bought out Avio recently, which removes them from the picture re: partnering with Rolls, and GE doesn't really have any need to partner with UTC any more given Avio. So what is wrong with this JV? Would it be OK if structured as a risk-sharing subcontractor? Isn't that a silly distinction? What is Rolls' options here? Going it alone? JV with Safran? Does UTC have realistic other options in this sector besides cooperation with Rolls? Are regulators actually expecting a 3rd Western wide-body engine OEM to emerge and compete against RR and GE?
Original post

Member for

9 years 8 months

Posts: 2,163

Are regulators actually expecting a 3rd Western wide-body engine OEM to emerge and compete against RR and GE?
Pratt are the third competitor. I think there were articles about 6-12 months ago on them developing GTF for widebody.

Member for

10 years 7 months

Posts: 840

I realize I goofed on references to Rolls/Pratt, reversing them, but I still can't make sense of it, they had a JV via IAE, decided to end it, then decided to restart a new JV but now that is barred by regulators? Is the current market without any Rolls participation in this sector considered insufficiently competitive? In widebodies, Engine Alliance seems accepted, and now GE swallowed Avio with expertise in gears, so what's the problem here? Would other existing or historical JVs not be approved under the current regulatory climate?