The first one concerns newer engines versus more mature engines like the Dash 7Bs.

The second point is scale. We always had a rule of thumb: if we can handle 50 engines per year on a single program, it will be profitable. Anything below that requires a longer wait. Why? First, you don't technically understand the engine if you only handle one per month. You don't learn what drives performance. Without understanding performance drivers, your work scope will closely resemble what the OEM does, making it hard to compete.

Could I ask about the conceptual differences between the LEAP and the GTF engines? In a few years, if the GTF achieves its promised advantage with better time on wing and resolves its current reliability issues, would it offer a better overall cost of ownership in the long term? My understanding is that the specific fuel consumption, or fuel burn, is slightly better by 3% or 4% on the GTF compared to the LEAP.

Thermodynamics dictates that two modules operating at the same speed can't reach their individual optimum. The GTF changes this by separating the fan module one from the LPT module five with a gear, allowing them to rotate at different speeds. The LPT, module five, should run as fast as possible to convert energy from the combustion chamber and HPT into forward thrust. MTU reduced the LPT by two stages compared to the V2500, making it smaller, lighter, and more efficient with less maintenance.