Copyright Simple Flying
When Airbus launched the A350 XWB program in the mid-2000s, it wanted to build not just another widebody jet, but a flagship capable of challenging the Boeing 787 and Boeing 777 families. To achieve that goal, Airbus partnered with Rolls-Royce to create a new generation of turbofan, the Trent XWB. This wasn’t a case of selecting an off-the-shelf powerplant; it was a comprehensive design process in which the airframe and engine evolved in tandem. Almost two decades later, the A350 remains powered exclusively by Rolls-Royce Trent XWB engines. While other widebody aircraft, such as the Boeing 777 or 787, offer customers a choice between General Electric and Rolls-Royce engines, the A350 family has never had an alternative. This has led to a recurring question in aviation circles: Why can’t another engine power the A350? Designing The Trent XWB For The A350 From the beginning, the A350 was conceived as a fully optimized aircraft-engine system. Rolls-Royce designed the Trent XWB specifically for Airbus’ aerodynamic and performance requirements, shaping everything from fan diameter to thrust class around the Airbus A350-900 and Airbus A350-1000. The “XWB” designation, meaning “Extra Wide Body,” reflects this close collaboration. According to Rolls-Royce, every design element, from the 118-inch fan to the engine’s pressure ratio, was tuned to complement the A350’s aerodynamics and wing structure. That deep integration went far beyond thrust output. The Trent XWB’s airflow, weight distribution, and pylon interface were co-engineered with Airbus to deliver maximum fuel efficiency and minimal drag. Even the nacelle and pylon design were aerodynamically optimized around the engine’s specific bypass ratio and acoustic profile. In essence, the A350’s performance envelope and efficiency ratings are inseparable from the Trent XWB’s characteristics. Because of this, fitting another manufacturer’s engine, say, a GE9X or a Pratt & Whitney GTF, would require re-engineering major parts of the aircraft. It’s not just a matter of swapping hardware; it would require redesigning pylons, cooling systems, and engine mounts, followed by new structural testing and complete re-certification. The aircraft would effectively become a different variant altogether. Technical Lock-In: The Integration Challenge The A350’s engine integration is one of the most complex in commercial aviation. The aircraft’s wings, made of carbon-fibre composites, were structurally optimized around the loads, airflow, and vibration profile of the Trent XWB. The engine’s centre of gravity, airflow through the nacelle, and bleed-air systems are all calibrated for that specific configuration. A small deviation in engine geometry or weight could shift the aircraft’s balance, potentially altering its handling and efficiency. In addition, the engine’s "Full Authority Digital Engine Control" (FADEC) system communicates directly with the A350’s avionics suite. A new engine would mean re-coding and re-certifying the flight management systems, a process that would take years and cost hundreds of millions. Engineers would have to validate everything from thrust response to emergency shutdown logic. This would prove financially, logistically, and in terms of time and resource allocation to be hugely inefficient. Certification is perhaps the biggest hurdle. The A350 and Trent XWB were certified together by EASA and the Federal Aviation Administrationas a single integrated system. Introducing a new engine would require a fresh certification campaign for the airframe/engine combination, akin to launching a new aircraft. For Airbus, that would mean substantial cost and risk for minimal reward, especially given that the Trent XWB continues to improve through enhanced variants like the recently certified Trent XWB-84 EP. Exclusive Agreements: A Strategic Business Decision Beyond the engineering, there’s the business side. Airbus and Rolls-Royce signed an exclusivity agreement, making the Trent XWB the sole powerplant for the A350 family. This exclusivity was strategic; it simplified logistics, maintenance, and customer support, while guaranteeing Rolls-Royce a stable production volume. Airlines benefit from consistent maintenance procedures and parts commonality, while Airbus benefits from having a dedicated engine partner focused on continuous performance upgrades. This kind of exclusive engine partnership isn’t unprecedented; Airbus did something similar with the A340-500/600 (also powered only by Rolls-Royce), and Boeing has exclusive arrangements for certain models as well. The key difference is the level of integration and long-term alignment. The A350’s exclusivity deal ensures Rolls-Royce can invest deeply in optimizing the engine for decades of incremental efficiency gains. Economically, a dual-engine program would be far more expensive for Airbus. Supporting multiple engine suppliers means doubling development and certification costs, complicating spares logistics, and fragmenting airline fleets. In a tight-margin industry where efficiency is everything, a single-engine strategy makes sense, provided the selected engine remains world-class. The Alternatives That Never Took Flight Early in the A350’s development, Airbus invited both General Electric and Rolls-Royce to propose powerplants. GE initially offered a variant of its GEnx engine, the same core used in Boeing’s 787. However, GE ultimately declined to pursue a higher-thrust derivative needed for the A350-1000, citing a lack of business justification. With GE stepping back, Rolls-Royce became the only viable option, and the Trent XWB became the default and later exclusive choice. Since then, no other manufacturer has revisited the idea. The scale of investment required to design, certify, and produce an alternative engine for a single aircraft type is enormous. Engine programs often cost several billion dollars to develop, and without guaranteed orders, the financial risk is prohibitive. For GE, investing that amount to compete for a small slice of an existing Airbus market dominated by Rolls-Royce made little sense. Furthermore, the Trent XWB’s reputation for reliability and efficiency has reinforced its position. Airlines like Qatar Airways, Singapore Airlines, and Lufthansa have logged millions of flight hours with the engine, giving it a proven track record. Introducing a new powerplant at this stage would disrupt that continuity, with no clear operational benefit. Evolution Over Replacement: The Continuous Improvement Model Instead of pursuing new engines, Airbus and Rolls-Royce have chosen to evolve the existing Trent XWB platform. In 2025, the Trent XWB-84 Enhanced Performance (EP) variant received EASA certification, offering a 1% improvement in fuel burn and improved durability. These incremental upgrades keep the A350 competitive without the expense or risk of a major redesign. This evolution-based model is similar to what Boeing and GE have done with the 777’s GE90 engine family, continuous refinements rather than wholesale replacement. The approach allows both Airbus and Rolls-Royce to extend the A350’s lifespan while maintaining strong performance and efficiency. The engines also benefit from digital health monitoring systems, predictive maintenance analytics, and materials upgrades that gradually enhance performance. Looking ahead, Rolls-Royce has hinted that lessons from its next-generation UltraFan engine program could eventually trickle into future A350 engine updates. While a full re-engine with UltraFan technology is unlikely in the short term, components like advanced composites and geared fan architectures could influence future Trent XWB derivatives. Risks and Realities of a Single-Engine Strategy Relying on a single engine supplier isn’t without risk. When technical issues arise, such as the fuel nozzle inspections Rolls-Royce faced in 2024, affecting some A350 operators, the impact is fleet-wide. Airlines lose redundancy in supply options, and the manufacturer bears full responsibility for maintaining reliability. However, Rolls-Royce has demonstrated rapid response capability and continuous support, helping preserve operator confidence. From Airbus’s perspective, the simplicity of a single-engine family outweighs the risks. Airlines prefer stable maintenance ecosystems, predictable performance, and common training standards. Having multiple engine types on a single aircraft family can complicate everything from pilot type ratings to spare parts inventory. In the long term, Airbus could, in theory, still consider a re-engined “A350neo” with next-generation propulsion, but that would constitute an entirely new development program, not a retrofit. Until then, the A350 and the Trent XWB will remain inseparable, a symbol of what happens when an airframe and engine are designed as one.
