THE FACTS need to be stated in response to the June 4 letter from Rick Kennedy, manager of media relations at GE Aviation (“Columnist dismisses the obvious in slap at GE engine’’).
The claim of a $3.5 billion cost overrun for the Pratt & Whitney engine program is not true. The scope of the program has grown, and the vast majority of this amount is as a result of changes in the program requested by the Department of Defense customer.
We are building an F135 power plant for the world’s most advanced multi-role fighter — the F-35. With that said, we are sensitive to the cost to our customer, and we’ve implemented a robust initiative to drive the cost out of the program. We are on track, and the customer is pleased that production is meeting cost targets. We know we can succeed since we implemented a similar cost-reduction process on the program for the F119 engine, which powers the F-22 fighter.
Unlike the
Our most recent contract for engine production exceeds a 15 percent savings to the taxpayer over previous deliveries. We are on track to reduce the cost of the F135 engine to the price of the F119.
These results stand in stark contrast to the defunded extra engine, which the Pentagon doesn’t want and the taxpayers can’t afford.
Stephanie Duvall
Communications manager, military engines
Pratt & Whitney
East Hartford, Conn. 
