If you're an airline and you want a 787 from Boeing, they'll offer you a choice of engines: you can get either the Rolls-Royce Trent 1000, or the General Electric GEnx.
The current issue is corrosion and fatigue in the blades of RR Trent 1000 engines, which has nothing to do with the bleed-air versus bleedless thing. And isn't the first time Rolls-Royce engines have had problems in recent years. The Qantas incident in 2010 involved an uncontained engine failure of a RR Trent 900 on an Airbus A380, and similarly triggered a massive surprise maintenance burden for A380s fitted with Rolls-Royce engines. That's what 787 operators who chose Rolls-Royce are facing now, though the majority of 787s delivered have had GE engines.
if you really want to see "new engine trouble", compare the following engines' sales and recalls:
shitty engine, skip down to the engine removals section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_PW1000G
non shitty engine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFM_International_LEAP
the CFM1000 has been a nearly unmitigated disaster for PW. Massive defects and removals from aircraft/recalls. It's reflected in its sales numbers compared to the LEAP as well.
So what you are saying is, the 787 engine problems isn't as bad as they seem compared to these other engines?
Any thoughts of the Rolls-Royce Trent XWB compared to the 787 engines?
Innovations and new discoveries somehow bring down the cost despite an increase of competitors. Having multiple competitors provide an alternative when one company chooses a design that has unforeseen problems: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-rolls-royce-hldg-engines/...
The "second-to-market" might also learn from the mistakes of the "first-to-market". This happened when IBM entered the PC industry in the early-80s. Compaq and DELL later when on to find ways to sell PCs cheaper than IBM.
Boeing is having trouble with some of the engines of the 787 (Dreamliner). It might have something to do with the bleedless air system they chose. While Airbus went a different direction with their A350. Boeing chose to use composite materials to save on weight and allow for more air pressure and humidity. Airbus followed up with the A350 because of the Dreamliner popularity, but chose a more conservative design in some areas.
Either way, the airlines that buy (ie finance) either one will save on fuel costs compared to previous models. With the "increased cost" of more than one competitor, airlines have a choice to help them deal with risks of a new design... and adapt to changing market conditions.
(Disclaimer: I am not an engineer or economist.)
Soviet Union bureaucrats also thought like this: Too many competitors is inefficient. We will save resources if we just have one shoe provider. Cut to the future: Russians notice how tiny Japan can build a better television than the might of the entire Soviet Union: http://articles.latimes.com/1987-02-01/local/me-580_1_televi...