Recently, in March, CFM revised their certification documentation for the LEAP-1A engine. There now is a G02 version and Addison Schonland from AirInsight already explained the differences between the original G01 certification standard and the G02.
The higher stated weight of the G02 is due to the fact that the EBU is now included in the weight. If we now look at the documentation of the competing PW1100G-JM engine from P&W we see that the EBU is included in it’s weight also.
The weight of the PW1100G-JM is 2857.6 kg or 6300 lbs.
The weight of the LEAP-1A (G02) is 3153 kg or 6936 lbs.
A stunning difference of 636 lbs or 1272 lbs per aircraft.
Now I guess that the nacelle of the LEAP-1A is a little bit lighter as the fan diameter is 3” smaller (78” versus 81” for the PW1100G-JM). So the difference at aircraft level would probably be more in the order of 1000 lbs.
When the A320neo was launched in December 2010 Airbus expected that the GTF powered version would be 100kg heavier than the LEAP-1A powered aircraft. So either P&W found a lot of weight saving opportunities or CFM underestimated their engine weight. To be fair, CFM later in 2011 introduced a seventh stage in the LPT and widened the fan Diameter from 75" to 78", so there are two changes that put more weight in the engine.
But 1000 lbs is no small number: it is equivalent to the weight of 4-5 passengers. Or in other words: if both engines would have the same fuel burn (according to John Leahy the LEAP engine is not yet at spec fuel burn), a PW1100G-JM powered aircraft could transport 4 to 5 passengers more by burning the same amount of fuel for the trip. So the questions is who in the end pays for the difference when you have a LEAP powered aircraft? The passenger with higher ticket prices? The airline through either higher fuelburn or lower revenue? CFM through cost concessions at the maintenance side? Food for thougths...