For the sake of argument,
A "heat-generation reactor chip" or pencil or whatever produces heat at 1/40 the cost of jet fuel for equivalent BTUs.
Consider also the fuel weight saving, and the useful life of the reactor (as well as the turbofan engine) and it seems clear that the value of the reactor in terms of fuel cost savings would be staggering.
A turbofan engine basically never wears out, as long as it is properly maintained (e.g., overhauled every 10,000 hours).
A jet-fuel powered turbofan will burn 250 gallons per hour. So a two-engined aircraft will burn 500 gallons per hour, and over a 10,000 hour maintenance cycle, that comes to $5 M for fuel, at current price of about $1/gal of jet fuel.
So if there is a device that can provide the same amount of energy for 1/40 the fuel cost, it will save the airline almost $4.9M of fuel ($5M - (1/40 * $5M)) over 10,000 hours (not to mention the compound benefits of reduced takeoff weight and reduced pollution).
Of course, each engine will cost around $20 M ..
Regardless, if such technology existed, it would make sense for airlines to pay up to at least as much as $4.9M per device plus fuel, (assuming that they last at least 10,000 hours).
Meanwhile, if I am Rolls Royce, I am quite happy to sell a turbofan at a 40% "profit", or about $8M per engine for a device that should last for many tens of thousands of hours.
Yet, if I am selling a LENR reactor, as long as my cost per unit is below, say, $1 million per device, I will earn much more profit over the life of a typical passenger aircraft than Rolls Royce.
So most of the profit will go to whoever can actually produce such devices, not to the engine manufacturers.