777 RIVAL - The Airbus A350 Major Redesign
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 сер 2023
- After being unveiled to the world in the early 2000s, the Airbus A350 underwent a major design change to see it not only get more customers but better compete with Boeing's successful widebody long-range aircraft. What did the redesign entail, was it a success, and what did Boeing think?
🔔 Subscribe to GlobeTrotting: bit.ly/SubscribeGlobeTrotting
🖥️ Visit our website: djsaviation.net
CONNECT WITH US
🐦 Twitter: / djsaviation
👥 Facebook: / djsaviation
💬 Discord: / discord
💻 Patreon: / djsaviation
BUSINESS ENQUIRIES
📧 Email: contactdjsaviation@gmail.com
CHECK OUT THE PODCAST
🎙️ Spotify: bit.ly/DjsAviationPodcast
🎙️ Apple: bit.ly/DjsPodcastApple
SUBMIT VIDEO IDEAS
✍️ Form - bit.ly/SubmitVideoIdeas
===============================
ℹ️ MORE INFORMATION ℹ️
creativecommons.org/
Licensed under CC-BY-SA 2.0
- Boeing Newsroom
- Airbus Mediaroom
- Boeing UA-cam Channel
Video written by
🎵 OUTRO TRACK 🎵
Krys Talk - Fly Away [NCS Release]
Music provided by NoCopyrightSounds.
• Krys Talk - Fly Away |...
Free Download / Stream ncs.io/flyaway
#aviation #news #flight #aircraft #avgeek #airplane #airlines #airport #planespotting #airbus #boeing
Airbus made a great aircraft in many ways. Boeing did notice. SIA when tested it the chief pilot said it is the right aircraft. Airbus made a phenomenal aircraft
It's unfair to compare A350 and 787 delays. The A350 was mainly late due to a redesign at the request of customers. The 787 delays were due to contractor supply failures, design flaws, certification difficulties, and a complete breakdown of program management leading to a collapse of remedial work oversight.
Same as saying - A350 was delayed due to demanding clients...the 787 was delayed due to Boeing's current state of mismanagement and overall lack of vision.
Well that and European suppliers not making segments and parts to spec. Outsource to overseas bit them in the ass on that one.
@@TonkaFire2019fits the bill on mismanagement and lack of vision...that's how it ended up selling US plants that now supply parts to airbus...
The redesign was absolutely the right decision. The original A350 is still around, it's the A330 Neo, and while it may be profitable for Airbus, it's not a massive seller and it wouldn't have made Airbus a force to be reckoned with in the widebody market by itself. The redesigned "XWB" came late, but it was indeed right on the money and, by taking advantage of all the technologies and tooling developed for the A380 in the areas of composites, avionics etc. it was a fully mature, extremely reliable aircraft from the start. Now it will be decades before we see another widebody that's technologically superior to the A350. Good job Airbus!
Totally agree as an Airbus empolyee
@@RogerPierre57 The original A350 concept used the A330 fuselage with new engine and wings. That's why the redesigned A350 was called "XWB", to stress the fact that it had a new (and wider) fuselage than the A330.
Almost the original A350 with the A330neo - that design called for not just new engines, but carbon fibre wings as well, like the 777X
Boeing was ruling the widebody segment for 30 years when Airbus tried to come with a modern and competitive offer after the A340 and A330. Because the A380 never really reached its target. Emirates was alone in the sky for that aircraft. The A350 XWB was the last chance to compete with Boeing. And Airbus hit the target. With a bigger version than the B787. When you compare the price difference with the B787, the A350 is selling quite strongly. It took a big slice of the B777. I am so impatient to see the market reaction to the arrival of the B777-9. The A350 is between the B787 and the B777X. The biggest Boeing plane will have to be flawless to challenge the A350. Qantas Sunrise choice is a stone in the Boeing's garden....
The A350 is the best aircraft currently flying, and I think it won't be beaten by the 777X. It's a clean sheet design, and the 777X is just too heavy to beat it on efficiency. Even at 9 abreast the A350-1000 is more efficient than a 10 abreast 777X in most realistic scenarios. Boeing is of course able to claim the 777X is more efficient, but likely only with maximum seating vs a less densely configured A350. I think Airbus should probably regret that they didn't make the body slightly wider. While the revised cabin is now slightly wider due to revised thinner sidewalls, 10 abreast is tight. I think more airlines will now go with 10 abreast on the A350 in the coming years, just as some did with older 777's, but it's not perfect. Some probably won't, and stick with 9 abreast. If the A350 were slightly wider, yes it would be slightly heavier, but would be untouchable in efficiency with a standard 10 abreast cabin and Boeing wouldn't be able to market the 777X on any metric. I think if it had been slightly wider, Emirates would have gone all in on the A350.
Remember Airbus have sold around 2000 A330s so Boeing haven't had it all their way in widebody sector
@patrickpeters2903 ?????????
@@michaelosgood9876that’s total but as far as modern wide bodies go the neo 330s are a failure.
@@trenton.tchannel1810Yep, too soon for a replacement and very little market/already dominated by 787. Sure it sells a lot because of many 787 order delays but it's still too soon for an a330 replacement
Currently my favorite aircraft, I've tried A350-900 and A350-1000. Loved them both, much more than 787 and 777.
Bingo
The A350 original design was basically the A330neo. The redesign was a completely new aircraft which resulted in the current A350. Later Airbus then decided to launch the A330neo anyway, as the A350 was a bit too large for many carriers who operated the A330/A340 series.
The Airbus a320 Neo program made more money for Airbus than any wide body aircraft that Airbus has made.
The large narrowbody segment is by far the most lucrative one. Airbus makes most of its money on the A32x and Boeing on the 737, but you can't run a profitable, long-term sustainable aircraft manufacturer without covering the entire market. For example, 787, despite its record sales for a widebody, may never break even. Yet, if Boeing didn't have it, any airline with widebody needs would currently need to buy the A330 or A350, and Airbus would say: And what about your narrowbodies? We heard you were considering a 737 order... tell you what, why don't you get A320s instead and we'll give you a sweetheart deal for the whole lot.
@@jacobzimmermann59 Boeing ruled the commercial aviation industry for 50 years or so. BUT today Boeing is not making any profit with the new aircrafts. The B737 Max double disasters, followed by recovery/updates hurdles and then the B787 flaws cost billions to Boeing. The US giant is making money ONLY with their "old" B767 and B777. The management did incredible technical and logistical choices leading to missteps in the making of the B737 Max and the B787. Today Boeing has lost its crown in favor of Airbus. The A320/321 Neo program is overwhelmed by orders. And the A350 is quite popular among many airlines, even outpacing in orders the B777. Airbus is like a snail who overtook the hare....I'm very curious to see the market reaction to the future B777X program. And how fast will Boeing make money with that plane...
Same is true for Boeing with the 737. Narrowbodies are the cash cow of the airliners industry.
@@jacobzimmermann59 If you are buying Airbus widebodies you'd be crazy to go with Boeing for your narrowbodies. Both manufacturers try to give buyers an upgrade or downgrade path by having commonality across their line but Airbus carries this much further than Boeing. A 320 pilot needs far less retraining for a 350 (or the reverse) than a 737 pilot does for a 787 (same for maintenance engineers). More and more airlines are tending towards "all Airbus" or "all Boeing". So you are pretty right.
A manufacturer that builds a clean sheet design, what a breath of fresh air. Looking at you 777X and 737Max …
Airbuses only clean sheet design is the A350, just like Boeings b787. The a320neo series aren't clean sheets and the A220 was originally a bombardier airplane.
Are you listening A220, Anything with a "NEO" affixed to the name.
All new design !!!
Yeah. right ..!!!
@isthatso5616 neo means new engine option. The fuselage is essentially the same. It's no different than the B737s that have been re-engined into the b737 ng and maxes. And again the A220 was originally the CS series by Bombardier that Airbus bought controlling shares. Airbus DIDNOT create the aircraft.
Looking at you 330 neo, 321neo (LR-XLR), 320 neo 319 neo ,340-5,and 6. And borrowed A220..too.
Any other AB clean sheet designs , you'd like to add ..??
Sugah !!!!
Wow. You guys are way to serious. Lol
Maybe I missed something, but did you touch on what the redesign actually was?
Love your LAX photos, as I live and work close enough to see these beauties daily.
I thought the 787 was quiet on approach; the A350 is at least as quiet, if not quieter.
The Project Sunrise choice should garner more orders, and I suspect it will be a worthwhile choice for that long-range segment.
I don't know how it is on approach looking from the outside, but inside the cabin the A350 is definitely quieter than the 787. Only the A380 has a quieter cabin than the A350.
Speaking on the outside.
737's and a 320's are louder!
@@jacobzimmermann59
The A350 is the best long-haul aircraft I’ve flown on.
After A380
It just shows that Airbus is fully capable to be a market leader as long as they make the right plane the market wanted, and their technology works fine which should not be the thing to blame when Airbus widebody sales have been low.
I wish you touched on more of what the redesign was.
The redesign moved the project from what is now the A330neo (but with carbon fibre wings) to the A350XWB seen today. Total redesign vs an upgrade.
Ty dj!!
The best aircraft
The A380, particularly the Emirates configuration will always be my favorite aircraft to fly on, however the A350 comes a close second. They outshine Boeing in just about every department.
Really good video! But there may be a need for better narratives to make sound more fun and enjoyable
both boeing and airbus make great aircraft
There is a market for a variant longer than the A350-1000, but it is not large, so any stretch needs to be affordable. Take advantage of the extra max weight of the A350-1000 ULR, & produce a slightly longer fuselage, a shorter range (still over 6500nm) that does not exceed the A350-1000ULR max take off weight (MTO).
What do you mean by A350-1000 ULR? There is no such aircraft. The Qantas spec planes will be stock standard 321T MTOW planes offered to every customer.
The A350 is the best plane flying. Great plane to fly
Beautiful aircraft
One of the greatestest videos ever
One interesting thing to note on the development of the A350 is that after Airbus decided to make an all-new fuselage design, the concept version had a significantly different nose design than the production version (same thing with 787). Anyone know why the concept nose is different?
No idea, but can hazard guesses. For one thing, CAD-software (Computer Aided Design) is improving all the time and the different nose is for more efficiency. On the other hand, the march of electronics and integration of automated systems marches on; perhaps new electronics (to help guide planes and so on) were introduced, or Airbus wanted to leave enough room for newer (read stronger and perhaps bigger) versions. And lastly, it could be that Airbus wanted to retain a recognizable nose for all its craft and the new form is more "uniform". Have you made any guess yourself? Any ideas?
Normal iteration of the design during the design phase as they get more information on performance simulations.
you could talk about the new "NPS design" allowing a 10 abreast 17" seats configuration to transport up to 480 people for low cost carriers with the A350-1000 version. In another attempt to better compete with the future B777-9.
Had Airbus stuck with the original design, which was a cost cutting effort to redesign the A340, the aircraft would have failed miserably.
I laugh at the idea that Airbus is somehow changing the game because Qantas chose to use the A350 for Project Sunrise. Everyone knows that the project was tested with the 787-9, without any modifications. The A350 is allowing Qantas to add economy class seats, but it remains to be seen if that's going to succeed. The reason why Singapore Airlines SIN to NYC is successful mainly has to do with the fact that it's an all-premium cabin. People who will be willing to pay such a higher fare for such a long nonstop flight will also want to be comfortable. Hopefully the legroom pitch will be better than the standard Qantas economy class seat.
Do you not realise that Qantas has a design plan for 300 seats in the A350-1000 on project Sunrise and the spacing is technically bigger than most Premium Economy seats on every seat.
That first Project Sunrise test, was done on an Empty 787-9. if the 787-9 can do the same job as the A350-900 by singapore,..the 787 is cheaper to purchase, then why didnt they choose the 787-9? I can guarantee you, airlines do all the research before purchasing any aircraft for any mission, and the most efficient always wins.
@@theflyer1 The A350-900ULR is not more efficient. It has few seats and additional fuel tanks. This is the same with the A350-1009 chosen for Project Sunrise. Both choices are based on those aircraft having more space than the 787-9, so they can carry more passengers.
Qantas has been flying an unmodified 787-9 from Perth to London for years. Boeing could build an extended range aircraft, but for these ultra longhaul routes to be profitable they need more seats. The 787-9 is not big enough.
@theflyer1 Because Qantas said the numbers didn't add up with the number of seats in the B789 and the A359. Not only does the A35K have over 35T of extra MTOW, they calculated that it has longer legs and can do the sector with 300 pax.
@@nathd1748 You have no idea what you're talking about. Good luck.
Airbus hit the target and sweet spot, with the A350. One type of aircraft to compete with Boeing's full line up of wide bodies, and it actually out performs all of them in every front. On the smaller side, we have the A350-900 which runs circles around the 787-8,-9,-10, and 777-200. On the lager side, we have the A350-1000 which out performs the 777-300 (ER), we have to wait and see how it performs against the 777X. It can be seen with Qatar airways, as they couldnt wait to sort out the drama with airbus, and now they fly their A350's everywhere. Also Emirates cant wait to receive theirs, they already laid down the ground work in their hub in DXB for a smooth entry into service for their A350's.
Runs circles around the 787 ???
Debatable!!!
So your saying the 787 is competing against the A350, while most say it's main competition is the A330n.
Which,it does completely runs circles around!!
BTW ..
Emirates originally was supposed to take it's first A350 in March of this year.!!!
The delay was on their part!!!
So much for chomping at the bit to receive their first one !!
Bring an Airbus fanboy detracts from your statements.
@@SRT-fv6wr The delay on Emirates taking on the A350, was due to the "paint issues" that Qatar had, as they wanted to see if it because of the atmospheric/climate conditions which are similar as both airliners operate from similar regional climatic conditions. On the 787 competition, its not debatable, rather facts, the A350's range and payload and operating costs has made it a clear winner.
@@larrydugan1441 Nothing to do with being a fanboy, im a fan of aviation, that means all aircrafts. But, If we are talking versus, then we state hard proven facts, not emotional attachments or insults.
Runs circles? They arent the same class of aircraft. The 777LR is closer to the A350. The 777X is also different class all together.
What WAS the re-design????
The redesign was making a whole new plane, from ground up, not using existing basics from airbus widebodies like the a330, otherwise the a350 would be an a330 neo
@@aftl_ryz8549 thank you
I was thinking that as well. I couldn't actually figure out from listening to this what the redesign entailed. It looks like a bunch of random footage stitched together.
I've flown thousands of miles in every type of aircraft and been able to compare Airbus and Boeing. For long-haul, the 747 was king for many years and is still iconic in aviation but my next preference was the 767 when it was first introduced - my first time in a wide-bodied aircraft (after the 747). When the 787 appeared, I was keen to fly on it but disappointed that it didn't offer much more than the 767 - apart from the rather gimmicky cabin-dimming windows. For long-haul comfort, a return flight Paris-Osaka then Tokyo-Paris was a deciding factor: A350 Air France outbound - awesome and B777 inbound (also Air France). The A350 tops all of them.
Cathay Pacific fly a Great A350. Every single flight just amazing. Talking economy class here. Flying higher & faster than ever before on a Hong Kong to Auckland leg. Their 777s are pretty amazing too, I might add.
I wouldn't do that on any aircraft in economy.
@@johniii8147 only first class for you, John
Nice
The 777x will be the most beautiful aircraft in a wide body class! A 220 is the most beautiful aircraft in its class ! I can only imagine what they will come up if they will work together on a future project !
Tastes are tastes...777 is Justified and ancient design...787 is really beautiful simplistic design !
The A350 is an excellent aircraft and will do well in the wide body longhaul market and is a success. The B777X will help Beoing capture a decent market share but Airbus is here to stay. The re-design of the A350 will continue to pay dividends for Airbus.
Brilliant airplane and by far the most beautiful passenger plane in the skies at the moment 😊
It has some elegance to it 😊
@@phillipbanes5484 yeah the - 10 is low riding despite it being quite long.. yeah 😂
@@phillipbanes5484 yes, dumb dumb, but the A350 looks sleek, not chubby
@@phillipbanes5484 so you hear voices and sounds... 😂
The most comfortable seating is 2-4-2 in A330.
I don’t purport to be an expert on any of this. However as a passenger on long haul my aircraft of choice is A350’s. The nightmare liner is so cramped in comparison, noisier and generally less comfortable on a long flight. I only book on Airlines offering a choice.
I like their 3-3-3 and they designed it in a way that would make it difficult to do a 3-4-3 (unless if is a low cost one)
2-4-2 is bettet functionally
6:00 boeing ate their own words, especially for their 737max. They sat on their laurels and look at now...
yes
5.7m cabin width with thinner latest tech of Cabin Insulation
The article description is bollocks. "Being unveiled to the world in early 2000's"
A350 looks so good in the SAS livery 4:00
Watch for the A350-1000 to be considered by Delta before 2026. Reason: they may need a bigger plane for routes to eastern Asia from DTW, ATL and JFK airports.
And South Africa, they need to sometimes make fuel stops going west bound to ATL. They did not have to do that with the 777LR.
That's been speculated for quite a while now and has yet to happen. It's actually unclear they need aircraft that large. They have completely changed their Asia strategy in recent years.
I'm so rooting for that. They are missing premium economy seats at many of those flights. I would happily start flying with Delta to Asia if they start offering premium economy seats more.
The A35K 💎 is the medium winner between 787/777X
I Love The Beautiful A350,I Think A350 Was Bulit Coz Of Boeing Is Leader On Wide Body Marked Is My Opinion.Great Video
De l'aveux même d'airbus l'a350 900 a était créé pour répondre a Boeing et son 787 et ils ont décidé de faire la version-1000 pour prendre des parts de marché au 777-300er, la réponse de Boeing ne s'est pas fait attendre ils ont décidés de modernisé le triple 7 avec de nouvelles ailes très longues en composites des moteurs plus gros plus économe en carburant et plus puissant et les technologies du 787.
I love the A350. Favourite to fly on. It would have been really interesting for you to go a little deeper into what the actual redesign entailed and how the versions differed. Otherwise, always love your videos!
Been flying for more than 50 years. A350 my favourite by some margin
The A350-1000 is the Airliner to fly on, without doubt the most efficient advanced aircraft around. Boeing management still has to convince me its not in Wall streets pocket
You didn’t show the original design for us to compare the ‘Re-design’ changes!!
What I knew from Boeing was that because the 787 Dreamliner was already 4 years ahead and flying with customers, Airbus had to change the design to resemble or take on the ‘Look’ of both the 777 and the 787 and it shows if you look at the A350 closely. An Airbus Executive also mentioned in a Documentary during the ‘First Flight of The A350’ that Airbus manufactured it to be like the 777. As an Aircraft enthusiast I don’t feel there’s competition between the two manufacturers; it is rather the ‘Negative Fanatics’ who try to set one against the other (judging from a lot of the Posts below 👇🏾)……the two Companies help each other because they know they both belong to Planet Earth and part of the Human Race. There’s also one manufacturer who is 43years older than the other and almost always an ‘Industry First’ (on observation based on Fact)
We should applaud both manufacturers instead of setting one against the other. They both belong to planet Earth and work for the Human Race as they keep striving through research innovations to satisfy their Human Customers i.e. all of us 👍🏾❤️🙏🏾
The A350 is simply the best pkane I have flown on as a frequent flyer! Down to design details. Americans cant design anything if their lives depended on it.
Is the wing curved and flexible already?777x and 787 is equipped with flexible wing and air hugging and blending capability resulting a smooth flying and maneuver.
All large airplane wings are deliberately flexible for this reason, and have been for a very long time. Ever watched a B52 (first flew in 1957) taking off?
@@kenoliver8913 the capabilityy of metal to flex is far beyond with composite material.
I would say this is is the most successful after thee A320 , A330 . A340 didn't take much place on the market and was not very optional . 777 was a Huge workhorse for airlines and A340 were retired from airlines . So I think Airbus launched the A350 at the right place at the right time .....❤
A350 Queen of the skies.
Thats disrespectful to the B747
When Airbus announced the XWB, they intended it to compete with the 777-200 and -300. It was a much-needed aircraft to improve Airbus' lineup over the A340 with its inefficient 4-engine design (Airlines want only 2 engines and went with the 777). Airbus thought airlines would like the A340 because of its exemption from ETOPS restrictions, but that was not the case.
Only because ETOPS restrictions were radically eased by regulators, under pressure from those airlines. Had they not been eased we would still be flying quads over the ocean. Not only the 340 but the 747 and 380 would still be produced.
They have done it to the point where the entire passenger 777-200 series (including LR) is obselete against the A359, and... not so much on A35K against 777-300ER but i see some airlines replacing 777-300ERs with A359s as well so i guess the 359 has more market place
Most 777-200s are starting to show their age and are prime for replacement (most were built from 1997-2007) so airlines are replacing them with the A359 or B787-9/10. The 777-300s are newer with most of them delivered from 2010-2020 so airlines will want to keep them for a bit longer. We’ll see what airlines want to replace it with once those jets become old.
There was a big movement to replace all the inefficient 747-400s which is why all those 777-300ERs were ordered.
A350 is sexiest plane on a planet...period!
Airbus a 350 1000 is an airbus version of 777 by far more advanced than a 777 LOVE ❤❤BOTH AIRPLANES ✈️
Hi 👋
The A350 is a beautiful design, although I love the Dreamliner and it's more efficient the Airbus 350 is just a more beautiful design.
I think ironically these struggles pressed AirBus to create 2 marvels of engineering. The A380 and A350XWB. Although the A380 didn't reach its target, not one Boeing fan can deny after flying on it that its the most comfortable airplane you can possibly fly with. Your first experience on an A380 becomes a core memory. Its so sad that level of quiet and spacious plane will not be produced any longer. The A350XWB is easily better than 787 and competes with the 777 to the point that it comes down to personal preferences which one is better. I've personally never been a fan of Boeing's planes because of the noise. And it seems seat accomodation ends up better in Airbus' planes regardless of the airline.
777 and 787 were instant successes. A330 not so much and A340 definitely not. A330 was more than a 767 replacement but couldn't do all the things the 777 could. A380 was just too big for most airlines to use it as a mainstay of their fleet. Airbus needed a widebody to stand out. A350 fits the bill nicely. It does a lot of what both the 787 and 777 can while and is the right size.
wow
Airbus a350 redesign to al maktoum international airport✈
I was so happy when my main airline of choice SAS decided to purchase the A350! And with the new livery, it's just so good-looking. Arguably, one of the best liverys out there! And the A350 is just a brilliant plane and my favourite off all passenger planes ever!
No mention of the new stats for the 787-8? Of course not, not from this page.
Will Airbus ever build the A350-1100?
Who knows. They haven't given an indication of it publically.
There is no data in this video. No sales numbers, no delivery numbers, no order book numbers.
The A350 slots in between the 787 and 777. The 787 was launched years earlier and accumulated a large number of orders. The A350 got to the market latter, 2015.
Over 1750 B787 have been ordered, and over 1100 delivered, so over 600 remain to be delivered. The A350 has gathered over 900 orders, and Airbus has delivered over 500 of them leaving 400 to be delivered.
So the B787 has been a greater success so far than the A350.
A recent redesign of the A350s galleys and toilets has allowed Airbus to increase seating capacity by 20 seats, making the A30 1000 a stronger competitor to the B777X.
In any event, the combination of the A330 NEO and A350 forces Boeing to be competitive in its pricing on the B787 as airlines have an alternative. The A350-1000 competes effectively with the B777X again putting pressure on Boeing's margins on it's long haul fleet. Historically, Boeing had dominated the long haul market and probably derived strong margins from the 767, 777 , 747 . The long haul market is now far more competitive.
What does not get mentioned,, is that neither Airbus nor Boeing has announced a brand new aircraft in 20 years. In fact no announcement is expected from either one before the 2030s at the earliest.
I think this just shows that the difference between Airbus and Boeing, is that Airbus listens to what its customers wants. Boeing tells its customers what they need.
Not true. Boeing listened too much to customers and especially to SouthWest. SouthWest wanted outdated and cheap airplane to match their existing fleet and Boeing made the 737 MAX.
O’Leary famously said after Airbus decided to go for the XWB: « we’ve been caught napping » (not listening to customers wanting a new aircraft and not an improved A330)
You mean John Leahy ?
@@user-hq3zh6vr1r Yes, Thank you for correcting.
@paulvanobberghen You've obviously been party to a Ryanair rant online somewhere lol.
Such a long and useless video… the A350XWB has never got a major redesign. Indeed, the originally modified A330 proposals, mostly metal airframe, called „A350“ and never designed, was poorly received by market and cancelled. Then A350XWB was introduced as a clean sheet composite design and never really changed until now (except minor improvements introduced in Steps)
That's how I remember it too. No one was happy with the warmed up A330.
I don’t think it really is an XWB. It’s still a lot narrower than the 777. The A330 looks wider than the A350 even though it’s not.
Airbus made a 777x that looks like a 787. One has to wonder how much private 787 information they had to work with while designing the 350, only without the advanced tech of the 787, which is what kept the price down.
The writing was on the wall the day MD management took over Boeing and began to ignore engineering and to break the unions, solely focused on short term profits for their pockets and shareholders alike. The results are what you see today. Major issues with commercial aircraft , (737 Max, 777x and lack of a mid-market), Space Systems, (potential project failure of the CST100 capsule, upcoming presidential aircrafts, etc), and defense with their slow delivery of certain munitions.
The one thing that might save Boeing, apart from a much more engineering focused management style, is a 757X. In a nod to the 767/757 programs, if they were to use their current manufacturing knowledge and tooling to scale down the 787 to that mid-market segment, they would have the perfect next gen 757. Scaling the 787 down to a single isle body with those beautiful wings, scaled appropriately, and a derated GEnx would result in a long legged, powerful jet that looks and flies like a next gen 757 should. With the technology of the 787, the 757X would storm the market and put all others to shame. The 787 as the next gen 767 and a scaled down 787 to replace the 757, it is not only poetic but seems to me to be the ideal pathway to filling that mid market segment that Airbuss is about to eat Boeing's lunch. I'd buy one, would you?
I would say with the 757x variant to be flexible to a replacement for 737 and serve long range transatlantic narrowbody flights
@@jdayala-wright8875 I think it would be yet another failure for Boeing to try to shoehorn a mid-market aircraft into the short-haul market. I just don't think they have the chops for that. With the 787 project in full swing, they should certainly be able to scale it down to a 757x. Well, let's hope so anyway or they are looking at a very dark future. Viva La 757x!
@@tra757200 However, what you're suggesting is doing the same thing and the 787-3 and 787-8 most airlines going with the longer range variant. With 737 and 757 fuselage being identical, the adjustments should be on wings, engines and aerodynamics at the tail to where you have a plane that would beat Airbus at their game.
1. why does everyone compare the A350 to the 787?
The A350 was built to compete with the 777 and now Boeing has responded with the 777X
2. what was the redesign?
A350 and 787 are compared because they are of the same generation and use similar technology. Also when comparing 787 A350 and 777X the A350 sits right in the middle so a comparison to both is absolutely fair.
Yes it's been a success. Not a block buster one like that 787 but it's had respectable sales. It's the 330NEO that has been a big disappointment in sales.
The A330neo is basically the originally planned A350. I think it will be a success but it will be a slow burn.
@@michaelpillingnow And it was built because development costs were low by Airbus standards.
It will take time. But I think Airbus is selling it at a high price. Costs is low I bet
@@Sacto1654 Yeah, I would really want Airbus to make an upgrade version of A330neo with Carbon Fiber made Fuselage and Wings. The Aluminium alloys version should only be a temporary solution but the final version should be made of carbon fiber given that the market size is talking about potentially 3000+ planes for this size segment and Airbus should never save that a few billion on it.
@@jamesau4296 They would just design another clean sheet instead. But that won't happen for the foreseeable future.
It’s interesting Airbus did the opposite flip to Boeing - A330neo & A350 vs B787 & B77X - A350 & B787 all new aircraft, A330neo & B777X existing alloy frames with upgrades mainly in wings & engines. The 4 are stunning aircraft with a big future.
How long did it take Airbus to neo to the A330 compared to Boeings neo of the 777? The 777x is on shaky ground now that RR is already looking at getting their Ultrafan on the A350F programme.
@@nathd1748 About 30 years. Both are from the 90's and the first major iteration (not just smaller improvements) is about to fly in the early/mid 2020's.
@todortodorov940 I didn't mean that. When they announced they would NEO the A330 it was flying within 3 years. When Boeing announced similar for 777 it will have taken 10 YEARS from plan to certified. Ridiculous. That time will be less than half to NEO the A350. They will start testing the RR Ultrafan on the A350F and then the 900 & 1000. The Trent XWB will have produced about 2100 engines by then.
@@nathd1748 True. We don't know how long the NEO was in the workings, but it took Airbus around 3 years from announcement. Boeing is doing little more, adding much more complex wings etc. The main issue at Boeing is the organizational turbulence (i.e. chaos). After the 737MAX accidents and the 787 assembly quality issues (and many other smaller problems), I think that they will try to avoid disaster with 777X. If they success is another story - as everything they've done recently as mediocre at best.
A350 is the response to market not to Boeing...
I don’t like the seat configs; not mutch space in economy.
I love to fly because I love being treated like sardines.
The A350 is a replacement to the A340
Pls compare the new a330 neo (with new wing) to B787
The A350 isn't so much a rival to the 777 as a replacement. The 777 is not in the same league as the A350.
Simple A350 every time. Slightly quieter a little bit more room and far more comfortable. As for you say Airbus wouldn’t be around, I’m surprised airlines are still buying the flying coffin and the 787 with all its issues. Boeing, for a long time, have been all about profit. The 737 flying coffin is proof. Trying to redesign a 50 year old aircraft to compete with the A321NEO was asking for trouble.
A330 - 900 NEO = 787-9. A 350-900= 787-10. A350-1000 = 777-9 I have doubts we will ever see a 777-8F carry anything but freight and the A350F is there to counter it. 777-10 is far far away. Airbus really has nothing to counter the 787-8 and Boeing has nothing to counter the A321XLR
Airbus is the best.
Airbus will be around. Mainly because nothing can honestly compete against Airbus. Not even Boeing. Boeing is highly, very highly subsidized by the US government through all sorts of military programs. Even then the MD-management in Boeing's highest echelons is incapable of taking in customer feedback and changing that around into viable aircraft that do not murder hundreds of people when they fall out of the sky. Boeing just wants to sell what it wants to make, customer be damned. So in good capitalist fashion, either the US government will have to foot more bills and fund Boeing more, or Boeing will leave Airbus a monopoly.
The A350 is an incomparable unique equipment from its innovative approach of design technology and materials to its overall aesthetic. I still believe to this day that they missed out on a opportunity with -800 variant of this marvelous clean sheet concept. Although the -900 can do cartwheels around the entire Dreamliner family, its still is too big for start ups who are interested in long haul services and would most likely expand their fleet with the -900 and -1000 eventually.
AI Voice over needs tweeking.
WORLD BANK ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND BILLION EURO THIS BUSSINESS FLYING FLY COMMERCIAL
After having been on both planes B787 and A350XWB, I preferred the latter. Both are good, but Boeing seem to have a lot of technology and maintenance issues. Now it won't affect carriers that are Boeing fleet owners, but those who already have Airbuses are able to be more competitive.
Now they need to do it again the range is horrible MTOW also cant compete with 777
MTOW for A350 obviously isn't as high, but the range for the A350 over the 777X is superior in what will be an aircraft that will be 10yrs+ in service over 777x. Economics the longer the range is particularly the -1000 in increments also favours Airbus vs 777X.
All of this is, of course, before Airbus & RR upgrades.
Happy flying
Under no circumstances would a failure of the A350 programme have led to Airbus going bankrupt. The European taxpayer would have borne the losses.
Not true. This is not the US where a company can be "strategic to national defense" and Uncle Sam will pay all the bills. In Europe, you have many countries with not necessarily aligned interest and you need to find a compromise. Airbus is not that important to the defense sector and the only arguments is: It creates highly specialized jobs. But those jobs are primarily in 4-5 countries and those countries will have to pay the bill.
And if you look at Airbus history, some of their major problems, especially with the A380 delays stam from Airbus being too close to politicians. They have worked to distance themselves from this bond since the late 2000's. Not an easy task, but they've done good work, become more independent and thereby more competitive (as there is not that easy anymore to have the taxpayer to take over the bills).
Airbus could survive without the A350 - the A320 series alone is probably more than enough to keep them going.
Alrhough without it, they could have rapidly become a narrow-body manufacturer with a very limited wide body presence.
Of course it is a success, it makes Airbus a good profit - unlike the Boeing 787 which still hasn't covered its development costs on significantly more sales.
I wonder if the sales of the A350 would have been better if the Boeing had been forced to sell the 787s at a price where the development costs needed to be recovered over say 500 airframes or less?
Had the 787 been a non-Boeing aircraft would they have launced an attack similar to that on the C-Series?
I flew business on a Lufthansa A350 to Munich. I was unimpressed and would have preferred the same flight on KLMs old 747s. The A350 wasn't old but seemed to not be able to handle the wear and tear quite frankly. 787s are just better built and I am starting to see them on domestic ORD-DUL type routes.
That’s silly. That’s a typical biased statement.
@@rtbrtb_dutchy4183 Its my observation based on personal experience. I am not an Airbus fanboy. I am sorry.
@@badlt5897 “seemed not to be able to handle the wear and tear quite frankly”. That’s what you said. Come on man, all modern aircraft from all manufacturers are basically the same. What is it that you “observed based on your personal experience” that made you say this?
And how are 787’s better build based on your own experience?
@@gerhardma4297 right. I agree. Both are formidable aircraft. Not much difference from a passenger perspective. Airbus does produce products that are now quieter inside the cabin. That used to be not the case, frankly, Airbus used to be freakishly loud. Both are also better than the “old KLM” 747’s.
LH isn't know for great interiors. They always seem be a generation behind. Even on the current 350 that are relatively young.
300ER was far ahead of 340 in terms of capability and efficiency. But not the case with 777X with 350-1000. IT is lighter by a big margin and efficient. Boeing missed the trick by not going composite on 777X fuselage- for all the delays and lost opportunities, they could very well have done it, then 777X would have been much better in terms of efficiency and lift capabilities. 350 will take over next few years.
It's a success yes but it's competition isn't the B777 but the 787 which I think I better and more efficient that this A350
It's some of both actually.
Shame for you that the 787 does not really compete in the same market segment as the 777/A350, and is more designed to fill similar roles in terms of size to the A330/767 and even older widebody trijets. Only the significantly less popular 787-10 reaches into the market of the A350, replacing the shorter range 777-200 as it lacks the range to compete with the equivalent capacity A350-900. Your statement would be valid if Airbus produced the A350-800, but that reality simply is not the case, with the manufacturer choosing instead to revive the original A350 concept, that being a modified A330, building the A330neo.
It’s a shame that the A350 is more efficient than your beloved 787.
If the a350 is more efficient , then why did LATAM get rid of them to operate the 787 only? I remember an article mentioned higher operating costs.
@@mmm0404 all about capacity. The A350 is much larger than the 787, larger payload, and longer range. Also an airline choosing a certain type could be due to commonality. Having said that, the A350 out performs all the 787 variants and 777 (old variants) now we have to wait for the delayed 777X to see if it can compete.
8 minutes without explaining what the redesign was. Is this AI generated?
The one thing boeing will ALWAYS fail at is comfort. Their 737 has a slimmer fuselage FORCING airlines to put in slimmer less comfortable seats. The 777 simply is too wide for a 3-3-3 configuration in economy so lots of airlines are forced to put in a crammed 3-4-3 configuration. Before one of you fanboys say the airline chooses the seats, the airline doesn’t choose how wide the plane is!!
Brilliant analysis..
So 10 abreast is too cramped on a 777, yet Airbus is offering 10 abreast on the A350,with a cabin almost 1 foot narrower..
Great call junior !!!
A350, B787, B777X Who cares when all they do is cram more people inside these things.
Conditions are sh1t no matter what plane unless you have the money to sit up front.
Sitting up front doesn't require money, just training and the number of seats is quite limited at two.
You must work for AirBus! Lol. 787 is a more versatile aircraft.
It doesn’t even compare boeing fanboy
So many words and clichés, so little editing, and no thought as to how the visuals could reinforce key points.
AIRBUS SHOULD DESIGN A UNIQUE LOOKING PLANE LIKE A 747. . . BORING LOOKS SHOULD STOP. . .
Please talk about A350 specs compared to existing planes and what will it provide the buying carriers with.
Bla Bla Bla about Boeing vs Airbus generalities talk is waste of time.