Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
Boeing just teased its next 787. It's an A350 killer.
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 січ 2022
- Get 20% OFF + Free Shipping with code COBY at mnscpd.com/Cob... #manscapedpartner
Support my work on Patreon: / cobyexplanes
787-10 vs A350-900 breakdown: • Maybe the 787 & a350 A...
Thanks so much to my "First Class" patrons Sebastian Dimond, and Timothy Franklin!
Thanks so much to my videographer friends for generously providing excellent B-roll for this video. Go check out and subscribe to their channels for more A+ plane spotting content
@FRAproductions
@miketheavgeek
@PlanesWeekly
@eyetrapper
@BrunoLevionnois
___________________________________________________________________________________
So a few weeks ago, Boeing’s new CEO of Commercial Aircraft - Stan Deal - sat down for a conversation with the Seattle Times. This was his first interview in his new role, and it covered a range of subjects from the 737 MAX’s return, to the state of aviation during COVID. But by far the most interesting topic he covered was regarding the 787 program. And no, I’m not talking about the Dreamliner’s recent production delays & quality control issues - I’m referring to the fact that Boeing is seriously evaluating not one, but 2 new 787 variants. This might seem like odd timing for the 787. Like I just alluded to, the program’s been kind of a mess recently. So why then, is Boeing looking to develop new versions of the dreamliner, and why are they choosing to do so now? Let me explain…
#Boeing #787
Get 20% OFF + Free Shipping with code COBY at mnscpd.com/CobyExplanes #manscapedpartner
.. Poor innocent animals. They didn’t do anything wrong ||||| they are in prison, and they are innocent !!!!. Imagine it was you, the victim !! Over a frigging 5 minute hamburger et cetera !!!!!! CuIt🔴foIIowing !!!!! You can have vegan burgers and vegan chicken and vegan pizza and vegan curry and vegan tacos and vegan burritos..... without murder !!! Simple !!! ✅🤷🏼♂️. Vegan burgers blindfold test, Number 1 ever, delicious !!!! UA-cam delicious vegan food....
@@VeganV5912 your hair looks like a lego figurine
@@Neilarmeweak550
Your video is an accumulation of bullshit and false allegations and the title is hype and ridiculous. How much did Boeing pay you? Are you a nationalist?
Boieng is on the verge of bankruptcy and is in no position to kill anything and especially not the 350 which is of a reliability that the designers of the 787 can only dream of: the "dreamliner" is chronically broken down and a nightmare for Companies
the 787 is nailed to the ground, it does not bring in a dollar despite more than 1000 deliveries when the 350 was already profitable with 200 deliveries and when it is ordered at almost 1000 copies
The 767 tanker? A flop
MAX ? A flop
The 787? A flop
The 777X? LOL...
@@guillaumedupont7565
If I were Boeing I wouldn’t put the word “killer” in any of my marketing claims - been a bit to successfully on that front of late
Yes poor choice of words. After Boeing killed so many with the 737 Maxs. Shame on you Boeing.
Dreamliner should be the new 757 while the 777X would be the a350 killer
The fucking executives behind this should be in prison.
@@2006MC dead penalty. It is surprising how only poor and middle class get criminal charges while rich can kill so many and be happily enjoying their millions
I’m sure the guy making the video is saying that smh
What Boeing needs to do is return headquarters back to Everett and put engineers back in charge of the company. Then start working on new aircraft. Since bean counters took over the company it’s been a total disaster.
From 1935-1970 America was run by engineers and we were the greatest country in the world (built the best war machine, the interstates, the biggest dams, the biggest buildings, and put a man on the moon). Starting in 1970 lawyers and accountants took over, and while important to society they are not leaders. They are guardrails. Today something stupid like 90% of Congress are attorneys. This is a problem because attorneys are one of two groups of people who get paid MORE to talk about problems and not solve them. (Mental health folks are the other group.)
What’s crazy is I was just talking to a pilot about a week ago and he said something extremely similar to this.
Those idiots screwed the pooch the second they all moved to Chicago. Monumental stupidity.
100% agree, plus they got all the idiots from McDonnell Douglas who ran that company into the ground
@@Pwj579 yes
What would be smart, is to develop a replacement for the 757.
Well, that's what the 737 Max was supposedly for.
@@Jojoboogie No, the 737 MAX was a cheap response to the A321neo and it bit Boeing hard. Boeing's management want to do everything on the cheap and that's not how you get success in engineering. Boeing management who grew the company were engineers, current management are bean counters and care about nothing but their executive compensation scheme.
@@cageordie you understand what "supposedly" means right? There's no reason for Boeing to make 2 narrow bodies when they can bridge the gaps with different variants. Yes, I agree that instead of creating a new aircraft, they just modified the 737 and it cost them 2 aircraft and a whole lot of grounding.
Yeah a Dreamliner variant but in a narrow body form. They should’ve done this 10 years ago 🤦🏽♂️
For real, an rewinged and reengined 757 would have been perfect. It is tall plane so having bigger engines wouldn't hurt it that much
I used to be a Boeing fan, but the quality of the ride in Airbus A380 and 350 means I actively seek out these aircraft when flying from the UK to Australia. Boeing dropped the ball and the 737 Max debacle is unforgivable. Boeing standards have dropped.
"Quality of the ride"? Dude, its not like youre the one driving.
737 MAX in great demand and back in the game.
Me too I actively look for A350, A380 or grudgingly 777. 787 sucks for long distance
@@nickv4073 He's a troll. No one notices the quality of the ride in a plane, because by far the biggest influence on that is the weather.
I don't particularly like the feel of Airbus planes tbh. The Dreamliner is my favorite but agree that between the A350 v B777 I'd take the A350 because of the enhanced environmental controls. However, even the older B777's are very nice due to the spacious cabins. On the subject of the B737 Max. Every one I've flown on was very nice. It's a shame Boeing fudged up the roll out.
The 737 Max was also a killer but not in the way Boeing expected
That's a good one 😂
I hope no one takes offense to this joke bcz its dark humor
💀
As is just about every other airliner that has ever been designed, built and sold to an airline. It's part of the business. FAR's are written in blood.
Sad but true ! Literal !
That's the best answer to his shitty title
Offcourse Boeing are smart to built the -ER versions of the dreamliners but I don't see how the word "killer" is appropriate. I mean the A350 is still a highly capable aircraft and the -ULR still has a better range than the 787-9/10ER. It sure would be a success to launch them though
Those 787-ER jets would be less of an 350 killer and more of a half-way catch-up.
Don’t forget there are 777-8x and 777-9x
Makes for a clickbait-er video title. You bit. It worked.
Killer no the A350 its a great plane i called it great competition.
I have a better title the new A350 killer is airbus itself because they just lost an customer Qatar because they just cannceld Qatar's 40 A320NEO order
Boeing should be starting a 757x program with -8, -9, and -10 variants available. The fact that they haven't done this yet is astonishing. The 757 is one of the best planes ever designed and is still very popular
@NYC you're dreaming, maybe in forty years 😅🤣😂
@NYC sorry, just don't believe we can replace all jet aircraft powered by fossil fuels, passener and freight included. Maybe a start, but the infrastructure costs would be astronomical.
@NYC Batteries are heavy. Planes are light. You will never see a battery powered widebody that can cross oceans. Hydrogen fuel cells? You bet. And frankly hydrogen is 100x better than batteries that were charged with oil or coal fired power plants.
@NYC Jet fuel has 50x the energy density of the best lithium ion batteries. You can't research your way out of it. Batteries won't work. Your choices are jet fuel, bio fuel, hydrogen fuel cell, hydrogen fuel, nuclear or staying home. And no matter how safe jets are none of us want nuclear powered jets. Which means it will be a fuel. But the only by product of burning hydrogen is pure water.
@NYC Yes, and companies are researching fusion, transporters, and tricorders. All seriously. But I won't hold me breathe.
With the way Boeing's luck has been lately, it'll be a passenger killer as well.
That's funny for me, but it shouldn't be
Nothing to do with luck but all with complacency, incompetence and corruption...
exactly ,boeing quality is down the drain lately ,they look like german cars ,always problems
It wasn’t bad luck.
Don't say you haven't read any issues about the cracking and peeling on the A350s
I’m sorry, I do love your vids, but that title is a little click-baity… until Boeing ends up with a A350-Killer, Airbus is already another step ahead
it has Frickin lazers in the cockpit
AIRBUS still one step ahead BEHIND BOEING's leadership. Remember to always to keep things in proper perspective (i.e. The future of AVIATION- A380 or BOEING's 787 Dream🌙 Liner. And, the B787 is still 2-fold (that's what happens when a leader like BOEING paves the way for the A350 to come to be because of the B787 creation in the first place) that the DREAM🌙 LINER is ahead in sales.
@@johnhenry6762 the 787 after more than 1000 deliveries brings nothing to Boeing apart from deficits ... The 350 is reliable ahead of the 787 it has been profitable since the 200th delivery and almost 1000 copies are ordered
Airbus is the only leader in aeronautics the 320 is the most sold aircraft in the world the 330 has sold more than 2000 units the 330 tanker is a reliable success the 767 tanker is an industrial disaster like the MAX and like the 787 which is currently grounded Boeing sucks airbus ass
@@guillaumedupont7565 Mr. G - Since you are all over the place with your text without you thinking as your hand dictates your wishful thinking, allow me to give you insight into your " AIRBUS INDUSTRIE". They exist as they are ( BOEING still leads, don't forget) because AIRBUSTED $bought their "WINGS" instead of earning them like BOEING did. Here's words for thought: If AIRBUS did not BRIBE AIRLINES to buy their offerings, would McDonnell still be separate from BOEING, and in turn BOEING doing what they do best (quality aircraft-- no rushing necessary since it's BOEING jets is what the AIRLINES want. AIRBUS got desperate and BRIBED the AIRLINES (sneaky AIRBUS) without BOEING's knowledge and in turn McDonnell's sales slowed and that led to McDonnell joining BOEING. Now for some facts:
The B737 went into service in 1967.
France's Mercure jetliner (Single-isle, twin) went into service in 1974. The 737 is still in production. The Mercure total run was 10 units.
Now here is where it gets interesting: AIRBUS's A300 came went into service in 1974. BOEING's 767 (to compete with the A300) went into service in 1982. To date, BOEING's 767 and it's variants ( 777's and 787's) total more than AIRBUS's A300 and it's variants ( A310, A330, A340, and A350 ) combined. And AIRBUS had an 8 year lead. Do you see what the AIRLINES wanted before AIRBUS's $BRIBES. And may I point out AIRBUS is looking to apply tinting windows a la BOEING's 787 to the A350?
@@guillaumedupont7565On your bashing the B787, let me remind you that BOEING came out with the 787 as the projection of the future needs of AVIATION. AIRBUS's answer-- the A380. BOEING leadership for you to put in perspective. Now, as for the B787 setbacks, the 787 is a pacemaker ( as in AIRBUS will follow the 787's progress and where a problem comes up AIRBUS will not duplicate the mistake ( AIRBUS themselves said it). Does that look to you that AIRBUS is ahead of BOEING? Looks like AIRBUS is following the leader: BOEING.
No way close in any way to being a "killer" for the A350, the A350 is a far more capable aircraft in a slightly different area of the market. Boeing 787s are still grounded from delivery and this will carry on way past the summer if reports are correct. They cannot certify the 737-10MAX because regulators require the -10MAX to have more sensors but the computers are not powerful enough for more than they currently have, a 777-9 test had "uncommanded pitch events" like the MAX did, hence the delays. There are dozens of other issues as well, like the KC tankers, the space program failure etc. Nothing about Boeing is going well right now.
Coby is probably on the Boeing payroll.
Ha ha ha. Funny Americans. Are you proud of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner? The 787 was developed in Russia in the Russian design branch of Boeing, the Airbus A-350 was also developed in the Russian branch of Airbus . The USA can only make falling 737s and flying F-35 bricks
@@vovanpop 😂🤣 That's Funny! Thank god for russia, the kursk, kuznetsov, chernobyl, tu-144, the many many gen 5 jet planes (the su57 is not really being used right now or capable of doing what it could do.. which indeed is.. a lot of great things.. but useless in the 2020s - dog fight) etc! And no.. I'm not defending boeing... they suck since 1994! Airbus is also starting to do the same but I hope they don't follow the same path or not as bad!
@@bboyjunyor What's wrong with our Su-57? They have already started a series, tactics and aerobatics have already been developed for them in combat mode, when a NATO pilot hears this howl ua-cam.com/video/qRZ3sZbmjA0/v-deo.html - he will have one way out or die in 2-3 seconds or shoot back from the cockpit and surrender . Any American combat pilot will tell you that everything that is on this video is impossible for NATO pilots, and the Su-57s that flew unnoticed to Syria through the American occupation zone in Iraq have completely proved that your radars do not have them, so pray to GOD that SU-57 or other Russian Aerospace Forces aircraft do not appear over your stupid heads
@@vovanpop are u mad?
I'm not sure Boeing's internal structure has changed enough for me to trust anything they build to be safe.
Right? I might actually avoid flights on the new planes for a couple of years until they prove themselves safe.
@@Napoleon_Blownapart and that is Boeings problem. Trust.
I don't know where you got your info from but Boeing is hardly teasing anyone with the "next 787". They don't have the resources to launch another widebody at this time. Their focus is to get the 777X program going and certified. They have so many problems on their hands right now including resuming 787 production, 737Max10 and 7 certification, KC46 delays and the list goes on and go.
Airbus has consistently upgraded the a350 to improve range and payload.
They have also done the same thing with the a330 neo
Boeing only did it once , that was a long time ago.
Boeing are just doing the same thing with 787, just improving its range and payload capabilities to compete directly with the a350.
It's not an entirely new airplane and the changes will be subtle
It actually doesn‘t really matter if Boeing announce development of 787-ERs as long as they don‘t even get all the standard 787s delivered that have been produced in the last two years. And the -ERs will not be A350 „killers“, they might be competitors.
Fiasco.
They can just concentrate on 787 9 ER after losing orders of basic 787 and make a whole lot more. Then will have cash to build bigger ER 787's. They are in a perfect position to stomp airbus.
@@JDAbelRN Boeing can not just concentrate on new 787ERs. They are still sitting on about 100 undelivered 787s today with yet unsolved structural problems. Hardly any 787 deliveries in 2021. 777X certification by FAA also massively delayed. Boeing will have to compensate customers. Right now, the company needs all the money to fix, there is nothing left for new developments right now.
A350 will not be killed off. It's too established as Airbuses ULH machine now.
The 787 is also a top machine but it's smaller and less range. Take your pick.
@@Moonshine2301 Hi my dad works for airbus and airbus is making the a350 neoxPlus with a range of 20,000 km.
An A350 killer? I suspect that the airlines who fly 787s would be happy if Boeing just fixed the plane's quality control issues.
A350 is just as bad
@@esheel826 Tell us then the a350 issues then?
Airbus has a220 , a320neo , a321lr , and the a350 in their side with Bombardier so there's no way Boeing could still compete with Airbus with their new failed B737 max and their 787
@@esheel826 well the 787 is a mess, the A350 is not, so ...
@@Sterlingjob paint
A350 killer 😂😂
The 787 is killing itself, can't remember the last time Boeing delivered a safe aircraft.
I like the 787-9. The 787-8 looks short and stubby while the 787-10 looks a bit too long. The dash 9 is the goldilocks aircraft.
Fully agreed
Facts!
Yet they all have the same 3-3-3 in a space engineered for a 2-4-2. They will always be the worst widebody for passenger comfort.
@@farangatang I went on a Qatar 787-8 once and I assure you, it definitely wasn't the best flight I had!
@@farangatang Yet with the A350-1000 designed for 3-3-3, thinner than 777, they're still trying to cram the 3-4-3 configuration
"It's an A350 killer." No it's really not
yea the a350 smashes it. its never had a problem since 2015 but the 787 has had 3 problems.
@@astroboy4653 A350-900 Is my favorite plane
But uh P a i n t i s s u e s
There are 2 limitations with a 787-10ER project. Engines were designed for the 8 variant, which was bumped up in thrust for the 9 version (fine so far), and again for the 10 (not so fine here). In the latter case engines have to be pressed very hard for takeoff, resulting in very high temperatures and additional maintenance costs (both in money and time for mechanical work) plus shortened engine lifespan. This in high or hot airports is compounded further. So Emirates, who was initially interested in the type, finally passed. Second problem is the main landing gear, consisting of 2 double bogies, already at their limit with -9 & 10 as they are today. Were MTOW to be raised by 10-12 tons pressure on taxiways would be excessive at many airports. A triple bogie would be required, but it does not fit in the undercarriage wells as designed. All these changes would result in additional wing loads (already at a high level in the case of 10). This forces takeoffs at a very low angle, with modest rates of climb in the first stages where air is thickest, which results in more drag, hence increased fuel burn. This is not a serious problem on long routes, but ER would lose versatility, as they would be less economical on shorter missions. As to the 787-9ER changes are simpler to put into practice, yet the same could be implemented in A330-900. They have huge cavernous wings with big fuel tanks inherited from A340. Same above landing gear obstacles would be faced.
Air New Zealand will using a updated version of the GEnx-18 engines for their B787-10's not RR that are currently being used on the airline's B787-9's.
Air New Zealand's Christchurch Engine Centre is a 50/50 venture with GE.
Even though the A330-900 could also implement changes to increase its range, the 787 will ALWAYS be the better plane in this fight. The A330 is a legacy design with improvements, the Dreamliner on the other hand is revolutionary.
Facts
Can’t wait to see videos of two mile takeoffs….
@yo yo genius dude that is not what i said. The limitation is not the bearing capacity of the undercarriage or the possibility of increasing same, which obviously is no problem. Rather, 1) the excesive pressure of the double bogies on the taxiway (Airbus’ wheels are bigger and more importantly wider, hence they offer a larger contact area snd consequently a lower pressure). 2) the impossibility to fit un the landing gears’ well either a triple bogie or larger and/or wider wheels. Is it too hard to understand?
When I worked at the airport and just after covid, we actually got 787s for just flying cargo. They made enough money by just moving cargo on a pax plane, the question is. Could a 787F be something worth looking into. If just the belly freight is enough to make a profit on a 6-7h flight, wonder what they could make if they could fit in the main hub as well
The last time Boeing launched a new plane in the 7x7 family, it killed hundreds of passengers instead of an Airbus competitor. I'll reserve my judgement on this for now.
Except that it wasn't a "new" plane.
@@kevinh3979 Neither is this plane, if going by your definition. The first 787 was delivered over a decade ago.
Except this is not a new plane , and no major modifications will be required. Just a performance improvement plan
Airbus has done the same thing with the a350 and a330neo a couple of times
It's only a crime when Boeing does it lol.
At 0:11 the stumps that 777 is rolling on are something else. I never noticed just how beefy they were.
Until Boing gets its act together, Airbus will stay a few steps ahead.
they are
Well bribing airline executives is great for sakes. Who knew.
Cheers
Overall neither Boeing nor Airbus are in a bad place in terms of sales of their current products - years worth of production orders, backlogged up the wazoo. For me "getting their act together" means actually getting those out the door.
Airbus is having issues with the A350 themselves, Qatar grounded all there A350s
@@a_goblue2023 Qatar is the only one that grounded the aircraft, despite EASA and FAA see no big issues with that. Even if that's a serious issue it's the only one, compare to long delays and multiple groundings of 787 it's still way better.
Regarding the 787-9ER this aircraft very much makes sense, and possibly for a 787-8ER as well. There are some markets that are extremely long-range that can't support a large aircraft. You highlighted Project Sunrise, but imagine routes from various major cities to smaller ones. JFK-JNB, GIG-SYD, PEK-BOG. These cities are very long haul, and maybe they can't support 300+ seats, but something in the 250-275 seat range might work. Smaller planes with longer range create options. These options are opportunities for airlines and benefit passengers as well.
And then comes the the kind of planes like the A321XLR for the thin routes.
They also teased the 737 max. It's a person killer.
I honestly don't get why folks want to fly 20 hours non stop. I was an Air Force enlisted aircrew member and we would fly 24 hours non stop with aerial refuelings. Of course we were working and didn't have the amenities of a commerical jet, but believe me it beats you up. For me I would enjoy say a stop off somewhere in route for refueling for an hour of so halfway between London and Sydney. I know it is expensive with landing rights, etc, but for passenger comfort it would help stretch the legs. Remember sitting in the seat and leg issues from sitting too long. Get off for an hour, stretch, walk a little and get on board a little more refreshed plus additional passenger drop off and pick ups. Again I just don't get the contest for who can fly the longest non stop flight.
Amen. I dread _six_ hour flights. The older I get the more I need to pace, not sit.
Well I am in Sydney and no way would I travel directly to the UK. Always a stop over preferably in Singapore is a no brainer.
Kind of dangerous as certainly many passengers are at risk for DVT'S (Deep vein thrombosis) and Pulmonary Embolisms.
My longest flight was 14,5 hours, and it literally was pain in the ass.
Business people like lesser stops
Do the current 787 “production problems” not stem from substandard labour quality in South Carolina? Looks to me like another “win” for the beancounters. . .
We won’t know the answer for years. I do hope Boeing gets it together but I have my doubts. Even the latest carbon fiber issue wasn’t even Boeing’s fault (Mitsubishi I believe) but Boeing ultimately gets the blame. I’m in the automotive field and I can attest with no doubt whatsoever that the quality of parts , both original equipment and aftermarket has become appalling. A total disgrace to the industry. If the same is occurring with aircraft component outsourcing we are in big trouble. It’s one thing to have to pull off onto the shoulder in the event of a breakdown but it’s another matter entirely at 30000 feet with 100+ people on board
Cheers
787 production problems seem to be having good progress. hopefully April will be the month 787 deliveries begin again
@@nickolliver3021 I think Calhoun came out in a conference call and called April overly optimistic
I was a Quality manager of the 787 production line in Everett WA at the beginning of the program. These issues are coming from the overly large supplier system and has little or nothing to do with South Carolina. As Boeing has oversight responsibility for its vendors, the airplanes will not be certified as airworthy until the FAA is satisfied. The Problems that shut down the 787 program would have shut it down in Everett also.
@@jimpalmer1969 Hey Jim - you familiar with any production planners?
A350 and B787 are for different market. Boeing incorrectly targeted 787-10 with a reduced range than 787-9. Therefore, it is handicapped at the beginning. If Boeing is going to launch B787-10ER, it will rectify part of the differences.
A350 can seat more passengers than 787. They are for different market.
Boeing needs to get its house in order and resume 787 deliveries before launching any new variants.
Seats
A350-900
315 seats
787-10
330 seats .
The 787-10 is larger in terms of capacity
An A350 killer? The last Boeing planes were simply killers. Also the 787 is now hopelessly outdated compared to the A350.
How is the 787 hopelessly outdated when it’s literally more advanced and up to date than the a350. I swear airbus fans are a special rare breed of stupid.
Lol. Most of the technology on the a350 was copied from the 787. How can the 787 be outdated ? Lol nice joke. The 787 is the most advanced airliner to date in terms of technology , and since the a350 is a copy it comes second
@@mmm0404 it was of course not copied. The 787 used a bit more carbon fiber than previous aircraft and they tried to sell it as a revolution. The A350 just uses even more. There is probably no area in the last 3 decades were Airbus would have to need the Boeing dinosaur.
@@tobiwan001
The 787 is the first airliner in history to introduce a composite fuselage , all electric architecture , beedless technology, chevrons and tinted windows just to name a few .
Guess who followed , lol airbus are now offering tinted windows too.
Airbus where so afraid of introducing an all electric architecture that they had to stick with the conventionall engine bleed technology. Something invented in the over 50 years ago . Yet you claim it's advanced more advanced than the 787? Lol
The 777X will have thinned walls to to fit passengers more comfortably in a 10 breast , guess who followed.
Airbus are trying to thin the walls to the try and fit a much less comfortable 10 abreast...
Even the 777X will have more sophisticated technology like the folding wingtips , than the a350 . Lol
As I said the a350 is just a copy of both the 777x and the 787
Boeing is always chasing Airbus instead of doing what they used to do better...
they lost already NMA race and are building a white elefant again with the 777-X.
The greed of shareholders is killing Boeing 🙁
My question its how Boeing its going to compete with the upcoming A321 XLR they have nothing to compete with that because building a new plane takes about 6-7 years.
@@ivanviera4773 its east 737 max 10 er thats all they have to do. The last CEO wasn’t trying to help the Boeing and was just reaping the Benefit’s. All that airbus has been doing is adding more fuel tank to there aircraft. Wow that’s really a big change.
@@rel6438 The problem with the 737 its that its reaching its maximun potential like when GM finally changed the Corvette from Front engine to Mid engine because it had reached it Max in that layout. The 737 landing gear its too short so not much ground clearance to put bigger engines or lenghtening the fuselage much without a tail strike on takeoff rotation.
Better to have a top of the line long range wide body when the market returns. How is that a bad thing?
@@ivanviera4773 they could offer a longer range version of the 737 MAX 10 .
Boeing is not building a new aircraft on the bases of the XLR
it's quite confusing. Does Boeing doubt for the future B777-8 or -9???. What about the critical NMA? Is Boeing so desperate to see Airbus attracting more and more loyal Boeing airlines???? Is the wide-body market still big enough? It sounds strange anyway. Long and fuel-efficient single-aisle planes like the A321 LR/XLR are in higher demand like never before. Time will tell but I have the feeling that the Boeing management is taking the wrong way to catch up with Airbus...
I think that the 777X is a replacement for the 747 since the quadjet is nearing the end of production. The 787-10 ER will theoretically replace the older 777-200ER.
@HistoryNews10 well above 33000 feet...
It's a normal evolution for the 787 and relatively cheap to do. It was always going to get updates just like the 777/767/747. It's a least a 40 year program. Eventually it probably get updated engines as well.
Considering the anti-Boeing tone of most of your posts, you have very little credibility left. The airline industry is far better served by having a healthy Airbus and Boeing, and that is not going to change anytime soon.
Unless you are in the aircraft or airline industry you’ll never know the facts and figures driving Boeing’s (or Airbus’ fir that matter) decisions. Regarding the 777 question you raised, the 787 is much more gluelike efficient. Other than that I have no idea what the airlines actually prefer.
Cheers
This is so exciting that there will be a 787-10ER, since the 787-10 would be used as a replacement for all the Non-ER 777 Variants, most likely in Asia.
Given Boeings record with the 737 Max, I'd think they would prefer not the hear the word "Killer" anywhere near the word "Boeing" anytime soon.
Think they need to sort out the current issues with dreamliners 1st...and A350 will outdo these everyday
Statistics say otherwise
Not long ago you said 787 and A350 are not competitors.
Looking forward to both these types. Direct point to point travel is where the future is at.
After working for Boeing for 43 years, I will give you my 2¢, the 787-10 at 6300 NM range was never intended to be an uber long range aircraft. For Boeing to make a 787-10ER it will need to have upgraded wing, wing center section, over wing body section, vertical stab and strengthened high lift devices and landing gear along with bigger engines. Don't forget the market for jetliners is defined by the number of city pairs the can be efficiently served by an aircraft. If you add meat to the airframe to increase max takeoff weight and do not use all of the meat, you will lose efficiency. In addition, airports around the world charge landing fees based upon the certified gross weight of the airplane. Going to all of the trouble to fly further and larger capacity will hurt you if the capability is not used. Will Boeing go to all of this trouble just to sell 10-12 airplanes to Qantas? Probably not. One thing a longer fuselage gives more positions for cargo containers. The standard cargo container is called a LD3. Capacities are: 777-9 48, A350-1000 44, 787-10 40 and A350-900 36. So as the bottom line is coming up on this comment, how far do you need to fly, how many city pairs are there where the jet market can really support the large passenger capacity of the A350-1000 and 777-9? If you are trying to sell a lot of jets, smaller is better. Neither Boeing or Airbus build jets for the airlines. They build them to make money for their shareholders, more jets = more profit.
As someone who experienced much different management at Boeing, what is your opinion of Boeing management during the MAX program? What was your favorite time period at Boeing? I’m just curious as an enthusiast. I think management has been a disaster since they stopped truly being engineer-minded.
Also, I think it’s awesome that you had a long employment making airplanes that created so many amazing experiences for countless people. Congratulations and thank you!
@@JRSoubasse Justin, thanks for asking. I was a manager at Boeing for 23 of my 43 years. My father was a Boeing engineering manager, my father in law was a Boeing Engineer, three of my five brothers worked for Boeing (one retired too), my brother in law retired from Boeing and now my son has over 10 years working for Boeing. Our family is very pro Boeing. I will tell you that Boeing has never stopped being an engineering company. Before the MAX debacle Boeing was riding high. I will state for the record that a horrible mistakes were made with the MAX. Boeing was not the only organization that made mistakes. Multiple regulatory agencies and the involved airlines make huge mistakes also. Trust me, I know all of the details, Boeing took a lot of the blame in the media and it hurt the company in many ways, including surrendering the no 1 spot to Airbrains. The airliner industry can be very fickle. I went through several bust cycles during my time. Boeing is down and Airbus is flying high. From here Airbus has only one way to go. Just go look at what is happening between Qatar and Airbus. The MAX is doing very well in the market. The 787 will resolve the quality problems and start delivering, the 777-9 will get certified, look for new 787 models and COVID will become more manageable allowing international travel to return. After that happens I expect a new mid market airplane will become a reality.
I had many great jobs at Boeing and that could fill a book. Before working for Boeing I was a jet engine mechanic in the US Navy and made two WESPAC cruises aboard the USS Kitty Hawk. During my 48 years in aviation the top three jobs were Flight Test, Customer Support and Aircraft on the Ground. I really didn't want to leave, but at some time in your life it is time to retire.
@@jimpalmer1969 That is such an amazing history not just for you, but a family history with a company that you still admire. Honestly, that tells me a lot about Boeing that you still have an affinity for them. I think all that you mentioned above goes to show that not even me looked at the big picture. Indeed, there were mistakes with the MAX, but I’m no longer afraid to get on one. I can’t express the type of respect I have for you and your family. It honestly sounds like you SHOULD write a book, even if only for your family legacy. I can’t imagine what it feels like to see a beautiful plane take her first flight and say “I helped build that.” I have an uncle that is a professor of engineering at Rose-Hulman that worked at Pratt & Whitney with jet propulsion, and I always love talking to him about airplanes. I’m a big Boeing fan, how can an American not be? Blessings to you and your family, and thank you for your reply!!!
Surely the number 1 issue is build a 737 replacement a plane that can be stretched to the size of a 757 but start off at a 737-7 size then build a 787-5 to fill the gap of the 767
Yeah they are going to have to fill the 737 spot but the max will sale well for awhile.
Boeing doesn't have the $15-20 billion to launch a clean sheet
@@andrewlarson7895 The Max is down 2 to 1 in orders, to the Neo family. It's getting eaten alive
@@frankpinmtl still a great plane.that all that matters and it safe now and going to be even safer soon. As the are adding new technology to make it safer.
@@frankpinmtl they have a 300 billon backlog that's not counting the military defense division, the space division, that rework division, and their real estate division. Or the parts they make for Airbus planes which they did 19 billion dollars worth for Airbus in 2019
New models are not the answer Boeing needs, production and engineering used to be the priority, when they return to that way of thinking, they will succeed in the market.
You are deluding yourself if you think the 787 isn't succeeding. It set the standard of modern aviation while Airbus bet big on super jumbos. Now Airbus is racing to catch up.
I completely agree with you though that they need to prioritize good engineering and less accounting driven decision making. The 737 nightmare should certain enforce that point and provide the reset they need internally. I cannot imagine they haven't spent the last 2 years trying to change the culture internally. Hopefully they will get things right.
The 787 is actually the last decent engineering the company did, so I don’t fault them for trying to wring some more commercial success out of it. Especially in light of the disastrous competitive picture they find themselves in for the long range narrowbody category.
@@RobertsonDCCD I can't say the engineering is decent given the issues we've seen these years. But moving forward 787 is selling and it has to stay competitive to keep selling.
@@hgbugalou I don't think Airbus is that concern either. A330 has been and is still making money, thought part of the reason is Boeing's own goal. A350 is a solid product with a prospect of freighter. They can live with the lower market share as long as both program are profitable.
Moving forward A350NEO is under study, and they'd probably be the first beneficiary of UltraFan. The bigger question is A330 replacement, but they have more than enough resources to do so thanks to A320NEO's success.
@@steinwaldmadchen I would draw a distinction between the engineering, which seems sound, and the workmanship/quality control, which has left a lot to be desired.
I thought "killer" was more applied to Boeing generally in recent years.
You’ve watched a Netflix thing, well done
Is the A350 the one that the paint is falling off? And apparently it’s not just an “aesthetic “ problem, because some pilots have reported vibrations in flight controls where enough paint has fallen off to affect the control surfaces. Not a good situation at 30,000 feet.
What a load off tripe. read my comment to Ndl Ben.
The paint peeling is also an issue with the Boeing 787, it seems traditional aircraft paint doesn't bond to carbon composite surfaces as well as it does to aluminum composites, 787 operators have been patching affected areas with Gorilla tape!
In theory, this is actually news. Reality is that Boeing can't even deliver the "old" 787 and my airline is suffering the consequences.
Your airline? Please
@@tomdavis3038 how would you refer to your employer?
Thank you SC low pay workers.
My VIP 787 neither... I'm really pissed
@@spongebubatz “the airline I work for”
I'm sure it's gonna be great when it launches in 2070 alongside the 777x
😂😂😂
🤣🤣🤣🤣
hahgaahaaagaahaahahahah
1:07 insanely cool too see my home airport “kjevik” in your video.😍
Increased gross weight isn’t only about range. It’s mostly about payload, because Boeing isn’t making room for larger tanks they’re giving ANZ the ability to fly a healthy revenue payload from Auckland to LA, replacing the 777-200ER. The 787-10 and 787-9 IGW programs are both very launched and will be entering production fairly soon with ANZ’s first -10.
With quality issues at boeing its more likely to just be a 'killer'. The big growth market is in narrow bodies. They should invest in a modern narrow body. 40 year old design is unworkable.
Yes, like a reworked version of the one hundred so many enjoyed flying.
DAM8658 What do you mean by the “one hundred”?
@@billmorris2613 Sorry, mixed up the 100 with something else. It’s the 717 I was thinking of and that so many pilots loved.
Tbh Airbus and (I assume) Boeing are waiting for alternative propulsion systems for the next completely new single isle airframe, for ~2030. Developing a competitor to the NEO now could turn out to be the wrong bet to make, looking at the future prospect of jet-fuel based airliners. Not saying that Boeing is doing good, they probably don't, just want to highlight that the answer is a fair bit more nuanced probably
I agree. Boeing used to be the leader in safety, quality and reliability. But today, well Boeing is more the challenger and the follower. Airbus made a mistake with the A380. But hit the target since then with the A220, A350 and the undisputed A321(XLR). Boeing is facing a huge challenge to come back with competitive and qualitative planes AND make profit with them. The B767 and the B777 are the only planes truly profitables. Even the B787 is losing money. Despite high sales...
If Qantas will end up needing a smaller plane than the A350-1000 ULR, there's already the A350-900 ULR, which is already in service for years now. If ever Boeing will built a 787-9ER I don't think Qantas can wait for that.
If they get it out soon if i understand everything correctly type rating for the 787-9ER would be cheaper than going to the A350-1000 ULR and having to train from scratch
It would depend, Qantas haven't jet put the decision and plans in action
a350-1000 flies further than the a350-900 but somehow the a350-1000ULR doesn't fly further than a350-900ULR
@@sergiolaurencio7534 I think Qantas is just talking fluff to keep the share holders interested......
@@gasviation9077 probably because there is no a350-1000 ulr
I want to see a Freighter variant of the A350 or 787-10. I could see Airbus not wanting to miss the mark again like they did with the A380F.
Lets hope for some UPS A350F or 787-10F
Qantas will need more than a couple of powerpoint slides,
plus they recently ordered with Airbus to replace their aging B737 and B717 fleet over next decade.
Building the - 9ER also gives them the extra payload for a Freighter version.
I don't think a freighter version is likely given the way the 787 is built.
A 787-9F would be pretty much the same size as the 777-8XF, so I think Boeing would rather go for that!
The 787 is not necessarily well suited as a cargo aircraft given the way it's constructed. It's fairly low down their priority list if it does happen.
@yo yo No. it’s the fuselage. Not the floor. You can’t cut a hole that big into the fuselage without compromising its structural integrity completely. Boeing has looked into it and concluded that it’s easier just to keep the 763 going.
@yo yo or add so much weight as to negate the benefits of using a Dreamliner in the first place.
The 787 commonality is great, but they have a ton of A330 pilots that could move to the A350. I think your points about passenger capacity is valid, but something will have to replace the 747s & A380s.
Well, B777-300ER replace B747. And B777-9 + A350-1000 would replace A380.
The -1000ULR is supposed to have way more range than the -900ULR. Flying from Australia to London is way more difficult than the SQ23/24 routes. Longer with worst winds.
As long as Boeing doesn’t pull it’s production processes together and let’s engineers run de the company again, they should be really withholding with the further development of new versions. Look at the 777x, the 767 KC, and the current 787 versions. As long as quality standards and productions processes are not firmly in place, the de elopement of new versions will get its hick ups again. I really hope Boeing gets it matters on track again soon.
The Qantas sunrise project is a done deal with the A350, I don’t get why that was mentioned in de the vid.
I think Boeing would have some strong demand for the 787-10ER with Air New Zealand and Emirates, who wanted 787-10 but it didn't have the performance they wanted. Boeing should leave the 787-9ER alone, they've already lost the Qantas order to Airbus, and I don't think any other airline would want it. If they want to downsize Qantas will go for the A350-900ULR like Singapore have, although Qantas will be keeping the economy cabin.
Surely not. SIA flies SIN-JFK with just 170 seats in the cabin, all business or premium economy, no standard economy at all, rather than a 310 pax cabin. They do not do this out of a wish to be fanciful. Rather, because they are compelled to do so because of weight limitations. SYD-JFK is 400NM longer, and SYD-LHR much more so. Qantas clearly stated from the start that they wanted a full cabin with 300 seats in both cases, which A350-1000 can do more economically than 777-8.
Qantas said they'll use the A350-1000ULR for their proj sunrise
Actually I do think quite a number of carriers would be interested in 789ER. Currently 789 is not capable of flying TPAC with serious cargo, that most Asian carriers have to stick with 77W/A350 instead.
@@steinwaldmadchen that is absolutely true. I did not say otherwise. I just pointed out limitations and problems, not impossibilities to extend range by any significant amount.
@@luisdestefano6056 If you want to fly economy with SIA to JFK they have other services via Europe (A380). Remember that Qantas is probably the biggest name airline NOT to fly the 777 and when they eventually retire their A380s they will require a new flagship aircraft and something larger than a 789, so having ruled out the 777X this is where the A350-1000 comes into play. As rightly stated they also want economy passengers on their Project Sunrise flights again supporting the A350.
It’s all good teasing these planes but they should at least aim to get the 777x delivered been waiting so long to fly on one
Will never be delivered. It's obviously going to crash very soon and kill a bunch of innocent people again. Boeing are murderers
@@IBo99608 Seems like a very non-fact-based and pointless statement if you ask me.
@@IBo99608 what
@@IBo99608 will you please elaborate?
@@IBo99608 Ten years flying , over 1000 delivered, flying everyday…. Get a grip…
When its BOEING, I am not going! When its BOEING, I am NOT flying.
What, is it going to feature an autopilot module that rams every A350 it sees?
Boeing would certainly be smart by solving the actual issues of the 787 before launching any new version lol!
Their working on that.got to give sometime, not gonna happen overnight.
@@andrewlarson7895 not good enough, especially from one of the largest manufacturers in the world, and with the factory based in one of the wealthiest countries in the world
Has Boeing not learnt from the MAX you don’t cut corners in aviation?
@@ey7290 oh I think they have learned form it.the company as awhole is a hell of a lot smarter then you .you should call them up and tell them how bad they need (YOU!!)
@@andrewlarson7895 the engineers sure,
but management, if they were smart, not even smart, just not greedy they wouldn’t have a plane which decided it wanted to dig a really big hole in the ground, a plane which has been delayed by several years and also wants to make really big holes in the ground and a plane which is more than capable and is truly wonderful, but then they decided instead of using bolts they’ll use Elmers Glue to put it together which has lead to the entire production line being grounded until at least April, which would have been a total of 9 months of no output of 787s
@@ey7290 737 some are saying the max didn't need a fix and didn't need mcas. So !?!?
Given their problems with the NMA I would have expected the 787-3 to get some more attention, but I guess Boeing is just letting airbus have the middle, the xlr will have a stranglehold by the time Boeing gets it’s crap together.
Boeing is mismanaged in both narrowbody and widebody, but they lag behind Airbus worse with narrowbodies. Basically they have no answer for the 320 series.
@@ecoRfan the 737 max is a competitor to the a320neo. Stop making up false claims and sensationalizing things.
787 was/is supposed to compete with the a330 and replace the 767. now it’s got more competition and now has to compete with an airplane with similar building/economic methods and ideas, but with larger capacity and longer range that is also supposed to replace another plane like the 777-200/a340-300, -400, and possibly -500 variants. it’s kind of weird that a mid-sized long haul plane is now competing with 2 airbus aircraft.
Let’s see what corners they cut or what they hide to keep their stock up and management bonuses flowing.
Evergreen comment. 😔
I would wait a few years after they fly. Just to see if they actually can fly
For all it’s issues, a 787 has never crashed
@@tomdavis3038 nor the A350
787 has not crashed
@@titan1235813 I was responding to a comment on the 787. A350 irrelevant to my reply
Cheers
@@tomdavis3038 hope it will never crash but boeing and modifying an existing plane instantly reminds 737 Max. I simply don’t trust Boeing anymore
Saying that a Boeing aircraft is a killer anything is a poor choice of words.
I dont get how cobyexplanes isnt at 100k yet, his videos are so good and entertaining and educational. I spend at least 2 hrs a day watching his videos. keep up the cool work
No way am I setting foot in one of Boeing's flying death tubes ever again!!!!
before we run with the ER versions of 787 , let B get its 787 act together and certify 777-9 ; at 40% market share thanks to Max-8, it has a serious problem in the narrow body- all of its own making. B has ceded at least a decade to A -in narrow body and probably in long distance wide body.
They talk too much and do too little and when they do, they fumble -Max a great example. Not going for a carbon fibre body for 777 will hurt them vs 350 for decades.
Maybe not they been experimenting with the new metal they invented if they can use it. It will be a absolutely carbon buster carbon won't stand a chance!;
I world think narrow body would be a higher priority, but then I’m not on Boeing’s management so maybe it is.
Cheers
@yo yo don't tell me composites don't save weight f*** I worked for 36 years at Boeing's in composites and versus aluminum.in the same shop.
@yo yo telling me my ignorance is getting me nowhere that sure blew up in your face I just retired from boeing in composite and aluminum. I was a autoclave operator at boeing pull up 777x autoclave that's what I did
@yo yo you know nothing about an autoclave it's a lot more advanced than you think and sophisticated.
killer is too much, since airbus can go a350-neo and can also enhanced the a350
And Airbus is infallible? And you just order one up and have it delivered? You know what the wait time is? Yeah let’s just slap a different set of engines and call it a neo! There is a little more to it than that Kilroy
Cheers
@@tomdavis3038 tommy boy, what i'm trying to say Airbus will not stand still they will come up with something, is like Toyota is coming out with a tundra to compete with the f-150 raptor, that's what i meant tommy, have a safe weekend
@@tomdavis3038 a320 neo is like that. New engines and some changes in avionics and now they have cornered the market.
Yeah, payload restrictions would be a big problem for them, especially with those puny wings that are optimized for the -8 and -9.
At least most airlines that order B787-10ER would be full service airlines that would fitted them with larger premium cabin which lower the number of passengers they carry. So it should do the job fine.
8:00 😂 I like that “imaginary” Delta a350-900ULR used for the chart example 🤔 would be nice if they to order those though 😏✈️
I was surprised, to say the least, when Air New Zealand ordered 787 10s, believing they'd lack the range for our Pacific Rim routes. Reports here only stated Boeing have agreed to install extra tanks & Air New Zealand have chosen the alternate engine, the GENX, to achieve the required range. No word on it being called the 787 10ER though. The airline wants to standardize on A320 type & 787, hence the push to create the longer ranged 10ER. Nice report
The 787-Max would be the only killer Boeing is able to make.
Stop selling air my friend…
Yes Nostradamus you know all
I believe a 787-10er and 787-9 potentially LR might be possible without increase in fuel tanks when the Rolls Royce Ultrafan enters the market… delivering 15% more range without fuel payload increase
Which I am sure Airbus is eyeing as well
Then airbus will be getting the ultra fan as well could you imagine how capable the 350 will be then it will be the most cable aircraft in the sky’s
@yo yo I have to Disagree with you on all of the above the eight 350 is a brand-new clean sheet aircraft with a lot more room to tweak and upgrade much more than the triple 7X frame I think you’ve got the two aircraft mixed up sorry
@yo yo Interestingly, 35K actually has more payload than both 77W and 779 despite its much lower MTOW, and the reason is its lower fuel burn and weight.
I don't think Airbus wish to further extend A350's range, it's just too much for too many. But payload and capacity would be increased.
787-9ER is being aimed at giving an efficient 77L replacement over 7778x/NZ version of sunrise with flights connecting directly to europe, nyc etc. 787-10ER is going to be used to increase capacity but maintain range on common NZ to asia/US routes replacing both 772 and 77w models and complimenting existing 789s. Possibly genx exclusive too.
I don't get it.
Long range (LR) planes are niche products, that don't typically sell well. Both the A340-500 and the B77-200LR were selling flops, for these planes can only be making profit if you use them on, well, long routes. The reason being that to provide the extra range, they have to be reinforced so to carry the extra fuel, which make them much heavier. If, for reasons of flexibility /versatility an airlines use them on a less than long route, say New York - London, then they burn too much fuel (because of the extra weight) and they lose money.
If you analyse city pairs carefully, you'll realize that there aren't that many routes in the world that can sustain these planes. Sure, Sydney - London or Sydney - New York. Singapore - Los Angeles is another one. Suppose that there are 50 such ultra long routes that can sustain these planes, is it really worth building a new version only for a potential of 50 city pairs? If the history of the A340-500 and the B77-200LR tells us something, the answer is no.
Weren't the project sunrise flights Qantas carried out already done by 787-9s? Know they were severely underloaded to get the job done, but surprised that Qantas didn't get the hint then that this was doable
Who says they didn’t? Are you a member of their management?
Yes they did do that as a trial, but it wasn’t a trial of the plane but a trial to study the health effects in passengers but mostly marketing.
However the London flight in particular was heavily restricted. And in the future to make it commercially viable Qantas needs a plane that is larger than the 787-9.
With 20 ppl on board so they could make it all the way to Australia 🇦🇺
I notice you were conveniently silent on the A350-900ULR that currently is the aircraft with the longest flying range. So for the reasons you mentioned that makes 787-9 ER a prospect for sunset routes, could also be made for the A350-900ULR. Airlines don't have to wait for Boeing to come up with an aircraft that can offer these capabilities. There already exist one that possess these capabilities and is flying for airlines such as Singapore Airlines. If there is a killer, it's simply the A350 series with all their variants. They tick all the boxes.
Smart? No. Necessary? probably.
When the 777-200ER was proposed we questioned it's marketability. The number of routes requiring the extreme range would theoretically limit its sales. The circumference of the earth is roughly 21,600 NM. Therefore, a plane with a 10,500 NM range could theoretically fly between any two point on earth non-stop. But, the number of additional routes that a 10,000 NM plane could connect but that a 7000 NM could not is relatively small. It's best to always aim at the holes in the market, not the edges.
That said, the 777-ERs market has been exceptional. And on occasion (e.g., the 767) Boeing has found it necessary to aim directly at a competitor's model. However, that was a different time, represented a larger potential market, and Boeing was flush with cash. I don't think that is the situation right now.
If I were Boeing, I would continue to hone the designs of these birds and be ready to offer them as soon a the market (and Boeing's cash reserves) change.
Boeing should first restore his image to the airlines, make the 787 production lines not a totally mess, deliver the 777X in time, and start a replacement program for the 737
You are kidding right?
Boeing are shedding cash like fun and losing money on every product line. They haven't delivered a new aircraft on time and on budget since the 737NG. The 737MAX needs no comment, the 787 loses $20 Mn on every delivery and the 777 only has 9 more passenger orders and then its 67 zero profit freighters.
The 777X is over 3 years late, a development nightmare and it cost Boeing $6.5 Bn just this last year. Even the KC-46 will not fuel as designed until 2023 and managed to cost Boeing $5 Bn over budget costs on a $4.9 Bn order. And the costs are still rising.
@@1chish max is getting back to normal. 777x not to far down the road. 787needs some time but how long ? Don't know.maybe boeing will have experiented enough with the new metal the invented? If they can use it in a lot of spots. It could be the carbon killer. As it weighs 100 times lighter than styrofoam. The width of the metal is 1,000 of a strand of hair. Know this much so far. Time will tell. Never count boeing out they say their going back to old roots ? THEY BETTER😳
@@andrewlarson7895 There is nothing 'normal' about the 737MAX. There never will be. And the 777X will not be delivered (at best) before Autumn 2023.
@@1chish the max is a awsome jet.i can think of alot of airlines that think so. 777x better late but done right 😎 777x F will be coming down the road soon,, to take to the sky's..
@@andrewlarson7895 but that’s the problem, their airplanes are late off the lines, and still not done “right”. It’s like watching McDonald Douglas again. The killer of McDonald Boeing is what this project will be if there’s even the slightest 737max repeat
Personally I think Boeing should concentrate on a 757 replacement just my opinion.
NMA is lost and Boeing can't compete with Airbus now
I doubt that it will be a "killer" in any good way.
The 350 is another level of comfort for passengers with much less noise, better windows and lighting. Boeing needs a serious review.
Boeing won't recover until they get rid of the McD legacy and their bean counting mentality.
They're using the borrowed time very quickly, with the manufacturing problems, and the MCAS issue, due to over the top cost cutting, and the rehashing of very old designs keeping them chasing low prices for a sale.
They're only selling because Airbus doesn't have enough production capacity
Brings back the other McDonald deliberate mishandling of an aircraft--The DC10 cargo bay door.
OMG finally! I'm saying that Boeing should do B787-9ER/-10ER about 3, 4 years now!!! And because the new A350F program, Boeing should be thinking on a Freighter version of B787 and B777x too! PS: About B777x, Boeing have to make a new B777-9LR with a full carbon body... not only the distance, but the economy to run the distance!
Boeing should go bankrupt. Bunch of murderers
@@IBo99608 explain?
Boeing actually did a very soft launch of the 777XF the other day, so it is now a thing. I agree though - there should be a 787F. It would be a logical replacement for the 767F
How about you get a job instead of living in your moms basement for free and making “expert predictions” about complex industries. 😂😂
@@AA-ks7bo Not worth? Talk about B787 and A350... i mean B777x should be full carbon since the project's birth tbh.
With the memory of latest Boeing 737 Max's fatal crash yet to fade away, hope this new launch or any other new launch by Boeing for that matter, wont turn to Killer in any form.
Skimping out on pilot training. Other pilots had issues and disabled the auto elevator (not sure if that’s the correct term) and landed safely. The cutting corners on pilot training was a huge factor in that. The airlines were more than happy to oblige and forgo and extra training. While Boeing was ultimately responsible no doubt, there were other factors as well
Cheers
Some pretty decent sources claim QANTAS operates the best available Premium-Economy seats of any airline that flies to/from Aus.
The problem is they cost almost as much as some competitors' Business Class seats UNLESS you purchase them as much as 12+ MONTHS in advance. The main reason I'd not used them for personal travel prior to all the C-19 crap is exactly that. I've used Cathay's P-E many times.
If they're worried about declining Business Class demand, they might want to consider making more P-E seats available and pricing them less obnoxiously. Under 'normal' conditions I doubt they'd have too many problems filling them.
Which of course is the real issue. When will we see 'normal' conditions, and how will they compare with the pre-Covid normal?
As long as sales people run Boeing, there is no recovery in sight, just like they drove McDonald-Douglas out of business, same will happen here. Besides airlines are not comfortable purchasing 787's manufactured out of the South. It's a question of when, not if.
I couldn’t agree more. It’s been a sad situation at management for too long.
How would they be driven out of business when they still control the market? Makes no sense
I think this is very smart and I tend to agree with your speculation on the 787-900er and whilst it's not a guarantee Qantas will order it, there are many other areas around the world where the extra range of the 787-900er and 787-10er will be enticing
Suuurely QANTAS would opt for some sort of a350-900ULR variant if they were looking to downsize the aircraft capacity, though
Hello from Australia (although that doesn’t make me any more of an expert). Qantas international is now down to 3 types of wide body - legacy A330’s, A380’s and 787’s. Adding a sub-fleet of A350’s requires a whole lot of capital Qantas no longer has . I suspect that eventually some of the 787-8’s from Qantas’ low cost offshoot Jetstar may come across particularly for the A332. Why then would Boeing develop a sub-type just for Qantas and Air New Zealand? Well Qantas just placed an order for a bazillion A320 NEO’s and A220’s ditching the 737 as it’s domestic workhorse- that’s the best part of 75 aircraft. Virgin Australia is broke and it’s Max order is all but notional. That’s no 737 Max for 2 airlines that still service what used to be some of the top 10 domestic air routes in the world . Speculation upon speculation but I think coby has it right .
Surely not. SIA flies SIN-JFK with just 170 seats in the cabin, all business or premium economy, no standard economy at all, rather than a 310 pax cabin. They do not do this out of a wish to be fanciful. Rather, because they are compelled to do so because of weight limitations. SYD-JFK is 400NM longer, and SYD-LHR much more so. Qantas clearly stated from the start that they wanted a full cabin with 300 seats in both cases, which A350-1000 can do more economically than 777-8.
The range of the A350-900 ULR is actually 10.400 miles - the longest flight in history from Singapore to New York.
Fun Fact: the all so "inefficient" A340-500 could fly the same route and did up to 2013.
the only way the 787 is killing the A350 is if the A350 flies onboard the 787
It seems like airliners are getting smaller rather then larger. And i understand that fuel costs are a HUGE variable in that decision process. HOWEVER, when your on at 20hr flight you DO NOT want too feel cramped. And yes folks that even possible in business class. I think the A350 has filled a niche that Boeing is going to find VERY difficult to achieve. Because the jet slots itself as a 777 replacement in size. Yet still have the fuel efficiency of an A330. I just don't see how these "ER" 787 variants are going to fix the problem. It will be interesting too see. And i happen to LOVE the 787 folks no Airbus bias here just for the record.
It's open secret that Airbus is studying 10-abreast A350 for the mass. While that could obsolete 777X before it ever flies, it would also be as cramp as 787.
@@steinwaldmadchen maybe take a look at the FrenchBee A350 seat maps. 10-abreast is already here. However, it’s even worse in terms of seat width than a 777classic.
@@ridewithridewith8499 Current FrenchBee has 16.5" seats. Airbus is targeting 17" to make it "mainstream", so they'll need 6" more in total. Probably they’ll make thin walls and try to narrow the aisle without slowing evacuation. There'll be some redesign, but not totally impossible.
Do note that A350XWB uses 1.5" for armrest, as opposed to 2" for most other airliners. So 10-abreast A350 doesn’t have to be as wide as 777/777X. Of course that sacrifices comfort, though.
@yo yo Unfortunately Airbus' campaign on 18" seat didn’t received well among airline bosses. Pressure on cost cutting and carbon reduction are huge and ever increasing.
The new norm is more and more 17" are seen on 777s and 787s, while they're demanding the same on A350s and A330s.
For now, Airbus widebodies have solid performances. But when they're no longer considered competitive, the low hanging fruit would be squeezing more passengers. Even if Airbus doesn’t go 17", expect Spaceflex tricks, a.k.a. sacrificing toilets and galleies for more seats.
Judging by their track record , I hope it’s not a human killer
😬
Look who is talking 😂😂
@@user-wm2tw damn🤣
Since Airbus was initiated, there was always differences between Airbus and Boeing aircraft. When the first A300 was built, it was desined for European flying. Boeing 767 had the range the A300 series did not, however the 767 fuselage dimensions were too small for standard sized freight ULD's (the fuselage is not circular, like most Airbus (the A380 fuselage is also not circular). The Airbus widebody benefit was that freight containers could be transferred out of a B747, and roll straight into the Airbus widebody. Yes, the 767 cans could fit in 747 and Airbus widebodies, at the expense of a lot of wasted volume. So really, there is not a fair comparison of the 787 and A350 as they are designed for different route structures. The A350 is more comparible to the 777, the 787 has a smaller fuselage, and they use different materials of construction also. There are many, many other differences too.
A 787-9ER would be a hit.
I love to have it a private plane with a freighter door in the back, to park my SUV.
I obviously can't have one, but it would be cool.
Yeah I really don’t see this being “killer” due to Boeing having shown how rotten it’s culture and effectiveness as an engineering company truly are. Can thank the Jack Welch types for that shitshow…plus no offense to any SC folks but I don’t hold much trust in quality coming from the CHS 787 plant ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Like the A350 CFRP top layer issue ?
Should I make a Jack Welch video? Always thought its interesting just how deep his philosophy runs in the company
@@ndlben7129 Doesn't the 787 also have paint issues
@Coby Explanes I think you shouldn't make clickbait videos.
@@ndlben7129 It isn't an issue, Airbus offered to put it right for Qatar but that wasn't enough, they needed recompense for their Covid losses. Airbus have taken Qatar to court and cancelled their order for 50 A321's worth $6billion. EASA has also looked over the A350 and gave it a clean bill of health. Your grasping at straws. Boeing has big problems and remember, not before long it wont be just up against Airbus---China's will soon be in the market too.
I think the reason for 787-9ER will be the based to develop a new 767 Freighter replacement which will be the new 787 Freighter. But they should fix themselves first, before creating new iterations in their current fleet offer. Or else they will be gone soon..
I’m not sure if new freighters are needed. I mean FedEx is still flying MD-11’s and UPS I believe still has at least one A300. I’m not in the industry but obviously a carrier can use aircraft much longer in freight as opposed to passengers.
Cheers
I’m sure the choice of airlines you choose to show, which is very varied and not the usual, is an effort of yours to show us interesting liveries etc
Project Sunrise would involve non-stop flights rather than so-called direct flights. Routes with a stop but using the same flight number, often with a change of aircraft, are direct flights. I've flown internationally on a few.
The final fronteer is in effect closed.
Granted, its still the UK to NZ route that is slightly longer, but its really just a matter of time.
AirNZ gave up the UK route before the pandemic hit. They will probably never fly it again as they could not compete with the Asian carriers.
How about Brasil to Asia?
There's a large population of Japanese decent in Brasil, while China would be interested in the business opportunities there. GRU-NRT/PEK are the longest possible route with serious prospect of demand, just that neither A & B is even close to offer viable aircraft.
@@steinwaldmadchen well.. Brazil is not under influense of China, and I kind of doubt they ever be. There is not to much trafic there currently.
@@matsv201 I mean in the future. Between two high population developing countries chances economic ties may grow over time. Air China flew to Sao Paulo one-stop so I guess at least there's some traffic.
JAL operated NRT-GRU in the past, only cut after its bankruptcy.
I don't think the direct traffic can justify anything larger than 787. But they're the few 18000km city pairs with some chances of success.
Others are simply impossible in the foreseeable future, or maybe forever.
Boeing has to go to the drawing board and start inventing new plane models with better fuel capabilities.
Not really. The A-350LR series payload stinks. Sure we can fly 10,000 miles with essentaiily no payload ... The 777-8 with aux fuel tanks will have the same range with double the capacity.
The real question remains are thse ultra long haul flights ever going to be a commercial reality?
The old Boeing original plans for the airlines was. To replace their 767 - 200 - 300 - 400 with the 787s 8 9 and 10s That's what Boeing wanted to happen
Sadly whenever I promised my teacher that I would definitely find that homework any time now I didn't know this was a working strategy in big business.