A modern airplane cancelled in favor of a throwback? I don't think so. There is not enough of "neo" about the A330 to make it efficient and as highly profitable in the segment. The model is for wannabe airlines who can tolerate a heavier, less-efficient airplane for a time, because the purchase price is so much lower. For more neo, we need engines we haven't got. Very High Bypass below the GEnx and above the Safran LEAP do not exist. You COULD put the GEnx on the A330, but you would still have a gas guzzler because the aluminum airplane is so much heaver and draggier (for lack of a better word) than the carbon-based 787.
@@markellsworth4194 interesting opinion. Airbus positioned the a330neo to compete as an alternative to the 787. a330neo and 787 are in the same capacity category, whereas a350 competes more against 777 and 777x
@@markellsworth4194 "draggier"> Less Efficient. There. That should take care of it. Though, you'll have to change it to a lack of a better "term" and not a better "word". Just trying to help. I do like the "draggier" choice though. It's entertaining and your reasoning in using it in the end.
@@tomAkelife-ff9tf No I don't think Airbus have ever wanted A330 Neo to directly compete with 787. I honestly think Airbus just want to refresh the 30-year-old A330 family. A330 is very successful, and its business models are already mature for airlines, and it doesn't really have direct competitors. But it is getting old, so it's natural for Airbus to update the family to further solidify its sector dominance - making the existing routes flown by the outgoing A330 more efficient and flexible for airlines, as well as potentially opening up new possibilities for airlines. And the "new possibilities" might (a VERY big "might") translate into real-world, unintended (at least unintended for Airbus) competition to 787 on some routes... We'll just wait and see how airlines exploit the capabilities of the A330 Neo, and how much potential the Neo has.
@@markellsworth4194 You're saying this like a350-800 would have been efficient. Just because it's newer doesn't mean it's better. Also since when is Delta a 'wannabe airline'?
lets remember that the A350 was born out of a re-jigging idea Airbus had in 2004 on the A330. They floated the idea to airlines and got a cold draft in return. So they built the all new A350XWB. But they also continued with smaller upgrades to the A330 and the neo-800 and -900 are very much competing with the 787-8 and -9. People confuse which aircraft competes with which and its the A330neo that is in the 787's two smaller size sectors not the A350-900 while the -1000 is in 777-300 territory.
@@jasonkoch3182 The reason the 777X isn't selling is also the reason why we haven't seen a commercial widebody aircraft being ordered for long: Travel Downturn. The 777X is massive, and a recovered aviation demand will serve as a platform for more 777X sales.
Most A350 target customers already fly an A330; and those that can't afford an A350 will get the A330neo. One airline (Cebu Pacific) even asked for special doors so they could fit more that 440 passengers in an A330neo. A real flying bus.
There is no possibility whatsoever that Airbus will ever build A350-800. When the project was put forward Boeing was having notorious delays in delivering the Dreamliners. Finally they came up with A330-900, which is a reasonable design for the market segment. Once the NEO version became available airlines and Airbus clearly saw that there was no longer any need or justification for the far more expensive A350-800. Comparing the 2 the COC difference is some 5%, a huge percentage in the industry. Further the NEO can be produced for far less money, compounding the difference. And 787-9 would probably have a 6% COC advantage. The reasons are glaringly clear: the Trent XWB 84 used on A350s are some 2.5 tons each heavier than the Trent 7000, a clear disadvantage for A350-800. Further, being designed for the bigger siblings it is oversized in this case, so it must be used at lower RPMs, hence degrading the pressure ratio, an utter waste. To make this fuselage more efficient new smaller composite wings would have to be developed at great expense, plus new smaller engines. An absolute exercise in futility for a market segment that is already well served. There is also a less than optimal fuselage configuration for A350-800. It has a shorter and wider fuselage than both 787-9 and A330-900. Hence more surface area, which causes more friction with air, resulting in a higher fuel consumption. It will be a cold day in hell before A350-800 is built.
7:57 Pretty high bypass for an A330. Pressing the A330 into the role seems more rational than making the A350-8. It requires far less contortions of the airframe than the MAX did of the 737.
Its sort of crazy how close the 767, A330, 787, A350 and 777 is to eatch other in diameter its like a 20cm increase on each model. Its like 767 is 7 abreast with space and 8 with a squze. Then A330 is 8 with space, and then 787 can do 9 with a squize and A350 can do 9 comfortable and the 777 can do 10 with a sqize.
The A350 is the new and shiny star, for sure the most glamorous option, but for some reason I'm very happy about the success of the A330neo. It's the underdog, nobody looks at it, but it keeps showing up and delivering strong returns
The dimensions of the 787-8 always seemed off to me. A dwarfed plane. The A350-9 and -10 instead are aesthetic and well balanced, and give you the feel of a large modern transglobal airliner. Even the dash 787-9 can’t trick you away from a certain playmobil feel.
The only reason why the 1000 has not sold much yet is because the B777-300ERs that it will replace are still relatively young and nowhere near retirement age. Just like Boeing did with the 777, more of the smaller variant will be sold earlier in the program with the larger variants taking up most of the production towards the end of the program.
The 787-9 and A350-900 demonstrate a sweet spot in the eight-across segment. The 787-8 sells well, but in slightly fewer numbers, so the question is whether any space remains between the Boeings. The answer would be yes ONLY for an Airline already flying the A350-900 and no 787 models. The Boeings still win on per-passenger-efficiency and profit because the tidier dimensions give a lighter airplane.
Orders comparison on modern wide-bodies : A330-800 vs 787-8 = 15 vs 416 A330-900 vs 787-9 = 316 vs 886 A350-900 vs 787-10 = 745 vs 187 A350-1000 vs 777X = 168 vs 320 A380-800 vs 747-8 = 251 vs 47 A330 vs 787-8/9 = 331 vs 1302 (20% vs 80%) A350 vs 787-10+777X = 913 vs 507 (64% vs 36%) 787 vs A330+A359 = 1489 vs 1076 (58% vs 42%) 777X+747i vs A351+A380 = 367 vs 419 (47% vs 53%) (I combined them because 777-9 is significantly larger than A350-1000 and is targeted as a 747 replacement) A330+A350 vs 787+777X = 1244 vs 1809 (41% vs 59%) Airbus vs Boeing = 1495 vs 1856 (45% vs 55%) Fairly competitive, Boeing now has the market under and above the A350 with 787 and 777X, as well the most orders overall, especially for twins. But Airbus isn't doing bad either with A330neo and A351/A380. Also, Airbus has the A321LR/XLR and Boeing dropped the 797... Boeing had some trouble with MAX, but they're clearly still here to fight and we now have orders for Boom Mach 2 aircraft and the Russian and Chinese project as well... What happens after the pandemic will be interesting :)
Currently 787-9 could carry 36ULD as same as a normal version of 350-900 . If a shorter fuselage version of 350 appears . The cargo size is definitely smaller.
Two reasons I can see for Airbus having a direct competitor to the 787, maybe three. 1 Airbus' parent company has been inventing circular looms to spin carbon fibre components out of thread rather than tape. This allows components to have strength in the exact plans needed for that particular part. This will allow them to drop weight across multiple components. 2 Very recently an Air NZ 787 had to turn back hours it of Auckland because 2 of its 3 redundant flight computers failed. With production now only in South Carolina and an aging fleet we can expect more failures and perhaps even more groundings. Airbus need to be ready for this opportunity. Developing the circular loom technology could then be back ported to further optimise the whole A350 range.
Currently both Boeing and Airbus buy their avionics from outside vendors. The flight computers on the 787 are made by GE. You can't blame this on Boeing anymore than you can blame engine failures on Airbus. I am sure GE will be looking very closely at these failures. I agree the circular looms maybe a great advantage. I would not expect to see it used on current generation aircraft. Could be wrong but this is generally how such things go.
I actually would like the size of the a350-800 I don’t think it would look weird while I do like big aircrafts I think the size of the a350-800 would have been a nice one as well
I kinda think the A350-800 might be the same length as the 787-8 Dreamliner, but of course, it has a WIDER fuselage than the 787, since it was originally designed to replace the 777 and not the 767, which was the 787's Predecessor. The same might also do with the 777-100, if that were to also exist!! And the A350 also replaced the A340s in Capacity, but noticeably, the A350 has a WIDER fuselage than the 787.
Our natural eyesight does pick up certain aspects of design in proportions, balance in shapes and symmetries. The SP looked stocky, the L1011 made the DC-10 look even better than it already did, the A318 might have sold more if it didn’t drag around such a massive rudder that could also add on fuel consumption, for some reasons, the A310 looked alright. The A340-600 definitely was a very long tube, but the A350-1000 landing gears made the ground look less busy with less bogies underneath. The 800 competed directly with the already popular A330 everyone was familiar with and its neo version was a very welcomed iteration that could easily be sold than the more expensive newer A350.
@T S it's a matter of perspective and perception, there is an angle that made the DC 10 look so popular that the picture was everywhere so famous it became, and it's the same effect with the A380 just above the runway, with its wingspan all visible and its rudder stick up right next to the cockpit and all landing gears off the ground. IMHO, only those two jets could pull it off with a great camera.
I read a while back that the A350 will never been as efficient as the 787 for long haul (7 hours +) flights because it is 8(?) inches wider. It does not sound like much, but it means more air to push. Over a shorter flight it does not make a material difference. But for longer flights the math is different. Of course this same issue gives an edge to the A350 over the 777s... but without the extra seat abreast that the 777 has over the A350. And engines won't help, as the 787 will also upgrade engines in the future....
A350-800 can be feasible when a game changer like RR UltraFan is available. Before that it cannot beat 787-9 in efficiency. How do we know this? GE already approached Airbus for an A350Neo to use latest engine technology and Airbus calculated that improvement in efficiency would be marginal.
When it comes to the A350-800 proportions, I think it would not have been wirder than the 787-8's. We all (or at least me) just got used to the 787-8's proportions because we've seen it in person and in the media for many years now. The -800 pictures just make it look weird, but we never really had a chance for it to grow on us. When it comes to esthetics/proportions on the A350-1000 vs 787-10, I thing the A is sexier. But with A350-900 vs 787-9, I think the B is the sexier one. I think I would had given the sexiness price to the -800 over the -8. I guess we'll probably never know. Keep up the excellent videos, Coby!!!
Even if they build the 800 variant, competition with boeing will be really rude. The 787-9 has already wrapped up so many orders from so many airlines. It would be hard for airbus to fill that gap (at least now).
It will if there is enough demand. I love the plane but it maybe a stillborn dinosaur. Boeing most likely knows the risk here. Banking on there being enough demand to sell planes but not enough to have airbus create a competing plane. Should note that lack of market has not stopped either from building planes to spite the other.
But the A350 can be fitted with 3-4-3 Economy while the 787 can't, meaning even when shorter than the 787-9, it can carry more people so that won't work.
Carrying weight that is not required as per an non optimized airframe has a fuel cost of 5% per hour of the weight carried. Long haul average daily utilization is about 15 hours. If you carry 2000 lbs for 15 hours daily that is 1500 lbs of fuel every day. Hard to compete with an aircraft that is lighter.
It’s not only optimisation, it’s time lag . The 787-9 was on the market several years before any A350. Same reason 777 was so successful, there was no airbus alternative for decades, same with 747 . Boeing has been getting to the market per specific aeroplane ✈️ much sooner than airbus historically. It didn’t help that GE refused to let airbus use the GE 90 & GE nx engines as well.
The 787-10 has more orders than the 350-1000 The 777X has more orders than the a350-1000. Only very few airlines will replace the 777 with the -1000. Most of them are replacing them with the 787 and a350.
Airbus should have simply built it and also make a HGW version A350-800x to run Hong Kong Cathay Pacific/Philippine Airlines Manila-New York 7000-7200nm flight distance. There would have been a use of A350-800 for regional Asia Pacific flights
Wouldn’t call the A350-1000 a failure, when 1 out of 5 A350s is a -1000. The older the 777-300ER‘s get and the longer Boeing needs to get the 777X approved, the more popular the A350-1000 will become. Lufthansa has just placed an order for 10 1000s, Qantas for 12. Emirates might be next.
Lufthansa could possibly use these for new routes into smaller markets and could fly to airports like Raleigh/Durham, Nashville, Pittsburgh. Delta would likely use these for less busy long-haul routes and could likely see new transatlantic, transcontinental and transpacific routes from their focus cities
I doubt Jetblue picking up those jets. They might rathe prefer the A321XLR for their Trans-Atlantic missions, and either enter a partnership or an alliance
@@fighter5583 they said that if these flights on the a321LR and a321XLR are successful, they may consider ordering a widebody aircraft to become more of a full-service airline. If they get an opportunity with Airbus like this, they could jump for the chance
@@GoalHornGeek So they'd order a plane that never left the drawing board? That makes about as much sense as ordering a 787-3. I doubt JetBlue would make a jump to order a wide body as it wouldn't fit well into their overall market.
The 787-9 is the only Boeing still selling well, but it is getting outdated and Boeing is focussed on getting the 777x off the ground and finding a suitable 737 replacement. The A321 XLR is serving the long and thin routes in the future quite well and requires little additional cost as the A320neo is already the world's best selling aircraft. Airbus is currently focussed on the A320 neo replacement and some kind of A350neo.
The 787 family has better sales than the a350 and a330 neo combined. The 737 max has close to 5000 max jets on order And the 777X has 300+ orders and could get more when air travel recovers. That's actually good more especially for an aircraft its size. The 787 IS not outdated . A 787-10ER is in the works and a re engined 2nd generation 787 is in the cards too maybe for the 2030's A 797 could be the only cleansheat aircraft required
@@mmm0404 the a350 is not the competitor to the 787 and neither is the a330neo. The 787 is between those. But yes the 787 is a success, so far the last one. 300 orders for the 777 is not a lot actually.
@@tobiwan001 lol. The a330neo directly competes with the 787 so what are you talking about. ? The a350? Don't worry boeing is working on the 787-10er which has 15 more seats than the a350-900. The 777X is a jumbo , so selling 300+ jets for an aircraft that large IST that bad considering its just another varient of the already successful 777. Anyways most 777-300er's are still young and demand for the 777X may increase as air travel recovers and grows
You forgot one thing: Rolls-Royce’s Advance and UltraFan engine development programs. An A350XWB-800 with Rolls-Royce’s next generation engines could make the plane more economically viable.
787 program is nearly 20 years old... will be doing the exact same thing, so from my perspective, it is a wash. Frankly that is what the 777X SHOULD have been with a new wing. Keep its old Fuselage and just redo its wing/engine/cockpit and move on.
@@w8stral that's what i said . Most people mention the a350neo as a 787 killer but forget that it will most likely get the same engine upgrades and refinements. The 787 is currently the most efficient widebody and will continue to do so with the 787Ng
obviously doesn't compete in terms of range, but it fills the use of the a330-800, sort of medium haul skinnier routes like dublin to atlanta or something like that
The 800 has no reason to be back. The 787-8/9 already prove it's position. Plus their newer a330Neo now taking the market even tho it's orders are lacking
If manufacturers could figure out a way to make scalable wing and tail section designs, instead of only fuselage sections, smaller variants wouldn’t be such market failures
That's really not the issue. For instance the A321 has actually a very slightly taller wing than the A320. The problem is, that you want an overall parts communality as far as possible to keep costs down. But that means that for smaller versions, some parts will be overdesigned and so heavier than they need to be.
The 787-3 is the same size as the -8, it’s the complete opposite to the A321LR/XLR! The 787-3 is for shorth high demand routes, the A321LR/XLR for long low demand routes
@@spongebubatz Uh, no. 787-3 would have same range as a321Lr, but carry more passengers. The thorn of course is Cargo. A321 can't do passengers/cargo. 787-3 could and on most long thin international routes, cargo makes just as much money as Passenger service. Still, higher operating costs and only way to make it work would be those routes that MUSt have cargo which currently fly on a330CEO's and ancient 767's.
@@w8stral Uh no. The 787-3 was designed for domestic routes, mainly in Japan, and had design changes that would come handy when flying short to medium haul routes. The projected range for the 787-3 was around 5640 km, which is less than the A321LR with 7400 km and the A321XLR with 8700 km. The 787-3 was ditched as it didn’t really have any benefits over the 787-8, which is exactly the same size. Also as I said, the A321 is for low demand routes. An aircraft with a seating capacity of up to like 360 (all eco) isn’t an aircraft for low demand routes. Edit: Your cargo argument could count on some routes, but remember that many routes the A321LR/XLR could operate were 757 territory which is roughly the same size. Also on thin routes the A321LR/XLR is designed for cargo demand isn’t too high as the freight is handled through the bigger hubs.
@@spongebubatz The 787-3 range or lack of range, was entirely dependent on filling or not filling its existing fuel tanks in its wing box section + wings. Its cargo hull being filled/# passengers. It had a different wing, but its main wing box was the same and this is where most fuel is stored. So in effect, the 787-3 would have the XLR range as all it has to do is fill up its existing tanks, take fewer passenger in roomier seats. XLR takes ZERO cargo. ZERO. It completely trades out any possibility of cargo by taking extra fuel. LR is likewise severely limited but can take SOME cargo and why neither versions are a true 757 replacement who could take passengers + cargo full range. It is also why the 737-10 is limited at its range... That is the distance it can take same number of passengers + a tiny bit of cargo with its slightly smaller wing compared to the a321. Could 737-10 increase its range? Yes. Would it be worth it? Nope.
@@SceurdiaStudios both, but more important very difficult to do! Such a modification could really weaken the structure of the aircraft and there’s a reason that something comparable wasn’t made yet
You are on the mark. Anything that happened after the introduction of the A350-900XWB is what's known as branching out into other territories (B777s) or in other words, 2 Birds (787/777) with one stone (A350).
@@johnhenry6762 the 787 is generally smaller than the 350 and the 777X is generally larger . Nevertheless the 787 and 777X have a combined order of close to 800 aircrafts more than the a350 ~1500 , 787 ~300 , 777X = 1800 ~1000 , a350
Before I watch, imo, I don't see any need for it now that the neos are there. After watching, well I was right but didn't consider the aspect of the fuel burn being too high. Just learnt something
8:58 Soooo…. You’re telling me that airbus is capable of making airplanes that *aren’t* weird looking? Whenever they shrink something it always looks off, like they changed the size of the fuselage but absolutely nothing else. From a purely aesthetic standpoint that’s always bugged me, gripes about flying lawnmowers aside. Looking at you, A319. Also the aesthetics of the A350 are a bad design knockoff of the 787 no you can’t convince me otherwise yes I will die mad about it.
Your editing and graphics are great. The one thing that lags behind is the voice audio. Your microphone sounds far away and sound of your voice reflects off the walls. Consider using a mic in closer proximity like a lavier or boom mic. Consider dampening the room.
I think the A340 is more forgotten. Not a lot of airlines use the A340 anymore. But I also think the a350 is forgotten. And you know what's been happening with Qatar Airways and Airbus. In my opinion the 787 is better then the A350
The 787 isnt gonna replace those planes you mentioned, thats what 777x is gonna do. The 350-8 is both-too big and too small at the same time. Its never gonna happen. They need to stick with improving the 9 and 1000, maybe put some (real) GE engines on them....
(real) ge engines ,you do know the Trent xbw is the most fuel efficient large engine in service right? And it can even compete with the ge9x although ge9x will probably be a bit better
@@alexandrosandreou8585 lol, the Ge9X is the most efficient engine GE has ever made . The XWB is not in its league and it's laughable to put them in the same sentence. The Ge9X will be more power , more efficient, larger than the XWB. Only the Ultrafan can challenge the GE9x
The A350-800 was cancelled mostly in favor of the A330 neo.
A modern airplane cancelled in favor of a throwback? I don't think so. There is not enough of "neo" about the A330 to make it efficient and as highly profitable in the segment. The model is for wannabe airlines who can tolerate a heavier, less-efficient airplane for a time, because the purchase price is so much lower. For more neo, we need engines we haven't got. Very High Bypass below the GEnx and above the Safran LEAP do not exist. You COULD put the GEnx on the A330, but you would still have a gas guzzler because the aluminum airplane is so much heaver and draggier (for lack of a better word) than the carbon-based 787.
@@markellsworth4194 interesting opinion. Airbus positioned the a330neo to compete as an alternative to the 787. a330neo and 787 are in the same capacity category, whereas a350 competes more against 777 and 777x
@@markellsworth4194 "draggier"> Less Efficient. There. That should take care of it. Though, you'll have to change it to a lack of a better "term" and not a better "word". Just trying to help. I do like the "draggier" choice though. It's entertaining and your reasoning in using it in the end.
@@tomAkelife-ff9tf No I don't think Airbus have ever wanted A330 Neo to directly compete with 787. I honestly think Airbus just want to refresh the 30-year-old A330 family.
A330 is very successful, and its business models are already mature for airlines, and it doesn't really have direct competitors. But it is getting old, so it's natural for Airbus to update the family to further solidify its sector dominance - making the existing routes flown by the outgoing A330 more efficient and flexible for airlines, as well as potentially opening up new possibilities for airlines.
And the "new possibilities" might (a VERY big "might") translate into real-world, unintended (at least unintended for Airbus) competition to 787 on some routes... We'll just wait and see how airlines exploit the capabilities of the A330 Neo, and how much potential the Neo has.
@@markellsworth4194 You're saying this like a350-800 would have been efficient. Just because it's newer doesn't mean it's better. Also since when is Delta a 'wannabe airline'?
I love how educational these videos are!
Hi I love your vids
Love your vids
love your videos man
I feel the same about your channel too.
That's like the pot calling the kettle educational.
...
This idiom might need more work...
lets remember that the A350 was born out of a re-jigging idea Airbus had in 2004 on the A330. They floated the idea to airlines and got a cold draft in return. So they built the all new A350XWB. But they also continued with smaller upgrades to the A330 and the neo-800 and -900 are very much competing with the 787-8 and -9. People confuse which aircraft competes with which and its the A330neo that is in the 787's two smaller size sectors not the A350-900 while the -1000 is in 777-300 territory.
747-500 is probably my favourite concept from the ‘90s
Coby : The Boeing 787-9 is perfectly positioned to replace the likes of the A380, the 747 and the 777-300ER
777X: Am I a joke to you?
Can't replace something that airlines aren't buying...........
@@jasonkoch3182 The reason the 777X isn't selling is also the reason why we haven't seen a commercial widebody aircraft being ordered for long: Travel Downturn. The 777X is massive, and a recovered aviation demand will serve as a platform for more 777X sales.
@@itisritripathy6707 exactly
@@itisritripathy6707 and a lot of 777-300er aircraft are still relatively young
@@tomAkelife-ff9tf yep I know that. Just mentioned it cause Coby talked about it
Most A350 target customers already fly an A330; and those that can't afford an A350 will get the A330neo. One airline (Cebu Pacific) even asked for special doors so they could fit more that 440 passengers in an A330neo. A real flying bus.
Helo Coby Explains! Your Video Quality is Gud ^_________^
There is no possibility whatsoever that Airbus will ever build A350-800. When the project was put forward Boeing was having notorious delays in delivering the Dreamliners. Finally they came up with A330-900, which is a reasonable design for the market segment. Once the NEO version became available airlines and Airbus clearly saw that there was no longer any need or justification for the far more expensive A350-800. Comparing the 2 the COC difference is some 5%, a huge percentage in the industry. Further the NEO can be produced for far less money, compounding the difference. And 787-9 would probably have a 6% COC advantage.
The reasons are glaringly clear: the Trent XWB 84 used on A350s are some 2.5 tons each heavier than the Trent 7000, a clear disadvantage for A350-800. Further, being designed for the bigger siblings it is oversized in this case, so it must be used at lower RPMs, hence degrading the pressure ratio, an utter waste. To make this fuselage more efficient new smaller composite wings would have to be developed at great expense, plus new smaller engines. An absolute exercise in futility for a market segment that is already well served. There is also a less than optimal fuselage configuration for A350-800. It has a shorter and wider fuselage than both 787-9 and A330-900. Hence more surface area, which causes more friction with air, resulting in a higher fuel consumption.
It will be a cold day in hell before A350-800 is built.
The A350-800 is the 787-3 of its family.
Nice video Coby. I often wonder what goes into what variants get built. You gave me a bit of a heads up there so thanks!
How's the new gig going?
7:57 Pretty high bypass for an A330. Pressing the A330 into the role seems more rational than making the A350-8. It requires far less contortions of the airframe than the MAX did of the 737.
Its sort of crazy how close the 767, A330, 787, A350 and 777 is to eatch other in diameter its like a 20cm increase on each model.
Its like 767 is 7 abreast with space and 8 with a squze. Then A330 is 8 with space, and then 787 can do 9 with a squize and A350 can do 9 comfortable and the 777 can do 10 with a sqize.
Smaller wings and lee powerful engines. Yes.
If it's still have the same specs as before, then no.
The A350 is the new and shiny star, for sure the most glamorous option, but for some reason I'm very happy about the success of the A330neo. It's the underdog, nobody looks at it, but it keeps showing up and delivering strong returns
The dimensions of the 787-8 always seemed off to me. A dwarfed plane. The A350-9 and -10 instead are aesthetic and well balanced, and give you the feel of a large modern transglobal airliner. Even the dash 787-9 can’t trick you away from a certain playmobil feel.
Yet again another great video Coby. Always look forward to your posts
The only reason why the 1000 has not sold much yet is because the B777-300ERs that it will replace are still relatively young and nowhere near retirement age. Just like Boeing did with the 777, more of the smaller variant will be sold earlier in the program with the larger variants taking up most of the production towards the end of the program.
Coby's a damn good explainer.
The 787-9 and A350-900 demonstrate a sweet spot in the eight-across segment. The 787-8 sells well, but in slightly fewer numbers, so the question is whether any space remains between the Boeings. The answer would be yes ONLY for an Airline already flying the A350-900 and no 787 models. The Boeings still win on per-passenger-efficiency and profit because the tidier dimensions give a lighter airplane.
Orders comparison on modern wide-bodies :
A330-800 vs 787-8 = 15 vs 416
A330-900 vs 787-9 = 316 vs 886
A350-900 vs 787-10 = 745 vs 187
A350-1000 vs 777X = 168 vs 320
A380-800 vs 747-8 = 251 vs 47
A330 vs 787-8/9 = 331 vs 1302 (20% vs 80%)
A350 vs 787-10+777X = 913 vs 507 (64% vs 36%)
787 vs A330+A359 = 1489 vs 1076 (58% vs 42%)
777X+747i vs A351+A380 = 367 vs 419 (47% vs 53%)
(I combined them because 777-9 is significantly larger than A350-1000 and is targeted as a 747 replacement)
A330+A350 vs 787+777X = 1244 vs 1809 (41% vs 59%)
Airbus vs Boeing = 1495 vs 1856 (45% vs 55%)
Fairly competitive, Boeing now has the market under and above the A350 with 787 and 777X, as well the most orders overall, especially for twins. But Airbus isn't doing bad either with A330neo and A351/A380.
Also, Airbus has the A321LR/XLR and Boeing dropped the 797...
Boeing had some trouble with MAX, but they're clearly still here to fight and we now have orders for Boom Mach 2 aircraft and the Russian and Chinese project as well... What happens after the pandemic will be interesting :)
Great analysis
Seems Boeing is dominating the widebody and freighter segment and Airbus is dominating the narrow body segment
Currently 787-9 could carry 36ULD as same as a normal version of 350-900 . If a shorter fuselage version of 350 appears . The cargo size is definitely smaller.
I don't foresee any new designs being pushed forward until the financial position of airlines improve. Too much risk right now.
A350-800 looks kinda weird for me too, I prefer the A330-200 or-800
Yea ikr,A350 with such short fuselage would look really weird,the 900 and the 1000 looks way better
Reminds me looks wise of the 787.Similar in size n shape.
Oh yeah I forgot about that plane !
I guess you could use it for operations that are meant for the 767-400 by shortening it
3:30 *cheaply and quickly*
Ahhh yeah... the 737max enchantment... works everytime!
Two reasons I can see for Airbus having a direct competitor to the 787, maybe three.
1 Airbus' parent company has been inventing circular looms to spin carbon fibre components out of thread rather than tape. This allows components to have strength in the exact plans needed for that particular part. This will allow them to drop weight across multiple components.
2 Very recently an Air NZ 787 had to turn back hours it of Auckland because 2 of its 3 redundant flight computers failed. With production now only in South Carolina and an aging fleet we can expect more failures and perhaps even more groundings. Airbus need to be ready for this opportunity.
Developing the circular loom technology could then be back ported to further optimise the whole A350 range.
Currently both Boeing and Airbus buy their avionics from outside vendors. The flight computers on the 787 are made by GE. You can't blame this on Boeing anymore than you can blame engine failures on Airbus. I am sure GE will be looking very closely at these failures.
I agree the circular looms maybe a great advantage. I would not expect to see it used on current generation aircraft. Could be wrong but this is generally how such things go.
I will always love the a350
Would be a great competitor for 787 8/9
I actually would like the size of the a350-800 I don’t think it would look weird while I do like big aircrafts I think the size of the a350-800 would have been a nice one as well
I kinda think the A350-800 might be the same length as the 787-8 Dreamliner, but of course, it has a WIDER fuselage than the 787, since it was originally designed to replace the 777 and not the 767, which was the 787's Predecessor. The same might also do with the 777-100, if that were to also exist!! And the A350 also replaced the A340s in Capacity, but noticeably, the A350 has a WIDER fuselage than the 787.
Our natural eyesight does pick up certain aspects of design in proportions, balance in shapes and symmetries. The SP looked stocky, the L1011 made the DC-10 look even better than it already did, the A318 might have sold more if it didn’t drag around such a massive rudder that could also add on fuel consumption, for some reasons, the A310 looked alright. The A340-600 definitely was a very long tube, but the A350-1000 landing gears made the ground look less busy with less bogies underneath. The 800 competed directly with the already popular A330 everyone was familiar with and its neo version was a very welcomed iteration that could easily be sold than the more expensive newer A350.
@T S it's a matter of perspective and perception, there is an angle that made the DC 10 look so popular that the picture was everywhere so famous it became, and it's the same effect with the A380 just above the runway, with its wingspan all visible and its rudder stick up right next to the cockpit and all landing gears off the ground.
IMHO, only those two jets could pull it off with a great camera.
I really like the look of the a350-800
Very interesting as ever. I have never flown on an A340 and want to experience before they go.
Coby you've got to keep to a weekly schedule. See Simply Flying upload daily and make content from almost thin air. Cheers mate!
Coby is one guy, while Simple Flying had a staff of more than a dozen.
I read a while back that the A350 will never been as efficient as the 787 for long haul (7 hours +) flights because it is 8(?) inches wider. It does not sound like much, but it means more air to push. Over a shorter flight it does not make a material difference. But for longer flights the math is different. Of course this same issue gives an edge to the A350 over the 777s... but without the extra seat abreast that the 777 has over the A350. And engines won't help, as the 787 will also upgrade engines in the future....
A350-800 can be feasible when a game changer like RR UltraFan is available. Before that it cannot beat 787-9 in efficiency.
How do we know this? GE already approached Airbus for an A350Neo to use latest engine technology and Airbus calculated that improvement in efficiency would be marginal.
Speculation is iffy if one does not consider what both players will do should there be a contest.
You pose an interesting point of view, good observations, great report! 👍
When it comes to the A350-800 proportions, I think it would not have been wirder than the 787-8's. We all (or at least me) just got used to the 787-8's proportions because we've seen it in person and in the media for many years now. The -800 pictures just make it look weird, but we never really had a chance for it to grow on us.
When it comes to esthetics/proportions on the A350-1000 vs 787-10, I thing the A is sexier. But with A350-900 vs 787-9, I think the B is the sexier one.
I think I would had given the sexiness price to the -800 over the -8. I guess we'll probably never know.
Keep up the excellent videos, Coby!!!
Even if they build the 800 variant, competition with boeing will be really rude. The 787-9 has already wrapped up so many orders from so many airlines. It would be hard for airbus to fill that gap (at least now).
The 777x is gonna also do an amazing job replacing the jumbos
It will if there is enough demand. I love the plane but it maybe a stillborn dinosaur.
Boeing most likely knows the risk here. Banking on there being enough demand to sell planes but not enough to have airbus create a competing plane. Should note that lack of market has not stopped either from building planes to spite the other.
Airbus please build the A350 800 !
The AIRLINES did not want it back then, and doesn't look like they'll want it now.
Well the shorter the plane the better the livery looks like on Uniteds 772s and 788s 737s and A319
My dream planes to fly is either the 787 variants or the a350 variants
I've always wondered why the engines have spirals. Can you make a video on this if possible?
to confuse the birds
So they should make the A350-800neo ?
If there's an A350-800 With 60.5m overall length....these would have 45m cabin length.....placing a position between 787-8/ A330-800neo & 787-9
But the A350 can be fitted with 3-4-3 Economy while the 787 can't, meaning even when shorter than the 787-9, it can carry more people so that won't work.
Excellent analysis as usual.
Carrying weight that is not required as per an non optimized airframe has a fuel cost of 5% per hour of the weight carried.
Long haul average daily utilization is about 15 hours.
If you carry 2000 lbs for 15 hours daily that is 1500 lbs of fuel every day. Hard to compete with an aircraft that is lighter.
It’s not only optimisation, it’s time lag . The 787-9 was on the market several years before any A350. Same reason 777 was so successful, there was no airbus alternative for decades, same with 747 . Boeing has been getting to the market per specific aeroplane ✈️ much sooner than airbus historically. It didn’t help that GE refused to let airbus use the GE 90 & GE nx engines as well.
Colby, A380-900 was not launched therefore it did not fail to get orders. I would not classify the A350-1000 as failing to get orders.
I dont worry about the 350-1000 since hundrets for 777 will be replaced sooner and later and a good junk of it will be replaced by the A350
The 787-10 has more orders than the 350-1000
The 777X has more orders than the a350-1000.
Only very few airlines will replace the 777 with the -1000. Most of them are replacing them with the 787 and a350.
since the A350-800 is shorter than the A350-900, would it be short enough to succeed the A300 & A310 medium length, wide body planes
It's more likely to succeed the A330
0:25 Mcdonnell: Can i copy ur plane?
Airbus: yeah just make sure it doesnt look like you copied it.
Great video! Thanks for sharing
Indeed.
Might even be great for Sunclass' a332 replacement
No the A350-800 is basically an A330-300/900 capacity, you have the A330-800 as a great replacement
The A350-800 is no weirder than the A318
Airbus should have simply built it and also make a HGW version A350-800x to run Hong Kong Cathay Pacific/Philippine Airlines Manila-New York 7000-7200nm flight distance. There would have been a use of A350-800 for regional Asia Pacific flights
Bring it back!
Wouldn’t call the A350-1000 a failure, when 1 out of 5 A350s is a -1000. The older the 777-300ER‘s get and the longer Boeing needs to get the 777X approved, the more popular the A350-1000 will become. Lufthansa has just placed an order for 10 1000s, Qantas for 12. Emirates might be next.
I could see Delta and Lufthansa using these. I could also see JetBlue place an order for routes into Europe and Asia
Lufthansa could possibly use these for new routes into smaller markets and could fly to airports like Raleigh/Durham, Nashville, Pittsburgh. Delta would likely use these for less busy long-haul routes and could likely see new transatlantic, transcontinental and transpacific routes from their focus cities
I doubt Jetblue picking up those jets. They might rathe prefer the A321XLR for their Trans-Atlantic missions, and either enter a partnership or an alliance
JetBlue has no intention to buy any widebodies.
@@fighter5583 they said that if these flights on the a321LR and a321XLR are successful, they may consider ordering a widebody aircraft to become more of a full-service airline. If they get an opportunity with Airbus like this, they could jump for the chance
@@GoalHornGeek So they'd order a plane that never left the drawing board? That makes about as much sense as ordering a 787-3. I doubt JetBlue would make a jump to order a wide body as it wouldn't fit well into their overall market.
The 787-9 is the only Boeing still selling well, but it is getting outdated and Boeing is focussed on getting the 777x off the ground and finding a suitable 737 replacement. The A321 XLR is serving the long and thin routes in the future quite well and requires little additional cost as the A320neo is already the world's best selling aircraft.
Airbus is currently focussed on the A320 neo replacement and some kind of A350neo.
The 787 family has better sales than the a350 and a330 neo combined.
The 737 max has close to 5000 max jets on order
And the 777X has 300+ orders and could get more when air travel recovers. That's actually good more especially for an aircraft its size.
The 787 IS not outdated . A 787-10ER is in the works and a re engined 2nd generation 787 is in the cards too maybe for the 2030's
A 797 could be the only cleansheat aircraft required
@@mmm0404 the a350 is not the competitor to the 787 and neither is the a330neo. The 787 is between those. But yes the 787 is a success, so far the last one. 300 orders for the 777 is not a lot actually.
@@tobiwan001 lol. The a330neo directly competes with the 787 so what are you talking about. ?
The a350? Don't worry boeing is working on the 787-10er which has 15 more seats than the a350-900.
The 777X is a jumbo , so selling 300+ jets for an aircraft that large IST that bad considering its just another varient of the already successful 777. Anyways most 777-300er's are still young and demand for the 777X may increase as air travel recovers and grows
You forgot one thing: Rolls-Royce’s Advance and UltraFan engine development programs. An A350XWB-800 with Rolls-Royce’s next generation engines could make the plane more economically viable.
787 program is nearly 20 years old... will be doing the exact same thing, so from my perspective, it is a wash. Frankly that is what the 777X SHOULD have been with a new wing. Keep its old Fuselage and just redo its wing/engine/cockpit and move on.
@@w8stral that's what i said . Most people mention the a350neo as a 787 killer but forget that it will most likely get the same engine upgrades and refinements. The 787 is currently the most efficient widebody and will continue to do so with the 787Ng
It seems to me the Airbus A350-800 would compete with the Airbus A330.
and the a321neo, which tbf isnt far off filling the a350-800 and a330-800 segment, especially with the XLR variant
obviously doesn't compete in terms of range, but it fills the use of the a330-800, sort of medium haul skinnier routes like dublin to atlanta or something like that
Your videos are great
The Airbus A330neo-800 took its place.
Nice to see you saying something posetive about airbus
Never forgot the a350-800
The 800 has no reason to be back. The 787-8/9 already prove it's position. Plus their newer a330Neo now taking the market even tho it's orders are lacking
If manufacturers could figure out a way to make scalable wing and tail section designs, instead of only fuselage sections, smaller variants wouldn’t be such market failures
That's really not the issue. For instance the A321 has actually a very slightly taller wing than the A320. The problem is, that you want an overall parts communality as far as possible to keep costs down. But that means that for smaller versions, some parts will be overdesigned and so heavier than they need to be.
Another great take (off)!
I agree. The A318 is weird looking as will.
For some reason I see the 787-3 coming back more so than the A350-800. Could be the best option to compete with the A321XLR
The 787-3 is wayyyyy bigger than the A321XLR.
I don't think the 787-3 will ever be able to compete with the A321XLR.
The 787-3 is the same size as the -8, it’s the complete opposite to the A321LR/XLR! The 787-3 is for shorth high demand routes, the A321LR/XLR for long low demand routes
@@spongebubatz Uh, no. 787-3 would have same range as a321Lr, but carry more passengers. The thorn of course is Cargo. A321 can't do passengers/cargo. 787-3 could and on most long thin international routes, cargo makes just as much money as Passenger service. Still, higher operating costs and only way to make it work would be those routes that MUSt have cargo which currently fly on a330CEO's and ancient 767's.
@@w8stral Uh no. The 787-3 was designed for domestic routes, mainly in Japan, and had design changes that would come handy when flying short to medium haul routes. The projected range for the 787-3 was around 5640 km, which is less than the A321LR with 7400 km and the A321XLR with 8700 km. The 787-3 was ditched as it didn’t really have any benefits over the 787-8, which is exactly the same size. Also as I said, the A321 is for low demand routes. An aircraft with a seating capacity of up to like 360 (all eco) isn’t an aircraft for low demand routes.
Edit: Your cargo argument could count on some routes, but remember that many routes the A321LR/XLR could operate were 757 territory which is roughly the same size. Also on thin routes the A321LR/XLR is designed for cargo demand isn’t too high as the freight is handled through the bigger hubs.
@@spongebubatz The 787-3 range or lack of range, was entirely dependent on filling or not filling its existing fuel tanks in its wing box section + wings. Its cargo hull being filled/# passengers. It had a different wing, but its main wing box was the same and this is where most fuel is stored. So in effect, the 787-3 would have the XLR range as all it has to do is fill up its existing tanks, take fewer passenger in roomier seats.
XLR takes ZERO cargo. ZERO. It completely trades out any possibility of cargo by taking extra fuel. LR is likewise severely limited but can take SOME cargo and why neither versions are a true 757 replacement who could take passengers + cargo full range. It is also why the 737-10 is limited at its range... That is the distance it can take same number of passengers + a tiny bit of cargo with its slightly smaller wing compared to the a321. Could 737-10 increase its range? Yes. Would it be worth it? Nope.
they accidentally made too good of a plane with the A330neo
The a350-800 would probably not sell as well as the 900/1000
2022-3: "everyone" is bringing back the A380...
I like short planes so a -800 sounds interesting.
Is it possible to cut a -900 and turn it into a -800?
You mean theoretically so just building a shorter variant or cutting an already existing -900 that already exists?
@@spongebubatz cutting an already existing -900, like modifying a 747 into a dreamlifter
@@SceurdiaStudios unfortunately I think that would be way to complicated
@@spongebubatz complicated as in technically impossible or extremely expensive?
@@SceurdiaStudios both, but more important very difficult to do! Such a modification could really weaken the structure of the aircraft and there’s a reason that something comparable wasn’t made yet
Perhaps the A350F is a better idea.
The A350-800 looks like the 747SP, WEIRD!!!
I always thought that the B787-9 and the A350-900 were the similar aircraft...
You are on the mark. Anything that happened after the introduction of the A350-900XWB is what's known as branching out into other territories (B777s) or in other words, 2 Birds (787/777) with one stone (A350).
@@johnhenry6762 the 787 is generally smaller than the 350 and the 777X is generally larger . Nevertheless the 787 and 777X have a combined order of close to 800 aircrafts more than the a350
~1500 , 787
~300 , 777X
= 1800
~1000 , a350
Original title was should airbus bring back the A350-800?
Before I watch, imo, I don't see any need for it now that the neos are there.
After watching, well I was right but didn't consider the aspect of the fuel burn being too high. Just learnt something
Everyone forgot little Airbus a220
Waited the whole video fully expecting the a330neo
Was disappointed until 7:20
So now you capitalise the A in A3xx??
Imagine if the 757-900 was a thing now…instead of the boring as hell 767
777>>>>>>> ALL airbus
777X *
YES!
FLY A350 and 787 Yes Boimg Better bit new Version of 350 also good
8:58 Soooo…. You’re telling me that airbus is capable of making airplanes that *aren’t* weird looking? Whenever they shrink something it always looks off, like they changed the size of the fuselage but absolutely nothing else. From a purely aesthetic standpoint that’s always bugged me, gripes about flying lawnmowers aside. Looking at you, A319. Also the aesthetics of the A350 are a bad design knockoff of the 787 no you can’t convince me otherwise yes I will die mad about it.
Another interesting video nice
Your editing and graphics are great. The one thing that lags behind is the voice audio. Your microphone sounds far away and sound of your voice reflects off the walls. Consider using a mic in closer proximity like a lavier or boom mic. Consider dampening the room.
I have, it’s just still a work in progress. Glad you like everything else!
@@cobyexplanes Never stop improving. I really enjoy your video topics.
The original B777 was discarded because looks like a L-1011 Tristar
It’s not as weird looking as the A380😂😂
They should build an a350-700
0:27 I wish Boeing build the Sonic Cruiser.
Airbus really should make an A380F
The A380 is anything but suitable for cargo ops
Nice video but I don’t even know a350-800 exists…
I think the A340 is more forgotten. Not a lot of airlines use the A340 anymore. But I also think the a350 is forgotten. And you know what's been happening with Qatar Airways and Airbus. In my opinion the 787 is better then the A350
The 787 isnt gonna replace those planes you mentioned, thats what 777x is gonna do. The 350-8 is both-too big and too small at the same time. Its never gonna happen. They need to stick with improving the 9 and 1000, maybe put some (real) GE engines on them....
(real) ge engines ,you do know the Trent xbw is the most fuel efficient large engine in service right? And it can even compete with the ge9x although ge9x will probably be a bit better
@@alexandrosandreou8585 fuel efficient? yaaaaawn zzzzzzz...theres a lot more to a jet than efficency....sweetheart....
@@alexandrosandreou8585 lol, the Ge9X is the most efficient engine GE has ever made . The XWB is not in its league and it's laughable to put them in the same sentence. The Ge9X will be more power , more efficient, larger than the XWB. Only the Ultrafan can challenge the GE9x
airbus compensated HA to change their orders to the a330neo -- then the competitor gave a better deal.