Let our sponsor BetterHelp connect you to a therapist who can support you - all from the comfort of your own home. Visit betterhelp.com/explanes and enjoy a special discount on your first month. If you have any questions about the brand relating to how the therapists are licensed, their privacy policy, or therapist compensation model, check out this FAQ: www.betterhelp.com/your-questions-answered/
Yeah Just think about how much money they are making, by charging therapist prices for random/fake people. Then selling your information and messaging to AI models and advertisers.
The GE9x, the most powerful engines in production has around 110k lb/ft of thrust, only until we see 150k lb/ft can we see a two engine super jumbo as a viable option.
I think the problem is that the A350 production queue is full all the way till 2026 - 2027. There are A350 customers (e.g. EVA Air) who are still waiting for their first delivery. Ironically, despite all the delays, the B777X customers who stick to their orders might still get their planes earlier than if they switch to the A350 and had to join the queue at the end.
2026-27 seems early. The most they delivered in one year was 112 back in 2019. Since then they have not broken 60 a year. With a backlog of 714 this will take a long time
Still too early, try like 2030, the A350 backlog is huge, just like the A320NEO line, the production lines are completely sold out, both jets arent meeting their deliveries monthly, for the A350 I think its like 10 a month
airlines don't care much about hype. All they do is put a little logo on the booking page for that plane type if they know people like it, but they also know that 99% of people don't book flights because of a certain plane type.
Airbus is already having issues with their supply chain, they seem to have a full order book, they are still developing the A350F, and they seem to be focused on this hydrogen thing. How is adding one more version the A350 gonna help that situation. Seems to me that's part of where boeing went wrong by having way too many models in development/early production at the same time.
Now since you mention it you might be right. There is the 737 MAX 7-10, 787 8-10, 777Fs, 767Fs and the 777x 8,9 and F vs Airbus a330neo 800 and 900, a220, a319,20,21XLR and a350 900, 1000 and F. That is 18 different planes to 9. Double of what airbus is doing
Hydrogen is a huge boondoggle but that R&D is being funded externally and whilst we're extremely unlikely to see hydrogen as a real commercial fuel(*) there are always good chances for that research to result in better technology finding its way into other transportation systems (*)If you have the energy to make green hydrogen then it makes sense to expend extra energy during the manufacturing process to tack on atmospheric carbon(**) and make MUCH easier-to-handle hydrocarbons. It costs more upfront but the handling costs of hydrogen are extreme at virtually every step along the chain, so it's cheaper overall (**) Yes, I'm aware of ammonia proposals using atmospheric nitrogen. A fuel which can dissolve the passengers is even less of a good idea than one which is expensive/dangerous to handle and embrittles almost everything it comes into contact with
Naah.... I don't think Airbus should invest in building A350-2000. A380 was supposed to be a 747 competitor, but we all know how that turned out. I think Airbus is in a very good position right now, and they should hold on to that dominance and rack-up the orders for their current offerings. However, who am I to suggest how to run a multi-billion-dollar company with multi-million-dollar products?
Airbus should absolutely try to keep inovating instead of sitting on the dominance that they currently have. Boeing got to where they are today by trying to do that.
Another major problem for Airbus would be the lack of production facilities. They are already unable to keep up with the backlog of the A350 and the A320 family.
Right on. Airlines also are screaming for an A220-500 but Airbus just don't have the production capacity to do it. And that's a really easy stretch, but they can't keep up with current orders.
The trade-off isn't worth it. More passengers means a heavier aircraft, and that means less range. It would diminish the very selling point of the A350. The only edge the 777x has is capacity. The A350 beats it in range and fuel efficiency. Airbus doesn't need to make a stretched version. If Boeing doesn't get it together, airlines will eventually approach airbus anyway.
The a350 doesn’t beat the 777x in fuel efficiency. Airlines have stated that they burn about the same and according to this data, the 777x is arguably more efficient. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft
@@cxaviation3313 it comes down to seat configuration, no airline is going to have their 777 nearing 400 seats or past that besides airlines like air canada on incredibly demanding routes with almost full economy 777s, or that the same article contradicts the A350-1000 fuel consumption on the charts it's using as it's source. It's really hard to pinpoint exact fuel consumption values of aircraft, especially when the sources are from different testing sources, so wikipedia has to either quote them directly, or do their own calculations to "reach" an average, or it's first party sources which tend to make their own planes look the absolute best possible over real scenarios. Reality is that they are pretty close to each other, it's margin of error for airlines.
@@cxaviation3313 You know about the A350F? Can carry about one metric tonne less than the proposed 777-8F. Problem for Boeing: 8F is just about 30 tonnes more heavy. So which aircraft may need more fuel?
The problem is that Airbus needs more powerful engines to power the a350-2000 and to prevent a tail-strike, they may have to increase the wingspan/upgraded wing design to increase lift so that it can get off the ground which can increase weight and reduce efficiency . This will come at an inflated cost due to the upgraded engine, bigger-wings, more flight testings, and reduced max range due to extra weight. All of this would sum up to a "more expensive" aircraft than the 777x only with "less" range. So it is probably not worth it for Airbus.
Not necessarily. The stretch talked about here is pretty modest and only 2m of it would be aft of the wings. It might increase the take off speed by about 5kts, but wouldn't need a bigger wing or engines if the MTOW stays the same (case in point 787-10). Range would be reduced, but still fairly competetive and it wouldn't be directly over the 779 in terms of capability (which is something both manufactirers try to avoid). Remember that the - 1000 already has about 5% bigger wing than the - 900 due to the aft wing extension.
@@busofmauritius8306 if they could fill the 350 stretch, it would have way lower seat/mile costs, therefore the answer would depend on demand. Currently the 7810 is the most efficient plane (out of wide bodies) on 3000-4500nm. Beyond ~4500nm the 789 and 359 can haul more cargo and become modre efficient, especially the 359. 789 is very good over the entirety of its range envelope, but not the absolute best at any range. A good rule of thumb is that the bigger plane will be better, if you can fill it consistently. Only after that you want the lighter frame for best efficiency.
If you want the version in East Asia you are looking at a Philippine Airlines version of it. Keep in mind Taiwanese Japanese and Hong kongers would rather avoid that and in return JL🇯🇵 BR🇹🇼 & CX🇭🇰 bring them to Ninoy Aquino International Airport from Tokyo Hong Kong and Taipei because they know they can actually siphon off passengers from PR🇵🇭 which is spelled out in Taiwan and Hong Kong as 菲律賓航空.
I am not a big guy. In fact the word AVERAGE would best describe me, and I do not fit in a 17in wide seat.... Who are they kidding? There is a reason I always pick aisle or window.
@djonymorais time to time if they couldn't find A330/A321 to MNL CX will send the following types B77W A359/A35K because they know their longtime competitor Philippine Airlines since 1946 doing the same
It would still require a significant investment upfront and most potential A350-1100/2000 customers have already selected the 500+ 777X in Boeing's order book. And don't underestimate the challenge of a new engine, especially since most orders are from the Middle East (Emirates, Qatar) and the RR Trent XWB-97 is still struggling in hot conditions. The most likely solution is that a stretched A350 will appear alongside an A350neo
Good video . I'm sorry for the B777 X , I like the 777 .The stretch A350 it s a good idea , as the A380 NEO too . Good luck for both Boeing and Airbus , they are doing the best they can .
Airbus right now is in a very good position. As its A321XLR is entering service in November and all the aircraft orders they have it’s clear that Airbus is was ahead of Boeing. It would not be the best choice for them to build an A350-200 right now.
Airbus would have a hard time selling A350-2000’s to North American carriers especially the Big 3 here in the US. Here is a reason why: "We think the 777X will be a very good airplane, but it is a very big airplane," Patrick Quayle, the senior vice president of global network planning and alliances, told Business Insider. "Given our hub structure, we find a smaller widebody is actually better." So there you have it, Patrick Quayle at United says it’s too big for for US airports and I’m sure they are in agreement over at Delta and American.
No One Cares about North America, its circling the toilet bowl already in more ways than one, Its Asian and Middle Eastern carriers that rule the Market.
9:30 though, the XWB is still THE SECOND LARGEST turbofan on the market, and is still QUITE MASSIVE compared to most other turbofans out there, excluding the GE90/9X.
The Trent XWB really isn’t a problem as long as the MTOW of the A350-2000(or -1100) being the same as that of A350-1000. The range would be reduced, but still be plenty long enough (at least 13500 km, hopefully 14000 km). Let’s look at the A340 first. A340-200 and 300 share the same wings, engines and MTOW, so do the -500 and -600. The -200 and -500 are unpopular because they are the “cursed” shrunken variants (excessively heavy for their passenger capacities). Going back to the A350, we all know that the -800 was cancelled. But it was supposed to be sharing the same wings and engines (Trent XWB-84) as the -900 if it made it to production. The -1000 has more powerful Trent XWB-97 and trailing edge extensions on its wings for 5% more wing area. There should naturally be a A350-2000(or -1100) sharing the same engines, wings and MTOW with the A350-1000, if the A340’s history has taught us anything.
There is no way Trent XWB-97 engine is sufficient for A350-2000. Actually it has the same size as Trent XWB-84. It is already barely enough for -1000. Using it in -2000 will be like overclocking overclocked CPU.
@@user-yt198 A bigger aircraft isn’t necessarily a heavier aircraft. As long as the A350-2000 keeps the same MTOW as the A350-1000 (322 t), the Trent XWB-97 should just be enough. Weight matters, not size (most of the time). The A340-500 and -600 share the same MTOW of 380 t and Trent 500 engines. Using Trent XWB-97 on A350-2000 would work in the same way by keeping the same 322 t MTOW as the -1000. Airbus is just gauging interest on the 10-abreast A350. If that works, there’s no need to make a (not-so-expensive) A350-2000. I guess every penny is worth saving.
@@user-nd4ip1xv5m You can develop such an aircraft if you must, but will it sell? I don't think so. Current 777X customers will be the potential market. Emirates, Qatar, Etihad, Cathay Pacific, Lufthansa, they will all look for range and thus they will not buy. So what is the meaning? I don't agree that 13,500-14,000km will be possible by the way. How did you come to that number?
I mean if Boeing could upsize the 787-9 and 737-800 a little more with retaining the same MTOW and engine thrust, Airbus could probably do the same with the A350. The 777-9 only has a range of 7300nm and the A350-1000 has a range of 8700nm, with a longer range variant being developed. I doubt the range would go below that of the 777-9 with an A350 stretch. I certainly think an A350 stretch to the length of the 777-9 is possible. Whether it’s feasible, I disagree with Cody a little. The current variants have already been wildly popular and most orders are for the -900 variant
Your content has always been top-notch. There just aren't enough airline/aircraft videos out there. I always look forward to seeing your notifications come across my screen when a new video drops. Keep up the absolutely amazing work Sir.
The very large airline market is limited. Only a handful of airlines can operate those and to be honest without Emerates neither the A380 or the 777-9 are even viable as projects for both manufacturers. It would therefore make no sense what so ever to scratch the A350. No airline in North America will order the A350-2000 & airbus need not repeat the A380 mistake that never broke even.
Boeing’s problems are 100% self-inflicted, and I have zero sympathy for them. They’re reaping the rewards of putting “shareholder value” ahead of engineering excellence and uncompromising safety, and they’re getting exactly what they deserve.
A340-600 was 75,5 meters. Suggested A350-2000 will be around 80 meters (5% longer). Ground clearance of A350 is 10% higher than A340. So in terms of tail strike it will not be worse than A340-600.
Adding another plane to Airbus's portfolio isn't going to work, their production capacity is already at a stretch. And since they don't seem to be compromising safety (unlike Boeing), it will be very difficult to increase that capacity anytime soon. I guess a A380 Neo would make more sense at the moment than a A350-2000 or smth.
it is not just a matter of fuselage stretch. aside from weight/strength of landing gear, there is the matter of target range. the reason the 787-10 does not compete is that it is too big for the wing area of 4058sqft, vs 4760 for the A350-9 and 4998 for the A350-10 The 777X wing area is 5562 sqft. (4702 on the 777-300ER)
It's not possible to stretch the A350 further without redesigning a lot more things that are mentioned here. So "easy to build" is just not true at all
The French low cost carrier FranchBee operate also a fleet of A350-1000 with a high density layout : 440 in economy and 40 in premium economy, a total of 480, possible by using a row of 10 seats in economy.
To me, 10-abreast is as much of a "We show our customers how much we hate them" move as is longhaul flights on narrowbodies. An airline trying to make me suffer through this would lose me as a customer immediately.
Impossible. A350 has already been stretched once from its original design to A350XWB, resulting in its relatively weak engines. Stretching it yet another time would be too far-fetching.
Airbus should speak to airlines and check if they would be interested in a stretch with ultrafan engines. Atleast 8 of 10 airlines they check with will order.
Let's imagine that Airbus has *already* done all the development work and got an A350-2000 certificated and ready to go right now. Today! How many extra aeroplanes could they sell this side of 2030? None. None at all. Why not? Because they already have more orders for A320s, A330s, and A350s than they have factory space to build them in. There are rusted-on Boeing customers desperate to cancel 737MAX orders and buy A320s/A321s instead, but Airbus' factories are maxed out already and new orders naturally go to the back of the queue - that means not this decade.
Airbus should focus on delivering their orders they already have in time. Their backlog is more than sufficient to keep them afloat should they keep up or even ramp up manufacturing and production lines.
No - doubling down on A321XLR production will kick Blowing in the nuts. The A350 is doing very well as it is, no need to fix something that's working well.
"Making a A350 stretched version is easy". Proceeds to mention at least 2 almost fundamental aircraft design changes, which will probably result in a minimum of 3-5 year design and certification process. Bruh...
Agree with this analysis. Lot of people saying airbus should do clean sheet. But that is point, this solution does not require it lessening leadtime which is win win.
The a350 is big enough. United haven't ordered the 777x because the -9 in particular is too big for multi-hub operations, so the most possible replacement for the B777-300er would be the 777-8 for them which is as big as the a350-1000 in terms of capacity
I think Airbus is waiting for the B777X to be operational and the actual performance/economics to be known; and base their competing product on those numbers. But they expected that to happen years ago so now they might have to act anyway.
I think Airbus should just continue its 'boring' existence. And with that I mean AB should do what they have done for the past 50 years - build quality aeroplanes and inject innovations once in a decade. Granted, I think the A350F-1000 is quite cool and somewhat sudden and will outmatch the old 777F/777xF. Airbus has been now developing for almost 10 years its next completely new design with the wing structure. I think Airbus will do great- huge amounts of money to R&D and keeping the QA in the forefront.
Isnt the a350-1000 already a stretch of the -900. Not only would you have to consider the thrust but also the wings carrying the added weight as well as aircraft stability, fuselage rigidity and tail clearance at take off
At least this time they’re making sure the plane doesn’t come with issues while in service, so they pinpoint them in testing. People’s hatred towards Boeing is really a case study, they have done so much for modern aviation, they should be given at least some small credit even in their current situation.
Dennis Muilenburg is an engineer, but he f*** up big time. What Boeing need is FBI to arrest and jail most of the board member so they won't give hard time to newly appointed CEO. Regardless he has engineering background.
« Sooner rather than later » including the loss making Air Force contracts? The spaceship farce? Not forgetting the need to negotiate new contracts with the Unions (who are very very pssed off and threatening strikes).
Reasons Airbus hasn't acted: One; they don't actually want Boeing to go bankrupt. Airbus has the engineering capacity and design options to obliterate the 777X in the market place. Actually driving Boeing into oblivion and becoming a global monopoly would be politically very uncomfortable. Better to become a global monopoly by accident (i.e. let Boeing screw themselves, or simply delay developments to the point where airlines are screaming for them). Two; building up a war chest. Airbus are making a lot of money, and can use that profit to out-develop Boeing at any point they choose to do so in the future. Three; A380 neo is a real option, and probably going to happen no matter what. There's many slot congested airports with profitable routes flying full A380s today, too many to ignore and anything smaller means leaving money on the table. When those A380s retire, there's going to be cash-loaded demand from a few airlines for more double-decked aircraft, and an A380 neo is the lowest cost route to that. It's also possible that the overall demand for seats could by then have risen, and it may turn out that a 777X / A350-1100 isn't big enough. This is basically what happened with the 747 got first introduced; there were some initial orders and operations, a pause of a few years, and then the demand went through the roof. History may be repeating. Four; A350 is still selling well. You don't stop selling something and bring in a new model until the market is ripe for the change. Standard commercial practice. The 777x is not a commercial threat to Airbus in anyway. If it suddenly does look like the market is taking off for the Boeing aircraft, Airbus can probably launch an A350 neo / 1100 / 2000 and put it into service in very short order (2, 3 years?). That'd be fast enough to make a lot of airlines hesitate on placing 777x orders. This is sort of tied up with point #1.It'd really screw Boeing up badly, because they need to sell a large number of 777X's to make money at all (there's a huge debt to pay off first). So I expect Airbus to finesse the launch of an A350 neo to make sure that they retain substantial market share against the 777X, and no less. Five: environmental regulations. These are only going to get tighter, and it's worth waiting and seeing. I realise that most of the above adds up to Airbus waiting and seeing what Boeing actually does, but that's the luxury they've been granted by Boeing collapsing so deeply into the hole. Airbus is apparently highly aware of the US political angle to all this, and could face real difficulties if US politicians identified Airbus as being in any way to "blame" for Boeing failing totally. Such blame isn't there at the moment - Boeing is identified as having shot itself in the foot - but politics isn't exactly ever rational, especially if Airbus were obviously exploiting Boeing's current weakness with knock-out development blows (though, the A321XLR may have been one of those...). There will be a time limit of course; if Boeing are still in the hole in 5 years time (a pure guess on my part), Airbus probably won't be able to fend off airline customer demand for improved Airbus products. I suspect Airbus would quite happily peg themselves at about 60% overall market share in an Airbus / Boeing duopoly, and use their growing cash pile to ensure they can develop products to maintain that share. That would be a share that the US politicians couldn't really object to, but would ensure that Airbus retains the upper hand. Though obviously they'd prefer to be a global monopoly, with US political acquiescence / support.
Boeing has quality issues, Airbus has supply chain issues. Both are working really hard to reestablish their full business potential in plane output. Once Airbus scales up production - especially with the A320Neo family - it can move on. Since the A320 airframe is also creeping up half a century, Airbus has a clear blueprint of what happens when you squeeze the platform beyond it's limits (737 MAX). So, starting an A320 replacement might be a bigger priority than anything else.
A streched 350 would make this beautiful aircraft even more stunning, I do hope Airbus in cooperation with RR start developing such it, the 777 has been plagued with problems and will soon start to see orders cancelled due to the continuing delays, Airbus will soon increase production of the 350 to satisfy demand.
The A350 is an incredible machine. I’ve flown nonstop from JFK to Manila on Philippine Airlines. 16 hours. Business class in a 1x2x1 layout. The only Boeing experience better was ANA’s 777-300 “The Room” business class.
Airbus can do this from a design standpoint quite easily, with the new Rolls-Royce engine which is close to certification. But they just don't have the production capacity, the backlog on the A350-1000 is already huge. It's the same story with the A220. Airlines are already hammering for an A220-500 (stretch) but Airbus can't make enough 100 and 300s as it stands, how can they make a 500?
Its a good synopsis on the whole, but begs the question: where would Airbus find the manufacturing capacity to build this fantasy A350-2000? With production of the A350 already being increased to meet the high demand, which would see it busy until the 2030s, Airbus could not build it this decade, despite what our host might think. Rumours about a further large Qatar order for the existing A350 family are all over the press, and Im almost certain Emirates will order the -1000 as back up insurance for the 777X jinx, especially now that both the RR -84 but especially the -97, which Emirates have been concerned about, are being upgraded. If the A350 takes any more big orders in 2024, customers will have to wait a long time for delivery as it is, without the -2000. Its like those people who think GE will be able to push in on the success of the A350, and offer the GE9X or a derivative for an A350Neo. Airbus simply don't need to offer an expensive engine option, when the product is sold out. After snubbing Airbus over the development of the -1000, I think Airbus will stick with RR during the next decade also. And by the time there's an A350Neo developed, I expect the GE9X to be antiquated and technology derived from UltraFan producing a new engine from RR. Im sure that the -2000 will come eventually, although Airbus and RR might be planning to tweak the designs to compete with the larger capacity of the 777X, as our host indicates. The day it gains certification might be a good day for the announcement..........
Theres actually inner talk of airlines actually demanding an A352 (conversions from A359s and top up order). A rough comcept wants to use the A351 ULR as base with simple frame stretches, and minor work to bump up MLW a bit.
Widebodies are a specialist low-volume item which are EXTREMELY expensive to develop. There were only ~1550 747s made in its 50 year manufacturing life Unless/until there is sufficient demonstrated demand by airlines - and committed orders - a design won't leave the drawing board. That applies whether it's clean sheet or a derivative (EG: A380NEO) Boeing's woes are self inflicted but Airbus won't build a bigger A350 unless Airlines are guaranteed to buy it
I think Airbus is probably more invested in Boeing's success than people think. If Boeing starts to get really shaky and have to downsize to stem financial issues, its suppliers would be hit too, and Airbus and Boeing share suppliers. I suspect Airbus will focus on replacing the A320 for now, unless its customers begin to insist on a stretch.
4:58 Not ".. push.." Coby, but ".. pull.." :the engines are on/forward of the wing, hence pulling the air frame. DC9s 727s pull as their engines were towards the aircraft rear.
As an A350 flight attendant, the idea of a 10 abreast 350 makes me cringe. Airbus have always been too narrow for my liking. I never understood why they say it’s the direct competitor to the 777 when it feels more like an improved 787 to the crew
I mean both Boeing and Airbus know that airlines want to cram as many passengers as possible into the smallest and therefore lightest cabin possible. Which is why the 787 is really too small for 9 abreast, but too wide for 8. But you can just about fit 9, so airlines like it. Airbus are trying the same with the 350, which is now a bit too wide for 9, but too narrow for 10.
If boeing is struggling this hard just to Reengine/update a perfectly ready made good Airplane in the 777, .. What hope do they have for a Cleansheet When the 737 Needs replacing or if they Want to do a 757/767 Sized plane. Also i did wonder if Airbus would wait for a A350 the Size of the -2000 for the Time for the A350Neo, Do you think they will Neo all 3 variants?
People keep saying don’t trust the RUclips sponsors which is true, don’t trust the RUclipsr either. This dude clearly only cares about money given the fact he doesn’t care how damaging Betterhelp has been.
I think the A350-1000 is in the sweet-spot for size & efficiency for most airlines. Building larger is more niche, it would also be expensive as T-XWB-97 would need more power. AB`s order book is solid, IMO it`s not the most prudent move in a very unsettled world atm.
Cool your jets, that’s why its in the certification stage, to confirm it meets its certification standards and also I didn’t know your an aeronautical engineer with your certification knowledge of airframe plugs.
Coby, a bit of friendly advice from a fan. IMHO, you are being a bit heavy handed with Boeing. You almost sound angry. Your channel is great without jumping on the “Down With Boeing” bandwagon. Boeing has been forthright with the public about all this and will do the right thing now and ultimately deliver an amazing aircraft when the time is right.
The 777-9 will be a success. This is just a snag in testing. It’s a redundancy part issue found in testing; Where these things should be found and fixed before production. The 777x is wider and longer and will be able to sit 10 abreast economy with 18 inch seats. U can’t call it unreliable if it’s not even in service. Between the 737 max issue, Covid and engines issues most of its delay was really not the planes design fault.
Don't get me wrong - but you should really keep fingers crossed for the Boeing overall. If this company will fail in incoming years - it will leave monopoly for Airbus for the commercial airline manufacturer. I'm happy that Boeing is now facing so many issues, hopefully this will help them find the correct path for future and repair it's reputation.
The A350-1000 only garnered 22% of all A350 orders, an A350-200 would probably fare even worse. Airbus some years ago was presenting an A350-2000 concept to airlines but there wasnt enough interest. And it would be the worst possible timing to start such a model with the current gen of engines now. In a couple of years they'll already be obsolete with the next generation of engines becoming available. Airbus could revisit the idea when doing a reengining with next gen engines. With current engines a simple stretch would not have enough range for customers like Emirates. New engines could potentially fix that issue as reduced fuel burn automatically increases range.
I want to see an A350-2000 too, but there is no suitable RR engine. It is claimed that Airbus gave exclusivity to RR for A350-900 engine and no manufacturer (i.e GE) will not make an engine for just A350-1000 and A350-2000. Airbus needs to wait for Ultrafan or 2030 (claimed end of exclusivity).
Airbus really needs to build the 75/76 replacement that the airlines have been asking for. They barely have any work to do, while Boeing is busy chasing it's tale into insignificance.
Yeah I'm aware. I'm glad you see my genius. It's really nice to be recognized. Lol. How do you think new engines are created. GE doesn't just build an engine and hope a manufacturer builds an aircraft around it. Airbus and Boeing go to engine suppliers and give them the specs for what they need. @@MiturBinEsderty
Let our sponsor BetterHelp connect you to a therapist who can support you - all from the comfort of your own home. Visit betterhelp.com/explanes and enjoy a special discount on your first month. If you have any questions about the brand relating to how the therapists are licensed, their privacy policy, or therapist compensation model, check out this FAQ: www.betterhelp.com/your-questions-answered/
no
Yup Boeing facing more Problems with there Boeing 777X program so this is a really big problem for Boeing to solve.
Correction Air Caraïbes its sister carrier French Bee have 10 abreast on its A350 900s and 1000s
Absolutely not
No
wow those betterhelp people must be paying you some good money, because their reputation is terrible
Bet your comment is going to get removed. If coby doesn’t remove it, then he’s still got some integrity.
Yeah Just think about how much money they are making, by charging therapist prices for random/fake people. Then selling your information and messaging to AI models and advertisers.
Betterhelp is somehow worse than Boeing, and that's saying something.
a normal 747-8 would still be more efficient and fill more seats
@@AirbusA--si4kwstill up 9 days later
Please stop sponsoring better help, they are selling your personal information and using untrained and unqualified therapists
You can never trust these youtube sponsors.
And using unqualified therapists.
the money must be so good for them to keep pushing this
ill take your word for it
You must or be scammed fool@@tomicaguyusa4633
Clearly the solution is an A380 Neo
For real 😂
The GE9x, the most powerful engines in production has around 110k lb/ft of thrust, only until we see 150k lb/ft can we see a two engine super jumbo as a viable option.
A-380 Lite . 2 engine version.
Would look cursed tho hahaha@@Lipawsky
@@rwalex1212 would be cool, but cursed as hell
I think the problem is that the A350 production queue is full all the way till 2026 - 2027. There are A350 customers (e.g. EVA Air) who are still waiting for their first delivery. Ironically, despite all the delays, the B777X customers who stick to their orders might still get their planes earlier than if they switch to the A350 and had to join the queue at the end.
That's why even the American pilots fear the boing...the trust is dimming.
2026-27 seems early. The most they delivered in one year was 112 back in 2019. Since then they have not broken 60 a year. With a backlog of 714 this will take a long time
Try 2030. There is no way Airbus is pumping 700 A350 in 3 years. Even me saying 2030 is wishful thinking.
The production queue is full until the early to mid 30s.
Still too early, try like 2030, the A350 backlog is huge, just like the A320NEO line, the production lines are completely sold out, both jets arent meeting their deliveries monthly, for the A350 I think its like 10 a month
The 777X got so much hype for Airbus to make an A350 stretch.
airlines don't care much about hype. All they do is put a little logo on the booking page for that plane type if they know people like it, but they also know that 99% of people don't book flights because of a certain plane type.
@@FalconX88Emirates and Lufthansa are there for those who do (A380 and 747 respectively)
Airbus is already having issues with their supply chain, they seem to have a full order book, they are still developing the A350F, and they seem to be focused on this hydrogen thing. How is adding one more version the A350 gonna help that situation. Seems to me that's part of where boeing went wrong by having way too many models in development/early production at the same time.
Now since you mention it you might be right. There is the 737 MAX 7-10, 787 8-10, 777Fs, 767Fs and the 777x 8,9 and F vs Airbus a330neo 800 and 900, a220, a319,20,21XLR and a350 900, 1000 and F. That is 18 different planes to 9. Double of what airbus is doing
@@ganymede6535It's a choice to take on that many projects
Hydrogen is a huge boondoggle but that R&D is being funded externally and whilst we're extremely unlikely to see hydrogen as a real commercial fuel(*) there are always good chances for that research to result in better technology finding its way into other transportation systems
(*)If you have the energy to make green hydrogen then it makes sense to expend extra energy during the manufacturing process to tack on atmospheric carbon(**) and make MUCH easier-to-handle hydrocarbons. It costs more upfront but the handling costs of hydrogen are extreme at virtually every step along the chain, so it's cheaper overall
(**) Yes, I'm aware of ammonia proposals using atmospheric nitrogen. A fuel which can dissolve the passengers is even less of a good idea than one which is expensive/dangerous to handle and embrittles almost everything it comes into contact with
Naah.... I don't think Airbus should invest in building A350-2000. A380 was supposed to be a 747 competitor, but we all know how that turned out. I think Airbus is in a very good position right now, and they should hold on to that dominance and rack-up the orders for their current offerings. However, who am I to suggest how to run a multi-billion-dollar company with multi-million-dollar products?
Airbus should absolutely try to keep inovating instead of sitting on the dominance that they currently have.
Boeing got to where they are today by trying to do that.
The A380 was the biggest waste of R&D.
@@wadehiggins1114 Maybe, but it is a beautifiul aircraft for the passenger.
@@wadehiggins1114 You are right in general, but some improvements were also used in A350 development. So not 100% waste, maybe 90% waste 😝
@@alfredwallace6968 👍🏿
At least Boeing is finding all these problems before the plane was certified
Another major problem for Airbus would be the lack of production facilities. They are already unable to keep up with the backlog of the A350 and the A320 family.
Right on. Airlines also are screaming for an A220-500 but Airbus just don't have the production capacity to do it. And that's a really easy stretch, but they can't keep up with current orders.
wut a boeing fan
True for A320, but not for A350 and A330Neo. Target rate is 144/year. Backlog is 714 units. Delivery time is 5 years. Quite normal.
@@user-yt198 The production rate for the A350 is 10 per month....
@@karlp8484 I said target rate. Even with current rate, delivery time is 6 years. For wide bodies this is normal.
It's so sad that the A380 came at the wrong time.
The A340 too. :(
@@robertbaratheon3894both was to late to the party dc-10 eat before the a340 and 747 eat before the a380
Yeah, like about 50 years too late.
The trade-off isn't worth it. More passengers means a heavier aircraft, and that means less range. It would diminish the very selling point of the A350. The only edge the 777x has is capacity. The A350 beats it in range and fuel efficiency. Airbus doesn't need to make a stretched version. If Boeing doesn't get it together, airlines will eventually approach airbus anyway.
777-8 is a competitor of A350-1000 AND NOT THE 777-9
The a350 doesn’t beat the 777x in fuel efficiency. Airlines have stated that they burn about the same and according to this data, the 777x is arguably more efficient. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft
@@cxaviation3313 it comes down to seat configuration, no airline is going to have their 777 nearing 400 seats or past that besides airlines like air canada on incredibly demanding routes with almost full economy 777s, or that the same article contradicts the A350-1000 fuel consumption on the charts it's using as it's source.
It's really hard to pinpoint exact fuel consumption values of aircraft, especially when the sources are from different testing sources, so wikipedia has to either quote them directly, or do their own calculations to "reach" an average, or it's first party sources which tend to make their own planes look the absolute best possible over real scenarios.
Reality is that they are pretty close to each other, it's margin of error for airlines.
@@cxaviation3313 You know about the A350F? Can carry about one metric tonne less than the proposed 777-8F. Problem for Boeing: 8F is just about 30 tonnes more heavy. So which aircraft may need more fuel?
The A350 if fine as is. Time for the industry to get rid of the bean counters and let the engineers do what they do best.
The problem is that Airbus needs more powerful engines to power the a350-2000 and to prevent a tail-strike, they may have to increase the wingspan/upgraded wing design to increase lift so that it can get off the ground which can increase weight and reduce efficiency . This will come at an inflated cost due to the upgraded engine, bigger-wings, more flight testings, and reduced max range due to extra weight. All of this would sum up to a "more expensive" aircraft than the 777x only with "less" range. So it is probably not worth it for Airbus.
Not necessarily. The stretch talked about here is pretty modest and only 2m of it would be aft of the wings. It might increase the take off speed by about 5kts, but wouldn't need a bigger wing or engines if the MTOW stays the same (case in point 787-10). Range would be reduced, but still fairly competetive and it wouldn't be directly over the 779 in terms of capability (which is something both manufactirers try to avoid). Remember that the - 1000 already has about 5% bigger wing than the - 900 due to the aft wing extension.
@brileri then airlines are better off buying the 787-10 than the A350-2000
@@busofmauritius8306 if they could fill the 350 stretch, it would have way lower seat/mile costs, therefore the answer would depend on demand.
Currently the 7810 is the most efficient plane (out of wide bodies) on 3000-4500nm. Beyond ~4500nm the 789 and 359 can haul more cargo and become modre efficient, especially the 359. 789 is very good over the entirety of its range envelope, but not the absolute best at any range. A good rule of thumb is that the bigger plane will be better, if you can fill it consistently. Only after that you want the lighter frame for best efficiency.
@@busofmauritius8306 that barely competes with the 900 lol
It's not the most flight tested commercial aircraft by a long shot ... Concord had over 5000+ hours of test flight time before delivery
That's "Concorde".
@@tenkloosterherman British insisted on Concord while French get all fluffed up and demand it be Concorde. So, compromise was reached to retain e.
Air Caraïbes was the first airline to operate 10-abreast A350-1000. Flew on F-HSIS and F-HMIL in october last year and yes, the seats were tight.
French Bee also have a 10-abreast A350 and I can also confirm the seats were tight!
If you want the version in East Asia you are looking at a Philippine Airlines version of it. Keep in mind Taiwanese Japanese and Hong kongers would rather avoid that and in return JL🇯🇵 BR🇹🇼 & CX🇭🇰 bring them to Ninoy Aquino International Airport from Tokyo Hong Kong and Taipei because they know they can actually siphon off passengers from PR🇵🇭 which is spelled out in Taiwan and Hong Kong as 菲律賓航空.
I am not a big guy. In fact the word AVERAGE would best describe me, and I do not fit in a 17in wide seat.... Who are they kidding? There is a reason I always pick aisle or window.
@@EpicThe112CX operates MNL with Their A330s and A321s, no A350
@djonymorais time to time if they couldn't find A330/A321 to MNL CX will send the following types B77W A359/A35K because they know their longtime competitor Philippine Airlines since 1946 doing the same
Look at how quickly the 737 MAX got out, with all its problems. I’d rather have the 777X be delayed than have it rushed and kill people
I’ll tell you something, once the 777X is released and for the first 3-4 years I am in no rush to try it… Not interested in the dummy role for Boeing…
It would still require a significant investment upfront and most potential A350-1100/2000 customers have already selected the 500+ 777X in Boeing's order book. And don't underestimate the challenge of a new engine, especially since most orders are from the Middle East (Emirates, Qatar) and the RR Trent XWB-97 is still struggling in hot conditions.
The most likely solution is that a stretched A350 will appear alongside an A350neo
I agree, emirates is already not happy with takeoff performance of the 1000, so any stretches will have to be a part of the next gen program.
Good video . I'm sorry for the B777 X , I like the 777 .The stretch A350 it s a good idea , as the A380 NEO too . Good luck for both Boeing and Airbus , they are doing the best they can .
Airbus right now is in a very good position. As its A321XLR is entering service in November and all the aircraft orders they have it’s clear that Airbus is was ahead of Boeing. It would not be the best choice for them to build an A350-200 right now.
Airbus would have a hard time selling A350-2000’s to North American carriers especially the Big 3 here in the US. Here is a reason why: "We think the 777X will be a very good airplane, but it is a very big airplane," Patrick Quayle, the senior vice president of global network planning and alliances, told Business Insider. "Given our hub structure, we find a smaller widebody is actually better." So there you have it, Patrick Quayle at United says it’s too big for for US airports and I’m sure they are in agreement over at Delta and American.
No One Cares about North America, its circling the toilet bowl already in more ways than one, Its Asian and Middle Eastern carriers that rule the Market.
Frenchbee is actually already using the 10 seat layup for a lowcost long haul purpose
9:30 though, the XWB is still THE SECOND LARGEST turbofan on the market, and is still QUITE MASSIVE compared to most other turbofans out there, excluding the GE90/9X.
The Trent XWB really isn’t a problem as long as the MTOW of the A350-2000(or -1100) being the same as that of A350-1000. The range would be reduced, but still be plenty long enough (at least 13500 km, hopefully 14000 km).
Let’s look at the A340 first. A340-200 and 300 share the same wings, engines and MTOW, so do the -500 and -600. The -200 and -500 are unpopular because they are the “cursed” shrunken variants (excessively heavy for their passenger capacities).
Going back to the A350, we all know that the -800 was cancelled. But it was supposed to be sharing the same wings and engines (Trent XWB-84) as the -900 if it made it to production. The -1000 has more powerful Trent XWB-97 and trailing edge extensions on its wings for 5% more wing area. There should naturally be a A350-2000(or -1100) sharing the same engines, wings and MTOW with the A350-1000, if the A340’s history has taught us anything.
There is no way Trent XWB-97 engine is sufficient for A350-2000. Actually it has the same size as Trent XWB-84. It is already barely enough for -1000. Using it in -2000 will be like overclocking overclocked CPU.
@@user-yt198 A bigger aircraft isn’t necessarily a heavier aircraft. As long as the A350-2000 keeps the same MTOW as the A350-1000 (322 t), the Trent XWB-97 should just be enough. Weight matters, not size (most of the time).
The A340-500 and -600 share the same MTOW of 380 t and Trent 500 engines. Using Trent XWB-97 on A350-2000 would work in the same way by keeping the same 322 t MTOW as the -1000.
Airbus is just gauging interest on the 10-abreast A350. If that works, there’s no need to make a (not-so-expensive) A350-2000. I guess every penny is worth saving.
@@user-nd4ip1xv5m You can develop such an aircraft if you must, but will it sell? I don't think so.
Current 777X customers will be the potential market.
Emirates, Qatar, Etihad, Cathay Pacific, Lufthansa, they will all look for range and thus they will not buy. So what is the meaning?
I don't agree that 13,500-14,000km will be possible by the way. How did you come to that number?
Yeah that’s the main issue with a stretched A350-2K, the engine development is something it’ll need from scratch
I mean if Boeing could upsize the 787-9 and 737-800 a little more with retaining the same MTOW and engine thrust, Airbus could probably do the same with the A350. The 777-9 only has a range of 7300nm and the A350-1000 has a range of 8700nm, with a longer range variant being developed. I doubt the range would go below that of the 777-9 with an A350 stretch.
I certainly think an A350 stretch to the length of the 777-9 is possible. Whether it’s feasible, I disagree with Cody a little. The current variants have already been wildly popular and most orders are for the -900 variant
Your content has always been top-notch. There just aren't enough airline/aircraft videos out there. I always look forward to seeing your notifications come across my screen when a new video drops. Keep up the absolutely amazing work Sir.
The very large airline market is limited. Only a handful of airlines can operate those and to be honest without Emerates neither the A380 or the 777-9 are even viable as projects for both manufacturers.
It would therefore make no sense what so ever to scratch the A350.
No airline in North America will order the A350-2000 & airbus need not repeat the A380 mistake that never broke even.
Boeing’s problems are 100% self-inflicted, and I have zero sympathy for them. They’re reaping the rewards of putting “shareholder value” ahead of engineering excellence and uncompromising safety, and they’re getting exactly what they deserve.
Boeing and the regulators are doing their job to find the problems prior to certification. We should applaude that.
Sorry but applauding them for just barely fulfilling their job description? That's like a participation trophy
6:32 Coby just did a better job being a therapist than anyone at betterhelp lmaoo
A350-2000 is also might have some issue such as tail strike due to longer fuselage
Agreed. The airlines that have ordered the 777x need to figure it out.
bigggg fake
arbus got all da safety
@@d...345 L + Ratio
A340-600 was 75,5 meters. Suggested A350-2000 will be around 80 meters (5% longer). Ground clearance of A350 is 10% higher than A340. So in terms of tail strike it will not be worse than A340-600.
The question for Airbus isn't "would it make sense", but "are there other project to spend our focus on that would make more sense?"
especially the new narrowbody project
Adding another plane to Airbus's portfolio isn't going to work, their production capacity is already at a stretch. And since they don't seem to be compromising safety (unlike Boeing), it will be very difficult to increase that capacity anytime soon. I guess a A380 Neo would make more sense at the moment than a A350-2000 or smth.
it is not just a matter of fuselage stretch. aside from weight/strength of landing gear, there is the matter of target range.
the reason the 787-10 does not compete is that it is too big for the wing area of 4058sqft, vs 4760 for the A350-9 and 4998 for the A350-10
The 777X wing area is 5562 sqft. (4702 on the 777-300ER)
It's not possible to stretch the A350 further without redesigning a lot more things that are mentioned here.
So "easy to build" is just not true at all
Airbus would have to create a new production facility first before even thinking about making a new type of aircraft.
The French low cost carrier FranchBee operate also a fleet of A350-1000 with a high density layout : 440 in economy and 40 in premium economy, a total of 480, possible by using a row of 10 seats in economy.
To me, 10-abreast is as much of a "We show our customers how much we hate them" move as is longhaul flights on narrowbodies. An airline trying to make me suffer through this would lose me as a customer immediately.
as others said a A380 NEO with new engines, redesigned wings and carbon parts might eventually come true, who knows.....
The A380 has a maximum takeoff weight of 560 tons. The wings were designed for 600 tons in mind however.
Just in case they did a 380-900
For all we know airbus might be building a a350-2000 while not discolsing anything about that program
Impossible. A350 has already been stretched once from its original design to A350XWB, resulting in its relatively weak engines. Stretching it yet another time would be too far-fetching.
Airbus should speak to airlines and check if they would be interested in a stretch with ultrafan engines. Atleast 8 of 10 airlines they check with will order.
I would worry that an additional A350 stretch might end up like the 767-400. Expensive for Airbus to stretch, and not too many buyers.
Let's imagine that Airbus has *already* done all the development work and got an A350-2000 certificated and ready to go right now. Today! How many extra aeroplanes could they sell this side of 2030? None. None at all. Why not? Because they already have more orders for A320s, A330s, and A350s than they have factory space to build them in. There are rusted-on Boeing customers desperate to cancel 737MAX orders and buy A320s/A321s instead, but Airbus' factories are maxed out already and new orders naturally go to the back of the queue - that means not this decade.
The Airbus A220-500neo will come before the Airbus 350-2000
Airbus should focus on delivering their orders they already have in time. Their backlog is more than sufficient to keep them afloat should they keep up or even ramp up manufacturing and production lines.
There's no need for a 2000. It's a waste of time for a limited number of customers.
Maybe Airbus feels that the backorders for A350 are too much, same reason why Airbus isn’t capitalizing on the tarnished reputation of the MAX
No - doubling down on A321XLR production will kick Blowing in the nuts.
The A350 is doing very well as it is, no need to fix something that's working well.
This may be a good news in some aspects as it lengthens the serving of A380s
I personally believe and trust in the 777x
Believe is for Sundays. May I mention MAX?
"Making a A350 stretched version is easy".
Proceeds to mention at least 2 almost fundamental aircraft design changes, which will probably result in a minimum of 3-5 year design and certification process.
Bruh...
Agree with this analysis. Lot of people saying airbus should do clean sheet. But that is point, this solution does not require it lessening leadtime which is win win.
The a350 is big enough. United haven't ordered the 777x because the -9 in particular is too big for multi-hub operations, so the most possible replacement for the B777-300er would be the 777-8 for them which is as big as the a350-1000 in terms of capacity
I think Airbus is waiting for the B777X to be operational and the actual performance/economics to be known; and base their competing product on those numbers. But they expected that to happen years ago so now they might have to act anyway.
Yep, but they started doing it before the new production standard was announced. They're a bit of an outlier
I think Airbus should just continue its 'boring' existence. And with that I mean AB should do what they have done for the past 50 years - build quality aeroplanes and inject innovations once in a decade.
Granted, I think the A350F-1000 is quite cool and somewhat sudden and will outmatch the old 777F/777xF.
Airbus has been now developing for almost 10 years its next completely new design with the wing structure. I think Airbus will do great- huge amounts of money to R&D and keeping the QA in the forefront.
You are my favorite youtuber coby!
It WOULD Be Pretty Cool To Have The -2000 Variant, I Don't See How It Would Help Airbus... 😅
Isnt the a350-1000 already a stretch of the -900. Not only would you have to consider the thrust but also the wings carrying the added weight as well as aircraft stability, fuselage rigidity and tail clearance at take off
At least this time they’re making sure the plane doesn’t come with issues while in service, so they pinpoint them in testing. People’s hatred towards Boeing is really a case study, they have done so much for modern aviation, they should be given at least some small credit even in their current situation.
I believe there is more hope specially with the new CEO of Boeing being a mechanical engineer and hopefully everything will be fixed sooner then later
Dennis Muilenburg is an engineer, but he f*** up big time. What Boeing need is FBI to arrest and jail most of the board member so they won't give hard time to newly appointed CEO. Regardless he has engineering background.
« Sooner rather than later » including the loss making Air Force contracts? The spaceship farce? Not forgetting the need to negotiate new contracts with the Unions (who are very very pssed off and threatening strikes).
Muilenburg was an engineer. That didn't help much.
@@todortodorov6056😮
The title was shoking me like how😂
exactly!
Reasons Airbus hasn't acted:
One; they don't actually want Boeing to go bankrupt. Airbus has the engineering capacity and design options to obliterate the 777X in the market place. Actually driving Boeing into oblivion and becoming a global monopoly would be politically very uncomfortable. Better to become a global monopoly by accident (i.e. let Boeing screw themselves, or simply delay developments to the point where airlines are screaming for them).
Two; building up a war chest. Airbus are making a lot of money, and can use that profit to out-develop Boeing at any point they choose to do so in the future.
Three; A380 neo is a real option, and probably going to happen no matter what. There's many slot congested airports with profitable routes flying full A380s today, too many to ignore and anything smaller means leaving money on the table. When those A380s retire, there's going to be cash-loaded demand from a few airlines for more double-decked aircraft, and an A380 neo is the lowest cost route to that. It's also possible that the overall demand for seats could by then have risen, and it may turn out that a 777X / A350-1100 isn't big enough. This is basically what happened with the 747 got first introduced; there were some initial orders and operations, a pause of a few years, and then the demand went through the roof. History may be repeating.
Four; A350 is still selling well. You don't stop selling something and bring in a new model until the market is ripe for the change. Standard commercial practice. The 777x is not a commercial threat to Airbus in anyway. If it suddenly does look like the market is taking off for the Boeing aircraft, Airbus can probably launch an A350 neo / 1100 / 2000 and put it into service in very short order (2, 3 years?). That'd be fast enough to make a lot of airlines hesitate on placing 777x orders. This is sort of tied up with point #1.It'd really screw Boeing up badly, because they need to sell a large number of 777X's to make money at all (there's a huge debt to pay off first). So I expect Airbus to finesse the launch of an A350 neo to make sure that they retain substantial market share against the 777X, and no less.
Five: environmental regulations. These are only going to get tighter, and it's worth waiting and seeing.
I realise that most of the above adds up to Airbus waiting and seeing what Boeing actually does, but that's the luxury they've been granted by Boeing collapsing so deeply into the hole. Airbus is apparently highly aware of the US political angle to all this, and could face real difficulties if US politicians identified Airbus as being in any way to "blame" for Boeing failing totally. Such blame isn't there at the moment - Boeing is identified as having shot itself in the foot - but politics isn't exactly ever rational, especially if Airbus were obviously exploiting Boeing's current weakness with knock-out development blows (though, the A321XLR may have been one of those...). There will be a time limit of course; if Boeing are still in the hole in 5 years time (a pure guess on my part), Airbus probably won't be able to fend off airline customer demand for improved Airbus products.
I suspect Airbus would quite happily peg themselves at about 60% overall market share in an Airbus / Boeing duopoly, and use their growing cash pile to ensure they can develop products to maintain that share. That would be a share that the US politicians couldn't really object to, but would ensure that Airbus retains the upper hand. Though obviously they'd prefer to be a global monopoly, with US political acquiescence / support.
Interesting reading 👌
A A350-2000 would make the grandaddy A340-600 proud
Boeing has quality issues, Airbus has supply chain issues. Both are working really hard to reestablish their full business potential in plane output. Once Airbus scales up production - especially with the A320Neo family - it can move on.
Since the A320 airframe is also creeping up half a century, Airbus has a clear blueprint of what happens when you squeeze the platform beyond it's limits (737 MAX). So, starting an A320 replacement might be a bigger priority than anything else.
Actually, premium economy should be the minimum passenger space - 8 abreast max. The stretch should happen to restore lost capacity
2-4-2 is the standard on JAL’s 788 planes and i love it
A streched 350 would make this beautiful aircraft even more stunning, I do hope Airbus in cooperation with RR start developing such it, the 777 has been plagued with problems and will soon start to see orders cancelled due to the continuing delays, Airbus will soon increase production of the 350 to satisfy demand.
No one is canceling anything, keep dreaming. Infact more orders on the way
I Love the A380-800.
I Love the A350-ULR
BOEING’S INCOMPETENCE is gonna ensure that they stay around longer than the bean counters intended!
The A350 is an incredible machine. I’ve flown nonstop from JFK to Manila on Philippine Airlines. 16 hours. Business class in a 1x2x1 layout.
The only Boeing experience better was ANA’s 777-300 “The Room” business class.
I hope the 777x works it is the only way to save Boeing 😮😮😮
Airbus can do this from a design standpoint quite easily, with the new Rolls-Royce engine which is close to certification. But they just don't have the production capacity, the backlog on the A350-1000 is already huge. It's the same story with the A220. Airlines are already hammering for an A220-500 (stretch) but Airbus can't make enough 100 and 300s as it stands, how can they make a 500?
I think you're 100% right, and they should call it the A351 to be consistent.
Its a good synopsis on the whole, but begs the question: where would Airbus find the manufacturing capacity to build this fantasy A350-2000? With production of the A350 already being increased to meet the high demand, which would see it busy until the 2030s, Airbus could not build it this decade, despite what our host might think. Rumours about a further large Qatar order for the existing A350 family are all over the press, and Im almost certain Emirates will order the -1000 as back up insurance for the 777X jinx, especially now that both the RR -84 but especially the -97, which Emirates have been concerned about, are being upgraded. If the A350 takes any more big orders in 2024, customers will have to wait a long time for delivery as it is, without the -2000.
Its like those people who think GE will be able to push in on the success of the A350, and offer the GE9X or a derivative for an A350Neo. Airbus simply don't need to offer an expensive engine option, when the product is sold out. After snubbing Airbus over the development of the -1000, I think Airbus will stick with RR during the next decade also. And by the time there's an A350Neo developed, I expect the GE9X to be antiquated and technology derived from UltraFan producing a new engine from RR.
Im sure that the -2000 will come eventually, although Airbus and RR might be planning to tweak the designs to compete with the larger capacity of the 777X, as our host indicates. The day it gains certification might be a good day for the announcement..........
Opinion: Airbus shouldn’t do to the A350 what Boeing would do to any of their Frankenjets
Theres actually inner talk of airlines actually demanding an A352 (conversions from A359s and top up order). A rough comcept wants to use the A351 ULR as base with simple frame stretches, and minor work to bump up MLW a bit.
Widebodies are a specialist low-volume item which are EXTREMELY expensive to develop. There were only ~1550 747s made in its 50 year manufacturing life
Unless/until there is sufficient demonstrated demand by airlines - and committed orders - a design won't leave the drawing board. That applies whether it's clean sheet or a derivative (EG: A380NEO)
Boeing's woes are self inflicted but Airbus won't build a bigger A350 unless Airlines are guaranteed to buy it
The solution is obvious, the A340-1000
I think Airbus is probably more invested in Boeing's success than people think. If Boeing starts to get really shaky and have to downsize to stem financial issues, its suppliers would be hit too, and Airbus and Boeing share suppliers. I suspect Airbus will focus on replacing the A320 for now, unless its customers begin to insist on a stretch.
4:58 Not ".. push.." Coby, but ".. pull.." :the engines are on/forward of the wing, hence pulling the air frame. DC9s 727s pull as their engines were towards the aircraft rear.
As an A350 flight attendant, the idea of a 10 abreast 350 makes me cringe.
Airbus have always been too narrow for my liking. I never understood why they say it’s the direct competitor to the 777 when it feels more like an improved 787 to the crew
I mean both Boeing and Airbus know that airlines want to cram as many passengers as possible into the smallest and therefore lightest cabin possible. Which is why the 787 is really too small for 9 abreast, but too wide for 8. But you can just about fit 9, so airlines like it. Airbus are trying the same with the 350, which is now a bit too wide for 9, but too narrow for 10.
that's probably the reason why just a few carriers adopted the 10 abreast design and the rest stuck with the 9 (which is a good thing).
If boeing is struggling this hard just to Reengine/update a perfectly ready made good Airplane in the 777, .. What hope do they have for a Cleansheet When the 737 Needs replacing or if they Want to do a 757/767 Sized plane.
Also i did wonder if Airbus would wait for a A350 the Size of the -2000 for the Time for the A350Neo, Do you think they will Neo all 3 variants?
Yes but airbus are different to Boeing ; they don't do stuff to save money. Airbus does it properly and so it will probably take longer
truuuu
If Airbus does the stretch, we'll see a 777-10x
The all-new 777-10. Entering into service 2095!
Really great video and explanation as usual. Keep up the exceptional work!
People keep saying don’t trust the RUclips sponsors which is true, don’t trust the RUclipsr either. This dude clearly only cares about money given the fact he doesn’t care how damaging Betterhelp has been.
I think the A350-1000 is in the sweet-spot for size & efficiency for most airlines. Building larger is more niche, it would also be expensive as T-XWB-97 would need more power. AB`s order book is solid, IMO it`s not the most prudent move in a very unsettled world atm.
Cool your jets, that’s why its in the certification stage, to confirm it meets its certification standards and also I didn’t know your an aeronautical engineer with your certification knowledge of airframe plugs.
Coby, a bit of friendly advice from a fan.
IMHO, you are being a bit heavy handed with Boeing. You almost sound angry.
Your channel is great without jumping on the “Down With Boeing” bandwagon.
Boeing has been forthright with the public about all this and will do the right thing now and ultimately deliver an amazing aircraft when the time is right.
The 777-9 will be a success. This is just a snag in testing. It’s a redundancy part issue found in testing; Where these things should be found and fixed before production. The 777x is wider and longer and will be able to sit 10 abreast economy with 18 inch seats. U can’t call it unreliable if it’s not even in service. Between the 737 max issue, Covid and engines issues most of its delay was really not the planes design fault.
Don't get me wrong - but you should really keep fingers crossed for the Boeing overall. If this company will fail in incoming years - it will leave monopoly for Airbus for the commercial airline manufacturer. I'm happy that Boeing is now facing so many issues, hopefully this will help them find the correct path for future and repair it's reputation.
I wouldn't put Qatar on my target list for the A350 stretch if I were Airbus.
The A350-1000 only garnered 22% of all A350 orders, an A350-200 would probably fare even worse. Airbus some years ago was presenting an A350-2000 concept to airlines but there wasnt enough interest. And it would be the worst possible timing to start such a model with the current gen of engines now. In a couple of years they'll already be obsolete with the next generation of engines becoming available.
Airbus could revisit the idea when doing a reengining with next gen engines. With current engines a simple stretch would not have enough range for customers like Emirates. New engines could potentially fix that issue as reduced fuel burn automatically increases range.
an A350NEO would be a better bet
I am not surprise...Its the same way the 737MAX has its problem by using an older airframe design
In this instance I think Airbus can afford to wait a bit... The A350-1000 is plenty big right now and is available RIGHT NOW
I want to see an A350-2000 too, but there is no suitable RR engine. It is claimed that Airbus gave exclusivity to RR for A350-900 engine and no manufacturer (i.e GE) will not make an engine for just A350-1000 and A350-2000.
Airbus needs to wait for Ultrafan or 2030 (claimed end of exclusivity).
correct and if that were to happen UA 2030 order would end up being Half GE and RR A350s
Clean slate build for both companies
Airbus really needs to build the 75/76 replacement that the airlines have been asking for. They barely have any work to do, while Boeing is busy chasing it's tale into insignificance.
There are no engines in that class of aircraft genius. An 757 neo would have been an easy build. The engines on the a321xlr are maxed out.
Yeah I'm aware. I'm glad you see my genius. It's really nice to be recognized. Lol. How do you think new engines are created. GE doesn't just build an engine and hope a manufacturer builds an aircraft around it. Airbus and Boeing go to engine suppliers and give them the specs for what they need. @@MiturBinEsderty
Absolutely on point with this take
Airbus definitely has the time to invest into the a350 2000, but there are still other factors that they have to consider before building it.