Battle Of The Next-Gen Freighters: Airbus A350F vs. Boeing 777-8F
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 сен 2024
- The next few years should be interesting when it comes to the new widebody freighters being offered by the two big planemakers. In the summer of 2021, Airbus announced the launch of its A350 freighter program (A350F). Likely having developed the idea for a few months, Boeing responded by announcing the launch of a 777X freighter program at the end of January 2022.
With lower demand among customers for freighters when compared to their passenger equivalents, the market has been, and will continue to be competitive. So which next-generation widebody freighter is the better choice? Let's try to answer this question in today’s video!
Article: simpleflying.co...
Our Social Media:
/ simpleflyin. .
/ simple_flying
/ simpleflying. .
Our Website
simpleflying.com/
For copyright matters please contact us at: legal@valnetinc.com
Well it all depends on how much longer it'll take for the 777-9 to even be certified. Right now they don't even have the passenger version close to being in service so 2027 is still very subject to further delays. Not to mention they still have yet to build an 8 of any version. Who knows...any more issues with the 9 will further push back the 8 and the F.
The a350f is based on a tried and certified airframe so it will be much more easier to certify the cargo version.
Agreed, the 8 is not going to be delivered before 2027 or 2028 THEN the 8f... I don't expect it before 2030 tbh
No prize for guessing which orifice boeing pulled that '2027' number from 😂😂
Both great, but I personally prefer the A350F
prefer means ? does freighter plane go with personal preference? dude this is not ur passenger plane…u jst cant say i prefer this freighter😅😅😅
@@prasenjittripura4691 Obvs a Boeing fan 🤦♂️
@@madmaxaviation yeah airbuse endorse me a lot😀
@@prasenjittripura4691 just be quiet and clean your room
@@wadehiggins1114 facts 💀
The important thing: Airbus could have the A350F prototype ready for flight possibly by late 2024, probably using parts from the A350-1000 already in commercial service. Given that a large number of MD-11F freighters will need retirement by 2030, I expect serious consideration by both FedEx and UPS to buy the A350F.
There’s no rush from these cargo carriers. The 767 is replacing the routes originally serviced by MD-11 aircraft. Current 777 and 747 aircraft are meeting current demands.
The A350F seems to be more reliable, lighter, to compare with a redesigned 777X which is not certified yet.
Glad to see a direct competition between two aircrafts with close characteristics.
The A350F will be the confirmation that, since several years, Airbus is back in the race for freighter aircrafts
The a350F is not certified yet too.
The key for me is the engines. RR Trent Xwb-97 are tried and tested with more than impressive stats. Neither the 777X nor its GenX engines are even certified for operations.
You mean GE9X engines
TBH, when it comes to sales, these #s really doesn't matter until Fedex or UPS make a decision on one or the other since they run the biggest fleets of the freighter variants and can tip the scales more heavily to Boeing vs Airbus. Say if Fedex already operates 773F, they are more likely to use the 778F for replacements than going to a351f
For cargo operations I would buy both, it's important to have diversity in a fleet. I would use the A350Fs for a bit longer ranges and the 778-8Fs for more cargo on slightly shorter haul routes.
lmao what, we using diversity as a reason? cargolux and atlas just use the 747 them bringing both the 777 and A350 makes little to no sense.
Agreed makes no sense especially when you consider the 777-300ERSF has more container capacity than the 747-400F and would be cheaper to buy outright than the 778F
A350F, Lower Airport fee because it is lighter, probably less fuel burn because of lower overall empty weight and more durable body all thanks to advanced composite in both wings and body compared to only composite wings in 777x
but less payload
@@CodPix111t vs 112.3 for Boeing ? Splitting hairs when you’ll probably never max out on weight anyway.
I have concerns about how well a composite freighter is going to handle ramp rash. Aluminum can be patched with a plate. How much engineering is going to have to be done (how much repair down time) when someone runs a loader into it
A350 uses composite plates which makes its fuselage similar to conventional ones, it is not single structure like 787.
@@user-yt198 strikes don’t always happen near the reenforced door guards
@@nixonvlark6390 What I am saying is, you can repair A350 fuselage like a conventional aluminum fuselage.
The biggest obstacle faced with composites is that it doesn't dent like aluminium. If you hit a composite airframe a slap of stairs or something it'll pop back out and look no different but if you radiograph it then it'll probably show up cavities or coin tap it and it'll be hollow. Aluminium if you did the same thing would just dent and then you can determine pretty easily if it's possible to dispatch or not with a DTI and an amm probably chapter 53(srm, fuse). With that said you can patch repair carbon, it's a bit fiddly with sandwich plate in places. The alternative is boron plating but it's really expensive stuff. I reckon ramp guys are just gonna have to be a bit more mindful and let's be honest non cargo ramp staff aren't going to be any less rough than freight staff. They've held up pretty good so far 🙂
Boeing continues to build and deliver the 777F. Combined with the conversion market for the 777-300ER into freighters which will be significant as over 800 of 777-300ERs transition out of passenger service as they are replaced by 787’s, a350’s and 777-9.
A350f may be delivered before the 778F but the shear numbers
of 777 freighters already delivered, to be delivered and conversions has firmly established the 777 as the dominant cargo aircraft.
A350F
The 777-8F will be able to carry more cargo, so I think that alone is a far more attractive offer to cargo carriers than a larger cargo door on the A350F or their “expectations” that the aircraft will be delivered sooner. Freight companies don’t care about fuel mileage, they care about how much cargo they can put on their planes because freight prices are through the roof at the moment.
The most important thing for an airline is the fuel.
@@the_stormtrooper but not for a freightet airline. Just look at their fleets, typically decades older than passenger airlines
Freight prices and cargo rates can go down as quickly as either of these aircraft without wings attached!
Prices are way down at the moment
you need to make sure you can full the compartment
For a majority of cases, the 777 with more payload weight allowance will more than likely fit most market. The 777F was/is a great, reliable aircraft and I think that will carry over.
carrying more has its draw backs for 1 more stress on the air frame, 2 no one ever carries max MTOW ask any freighter captain 3 the more than 40M price difference is a huge pill to swallow 4 carrying more means more fuel burnt in the process its something called diminishing returns and speaking of diminishing returns airbus could have had the 350F carry more if the engines put out more thrust but also wears out the engine more so again 'diminishing returns' comes to mind over all as things stand the 350F looks a far better proposition for freight companies and based on the freight market most of whats transported is perishable goods and the 350F more than fits the profile here with its range and cost of acquisition.
The maximum take-off weight may be higher for the 777, but being manufactured from heavier materials, this translates into a lower maximum payload weight than the composite A350.
Having the capacity to carry more doesn't mean that you can carry more or need to carry more.
A very important metric is packing density. If your packing density on a missions exceeds certain limits, you can't carry a full Payload. In fact the bigger the aircraft, the most likely that it will be carrying a lot of dead weight without achieving full Payload.
Packing density is also intrinsically asdociated with centre of gravity and beams strength. The A350F is based on the A350-1000 but its a few frames shorter precisely because designers aimed at optimising the packing density.
Where the 777-8F can have an edge. Say, it could carry loads eay more e-commerce cardboard parcel than the A350F.
I frankly think prospect operators will be looking at EIS. As it has been mentioned before in this post, the 777-8F is subject to certification of the 777-8 which in turn, is subject to 777-9, whose entry-into-service EIS is still facing many barriers.
I can say, though, that the 777-8F will be a massive, magnificent beast for us spotters
@Marlon Mejia Exactly, I used to work for a company that made kitchen units, both pre-assembled and flat-packed.
You soon exceeded the maximum vehicle weight with the flat-packed units, so much so that most of the container was empty, wheras with the ready assembled units, the challenge was to arrange them so that a few more cabinets could be squeezed in (3D Tetris!) because overloading was impossible - far too much air!
Likewise, thanks to the standard sizes of the units, there was always that bit of space that could never be used. Be it down the side or on top. The container could have been a little smaller but could have carried the exact same cargo, or conversely, I am sure that thanks to standard sized cargo, in some situations even a few more mm could result in tens of cm of additional usable space.
@@neilpickup237 it's always a pleasure to read informed intelligent comments in these forums (rather than A vs V trolling). Thanks for exemplifying my concept comment with an easy-to-understand, real-life case; cheers Neil !
777-8F I love it
There is a livery design contest for the new A350F house livery. I actually submitted a few design proposals for the contest.
From a loadmaster point of view , I find is slightly hard to believe the height of the cargo door on the a350. The fuselage contour is very similar to 777, and with the 747 being a larger aircraft, it only has a max door height of 123 inches and max cargo height of 121 inches. If I have to assume , the a350 door height shall be in the 120-123 inch height. However the 165 inch wide door will be wonders for oversized cargo as there are going to be less 747 operating in future. So if we lose cargo loading through the nose , at least the a350 has a wider door to offer oversized solutions.
on balance theyre both good planes and should be good whatever an airline buys. The range though and bigger door, and two years ahead may just give Airbus the edge. So for me the A350F and airbus continually work on adapting the A350 as they did last year. However both will win overall with sales
Haven’t seen problems with the 777x still. The engine problems are GE’s fault + Boeing still dominates the cargo market.
To me, it's not so important how these two compare by 2028, but rather by 2031 (about the time when Airbus will introduce an A350neo)
both are cool aircraft. cant wait for them to launch.
Hmm. I'd give the edge to the Airbus, just because of the bigger cargo door. That could be the difference between transporting a multimillion dollar super car or not, and that's gotta be big profit
Boeing just currently dominates the freighter market. I see the bigger American cargo carriers going with Boeing. I don’t see a rush or need for these planes as of now. Current 777 and 747 fleets are handling demand well. Newer 767 freighters are taking over the routes of older freighters like the MD-11, DC-10.
I will choose both variant but for different uses.
Seems like the A350 is better and cheaper. How can the 777 cost more when its only partially composite?
Serval airlines already have their preferences set and I can work out a few future ones for both
Let certify the plane first then compare.
That's it.I heard that 777-8*9 may be delayed for another 2 years at least.
Also ,i heard that 777x has the similar issue like 737max even without Killer MCAS.(quite a big issue again ,and please do not put anything in the 777x without telling pilot )
Heard from where? haha, up to 4 777X prototypes are expected to fly this year, and continue certification, that itself shows the massive progress already.
The pitch up tendencies you are talking about are the reason the 777X was posponed by 2 years to 2025.
You are still feasting on old news
Whoever gets to market and makes the product work will succeed. Nice video. Keep up the good work.
The 777-8F will have more range @ the a350F's MAX payload ( 109T) .
Both A/C stated ranges are ~a joke as freighter business will always state their range as the Anchorage to HK distance which is IDENTICAL to the distance Boeing uses... as this is the maximum length freighter route. Yes, 778 most likely will have greater range... why Airbus decided to nickle and dime their stated range as 300nm further I have no idea, but just to look better on paper is most likely. The LIMITING FACTOR is load alleviation for 2G wind up turn in said fuselage... and here I have to question Airbus and their claims for tonnage, and if said alleviation is allowed, then Boeing more than likely is waiting to see if that is allowed and to just turn its 779 into an F version and apply for load alleviation as well if they have not done so already as this load alleviation more than likely is why 777X got larger to begin with as 2G wind up turn load alleviation is what allowed the a350 to be so much lighter and not its composite fuselage. Composits save weight in the wing abut deflect too much for rear fuselage loads... until the load alleviation allowed by EASA to a350 dropping 10t --> 20t out of the fuselage on a350
It does NOT have more range at 109T at all. Currently Airbus have just updated the payload to 111T and MTOW to 321T. The aircraft will be over 20 TONNES lighter than the Boeing.
@@nathd1748 Your numbers per Airbus and Boeing are not right. +3T over 77F... but A does not say if that is Revenue tons or if they are adding pallet weight in there. Next number you are wrong about is A says +13t OEW compared to 77F not 20t. 7XF is still digital so...
The Key number is allowable pallet weight distribution and number of pallets. A35F has 5 more pallets than 77F but requires lower cargo density with ~same tonnage. 25% of cargo routes are volume limited so A35F will win those routes for sure or 77W conversions will win those routes. If 7XF numbers are to believed(no reason we shouldn't as its the same fuselage but hasn't been designed yet) it carries 7 more pallets than 77F without lower cargo density. All 3 have a "bulk" cargo area which is not counted and is an "unknown" weight so... ignore it. Now what is the actual fuel burn between the 2 newcomers... who knows. Which is the main component effecting MTOW where the major component is allowable LANDING weight. The RANGE of both is identical as there is no cargo route over 4500nm and ALL of these aircraft already have the fuel tank capacity for much greater range.
Suggest you read more/type less or you must enjoy looking foolish.
@w8stral What's not right about them? I work at Airbus Broughton. I have figures at hand daily. The 1st wings are being produced imminently. The difference in OEW between the A350-1000 and 777-9 is 26 TONNES. The A350F is expected to come in at a further 30 TONNES lighter than the A350-1000. The spec has been revised for cargo tonnage at 111T against 116T for the proposed 777-8F. Although Boeing have not released OEW figures for the 8F I'll bet my last dollar it has an OEW approaching 30T heavier than the Airbus. We are working on revised spec of a 321T MTOW for the A350-1000 and it will apply to the A350F. Whether each aircraft will need to be certified as a 321T MTOW will depend on what individual operators want and the length of the sectors they operate. I do think you are wrong on your given maximum cargo route length. There are cargo operators doing direct China-UK flights that are 4600nm. The given range of the A350F is 4800nm.
@@nathd1748 You are screwing up miles and nautical miles. Beijing to London is 4400nm. Chengdu to London is also 4400nm Hong Kong/Shenzen to London is 5200nm. Shanghai is 5000nm. So no, there are no routes of 4800nm from China to the UK. There is no major cargo route with a length greater than 4400nm anywhere in the world. You are screwing up miles and nautical miles. UPS has a couple ODD routes using LIGHT weight volume limited cargo so FDX and DHL will have them too but here said aircraft already have said range as they are not limited by tonnage, but rather volume.
As for range, this is pure BS, as we already know Airbus is quoting a lower cargo density so they would be FAR better off increasing tonnage limit instead of carrying 400nm more fuel which is useless without a single Cargo route greater than 4400nm. Airbus needs to increase strength of their fuselage. But that gets into the 2G wind up turn load alleviation certification EASA gave to a350 biting them in the ass would be my guess. We know this is true as the 778F is proposed to have Identical length as a350F, yet carry 2 more main cargo pallets all at standard maximum density.
As for tonnages... You are pulling #'s out of your ass as NEITHER the a35F, 779 or 77F have even been produced and no one knows the FUEL burn... it is all estimates at best so only supposed numbers someone can use is what Boeing/Airbus have provided on their home web pages. The only guess we have is the knowledge both the landing gears of old 777 is reused for 77X and a351 landing gear is being used on a35F.
Personally? I think Airbus is screwing up going with a lower tonnage and should increase its MTOW. IF they did they would OWN the cargo market. Bigger changes required though.
I wonder how is a larger cargo door on A350F an advantage considering the container size is standardized and typically one container will be onloaded/offloaded at a time.
The reason is the narrower a350 fuselage compared to 777 and therefore TURNING said odd sized cargo requires a wider door so Airbus can claim to be able to haul identical cargo as the 777. There is no other reason.
I prefer the A350F
Airbus should make an A350neo-F
The 350F looks really good
Maybe Airbus schould replace the A330-200f with a new A330NEO freighter or upgrade it.
Honestly the A330-200 or -800 has only slightly more cubic capacity than a 767-3. The economics are way more favorable on the 767 and the main reason why they barely sold any new ones. Airbus admitted this in the 350F launch.
I don't get A350 fans. They actually be yappin about its range when the Boeing 777 can carry more, its more powerful and just more capable.
Given that the A350F has had its nominal cargo tonnage increased to 111 tons, it would seem the economics are in Airbus’ favor now. If they would produce a A350-800F to complement, I think that would be a slam dunk.
What's fascinating about the A340 is how cheap it is! Thai Airways sold of five A340s in late 2022 for THB 350 million, which translates into around USD 2 million a pop. That's less than 1% of the sticker price of a new 787 or A350. I would love to see the numbers on how an A340 really stacks up economically compared to e.g. a new A350 in terms of total profit (including depreciation!). If Lufthansa/Swiss have them in their books for only 2-3 million, then gosh, I would expect them to still be profitable (and certainly capital efficient compared to new aircraft), even if the fuel costs per seat are poor. I would love to see numbers on this!
No one in their right mind would buy them instead of used 77W's. But, hey they work. PS: Each A/C will require ~$30M to upgrade into freighter versions. Not exactly as cheap as you are thinking.
340 is a 4 engine, fuel sucking machine. 2 engines is more economical.
I hope that both freighters will be successful
Well, the 777 sales are a lot of options and MOU. but it is not surprising 4 years before planed entry in service with the passenger version not even flying yet. I guess the customer are waiting a bit to see more reliability in the date of entry in service.
At least, good effort from airbus on the door size, may make the difference on some decisions.
The A350F
Airbus is a real global plane maker. Active and competing in all segments. Boeing used to be the leader in the industry. Until 2018....today Airbus is the leader and Boeing the challenger....
Both aircraft look great on paper..But when real world numbers come in ..that will be the true test if either aircraft lives up to their claims of efficiency vs. capacity and range requirements.!!
Still a ways off yet !!!!
At least AB can attest that the 350f has already sold as much as the 330f did in it's entire production run !!!!
A350F clean sheet airplane with a bigger cargo door and enough capacity with a longer range.
I'd take the Airbus but they need to swallow their pride and sort out the paint issues.
I like the 777f better
Boeing's offering is a gangsta!
No match for the Antonov An-124 and Boeing 747-8 freighters! Nose loaders. 😊
I hope this will be addressed in the future, maybe bring back tail swing like on the Dreamlifter
And the nose door is smaller than the rear. Long/skinny for the nose is a niche market, UPS typically doesn’t use the nose door anyway.
Many freight operators have enough aircraft in their fleet, so the real competition won't start until the latter part of this decade into the early part of next decade.
Boeing has a huge advantage in the cargo sector, and that probably won't change anytime soon.
Why not used the 777-9 as a freighter instead it would be out earlier and have a bigger payload
Can you please also read out the numbers to mm, next time pls.
Boeing really biting off a lot more these days. The 777x is still in certification stage and their production headaches with the 787 Dreamliner is still ongoing. To add another program with the 777 Freighter will require more people for Boeing to hire. Just make good planes and the customers will wait for them.
boeing 777-8F MTOW is listed as 805,000 lb / 365.1 t
Commonality is the only real decision choice. If you are an Airbus fleet, then buy the A350 option. The same for Boeing. Not really a surprise.
Just goes to show how meaningless the maximum take-off weight really is. The lower maximum weight for the A350 doesn't mean a reduction in payload, in fact quite the opposite!
I thought the a350F was delayed
If I was making a decision as an airline I would go A350 especially if you want it soon. Boeing has no guarantee when the 777X passenger will even come into service let alone the 777-8F.
AT this rate 777F might be first version actually sold.
didnt see emirates on either list. does that mean they havent decided yet? or still frustrated to boeing on late 777x deliveries?!?
The big question is: what if the paint comes off the A350F?
That’s easy, the plane is lighter then… maybe enhance the range 😂
@@buckfi1109😂
If I need to take more cargo than can fit in either plane, I'd rather have the 777-8F.
If I need to take less cargo than the max of either plane, I'd rather have the A350F.
If I need to take an amount of cargo greater than the Airbus's max but less than the Boeing's max, I'd rather have the Boeing.
Uh, if you need less cargo than a350F... a33F
@@w8stral buying additional plane types can wipe out your business. You should know that.
@@suserman7775 Uh, logic falacy in your statement and actually in my response as well is why I posted what I did. if you need less than a 777 freighter, you are a SMALL fish in a BIG pond and you will not have a big freighter at all. You will go at most a medium like the a33F, but I missed a couple massive qualifiers with my statement. if you need the range is #1 and #2 Majority of small freighters companies do not need the range of the a33F, and would rather go with a MUCH cheaper, numerous old 737 or a321 conversion. So, if you had stated what I just stated you would have squashed my statement and in fact is the BIGGEST reason a33F is not selling worth a damn and why Boeing has never hinted at a 787F. Maybe if Boeing ever makes the 783 with smaller wings fitting into existing infrastrucutre and applies 2G wind up turn load alleviation to their fuselage like the a350 was granted by EASA which they refused to do for the 787 pissing Boeing off which ultimatly in my opinion led to the Bombardier fiasco later, then the 787-3 would be ~50,000lbs lighter and a direct 767 middle of market freighter, but would require entire recertification of 787 fuselage/flight controls... Guess what will NEVER happen if you asked me... yea, 787-3F just is not going to happen. Would take off 5-->10 tons off weight of 788 789 and 781 though so if there is a new engine... Maybe. I'll give that a 0.1% chance of ever happening in my lifetime
The only factor I hate about the 777 series is- The Mass of 777s
Engines brand within your existing fleet would also be a factor in the decision of the freighter you choose
Not really these days. The engines on such aircraft are now power by the hour in most cases where GE or RR would be responsible for most maintenance.
I hope FedEx buys the 777-8F
Need to know fuel burn and range with the 777-8F loaded to the A350F max load out. As for the door since they are both paper airplanes are we going to play a game of chicken? NASA sofia 747 now that was a big door. 😂 Want to see both fly. The Boeing planes stuck in certification were started with one certification system and have to finish under another. Arguably not totally unlike getting certified twice. With luck new planes will not take as long.
No-brainer, Airbus A350F for sure.
🤣🤣
Paint…
Same cabin length 54-55m.....A350F would burn less fuel/ trip
Airbus was being kind. They could've also compared crash histories, % out sourcing of materials/ engineering, and the inability for Boeing to actually hit any of their target deadlines.
If it was me I will go for Boeing 777-8F Boeing have more experience in the freighter market I have trust in boeing
I think that the cargo airlines don’t care at fuel burn, example being most cargo airlines have 747s, md11s, a300, etc. these are planes that have been phased out, but cargo airlines want them because they are cheap and works best
They do and they don't. Cargo aircraft utilisation is typically much lower than passenger aircraft so older aircraft works as they fly less, meaning fuel burn is a smaller concern where the cheaper acquisition prices makes them very attractive, especially if they're just sitting on the ground 80% or the time.
However, you do need to consider long haul, where aircraft utilisation can approach pax long haul. In those cases, lower fuel burn would be a factor and economically, could make sense to go for something newer.
What about Turkish Airlines??
They also operate the 777 and the A350 they have 8 777F‘s in their fleet
The 777-300ER BCF will blow both aircraft out of the water!
Not on density. Only 220k lbs on a plane almost as big as a 747-8. If you pair that with a 777-2F you might be on to something. If Airbus were to produce a 350-8F to pair with, that would be a slam dunk.
Boeing should offer a 777-9F option.
In its current design philosophy I think the 9-F would be like the 777-300CF in that its density would only make feasible for express/package runs. If all you haul is feathers, it would be great.
A350F is the better choice.
explain why lol
Commonality is the most important factor here.
Money on the 777-8f
First, I personally,prefer the 777-8F
Doesn't really depend on your personal preference. The carriers will make their decisions on a wide range of parameters for their business.
@@johniii8147 I meant which one i liked better
I prefer boeing 777 ×
a350f start delivery in 2025
777-8F start delivery in 2028
*2027
Those numbers kinda don’t mean anything in reality. Hardly any commercial aircraft actually gets delivered by those sorts of estimates
How stupid of you to compare two aircraft to each other when neither are even in production. Two thumbs down for this.
Boeing=MCAS
777-8F will carry more cargo at farther ranges for less fuel burn.
I don't know about the lower fuel burn part, composite materials and the trent xwb are excellent at lowering fuel burn
@Mason Nichols I hope you right for Boeing, because at the moment there is no engine …
…certificated 🙈
Boeing still dominates the cargo market and I don't expect that to change.
Choose a freakin' system. Metric or Imperial, not both. Metric is used by the whole world, if the Anglo American sphere wants to know they can read it from your infographics.
Are you against different languages and currencies?
@@heidirabenau511 A system of measurement is not a language nor a currency. And honestly, nobody understands why the imperial system still exists.
all of aviation uses miles. hes just also including metrics so that most of the world can understand it
most aviation terms were taken from maritime if you havent noticed yet. and almost everyone use the same system; nautical miles for distance, feet (or FL) for height, knot as speed, port as left, starboard as right, pilot as the person who steered the ship (maritime use the term helmsman nowadays), and so on.
nautical mile is easier to use for maritime/aviation because it was defined as 1/60 degree (or a minute) of latitude of a planet (Earth in our case) before it was defined as exactly 1852 meter, so 60 NM is approximately (because Earth is not prefect spherical, more like a squished ball) 1 degree of latitude of Earth
Anyway you are totally missing the point. So never mind.
Same aircraft Airbus and Boeing.. but I love Airbus A350F. With BIGGER CARGO DOOR.... BUT come to me for SAFETY RECORD IS TO AIRBUS NOW..
a350F will never take off💀
Remember the Boeing B737-MAX's crashes that took 370+ lives..
first, it's 346. Second, it doesn't have anything to do with the video. We are not even talking about passenger planes
And that has what to do with the 777? They don’t even have the same engineering team. It also happens to be the most reliable wide body EVER built….
I hope the first a350f crashes!
boeing is king of cargo
I prefer the A350F.