NOTE: The video was produced just before the latest Boeing news regarding another 787 delivery halt. More Information on this latest news can be found here: ruclips.net/video/ZI8Ey6IlB3w/видео.html
The A350 offers more fuel and more range. That alone makes it better when you consider you can fly NONSTOP from JFK to Manila or JFK to Singapore. It's a time saver. Business class is also superior on the A350. Economy on the A350 has more space than the 787. The A350 has more powerful engines and can take off from short runways. After flying business class on both, I absolutely prefer the A350 -1000 to the 787 -10. BUT I prefer the A380-800 over ALL. Specifically the Emirates A380.
@@wadehiggins1114They actually originally chose 20 -9’s over the A350 original design before transferring the order to Scoot and then ordering the -10 after their two 30 A350 orders
It really depends on the airline's use case. SQ deploys its 787-10 on short and medium-haul flights, where its lower MTOW is ideally suited. Combined with high capacity, it is a really good succesor to the 777-200 they used on regional flights for a long time.
Where the 787 lacks significantly is Cargo Capacity! On short or medium stage legs that may not be significant but on long-haul legs is very noticeable and lacking!
Funny that the European aircraft manufacturer typically has the widest seats vs the US manufacturer (same goes for A320 vs B737 and even A220 vs B737) although the average BMI of US citizens is way higher than European.
@@HugoAelbrecht Eh, the 737 has the same cabin width as the 707. It's kind of an old design! The 787 was originally shown with 2-4-2 seating but the high density 9 wide became the norm. The 767 does a good job with wider seats, though some airlines have put 2-4-2 configurations in them. Ugh. People love cheaper tickets and airlines love making more money. The A220 is Canadian designed - and frankly if they can get over their engine troubles that plane could be absolutely transformative. Making the cabin wide enough for 5 wide seats was a brilliant decision. I can't wait to fly on one.
Depends entirely on the airline. Are you in the 787 with 8 wide or 9 wide? 787 seats are wider than their actual competitor the a330. Are you on the a350 with 9 wide or 10 wide when comparing "comfort"? With Airbus widening a350 cabin, airlines will tend towards 10 wide instead of currently most a350's going with 9 wide and since a350's actual competition is the 777 with a wider fuselage... can 777X go 11 wide for squishy hell? Doubt it. For me, comfort of the seat is the headrest above all else and this is entirely human body specific, though any of the headrests with folding wings on the headrest get the nod for me. All those who do not... do not make the cut.
@@w8stralFor seat comfort, I agree with you about the foldable head rest "wings" but can add that for a skinny and tall person that I am, the seat cushion and seat cushion support it very important. I often have to put a folded blanket on the seat ahead of my skinny "cheeks" otherwise the rear seat cushion support bar presses on my tailbone area miserably and uncomfortably. The Dreamliner was more comfortable than the Airbus seating on 6 flight legs of my recent long haul overseas trip.
EVA actually deploys the 787-10 on pretty long routes from Taipei to NA west coast ( Vancouver / Seattle) and Europe (Paris/ Vienna, depending on the season), alongside short flights within Asia ~ with a capacity of 342 and flight times up to 13 hours, it shows the versatility of the aircraft. The range gets negative rep mostly because of how it compares to its own siblings -8, -9, and the similarly sized a350-900, but it's still very capable, especially with its lower operating costs.
Airlines simply can't ignore the economics of the aircraft, and Airbus knows it. That's why they're releasing a version with the dimmable windows, which would likely save some weight, but it still won't match the economics of the 787-10. However, the A350 will thrive on longhaul routes because of its wider economy class seats and roomier business class.
@@trenton.tchannel1810 Actually, the A350 was announced before the 787-10. The 787-10 was announced as a viable alternative for the A350-900, while the A350-1000 was announced as a more viable alternative to the 777-300ER, which simply has a superior cargo capacity.
Seat width is the most underrated yet very important measurement of comfort in a Seat and a wider Seat is significantly better! Most people concentrate on legroom but Width is what makes it comfortable.
One very important cabin comparison item that you did not mention: Cabin pressure and humidity level. The A350 keeps it at 5500-6000 ft and 20% humidity, meanwhile the 787 keep the pressure to 6000 ft and humidity to 10-15%. So, the A350 has a slight advantage aa a passenger as a higher humidity level is more comfortable.
Having only recently flown the 787 (but never the A350), the most comfortable plane I've tried with some margin, I can attest this makes a huge difference.
The A350-900 is the original version of the A350 family while the 787-10 is what you get when you try to eak out every last bit of length and capacity while staying true to the original design (like the 737 Max 10). If you already operate the 787s, than the 787-10 is probably the best (especially for high demand medium haul) and you just use the 787-9 for range. If don't have the 787 and you want an aircraft seating around 300 passengers and you need the range, the A350 is the best option. However, if you care about the comfort of economy passenger on long-haul flights, then you'll order the A350... (shots fired)
It's the airlines that determine how comfortable an aircraft is on longhaul, not the aircraft. Sure, the A350 has half inch wider seats, but if the airline crams more seats in, leaving little legroom, you'll feel it. Qantas operates the 787-9 between LAX and SYD, and, aside from their shortcoming of not offering WiFi on such a long flight, it's a very comfortable experience. I doubt you'd say the same thing if you had to fly longhaul on a French Bee A350.
Both are wonderful airplanes. But due to quality control headaches with the 787 Dreamliner, I choose the A350. Remember that Boeing used an ODM (original design manufacturer) model for their 787 Dreamliner to cut down on research and development costs. That means Boeing contracted other companies to do the engineering for them and those contracted companies sub-contracted other companies to make the parts for the 787 Dreamliner. This ODM model works for smartphone manufacturing as consumer electronics have looser tolerances. But airplanes have very tight tolerances thus the precision engineering must be perfect. If Boeing stuck to their traditional OEM (original equipment manufacturer) model then they will control the engineering of the 787 Dreamliner and contract other companies to make 787 parts to spec for the tight tolerances the 787 needs. I hope Boeing doesn’t reuse the ODM model for their 777x wide body…oh wait.
My whole family worked for Boeing. Many of them retired now. You are spot on with your comment. All of Boeings planes used to be done ahead of schedule. Now everything is delayed. The company still hasn’t learned it’s lesson.
ODM (outsourcing) has done plenty of damage to the Motor industry also, it’s an easy way out for Ivory Tower merchants, it all very well for cutlery and crockery, but where safety and performance are critical it’s a different matter
"Boeing and its subcontractors are like a doomed open thropple. We had our partners and they had partners who had partners, communication was very challenging and added a lot of complexity, and long story short, now we all have chlamydia."🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
I think the primary issue at hand between these two is separate from their capabilities. The 787 production facility is currently producing less than two aircraft per month because the FAA doesn't trust them with their delegated authority. Apparently the same issues with the 737 Max are permeated throughout the company. The a350 is objectively a better aircraft: it can carry more passengers with a higher range and better cabin pressure. The only reason it seems anyone is buying the 787 is because Boeing is selling them at or near production price. They can do this because of billions in tax cuts and subsidies from the state of South Carolina, where the facility is located. They're treating it as a real estate and market share operation, which should give everyone pause.
787-10 is better suited for local carriers who would normally choose either of the smaller 787 variants as their main plane but want bigger plane on some of their routes, without investing into a completely new model, with pilot training and all that. For bigger carriers with high demand for long, intercontinental flights, A350 is simply a better option and there it's real competition is 777.
I definitely think a Boeing 787-10ER would be a great addition! I think having the similar popularity with airlines as when they introduced the Boeing 777-300ER!
@@filledwithvariousknowledge2747 Well.. it depends on. If they can carry a lot of extra cargo.. then sure. If they can´t or they cant do it every day. I don´t really see a problem. I would think that most airline that use the 787-10 also have a few 787-9 to mix with having both the advantages.
@@matsv201 "ER" or HGW varients are not only about carrying more cargo. It gives airlines more flexibility with their pax cabin configurations too. Some airlines have had to reduce seating capacity on the 787-10 to allow it to fly slightly further and reach desired destinations. Qantas 787-9s seat around 236 passengers ( QR's 787-9s seat 300+ for comparison) , which allows them to fly slightly further. So a hypothetical 787-9ER/LR could be able to allow qantas to increase its seat count from 236 to maybe around 280 seats while still being able to cover the same range. A similar effect should be possible on the "787-10ER".
Each are the best in each of their categories. The 787-10 was an urgent response to the A359 as the category would be left open for Airbus when the 777s start dying out.
The 777 is not dying out. It's being replaced with a more capable, more fuel efficient 777. Believe me, Airbus is working hard to level the lopsided playing field when that aircraft arrives in service.
No, 787-10 was planned from the start. Base model was the -9 version with guarantees to contractors for at least one size larger/smaller than base model. Was there, worked the design from the start. Boeing did plan on having a lower OEW though. Due to FAA regulatory officials NOT giving Boeing load alleviation due to FBW in a 2G+ wind up turn that added 5-->10tons of fuselage weight they were hoping to drop. There was also extra weight added in wing box area. It should be noted EASA did give AIRBUS load alleviation in a350 a couple years later for 2G+ wind up turns. This probably saves the a350-1000 at least 10 tons and maybe as high as 20 tons when you compare to the much older 777, but does save probably ~10 tons on their base -900 model. Carbon fiber is nice, but it has a problem, its deflection is much greater under load compared to aluminum and why the 2G turn creates large increases in fuselage weight. Boeing could recertify their 787 for load alleviaition on FBW... but this would cost billions. This would help the 787-10 immensely. It will not happen, and if it does, I will be shocked. Who knows, maybe they will for their upcoming ER version. I doubt it.
@@w8stral The 787-10 was built to compete with the A350-900. It wasn't planned until the A350 was announced, a last minute change because A330 and A340 customers hated what Airbus was planning when Boeing was building a new, modern aircraft. Airbus stretched the 900 because the 777-300ER was still getting orders in significant numbers due to its cargo capacity. I do agree that Boeing may not build the HGW 787-10 because only Air New Zealand is asking for it. It's more likely that the 777-8 would be built instead.
@@sainnt Sigh... In the YEAR 2000, LONG before the a350 was even a twinklin' in the eye of Airbus, and even before officially the 7E7 was announced after the sonicruiser was officially terminated after 9-11 in 2001, the 7E7 had its base model already designated 789 with one model smaller 788 and one model LARGER, the 781. GE's GEN-X engine tech had already been demonstrated for said weight class. In fact the 77W had not even been produced yet... When we designed the 787 the base model was the 789 even though the first produced was the 787-800. This was planned from the start. The only 787 model which did NOT get built was the one JAL wanted, 783 with ~3500nm range but same payload = NEW wing/landing gear/wing box. Suggest some basic history first before typing my friend. HGW 787-10 will be easy as it will essentially just be adding another fuel tank for Air New Zealand and a few others such as United who have a few routes who would really appreciate a 787-10 instead of a 777 or a350 and maybe adding slightly wider tires. Landing specs will most likely remain the same, but Take off will be higher. Shouldn't even have to reinforce the wings. The wing/fuselage joint, I do not know, was not my bailiwak
I was born and raised with Boeing, so naturally I prefer the 787-10, which I consider a beautiful ship. At the same time I appreciate what Airbus accomplished with their A350-900. Having said that, when it comes to Airbus I like the A350-1000.
I really appreciate your formatting on this video. You cut to the chase right away and didn’t have a clickbait, “which is better title,” because while you explained the a350, has higher metrics, better is such a loaded, incomplete word
It looks like there is a place for both the A350 and the B787 in many airlines fleets. A350 is the champion of the high margin, ultra long haul, prestige routes. The 787 is super economic on the medium haul, low margin milk runs.
This video is lacking important information: the A350 900 can be ordered as ULR ultra long range, widening the capability gap. Also, it's interior got a makeover, leading to wider inner cabin with 440 passengers (+10%), and it also comes with dimmable windows without physical shades. All this shifts the scale in favor of Airbus even further
@@GreenvileW again, no arguements needed. take your arguement elsewhere. also Airbus sees Boeing's mistakes so they correct it and attempt to make it better
The elephant 🐘 in the room is that the A350-900 is about $75MM more expensive than the 787-10, despite being the exact same size. This is not chump change! A350 only makes financial sense if you need the range and powerful engines… Simple Flying repeatedly mentions 787-10 having lower operating costs because of landing fees (lower MTOW), but acquisition/leasing costs are also MUCH lower for the 787-10
Prices are negociable. For an airline which has already A350-800 in the fleet, it would be make more sense to buy A350-900 if only a few needed. Same ist valid for an airline which has already smaller 787 in the fleet.
we flew KLM 787-10 from LAS to AMS.. the plane was fantastic on Economy Comfort.. I would not fly in a 777 unless it has been renovated by the airline.. We flew AirFrance 777-300 from Paris to Lax and it was not very good. we will try A350 next.
Thanks for the video. Just adding some info, the A350 can soon also be ordered with the dimmable windows. Also the cabin width is also increasing soon, so it can fit another middle seat easier.
That's a valid point. However, while the dimmable windows are in response to the popularity of the feature on the 787 with airlines, the widening is being done to compete with the 777-9, so you're more likely to see that wider cabin on the A350-1000 before you see it on the 900 variant.
I really hate dimmable windows. At least when the aircrew locks them in the darkest configuration. I took a day flight from Tokyo to Istanbul recently and we flew over some of the most interesting landscapes of Central Asia. Do you think I was able to see even the slightest glimpse of it? No...
@@Hhutuber Yes, I can imagine how frustrating that would be. American Airlines had told its cabin crew to stop locking the windows and just ask passengers to darken them just as they would ask on other flights for people to close the shades.
I saw the comparison on the website and as someone rightfully pointed out in the comment section it is one of the best comparisons done of the many done on the website
For someone like myself who is disabled, I find the A350 by far the most comfortable aircraft to fly on and I can even sleep during the flights which never happen on a 787.
Both are very good widebody aircraft but the A350-900 has indeed more excellent range than the 787-10 and the 787-10 has more passenger capacity than the -8 and -9 and it was nearly impossible to fly long haul routes which would explain why the 787-10 is more common on high volume routes or short to medium haul flights for airlines like United Airlines and Singapore Airlines
@@HugoAelbrecht it should be noted that a similar low density 787-9 can also handle Project Sunrise. Qantas tested the route using that aircraft. The A350 is a better choice because it's larger, therefore would be more comfortable for both passengers and crew.
As far as 787-10's range is concerned, it is enough to operate on high density regional routes such as middle east to indian subcontinent, Australia to Asia Pacific, US east coast to western europe, transcontinental american services and from North America to South America, So yes, there are a lot of potential 5-10 hour routes that the 787-10 can easily serve
@@ant2312 You got it wrong. It was actually found in an analysis the 787-10 is better suited on shorter routes which justifies its shorter range anyway
My longest recent flights were HKG=JFK at 16 hours. That's about the maximum I care to fly even if it was with CX in business but really don't want to do it again. My last flight was on BA on 787-9 in first class LHR-ATL which was okay. at 9+ hours. An upcoming BCN-EWR flight will be on a UA 787-10 at close to 9 hours. So, what makes sense to me is that it is a good aircraft to fly to and from Europe, which is where UA and KLM feature it. The amount of ultra long haul routes are fairly few, so the 787-10 makes good sense as a lower cost alternative to the a350-900 on all but those few routes.
I flew on the Singapore Airlines route from SIN to EWR in premium economy. I was not bored for a single moment, though the jet lag was rather severe because I was so excited to be on the flight that I didn't sleep much on board.
I have not yet tried flying as a passenger with B787 and just like what this docu showed. B787 has couple issues thus delaying it's delivery. That means to say there is gotta be a problem behind it like battery issues. On the other hand, A350 has only paint issues as far as I'm aware. A350 is the future of commercial flying for the coming long years.
It is good that flight carriers have a choice between two rather comparable aircrafts. I have no preference, both planes are good, well equipped and fast. I like the sky blue livery of KLM, the oldest flight carrier in the world. But that could have something to do with the fact that I’m Dutch.
KLM has been a very loyal Boeing customer for decades, but their merger with Air France is shifting things in favor of Airbus, which are mostly built in France. Ironically, Air France is also a long-time Boeing customer.
I think a lot more could be said surrounding passenger comfort. Yesterday, I flew both the 787-9 and the a350-900. I can positively say my experience on the 787 was considerably better. The a350 just seems clunky, and quickly put together, whereas the 787 feels like there has been some thought put towards it. Sounds: - The a350 has very loud brakes, almost loud enough to turn off a worried flyer. - Engine noise, 787 just has a peaceful hum, where as the a350 I'd say is louder. Lighting: - 787 interior lighting appears to have many options for the carrier and is much more subtle then that of the a350. Also a quick mention of the useless OLED/ LCD screens they use as the seatbelt sign. Like, why?
"Airbus" and "quickly put together" in the same sentence? Surely you have mistaken it for the Boeing. The Airbus is 6 decibels lower in noise during flight, has a higher cabin pressure (5500 feet vs 6000) and it has better humidity levels. And if you must know the Boeing has more quality control issues, so the only plane being put together quickly here is the 787.
Flown on both aircraft. The Airbus A351 is quieter and more comfortable especially long haul (Singapore Airlines) The Boeing 788 was OK a big improvement on the 763 (Delta Airlines) Airbus is more comfortable.
They are not manufactured by AIrbus, so no, they are not "airbus's dimmable windows". In any rational world without the idiot FAA/EASA in the way, Boeing would have just changed to the newer version of the windows as they both use the same dimmable window company.
Tough to argue with 1 extra inch of seat width in Y. I flew AA premium economy AMS-DFW in a 2-3-2 configuration. it was really luxurious. The 3-3-3 set-up behind me looked not so nice. The A330's 2-4-2 or the 767's 2-3-2 were more comfortable in my experience (less crowded).
Seating configuration and setup is airline specific. An Etihad 787-10 seating arrangement and space will be different than a Singapore Airlines 787-10.
The 787-10 has still a room for great afvanyage,that is the re-engine with higher thrust.THerefore the 787-10 can still have the option to increased range by increasing take -off weight either for fuel tanks or cargo capacity or both.
I had the opportunity to speak with a pilot who operates Boeing aircraft. He expressed a preference for Boeing over Airbus, citing its superior quality and more 'off-road' flight experience. He explained that Airbus planes are highly automated, leaving little for the pilot to do. Tasks, even landing, are managed by the autopilot. Conversely, Boeing isn't as automated, allowing pilots to gain real, hands-on flying experience.
It depends on if you care about what fuel cost are going to be in the future. If your government owned and in the Middle East you probably would care less about fuel cost and more about range. In the USA and Europe I think it will be more of a 50/50 split because both believe in cutting fuel costs (and fuel dependency on foreign countries) and lower emissions to meet environmental goals. But ultimately it will come down to national origin of these plans more than anything else for this region. In emerging economies, they can care less about Boeing vs Airbus. They will go with whoever gives them the best deal
Both are great, but the A350 slightly better for passengers (IMO). The old 777s are v poor. However, my favorite plane is still the A380 for ultimate comfort.
The Airbus A350 stands out for its sleek design and superior efficiency, as it was specifically engineered from the ground up for long-distance flights. Its wings are designed to carry more fuel, giving it a significant advantage. In contrast, Boeing has opted to stretch its existing plane models, such as the 787, which all share the same wing design. This approach leads to fuel capacity limitations. Once again, Boeing's shortcut approach demonstrates their failure to innovate effectively.
Singapore Airlines is a great example of an airline that sees the advantages of both aircraft. They use the A350-900 on their longest longhaul routes, including the ULR version, but use the 787-10 on their densest routes, mostly within Asia. Ultimately both are wonderful aircraft with slightly differing missions, but with the 787 being able to carry more cargo, a HGW version will all but eliminate the advantage of the A350, which would lead Airbus to modify the A350-1000 even before that variant has to deal with the 777-9. It's going to be interesting to see what happens when the 777-9 goes into service.
"On paper" I agree. But until Boeing sort out their manufacturing mess this whole discussion is kinda moot. After two years of stoppage they are snagged again. SMH.
@@wojomojo that's true, but that doesn't change the fact that there are currently nearly 900 787 aircraft in service, so the aircraft is great. Most of the issues with the aircraft are not related to the quality of the design, but the quality of building, and that can be resolved. The aircraft remains capable regardless.
@@heidirabenau511 I’ll be creating one for Boeing fans so don’t you worry as I’m tired of cults. *Right now* though I see the Airbus cult fans as the biggest threats to comment sections
Range isn't everything. There are so many heavily flown routes that even a 767 can fly, range wise. The 787-10 is thus perfectly well positioned for routes out of European hubs that have higher passenger loads like KLM to India. Think of the 787-10 as mid to long haul and the A350 as more long-ultra long haul. Different tools for different jobs.
I think the first commercial jet was the Comet. but that was scuppered after a couple of early crashes...possibly after campaign by the US (manufacturers) to get rid of competition? Following the recent Boeing 737-Max crashes, how does its safety record (& consequences) compare with that of the Comet?
For me the 787-10 has been the most comfortable and best plane i flew on so far. Never flew on a A-350 though. The 787-10 has really spacious seats, tho i am not that big (neither in height nor width) so i never am bothered with that. The automatic windows in the 787 are amazing, much better then the old-fashioned once. Especially with passengers to dumb to listen to cabin crew requests when landing for example. Flew the 787-10 from AMS-LAX (about 11 hours). So certainly a really long haul flight.
Since there are merging rumors that the -9 and -10 might have an extended range it would be good to add at least 2000 nautical miles to both of the types so that they may fly perform better in terms of of range where as there will be no need to make stop overs between such as London to Sydney, Sydney to New York, Mumbai to Los Angeles etc.Though the -9 is not bad at all.
@@kennedyxhulu4933 yea , would be great but remember Boeing would need additional space in the 787 frame to fit more fuel capacity. That space is limited
Both are great aircraft.. Kind of a pro 787 video were you talk a lot more about the 787 then the A350.. Were are the range comparaisons ? Were are the destination comparaisons ?
Some say yes, other say no. I don't really see almost none one saying these, but at the end: it would all depend on the engine choice and the aircraft size.
@@sergiolaurencio7534 recently flew British airways a380 to my destination, and 87-10 home, was honeslty surprised how much quiter the 87 was with the RR engines. not sure the sound difference between the ge/rr
The A350 was built to compete with the bigger 777. The 787 was built to replace the 767, but it turned out to be a much more improved product. Im a Boeing fan but I have respect for Airbus and I will fly in their planes if Im ever scheduled to.
Honestly if they could add the 777-200LR,I dont see any reason at all why they shouldn’t add the 787-10LR. It would be a legendary ultra long haul plane and the carries will love it!
Well the optimized 787 variant was the 787-9. The 787 designs were built around the 789, so when you stretch the aircraft out, add more weight and such but still keep the same engines and fuel capacity, the 787-10 performs worse in range and etc.
The difference there is they used the 777-300ER wing on the 200 to make the LR. To make a 787-10LR they'd need to design a new wing, and the increased weight of the wing and fuel would necessitate new engines too, probably. Don't get your hopes up. Just get excited for the A350-1000 and 777-8/9.
Two different airplanes, The 787 was specifically designed to make flights to non-hub airports and secondary was the domestic market. This market accelerated after Covid, of course. It was not designed for extended ranges but fuel efficiency per paid fare to non-hub markets. We all know the airlines pick how to make us as uncomfortable as possible for $$$$. I consider the 787 family and the a350 family two separate type airframes
Airbus will sell a lot of A350's in the 2020's for one reason: airlines that bought large fleets of 777's need to replace their planes over this decade. As such, I expect Air France to start replacing their 777-300ER's with A350-1000's starting around 2026. This is why Rolls-Royce is working on the _UltraFan_ program: a new engine that will be available on the A350 before 2030.
I flew both of them, a350 for 9 hours flight and the 787 nearly 11 hours flight.. both were magical flying machines but the 787 was just too smooth, didnt even feel like i was flying in an airplane, it was that good.. whereas the a350 still shaked some and had some vibrations etc.. but still smooth flight
MTOW is determined by the structural integrity or strength of the airframe ( primarily the landing gear and wing box) , not by the Empty weight of the aircraft. The stronger ( not the heavier ) the airframe structure is, the more weight it can carry for take off ( aka higher MTOW). Aircraft of the same family with the same MTOW just means the overall structural strength of the airframe ( e.g landing gear, wing box) is the same or very similar. The 777-300ER and 777-200LR have the same MTOW, so is the a330-900 and a330-800. The a330-200 and a330-300 share the same MTOW as far as I know. The 737-800 and the non ER 737-900 also shared the same MTOW To save costs usually aircraft of the same family share components like the landing gear, wing box , the wings, fuel tanks and many more. Sharing the same/similar components like the landing gear usually means the structural strength of the airframe is the same even for heavier varients of the same aircraft family. Being heavier only means carrying less fuel for for more payload, it has little or effect on the MTOW.
I think 30% of the cost of an airplane is the engine's costs, some airline have a contract with engine companies, 787 used GE and RR but A350 only use RR engine. If Airbus could use GE engine, it could have a great sales.
Due to overcrowding at Tan Son Nhat Airport (SGN), the larger the plane, the fewer take-offs and landings. So VNA mainly uses 787 and a359 to save SGN :( Early flights, when the airport is empty, they usually use a321 between HAN-SGN
![ROSÉ(로제) - APT. (Band VER.) (With. 이영지) [더 시즌즈-이영지의 레인보우] | KBS 241129 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IW8qaemx74g/mqdefault.jpg)
NOTE: The video was produced just before the latest Boeing news regarding another 787 delivery halt. More Information on this latest news can be found here: ruclips.net/video/ZI8Ey6IlB3w/видео.html
Worlds Big Deal Indian IndiGo AViation Companies Wants 530 Modern Generation Passenger Jets Boeiong Air Bus Who Win ?
E😅😅😅😅😮😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅7
😅
😅
😅
The A350 offers more fuel and more range.
That alone makes it better when you consider you can fly NONSTOP from JFK to Manila or JFK to Singapore. It's a time saver.
Business class is also superior on the A350.
Economy on the A350 has more space than the 787.
The A350 has more powerful engines and can take off from short runways.
After flying business class on both, I absolutely prefer the A350 -1000 to the 787 -10.
BUT I prefer the A380-800 over ALL. Specifically the Emirates A380.
Interesting how the 787-10 launch customer Singapore Airlines also has the largest current fleet of A350 in the world
They settled until the A350 came out
Their A350 business class for the two hour flight from Saigon to Singapore is almost over the top. Brand new seats with the full lie flat etc.
@@wadehiggins1114They actually originally chose 20 -9’s over the A350 original design before transferring the order to Scoot and then ordering the -10 after their two 30 A350 orders
@@nzer19 Better to over-perform than under-deliver
@@GWT1m0 Absolutely. It also means a full itinerary with Singapore as a layover is quality 👌
It really depends on the airline's use case. SQ deploys its 787-10 on short and medium-haul flights, where its lower MTOW is ideally suited. Combined with high capacity, it is a really good succesor to the 777-200 they used on regional flights for a long time.
Sq reduced their 787-10, from 25 just to 15
Where the 787 lacks significantly is Cargo Capacity! On short or medium stage legs that may not be significant but on long-haul legs is very noticeable and lacking!
A350 has various MTOW
From Regional specs to ULR capability
As passengers A350 economy seats are more comfortable
Funny that the European aircraft manufacturer typically has the widest seats vs the US manufacturer (same goes for A320 vs B737 and even A220 vs B737) although the average BMI of US citizens is way higher than European.
@@HugoAelbrecht Eh, the 737 has the same cabin width as the 707. It's kind of an old design! The 787 was originally shown with 2-4-2 seating but the high density 9 wide became the norm. The 767 does a good job with wider seats, though some airlines have put 2-4-2 configurations in them. Ugh. People love cheaper tickets and airlines love making more money. The A220 is Canadian designed - and frankly if they can get over their engine troubles that plane could be absolutely transformative. Making the cabin wide enough for 5 wide seats was a brilliant decision. I can't wait to fly on one.
Depends entirely on the airline. Are you in the 787 with 8 wide or 9 wide? 787 seats are wider than their actual competitor the a330. Are you on the a350 with 9 wide or 10 wide when comparing "comfort"? With Airbus widening a350 cabin, airlines will tend towards 10 wide instead of currently most a350's going with 9 wide and since a350's actual competition is the 777 with a wider fuselage... can 777X go 11 wide for squishy hell? Doubt it.
For me, comfort of the seat is the headrest above all else and this is entirely human body specific, though any of the headrests with folding wings on the headrest get the nod for me. All those who do not... do not make the cut.
is A350 more quiet? or same?
@@w8stralFor seat comfort, I agree with you about the foldable head rest "wings" but can add that for a skinny and tall person that I am, the seat cushion and seat cushion support it very important. I often have to put a folded blanket on the seat ahead of my skinny "cheeks" otherwise the rear seat cushion support bar presses on my tailbone area miserably and uncomfortably. The Dreamliner was more comfortable than the Airbus seating on 6 flight legs of my recent long haul overseas trip.
EVA actually deploys the 787-10 on pretty long routes from Taipei to NA west coast ( Vancouver / Seattle) and Europe (Paris/ Vienna, depending on the season), alongside short flights within Asia ~ with a capacity of 342 and flight times up to 13 hours, it shows the versatility of the aircraft. The range gets negative rep mostly because of how it compares to its own siblings -8, -9, and the similarly sized a350-900, but it's still very capable, especially with its lower operating costs.
Airlines simply can't ignore the economics of the aircraft, and Airbus knows it. That's why they're releasing a version with the dimmable windows, which would likely save some weight, but it still won't match the economics of the 787-10.
However, the A350 will thrive on longhaul routes because of its wider economy class seats and roomier business class.
@@sainnt Airbus smartly slotted the 350 between the 787-10 and the 777. I think the 777-9 and -8 will be the Best bet
@@trenton.tchannel1810 Actually, the A350 was announced before the 787-10. The 787-10 was announced as a viable alternative for the A350-900, while the A350-1000 was announced as a more viable alternative to the 777-300ER, which simply has a superior cargo capacity.
18 inch economy seating is a great feature for a long haul airplane. And quiet as well
I haven't flown in the A350 yet but it seems a great option
Seat width is the most underrated yet very important measurement of comfort in a Seat and a wider Seat is significantly better! Most people concentrate on legroom but Width is what makes it comfortable.
I love the A350 just because of the tail camera lol
Both are fine aircrafts but strictly for a passenger experience, I prefer the A350
One very important cabin comparison item that you did not mention: Cabin pressure and humidity level.
The A350 keeps it at 5500-6000 ft and 20% humidity, meanwhile the 787 keep the pressure to 6000 ft and humidity to 10-15%.
So, the A350 has a slight advantage aa a passenger as a higher humidity level is more comfortable.
exactly
Is A350 quieter?
@@claus1225yes
Having only recently flown the 787 (but never the A350), the most comfortable plane I've tried with some margin, I can attest this makes a huge difference.
@@thomaspaaruppedersen6781 A380 is the quietest plane and feels more comfortable than 787. I haven't flown on A350 yet.
The A350-900 is the original version of the A350 family while the 787-10 is what you get when you try to eak out every last bit of length and capacity while staying true to the original design (like the 737 Max 10).
If you already operate the 787s, than the 787-10 is probably the best (especially for high demand medium haul) and you just use the 787-9 for range.
If don't have the 787 and you want an aircraft seating around 300 passengers and you need the range, the A350 is the best option.
However, if you care about the comfort of economy passenger on long-haul flights, then you'll order the A350... (shots fired)
It's the airlines that determine how comfortable an aircraft is on longhaul, not the aircraft. Sure, the A350 has half inch wider seats, but if the airline crams more seats in, leaving little legroom, you'll feel it.
Qantas operates the 787-9 between LAX and SYD, and, aside from their shortcoming of not offering WiFi on such a long flight, it's a very comfortable experience.
I doubt you'd say the same thing if you had to fly longhaul on a French Bee A350.
Both are wonderful airplanes. But due to quality control headaches with the 787 Dreamliner, I choose the A350. Remember that Boeing used an ODM (original design manufacturer) model for their 787 Dreamliner to cut down on research and development costs. That means Boeing contracted other companies to do the engineering for them and those contracted companies sub-contracted other companies to make the parts for the 787 Dreamliner. This ODM model works for smartphone manufacturing as consumer electronics have looser tolerances. But airplanes have very tight tolerances thus the precision engineering must be perfect. If Boeing stuck to their traditional OEM (original equipment manufacturer) model then they will control the engineering of the 787 Dreamliner and contract other companies to make 787 parts to spec for the tight tolerances the 787 needs. I hope Boeing doesn’t reuse the ODM model for their 777x wide body…oh wait.
Thank you very much for the education in this regard.
My whole family worked for Boeing. Many of them retired now. You are spot on with your comment. All of Boeings planes used to be done ahead of schedule. Now everything is delayed. The company still hasn’t learned it’s lesson.
ODM (outsourcing) has done plenty of damage to the Motor industry also, it’s an easy way out for Ivory Tower merchants, it all very well for cutlery and crockery, but where safety and performance are critical it’s a different matter
"Boeing and its subcontractors are like a doomed open thropple. We had our partners and they had partners who had partners, communication was very challenging and added a lot of complexity, and long story short, now we all have chlamydia."🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
I remember flying on Finnairs A350, it was a great experience and it was soo comfortable and modern!
I think the primary issue at hand between these two is separate from their capabilities.
The 787 production facility is currently producing less than two aircraft per month because the FAA doesn't trust them with their delegated authority. Apparently the same issues with the 737 Max are permeated throughout the company.
The a350 is objectively a better aircraft: it can carry more passengers with a higher range and better cabin pressure. The only reason it seems anyone is buying the 787 is because Boeing is selling them at or near production price. They can do this because of billions in tax cuts and subsidies from the state of South Carolina, where the facility is located. They're treating it as a real estate and market share operation, which should give everyone pause.
787-10 is better suited for local carriers who would normally choose either of the smaller 787 variants as their main plane but want bigger plane on some of their routes, without investing into a completely new model, with pilot training and all that. For bigger carriers with high demand for long, intercontinental flights, A350 is simply a better option and there it's real competition is 777.
I definitely think a Boeing 787-10ER would be a great addition! I think having the similar popularity with airlines as when they introduced the Boeing 777-300ER!
The range is really not that short. If you have routes to any other place then Australia, you are pretty much in the clear.
@@matsv201For it’s size though I think airlines wanted more
@@filledwithvariousknowledge2747 Well.. it depends on. If they can carry a lot of extra cargo.. then sure. If they can´t or they cant do it every day. I don´t really see a problem.
I would think that most airline that use the 787-10 also have a few 787-9 to mix with having both the advantages.
@@matsv201 "ER" or HGW varients are not only about carrying more cargo. It gives airlines more flexibility with their pax cabin configurations too.
Some airlines have had to reduce seating capacity on the 787-10 to allow it to fly slightly further and reach desired destinations.
Qantas 787-9s seat around 236 passengers ( QR's 787-9s seat 300+ for comparison) , which allows them to fly slightly further.
So a hypothetical 787-9ER/LR could be able to allow qantas to increase its seat count from 236 to maybe around 280 seats while still being able to cover the same range.
A similar effect should be possible on the "787-10ER".
Even 787-10LR will do
Each are the best in each of their categories. The 787-10 was an urgent response to the A359 as the category would be left open for Airbus when the 777s start dying out.
The 777 is not dying out. It's being replaced with a more capable, more fuel efficient 777. Believe me, Airbus is working hard to level the lopsided playing field when that aircraft arrives in service.
No, 787-10 was planned from the start. Base model was the -9 version with guarantees to contractors for at least one size larger/smaller than base model. Was there, worked the design from the start. Boeing did plan on having a lower OEW though.
Due to FAA regulatory officials NOT giving Boeing load alleviation due to FBW in a 2G+ wind up turn that added 5-->10tons of fuselage weight they were hoping to drop. There was also extra weight added in wing box area. It should be noted EASA did give AIRBUS load alleviation in a350 a couple years later for 2G+ wind up turns. This probably saves the a350-1000 at least 10 tons and maybe as high as 20 tons when you compare to the much older 777, but does save probably ~10 tons on their base -900 model. Carbon fiber is nice, but it has a problem, its deflection is much greater under load compared to aluminum and why the 2G turn creates large increases in fuselage weight.
Boeing could recertify their 787 for load alleviaition on FBW... but this would cost billions. This would help the 787-10 immensely. It will not happen, and if it does, I will be shocked. Who knows, maybe they will for their upcoming ER version. I doubt it.
The 777 wont be going anywhere soon.. their is still a need for jumbo jets
@@w8stral The 787-10 was built to compete with the A350-900. It wasn't planned until the A350 was announced, a last minute change because A330 and A340 customers hated what Airbus was planning when Boeing was building a new, modern aircraft.
Airbus stretched the 900 because the 777-300ER was still getting orders in significant numbers due to its cargo capacity.
I do agree that Boeing may not build the HGW 787-10 because only Air New Zealand is asking for it. It's more likely that the 777-8 would be built instead.
@@sainnt Sigh... In the YEAR 2000, LONG before the a350 was even a twinklin' in the eye of Airbus, and even before officially the 7E7 was announced after the sonicruiser was officially terminated after 9-11 in 2001, the 7E7 had its base model already designated 789 with one model smaller 788 and one model LARGER, the 781. GE's GEN-X engine tech had already been demonstrated for said weight class. In fact the 77W had not even been produced yet... When we designed the 787 the base model was the 789 even though the first produced was the 787-800. This was planned from the start. The only 787 model which did NOT get built was the one JAL wanted, 783 with ~3500nm range but same payload = NEW wing/landing gear/wing box.
Suggest some basic history first before typing my friend.
HGW 787-10 will be easy as it will essentially just be adding another fuel tank for Air New Zealand and a few others such as United who have a few routes who would really appreciate a 787-10 instead of a 777 or a350 and maybe adding slightly wider tires. Landing specs will most likely remain the same, but Take off will be higher. Shouldn't even have to reinforce the wings. The wing/fuselage joint, I do not know, was not my bailiwak
I have traveled long haul in both the aircraft 8 hrs +
A350 is better than 787
A350 economy seats are more comfortable no question about it
I was born and raised with Boeing, so naturally I prefer the 787-10, which I consider a beautiful ship. At the same time I appreciate what Airbus accomplished with their A350-900.
Having said that, when it comes to Airbus I like the A350-1000.
I really appreciate your formatting on this video. You cut to the chase right away and didn’t have a clickbait, “which is better title,” because while you explained the a350, has higher metrics, better is such a loaded, incomplete word
It looks like there is a place for both the A350 and the B787 in many airlines fleets. A350 is the champion of the high margin, ultra long haul, prestige routes. The 787 is super economic on the medium haul, low margin milk runs.
The 787 is noisier than the 350. The electric hydraulic pumps are only tolerable in some seating areas with ear plugs and active noise cancelling!
A350 is a beautiful, quiet and comfortable compared to the dreamliner
This video is lacking important information: the A350 900 can be ordered as ULR ultra long range, widening the capability gap. Also, it's interior got a makeover, leading to wider inner cabin with 440 passengers (+10%), and it also comes with dimmable windows without physical shades. All this shifts the scale in favor of Airbus even further
A350 is more comfortable and considerably quieter
The 787 has way more thrust and is newer
Also airbus sucks
@@GreenvileW don't be a better Boeing fanboy, his opinion.
@@jupiter776 Boeing is way older so they know how to make their stuff a lot better, airbus is from the 70s
@@GreenvileW again, no arguements needed. take your arguement elsewhere. also Airbus sees Boeing's mistakes so they correct it and attempt to make it better
The elephant 🐘 in the room is that the A350-900 is about $75MM more expensive than the 787-10, despite being the exact same size. This is not chump change! A350 only makes financial sense if you need the range and powerful engines… Simple Flying repeatedly mentions 787-10 having lower operating costs because of landing fees (lower MTOW), but acquisition/leasing costs are also MUCH lower for the 787-10
Prices are negociable. For an airline which has already A350-800 in the fleet, it would be make more sense to buy A350-900 if only a few needed. Same ist valid for an airline which has already smaller 787 in the fleet.
You get what you pay for 🙃
@@andreaseufinger4422a350-800 is not a plane what are you talking about lol
we flew KLM 787-10 from LAS to AMS.. the plane was fantastic on Economy Comfort.. I would not fly in a 777 unless it has been renovated by the airline.. We flew AirFrance 777-300 from Paris to Lax and it was not very good. we will try A350 next.
ofc the a350-900 is better
Thanks for the video. Just adding some info, the A350 can soon also be ordered with the dimmable windows. Also the cabin width is also increasing soon, so it can fit another middle seat easier.
That's a valid point. However, while the dimmable windows are in response to the popularity of the feature on the 787 with airlines, the widening is being done to compete with the 777-9, so you're more likely to see that wider cabin on the A350-1000 before you see it on the 900 variant.
Don't worry, airlines will make sure you never feel that increased cabin width by making it 11 seats wide in response.
I really hate dimmable windows. At least when the aircrew locks them in the darkest configuration.
I took a day flight from Tokyo to Istanbul recently and we flew over some of the most interesting landscapes of Central Asia. Do you think I was able to see even the slightest glimpse of it? No...
@@Hhutuber Yes, I can imagine how frustrating that would be. American Airlines had told its cabin crew to stop locking the windows and just ask passengers to darken them just as they would ask on other flights for people to close the shades.
I saw the comparison on the website and as someone rightfully pointed out in the comment section it is one of the best comparisons done of the many done on the website
For someone like myself who is disabled, I find the A350 by far the most comfortable aircraft to fly on and I can even sleep during the flights which never happen on a 787.
I flew with both, A350-900 and B787-10 but still prefer A380 or B747 over these.
Both are very good widebody aircraft but the A350-900 has indeed more excellent range than the 787-10 and the 787-10 has more passenger capacity than the -8 and -9 and it was nearly impossible to fly long haul routes which would explain why the 787-10 is more common on high volume routes or short to medium haul flights for airlines like United Airlines and Singapore Airlines
I really like the a350's capability to fly from Singapore to New York
And from Sidney to NY in 2025 - finally an aircraft that can fly from any airport to any other in the world
@@HugoAelbrecht Without having to connect to the home country? Finally!
I took that flight. Loved it!
@@HugoAelbrecht it should be noted that a similar low density 787-9 can also handle Project Sunrise. Qantas tested the route using that aircraft. The A350 is a better choice because it's larger, therefore would be more comfortable for both passengers and crew.
Sounds like an absolute NIGHTMARE. Who in their right mind wants a 20 hour flight? And worse, who the Hell wants to go to NY or Singapore?
As far as 787-10's range is concerned, it is enough to operate on high density regional routes such as middle east to indian subcontinent, Australia to Asia Pacific, US east coast to western europe, transcontinental american services and from North America to South America, So yes, there are a lot of potential 5-10 hour routes that the 787-10 can easily serve
and the A350 can serve them better
@@ant2312 You got it wrong. It was actually found in an analysis the 787-10 is better suited on shorter routes which justifies its shorter range anyway
@@Deltafox3693IsSoInDenialAmerican investigation?
The order is telling us enough😉
@@jesperdevries107 It lacks range you fool and hasn’t been on the market as long
My longest recent flights were HKG=JFK at 16 hours. That's about the maximum I care to fly even if it was with CX in business but really don't want to do it again. My last flight was on BA on 787-9 in first class LHR-ATL which was okay. at 9+ hours. An upcoming BCN-EWR flight will be on a UA 787-10 at close to 9 hours. So, what makes sense to me is that it is a good aircraft to fly to and from Europe, which is where UA and KLM feature it. The amount of ultra long haul routes are fairly few, so the 787-10 makes good sense as a lower cost alternative to the a350-900 on all but those few routes.
I flew on the Singapore Airlines route from SIN to EWR in premium economy. I was not bored for a single moment, though the jet lag was rather severe because I was so excited to be on the flight that I didn't sleep much on board.
I have not yet tried flying as a passenger with B787 and just like what this docu showed. B787 has couple issues thus delaying it's delivery. That means to say there is gotta be a problem behind it like battery issues. On the other hand, A350 has only paint issues as far as I'm aware. A350 is the future of commercial flying for the coming long years.
In my opinion (no disrespect to 787), the A350 is better. Yes, the 787 is good too but for comfort and experience, it’s gotta be the A350
You should've mentioned the a350's BRILLIANT cabin pressure
The 787 and a350 have the same cabin pressure of 6000ft. But yes, BOTH aircraft are equally good in this regard
@@ak907silvers6I think the Airbus is actually 500 feet lower and has better humidity
It is good that flight carriers have a choice between two rather comparable aircrafts. I have no preference, both planes are good, well equipped and fast. I like the sky blue livery of KLM, the oldest flight carrier in the world. But that could have something to do with the fact that I’m Dutch.
KLM has been a very loyal Boeing customer for decades, but their merger with Air France is shifting things in favor of Airbus, which are mostly built in France. Ironically, Air France is also a long-time Boeing customer.
Sat in both. 787 is for operators. cramped and noisy. A350 is for passengers. quiet and spacious. You sit in the seats. your choice.
@Hamza Saleem I have flown on both many times (Qatar and Etihad) and found the A350 better each time
@Hamza Saleem food and service depends on the airline, not the airplane🤦🏻♂️
panbois😅😅😅😅😅
It really depends on operators(in economy at least) …Delta’s A350 were so crammed but Qatar’s were one of the best ever.
Nah, you’re full of sht…all airliners regardless of manufacturer is cramped and uncomfortable if not in first or businesses class.
I think a lot more could be said surrounding passenger comfort. Yesterday, I flew both the 787-9 and the a350-900. I can positively say my experience on the 787 was considerably better. The a350 just seems clunky, and quickly put together, whereas the 787 feels like there has been some thought put towards it.
Sounds:
- The a350 has very loud brakes, almost loud enough to turn off a worried flyer.
- Engine noise, 787 just has a peaceful hum, where as the a350 I'd say is louder.
Lighting:
- 787 interior lighting appears to have many options for the carrier and is much more subtle then that of the a350.
Also a quick mention of the useless OLED/ LCD screens they use as the seatbelt sign. Like, why?
"Airbus" and "quickly put together" in the same sentence? Surely you have mistaken it for the Boeing. The Airbus is 6 decibels lower in noise during flight, has a higher cabin pressure (5500 feet vs 6000) and it has better humidity levels.
And if you must know the Boeing has more quality control issues, so the only plane being put together quickly here is the 787.
The 787's window shades are an absolute deal killer for me. If the sun is on your side of the plane, it's extremely annoying.
The window dimmers in 787 really suck
Flown on both aircraft. The Airbus A351 is quieter and more comfortable especially long haul (Singapore Airlines)
The Boeing 788 was OK a big improvement on the 763 (Delta Airlines)
Airbus is more comfortable.
It depends on the airline mostly for passenger experience, did you even watch the video?
787 premium is better than A350 due to a more private cabin, but A350 3-3-3 economy is better than 787 3-3-3 economy
We gotta point out, that Airbus' dimmable windows are faster and more dark.
Boeing's latest version of the dimmable windows are also faster and darker. I experienced it on a newer 787-9 from Qatar Airways.
They are not manufactured by AIrbus, so no, they are not "airbus's dimmable windows". In any rational world without the idiot FAA/EASA in the way, Boeing would have just changed to the newer version of the windows as they both use the same dimmable window company.
Tough to argue with 1 extra inch of seat width in Y.
I flew AA premium economy AMS-DFW in a 2-3-2 configuration. it was really luxurious. The 3-3-3 set-up behind me looked not so nice.
The A330's 2-4-2 or the 767's 2-3-2 were more comfortable in my experience (less crowded).
I flew DUB-AUH-BKK and return all on Etihad's 787-10s. It was quite good. Very quiet aircraft. But I felt seating was a bit cramped
I hated that too.
Never etihad again and if I could choose A350, I will.
Seating configuration and setup is airline specific. An Etihad 787-10 seating arrangement and space will be different than a Singapore Airlines 787-10.
That seems to a common complaint with the 787.
The a 350 now has newer dimmable windows that respond 50%faster
B787-10 can be as comfortable as A350 when it equipped with Rolls Royce Engine, it is quieter in my experience !
It have been confirmed that RR have quiter engines fban GE, but unfortunately, we all know what happens to the Trent 1000
A350 is more of a mini jumbo compared to the Dreamliner but their both clean sheet designs and l like that.
The 787-10 has still a room for great afvanyage,that is the re-engine with higher thrust.THerefore the 787-10 can still have the option to increased range by increasing take -off weight either for fuel tanks or cargo capacity or both.
I had the opportunity to speak with a pilot who operates Boeing aircraft. He expressed a preference for Boeing over Airbus, citing its superior quality and more 'off-road' flight experience. He explained that Airbus planes are highly automated, leaving little for the pilot to do. Tasks, even landing, are managed by the autopilot. Conversely, Boeing isn't as automated, allowing pilots to gain real, hands-on flying experience.
It depends on if you care about what fuel cost are going to be in the future. If your government owned and in the Middle East you probably would care less about fuel cost and more about range.
In the USA and Europe I think it will be more of a 50/50 split because both believe in cutting fuel costs (and fuel dependency on foreign countries) and lower emissions to meet environmental goals. But ultimately it will come down to national origin of these plans more than anything else for this region.
In emerging economies, they can care less about Boeing vs Airbus. They will go with whoever gives them the best deal
Both are great, but the A350 slightly better for passengers (IMO). The old 777s are v poor. However, my favorite plane is still the A380 for ultimate comfort.
The Airbus A350 stands out for its sleek design and superior efficiency, as it was specifically engineered from the ground up for long-distance flights. Its wings are designed to carry more fuel, giving it a significant advantage. In contrast, Boeing has opted to stretch its existing plane models, such as the 787, which all share the same wing design. This approach leads to fuel capacity limitations. Once again, Boeing's shortcut approach demonstrates their failure to innovate effectively.
Singapore Airlines is a great example of an airline that sees the advantages of both aircraft.
They use the A350-900 on their longest longhaul routes, including the ULR version, but use the 787-10 on their densest routes, mostly within Asia.
Ultimately both are wonderful aircraft with slightly differing missions, but with the 787 being able to carry more cargo, a HGW version will all but eliminate the advantage of the A350, which would lead Airbus to modify the A350-1000 even before that variant has to deal with the 777-9.
It's going to be interesting to see what happens when the 777-9 goes into service.
"On paper" I agree. But until Boeing sort out their manufacturing mess this whole discussion is kinda moot. After two years of stoppage they are snagged again. SMH.
@@wojomojo that's true, but that doesn't change the fact that there are currently nearly 900 787 aircraft in service, so the aircraft is great.
Most of the issues with the aircraft are not related to the quality of the design, but the quality of building, and that can be resolved. The aircraft remains capable regardless.
@Timi Ayotunde actually 1,041 are benen in service. The 787 have already already 1,700 order, almost catching up the 330 and the 777
Airbus!
Typical Airbus fan
@@Deltafox3693IsSoInDenial Typical Boeing fan.
@@heidirabenau511 I’ll be creating one for Boeing fans so don’t you worry as I’m tired of cults. *Right now* though I see the Airbus cult fans as the biggest threats to comment sections
Range isn't everything. There are so many heavily flown routes that even a 767 can fly, range wise. The 787-10 is thus perfectly well positioned for routes out of European hubs that have higher passenger loads like KLM to India.
Think of the 787-10 as mid to long haul and the A350 as more long-ultra long haul. Different tools for different jobs.
Boeing wider window view
Airbus more quiet and wider seat.
Better for passenger experience . AIRBUS WINNER HERE
Defenetly Team A350, especially in the 1000 version
I think the first commercial jet was the Comet. but that was scuppered after a couple of early crashes...possibly after campaign by the US (manufacturers) to get rid of competition?
Following the recent Boeing 737-Max crashes, how does its safety record (& consequences) compare with that of the Comet?
For me the 787-10 has been the most comfortable and best plane i flew on so far. Never flew on a A-350 though.
The 787-10 has really spacious seats, tho i am not that big (neither in height nor width) so i never am bothered with that.
The automatic windows in the 787 are amazing, much better then the old-fashioned once. Especially with passengers to dumb to listen to cabin crew requests when landing for example.
Flew the 787-10 from AMS-LAX (about 11 hours). So certainly a really long haul flight.
Good comparison
I honestly don't know which plane is prettier 🤔🤔 the A350 or the 787!!! Both are absolutely beautiful planes 💙💙💙💙💙
I am an Airbus pilot. Certified on all 320s both New and Current. MSFS
The one area not touched upon is price which can make a huge difference.
A359>B781
Typical Airbus fan
787-10 high density short to medium haul routes 😊
Both are flying miracles.
I think the main deciding factor for the airlines is who can churn out the most airplanes the fastest when they need them...
Newbie question. What does the second number indicate for aircraft models?
The model
Hard to say which is great. To both different in their own way
I rode in both A350 and B787-10 and A350 is much more comfortable than B787.
Why compare two aircraft that are not direct competitors to each other?
A350 anyday
Since there are merging rumors that the -9 and -10 might have an extended range it would be good to add at least 2000 nautical miles to both of the types so that they may fly perform better in terms of of range where as there will be no need to make stop overs between such as London to Sydney, Sydney to New York, Mumbai to Los Angeles etc.Though the -9 is not bad at all.
Why would they want to have ER where 777x are designed for longer routes. A350 1000 will start delivering next year 1Q
2000 nmi? I don't think that is possible now. 500-1000nmi is more realistic.
@@mmm0404 2000nm is 3000+ Km so if it were given to a -10 that would be like 15000Km of range and 17000 for the -9
@@kennedyxhulu4933 yea , would be great but remember Boeing would need additional space in the 787 frame to fit more fuel capacity.
That space is limited
A350-9 XWB for the win.... all day, every day.
Both are great aircraft..
Kind of a pro 787 video were you talk a lot more about the 787 then the A350.. Were are the range comparaisons ?
Were are the destination comparaisons ?
is the cabin of the A350 quieter than the B787 ?
Some say yes, other say no. I don't really see almost none one saying these, but at the end: it would all depend on the engine choice and the aircraft size.
@@sergiolaurencio7534 recently flew British airways a380 to my destination, and 87-10 home, was honeslty surprised how much quiter the 87 was with the RR engines. not sure the sound difference between the ge/rr
The A350 was built to compete with the bigger 777. The 787 was built to replace the 767, but it turned out to be a much more improved product. Im a Boeing fan but I have respect for Airbus and I will fly in their planes if Im ever scheduled to.
Honestly if they could add the 777-200LR,I dont see any reason at all why they shouldn’t add the 787-10LR. It would be a legendary ultra long haul plane and the carries will love it!
Yeah the range of the -10 is shorter than the -8 and -9 i think
@@claxisthebestaThat’s why I commented this. They nerfed the 10 too much
Well the optimized 787 variant was the 787-9. The 787 designs were built around the 789, so when you stretch the aircraft out, add more weight and such but still keep the same engines and fuel capacity, the 787-10 performs worse in range and etc.
The difference there is they used the 777-300ER wing on the 200 to make the LR. To make a 787-10LR they'd need to design a new wing, and the increased weight of the wing and fuel would necessitate new engines too, probably.
Don't get your hopes up. Just get excited for the A350-1000 and 777-8/9.
Oh alright. Thank you for making me more understand with this
Two different airplanes, The 787 was specifically designed to make flights to non-hub airports and secondary was the domestic market. This market accelerated after Covid, of course. It was not designed for extended ranges but fuel efficiency per paid fare to non-hub markets. We all know the airlines pick how to make us as uncomfortable as possible for $$$$. I consider the 787 family and the a350 family two separate type airframes
Airbus will sell a lot of A350's in the 2020's for one reason: airlines that bought large fleets of 777's need to replace their planes over this decade. As such, I expect Air France to start replacing their 777-300ER's with A350-1000's starting around 2026. This is why Rolls-Royce is working on the _UltraFan_ program: a new engine that will be available on the A350 before 2030.
The metrics that really stand out are range (for Airbus) and cargo capacity (for Boeing).
RANGE is the most important. Airlines like Singapore Airlines can run nonstop from JFK to Changi or JFK to Manila.
A350❤
fr
Please share the estimated price and operational costs. 👍
I flew both of them, a350 for 9 hours flight and the 787 nearly 11 hours flight.. both were magical flying machines but the 787 was just too smooth, didnt even feel like i was flying in an airplane, it was that good.. whereas the a350 still shaked some and had some vibrations etc.. but still smooth flight
Saudi Arabia has recently requested a large order of Dreamliner 787 aircraft. Was the Saudi government's choice successful instead of the Airbus 350?
Could an extended range version of the 787-10 replace the 777-8
2:17 how come the 787-9 and 10 have the same MTOW yet the 787-10 is heavier and has more engine thrust?
MTOW is determined by the structural integrity or strength of the airframe ( primarily the landing gear and wing box) , not by the Empty weight of the aircraft.
The stronger ( not the heavier ) the airframe structure is, the more weight it can carry for take off ( aka higher MTOW).
Aircraft of the same family with the same MTOW just means the overall structural strength of the airframe ( e.g landing gear, wing box) is the same or very similar.
The 777-300ER and 777-200LR have the same MTOW, so is the a330-900 and a330-800.
The a330-200 and a330-300 share the same MTOW as far as I know.
The 737-800 and the non ER 737-900 also shared the same MTOW
To save costs usually aircraft of the same family share components like the landing gear, wing box , the wings, fuel tanks and many more.
Sharing the same/similar components like the landing gear usually means the structural strength of the airframe is the same even for heavier varients of the same aircraft family.
Being heavier only means carrying less fuel for for more payload, it has little or effect on the MTOW.
Thanks
Love it A350 🤍
How many hours can fly Boeing 787-10 without refueling
Could you do a comparison of the 787-8 compared to the 767 variants if you have already, could u point me to that video?
❤Airbus A350❤
I was on an A350 yesterday and it was terrifying for some reason so I’d say the 787
I think 30% of the cost of an airplane is the engine's costs, some airline have a contract with engine companies, 787 used GE and RR but A350 only use RR engine. If Airbus could use GE engine, it could have a great sales.
Go all Airbus !! Fantastic aircrafts.
It really does depend on the airline they are both great.
Due to overcrowding at Tan Son Nhat Airport (SGN), the larger the plane, the fewer take-offs and landings. So VNA mainly uses 787 and a359 to save SGN :(
Early flights, when the airport is empty, they usually use a321 between HAN-SGN