I have been a long haul flyer my entire life due to the places my family live. Over the years I have noticed a lot of changes, from a time when people were allowed to smoke on aircraft to removing my shoes before passing into the waiting area of airports. So when I sit on the ever smaller and costly seats of an aircraft, I am looking for security and safety as the minimum standard. Boeing has, as you mentioned, lost my trust. I now deliberately look for flights where the aircraft is an Airbus, even if it's more costly. What price would you place on your life?
The ' End of Boeing ' should not be a new Airbus Aircraft - but the sub standards of Boeing , and the almost criminal disregard of safety behavior their CEO's showed for far too long. Thats why they should go down.
Hydrogen will powered aircraft are a joke to anyone who can do maths if they think they can power them from wind power. Europe, particularly Germany, is already deindustrializing with the loss of cheap Russian pipeline Natural Gas and the 50% wind power they claim they generated is so expensive that German industry is shutting up and moving in the hope of saving some IP. Ideology and Politics in Europe will mess things up, guaranteed.
@@augustiner3821 so tell me where are they gonna get this hydrogen from? Avis the industrialising because it’s when power is too expensive. It’s not going to happen. It’ll be a publicity stump.
@@williamzk9083you don’t wait for hydrogen to come online, you plan for sustainability so you can get a competitive edge in the future. Some countries are committed to saving our planet, take for example South Korea, they have been investing in clean hydrogen production at a national scale. That sets parameters for businesses like Hyundai/Kia to R&D hydrogen cars. Companies like Boeing have only been focusing on share buybacks and profit.
I really hope Boeing continues to stay a strong competitor of Airbus - and I'm saying this as European. It is a good thing for the development drive and also unit costs if there is strong competition - especially if it is between western countries. That way Airbus and Boeing "compete upwards" and stay ahead of other rivals like China.
It is not the greed of the companies that is destroying Boeing, the CEOs are already taking care of that with their greed for money and bad decisions. This is how Boeing is destroying itself and becoming an absolute laughing stock and shitshow
@@Chan-Lin-Tao I could not agree more but there are still a lot of people willing to fly them with their lower standards. That depends a lot on the British and how they fly.
It wasn't Airbus who killed Boeing, it was Boeing himself. Missing the Point to update there Fleet, still producing a Plane from the 1960's, that can do except crashing even more crashing is not futureproof, and the military contracts will also come to an end, the F-18 is dead, the F-15 on the deathbed, Lockheed is the Airbus of the military, the only thing left are Tankers and AWACS. Planes that already have been produced. And laying all your eggs in one basket called stutterer 7 (777) with unhinged wings is a deathsentence for this company.
As a European, I read a lot that 'Boeing should be less Boeing and step up'. But isn't the issue that Boeing has become not enough Boeing anymore and way too much MDD? Where at Boeing the issue might have been, that the finance guys had to 'reign in' the designer/production guys, the issue now seems reverse. The design/production guys aren't able to 'reign in' the finance guys.
I have a long history of building paper airplanes. Even i realized that changing the engine position alters the centre of gravity of the aircraft , when i was about 6.
The B787 series is very good in performance, the 777-X despite its delays will be a success since it is the only near replacement for the A380. The Airbus A50-1000 is a failure and folks don't trust its Rolls Royce engines. The B737 is clearly what got Boeing into trouble.
Unless Airbus are made in USA.. Mobile for example. You can check that. That will be hard to add taxes on those .....Even for CFM engines, as it's half french and half USA it will be hard... so hard you can call it delusional. Trump will enjoy his 757 until it falls. Anyway taxing aircrafts means higher prices on flights, that will kill USA airlines on oceans routes. So trump ,can talk, he should think instead. No way he can do that. Trump plan for aviation is the same plan for USA healthcare. Talk but no brain. What a surprise !!! But Trump is very good at killing the planet with climate change, Yes he's very good on that. History books will remember his name just for that.
Please wake up. Hydrogen as an aviation fuel is a fantasy. The energy cost to make hydrogen are nuts, storage is insane and hazards from leaks and handling are a nightmare.
But you should also be aware that every technology and development has a beginning, right? And it will continue. In the beginning, people thought that cars were very dangerous and would kill everyone, but today millions of people drive them on the road. The danger factor is what people make of the technology.
Correct. McDonnell Douglas was bad quality long before the merger. So Boeing is now what McDonnell Douglas had been for decades: just the worse product.
Unfortunately for America The end is near because of its complacency and because of its actions through the years. People are wising up and rising up and they're not going to take the sanctions ultimatums political and threats of war anymore from America. They're doing something about it and the fact that they were innovating modernizing through the years will help do that instead of us resting on our laurels and thinking the empire will last forever.
It’s tRumpland now. That bit of North America the Canadians and Mexicans are both having to build walls around to keep the crazies in. The rest of the world are crowdfunding for the lid.
I favour European technology over American technology whenever possible. European standards are superior (give me Galileo GNSS over GPS, communication standards in every area, the EU in all manner of spheres technical and otherwise, etc), their production quality is vastly superior and their scientific and technical abilities are equal to or superior to American equivalents. The US simply manipulates and advertises for advantage. Your new ‘President’ is already leading you further downward. PS: Check out what Embraer is doing. Brazil is also surging ahead. The Empire is crumbling. Emperor Trump is your Caligula.
Excuse me, what ? The American empire will last forever. That's what the Romans thought back then, and it failed miserably, leaving only hysterical memories
You've got your gallons and liters mixed up. 1% of 130,000 gallons is not 1,300 liters. In fact not even a Boeing 747-8 would use 130,000 gallons of fuel from Paris to Bangkok.
So true...130,000 gal of jet fuel at 6.7 lbs/gal would equal 871,000 lbs...which is double the basic empty weight of a brand new 747-8 freighter straight from paint.
Well, enjoy flying Boeing 😂 You could not pay me to board any Boeing plane - even if it could fly on less gallons than any other Aircraft 🤮 Widowmakers - they are called nowadays 😂
Airbus has facilities in a multitude of countries in the EU and beyond including the USA and China. So good to see the UK playing a major role and still working together with all the other contributors. Together we are certainly stronger.
@@Knochen7 Airbus also has a huge wing assembly plant in Broughton North Wales and an R&D facility at Filton in Bristol, SW England, but across all facilities it employs around 12,000 employees directly and makes a next contribution to UK GDP Of around £7 billion.
What have Boeing got to do ? One thing for a start = GO BACK TO BASICS ! And I don't mean basics in technology, I mean basics in RUNNING A BUSINESS. Ever since it's ludicrous buyout of McD the senior management have completely lost their way. They set their goals around the principals of: No.1 = Profit, and then No's 2, 3, 4 and onward can scrabble for everything else like ... well, building aircraft, safety, quality... all of those took a distinct back-seat to Profits. And so, here is the result a couple of decades later. When a business forgets the reason it started out - in this case, to build the world's best aircraft, then with that it loses it's way completely. Too many corporate giants have fallen already for precisely this reason. They absolutely knew that it was the wrong thing to do to develop another 737 upgrade (the MAX) yet they did it mostly because they were so busy watching what Airbus were doing with the A320neo development, that they feared losing lots of revenue to the A320neo whilst they developed a brand new aircraft. And yet they could have kept the 737NG line open and milked out another good few years from it offering much cheaper planes off the production line than Airbus was able to do with the Neo, but nope... greed and profit ruled their minds. Read about Jim McNerney's (Boeing CEO 2005-2015) comments about "Moonshots" as he called them, and how he said that going about delivering a big new product (a Moonshot) was now the wrong way to go about running a business. Well that fool and all who followed him are probably to blame for dire situation of Boeing today. Go back to basics Boeing, before it's too late.
@@ContraVsGigi Yes, Petter at Mentour did bring it to light that Boeing DID NOT have to go to the expense of designing a new aircraft to replace the 737. That had already been done with Bombardier with their CS100/300. But Boeing being so predatory chose instead to threaten Bombardier with duties if their aircraft was sold to companies in the US. Like Airbus, they could have bought into Bombardier and have access to a ready made solution which has paid off very well for Airbus which has now renamed the CS100 to A220 and it is selling very well. And now, Boeing is really paying the price, being in debt of $50 billion plus, having lost market share(down to 40%), and having no available cash to design a new aircraft to replace the dinosaur 737 until 2035. Since their merger with McD, they have lost their way......
Airbus, of course, is a trans European effort. The wings, landing gear and other components are made in the UK. Plus, a great deal of research and development.
@@obesetuna3164No, it is a German, French and Spain owned company. We will see when it is more convenient to give up production capacity outside the EU
@@adriancash7063 Well relatively speaking it is. It is after all on a not very big island. By the standards of the USA everything in England is near the coast. Farnborough is a mere 54 miles from the nearest coastal port.
@ “relatively speaking” it’s also near France but it’s definitely not in France so it’s a pointless observation. As you rightly say everywhere in the UK is “relatively” near the coast in the same way it’s relatively near Sweden - maybe a bigger map would help? I think it’s fair to say that Farnborough is not on the South coast of England. We’re getting somewhat distracted from the point which was the mispronunciation of the name. Not “Farnburrow” but “ Farnbruh”.
Слишком много неудач и правление стариканами не дает уверенности. Деиндустриализация америки произошла. Единичнач сверхдорогая техника ВПК уже не поксзатель .
I find it strange when people think the new plane is a "niche" plane while the A380 is the one it competes with. The fact is that for quite a while it seemed as if the A380 was dead, and nobody was buying it anymore. One simple fact is that it's simply too large for quite a few airports on this planet. So a plane with a more regular size, but adding more seats by being stretched out, sounds like a smart strategy to me.
Now as someone who has worked in aviation for since i was 16 as an apprentice with British Aerospace (BAe) before they joined Airbus, I always want to see a strong Airbus but equally for the industry a strong Boeing is a good thing, as keeps innovation in the industry going forward. Also I have family in the US who work in the same industry and theyre companies have been swallowed up by Boeing so i want to see my families job safe in the industry aswell. Years ago i considered moving across to work over in the US, but I got a better job offer to stay in the UK working for an airline who worked in conjunction with Bombardier and Embrear again 2 companies that knew they could compete with the 2 bigger manufacturers so try to keep there distance with their types of aircraft. Bombardier has now been incorporated to the Airbus group (hence the new A220 aircraft, what was going to be the C series I believe) and Boeing tried to do the same with Embrear, so they could have a similar smaller commuter jets in the form of the E-170-190 styles, to fit below the B737 family. Any innovaton in the industry is welcome in my eyes.
When I crewed helicopters in the military I was made to go on all test flights in aircraft that i worked on. Making Boeing Exec's travel ONLY on Boeing aircraft would probably improve the quality of the aircraft produced. Flying inj your own aircraft makes you more aware of quality control.
This has got to be a disguised Airbus channel. I used to translate Business Babble and recognize it instantly. Still, I have nothing against making flying cleaner, but I hope to never fly again, because of all the discomfort, from the moment one enters the airport, through the sardine seating, to disembarking. I am 6'4". I've had enough.
hydrogen is not a clean fuel if it is refined from methane as 99% of all hydrogen produced today is. Hydrogen produced through renewable power feeding electrolysis is clean but very expensive
If generated by renewable energy it’s not expensive but you still loss on efficiency which is why hydrogen cars are a dumb idea. For 1kw of electricity you only get 0.7kw in hydrogen energy.
@@garethmcguire632 Ah, but the idea is to use the excess left over during peak hours of solar and wind production which can't otherwise be stored, so by using it for the electrolysis you are actually cutting costs. But that will only be true once the costs of building the infrastructure have already passed. In theory anyways.
the biggest difference is that Airbus is owned by multinational governments and Boeing is a private corporation. It shows that American typical only chase for the bottom line doesn't work. It meant cutting cost to the point that their planes are not safe enough to pass certification. Airbus clearly is not chasing only after profit.
I wanted to watch this video, but the background music was driving me mad! So had to give it up. Can you make technical videos without background music?
Most people learn to ignore and not be bothered by background sounds before they turn 3, if this gets to you then you have a problem of your own making.
@@sg-yq8pm Your sarcastic reply was useless, my statement still stands, can we have videos on a technical subject without background music? Does background music add to a technical video? I think not. Adding background music to any video must involve extra work, if the background music does not add to the video what is the point in adding it? We are not talking about horror films or detective films are we?
The only way forward in future aviation travel, is when we start using anti-gravity technology. But I very much doubt it's going to happen anytime soon, so in the meantime we'll have to use jets. Going to the airport, going through security, boarding the plane, and hoping that the plane will take off on time. Just a few days ago I was leaving from Rome back to my country, sadly we were sat in the plane for 1 1/2 hours. In short we arrived 2 hours late. Now can you imagine if we can order a taxi that is using anti-gravity technology, you get picked up right in front of your home taken to your desired destination within seconds or minutes😊
It will be interesting how they would overcome the low H2 volumetric density that you refused to address taking up 1/2 of the available seats for the same range doubling the ticket cost just on that alone let alone how much more expensive the H2 to produce would be. Carbon capture-produced kerosene would seem the only viable alternative, especially for trans-continental flights.
I'm not sure why hydrogen is mentioned so much in conjunction with future airliners given it's so difficult to work with. I wonder why methane isn't considered? It too can be produced from renewable sources with the Sabatier process, and it's much easier to contain.
Boeing is out of cash, the management team has completely mismanaged the company resources. They are laying off senior highly experienced engineers in an effort to save money. Meanwhile Airbus is producing new more advanced aircraft and thriving.
They "bought" heavily subsidized technology from Bombardier so now it is the time to reuse it and advance.
9 дней назад
Having contracted at Boeing's many plants in Washington, they wasted money by trying to buy cheap. Also had poor engineers in their utility department at all plants.
It will still require about 700,000 kwhrs of total energy to fly a passenger plane across the ocean. This is the same amount of energy as every passenger on the plane having a hot shower every day for 20 years. Flying takes a huge amount of energy even for the most efficient aircraft.
With electric batteries becoming increasingly efficient, wouldn’t be surprised if a new (possibly Chinese) aircraft manufacturer blindsides Airbus and Boeing, just like Tesla and BYD are taking out legacy car makers
Let's face it: the zero-e concepts is just refined greenwashing. The sad truth about airplanes is that they really can't be that green. They say that they reduce the fuel cost by 25% with each new generation, fair enough, but this makes the rebound effect all the more important (people pay less to travel so they travel more... cancelling the gain). Yes, hydrogen, being so inefficient and expensive as a mean to power a plane, would put an end to this trend. So in a weird way I would applaud the effort, because THAT could very well cause the end of affordable travel for the masses, thus solving the problem. But it also means that it won't happen, because this move would kill the industry in the long run. In other words, Boeing would just have to outlast Airbus and keep producing traditionnal planes at an affordable price. I simply don't see it happening guys. Keep travelling locally whenever you can and try to let those big corporations disintegrate and collapse under contradictory incentives. Hope that it happens before we're f**cked.
The US voted in Putins lapdog. Nothin mattters anymore. As when Putin has Ukraine, He will not stop. He will go further west. The only country not in NATO is Moldovia. After that He will Attack NATO.
It's not the end of Boeing for 2 simple reasons. 1 Boeing is too big to fail. it's of US national economic security importance The US government wont let it fail. Restructure yes fail no. 2. Airbus and Boeing actually need each other to sustain the market. If one gets into trouble it effects the other when the market becomes unstable.
Farnborough is pronounced ‘Farnburra’ (from a local). And Derby as ‘Darby’. The aviation industry is far from being green and is projected to increase flights/operations dramatically over the coming years and hence will produce ever greater CO2 emissions
"The end of Boeing. Carbon free flights. We are no where near this scenario yet, and it may very well be the end of European industry before that eventually happens.
I am a bit old fashioned: I prefer planes who have the same number of components from take off to landing. Not going to buy a flight ticked on a Boeing plane anymore!
Hydrogen is unsafe and impossible to contain without massive storage weight. As a pilot I will never fly or drive in a hydrogen powered vehicle of any sort.
Airbus needs compitition, and with the fall of Boeing this has become imperative. The only one in the horizon is China and that is politically unsustainable. That is bad news
A hydrogen powered aircraft seems like a quick way to lose a lot of money. I honestly don't know why the technology is not first tested on trains or ships. For gods sake we haven't even figured out a hydrogen car yet.
TOYOTA Mirai : Hydrogen Powered Car ... since 2019 / ALSTOM Coradia : Hydrogen Powered train in commercial service since 2018 / MF Hydra : Hydrogen Powered ship
@@deniscoutadeur7129 This is a technology that is in testing for more then a decade now. All it produced is losses and shiny things to brag about, that have no commercial purpose. There are no hydrogen cars on the roads. Out of 24 hydrogen powered Alstom trains 18 are not operational after 2 years since launch. That ship was barely a year of service and the operator is already loosing money. I'll give it max 2 years before the ship breaks down. And this is even before we get into the technical difficulties of using hydrogen. None of your examples even comes close to refuting my claim.
@@deniscoutadeur7129 And do you think they are ready for mass adoption? And the more i think about it the more difficult it seems for a jet engine. That is a whole different technology. All the applications you enumerated use hydrogen to produce electricity. But that would work for an airplane only if would use propeller engines. For a jet engine the hydrogen would need to be burned.
We won't see a like of A321 or a B737MAX10 with either hydrogen or electric batteries any time soon. Purely electric aircraft (such as DJI drones) are quite a bit of niche products in the world of "normal" big aircraft for simple physics. 1 kg of kerosene has ~40MJ of energy that allows the user to do 15-16MJ of useful work and then the aircraft gets lighter as it burns the said kerosene making it easier/less fuel consuming to keep flying. 1 kg of Tesla model Y batteries has 0.5MJ of energy and the weight stays the same. Even if by some miracle you get to 1.5MJ/kg with the battery mumbo-jumbo, kerosene is going to be 1 decimal order of magnitude more energy dense. Hydrogen is another no-goer. Firstly, most hydrogen is made from CH4 methane, and it is just easier to burn methane directly. The other thing (as shown by H-cars such as the Mazda RX8H or the new 2024 Toyota Mirai) with hydrogen is it is not a very practical fuel for everyday life. Yes, it is the best fuel there is per kilo of weight, but containing the said kilo is not exactly easy.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
I have been a long haul flyer my entire life due to the places my family live. Over the years I have noticed a lot of changes, from a time when people were allowed to smoke on aircraft to removing my shoes before passing into the waiting area of airports. So when I sit on the ever smaller and costly seats of an aircraft, I am looking for security and safety as the minimum standard. Boeing has, as you mentioned, lost my trust. I now deliberately look for flights where the aircraft is an Airbus, even if it's more costly. What price would you place on your life?
I do the same
lol. Airpoop got new competition from Russia and China..
@@igavinwood just fly American Airlines not African airlines.
@@annsheridan12good idea, double the problem. They both focus on profit first safety second.😂
@@Werkelijk but it’s virtually impossible to die on an American carrier.
The ' End of Boeing ' should not be a new Airbus Aircraft - but the sub standards of Boeing , and the almost criminal disregard of safety behavior their CEO's showed for far too long. Thats why they should go down.
Sie werden alles in den Griff bekommen. Es gibt nur die Zwei und beide werden gebraucht.
If it weren't for manufacturers like Boeing, you would still be traveling on a bird today!
“Almost” criminal?
ans esp. the lies not taking care of the passengers
Everyone is going green? When Trump is coming back?
Boeing needs to stop being so American in its corporate culture. It’s a culture issue.
No place for nationalism nor pride while dealing with gravity. Simple as that. Maybe lesson #1 in aviation.
It's too late, once COMAC is competing Boeing will stick to their military work which is more profitable.
Nothing to do with American culture. Woke DEI culture has destroyed Boeing.
And I am a proud European.
@@nm9266the EU is the greatest country.
better an European dream than an American nightmare.
Agree.
Hydrogen will powered aircraft are a joke to anyone who can do maths if they think they can power them from wind power. Europe, particularly Germany, is already deindustrializing with the loss of cheap Russian pipeline Natural Gas and the 50% wind power they claim they generated is so expensive that German industry is shutting up and moving in the hope of saving some IP. Ideology and Politics in Europe will mess things up, guaranteed.
Agree 100%
@@augustiner3821 so tell me where are they gonna get this hydrogen from? Avis the industrialising because it’s when power is too expensive. It’s not going to happen. It’ll be a publicity stump.
@@williamzk9083you don’t wait for hydrogen to come online, you plan for sustainability so you can get a competitive edge in the future. Some countries are committed to saving our planet, take for example South Korea, they have been investing in clean hydrogen production at a national scale. That sets parameters for businesses like Hyundai/Kia to R&D hydrogen cars. Companies like Boeing have only been focusing on share buybacks and profit.
I am a European citizen and I approve this message✅
I really hope Boeing continues to stay a strong competitor of Airbus - and I'm saying this as European. It is a good thing for the development drive and also unit costs if there is strong competition - especially if it is between western countries. That way Airbus and Boeing "compete upwards" and stay ahead of other rivals like China.
Agreed. Friendly competition between allies is a good thing that keeps us on all point.
That’s the right attitude. Boeing has been making a lot of mistakes, but it doesn’t do the West any good for it to fail.
Let 'em hire engineers, like when Boeing was succesfull. Just as does Airbus.
Corporate greed is killing Boeing, Come on, , simple as that. wake up!
It is not the greed of the companies that is destroying Boeing, the CEOs are already taking care of that with their greed for money and bad decisions. This is how Boeing is destroying itself and becoming an absolute laughing stock and shitshow
Basically Airbus just continues with its own business model of delivering products at their own pace and let the competition crumble
We need both Boeing and Airbus to be strong
Airbus are simply a far more comfortable and welcoming plane to be in. . . Ryanair made an awful mistake, hitching their wagon to Boeing.
Ryan air are shit. Life is too short to use them. That Boeing Max plane that crashed is still not safe
First, Ryanair should adopt ergonomic seats instead of those flat ones.
@@lucrolland7489 first of all, Ryanair should become a passenger airline and not a cargo cattle carrier.
@@Chan-Lin-Tao I could not agree more but there are still a lot of people willing to fly them with their lower standards. That depends a lot on the British and how they fly.
@@Chan-Lin-Tao 184 million people would disagree with you this year.
It wasn't Airbus who killed Boeing, it was Boeing himself. Missing the Point to update there Fleet, still producing a Plane from the 1960's, that can do except crashing even more crashing is not futureproof, and the military contracts will also come to an end, the F-18 is dead, the F-15 on the deathbed, Lockheed is the Airbus of the military, the only thing left are Tankers and AWACS. Planes that already have been produced. And laying all your eggs in one basket called stutterer 7 (777) with unhinged wings is a deathsentence for this company.
As a European, I read a lot that 'Boeing should be less Boeing and step up'.
But isn't the issue that Boeing has become not enough Boeing anymore and way too much MDD?
Where at Boeing the issue might have been, that the finance guys had to 'reign in' the designer/production guys, the issue now seems reverse.
The design/production guys aren't able to 'reign in' the finance guys.
I have a long history of building paper airplanes. Even i realized that changing the engine position alters the centre of gravity of the aircraft , when i was about 6.
Boeing has so much going on right now that if Airbus jumps ahead with innovative design, Boeing probably won't be able to catch up in the near term.
The B787 series is very good in performance, the 777-X despite its delays will be a success since it is the only near replacement for the A380. The Airbus A50-1000 is a failure and folks don't trust its Rolls Royce engines. The B737 is clearly what got Boeing into trouble.
Don’t worry. Trump will just smack some more taxes on Airbus to keep Boeing afloat, even if they keep loosing doors in flight.
Unless Airbus are made in USA.. Mobile for example. You can check that. That will be hard to add taxes on those
.....Even for CFM engines, as it's half french and half USA it will be hard... so hard you can call it delusional. Trump will enjoy his 757 until it falls. Anyway taxing aircrafts means higher prices on flights, that will kill USA airlines on oceans routes. So trump ,can talk, he should think instead. No way he can do that. Trump plan for aviation is the same plan for USA healthcare. Talk but no brain. What a surprise !!! But Trump is very good at killing the planet with climate change, Yes he's very good on that. History books will remember his name just for that.
We won't buy them 😉.
That will sink any Trump initiative.
The Airforce One is also a Boeing just saying...
@mocker63 👐
Enjoy your TDS!
Please wake up. Hydrogen as an aviation fuel is a fantasy. The energy cost to make hydrogen are nuts, storage is insane and hazards from leaks and handling are a nightmare.
But you should also be aware that every technology and development has a beginning, right?
And it will continue. In the beginning, people thought that cars were very dangerous and would kill everyone, but today millions of people drive them on the road. The danger factor is what people make of the technology.
Apparently when Boeing and McDonald Douglas merged, all the McDonald Douglas management took over, and since then quality has dropped.
Run by bean counters and not engineers, unlike the old respected Boeing
Correct. McDonnell Douglas was bad quality long before the merger. So Boeing is now what McDonnell Douglas had been for decades: just the worse product.
Unfortunately for America The end is near because of its complacency and because of its actions through the years.
People are wising up and rising up and they're not going to take the sanctions ultimatums political and threats of war anymore from America. They're doing something about it and the fact that they were innovating modernizing through the years will help do that instead of us resting on our laurels and thinking the empire will last forever.
It’s tRumpland now. That bit of North America the Canadians and Mexicans are both having to build walls around to keep the crazies in. The rest of the world are crowdfunding for the lid.
You've actually managed to say nothing at all in 77 words. Congrats.
I favour European technology over American technology whenever possible. European standards are superior (give me Galileo GNSS over GPS, communication standards in every area, the EU in all manner of spheres technical and otherwise, etc), their production quality is vastly superior and their scientific and technical abilities are equal to or superior to American equivalents. The US simply manipulates and advertises for advantage. Your new ‘President’ is already leading you further downward. PS: Check out what Embraer is doing. Brazil is also surging ahead.
The Empire is crumbling. Emperor Trump is your Caligula.
Excuse me, what ? The American empire will last forever. That's what the Romans thought back then, and it failed miserably, leaving only hysterical memories
Airbus has the added benefit of having controlling interest in Bombardier. They have done a lot of work in narrow body aircraft
Boeing has been mismanaged for a long time now. I'm only surprised it's lasted this long.
You've got your gallons and liters mixed up. 1% of 130,000 gallons is not 1,300 liters. In fact not even a Boeing 747-8 would use 130,000 gallons of fuel from Paris to Bangkok.
So true...130,000 gal of jet fuel at 6.7 lbs/gal would equal 871,000 lbs...which is double the basic empty weight of a brand new 747-8 freighter straight from paint.
He’s a robot, give him a break😜
@@reubenmorris487 25% increase in fuel efficiency with every new model???? DID I hear that??? Love these imaginary figures.
Well, enjoy flying Boeing 😂
You could not pay me to board any Boeing plane - even if it could fly on less gallons than any other Aircraft 🤮
Widowmakers - they are called nowadays 😂
The Future of airplans will be elektrik
Yesterday I spoke to "Everyone" and man, they were "Shocked"!!!!
France, and the UK will dominate air travel for the foreseeable future.
Airbus has facilities in a multitude of countries in the EU and beyond including the USA and China. So good to see the UK playing a major role and still working together with all the other contributors. Together we are certainly stronger.
Airbus is mostly French and German. Not british. But ofc. Rolls Royce(UK) is a viable Partner for Airbus.
@ Yes, Thanks for clarification, but yes the UK would be the 3rd member of Airbus success, now knowing it’s part German also.
@@Knochen7 Airbus also has a huge wing assembly plant in Broughton North Wales and an R&D facility at Filton in Bristol, SW England, but across all facilities it employs around 12,000 employees directly and makes a next contribution to UK GDP Of around £7 billion.
A bold statement for someone who apparently does not even know that Airbus is actually mostly made up by German companies,,,
What have Boeing got to do ? One thing for a start = GO BACK TO BASICS ! And I don't mean basics in technology, I mean basics in RUNNING A BUSINESS. Ever since it's ludicrous buyout of McD the senior management have completely lost their way. They set their goals around the principals of: No.1 = Profit, and then No's 2, 3, 4 and onward can scrabble for everything else like ... well, building aircraft, safety, quality... all of those took a distinct back-seat to Profits. And so, here is the result a couple of decades later. When a business forgets the reason it started out - in this case, to build the world's best aircraft, then with that it loses it's way completely. Too many corporate giants have fallen already for precisely this reason. They absolutely knew that it was the wrong thing to do to develop another 737 upgrade (the MAX) yet they did it mostly because they were so busy watching what Airbus were doing with the A320neo development, that they feared losing lots of revenue to the A320neo whilst they developed a brand new aircraft. And yet they could have kept the 737NG line open and milked out another good few years from it offering much cheaper planes off the production line than Airbus was able to do with the Neo, but nope... greed and profit ruled their minds. Read about Jim McNerney's (Boeing CEO 2005-2015) comments about "Moonshots" as he called them, and how he said that going about delivering a big new product (a Moonshot) was now the wrong way to go about running a business. Well that fool and all who followed him are probably to blame for dire situation of Boeing today. Go back to basics Boeing, before it's too late.
Listen to the engineers and not to the bean counters and greedy managers.
Mentour, anyone? :)
They watched the a 320 neo in astonishment when airbus had already started building the a321😂
@@ContraVsGigi Yes, Petter at Mentour did bring it to light that Boeing DID NOT have to go to the expense of designing a new aircraft to replace the 737. That had already been done with Bombardier with their CS100/300. But Boeing being so predatory chose instead to threaten Bombardier with duties if their aircraft was sold to companies in the US. Like Airbus, they could have bought into Bombardier and have access to a ready made solution which has paid off very well for Airbus which has now renamed the CS100 to A220 and it is selling very well. And now, Boeing is really paying the price, being in debt of $50 billion plus, having lost market share(down to 40%), and having no available cash to design a new aircraft to replace the dinosaur 737 until 2035. Since their merger with McD, they have lost their way......
Airbus is a Joint Venture by France, Germany and Spain.
In the military sector Airbus is cooperating with BAE.
France , UK, Germany and Spain - the wings are made in UK
Aren’t the rolls Royce engines UK?
@@zurielsss Yes. In Derby. Airbus also has a massive facility in Bristol, where I live.
Airbus, of course, is a trans European effort. The wings, landing gear and other components are made in the UK. Plus, a great deal of research and development.
@@obesetuna3164No, it is a German, French and Spain owned company. We will see when it is more convenient to give up production capacity outside the EU
If you’re gonna use Ai for the voice at least type it out in a way that it will be pronounced correctly.
I didn't see your comment until I had mine posted. You are right. Listening to dumb voiceovers is so off-putting.
Airbus is one of some success a united Europe can archive.
Where is this Farnburrow of which you speak?
Also why is it the A Three hundred and Fifty .but it is a A Three Eighty?
Farnborough is on the south coast of England.
@@terrywallis950 only in an AI geography world is Farnborough (EGLF) near the coast.
@@adriancash7063 Well relatively speaking it is. It is after all on a not very big island. By the standards of the USA everything in England is near the coast. Farnborough is a mere 54 miles from the nearest coastal port.
@ “relatively speaking” it’s also near France but it’s definitely not in France so it’s a pointless observation. As you rightly say everywhere in the UK is “relatively” near the coast in the same way it’s relatively near Sweden - maybe a bigger map would help? I think it’s fair to say that Farnborough is not on the South coast of England. We’re getting somewhat distracted from the point which was the mispronunciation of the name. Not “Farnburrow” but “ Farnbruh”.
Airbus has those special "actually screwed in" components. Who knew that would turn out to be the 'killer app' of plane making?
Clickbait title - high on promise, low on delivery
The only one who is clickbait here is yourself. You're as out of place here as a louse in fur.
Nice vid, though its not the end of Boeing. its too big to fail, and the US government will not let it happen.
This. Completely. Boeing are turning things around now and will be around for many years to come.
Turning around for many years to come.😂
Слишком много неудач и правление стариканами не дает уверенности. Деиндустриализация америки произошла. Единичнач сверхдорогая техника ВПК уже не поксзатель .
I find it strange when people think the new plane is a "niche" plane while the A380 is the one it competes with. The fact is that for quite a while it seemed as if the A380 was dead, and nobody was buying it anymore. One simple fact is that it's simply too large for quite a few airports on this planet. So a plane with a more regular size, but adding more seats by being stretched out, sounds like a smart strategy to me.
History taught us one thing: The use of hydrogen is safe and easy in aviation.
Boeing keeps killing off it whistle blowers I wonder why?
its almost like cutting costs that would save you from later costs is worth than you think
Now as someone who has worked in aviation for since i was 16 as an apprentice with British Aerospace (BAe) before they joined Airbus, I always want to see a strong Airbus but equally for the industry a strong Boeing is a good thing, as keeps innovation in the industry going forward. Also I have family in the US who work in the same industry and theyre companies have been swallowed up by Boeing so i want to see my families job safe in the industry aswell. Years ago i considered moving across to work over in the US, but I got a better job offer to stay in the UK working for an airline who worked in conjunction with Bombardier and Embrear again 2 companies that knew they could compete with the 2 bigger manufacturers so try to keep there distance with their types of aircraft. Bombardier has now been incorporated to the Airbus group (hence the new A220 aircraft, what was going to be the C series I believe) and Boeing tried to do the same with Embrear, so they could have a similar smaller commuter jets in the form of the E-170-190 styles, to fit below the B737 family.
Any innovaton in the industry is welcome in my eyes.
When I crewed helicopters in the military I was made to go on all test flights in aircraft that i worked on. Making Boeing Exec's travel ONLY on Boeing aircraft would probably improve the quality of the aircraft produced. Flying inj your own aircraft makes you more aware of quality control.
Dude, if you want to be taken seriously, please don't make headlines like this, please
Boeing has no need to worry. If necessary, the US government will seal off the US market and provide the company with massive financial support.
That's what the idiot is known for. Open the window... throw out the money...
Competition is always a good thing, so for the US to do that would be a very bad idea in terms of safety.
But Airbus are now building in the USA😮
@@garethmcguire632 But shareholders aren't interested in that sort of thing. They want to see good figures every three months.
Which would be a massive waste of money with no quality improvement if there are no deep changes in Boeing!
This has got to be a disguised Airbus channel. I used to translate Business Babble and recognize it instantly.
Still, I have nothing against making flying cleaner, but I hope to never fly again, because of all the discomfort, from the moment one enters the airport, through the sardine seating, to disembarking. I am 6'4". I've had enough.
hydrogen is not a clean fuel if it is refined from methane as 99% of all hydrogen produced today is. Hydrogen produced through renewable power feeding electrolysis is clean but very expensive
If generated by renewable energy it’s not expensive but you still loss on efficiency which is why hydrogen cars are a dumb idea. For 1kw of electricity you only get 0.7kw in hydrogen energy.
@@garethmcguire632 Ah, but the idea is to use the excess left over during peak hours of solar and wind production which can't otherwise be stored, so by using it for the electrolysis you are actually cutting costs. But that will only be true once the costs of building the infrastructure have already passed. In theory anyways.
Let's hope that at least some of this all comes true. But Airbus has long had a focus on efficiency, and they have a track record of delivery.
the biggest difference is that Airbus is owned by multinational governments and Boeing is a private corporation. It shows that American typical only chase for the bottom line doesn't work. It meant cutting cost to the point that their planes are not safe enough to pass certification. Airbus clearly is not chasing only after profit.
I will never click like an AI video.
I wanted to watch this video, but the background music was driving me mad! So had to give it up. Can you make technical videos without background music?
Most people learn to ignore and not be bothered by background sounds before they turn 3, if this gets to you then you have a problem of your own making.
@@sg-yq8pm Your sarcastic reply was useless, my statement still stands, can we have videos on a technical subject without background music? Does background music add to a technical video? I think not. Adding background music to any video must involve extra work, if the background music does not add to the video what is the point in adding it? We are not talking about horror films or detective films are we?
May the most innovative win!
I didn’t quite catch the name of the man at 6:53. Was it Florent Mignon-Locker?
The only way forward in future aviation travel, is when we start using anti-gravity technology. But I very much doubt it's going to happen anytime soon, so in the meantime we'll have to use jets. Going to the airport, going through security, boarding the plane, and hoping that the plane will take off on time. Just a few days ago I was leaving from Rome back to my country, sadly we were sat in the plane for 1 1/2 hours. In short we arrived 2 hours late. Now can you imagine if we can order a taxi that is using anti-gravity technology, you get picked up right in front of your home taken to your desired destination within seconds or minutes😊
Anti-gravity technology?
@fastertove yeah 👽 🛸
@@stevejessemey8428 lol. 🎅for adults.
@fastertove . Ho ho ho and Merry Christmas. May your travels be hassle-free, but whatever you do never get on a Boeing plane 🤣🤣🤣
It's called a balloon. Airbus have these in the UK under test.😊
Airbus is an amazing company...incredible !
It will be interesting how they would overcome the low H2 volumetric density that you refused to address taking up 1/2 of the available seats for the same range doubling the ticket cost just on that alone let alone how much more expensive the H2 to produce would be. Carbon capture-produced kerosene would seem the only viable alternative, especially for trans-continental flights.
" competition bring out the best out of you " Colin Chapman
I'm not sure why hydrogen is mentioned so much in conjunction with future airliners given it's so difficult to work with. I wonder why methane isn't considered? It too can be produced from renewable sources with the Sabatier process, and it's much easier to contain.
As well as a 1% saving in fuel costs, the engines will require less servicing so more financial savings.
I don't care who leads, as long as we're safe up there.
I'm sure it's called the Ay-Three-Fifty not the Ay-Three-Hundred-And-Fifty. But, I digress....
In American English, absolutely. Not so however in Euro Engligh and that in turn not to be confused with UK English.
Boeing is out of cash, the management team has completely mismanaged the company resources. They are laying off senior highly experienced engineers in an effort to save money. Meanwhile Airbus is producing new more advanced aircraft and thriving.
Zeit einen Vorwand zu finden Airbus ein paar Milliarden zahlen zu lassen, dann die ganze Firmakaufen, dann alle Werke von Europa nach USA verlagern.
They "bought" heavily subsidized technology from Bombardier so now it is the time to reuse it and advance.
Having contracted at Boeing's many plants in Washington, they wasted money by trying to buy cheap. Also had poor engineers in their utility department at all plants.
basing any form of transport on small explosions is ludicrous
It will still require about 700,000 kwhrs of total energy to fly a passenger plane across the ocean. This is the same amount of energy as every passenger on the plane having a hot shower every day for 20 years. Flying takes a huge amount of energy even for the most efficient aircraft.
I will never ride in anything that uses hydrogen - it's like asking for another Hindenburg disaster
saving 1% of 130'000 gallons are not just 1'300 liter. But 1'300 gallons. Which brings me to the question what part of the info is wrong?
With electric batteries becoming increasingly efficient, wouldn’t be surprised if a new (possibly Chinese) aircraft manufacturer blindsides Airbus and Boeing, just like Tesla and BYD are taking out legacy car makers
There are many practical issues. Range and weight are just two of them.
We need to reduce the dependence on solutions from the USA and growing to a not depending Europe
There are always concerns with too many inmature parts introduced in one commercial product in aerospace...
These big engines give a lot of drag...they should make smaller that are just as powerful.
Alles sind gut gegangen ..............! Vielen Dank für ihre Bemühungen gegeben haben
Warum die Neurologie ist noch geblieben...................?
Let's face it: the zero-e concepts is just refined greenwashing. The sad truth about airplanes is that they really can't be that green. They say that they reduce the fuel cost by 25% with each new generation, fair enough, but this makes the rebound effect all the more important (people pay less to travel so they travel more... cancelling the gain). Yes, hydrogen, being so inefficient and expensive as a mean to power a plane, would put an end to this trend. So in a weird way I would applaud the effort, because THAT could very well cause the end of affordable travel for the masses, thus solving the problem. But it also means that it won't happen, because this move would kill the industry in the long run. In other words, Boeing would just have to outlast Airbus and keep producing traditionnal planes at an affordable price. I simply don't see it happening guys. Keep travelling locally whenever you can and try to let those big corporations disintegrate and collapse under contradictory incentives. Hope that it happens before we're f**cked.
The US voted in Putins lapdog. Nothin mattters anymore. As when Putin has Ukraine, He will not stop. He will go further west. The only country not in NATO is Moldovia. After that He will Attack NATO.
shared on our channel.
It's not the end of Boeing for 2 simple reasons. 1 Boeing is too big to fail. it's of US national economic security importance The US government wont let it fail. Restructure yes fail no.
2. Airbus and Boeing actually need each other to sustain the market. If one gets into trouble it effects the other when the market becomes unstable.
Can’t watch this and hear you say for the millionth time in one sentence, “A three hundred and fifty two thousand!!”
Boeing should overcome its dangerous and toxic business first mentality and change a focus to a simple quality first on technic strategy
It is not in the interest of Airbus to have 100% market share.
I take Airbus any day over Boeing simply because Airbus is quieter and feel safer and a better welcoming interior.
Diesel engines are the more realistic goal for the near future now. They're twice as efficient and just a little slower than jet engines
😮
THE NEXT PROBLEM IS THEN FUEL SELLERS WILL CHARGE TO MAKE UP PROFITS ALONG WITH SUPPLIERS OF PARTS use less charge more same ripoff as always
A three hundred and fifty one thousand 😂
Will hydrogen become price competitive.
If yes. HOW and WHEN?
Farnborough is pronounced ‘Farnburra’ (from a local). And Derby as ‘Darby’. The aviation industry is far from being green and is projected to increase flights/operations dramatically over the coming years and hence will produce ever greater CO2 emissions
Nice
Why don't you replace Windows with TFT screens. Wouldn't that be a big advatage?
1% less fuel is pathetic...
Pathetic as in 180 000 000 $
@@peterliebe829 As in the benefit for the environment and climate...
@@CARambolagen Yep, to save climate it's 3 flight per person for the entire life. The truth is hard, but it's truth.
"The end of Boeing. Carbon free flights. We are no where near this scenario yet, and it may very well be the end of European industry before that eventually happens.
These things always go back and forth.
This rather discombobulated video you have managed to make a bit boring!
AI slop
Boeing can't fail. Theyre too important to the US defense industry
WEF foreign ownership of Boeing is designing its demise
I am a bit old fashioned: I prefer planes who have the same number of components from take off to landing. Not going to buy a flight ticked on a Boeing plane anymore!
I don't think the word shocked means what you think it means.
Hydrogen is unsafe and impossible to contain without massive storage weight. As a pilot I will never fly or drive in a hydrogen powered vehicle of any sort.
Do we actually need all these aircraft? Do we need masses of people to travel the world continually? Is the whole industry a massive folly?
Yes, and no.
Not Airbus', but Airbus's next aircraft!
How do YOU spell 'pedantic'
Correctly, as you have.
@@paulpeachey2212 Correctly, as you have.
Boing sucks
They got McDungle-Dragassed.
Airbus needs compitition, and with the fall of Boeing this has become imperative. The only one in the horizon is China and that is politically unsustainable. That is bad news
A hydrogen powered aircraft seems like a quick way to lose a lot of money. I honestly don't know why the technology is not first tested on trains or ships. For gods sake we haven't even figured out a hydrogen car yet.
TOYOTA Mirai : Hydrogen Powered Car ... since 2019 / ALSTOM Coradia : Hydrogen Powered train in commercial service since 2018 / MF Hydra : Hydrogen Powered ship
@@deniscoutadeur7129 This is a technology that is in testing for more then a decade now. All it produced is losses and shiny things to brag about, that have no commercial purpose. There are no hydrogen cars on the roads. Out of 24 hydrogen powered Alstom trains 18 are not operational after 2 years since launch.
That ship was barely a year of service and the operator is already loosing money. I'll give it max 2 years before the ship breaks down.
And this is even before we get into the technical difficulties of using hydrogen.
None of your examples even comes close to refuting my claim.
@@pintiliecatalin I have seen some Mirai on the road ... and I have even been in one of them
@@deniscoutadeur7129 And do you think they are ready for mass adoption?
And the more i think about it the more difficult it seems for a jet engine. That is a whole different technology. All the applications you enumerated use hydrogen to produce electricity. But that would work for an airplane only if would use propeller engines. For a jet engine the hydrogen would need to be burned.
Dont blame airbus for there success they make the best planes
We won't see a like of A321 or a B737MAX10 with either hydrogen or electric batteries any time soon. Purely electric aircraft (such as DJI drones) are quite a bit of niche products in the world of "normal" big aircraft for simple physics. 1 kg of kerosene has ~40MJ of energy that allows the user to do 15-16MJ of useful work and then the aircraft gets lighter as it burns the said kerosene making it easier/less fuel consuming to keep flying. 1 kg of Tesla model Y batteries has 0.5MJ of energy and the weight stays the same. Even if by some miracle you get to 1.5MJ/kg with the battery mumbo-jumbo, kerosene is going to be 1 decimal order of magnitude more energy dense.
Hydrogen is another no-goer. Firstly, most hydrogen is made from CH4 methane, and it is just easier to burn methane directly. The other thing (as shown by H-cars such as the Mazda RX8H or the new 2024 Toyota Mirai) with hydrogen is it is not a very practical fuel for everyday life. Yes, it is the best fuel there is per kilo of weight, but containing the said kilo is not exactly easy.
from Canada, I love the A400 at air showa...........
polystyrene glued to aluminum plus hydrogen electric drive would really shake things up
При аварии тушить будет нечего.