Get 20% OFF + Free Shipping with code COBY at mnscpd.com/CobyExplanes #manscapedpartner

If I were Boeing I wouldn’t put the word “killer” in any of my marketing claims - been a bit to successfully on that front of late

What Boeing needs to do is return headquarters back to Everett and put engineers back in charge of the company. Then start working on new aircraft. Since bean counters took over the company it’s been a total disaster.

I used to be a Boeing fan, but the quality of the ride in Airbus A380 and 350 means I actively seek out these aircraft when flying from the UK to Australia. Boeing dropped the ball and the 737 Max debacle is unforgivable. Boeing standards have dropped.

What would be smart, is to develop a replacement for the 757.

The 737 Max was also a killer but not in the way Boeing expected

Offcourse Boeing are smart to built the -ER versions of the dreamliners but I don't see how the word "killer" is appropriate. I mean the A350 is still a highly capable aircraft and the -ULR still has a better range than the 787-9/10ER. It sure would be a success to launch them though

Boeing should be starting a 757x program with -8, -9, and -10 variants available. The fact that they haven't done this yet is astonishing. The 757 is one of the best planes ever designed and is still very popular

With the way Boeing's luck has been lately, it'll be a passenger killer as well.

I’m sorry, I do love your vids, but that title is a little click-baity… until Boeing ends up with a A350-Killer, Airbus is already another step ahead

No way close in any way to being a "killer" for the A350, the A350 is a far more capable aircraft in a slightly different area of the market. Boeing 787s are still grounded from delivery and this will carry on way past the summer if reports are correct. They cannot certify the 737-10MAX because regulators require the -10MAX to have more sensors but the computers are not powerful enough for more than they currently have, a 777-9 test had "uncommanded pitch events" like the MAX did, hence the delays. There are dozens of other issues as well, like the KC tankers, the space program failure etc. Nothing about Boeing is going well right now.

I'm not sure Boeing's internal structure has changed enough for me to trust anything they build to be safe.

This is so exciting that there will be a 787-10ER, since the 787-10 would be used as a replacement for all the Non-ER 777 Variants, most likely in Asia.

It actually doesn‘t really matter if Boeing announce development of 787-ERs as long as they don‘t even get all the standard 787s delivered that have been produced in the last two years. And the -ERs will not be A350 „killers“, they might be competitors.

An A350 killer? I suspect that the airlines who fly 787s would be happy if Boeing just fixed the plane's quality control issues.

Looking forward to both these types. Direct point to point travel is where the future is at.

I like the 787-9. The 787-8 looks short and stubby while the 787-10 looks a bit too long. The dash 9 is the goldilocks aircraft.

There are 2 limitations with a 787-10ER project. Engines were designed for the 8 variant, which was bumped up in thrust for the 9 version (fine so far), and again for the 10 (not so fine here). In the latter case engines have to be pressed very hard for takeoff, resulting in very high temperatures and additional maintenance costs (both in money and time for mechanical work) plus shortened engine lifespan. This in high or hot airports is compounded further. So Emirates, who was initially interested in the type, finally passed. Second problem is the main landing gear, consisting of 2 double bogies, already at their limit with -9 & 10 as they are today. Were MTOW to be raised by 10-12 tons pressure on taxiways would be excessive at many airports. A triple bogie would be required, but it does not fit in the undercarriage wells as designed. All these changes would result in additional wing loads (already at a high level in the case of 10). This forces takeoffs at a very low angle, with modest rates of climb in the first stages where air is thickest, which results in more drag, hence increased fuel burn. This is not a serious problem on long routes, but ER would lose versatility, as they would be less economical on shorter missions. As to the 787-9ER changes are simpler to put into practice, yet the same could be implemented in A330-900. They have huge cavernous wings with big fuel tanks inherited from A340. Same above landing gear obstacles would be faced.

I honestly don't get why folks want to fly 20 hours non stop. I was an Air Force enlisted aircrew member and we would fly 24 hours non stop with aerial refuelings. Of course we were working and didn't have the amenities of a commerical jet, but believe me it beats you up. For me I would enjoy say a stop off somewhere in route for refueling for an hour of so halfway between London and Sydney. I know it is expensive with landing rights, etc, but for passenger comfort it would help stretch the legs. Remember sitting in the seat and leg issues from sitting too long. Get off for an hour, stretch, walk a little and get on board a little more refreshed plus additional passenger drop off and pick ups. Again I just don't get the contest for who can fly the longest non stop flight.

When I worked at the airport and just after covid, we actually got 787s for just flying cargo. They made enough money by just moving cargo on a pax plane, the question is. Could a 787F be something worth looking into. If just the belly freight is enough to make a profit on a 6-7h flight, wonder what they could make if they could fit in the main hub as well

I don't know where you got your info from but Boeing is hardly teasing anyone with the "next 787". They don't have the resources to launch another widebody at this time. Their focus is to get the 777X program going and certified. They have so many problems on their hands right now including resuming 787 production, 737Max10 and 7 certification, KC46 delays and the list goes on and go.

Do the current 787 “production problems” not stem from substandard labour quality in South Carolina? Looks to me like another “win” for the beancounters. . .

At 0:11 the stumps that 777 is rolling on are something else. I never noticed just how beefy they were.

787-9ER is being aimed at giving an efficient 77L replacement over 7778x/NZ version of sunrise with flights connecting directly to europe, nyc etc. 787-10ER is going to be used to increase capacity but maintain range on common NZ to asia/US routes replacing both 772 and 77w models and complimenting existing 789s. Possibly genx exclusive too.

I dont get how cobyexplanes isnt at 100k yet, his videos are so good and entertaining and educational. I spend at least 2 hrs a day watching his videos. keep up the cool work

"It's an A350 killer." No it's really not

it's quite confusing. Does Boeing doubt for the future B777-8 or -9???. What about the critical NMA? Is Boeing so desperate to see Airbus attracting more and more loyal Boeing airlines???? Is the wide-body market still big enough? It sounds strange anyway. Long and fuel-efficient single-aisle planes like the A321 LR/XLR are in higher demand like never before. Time will tell but I have the feeling that the Boeing management is taking the wrong way to catch up with Airbus...

Regarding the 787-9ER this aircraft very much makes sense, and possibly for a 787-8ER as well. There are some markets that are extremely long-range that can't support a large aircraft. You highlighted Project Sunrise, but imagine routes from various major cities to smaller ones. JFK-JNB, GIG-SYD, PEK-BOG. These cities are very long haul, and maybe they can't support 300+ seats, but something in the 250-275 seat range might work. Smaller planes with longer range create options. These options are opportunities for airlines and benefit passengers as well.

I’m sure the choice of airlines you choose to show, which is very varied and not the usual, is an effort of yours to show us interesting liveries etc

If Qantas will end up needing a smaller plane than the A350-1000 ULR, there's already the A350-900 ULR, which is already in service for years now. If ever Boeing will built a 787-9ER I don't think Qantas can wait for that.

Think they need to sort out the current issues with dreamliners 1st...and A350 will outdo these everyday

Given Boeings record with the 737 Max, I'd think they would prefer not the hear the word "Killer" anywhere near the word "Boeing" anytime soon.

The -1000ULR is supposed to have way more range than the -900ULR. Flying from Australia to London is way more difficult than the SQ23/24 routes. Longer with worst winds.

New models are not the answer Boeing needs, production and engineering used to be the priority, when they return to that way of thinking, they will succeed in the market.

Until Boing gets its act together, Airbus will stay a few steps ahead.

8:00 😂 I like that “imaginary” Delta a350-900ULR used for the chart example 🤔 would be nice if they to order those though 😏✈️

Increased gross weight isn’t only about range. It’s mostly about payload, because Boeing isn’t making room for larger tanks they’re giving ANZ the ability to fly a healthy revenue payload from Auckland to LA, replacing the 777-200ER. The 787-10 and 787-9 IGW programs are both very launched and will be entering production fairly soon with ANZ’s first -10.

I think Boeing would have some strong demand for the 787-10ER with Air New Zealand and Emirates, who wanted 787-10 but it didn't have the performance they wanted. Boeing should leave the 787-9ER alone, they've already lost the Qantas order to Airbus, and I don't think any other airline would want it. If they want to downsize Qantas will go for the A350-900ULR like Singapore have, although Qantas will be keeping the economy cabin.

Surely the number 1 issue is build a 737 replacement a plane that can be stretched to the size of a 757 but start off at a 737-7 size then build a 787-5 to fill the gap of the 767

I was surprised, to say the least, when Air New Zealand ordered 787 10s, believing they'd lack the range for our Pacific Rim routes. Reports here only stated Boeing have agreed to install extra tanks & Air New Zealand have chosen the alternate engine, the GENX, to achieve the required range. No word on it being called the 787 10ER though. The airline wants to standardize on A320 type & 787, hence the push to create the longer ranged 10ER. Nice report

I want to see a Freighter variant of the A350 or 787-10. I could see Airbus not wanting to miss the mark again like they did with the A380F. Lets hope for some UPS A350F or 787-10F

The 787 commonality is great, but they have a ton of A330 pilots that could move to the A350. I think your points about passenger capacity is valid, but something will have to replace the 747s & A380s.

In theory, this is actually news. Reality is that Boeing can't even deliver the "old" 787 and my airline is suffering the consequences.

Let’s see what corners they cut or what they hide to keep their stock up and management bonuses flowing.

As long as Boeing doesn’t pull it’s production processes together and let’s engineers run de the company again, they should be really withholding with the further development of new versions. Look at the 777x, the 767 KC, and the current 787 versions. As long as quality standards and productions processes are not firmly in place, the de elopement of new versions will get its hick ups again. I really hope Boeing gets it matters on track again soon. The Qantas sunrise project is a done deal with the A350, I don’t get why that was mentioned in de the vid.

With quality issues at boeing its more likely to just be a 'killer'. The big growth market is in narrow bodies. They should invest in a modern narrow body. 40 year old design is unworkable.

Building the - 9ER also gives them the extra payload for a Freighter version.

787 was/is supposed to compete with the a330 and replace the 767. now it’s got more competition and now has to compete with an airplane with similar building/economic methods and ideas, but with larger capacity and longer range that is also supposed to replace another plane like the 777-200/a340-300, -400, and possibly -500 variants. it’s kind of weird that a mid-sized long haul plane is now competing with 2 airbus aircraft.

Here in the UK, TUI have been carrying freight for DHL in the hold only, maybe this is a direction to go as a freight carrying aircraft.

Boeing is always chasing Airbus instead of doing what they used to do better... they lost already NMA race and are building a white elefant again with the 777-X. The greed of shareholders is killing Boeing 🙁

I believe a 787-10er and 787-9 potentially LR might be possible without increase in fuel tanks when the Rolls Royce Ultrafan enters the market… delivering 15% more range without fuel payload increase

The A350-1000ULR for Qantas would be replacing QF1, which is currently serviced by an A380 stopping for refuelling in Singapore. I don't think Qantas is going to have any issues filling an A350-1000 for that route given what it's currently serviced by.

As long as sales people run Boeing, there is no recovery in sight, just like they drove McDonald-Douglas out of business, same will happen here. Besides airlines are not comfortable purchasing 787's manufactured out of the South. It's a question of when, not if.

I'm sure it's gonna be great when it launches in 2070 alongside the 777x

Given their problems with the NMA I would have expected the 787-3 to get some more attention, but I guess Boeing is just letting airbus have the middle, the xlr will have a stranglehold by the time Boeing gets it’s crap together.

Smart? No. Necessary? probably. When the 777-200ER was proposed we questioned it's marketability. The number of routes requiring the extreme range would theoretically limit its sales. The circumference of the earth is roughly 21,600 NM. Therefore, a plane with a 10,500 NM range could theoretically fly between any two point on earth non-stop. But, the number of additional routes that a 10,000 NM plane could connect but that a 7000 NM could not is relatively small. It's best to always aim at the holes in the market, not the edges. That said, the 777-ERs market has been exceptional. And on occasion (e.g., the 767) Boeing has found it necessary to aim directly at a competitor's model. However, that was a different time, represented a larger potential market, and Boeing was flush with cash. I don't think that is the situation right now. If I were Boeing, I would continue to hone the designs of these birds and be ready to offer them as soon a the market (and Boeing's cash reserves) change.

Since Airbus was initiated, there was always differences between Airbus and Boeing aircraft. When the first A300 was built, it was desined for European flying. Boeing 767 had the range the A300 series did not, however the 767 fuselage dimensions were too small for standard sized freight ULD's (the fuselage is not circular, like most Airbus (the A380 fuselage is also not circular). The Airbus widebody benefit was that freight containers could be transferred out of a B747, and roll straight into the Airbus widebody. Yes, the 767 cans could fit in 747 and Airbus widebodies, at the expense of a lot of wasted volume. So really, there is not a fair comparison of the 787 and A350 as they are designed for different route structures. The A350 is more comparible to the 777, the 787 has a smaller fuselage, and they use different materials of construction also. There are many, many other differences too.

I think this is very smart and I tend to agree with your speculation on the 787-900er and whilst it's not a guarantee Qantas will order it, there are many other areas around the world where the extra range of the 787-900er and 787-10er will be enticing

It’s all good teasing these planes but they should at least aim to get the 777x delivered been waiting so long to fly on one

Your videos rock Coby, very informative and thought provoking as well. Congrats!

I usually never subscribe on a KZfaq Channel on my first visit. But I do want to see more of your videos. I did find this video to be very informative.

Not long ago you said 787 and A350 are not competitors.

Boeing would certainly be smart by solving the actual issues of the 787 before launching any new version lol!

I thought "killer" was more applied to Boeing generally in recent years.

Qantas will need more than a couple of powerpoint slides, plus they recently ordered with Airbus to replace their aging B737 and B717 fleet over next decade.

The final fronteer is in effect closed. Granted, its still the UK to NZ route that is slightly longer, but its really just a matter of time.

The range of the A350-900 ULR is actually 10.400 miles - the longest flight in history from Singapore to New York. Fun Fact: the all so "inefficient" A340-500 could fly the same route and did up to 2013.

What, is it going to feature an autopilot module that rams every A350 it sees?

It seems like airliners are getting smaller rather then larger. And i understand that fuel costs are a HUGE variable in that decision process. HOWEVER, when your on at 20hr flight you DO NOT want too feel cramped. And yes folks that even possible in business class. I think the A350 has filled a niche that Boeing is going to find VERY difficult to achieve. Because the jet slots itself as a 777 replacement in size. Yet still have the fuel efficiency of an A330. I just don't see how these "ER" 787 variants are going to fix the problem. It will be interesting too see. And i happen to LOVE the 787 folks no Airbus bias here just for the record.

Boeing should first restore his image to the airlines, make the 787 production lines not a totally mess, deliver the 777X in time, and start a replacement program for the 737

1:07 insanely cool too see my home airport “kjevik” in your video.😍

Will it also have same issues as 787, where it's altimeter radar is not up to specifications and is having issues due to reading signal outside of it's licensed band?

OMG finally! I'm saying that Boeing should do B787-9ER/-10ER about 3, 4 years now!!! And because the new A350F program, Boeing should be thinking on a Freighter version of B787 and B777x too! PS: About B777x, Boeing have to make a new B777-9LR with a full carbon body... not only the distance, but the economy to run the distance!

Weren't the project sunrise flights Qantas carried out already done by 787-9s? Know they were severely underloaded to get the job done, but surprised that Qantas didn't get the hint then that this was doable

Project Sunrise would involve non-stop flights rather than so-called direct flights. Routes with a stop but using the same flight number, often with a change of aircraft, are direct flights. I've flown internationally on a few.

I am subbed just now and did not know of you channel. Would also like to see Aircraft Mechanics because in the next several years I am going to be working to getting my Airframe, Power Plant and General Maintenance.

killer is too much, since airbus can go a350-neo and can also enhanced the a350

Personally I think Boeing should concentrate on a 757 replacement just my opinion.

A350 killer 😂😂 The 787 is killing itself, can't remember the last time Boeing delivered a safe aircraft.

Some pretty decent sources claim QANTAS operates the best available Premium-Economy seats of any airline that flies to/from Aus. The problem is they cost almost as much as some competitors' Business Class seats UNLESS you purchase them as much as 12+ MONTHS in advance. The main reason I'd not used them for personal travel prior to all the C-19 crap is exactly that. I've used Cathay's P-E many times. If they're worried about declining Business Class demand, they might want to consider making more P-E seats available and pricing them less obnoxiously. Under 'normal' conditions I doubt they'd have too many problems filling them. Which of course is the real issue. When will we see 'normal' conditions, and how will they compare with the pre-Covid normal?

I would wait a few years after they fly. Just to see if they actually can fly

A 787-10ER makes damn well sense. For the -9ER, I don't know, it has plenty of range. But before they even think about HGW variants of the 787 they should get their sh** together with the current versions and sort out the 777X. I wonder if the expences contected with a HGW variant are even worth it. Because as Boeing get's obsessed with Airbus gaining marketshare and pitting their planes directly against Airbus. Airbus isn't just sitting around. They have the A220-500, A350-100ULR, the A350F and, most importantly for this conversation, an A350NEO in the Pipeline. Qantas will mostlikely stay with the A350 for Project Sunrise as they chose the A350 due to Crew inter-operability with their seizable A330 fleet.

Dude,you speak a lot of sense.Thankyou for keeping me in the loop.Nice job!🙂👍🇦🇺

A350 and B787 are for different market. Boeing incorrectly targeted 787-10 with a reduced range than 787-9. Therefore, it is handicapped at the beginning. If Boeing is going to launch B787-10ER, it will rectify part of the differences. A350 can seat more passengers than 787. They are for different market. Boeing needs to get its house in order and resume 787 deliveries before launching any new variants.

I think the reason for 787-9ER will be the based to develop a new 767 Freighter replacement which will be the new 787 Freighter. But they should fix themselves first, before creating new iterations in their current fleet offer. Or else they will be gone soon..

before we run with the ER versions of 787 , let B get its 787 act together and certify 777-9 ; at 40% market share thanks to Max-8, it has a serious problem in the narrow body- all of its own making. B has ceded at least a decade to A -in narrow body and probably in long distance wide body. They talk too much and do too little and when they do, they fumble -Max a great example. Not going for a carbon fibre body for 777 will hurt them vs 350 for decades.

The last time Boeing launched a new plane in the 7x7 family, it killed hundreds of passengers instead of an Airbus competitor. I'll reserve my judgement on this for now.

I don't get it. Long range (LR) planes are niche products, that don't typically sell well. Both the A340-500 and the B77-200LR were selling flops, for these planes can only be making profit if you use them on, well, long routes. The reason being that to provide the extra range, they have to be reinforced so to carry the extra fuel, which make them much heavier. If, for reasons of flexibility /versatility an airlines use them on a less than long route, say New York - London, then they burn too much fuel (because of the extra weight) and they lose money. If you analyse city pairs carefully, you'll realize that there aren't that many routes in the world that can sustain these planes. Sure, Sydney - London or Sydney - New York. Singapore - Los Angeles is another one. Suppose that there are 50 such ultra long routes that can sustain these planes, is it really worth building a new version only for a potential of 50 city pairs? If the history of the A340-500 and the B77-200LR tells us something, the answer is no.

Boeing has to go to the drawing board and start inventing new plane models with better fuel capabilities.

A 787-9ER would be a hit. I love to have it a private plane with a freighter door in the back, to park my SUV. I obviously can't have one, but it would be cool.

The old Boeing original plans for the airlines was. To replace their 767 - 200 - 300 - 400 with the 787s 8 9 and 10s That's what Boeing wanted to happen

Don't you think Boeing would already have proposed this offer for project sunrise? If not then the business developers at Boeing would be bad at their job. So assuming they are doing their job they are just a less good fit for project sunrise and the offer has been rejected. I don't see how this can change the choice for the a350, especially with all the issues the dreamliner has these days...

Suuurely QANTAS would opt for some sort of a350-900ULR variant if they were looking to downsize the aircraft capacity, though

Is the A350 the one that the paint is falling off? And apparently it’s not just an “aesthetic “ problem, because some pilots have reported vibrations in flight controls where enough paint has fallen off to affect the control surfaces. Not a good situation at 30,000 feet.

I think they updated the 9ER because their competitor is probably about to release a better competitor. So if they wanna stay itst. They have to keep innovating and come first

With the memory of latest Boeing 737 Max's fatal crash yet to fade away, hope this new launch or any other new launch by Boeing for that matter, wont turn to Killer in any form.

They don't fly "further", Coby; they fly "farther". :)

Where does speed enter in all this, less time on long range travel ! Thank you for this vid.

I notice you were conveniently silent on the A350-900ULR that currently is the aircraft with the longest flying range. So for the reasons you mentioned that makes 787-9 ER a prospect for sunset routes, could also be made for the A350-900ULR. Airlines don't have to wait for Boeing to come up with an aircraft that can offer these capabilities. There already exist one that possess these capabilities and is flying for airlines such as Singapore Airlines. If there is a killer, it's simply the A350 series with all their variants. They tick all the boxes.

Still think Boeing should build the 787-3 on top of these possibilities. They’d have an offering from the high end of the mid market to the low end of high capacity long range markets