Agreed. I also had better experience in the A350 than the 787 on same airline ,with three different airlines

for JAL 787 can't be beat in economy because they do 2-4-2 like the A330 instead of the usual 3-3-3

JAL also has a great Premium Economy and Business Class product on their Dreamliners.​@@hanj31

Same here... somehow all Airbuses wins over Boeing in comfort. A380>747 / A350>787 / A346>777 / A320>737 Just one of my own memories: RT SFO-ICN A350 Asiana was much better that RT SJO-AMS 787 KLM which BTW the A/C was leaking over my head the whole ride back to home 🙄

@@TIRCQ I flew SFO to ICN once on Asiana business class only because there was no award space from LAX in business class. So I paid for a basic economy united ticket to SFO from LAX and connected to the Asiana flight. Bags checked all the way for free. If you connect on to an international flight in the same alliance even on separate tickets you will get free checked bag at orgin airport

The burning characteristics of a CFRP plane had only been theoretically modelled and tested, but this real accident confirmed that they are much more fire resistant. And lightning strikes are not an issue .

@@v____l okay…?

@@v____l Against what radiation? Space? The engines? The earth? What radtiation?

There's still much of the atmosphere left 😅

Its the atc fault not plane failure😅

and considereing the captain only left the plane a full 18 minutes (!!!) after the crash shows how long the fuselage resisted the fire before it finally burned up

I will be flying this month:))

@@Bryan-nx8zt Enjoy the flight Bryan. You will notice that is is not as "shaky" as the Dreamliner both mid-air and take off. Watch how spacious she is when you enter. It's amazing!!

787

Both. Can't choose!

@@MrJohnnyAOA I did some extensive research what is shocking and amazing and crazy is that powerful pound passenger with passengers equal amount the 787-9 I can fly further than a a350-900

@@rel6438what did you just say…

For me it has to be the A350, just so sleek, whereas the 787 always reminds me of miss piggy for some reason!!

Enjoy it ❤

They wont, no matter what engines, the A380 is uneconomic, yes it carries a lot of passengers but passengers dont travel that way so much now. Plus it has very little cargo space and worst of all it has 4 engines, not two.

Ok Lil bro

Always the "doors don't fall off" argument. The A350 has always been popular since its introduction in 2015!

yes they did?? airbus created the a330-800neo and they didn’t expect it to sell well, but they expected it to kill the profit margin of the 787 if the 800 didn’t exist, boeing could and will have sold it to customers for a much higher price for example, boeing had to reduce the 787 price to $100mil for hawaiian airlines just so they would buy the 787 over the 800neo boeing would never reduce the price if the 800neo wasn’t there, so i’ll say the 800neo is doing as intended by airbus 🤷‍♂️

It would've been significantly more expensive, and arrive to market nearly a decade late. That's why likely Airbus decided to go with a330neo for that market segment, as much cheaper solution even if it means conceding some sales to Boeing.

@@mrmarecki1 Correct. And in a few years when technology advances allow, Airbus can print the carbon fibre fuselage of the A330 without the cost of a whole new airplane - the engines, wings and some systems are new on the A330neo - making it lighter than possibly even the 787, but with longer range and similar operating economics. That would lead to huge profits as the replacement cycle of the A330ceo will be in full swing from 2030 onwards.

A330CEO seized a sizable share of market thanks to 787's delay. Also Airbus and Boeing don't usually overlap exactly with each other. A lower cost A330NEO at the lower end combined with A350 at the higher end is not a bad stragegy, especially when considered A330NEO is actually very close to 787 on midhaul. With minimal investment breakeven is not that far off despite the low volume, and chances are A330NEO may still be more successful program financially, just because Boeing spent too much on 787.

It is complex and was rather dynamic. Airbus had initially downplayed the announcement of the 787 that had been positioned by Boeing as a superior A330 replacement. Later, they (Airbus) came up with the original A350 concept, being basicly an A330 with new composite wings and new engines (an outline roughly similar to the later 777X), and in TWO sizes (called "-800" and "-900"), resembling the former A330-200 and -300 variants and an 8-abreast seating scheme. So Airbus clearly targeted the "A330 market" and the new contender 787. But then some highly influential costomers stepped up and publicly shunned the Airbus approach for its lack of vision. Airbus could not but revoke their original concept and come up with a new clean sheet design that they called "A350 XWB". But this new version resulted in a total shift in positioning: There were again two versions called "-800" and "-900", but now both fuselages were wider than that of the 787 and clearly wider than that of the A330 and accordingly provided for 9-abreast seating, and that much more comfortable than in the Boeing competitor. But there was one more property: The new -900 version was to be three meters longer than before, and equally three meters longer than the once successful but then already aging 777-200/ER. This means that the new -900 was now targeting the 777-200/ER (and also the A340!) replacement market. Additionally, Airbus announced an even larger variant, the -1000, that matched the capacity of the 777-300(ER), and offered much more range. Only the proposed -800 version was still targeting the A330/787 segment. The repositioning of the new A350 higher up soon became apparent as a possible strategic masterpiece. But then the -800 more and more became a LIABILITY! Airbus had initially promised to build the (original) -900 first AND THEN the smaller -800. Accordingly the newly added -1000 variant would come last. This means that the design process of the small bird with its much lower profit margin would delay the possible delivery of the high value 777 antagonist and A340-600 successor by maybe (my guess) two years. It was therefore IN THE INTEREST OF AIRBUS to start negotiations with the few existing customers of the -800 to have them switch to other models (preferably to the -900) - drop the -800 and advance the development of the -1000. And this is where the decision comes into play to "neoize" the A330. With the new plan to primarily position the new composed A350 ("XWB") line against the full 777 model set-up, the question for the A330 successor was again open. And Airbus decided for a major upgrade of the existing line rather than another clean sheet product. By adding new engines, a much improved wing and other sophisticated new features Airbus hoped to make it sufficiently attractive to keep at least a part of their numerous A330ceo customers. Furthermore they could force Boeing into discount battles and slash the profit margins of the 787. So the A330neo must be assessed as one element in the larger widebody strategy of Airbus. Airbus has so far sold over 1600 A350+A330neo jets, and the number will jump up in Farnborough and even more so through the rest of this year. Existing customers of both product lines are happy (seemingly now even Qatar!). Customers of Boeing are not.

In what?

Basically all of this channel's videos. Have you ever grasped at straws? Let us know in the comments below because no one cares :D

aaand we have a womp womp comment 🤣

The 787 doesn't compete with the A350. Also the 787 came 4 years before the A350.

​@@EuropeanRailfanof course it competes with the A350 lmao

@@kingsharkoon Not direct competition unfortunately. From SIN anything beyond SFO is unreachable for 787 for example.

@@EuropeanRailfan lol

I find the noise level very noticeably lower in the A350 and 787 vs 777 family, especially on connecting flights that mix these types. I'm a big 777 fan, especially love the powerful roar of the 300ER with GE900 engine, but I can always tell how much more I use noise cancelling headphones on them especially when seated in middle rows.