That’s incredible aircraft .. thanks for sharing your experience

Flying with Qatar is amazing but sad thing is Qatar is no more operates A350 due to dispute with airbus company ..

​@@JetlineMarvelWell they're buddies again

for comfort, it depends of the airline

A380 is the best... was so quiet meanwhile 777-300 moves a a lot!!!

Is it more quiet than the 787? Felt like that was more quiet than a bus ride

@@shonix123 it depends of turbulence

Becoz b777 has two Giant GE engines

The A350 has a composite (=lighter) fuselage and more advanced avionics. The 777X has half-generation newer engines and a newer wing. With its larger size it will give it a lower CASM on those routes where its capacity can be filled. Where it can't, the A350 is the better plane.

Agree, the range is the only real advantage. Question is how many city pairs will that difference actually matter? Not sure having a London to Sydney direct flight makes too big a case for an airline design.

@@boatlover1875 There is another big advantage: lower flight cost. Where you have enough passengers to fill a 777X, you should definitely consider that. On routes where it's not the case, you'd be much better off flying a 90% filled A350 than a 75% filled 777X. It's exactly the same argument as the 787 vs the A380, although here the difference between the two planes' sizes is of course much less. But still. And then there are other factors. If your widebody fleet is already all 787s and 777s, you would probably not even look at the A350 as commonality is a big factor. Same if your fleet is A330s and A350s. Then of course if you are a loyal Airbus or Boeing customer, you would get significant discounts on new orders, which need to be factored in. Etc. I think Airbus didn't need youtube to make the case for its aircraft design, and the sales prove that it did it right;.

@@jacobzimmermann59 If one has a plane you can't fill that does not reflect on the plane. More like a poor management choice.

@@danharold3087 Like every plane it's optimal for a certain type of traffic. If your traffic is of a different type then it's a poorly selected plane.

Yea

Damn i was just about to start watching the video

While watching this. I would like to point out that it seems the a350 is a better fit. Burns less fuel with a better range, can hold more passengers then the triple 7, and with the weight to range as well you are comparing a 6 cylinder to a 8 cylinder. Only difference is yeah the triple 7 has a better engine power for take off but that is about it. So I think the a350 is the better plane for the buck.

How do you know. The Boeing 777X is not in service whereas the Airbus A350 nine hundred and one thousand are in airline service.

They are incorrect on many specs on 777x 9

because it can flap its wings 😂

Boeing first started composite materials in b787,,so 777 x is made of composite materials nly

Ge 9X for now has not a good strength's reputation. It will maybe very expensive to entertain. No recent news on this point since late 2019.

Personally, I see the same rivalry as the 787 and the A330neo, the 777x and the A330neo are planes that somehow defend themselves against the competition. Many airlines wanted to replace their A330-200s with 787s and this one is selling pretty well on the market so Airbus wanted to keep the A330 in the race with the Neo but that's just not enough. The 787 is a much more advanced and comfortable aircraft with better fuel economy and is an all new model. It's exactly the same for the A350 and the 777x. The companies intended to replace their 777 and A380 with A350 (in particular Air France), and there Boeing wanted to maintain the 777 (which is a success) with the 777x which is like the A330neo, a more economical, more efficient version and with more capacity than older versions. But only, the 787 and the A350 are simply better because they are superior advanced technology aircraft and much more economical and efficient with their carbon composition. Both of these if are best in class, a brand new more advanced aircraft will always sell and outperform an old upgraded aircraft. Especially since the A330neo and the 777x keep their old heavy fuselage in aluminum metal while the A350 and the 787 have their fuselage in carbon, much lighter and which reduces fuel consumption and makes the cabin quieter and which suddenly makes these planes more comfortable. On the other hand, the 777x has a better chance of withstanding the competition thanks to freight and cargo variables and also the fact that companies can use it to replace their A380 or 747 while keeping almost the same amount of passengers per flight and that with less fuel consumed and much more efficiency.

@@planeup__3049 absolutely accurate explanation of all the differences

​@@prasenjittripura4691777X use the same aluminium fuselage from the older 777

Is real competitor is the 777-8. The 9 is built to go shorter ranges but have more seating capacity

Depends, then 777-9 will be a much better Cargo hauler over longer distances and also is more fuel efficient per seats If the Airline can sell the extra seats over the A350-1000.

who told u ,, 777x 15-20% fuel efficient than its peer competitors

But what’s the point of more capacity? Isn’t that why the 747 died?

@@chasetemple3129 no, because of operational costs, fuel, and othe better efficient planes. The 747 has a very large seating capacity, so that was not the reason. Airlines want alot of capacity, because more capacity=more money

Hii .. thanks for the advice .. facts are taken from Wikipedia.

@@JetlineMarvel exactly

@@JetlineMarvel Maximum seat configuration (one class ) for the 777-9 wasn't given. So, it is proper to access based on available 2 class for both. 779 is bigger than the a35k in every physical parameters, thus, should seat more passengers than the Airbus flagship

Airbus fanboy facts??

@@uchedike9213 FrenchBee A35K; 480 seat

Totally agree. The fierce competition has produced the best in both aircraft. So sad however to see the gentle giant of the skies, the A380 will no longer be seen in the near future

I don't get the stats with this video. It says the 777x has a greater fuel payload than the A350 and yet the Airbus can fly further. Something doesn't add up right ?

Disagreed with A350-1000 being more efficient than 777X, the data available currently is not at all enough to support this claim. The only thing we know for now is that GE9X has turned out even more efficient than GE promised which makes your claim even more questionable and Lufthansa, one of the largest 350 customer says 777-9's efficiency is just as good as their 350 fleet. Also, unlike 787 vs 330neo the 777X is beating the A350-1000 by a good margin in orders. The A350-900 has a lot of orders but it has less seats than 787-10 which makes it irrelevant when talking about 777X. The example you gave of Air France is also irrelevant since they chose the A350-900 to replace the 777-200ER fleet. The largest A350-900 customer in the world, SIA has 0 A35K on order but 30+ 777-9 so the airlines having 359 in their fleet isn't a loss for the 777X program but for 787 program where Boeing failed to sell 787-10.

@@aseem7w9 I admit that I prefer boieng than Airbus but the A350 seems really efficient to me but on the other hand it was my impression but the 777x seems in certain aspects much more efficient

@@planeup__3049 both are super efficient planes and the margin between them isn't big enough that fuel efficiency is a plus point for any of these 2. If the fuel efficiency gap is big enough to matter much then manufacturers will be trying find new ways on how to improve it like airbus with a340 600 trying to give it new engines not even 5 years after its first flight due to 777 300er's excellency.

A Boeing aircraft comfortable? Almost impossible!

Tell us Mr engineer tell us what the facts are supposed to be since you build the two aircraft in your garage so well...

@@mwat22 There is another seating configuration for the 777-9 that seats way more passengers than what was shown. Its quite a bit more than the A350. That being said, the 777-9 burns less fuel per seat. It can carry way more of a payload, which is another win for the 777X, when it comes to selling Freighters. That of course will be the 777-8F, which Qatar has ordered as well.

I though the 777-8 project had been dropped?

@yo yo Projects get dropped all the time. The A358 has been dropped, the 737ERX has been dropped, the 787-300 etc. You never get a plane "for free". There are design changes AND systems changes involved, you must certify it, set up assembly lines etc. When the demand for that plane is deemed too weak to justify the investment, it gets dropped. In the case of the 777-8, it was too close to the A351 in terms of capacity to be competitive performance-wise so AFAIK it was killed off in 2019. It's one of the reasons why Boeing lost Qantas' Sunrise bid by the way.

The thing that actually matters with both aircraft is the cost per passenger per miles that one seat can take. That's why the 777-9 is stretched to fit more passengers which will automatically lower the cost per seat mile compared to the 777-300ER. So that it can remain competitive with the A350-1000. Not to mention that the biggest advantage the 777-9 has over the a350 is that it's the 777-300ER successor. The a350-1000 is a standalone aircraft and despite being older, doesn't rake in the amount of orders compared to the 777-9. Even if half those orders are Emirates. Also since the 777-300ER is still a more than capable aircraft, airlines have no need for an a350-1000, at least currently. Anyways... Problem with both 777X aircraft is that they are heavier than the a350-1000 as the a350 has a considerable larger amount of CFRP uses. The 777-8 is however not competitive with the a350-1000 looking at the specs. The 777-8 carries slightly more passengers, with the same range but with FAR more fuel and a FAR higher OEW. The 777-9 vs a350-1000 is actually the right comparison.

@@jacobzimmermann59 Never heard of any news that the 777-8 project is dropped but there is a chance they are probably going to because it's just not competitive with the a350-1000. Or maybe not and the 777-8 will continue but I'm just not sure whether it's going to be a huge success.

@yo yo Air Caraibes is currently operating 3 A350 with 480 seats all economy.

You said it all contrary to all the Boeing fans who hammer that the 777x is alone in its category the best the most beautiful the most this or the most that .. Boeing to hear them is the creator of heaven and earth but they forget The essential: The 777X will not save the rout of Boeing, which is bankrupt and is selling two planes, the 787 and the MAX, at a loss The delays of the 777x due to its many technological problems will, as with the dreamliner, reduce its break-even point, which with 1400 orders is still not profitable. 300 orders of 777x will not be enough to make it profitable when the program already costs three times more than expected the 350 has been profitable since the 200th delivery, not to mention the best-selling 320 l aircraft in the world, which has a 65% market share and has been profitable for years with more than 15,000 orders Boieng makes planes for glory and goes straight into the wall Airbus is the leading manufacturer and sells planes that bring in billions of dollars, that's being the best... The rest is pipe dreams and fan illusions

Airbus has the best response today on the market's demands. Boeing has lost its reputation of safety.

@@guillaumedupont7565 Airbus is crushing Boeing.

@@guillaumedupont7565 Yes the A380 is a good example.🤣

@@pvp64 Another lying troll .... The 380 neither made nor cost Airbus money and Boeing is bankrupt AH not Airbus

@yo yo I'm aware that airlines get a price package ..however the difference in the 2 list prices is enormous.

@yo yo thanks for the explanation, but I still think the A350 is a beautiful plane and very good in any other way

Don't forget that Boeings are expansive due to their longevity when compared to Airbus. They are traditionally more expensive but last longer and are a better workhorse.

@@baadnewz017 that goes to Airbus too. The oldest A330 is still flying at the age of 25. Let’s just admit the a350 is a game changer

@@siyalizwabudaza4652 Agree to disagree. The 787 was the Game changer.

@@baadnewz017 yes 787 brought all of these new technologies and the new airframe light weight. But the A350 took it to the next level. I see news of 787 Extended Range. It still falls below A350-1000. I know the don’t compete

I think you should fly the same route with 2 different aircraft than you can tell the diffrence

@@sidhusharma1513 good point

777's engine is more powerful therefore it could be louder that way

@@Blockthecreeper It's even a bit overperforming

blud 777x has not released.

I’m a huge 777 fan too! It was one of, if not the main motivational machine I’d admire throughout my training and career. The 77W seems to have been the ultimate game changer. Vastly more capable than any Airbus competitor and visually striking with such immense size and incredible engines! Unfortunately, I feel Boeing really missed the mark with the new 777X. It’s taking too long to develop, due to many reasons as we all know, not all directly related to the program itself. And I think they should’ve taken more of the quantum leap tech from the 787, building the fuselage primarily of composites. It’s such a massive machine and impressive for that, but it just stacks up too heavy against the A350, who was developed initially as an ad hoc answer to the 787 and has matured in to a seriously heavy hitter that only sips the fuel. Boeing’s corporate derailment, resulting in technical incompetence at times, has allowed Airbus who are very good at rapidly reacting to market drivers and new technology, to leap ahead with their machines which are remarkable in their own right. I fear the 777X will never match the market share of the 77W.

@@iamra_n3189 the b777 is more of a meaner looking machine, more in proportion with those huge engines and i like the sloping front end where the cockpit is. My 2 favourite widebodies are the A330 neo and the B777 200 and 300series

2025...

In your dreams for sure...

The -1000 isn't selling tho

It's good for it's size but not better than the A350 clearly, it certainly was a better replacement for the two large quadjets the A380 and the B747 from Boeing's perspective though.

@@mwat22 777X is better than A350-1000 (which is it's rival) that's certain, can't say it is better than the whole A350 family tho as the A350-900 is of a completely different category i.e medium sized wide body competing with 787-10. Also, the *main* purpose of 777X (and A350-1000) is replacing the 800+ 777-300ER of the world, not replacing quads. The 777-9 clearly is the better option for this purpose hence it has twice the orders as A350-1000. The 777-300ER was Boeing's 747 successor (was A340-600 from Airbus' side which is almost non existent now due to being terrible) and the 779 and 351 will be the successor of 747's successor lol.

@@aseem7w9 well based on your argument both should now be producing quad jets or designing the next Quads cause as you said the 777 and 350 don't replace the quads 😂😂😂😂😂😂 FOH and with the 777-9 having a shorter range and more fuel burn how is it better? or its better cause you said it and more is always better right?

@@mwat22 777-300ER already replaced 95% of quad jets over the past decade in the world that's why I said 777X and A350-1000 won't be replacing quads. Learn to read properly before replying. 777-9 has the range for every airline route in the world except like 6-7 of them so range is no issue. The 777-8 is there if an airline does want even more range. Having more range isn't always better hence ULR planes never sell a lot, more fuel tanks just add more weight. In terms of fuel burn per seat tho, Lufthansa said 350 and 779 are similar so from where did you get that A350 is more efficient? I'd rather trust the word of the 3rd largest A350 user rather than you on how much fuel it burns tbh.

@@aseem7w9 its (777-8 and 777-8) still more expensive than any of the planes in the A350 family and also also learn to read what you type before you send it, whos already operating the 777-9??? and by your own admission that ER only adds weight so how's a lighter A350 burning the same as a heavier older 777-300ER???

The B787 is a better aircraft in your opinion does that include its shoddy workmanship that has it not in production as a result??

@@mwat22 787 is crap also

Even Boeing workers would put their families on B787. Enough said

If A350 was a bad aircraft than why did the worlds best airlines order it and why did it receive 800 orders Plus Boeing also had issues with their 737 max and the 787 Paint peeling off isn’t as worse as a 737 max

Plus A350 can fly longer flights than the 787

Don't cry but 737 Max-10 and 777X maybe will never have a commercial's life. Last news are awful!

Boeing used to dominate the skies. However, the way I see now for Boeing would be the same way I view American car manufacturers vs European car manufacturers. Obviously Europeans have the better engineering, technology, and schools that help produce great engineers. America is stuck and losing ground in everything they used to be the world leaders in.

@@GeneralHAWXX And you can blame the left-wingers for all that failure.

Boeing is financialy saved by US Army's orders. For how long?

777 is based on a decades old design, they should compare the 787-9

You must be an aeronautical engineer! Who do you work for?

It all depends on customer's requirements. Maybe with 100% economy class you will achieve 480 passengers.

A few dubious number comparisons in this video

Seems you haven't been on Boeing Dreamliner

It does not have a larger capacity when comparing apples to apples. The cabin is more than a foot narrower, and the fuselage is shorter. Also, the A350-1K can't fly its advertised range with a full load of cargo and pax.

The Boeing 777-9 has 25% larger windows, its new engine is quieter and it is also 11% more efficient than the a350.

Nope!

Yes sir

Just that minor issue of the skin peeling off....

The numbers are incorrect. The 777 has the longest range in its class

@@iLoveBoysandBerries I was going to say the same thing [though without any real research]. How can the A350 hold 54 more passengers while having a far smaller footprint? They have similar engines yet the 777 carries "34 tones" more fuel but has 80 percent the range? That makes no sense either.

Someone's finally making sense 😁👋👋👋👋

It’s cargo in the hold that makes money.

They lost me at tones...

Limited morph on the A350 wing profile while cruising....@pat cattin

The Exit Limit of the A350-1000 is 5 seats more than the 777-9 (480 vs 475). But this is because Boeing canceled the pair of Exits over the Wing that the 777-300ER featured. The 300ER has a 550 Seat Exit Limit, so the 777-9 would fit even more. But because No Airline ever seated more than ~420 passengers in their 777-300ER they canceled these Exits as they add to the empty weight of the aircraft and waste space. They added an optional Exit behind door 3 that brings the Exit Limit Up to 475, without These its at around 420 I think. Typical 2 class seating is approx 350 for the A350-1000 and approx 380 for the 777-9.

@@widget787 Interestingly, Frenchbee have the A350-1000 set up as 440 economy and 40 premium for a total of 480.

@@StopMediaFakery French Bee has a horribly tight 3-4-3 config that no legacy Airline could ever use.