Worlds Big Deal Indian IndiGo AViation Companies Wants 530 Modern Generation Passenger Jets Boeiong Air Bus Who Win ?

E😅😅😅😅😮😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅7

😅

😅

😅

They settled until the A350 came out

Their A350 business class for the two hour flight from Saigon to Singapore is almost over the top. Brand new seats with the full lie flat etc.

@@wadehiggins1114They actually originally chose 20 -9’s over the A350 original design before transferring the order to Scoot and then ordering the -10 after their two 30 A350 orders

@@nzer19 Better to over-perform than under-deliver

@@GWT1m0 Absolutely. It also means a full itinerary with Singapore as a layover is quality 👌

Sq reduced their 787-10, from 25 just to 15

Where the 787 lacks significantly is Cargo Capacity! On short or medium stage legs that may not be significant but on long-haul legs is very noticeable and lacking!

Seat width is the most underrated yet very important measurement of comfort in a Seat and a wider Seat is significantly better! Most people concentrate on legroom but Width is what makes it comfortable.

exactly

Is A350 quieter?

​@@claus1225yes

Having only recently flown the 787 (but never the A350), the most comfortable plane I've tried with some margin, I can attest this makes a huge difference.

@@thomaspaaruppedersen6781 A380 is the quietest plane and feels more comfortable than 787. I haven't flown on A350 yet.

Funny that the European aircraft manufacturer typically has the widest seats vs the US manufacturer (same goes for A320 vs B737 and even A220 vs B737) although the average BMI of US citizens is way higher than European.

@@HugoAelbrecht Eh, the 737 has the same cabin width as the 707. It's kind of an old design! The 787 was originally shown with 2-4-2 seating but the high density 9 wide became the norm. The 767 does a good job with wider seats, though some airlines have put 2-4-2 configurations in them. Ugh. People love cheaper tickets and airlines love making more money. The A220 is Canadian designed - and frankly if they can get over their engine troubles that plane could be absolutely transformative. Making the cabin wide enough for 5 wide seats was a brilliant decision. I can't wait to fly on one.

Depends entirely on the airline. Are you in the 787 with 8 wide or 9 wide? 787 seats are wider than their actual competitor the a330. Are you on the a350 with 9 wide or 10 wide when comparing "comfort"? With Airbus widening a350 cabin, airlines will tend towards 10 wide instead of currently most a350's going with 9 wide and since a350's actual competition is the 777 with a wider fuselage... can 777X go 11 wide for squishy hell? Doubt it. For me, comfort of the seat is the headrest above all else and this is entirely human body specific, though any of the headrests with folding wings on the headrest get the nod for me. All those who do not... do not make the cut.

is A350 more quiet? or same?

​@@w8stralFor seat comfort, I agree with you about the foldable head rest "wings" but can add that for a skinny and tall person that I am, the seat cushion and seat cushion support it very important. I often have to put a folded blanket on the seat ahead of my skinny "cheeks" otherwise the rear seat cushion support bar presses on my tailbone area miserably and uncomfortably. The Dreamliner was more comfortable than the Airbus seating on 6 flight legs of my recent long haul overseas trip.

Airlines simply can't ignore the economics of the aircraft, and Airbus knows it. That's why they're releasing a version with the dimmable windows, which would likely save some weight, but it still won't match the economics of the 787-10. However, the A350 will thrive on longhaul routes because of its wider economy class seats and roomier business class.

@@sainnt Airbus smartly slotted the 350 between the 787-10 and the 777. I think the 777-9 and -8 will be the Best bet

@@trenton.tchannel1810 Actually, the A350 was announced before the 787-10. The 787-10 was announced as a viable alternative for the A350-900, while the A350-1000 was announced as a more viable alternative to the 777-300ER, which simply has a superior cargo capacity.

The range is really not that short. If you have routes to any other place then Australia, you are pretty much in the clear.

@@matsv201For it’s size though I think airlines wanted more

@@filledwithvariousknowledge2747 Well.. it depends on. If they can carry a lot of extra cargo.. then sure. If they can´t or they cant do it every day. I don´t really see a problem. I would think that most airline that use the 787-10 also have a few 787-9 to mix with having both the advantages.

​@@matsv201 "ER" or HGW varients are not only about carrying more cargo. It gives airlines more flexibility with their pax cabin configurations too. Some airlines have had to reduce seating capacity on the 787-10 to allow it to fly slightly further and reach desired destinations. Qantas 787-9s seat around 236 passengers ( QR's 787-9s seat 300+ for comparison) , which allows them to fly slightly further. So a hypothetical 787-9ER/LR could be able to allow qantas to increase its seat count from 236 to maybe around 280 seats while still being able to cover the same range. A similar effect should be possible on the "787-10ER".

Even 787-10LR will do

It's the airlines that determine how comfortable an aircraft is on longhaul, not the aircraft. Sure, the A350 has half inch wider seats, but if the airline crams more seats in, leaving little legroom, you'll feel it. Qantas operates the 787-9 between LAX and SYD, and, aside from their shortcoming of not offering WiFi on such a long flight, it's a very comfortable experience. I doubt you'd say the same thing if you had to fly longhaul on a French Bee A350.

Thank you very much for the education in this regard.

My whole family worked for Boeing. Many of them retired now. You are spot on with your comment. All of Boeings planes used to be done ahead of schedule. Now everything is delayed. The company still hasn’t learned it’s lesson.

ODM (outsourcing) has done plenty of damage to the Motor industry also, it’s an easy way out for Ivory Tower merchants, it all very well for cutlery and crockery, but where safety and performance are critical it’s a different matter

The 777 is not dying out. It's being replaced with a more capable, more fuel efficient 777. Believe me, Airbus is working hard to level the lopsided playing field when that aircraft arrives in service.

No, 787-10 was planned from the start. Base model was the -9 version with guarantees to contractors for at least one size larger/smaller than base model. Was there, worked the design from the start. Boeing did plan on having a lower OEW though. Due to FAA regulatory officials NOT giving Boeing load alleviation due to FBW in a 2G+ wind up turn that added 5-->10tons of fuselage weight they were hoping to drop. There was also extra weight added in wing box area. It should be noted EASA did give AIRBUS load alleviation in a350 a couple years later for 2G+ wind up turns. This probably saves the a350-1000 at least 10 tons and maybe as high as 20 tons when you compare to the much older 777, but does save probably ~10 tons on their base -900 model. Carbon fiber is nice, but it has a problem, its deflection is much greater under load compared to aluminum and why the 2G turn creates large increases in fuselage weight. Boeing could recertify their 787 for load alleviaition on FBW... but this would cost billions. This would help the 787-10 immensely. It will not happen, and if it does, I will be shocked. Who knows, maybe they will for their upcoming ER version. I doubt it.

The 777 wont be going anywhere soon.. their is still a need for jumbo jets

@@w8stral The 787-10 was built to compete with the A350-900. It wasn't planned until the A350 was announced, a last minute change because A330 and A340 customers hated what Airbus was planning when Boeing was building a new, modern aircraft. Airbus stretched the 900 because the 777-300ER was still getting orders in significant numbers due to its cargo capacity. I do agree that Boeing may not build the HGW 787-10 because only Air New Zealand is asking for it. It's more likely that the 777-8 would be built instead.

@@sainnt Sigh... In the YEAR 2000, LONG before the a350 was even a twinklin' in the eye of Airbus, and even before officially the 7E7 was announced after the sonicruiser was officially terminated after 9-11 in 2001, the 7E7 had its base model already designated 789 with one model smaller 788 and one model LARGER, the 781. GE's GEN-X engine tech had already been demonstrated for said weight class. In fact the 77W had not even been produced yet... When we designed the 787 the base model was the 789 even though the first produced was the 787-800. This was planned from the start. The only 787 model which did NOT get built was the one JAL wanted, 783 with ~3500nm range but same payload = NEW wing/landing gear/wing box. Suggest some basic history first before typing my friend. HGW 787-10 will be easy as it will essentially just be adding another fuel tank for Air New Zealand and a few others such as United who have a few routes who would really appreciate a 787-10 instead of a 777 or a350 and maybe adding slightly wider tires. Landing specs will most likely remain the same, but Take off will be higher. Shouldn't even have to reinforce the wings. The wing/fuselage joint, I do not know, was not my bailiwak

Prices are negociable. For an airline which has already A350-800 in the fleet, it would be make more sense to buy A350-900 if only a few needed. Same ist valid for an airline which has already smaller 787 in the fleet.

You get what you pay for 🙃

​@@andreaseufinger4422a350-800 is not a plane what are you talking about lol

That's a valid point. However, while the dimmable windows are in response to the popularity of the feature on the 787 with airlines, the widening is being done to compete with the 777-9, so you're more likely to see that wider cabin on the A350-1000 before you see it on the 900 variant.

Don't worry, airlines will make sure you never feel that increased cabin width by making it 11 seats wide in response.

I really hate dimmable windows. At least when the aircrew locks them in the darkest configuration. I took a day flight from Tokyo to Istanbul recently and we flew over some of the most interesting landscapes of Central Asia. Do you think I was able to see even the slightest glimpse of it? No...

@@Hhutuber Yes, I can imagine how frustrating that would be. American Airlines had told its cabin crew to stop locking the windows and just ask passengers to darken them just as they would ask on other flights for people to close the shades.

I flew on the Singapore Airlines route from SIN to EWR in premium economy. I was not bored for a single moment, though the jet lag was rather severe because I was so excited to be on the flight that I didn't sleep much on board.

See the pinned comment.

Do to the leaky faucet issue?

Typical Airbus fan

​@@Deltafox3693IsSoInDenial Typical Boeing fan.

@@heidirabenau511 I’ll be creating one for Boeing fans so don’t you worry as I’m tired of cults. *Right now* though I see the Airbus cult fans as the biggest threats to comment sections

KLM has been a very loyal Boeing customer for decades, but their merger with Air France is shifting things in favor of Airbus, which are mostly built in France. Ironically, Air France is also a long-time Boeing customer.

The 787 and a350 have the same cabin pressure of 6000ft. But yes, BOTH aircraft are equally good in this regard

And from Sidney to NY in 2025 - finally an aircraft that can fly from any airport to any other in the world

​@@HugoAelbrecht Without having to connect to the home country? Finally!

I took that flight. Loved it!

​@@HugoAelbrecht it should be noted that a similar low density 787-9 can also handle Project Sunrise. Qantas tested the route using that aircraft. The A350 is a better choice because it's larger, therefore would be more comfortable for both passengers and crew.

Sounds like an absolute NIGHTMARE. Who in their right mind wants a 20 hour flight? And worse, who the Hell wants to go to NY or Singapore?

Boeing's latest version of the dimmable windows are also faster and darker. I experienced it on a newer 787-9 from Qatar Airways.

They are not manufactured by AIrbus, so no, they are not "airbus's dimmable windows". In any rational world without the idiot FAA/EASA in the way, Boeing would have just changed to the newer version of the windows as they both use the same dimmable window company.

and the A350 can serve them better

@@ant2312 You got it wrong. It was actually found in an analysis the 787-10 is better suited on shorter routes which justifies its shorter range anyway

​@@Deltafox3693IsSoInDenialAmerican investigation? The order is telling us enough😉

@@jesperdevries107 It lacks range you fool and hasn’t been on the market as long

I hated that too. Never etihad again and if I could choose A350, I will.

Seating configuration and setup is airline specific. An Etihad 787-10 seating arrangement and space will be different than a Singapore Airlines 787-10.

That seems to a common complaint with the 787.

The 787 has way more thrust and is newer

Also airbus sucks

​@@GreenvileW don't be a better Boeing fanboy, his opinion.

@@jupiter776 Boeing is way older so they know how to make their stuff a lot better, airbus is from the 70s

@@GreenvileW again, no arguements needed. take your arguement elsewhere. also Airbus sees Boeing's mistakes so they correct it and attempt to make it better

Why would they want to have ER where 777x are designed for longer routes. A350 1000 will start delivering next year 1Q

2000 nmi? I don't think that is possible now. 500-1000nmi is more realistic.

@@mmm0404 2000nm is 3000+ Km so if it were given to a -10 that would be like 15000Km of range and 17000 for the -9

@@kennedyxhulu4933 yea , would be great but remember Boeing would need additional space in the 787 frame to fit more fuel capacity. That space is limited

"On paper" I agree. But until Boeing sort out their manufacturing mess this whole discussion is kinda moot. After two years of stoppage they are snagged again. SMH.

@@wojomojo that's true, but that doesn't change the fact that there are currently nearly 900 787 aircraft in service, so the aircraft is great. Most of the issues with the aircraft are not related to the quality of the design, but the quality of building, and that can be resolved. The aircraft remains capable regardless.

​@Timi Ayotunde actually 1,041 are benen in service. The 787 have already already 1,700 order, almost catching up the 330 and the 777

It have been confirmed that RR have quiter engines fban GE, but unfortunately, we all know what happens to the Trent 1000

Typical Airbus fan

The model

It depends on the airline mostly for passenger experience, did you even watch the video?

Yeah the range of the -10 is shorter than the -8 and -9 i think

@@Fryingpan1000That’s why I commented this. They nerfed the 10 too much

Well the optimized 787 variant was the 787-9. The 787 designs were built around the 789, so when you stretch the aircraft out, add more weight and such but still keep the same engines and fuel capacity, the 787-10 performs worse in range and etc.

The difference there is they used the 777-300ER wing on the 200 to make the LR. To make a 787-10LR they'd need to design a new wing, and the increased weight of the wing and fuel would necessitate new engines too, probably. Don't get your hopes up. Just get excited for the A350-1000 and 777-8/9.

Oh alright. Thank you for making me more understand with this

@Hamza Saleem I have flown on both many times (Qatar and Etihad) and found the A350 better each time

@Hamza Saleem food and service depends on the airline, not the airplane🤦🏻‍♂️

panbois😅😅😅😅😅

It really depends on operators(in economy at least) …Delta’s A350 were so crammed but Qatar’s were one of the best ever.

Nah, you’re full of sht…all airliners regardless of manufacturer is cramped and uncomfortable if not in first or businesses class.

RANGE is the most important. Airlines like Singapore Airlines can run nonstop from JFK to Changi or JFK to Manila.

fr

MTOW is determined by the structural integrity or strength of the airframe ( primarily the landing gear and wing box) , not by the Empty weight of the aircraft. The stronger ( not the heavier ) the airframe structure is, the more weight it can carry for take off ( aka higher MTOW). Aircraft of the same family with the same MTOW just means the overall structural strength of the airframe ( e.g landing gear, wing box) is the same or very similar. The 777-300ER and 777-200LR have the same MTOW, so is the a330-900 and a330-800. The a330-200 and a330-300 share the same MTOW as far as I know. The 737-800 and the non ER 737-900 also shared the same MTOW To save costs usually aircraft of the same family share components like the landing gear, wing box , the wings, fuel tanks and many more. Sharing the same/similar components like the landing gear usually means the structural strength of the airframe is the same even for heavier varients of the same aircraft family. Being heavier only means carrying less fuel for for more payload, it has little or effect on the MTOW.

Thanks

787-10 is better suited for local carriers who would normally choose either of the smaller 787 variants as their main plane but want bigger plane on some of their routes, without investing into a completely new model, with pilot training and all that. For bigger carriers with high demand for long, intercontinental flights, A350 is simply a better option and there it's real competition is 777.