Without this Aircraft, Airbus wouldn’t exist! 

It’s interesting how Dassault Systèmes went from producing airliners to producing most sophisticated 3d CAD design software Very unusual evolution

Maybe you should make a video about the A340-600 ?

Thanks Petter. That was very interesting. Have you considered the Ilyushin Il-76 and related aircraft yet?

I've used an ekster for 2 years now and I love it. congrats on the partnership!

Here's the production of the wings for the A220. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-tDDrgGSiW3A.htmlsi=vzD-3O6iyvOwoUxi

Indeed! And it’s an awesome aircraft and I hope you will like the video

@@MentourNownice but on main channel can u do bek air 2100 or Leicester City helicopter crash cuz ive never found a good animation on them

@@MentourNow I love every video! You present every video in such an objective, well-informed and easy to digest manner that almost anyone would be able to understand the complex topics in them. You have an incredible gift and talent for teaching others and your team does an outstanding job researching and producing these videos.

The first twin engine wide body aircraft beating Boeing to that concept by 11 years, this concept is now the standard for both companies

Also basically influencing every modern aircraft in production today.

Yes, that is a remarkable story. Just to cap it off, after landing they ran off the runway and ended up in a minefield (obviously without setting off any mines). Although it was repaired, they couldn't find a buyer - probably because of the age of the aircraft - so it was sadly scrapped.

"[Selling] Airbus A300, new wing, clean Carfax"

@@alles_klar "I know what I got comes with new rims"

Wow!

They also did a full go around with all that damage. Mayday covered that incident.

Airbus literally replaced old Boeing We are not talking about Being post McDonal Douglas merge (its shit)

Self financing - West German Govt helped with the financial support

@@michduncgthe French and German governments funded their respective national components only, the British government withdrew funding to HS. HS funding was their own and certainly not from either the French or German governments.

@@drjojo4624 I suggest you check again! The West German govt paid 175 million marks to help Hawker Siddeley and ensure they remained in the Airbus programme

put another way, the British government already in the 60's lacked appetite for risk, industrial vision, trust in the "stickiness" of partnerships, had it's bum between two stools, and that continues to this day, sadly.

@@drjojo4624 The French and German financial burden thus ultimately reached 43% each of a cost preliminarily calculated at 1665 billion marks.7 A substantial part of the German contribution of about 175 million marks was to be paid to Hawker Siddeley through a subcontract with the German industry; the British manufacturer had declared its inability to bear more than 40% of the development cost of the wings but was in sole possession of the machines to produce them. In other words, and in marked contrast to the French side, the West German government was even willing to subsidize the utilization of British capacities to keep the Airbus project going.8

Not "was" - "is". Still operating , even B4-200F.

It’s still flying strong as a cargo plane. UPS and FedEx still retain relatively large fleets of it.

DC-8F? looks like UPS .. or maybe FedEx 🤭

A300b4

Thank you very much for sharing this History and your Experience!👍

Likewise experience in the 310. Didn’t like to go Hi. However, the power of those engines... she flew on power! You go around and you would get 6000fpm easy....

Story sounds like an American retro-fit. Not questioning that this guy proposed the configuration. Not buying that this was the origin of the A300.

Flying experience aside, the A300-600s that American had, were a Maintenance Nightmare ! The European manufacturing processes were more in line with WWII in that the airplanes structure was designed to be life limited, their for things like the basic formulation of the Aluminum in the aircraft was total junk ! We made thousands of dollars in overtime, grinding out corrosion, and replacing Aluminum parts that just seemed to out of nowhere have massive inner granular corrosion. The non Destructive testing department worked night and day, with all the inspections for cracks, and x-rays that were needed on those planes. The only good thing Airbus did was use GE Engines ! The engines gave the Airbus reliability on the gate, which AA loved. But dealing with the mainly horrible fuselage structures issues, and German Blueprints and French terminology used on the supposedly engineered American manuals, was to be blunt, a pain in the bum ! Maintenance cost is why American ditched the Airbus A-300. I have no idea why after all those problems, when USAir took over Americans Airline, they stuck with so many Airbus Aircraft, and are buying more. Lessons learned, and quickly forgotten!

@@jameslester4474 It sounds like you were one of those AA mechanics who were so hard put to it to keep them in the air. My personal thanks for having done so! Suffice to say that those issues were never brought to the attention of the vast majority of pilots - even those in the flight office, as I was during the first half of the 1990's when the type was at its' maximum usage at JFK, where I was chief pilot. As to any "engineering" of the manuals, recall that the first 25 of ours were obtained on a then-novel "rent-a-plane" basis - essentially the aeronautical equivalent of going to Hertz or Avis, and not on any long term capital lease as was the norm, then and now, for airplane acquisition. Airbus was, at the time, eager (putting it mildly) for a big sale to another US company; and as I indicated above, they more or less made Bob Crandall an offer he was loath to refuse. We could have returned them at any time on little more than 30 days notice! This is something that Airbus has done repeatedly over the decades, to companies like Jet Blue (among others), to move the metal off the lot. If it were not for this willingness to be giving the airplanes away at and maybe even below cost, Boeing might still be the largest manufacturer. As an interesting aside, Boeing (not to be outdone) immediately offered us 25 767-300's on essentially identical terms, which we also took up enthusiastically - somewhat to the chagrin of Airbus! But the Boeings were the nucleus of an eventual fleet that numbered more than 100, so their gamble paid off a bit more lucratively than did Airbus'. We did keep them for over 20 years, which more or less points to the notion that, whatever the maintenance cost might be, they were still desirable on the property. They could haul a huge load, both passengers and cargo. In fact, while I was there, they were the largest passenger capacity airplane in the fleet, having more seats (albeit mostly in coach) than even the 777-200's. It was not until AA got 777-300's, very late in my career, that we had an airplane that carried more people than the A-300. I share your lack of enthusiasm for the later models of Airbusii, although in my case that stems more from a disdain for the sticks and the method of interaction with the automation than for any lack of long-term structural integrity of the airframes.

I had the same feeling when I first saw an A330 at YYZ, operated by a Canadian charter company (Sunwings? Not sure who). Just looked so right.

@@FrewstonBooks Must've been Air Transat

@@matheusgiovannini571 Before Air Transat got theirs. I remember seeing at Pearson an A330 with the script down the fuselage "First A330 in North America". Pretty sure it was Sunwings or similar.

It’s not just that but Airbus was also smart to loan some A300s to Eastern for free. Risky marketing move but it paid off massively.

@@CoSmicGoesRacing But Airbus couldn't use the first-production A300B2 model. The A300B4, which could fly between Atlanta and the USA West Coast easily, was the model that Airbus lent to Eastern. Its success with its substantially lower fuel burn compared to the L-1011 Eastern were using on this route was critical in convincing other airlines to buy this plane for high-density medium range routes over the L-1011 and DC-10.

I didn’t fly, but I was at EA in the mid 80’s in Miami. Sad to see it go along with Pan Am.

Can you explain how the aircraft was better engineered than the 747?

@@sanitman1488 For one, Airbus got the wing right on the first try, they didn't have to come up with redesigning a twist into the wing after the fact, to fix lift distribution problems.

@@coriscotupi actually, if you had taken the foresight to read aircraft manufacturing trade publications and documentaries on the development Boeing 747, it would be clearly evident the aircraft development was pushing the technology at the time warranting the redesign several times to produce to this day one of the most safest aircraft in the air.

@@coriscotupi utter nonsense. The wing as everything else relating to the 747 was radically new, pushing the technologies of the 1960s. Furthermore the Boeing 747sp received a different wing design enhancing its performance and again with the 8i. “Please look up the famous “Sutter twist”. FYI not only do I know what it is ( I maintained the 747s for Pan Am) but I had the privilege to meet him personally at a ceremony at Pan American’s “Jet Center” maintenance facility at JFK Airport. He was there to discuss the 747 while renaming one of first production 747s to ‘’Clipper Juan T Trippe”. You might want to learn about N747PA. As a AMT that has worked on the 747 for Pan Am, I was part of a technician group gathering with Mr Sutter. Here he discussed the “twist” in detail. There was no “fiasco” as you claim rather engineers coming together to solve a problem before production ramped up. As the aerodynamics testing was almost finished, wind tunnel tests showed a problem. Pressure distribution on the outer portion of the newly designed wing was such that the internal wing structure could not properly support the excessive loads. ( lift distribution was not all wrong ) To make matters worse, parts were already being built in the Auburn factory in Washington state. Adding to the pressure on the original 747 team, Jack Steiner, the man who led the 727 and 737 programs, believed the current wing was “unsalvageable”. Adding insult to the injury, after an internal engineering audit, a group of 50 engineers was gathered around Steiner and set out to redesign the wing completely. Joe Sutter wouldn’t have this, as he believed this could jeopardise the whole program. After gathering a few engineers to try to solve the problem, they realized after a while that they didn’t need to twist the whole wing to solve the load problem. Twisting just the outer wing section after the outboard engine pylon would provide 80-90% of the effects from twisting the entire wing. What’s more, it would be a lot easier and cheaper to implement. It was a close call for Joe and his team, but their ingenuity allowed them to dodge yet another obstacle in the race to creating the soon-to-become mighty 747. The press picked up the story, and so the Sutter twist was born. The “incredibles” got it right the first time before production ramped up.

Glad you enjoyed it!💕💕

The bonded lower fuselage skin on early production aircraft had to be replaced when in service dis-bonding occurred.

Interesting. I was inder the impression Fokker pioneered composite/glued parts on commercial planes. As usual the answer isn't as straightforward. Seems Airbus was pioneering these parts as well. Could well be the first, won't start a chauvinistic internet riot over a now demised aircraft manufacturer 😉

​@@gauloiseguyStill a shame Fokker disappeared. Same as Dornier!

Yes, the One-Eleven's first flight preceded the DC-9's by 18 months, and it was in service with its launch customer, British United Airways, nearly a year before the DC-9, despite a fatal deep-stall accident that delayed the test programme and certification. The twin-engine DC-9 and its successors used a similar rear-engine and T-tail config as the One-Eleven, so Douglas would have benefited from the data obtained after the One-Eleven accident. Moving on to the two larger tri-jets, the HS Trident and the Boeing 727 - both of which preceded the One-Eleven but shared the rear-engine, T-tail configuration - I think it's generally accepted that Boeing took the unprecedented idea from de Havilland (Hawker Siddeley's predecessor), which had been indiscreet. The B727 first flew only a year after the Trident, which had been delayed and down-sized by the dithering of its launch airline, state-owned BEA. The Trident 1 turned out to be too small, whereas Boeing was able to cater for the worldwide market. Both Trident and One Eleven suffered from the thrust limitations of the RR Spey engine, which also had a lower by-pass ratio than the P&W JT8D employed on their American rivals. When BEA eventually demanded a much bigger version of the Trident, the 3B, it had to be fitted with a booster engine for max weight take-offs. The stretched One-Eleven, the 500 series, had to resort to water-injected Speys to compete in the European charter market, but the improvement in take-off performance in the summer was marginal.

Fly by Wire was only introduced by the A 320, which program started in 1979 - and the A 300 (as well as the A 310) has a Yoke (!), not a Sidestick, which was introduced by the A 320, too. But beyond this: Yes, absolutely!👍

Actually the first airliner with Fly by Wire was the Concorde. Of course that was just an analog interface to the flight controls. The A320 was revolutionary because it introduced the digital, fully automated FBW that basically interprets the pilot's intents and does whatever necessary to execute on them. Before the A320, only the F16 and some Dassault fighters had that kind of technology.

I disagree. It's certainly in the running for it but I think the 747 being the first widebody aircraft and Boeing also having the first commercial jet aircraft with nacelles on pylons instead of inbody engines like the Comet make it tough to call this the most influential. The technology just wasn't there prior to have only 2 engines. It's a bit of luck on their side that the engines proved reliable enough to get them past that 30 minute limit. Every jet was going to be twin engine once the engines weren't shit enough to need a third in the tail just for fun.

​@@tonymorris4335 You forgot about the Sud-Aviation Caravelle before either A300 and 747. Rear-mounted but in nacelles at the end of lateral pylons, dating back to the early-mid 1950's (first flight in 1955). It was also the first commercial airliner capable of auto takeoff and autoland. Autoland performed in no visibility for the first time by an Air Inter Caravelle transporting passengers and landing at Paris Orly in January 1969. The Caravelle was also the base on which Douglas derived its DC-9, after studying the model that GE bought to develop engines.

A300 is not FBW, you are thinking of the A329.

And that's especially notable too when you recall Eastern had named the L1011 itself the "Whisperjet" -- which tbf they *were* WAY quieter than the then-common narrowbodies.

I remember stewardesses telling me that they were coming back from long hauls less fatigued when flying the A300 than other planes.

I had the pleasure to fly on an A350-900 just recently. In economy you feel the difference to a 787 or 777 I had on other legs. The live camera view during take off and landing is amazing for passengers.

what a life 🥳🤩👍🏽🛫✈️

I second that B-727, remember those cool galley's United had on 727. The oven & coolers came out with the food on every flight. Always a new galley. No drawers or broken coolers.

Hi Jean Louis At the end of Air Inter as passenger I flew once from Strasbourg to Paris in a A330. I clearly remember the sheer length of this aircraft. My friend Jacques Delfaud, a third man on Mercure then A300 told me that Mercure was highly appreciated by pilots.

One one of my best lights ever was when I was studying in Paris and going back to my home city of Marseille on a Super Caravelle (Super 12). It was the last model Air Inter flew. I could not believe how smooth the flight was and also how relatively quiet the cabin was. Flying in that airplane felt like flying a glider. I flew other aircrafts (Fokkers among others)on that Orly or Roissy-Marseille line but I never flew on the Mercure. Everyone was telling me it was a nice and comfortable plane. I was young at the time and did not know much about airplanes and flying.

So that was a real A300 with 314 seats for passengers!

In those great times, people at the controls of these wonderful companies like eastern, airbus etc, were engineers, astronauts, pilots. Or business men with great vision like Juan trippe of pan am, and also politics with a vision like Kennedy, and in general politicians from that era in Europe. People that knew how to do something beside being politics. People that had a life outside the political parties and because of that, vision and convictions. Now it’s bean counters, and professional politics. and look at the result...

@@joaodantas8530 kennedy had some beef with the british as they had got his cousin? killed on a pointless bombing test exercise in WW2 so he wanted the SST to be faster than concorde. if concorde was going to be m2.02, then the americans were going m2.7. on youtube you can find boeing engineers say that when they heard the announcement they knew the SST was doomed as m2.7 rules out aluminium.

Thank you for sharing your experience!👍

So true!!!

It's an unfair to compare apple to peach as B757 is a single aisle aircraft.

I remember being in Karachi's Jinnah Int'l airport last year and seeing the scrapyard of multiple PIA Boeing 747s and Airbus A310s while my AirSial flight was taxiing to the runway. It felt sad, but that's just how it is

fist airliner capable of Autolanding.

When I first arrived to this country in 1982 (NYC Kennedy) as a French Fulbright student, I was booked into an evening flight between Kennedy Airport and Boston Logan. It was a Delta flight and the plane was a brand new L-1011 (which was almost empty by the way.. wide-body between NYC and Boston). I absolutely LOVED that airplane and every time after I flew in it I was impressed how comfortable the plane was in all respect. Arriving to NYC, I had just flown over the Atlantic on an Air Florida DC-10 and I disliked that airplane and I still do to this day. My other despised airplane is the Boeing 757. Once back in 2009, it took us three 757s ! to cross the Atlantic (AA) from O'Hare to Paris. The scheduled plane was faulty and was grounded after hours of wait in the terminal. They eventually switched us to another 757 taken out of the hangar. That plane was not scheduled to fly and was not prepared for the flight. They had to load catering in emergency but no entertainment, nothing. Mind you, we had to change terminal to pick up that plane and that was a 20-25 minutes walk.. We finally embarked. We did not care about entertainment or food. Being 1:00 am at that time, we only wanted to sleep...... An hour and half or so into the flight - everyone was mostly asleep - the pilot came out on the PA and announced that one of the engines had a leak of some sort (I don't remember what the problem was) and needed to turn around. No way to cross the Atlantic with one faulty engine. We were just flying over Boston, and now back back to O'Hare... We spent the nigh at the airport. . The airline scheduled a special flight for the following day at 3:00 pm, which they opened up to reservations. Some of the cabin crew from the night before was still on that plane. An hour before landing I started a conversation with a flight attendant who was in the flight the night before. I mentioned about the craziness of having two airplanes with issues. She responded that even Ithe plane we were on also had a serious problem over the ocean..... I don't remember what it was, there was a question of reboot.... So three 757s to cross the ocean... Well, I was always apprehensive after that when flying on a 757 to Europe or transcontinental US!.ONe of my favorite planes to travel on to this day has been the 747....

amazing its older than i am!@@BB-xx3dv

@@jasonbender2459 HS Trident did autolanding in the mid 1960's.

There are several of the VC10 on you tube. As I am now ancient I travelled Darwin to London a few times on them and it was a superb aircraft to travel on.

My pleasure, thank you for watching!

I flew the Caravelle a few times between Paris and Marseille in the late 70s, and I really don't remember the engines to be that loud in the cabin, regardless of where I was sitting. ON the other hand, it was a loud airplane "outside".

@@patrickbotti2357 👍is what I meant. Lived near the airport it's engines are distinctive! Inside, it is quiet, especially if you sit near the front.

You beat me to it! I'd be very interested to learn about the discussions and debates that led to that. With particular reference to AF 447 (is that the right flight no?), and the views and experiences of those that fly both (or just the yoke).

I may do a video about that..!

I assume it's because airbus has switched to fly by wire.

@@canttouchthefluffThat would be an interesting topic as well. Fly by wire vs direct controls pros and cons.

@kukuc96 It’s less about FBW than it is about the control and feedback design. Boeing uses fly by wire but it also still uses yokes and the controls reflect the position of what they are controlling which Boeing felt was important tactile feedback. AF447 would not have happened to a 777 or 787. Period.

Tbf, the A220 was made by Bombardier

It flew like a fighter. I just LOVED it as a child, my mum hated it, too much thrills for her. This aircraft could fit in empty slots in an approach queue, so ATC and Air Inter loved it, even if it meant a wild ride for the passengers (which I tremendously enjoyed). I remember the cockpit asking everyone to be seated and attached over the PA. It meant we would have a bit of a roller-coaster time to take an approach slot. It was super fun, and Air Inter had fairly low prices, a kind of low-cost carrier before the LCC era. I remember the "colored fares", blue, white or red. They had super short turnover times / block to block, and some iconic uniforms. I loved Air Inter, the Mercure and the A300. This video gave me quite a nice and even emotional trip down memory lane, of when I flew a lot as a child with my long departed mum or alone as UM.

More evolutionary than revolutionary. Like the 757/767 that introduced glass cockpit, FMS, and EICAS is as if not more important (as even most general aviation aircraft have all of these features while still using mechanical controls).

The A 320-Program started in 1979 and the first A 320-100 was produced in 1987.

Many thanks! That makes me really happy to hear! 💕💕

​@@MentourNowwould you consider covering military aircraft...

Yes, indeed.

Many thanks!

Hey don't forget that pesky Cargo Door on the DC-10

​@@OceanDriveSpeederyes glad i never flew on a dc10, and the bigger md11s are a handful too

No yoke? Is a joke.

To save weight and mechanical complexity.

Having flown on the Tu154 many times, 'cool' is something I'd never call it.

The A340, especially the -600 variant still is today my favourite aircraft. So smooth and quiet. And unmatched elegance IMO. I've flown her on Etihad and Thai Airways. Alas, probably for the last time quite a few years ago.

My first ever long-haul flight (FRA - NYC) was in a rather new Lufthansa A340 in 1994. I remember it looking rather big, but not quite like a Boeing 747, which had been the most iconic long-haul plane back then. Both the A330 and A340 were developed from the fuselage of the A300/A310, and at least the A330 successfully carried on the fuel-conscious twin-engine wide body layout which would become the dominating layout almost 20 years later (to the detriment of the quad-engine A340 and A380).

I'm lucky, my flights from New Zealand to Europe (Paris) have almost all been A340's or Emirates A380's. A340's have been Etihad, Air France, Cathay Pacific. I think the A340-600 is the best looking airliner ever (A380 is a bit too fat) and I still think *proper* airliners have four engines, specially on long over-ocean flights. (Yes I know about ETOPS). And I love the 2-4-2 seating, means I can book a pair of seats, one window and one aisle - lovely, and the seats are quite comfortable. The only airliner with better seat room (in Economy) is the A380.

Thank you too! 💕💕

Minor hairsplit, the Trident was a 3-jet (hence the name); unless you're counting the APU as a fourth engine.

@@cr10001 Indeed it was a tri- jet, but additionally on the Trident 3B variant, it had a “booster” engine, thereby making it a four engined Trident ….. Trident 3B High-capacity short-medium range version of the 2E with a 16 ft 5 in (5.00 m) stretch and one additional RB.162 booster engine in the tail; 26 built 😁👍

Very cool!

@@MentourNow You're actually showing an Olympic Airways plane in the video :D

Yes, indeed. Aviation History would have taken another direction without them.

Typical UK Governments 😡

Advanced but flawed. Build with only British needs in mind. Nobody on earth needed an aircraft to fly long distances to under developed airports with a high price to boot. The DC8 and 707 where both cheaper and easier to maintain.

@@MrJimheeren Oh yeah, absolutely. That spec was entirely dictated by BOAC... who then promptly didn't buy it.

@@duncanhamilton5841 flying to New York and Miami is a lot more profitable then flying to Nairobi and Entebbe and you don’t need the VC10 for that job. So yeah it makes sense BOAC didn’t buy that many VC10s. Still a beautiful machine though

Yes, indeed.

Yes, I read a biography of the guy. One of the greatest marketers that ever lived; terrific sales skills, yes, but a Steve Jobs-like sense of what customers need before any of the customers know it themselves. Without him Airbus probably would not exist, let alone dominate.

@@kenoliver8913 Absolutely agree. He was the chap who injected vim and vigour into the company. Before him their sales ambitions were pitiful compared to what they do today, and they'd sized themselves to match their ambition. Leahy said that he could only sell 1000 aircraft if they tooled up to make 1000 (or something like that). Kind of obvious, but the sort of thing it takes a visionary to actually say. So they tooled up. And look what's happened. That Boeing failed to respond effectively mystified me. Leahy had a "market share is everything" attitude, and Boeing didn't. Boeing's problem now is that every plane they can think of developing has already got an Airbus (a very good one) covering a decent fraction of the market's needs. They can't easily sell enough to pay for the development of something new. This is a very deep trap that Leahy has set for Boeing, and it may yet prove fatal.

Glad you like them! More to come!

Yes, indeed. But the youngest one of it (D-AZMO) is only 17 years old, produced in 2006!

There's a few big differences in that Airbus does break commonality when required. And there is nothing inherently wrong with keeping a good design alive with updates. The biggest problem with the 737 is not that it is an old design, but what Boeing did with MCAS and trying to hide it to keep the costs down for airlines to get their pilots certified.

@@Hans-gb4mv I agree with you regarding how Boeing tried to hide the MCAS system issues.

@@Hans-gb4mv Agreed, but there's one other major problem specific to the 737, in that it was designed with unusually short legs (undercarriage) in the days when jet engines were skinny, and engines since then have got fatter even as they grew more efficient. This is the root cause of all the Max's woes. Almost every other type (other than the 737) doesn't suffer from this.

💕💕

Does it really matter. Most people on earth are not native English speakers and BAC just looks like well you know bak

@@MrJimheeren zats wot ebryboadi hoo knos wot thay ar tokin abote huv korld ytt fir 63 yirs, bbutt yor rittgh, ut disnit riley matre az loang az popel kun ondastan yo, ai serpoz. Way eben botha doioin zings propali, rait? Jist saii yt rong iff yo laik, ut disn riily boathr mee iff yo wonto meik er fule off yorselff.

Yeah, let's all start calling the Boeing 737 the "Bong seven hundred and thirty seven", great idea!

@@Nilguiri don’t act like a baby

I agree with you. It's the Bias in those people's mindset between Boeing and Airbus that they argue about. I have no preference between both aircraft companies but I like them both. I wouldn't treat aviation like politics and I will accept airlines buying new airplanes from either aircraft manufacturer no matter how the airplane performs and what it's capable of.

Do you just mean that it annoys you that people have a different opinion, one backed by facts.

@@peteconrad2077 You’re a prime example of the exact problem I’m talking about. I can care less about people having an opinion, the problem is people like *you* acting like your opinion is factual whereas mine is not. You’re the exact reason there’s a serious problem in the aviation community.

@@thecomedypilot5894 mine is factual, yours is not. That’s the point. This is my profession and having flown both and been a tech manager for both, I can tell you for fact that Airbus are better engineered, better designed and better built. The only reason airlines buy Boeing is that they’re cheaper and in the case of the 777 came to market at the right time.

​@@peteconrad2077 You only continue to prove my point even more. That is your *opinion.* I would have hoped that someone who actually flies these planes would have more common sense and respect for others, but I guess not. I personally think Boeing is better. You have an opinion, NOT a fact. You're a grown a** man, start acting like one.