Correct! Airbus should follow their own roadmap to improve their products. Considering tthat a NEO update could take 3+ year it wold be very clever to start now...
@@aseem7w9 most 787s are 9 abreast (95% of them) this is super uncomfortable. A350 is wider and thus 9 abreast is much more comfortable. Also a350 is quieter than 787.
@@aseem7w9 Thats my point :) 787 was initially designed for 8 abreast but most carriers opted for cramming in 9 abreast. This means most people associate the 787 as being too crampt. Whereas the a350 was designed to accommodate 9 abreast which currently most carriers use. 10 abreast a350 however does exist with some LCCs but luckily it is rare...
They should start thinking about it. Even If Boeing dies, it will only take some years for others to catch up, Airbus needs to stay ahead. Although I have to be honest, I will never fly on a Chinese aircraft. Not because it is Chinese or would be of bad quality, but because it is made by a brutal regime that needs to be stopped before it becomes too powerful. I will not support that regime more than necessary. As for Russian planes, the same applies for those.
@@ant2312 yes they are, or maybe, they used to? remind you only boeing's newer products that have heavy problems like 737max and 787 (the reason i put 787 is because boeing is moving to SC for the 787s built after this which most airline would probably decline it)
Airbus own 50% of ATR. Which mean that Airbus also got money from ATR42 and ATR72. With Bombardier Q400 out of the picture now. Airbus is squishing Boeing from Top to Bottom.
I think several airlines are interested in an A350XWBneo that uses essentially a “shrunk down” variant of the GE9X engine. Especially with the 777 replacement cycle now starting very soon.
This is a very nice video, with the A350s flying in different formations, and an interesting analysis. Interesting also why the major engine manufacturers run into problems with their super advanced engines. Isn't it all becoming too complicated?
@@chrismckellar9350 I flew on the B787 once and it was better than average. The only A350 flight I see myself getting on is a delta long haul. But delta tickets are hella more expensive than another airline’s b777 flight with the same route.
Depends on how long it will take for customers to receive their full order. IAG signed a massive order for the 737-max because of the production delays and airbus producing less a320s per month than promised. Yes an a350 neo would be the most efficient plane by far, but if you cant get it until long after you could get your full order of 777s (likely at a lower price), is it worth it?
Assuming that an A350 neo is inevitable, just how many more times does the 777x need to be delayed before the A350 neo is announced ahead of the 777x being introduced into service?
The A350 is a beautiful comfortable efficient aeroplane, it needs no hype, it sells itself and Airbus need not concern itself too much with Boeing. Boeings biggest problem is not Airbus but itself.!
To say that there will not be an A350 neo (or whatever they call it by then) is like saying that there is no longer sufficient demand for A350/777 type aircraft (as happened with the A380/747). Unless the demand for this type evaporates, it is just a matter of 'when' rather than 'will' it be produced. Who knows, we might even see a neo2 of the A330! As for the future of the 777x, it should be assured, but in market where composite fuselages seem to be the way to go - at least for new designs such as the A350 and 787, perhaps a re-engine with less extensive changes elsewhere may have been the better option to take. The current schedule is already 4 years behind, and that assumes that closer scrutiny of Boeing doesn't reveal anything requiring a significant change. While not expecting the 777x to fail, I believe that it's future is not as certain as many believe, and even though a significant upgrade, it may not be as successful as Boeing needs it to be.
Airbus probably will, at some point, announce an A350NEO, but all the talk now is just people who don't know what they're talking about sticking "NEO" on the end of an aircraft type and thinking they're clever. I mean, first flight for the A350 was less than ten years ago, they're definitely *not* going to announce a re-engined version when more than half of deliveries are still outstanding. The next new aircraft Airbus will probably announce is the replacement for the A320 family, but even that is several years away, although design work is (apparently) still ongoing. Don't expect any major aircraft announcements from Airbus until after covid is passed and the aviation industry is back to some semblance of normality. Airbus themselves don't see that happening before 2025, so we've got quite a wait. Oh, and *no* it will NOT be a "Boeing killer." Airbus don't want that, the industry doesn't want that, and the public don't want that.
This video is full of wrong information. Airbus never had an A350Neo plan themselves. Actually GE approached Airbus and offered new engines, but Airbus rejected it as they calculated that the claimed efficiency increase will not worth development costs. Note that the plan is not only re-reengining A350, but it also requires redesign of the wings as in the case of 777X.
@@hodb3906 They are connected. GE9X is bigger and more efficient than GE90, but it provides less thrust. You have to provide more lift to compensate thrust loss. This is achieved by larger wings.
@@user-yt198 Well more lift increases drag. Hence the higher AR ratios but lower sweep. However the GE9X doesn’t have less thrust. It has a lower thrust rating. It still has a higher maximum thrust and higher continuous thrust than the GE90.
It takes a lot of lead time, what they decide today will be a few years down the road before it's on factory floor. Look at Boeing and the 797, they kept waiting and putting it off until they waited too long not to lose market share.
Navgeek Avaition you got a lot wrong about the a330neo. The a330neo was never so posed to get over 500 orders as the plane was built to keep costumers like AirAsiaX and Delta. The a330-800 actually has a longer range than the 787 by the way. The a330neo was also cheap for airbus to build as all of its technology was copied from the a350 and existing a330. The a330neo program only had 2 billion in development costs compared to the 32billion with the 787.
Airbus is hoping that Qantas will be the launch customer for the A350-1000 'extended range' for Project Sunrise. Qatar is also on an A350-1000 'extended range'. With regards to a A350neo, there is still plenty of time, as Airbus is looking at 2030. RR and GE and possibility PW should be working on the next generation of GTF engines that can operate on biofuel. if Airbus does release an A350neo it will be fueled by biofuel.
Personally i think engine manufacturers have pushed the technology to the limit. Perhaps it is best that they consolidate for a few years. Airbus could work up the A350neo to have GE or RR engines just in case. After all the A330neo was originally an initial concept to save a developing a new plane, the A350. i suspect Airbus are working on the concept, but will not invest until the market improves.
A350neo would have been released as the original A350. As it stands the current Airbus 350 with it's lighter weight and lower price tag (if im not mistaken) mostly outsells the B777x in terms of orders. Neo would have been the launch plane.
Must be an old video the Genex GE engine now has most of its engine problems resolved it's a massive and fuel efficient engine new technology there are always some teething problems. There's a fair possibility the triple 7x will be the United Arab Emirates economical replacement to the A380
Zyphox I’m saying that if Airbus announced a a350neo now it could end the 777x. The 777x is actually my favorite Boeing plane but from a financial standpoint announcing an a350neo now would be the best time for Airbus to do it.
@@TysonIke it would be perfect to make A350neo with almost same characteristics as A35K but with range of over 18K KM and better efficiency and no bleed air which would be genius to finally launch SYD-LHR flights😁
you do know there won't be better, new innovation if there's no competition right? so no, competition is a great thing and all fanboys must realise that.
Or the other way round - A350NEO is spectulated as UltraFan's prime application, so if A350NEO halts, so does UltraFan. Boeing simply don't have the capacity to put forward a new aircraft yet, and even if they do, it's more likely a NMA/NSA-sized one and with GE.
@@steinwaldmadchen Airbus will not wait for Boeing. Airbus is also constantly tweaking their planes into better variants. So they will use Rolls Royce's future engine when it is available. The problem is the propose engine need many technological development so it is not even sure if Rolls Royce can implement some of this technology.
@@kazedcat They don't wait for Boeing, but for market recovery. Everyone in the industry are in survival mode, and long haul travel are expected to recover the last. Even if recovered, the market would be flooded by off-lease 77W or even 787/A350 for a few years. Plus, A321XLR and somehow A220 would take away some midhaul routes, bit by bit, regardless of post COVID19 recovery. So for now, A350NEO is probably the last thing Airbus should care. Some studies are under the water I guess, but likely launch is postponed for good.
@@steinwaldmadchen It’s the other way around actually it’s Rolls-Royce that’s killing off the new year for the moment just like they did with a 380 NE0. They simply don’t have the money to put into it right now an Airbus isn’t going to give them that money. There is no demand right now for a neo right now anyway
@@steinwaldmadchen The engine is not ready this year or in 2025. If the engine becomes ready in 2030 and add 5 years for integration development then A350 NEO is likely to be flying in 2035. That is enough time for the market to normalize and grow again.
Unless GE offer sth significantly advance of the game. GE9X is improved but not adequate over Trent XWB, and definitely doesn't put A350NEO ahead of the game. UltraFan-like leap is what Airbus needed, though RR in its current state is questionable.
Of course I bring up the A380 and I freely admit I am somewhat biased towards Boeing I'm an American I also freely admit the A380 is a fine jet but it was supposed to blow the 747 out of the sky no pun intended yeah it did not last for 20 years from a financial standpoint it was a disaster on the scale of Krakatoa. We both know there's a lot of ego in the aviation industry and part of the reason the A380 was produced was due to Ego ROM Airbus my biggest question about the whole A380 project was how in the name of all things holy did they're engineers Miss the calculations of the Incredible cost of flying that jet unless it's 99.9%. .9% of the time they had to have known the costs plus it was approximately 30 years later then the 747 which according to Boeing was almost to Big itself. It took near a decade from start to completion to build a 380 the 747 went from paper to production in about 30 months without near the computer power that has been available for the last 20 years. So you are damn right I bring up the A380 it's the white elephant in the room that I guess people don't want to talk but I am mystified by how the engineers got it wrong or what went wrong as I said it's a fine jet it's just too expensive to fly unless it's filled to capacity. I've read estimates as high as Thirty billion dollars that were involved with the R&D and start up production of the A380. I've just never heard a good explanation on how the plane miss the mark. Airbus was planning on selling at least a thousand of the A380 it didn't reach half that doubt they recovered they're huge investment I know everybody's choosing the hub-and-spoke theory didn't pan out Boeing was fortunate or lucky or whatever you want to call it did a lot of research maybe all the above but point-to-point flying became more the norrm. I also admit the 737 Max 8 is pathetic maybe the Band-Aid is good enough to do the job I don't know the 737 predecessors were very efficient and profitable Jets and I would bet money and lots of it that the triple 7X we'll end up doing the job for the United Arab Emirates that the A380 was going to do and still is to an extent it can carry 400-plus passengers and we both know twin jets are the future half the fuel roughly and a half engine maintenance when is pandemic disappears people will start flying again in large numbers.. Airbus builds some excellent Jets I never said they didn't but the A380 was going to be to Airbus what an apple is to apple pie so I will probably keep asking a question it's simple calculations on fuel usage operational costs and obviously they didn't get it right I've read 25000 to $30,000 cost per flight hour on the A380 the triple 7X is about half that and it will make an excellent freighter which is on the uprise and the A380 there again it has lots of volume but it's gross vehicle take off weight is used up by Fuel and the weight of the jet. If I have told any untruth here I apologize I did not intentionally lie about anything and all I did was present a couple facts and a question or two I never get any answer to. I'm not being sarcastic here they 380 is in some very good company the Concord pretty much failed for the same reasons it was very thirsty and required a lot of fuel and maintenance speed is expensive the ssts last crash didn't help things at all either buddy in aviation that has to happen once in awhile. And trust me I'm not the only one bringing up the quick and unfortunate demise of the A380
Boeing seems to be the leader in long haul by a a slim margin. AB is far and away the leader in SH. Thanks Bombarier! Medium haul as in Tran-con in US it’s a draw IMO.
They probably just add another engine option for customers. I don’t think it’s going to be called A350neo as it’s not more than an A350 with a second engine option just like it’s the case with most aircraft nowadays!
@@spongebubatz I'm skeptical to this. In fact, A350 is already 10 years since first flight by 2025, by then a refresh would be necessary to remain competitive, both towards 787 or a more hostile environment regarding carbon emission. GE9X is better than XWB or GENx, but inadequate by then. So if GE offer anything, it has to be better.
Lol. By the time the a220-500LR is released , boeing will have already launched A 737 replacement with ultrafan engines . The a220-500 will only destroy the a320
the 787 is NOT a direct competition against the A350 because A350 is aimed at 777 instead of 787, that's about the what airline needs, the only thing 787 wins is only at fuel burnt per seat and it's only by less than 5%! the current A350 already outclassed 787 in every way, except very slight fuel burnt per seat difference.
@@Lee247Jamaica it would make sense if you compare the a330neo with 787 currently because they serve similar markets, and while 787 outperforms A330neo especially long ranges, neo can be efficient on shorter routes, and as a bonus, less additional pilot training, meaning despite the neo is using same fuselage as old A330s instead of new jet like 787/A350, it gives a surprisingly close competition to the 787, also have you heard 787s are going to be built only at South Carolina after this? it's going to be on the decline probably
They do not need help they are doing a great job of doing that on there own. The Disaster that is both the 737 Max and 787 with all it major problems. Who would want anything from Boeing any more.
@@alaa-eldin_hamdan I wasn't praising them, my bad. I more meant American companies will always buy American. Add in the freight market, amd I don't see them going bankrupt.
What Airbus needs to do : First, a longer A220 Then a shortened A350 Then a replacement for the A320 family, but bigger, like the 757, which would slot between the biggest A220 and the smallest A350 At that moment phase out the A330 and A320 neo families, since their duties have been taken over. If this gives a sufficient influx of money, make a longer version of the A350 And Airbus will then have successfully replaced all the planes conceived before 2000 with newer, better and more efficient planes. To which Boeing cannot really answer, since they are still literally trying to get the 777X and the 737 max in the air.
NO. Airlines as a group buy models from each on purpose to keep them alive and competitive. To have only one source of airplanes would be disasterous. and expensive--and I don't think the USA would tolerate not having a viable airframer in case of war or trade battles.
G 546 the triple 7X it's going to be around for a long time it is the replacement for the 747 and the A380 in a much more economical version to operate. It's unfortunate for bowling they didn't have it flying 2 years ago like they'd hoped but once the pandemic is cleared off Airlines will be flying it alot on international flights it carries a huge passenger and cargo load and it's fuel efficiency due to the new engine and the extended wings we'll keep it in the air for a long time so few people are flying now compared to the Future I believe the triple 7x is bigger then most existing versions of the a350 and all of it versions.. Air Freight demand is sharply increasing so the triple 7X brighter version of Boeing 747 will be flying a long time just for Freight and passengers with the triple 7X. I suspect in the future Airbus will try and get a bigger piece of the Air Freight Market
what? apparently it's less than a decade! but it would be interesting to see neo version, hopefully can fly SYD-LHR so that maybe VS/BA/QF would order them to do so
