Can An A350-2000 REPLACE The Boeing 747?

[@charlesberis1235]

Airbus could announce the official launch of the A350-2000 tomorrow and still get it certified before the Boeing 777X.

[@FA18ESuperHornet]

Can’t argue with that

[@fjp3305]

That's not too difficult

[@edwardcasper5231]

The 747 has been discontinued, and the A380 didn't sell very well. This raises the question: How much of a need is there for a 747 replacement?

[@Lumixx46]

There is need for capacity. However in an efficient way.

[@fjp3305]

The problem with those two was too many engines

[@liambengif7663]

A lot. the 777 replaced the 747-400 and rapidly became the most sold widebody airplane ever made.

[@edwardcasper5231]

@@liambengif7663 That's not completely true. The 777 doesn't have nearly the capacity the 747 did. The 777-9, the true replacement for the 747 capacity wise, is stalled - **Maybe** because a true 747 replacement capacity wise, isn't really needed for the way most airlines operate nowadays.

[@fjp3305]

I would love to see a twin engine B-747.

[@mumar100]

For 6 month no news about the 777X thrust link, Airbus is not in a hurry ....

[@smoketinytom]

Does that indicate it's a redesign of the component/surrounding area or simply manufacturing defects the first time around?

[@jantjarks7946]

It might be that even the wing section would require redesigning. But that's just a guess.

[@mumar100]

@@smoketinytom most likely a construction flaw , 4 planes with 16 thrust links were in the air for certification and 10+ of the thrust links were broken after a few dozen / hundred flight hours

[@fjp3305]

No news is good news

[@smoketinytom]

@ Tell the customers that…

[@Psychofrog395]

Off course ! Quality 👏👍👍

[@NzePriddie]

Sir 5 minutes of rambling and not getting to the point and staying on Topic. No in-depth info not even seating capacity or flight range .

[@frankiexv4533]

He regularly regurgitates the same videos with no real substance. Just posting to get likes and views 💸

[@kkrsnn5632]

So make your own channel and kets see how you ramble mumble for 5 minutes😂

[@Andrew-iv5dq]

Was thinking the same thing. Coby ExPlanes is much better. And Mentour Pilot and Mentour Now are both great!

[@johnsymmons]

Why do you keep banging on about the A350-2000. You have already covered twice in the past 2 months!

[@luigifranceschi2350]

I think that an A350 -2000 would give an extra edge for Airbus on Boeing since the plane would have the same certification of the A350-900 and 1000. So the same pilots could switch in the 3 planes. That would make it simpler for airline to choose the smaller A350 knowing that if they needed they could easily get a larger version using the same pilots and maintenance crews. That would be a real edge on the 777X that has a smaller version a still much larger plane compared to the smallest A350.

[@NeilMacedo]

Happy New Year DJ

[@johnburns6422]

Nothing will replace the Queen of the Sky best known as the JUMBO.

[@Face2face2024]

Nothing could replace the Super-Jumbo A380 😊

[@frutdafruit]

the 777-9 is capable of replacing the 747-400 both in capacity and range

[@KlausErmecke]

@@frutdafruit Interesting! Is it flying already? I mean: in customer service?

[@frutdafruit]

@@KlausErmecke No, and I hope Boeing gets their stuff together before their next project

[@747forever9]

Thanks for this one Dj!!

[@kenoliver8913]

A stretch usually increases capacity while reducing range. While a highly stretched 350 might find a market (dense medium length routes with constrained slots) it will not be that of the 747/380 or even the 777 - ie longhaul hub-and-spoke.

[@richjames2540]

In a word, no. Flying up the front on a 747 is just one of life’s amazing experiences. I await the supposed 747 Twin Boeing have talked about. Flown the A350 and the 380 as well as B777. They are good flights but not experiences. Looking forward to Boom going into service.

[@crazenby1]

NOTHING cane ever replace the 747!!!.

[@geoffreyhui830]

As engines become more reliable, more economical, and lighter, the questions is how large and rangy can you design a twin engined aircraft?

[@kevinj2412]

It may replace it for hauling passengers, but not for large cargo items.

[@finleyfendt3750]

Just build more and more 737MAXs. That will do it. So sad. 🥵🥵🥵

[@tdkleffman]

Not sure they could do a 2000 variant? It'd be so long it couldn't flare much during landing/takeoff or there'd be a tailstrike. Wider/shorter fuselage needed to bring this to fruition.

[@t8polestarcyan22]

That's why I suggest an all new A360 - similar fuselage diameter of Boeing 777s.

[@craigbeatty8565]

777 has a capacity of 391 to 426. A-350-1000, 315-369. Why would a larger aircraft be needed after the failure of the A-380?

[@jl-7992]

Two engine vs 4!

[@Kveiteson]

A351 already has a capacity of 350 - 410 seats. A larger variant could be a bigger competition for the larger 777X if it would be developed one day

[@frutdafruit]

@@Kveiteson Am pretty sure the ICAO code for the A350-1000 is A35K, not A351

[@Kveiteson]

@@frutdafruit well done mate, hope you feel better after this comment 🥱

[@1lyxbollyvykn714]

Airbus should work on making -900 anf -1000 using the same engine. This will increase commonality, since currently buying the 900 and 1000 means each variant has difference maintenance requirements

[@Sacto1654]

A reason why the A350-2000 got shelved: airlines determined the plane in the 777-300ER or A350-1000 size was the most optimal for a balance between long range and right-sized carrying capacity. That's why many airlines are starting to line up to buy the A350-1000 to replace the 777-300ER over the next ten years. Indeed, that's why I think United is still seriously looking at buying the A350-1000 for its highest-capacity long-range flights, and a number of European airlines are doing the same (I wouldn't be surprised that Air France is looking at an A350-1000 order for its highest capacity routes like Paris-CDG to many north American destinations).

[@kkrsnn5632]

We need an MD-11 superstretch with 15000NM range 😎😎😎

[@neilpickup237]

While there may be a market for a further stretch to the A350, are the current engines up to the task? Given that we are already a decade in, and the engines fitted to the dash 1000 are not performing as well as they need to do, is pushing them even further a good idea? Is it possible that the RR Trent has reached its limit? We know that new engines are around the corner from RR, and, if it will fit, would GE be interested in fitting a variant of their latest engine to an A350? It certainly has the power to cope. If we ever see a further stretch to the A350, I suspect that it will not be announced before an A350neo is.

[@hestonmarshall3926]

I think the a350-2000 freighter would have been a big seller for cargo airlines

[@meckerhesseausfrankfurt4019]

It would run into the same problem with cargo operators as the A380: Lots of floor space, but not necessarily more lifting capacity than smaller airframes (747F on the one hand and 777F / A350F on the other hand). There are only so many cargo firms that need aircraft for light but voluminous cargo.

[@fjp3305]

And how long would that plane be?

[@meckerhesseausfrankfurt4019]

An A350-2000 executed as a simple stretch (i.e. same wing, modestly uprated engines) would probably offer slightly less range than the -1000 and would certainly not be able to carry more cargo in its hold bays. That makes it ideal for slot-restricted routes relying on passenger revenue (I imagine LHR-JFK). On other routes, where airlines offset their sometimes half-empty cabins by cramming high-value freight into the hold (think microelectronics on routes like ICN-FRA), that stretch would not be popular, as it would not offer significantly higher earnings potential than the existing shorter variants. An A350-2000 woud only be popular in a certain niche.

[@KlausErmecke]

We certainly agree that we discuss a highly speculative issue today Having said that we can assume that a model variant with a longer fuselage would also have two (front and aft) larger cargo holds than the origin variant (i.e. the -1000) and thus offer more cargo VOLUME. The rest is a matter of design optimization: Airbus could go for cargo WEIGHT increase on the expense of PAX and fuel (range) But so far that is all hypothetical.

[@liambengif7663]

We have a 747 replacement .. its called the 777-300er . 🤣🤣. It even has these crazy advanced engines that can produce enough thrust to fly an a530-2000 if it was ever made lol.

[@formediaamy]

By the increasing technological advancements plane makers should work with the engine makers to develop 2 engine options for planes like A380 or 747. A350 series would never reach such level like 747 or A380. Increasing air travellers year by year will ultimately bring the demands for such aircrafts.

[@hotelgulf]

Lack of images of the proposed -2000 made this report one big snooze. 😢

[@ricky1231]

The market for over 400 passenger capacity airframes is too nitch and small. Those airlines who have ordered the 777-9 won’t be switching to the A350-2000. Airbus would lose money on it. Rolls Royce doesn’t have an engine for it besides

[@nntflow7058]

That is not true at all, Apart from ANA, all airlines that order B777X are actually operate A350 at the moment. This would just make it easier! Keeping B777X in their fleet when they already operate smaller A350-900 and A350-1000 makes A350-2000 more palatable.

[@jonathanscott550]

No I don't think A350-2000 is needed as the A350-900/1000 serves their purposes. And with just the extra 40 passenger capacity it's not really worth the extra cost for the airlines to take on.

[@jl-7992]

Emirates think differently

[@frutdafruit]

@@jl-7992 those are the same people that won't order the A350-1000

[@johnwoodall3791]

Just a Word which has some Airlines asking ETOPS and it's limitations to Twin Engined Jets will it gain any Further Concession for Airlines Operating Routes, With Far More Advanced Turbofans with More Power whilst using Less Fuel and with Greatest Sustainability as well have we really seen the Last of the Four Engined Planes due to ETOPS and Sustainability and Ultra Ranged. Regards.

[@t8polestarcyan22]

"Can an A350-2000 replace The Boeing 747?" The answer is yes - If A340s could replace Boeing 747s so too can A350s. And the answer is also a no - If demands for A350-1000s is a struggle then I don't see what the point mentioning -2000s but hey only time will tell. My personal suggestion is instead of stretching the A350, I'd say going for an all new A360 with a similar fuselage diameter of Boeing 777s but then that most likely unfeasible. Surely the A350-1000 is already a long plane. Wouldn't there be higher risk of tail-strike of a "2000"?

[@smoketinytom]

If they're gonna go for a 747 replacement the size of a 777X or larger, they might as well wait for the Ultra Fan Engine Family and build around the newer efficient engines and higher power output that could be delivered alongside another composite airframe, lighter for the size and more comfortable for passengers.

[@KevonHolder-t5l]

The a350-2000 can happen all they have to do is the ultra fan the new engine

[@kendalldad]

It already has. The A350 is the new queen of the skies.

[@ftxaviation]

Never will be the Queen of the skies since it's not like a 747 nor is it as majestic but it certainly is the 747 replacement for airlines.

[@LCRAVIAT1ON]

⁠@@ftxaviationIt's more majestic but the 747 is more iconic

[@ftxaviation]

@@LCRAVIAT1ON I would have to disagree on the majestic part, I'm not a massive fan of the nose and the generic twin engine widebody design but the 747 certainly is way more iconic.

[@LCRAVIAT1ON]

@ I respect you

[@kendalldad]

@@ftxaviation Indeed, the new Queen as the 747's days are over.

[@sxair2285]

This wordy video could be condensed to 2 minutes.

[@monsieurstrolland8555]

Use your logic people! the range would be short, engines needs to be redesigned, past a certain length it not economic viable anymore, rather Airbus would need to come up with a clean new sheet to design a new plane , also people are poorer , the peak of travelling has already been attained, number of flyer can slightly increase but its not like we are 20 billions either...

[@syedputra5955]

No engine available for a350-2000

[@craigbeatty8565]

Have you told RR? They have the Trent XWB-97.

[@bigflippinmac]

Rolls-Royce has one in testing

[@jl-7992]

​@craigbeatty8565 Can't get anymore thrust from it

[@chiad25]

​@@jl-7992 I trust that they will 🙂

[@liambengif7663]

We have the GE9X and the GE90, both are being used on the airplane airbus wish they made though. The a350-2000 would be a market failure as the remaining 777-300ers would outsell it.

[@bobbush5339]

Airbus is safe Boing has landing system problem. Boeing 1 out of 10 does not land normal. Being Avionics Engineer I can explain the problem or anyone working in Boeing factory.

[@mh12-47]

The A350-2000 will just be another A340-600, a stretch too far and too long

[@stevenholt1867]

More could have been mentioned about the offerings from Boeing such as the 777X. Greater economy greater payload.

[@eduardodaquiljr9637]

It can't replace,747 is a lion of the air transport.

[@Shyobe]

In cargo

[@SaskPlaneSpotter]

747😎💪❤️

[@chiad25]

More like an extinct Saber tooth tiger 🙃

[@paulreynolds7000]

The A350-1000 is plenty big already with some like French Bee having over 400 passengers, no one needs 500.

[@isdrakens]

A 350 extended or stretched would need to make it wider and also extended length on the wings to make it efficient. New engines. So an A350-2000 NEO XLR? If I may pull a future tell, the Boeing 777X will fail out before or around launch. Boeing will have to do a total rebuild of the wing structure and mounts for engines because of the sheer size.

[@nel1962]

Answer. No.

[@petesteirer]

Why not make an A350 1500? Or even worse, an A350 4000, with 100 more seats, half a mile long, and easy to make?

[@lawrencecoleman3431]

Looking forward to the day when sustainability garbage sunsets and we speak sensibly!

[@liambengif7663]

then go on, make fuel cheap again .

[@nhall00195]

3rd