Mega Comparison of Boeing 777x vs A350-1000 Aircraft

[@johnathonearle4976]

I flew the A350 to Paris from Montreal and Paris to Mauritus. The plane is comfortable and very quiet. It handled well in heavy turbulence over ethiopia.

[@symew]

Very smooth flight indeed 350-1000

[@dreadscott533]

B-777X and A350 are both outstanding aircraft. Your presentation not so much. Your comparisons are misleading and dishonest; you should be comparing the A350-1000 to the B-777-8, not the dash 9. I could go further but I feel like I’m responding to a Bot which would be a waste of time.

[@razorgamer226]

Yea

[@Nissih_Yabanga]

Damn i was just about to start watching the video

[@wickster79]

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.

[@thehighlander959]

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

[@erastusnjoki2404]

They are incorrect on many specs on 777x 9

[@internationalsolartech]

I just returned from a 2 week trip to India and made a point to find flights that included the 350-1000 as the chosen equipment... On Qatar Airways, their 350-1000's are equipped with QSuites in the Business class cabin...Other than the sheer luxury, these new planes with their RR engines are amazingly quiet... A truly wonderful plane to fly internationally...

[@JetlineMarvel]

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

[@JetlineMarvel]

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

[@Tpr_1808]

​@@JetlineMarvelWell they're buddies again

[@WillGallagher1]

Love the a350 - just flew AirFrance from Chicago to Paris and it was one of the most comfortable jets I’ve been on!

[@kaclni2004]

I flew in the A350-1000 with british airways,i'ts majestic in the air,i look forward to fly on the majestic 777x,i believe they'r both two beautiful aircraft's of the modern technology!

[@olivernaufal]

The A350 is by far the quietest and most comfortable plane I’ve been on.

[@CodPix]

for comfort, it depends of the airline

[@shonix123]

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

[@Aviciiz]

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

[@CodPix]

@@shonix123 it depends of turbulence

[@somdattsable5540]

Becoz b777 has two Giant GE engines

[@nickysabai]

The composite materials used in the A350 give it a much better weight to performance ratio which also equates to lower running costs. That makes it the best choice overall.

[@prasenjittripura4691]

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

[@arielleblond6201]

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.

[@planeup__3049]

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.

[@otmarvasatko5888]

@@planeup__3049 absolutely accurate explanation of all the differences

[@kwwong2013]

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

[@johnspiron6197]

I rode a 350-900 from Rome to Atlanta. Flew very well, despite the two storms we hit over the Atlantic.

[@TheGecko213]

because it can flap its wings 😂

[@Greatdome99]

6:11: CFD = Computational Fluid Dynamics. Airbus is not the only airframer to use this. Everybody does.

[@tjr4459]

As a 777 fan regrettably I must admit the A350 has the edge. That range is amazing and very fuel efficient.

[@jacobzimmermann59]

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.

[@boatlover1875]

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.

[@jacobzimmermann59]

@@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;.

[@danharold3087]

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

[@jacobzimmermann59]

@@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.

[@uchedike9213]

Some of your facts are incorrect. Eg the 777x seat more passengers than the a35k. Please ensure your facts are right before coming on KZbin. Just a piece of advice

[@JetlineMarvel]

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

[@andrewkenobi9486]

@@JetlineMarvel exactly

[@uchedike9213]

@@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

[@phillipparrish5577]

Airbus fanboy facts??

[@stradivarioushardhiantz5179]

@@uchedike9213 FrenchBee A35K; 480 seat

[@Glen.Danielsen]

_Both_ aircraft: Wow! 💛💛

[@davidcole333]

They're both outstanding and when there is competition the consumer wins.

[@chieunguyen5805]

Definitely Airbus 350, cheaper, more efficient in terms of fuel consumption, quieter, more seats

[@kinyorojohn4759]

A350 wins in fuel effieciency and its long range,which to me is a big plus.

[@yeaminchowdhury.3440]

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

[@widget787]

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.

[@prasenjittripura4691]

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

[@chasetemple3129]

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

[@yeaminchowdhury.3440]

@@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

[@opalrx7]

As a passenger, i would choose the A359/35x (less fuel burn might reduce the price tag ;) ), as i like planes, i like both of them :) I flew 359 twice, but 789, 77x not yet achieved.

[@Eigil_Skovgaard]

The A350 is also great to look at. The comfort is in top.

[@larryweiss7170]

Of course I, as an American, would like to see the Boeing outsell the airbus. However, If I ran an airline, I would have to choose the more efficient, less costly airbus. what a shame.

[@6ixHockeyLife]

Well it's quite simple, the airbus, cost less, can carry up to 480 passengers and can fly further. What else is there to ponder.

[@prasannakurukuladithya7630]

There should be always competition without monopoly.The more players are in any segment the better the innovation to outcompete the other.

[@bakgatfromgb]

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

[@AirKristi]

For me it’s both. But price A350-1000 is far cheaper than 777X and A350-1000 can fly farrer.

[@NordicUrs]

The 737 max screw up, the tech problems in general, the questionable ethics of Boeing makes me always feel safer in an Airbus jet.

[@Jack-Fleming]

compared to the A350 the 777 is a dinosaur, using more fuel, making more noise, lesser passenger capacity, extend deliveries and bad managing. who cares if a wingtip can be folded.

[@64mkb]

How is it that the bigger 777-9 has a smaller seating capacity than the 350-1000? 🤔

[@jasiralishaikh5929]

777x look cool and A350 look beautiful because of the curved Sharklets

[@ryantan9275]

Fair comparison should be 777-8 vs A350-1000 And also 480 seats for the A350 is the theoretical exit limits. It should be compared to the emergency exit limits of 777 as well.

[@jacobzimmermann59]

I though the 777-8 project had been dropped?

[@jacobzimmermann59]

@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.

[@hodb3906]

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.

[@hodb3906]

@@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.

[@Hotfroglady]

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

[@Flies2FLL]

"tones"? I think this was an infomercial for Airbus, not a comparison.

[@waldoinaz]

Why do these moronic comparison videos always manage to fail to disclose maintenance costs? After calling the A380 the most amazing, capable and fuel efficient aircraft EVER, the A380's are filling up the boneyards much faster than their buyer's would have ever expected. Why? The maintenance costs are killing them. Airbus can't even find anyone to lease the damn things.

[@anwarozr82]

4:34 Most interesting Fact aboug A350 ...it has less fuel tank capacity, but its Range is above 16000 km

[@PKarri]

I go for A350 as it is good value for moneyed& fuel efficient. Perhaps they can make small improvements, it will make superior in many aspects among the commercial air crafts.

[@astroboy4653]

Yes sir

[@simonkue]

1:13 A350-1000 Max Cap at 480, you mean for dwarfs right..?

[@RickinHKG]

A few dubious number comparisons in this video

[@TheGersh18]

There is still consideration by Boeing to produce the 777X-10, which will likely increase range and seating capacity.

[@rscott2247]

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 ?

[@gordonblues843]

Tones, absolute genius. Great to know I'm really listening to an expert here.

[@DavidTurner-r1k]

350 looks like the winner here.

[@planeup__3049]

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.

[@aseem7w9]

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.

[@planeup__3049]

@@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

[@aseem7w9]

@@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.

[@maxsaviation9512]

A Boeing aircraft comfortable? Almost impossible!

[@jorgeo4164]

I love the 777, however, sadly, the A350 beats it on pretty much every category. The 777 is unfortunately a complete failure in comparison to the A350. I can't believe Boing allowed this to happen. Someone should lose their job for this epic failure.

[@GeneralHAWXX]

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.

[@jorgeo4164]

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

[@arielleblond6201]

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

[@remeyrune6009]

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

[@muhammedareeb9821]

since when was the a350-1000 able to seat 480 pax? and the much larger 777-9 only 426 in comparison? you've gone nuts!

[@arielleblond6201]

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

[@suspense_comix3237]

I think the A350 is better, I may be biased, but I think Airbus is better than Boeing, mainly because their cabins are slightly bigger than Boeing.

[@jcaam8094]

A 350 is the best aircraft? does that include the peeling paint category?

[@mwat22]

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

[@jcaam8094]

@@mwat22 787 is crap also

[@herceg6772]

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

[@stayminty2682]

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

[@stayminty2682]

Plus A350 can fly longer flights than the 787

[@aseem7w9]

The top 5 largest A350 customers having 777X on order should tell how just how good the 777X is even with the existence of A350. The A350-1000 also has half the orders of 777X with a negative order book since 2019 whereas Singapore ordered 11 777-9 in 2021.

[@mwat22]

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.

[@aseem7w9]

@@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.

[@mwat22]

@@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?

[@aseem7w9]

@@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.

[@mwat22]

@@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???

[@Yildirim.T]

The A350 flies the longest and quietest, consumes less fuel and is cheaper than its competition and tried. So the winner is clearly the A350 ..

[@user-hg6ci2oe9f]

Both have advantage over the other. Hard to tell the better one. ❤

[@patrickpeters2903]

I'm wondering if Boeing didn't see the wide-body market bigger than the reality. Especially after the pandemic. The cargo version will be popular. But the big challenge for Boeing is the profitability of the project. Neither the B737 MAX nor the B787 are money makers. Because of the quality and design issues. Despite high sales of both planes. Airbus is already making money of each A350. And the future cargo version starts to be a real and credible challenger. While the A220 and A320/321 NEO are eating up the single aisle orders......

[@guillaumedupont7565]

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

[@arielleblond6201]

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

[@altavelmcnamara]

@@guillaumedupont7565 Airbus is crushing Boeing.

[@pvp64]

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

[@guillaumedupont7565]

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

[@papillonal08]

I have flown on both planes with KLM (777) and Delta Airlines (A350), I must say it is rather difficult to say which one is better because both planes were equally comfortable. However, I must admit that A350 is a quieter plane and my journey from Los Angeles to Sydney Australia was very comfortable and not tiring at all despite the 14 hour flight, whereas my flight on 777 from Paris, via Amsterdam to Washington DC felt a bit cramped and noticeably louder.

[@sidhusharma1513]

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

[@papillonal08]

@@sidhusharma1513 good point

[@Blockthecreeper]

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

[@AndreW-qj9yc]

@@Blockthecreeper It's even a bit overperforming

[@astroboy4653]

blud 777x has not released.

[@rel6438]

Please get your facts together. Please just get your information and facts correct

[@mwat22]

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

[@_MOORE_1986]

@@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.

[@farsadtv8910]

I see here a huge misinformation , how come a350-1000 has less width and length than 777x but has 54 more seats ??? This is absolutely incorrect . A3050-1000 has 350-410 passenger capacity .

[@widget787]

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.

[@StopMediaFakery]

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

[@widget787]

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

[@keithbloomfield8112]

What are these "tones" of which you speak?

[@reneprosianos3469]

The Airbus A350-1000 is certified, flying, proven and already earning money for Airbus and also earning money to all airlines operating the aircraft. Whereas the 777X is not certified, long delayed, soooooo long delayed, almost a decade since it was launched and will be more than a decade in 2025 ? EIS????? Further delays are expected with all the certification issues and order cancellations are expected too. The A350-1000 is the true winner with its comfort, range, quietness, cfrp, fuel efficiency. Qantas and Air India made the right decision to acquire this state-of-the-art, fly-by-wire FBW aircraft.

[@guillaumedupont7565]

+10000 i agree !!...All the rest about virtual 777X ; Bullshits !!!...

[@planestrainsdogsncars4336]

The 777x capacity appears to be marginally better than the Airbus ...However for the price of a 777x you could buy an A350 PLUS an A220 ..and run 2 airlines .

[@planestrainsdogsncars4336]

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

[@easydrive3662]

The b777 overall is just slightly larger but not by much. I've always been a fan of the more beefier looking 777 as the a350 is more slender looking esp around the tail area of which its tail looks quite abit smaller, the 777 is more in proportion. There both fantastic aircraft but the 777 looks abit more old school like a 767 or a330 so for me the winner is the b777!

[@iamra_n3189]

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.

[@easydrive3662]

@@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

[@leonnicholls4008]

A350 100XWB B.A beats the shit out of the rest. Looks better and far better than it’s nearest rival yet to enter service.

[@mikkel7876]

Not to mention the A350´s lack of trimtanks = Center of Gravity issues = less cargo carried.

[@oscarhuartamendia6671]

The Airbus a350-1000 is a magnificent plane, its flight is calm and has a low noise level, good comfort for passengers, technologically very modern. All this has been proven for quite some time where passengers have verified it. The Boeing plane, the 777x, does not have a date to start flying, how can we compare two planes where one of them has not yet traveled any passengers, anywhere. Simple conclusion, the best plane at the moment is the Airbus A350-1000.

[@krishmenon1321]

Once you fly in a 787, especially window seat, you get hooked on to its huge windows!... far bigger than the 350s.

[@explorelondon3695]

I like the Airbus A340 better than the Boeing 77. Is the better plane, no?. With the big engines, four of them is bigger than the Boeing. Airbus best

[@6733hbr1]

@@explorelondon3695 4 engines burn more fuel than 2. They won't be around for long.

[@explorelondon3695]

@@6733hbr1 Thanks 777, am surprised it took a month for a reply, I was expecting s lot of Airbus Vs Boeing stuff but you are kind enough to offer an explanation instead of an insult like most do on this site. Best wishes and regards🙏.

[@bakgatfromgb]

@@6733hbr1 Yes indeed but the 2 engines are nearly twice the size of the 4 engines . So how much more fuel efficient they are in comparison would be very interesting

[@6733hbr1]

@@bakgatfromgb Just maintaining 4 engines is more expensive than two. The four engines burn much more fuel than two but I don't know the numbers off hand.

[@Stjepan105]

What is this tones measure? How many kg in one tone?

[@empatil9335]

I’m partial to Boeing but the 350 is super quiet. Best plane to fly in

[@gordonblues843]

A350 shorter and narrower but has higher capacity. I have questions about legroom...

[@monnidesmonnides8554]

Obviously this video was put together by Airbus or an Airbus supplier or fan, they are comparing apples with oranges there are more specs or variables than those described in the video. the video make sure that these variables are not reviewed

[@Bl0ckHe1d]

When talking about fuel and weight, what is a “tones”?

[@louismeinert9348]

Use all economy seating when comparing the seating capacity. There are just too many variables

[@NetWit20]

This nose up angle is perfectly safe. The wings still have plenty of lift or the aircraft would drop like a rock. The pilot knows this and is a real pro. The first public demo of a 707 back in the mid-fifties was more hair raising. The pilot executive a complete barrel roll. True, he may have had a lot more altitude, but that was pretty gut wrenching to watch nevertheless.

[@gamingafterschool6194]

777-9 is expensive larger and more powerful engine on the other hand Airbus A350-1000 is smaller, cheaper but can carry more passengers and even more fuel efficient so A350 is better in terms of range. I’m a boing fan but really need to say this

[@yathindrak1295]

I flew on a Airbus 350-900 from Boston to Doha. The experience was great and the aircraft is roomy and comfortable and the noise was lesser than that of the long haul Boeing airplanes.

[@AliefCJ]

Seems you haven't been on Boeing Dreamliner

[@siyalizwabudaza4652]

So this means 777x carries more fuel than the A350 bt yet fly less range🤔

[@siyalizwabudaza4652]

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

[@baadnewz017]

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.

[@siyalizwabudaza4652]

@@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

[@baadnewz017]

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

[@siyalizwabudaza4652]

@@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

[@Skippers.86]

I'd still take the A350. Makes no sense to carry more cargo and fuel, less pax but not be able to match the A350 flight distance. And then there's the cost of the 777x at over 400mil per unit... I'll stick to the A350 then. It's been tried and tested. The 777x is currently delayed too.

[@Flies2FLL]

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

[@iLoveBoysandBerries]

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

[@Flies2FLL]

@@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.

[@garthwright6308]

Someone's finally making sense 😁👋👋👋👋

[@stevebeckerman4214]

It’s cargo in the hold that makes money.

[@rogersyin]

In order to fit a 350-1000 480 seats, It must be a 3-4-3 configuration. It must be extremely uncomfortable. Such configuration is already bad enough on the 777s ,and the 777 has wider cabin., would you fly these high density 350s 16100 KM?

[@larryblanks6765]

Nope!

[@avalons343]

The smaller plane has a higher max seating capacity? How was this achieved?

[@Supahemz]

From my experiences so far of the A350, it's the best aircraft I've flown! So spacious, comfortable, modern and easy to breathe inside. I didn't feel as jet lagged as I normally would. I also love the large windows. The 777X will have a lot to compete with!

[@themastercorpse]

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

[@NotchNate]

My consumer confidence is in Airbus given Boeings track record lately with quality issues on the 787, and the Max. Waiting to see if the 777 is safe before I step foot on it.

[@edau69]

Boeing 777x has more cargo capacity and its technology follows B787 the Airbus 350 still uses bleed air for engine starts and pressurization not like the B 787 don't know much about the B777x. Have flown on Airbus 350 and B787, prefer the B787. The B787 is primarily an electrical aircraft where it is used for brakes, pressurization, anti icing, engine starts, where the Airbus 350 is still using conventional technology for bleed air and engine starts.

[@DanielCordey]

Despite being a more recent plane, the 777 is still unable to match the fuel efficiency of the A350; which translates to a 20% advantage in flight range... and this is the killing factor !

[@bijoylaha7245]

My favorite a350 airbus plan

[@guillermo_hoyos.]

Pero el Airbus A-350-1000, ya está operativo en Qatar airlines, y el Boeing B-777-X, no tiene la certificacion de vuelo de la FAA.

[@oliverlockhart5047]

I like A350 and 789 so far but really looking forward to see 777-9 planes fly in the air soon.

[@guillaumedupont7565]

2025...

[@arielleblond6201]

In your dreams for sure...

[@KingShadStarSeed9]

I just love 777....its my favorite model of all

[@kendellmoraldo9220]

The Boeing 777-300ER range is 13,650 km. so what you are saying is the NEW JET WILL FLY SHORTER?? Even tho they say it has "more range" "less fuel" Your video is a false. You are using the 300er vs. The a350-1000. Your passenger numbers are off also. For example air Canada Flys 450 passengers in the 777. No airline Flys 490 passengers in any of the 3 class configuration. That's the a380. What a bias video. The GE90 motors beat the trent motor by a mile! They have better fuel range and a high cursing speed. What a false video

[@9255cris]

I flew the A350-900 by Thai Airways BKK-DPS return, this is the best flight ! A350 is a masterpiece of technology, Engines so quiet, absolutly amazing plane ! 2nd is definitively A380 !!!!!

[@fahadsaeed6726]

Saudi Arabia has recently requested a large order of Dreamliner 787 aircraft. Was the Saudi government's choice successful instead of the Airbus 350?

[@daile6030]

The A350-1000 is smaller than the 777-9, you should compare it with the smaller 777-8

[@mwat22]

Haha 😂 it fairs even worse in terms of capacity so what's your point here?

[@jdf1stats]

You need to get your facts straight. It's not called the triple X, it doesn't have the latest technology in terms of construction (777 first flew in 1994) and maximum seating according to boeing is 568 (far more than the A350) typical 2-class seating for the 7779x is 426. Both planes are options for long and heavy routes, but in terms of comparing them in automotive terms... 777x is a GT500, Big heavy & powerful, while the A350 is a Tesla, spacious modern and efficient. Don't get me wrong, I love big old planes, but nothing touches the Queen of the skies. 😉

[@bob38161]

How does the a350 have a larger seat capacity with smaller dimensions?

[@markmudgett7579]

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.

[@fastscpinc.5594]

Present management is solely pursuing lowest possible cost of production. They have abandoned manufacturing quality and engineering competence. Existing airline customers have been unwilling to accept planes build at Boeing’s South Carolina plant due to poor quality of production. So now Boeing is transferring all of its production to this plant. Sales 101 - make the customer happy. Now is that making the customer happy; not at all! The lithium batteries on the 787 that caused fires, was an engineering failure beyond belief. My next-door neighbour, high school education, building remote control planes at the time of the 787 fires, knew more about lithium batteries and fire potential than Boeing did! That is truly revealing of Boeing’s engineering incompetence. As a retired safety engineer, the reliance on a “known to be unreliable” sensory, is monstrously incompetent. On the 737 Max, the software control system (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS)) that worked in the background (hidden from the pilots) depended on the angle of attack sensor on the outside of the plane. This sensory is known to be unreliable. Fundamental safety engineering rules state that such an unreliable sensor should never input to an online controlling software system. As a retired professional engineer, this negligence is not just unprofessional or due to incompetence - it is criminal. People died due to this incomprehensible engineering incompetence. Management was not paying attention; they were off cutting costs, or whatever.

[@rochditidjani]

Why are comparing the B 777X to A 350? The Airbus made of more than 50% of composite material was a response the B 787 which is made of 50% composite material. The B 777X was designed to respond to airlines looking for an economical alternative to replace there expensive 4 engines planes like the Airbus 380 and B 747-800.

[@bigtaxrefund]

the 350 is a hot seller. lighter, more passenger capacity and greater range. great sales pitch for airlines

[@widget787]

The A350-1000 is a poor seller. The 777-9 has its advantages over the A350-1000, also it can seat more passengers.

[@monunyabidness5949]

@@widget787 Has a single 777X actually flown a commercial flight? Until they do, lets hold off on crowning it king.

[@widget787]

@@monunyabidness5949 still the A350-1000 is a poor seller.

[@mursaleenbhatt]

I think airlines would prefer A350 1000 more than 777x because of less fuel burn and more range and more seats

[@aseem7w9]

A350-1000 seats even less than 777-300, it's no comparison for 777X.

[@LShaver947]

@@aseem7w9 agreed, it is still an amazing aircraft though. But Airbus should focus on the -900 to compete with the 787-9 and -10

[@mwat22]

BINGO!!, Money is still the bottom line here.

[@mwat22]

@@aseem7w9 has a poor fuel burn compared to the A350 so that negates it.

[@aseem7w9]

@@mwat22 777-300ER first flew like 17 years ago so of course it will have a poorer fuel burn. It's around 10-15% less efficient than A350-1000 in a typical configuration. For the 777X, Lufthansa who is among the largest 350 operators said 777-9 and A350 burn a similar amount of fuel per seat so neither the 777x nor the a350-1000 has any fuel burn advantage. The extra size with similar efficiency is what's giving 777-9 the advantage hence it has double the orders of A350-1000. Airbus should just focus on their medium sized successful wide body A350-900 instead of bringing another failure to the large wide body market after the A340-600 and A380.

[@bladerower9209]

Clearly Boeing have not learnt from its 737 fiasco. Retrofitting an old airframe with a few improvements. A bit like a car manufacturer retrofitting a EV by removing the engine and plonking some batteries somewhere which was never the intent. Where is the Airbus is a new design from the ground up. And they say the 777 is a 21st jet...don't make me laugh! 🤣

[@cpcattin]

Laugh if you want. Boeing’s 100 plus years of continuous manufacturing record speaks for itself. If you think the new 777 model is a few improvements on a retrofit, you have no connection to the aviation industry. The new model 777 is transformational.

[@toemblem]

I think it is an error to give Airbus the advantage on wing design. If you are going to straight up rip off a Simply Flying article, you should fully read it and understand it.

[@leiladaquil6587]

How many stewardess 350 can carry?

[@parvezshaikhul]

For me 777-9 is the best looking and beefy beast like American Bald Eagle looks like King of skies only issue is the noise inside the cabin every one is very familiar with 777 ER How noisy it is in interior on intercontinental journey.

[@Simon-jm1vl]

Airbus because of cost and efficiency

[@dennisnowy7319]

The A350 can go farther and is less expensive for about 70 mil. dollars...this is an answer for a business people.

[@jpmtlhead39]

Why more fuel capacity if the range of the 777 is less 3000 kms than the Airbus...??!!! I already had the pleasure of flying in both airplanes,and honestly i was more impressed by the Airbus 350. On a night flight is so quiet and confortable,realy amazing. And overall the airplane design and ergonomics,in my opinion are superior than the 777. But both are Spectacular airplanes.

[@jimo3405]

Delete your video because you made a wrong comparison with insufficient data: B777-9 is s class on its own - meaning no aircraft available to compare with yet. Because it has outstanding features that beats every existing wide body aircraft . As a result, the best aircraft you would have compared with A350 was B787.

[@justd02ofus]

I have flew all over the world in both of these planes ..Personally id choose the Boeing 777x , I find a better piece of mind when crossing the worlds oceans in a tired and proven company and with the stranger engines in case Ive ever get caught in a down draft while landing.. I was nearly in a crash in a down draft back in 2007 and i can tell you , It takes a lot of power to power out of one landing or crossing a ocean..

[@bhai857]

Honestly I never experienced any difference between B777 and A350, except the A350 had a bigger IFE systems that was really great! Else, as a passenger, both were great.

[@Kado_Tornado]

Lol at the Airbus fans saying the 777X is too big while A380s are filling up boneyards.

[@jteamaz]

I think it's a bit of a stretch to claim that the A350-1000 is better than the 777-9 considering it's not even in production as of the release of this video. There's a bit of a bias here I think, and you need to double check the max passenger count. You also didn't mention the 777-8 which blow the A350 out of the water in many categories.

[@herceg6772]

Sometimes we hear airplanes have problems with flaps and such things. How long do you believe it will go before we hear one or both winglets doesn’t fold or unfold

[@faridjahed]

I personally like the A350 as it carries more passengers with with longer range yet more fuel efficient

[@pasodeminick]

Do the homework: how many A350 in all versions have been delivered and how many 777X have been delivered up to date?