Qantas Says GOODBYE to the 777X and turning to A350! Here's Why

Qantas Says GOODBYE to the 777X and turning to A350! Here's Why
===
#fligavia #boeing #airbus #qantas #aviation
===
00:00 Intro
00:42 Sunrise Project
02:22 First reason
02:56 Second reason
03:53 Third reason
05:47 Final reason
06:28 Cabin interiors
09:52 Concluding
===
Qantas Says GOODBYE to the 777X and turning to A350! Here's Why
Nearly 4.4 billion US dollars, yes, that's the amount Qantas spent to place an order for Airbus A3 50-1000 airbus. This airline assigned these 12 aircraft the mission of implementing the Sunrise plan. A plan to bring passengers from the east coast of Australia to Europe and New York by direct flights. At that time, there was much debate about which plane Qantas would choose. Airbus A3 50, or Boeing triple 7X. And the answer is already there.
Qantas Says GOODBYE to the 777X and turning to A350! Here's Why
So why did the A3 50 win this duel? How will the airline plan to operate this flight? How does this plan change the aviation industry? Let's find out in today’s video!
The goal of the then-announced "Project Sunrise" in 20 17 was to push the limits of long-distance flying; flights were scheduled to go over 10,000 miles and take about 20 hours.
Qantas Says GOODBYE to the 777X and turning to A350! Here's Why
With no longer needing stopovers, these long-haul flights will drastically cut down on passengers' travel time, increasing overall travel efficiency. The goal of Qantas is to beat the record for the longest non-stop flight in the world and bring about a new development in the field of commercial aviation.

[@idanceforpennies281]

Absolutely no one in Australia was surprised Qantas selected the A 350-1000. It was the most obvious thing in aviation. Joyce may have used the B777-X as a bargaining chip but that's all. The B 777-X doesn't even exist as a production aircraft.

[@k9killer221]

I've heard several times, that what became Project Sunrise wasn't even Allan Joyce's idea. After the A350-1000 entered service, Airbus approached Qantas indicating they could build an A350-1000 ULR. Based on actual operational data like fuel burn and MTOW.

[@karlp8484]

From a purely technical standpoint, ultra long range substantially solves the problem for itself. Fewer passengers (because the PAX need more room) means lighter weight and lighter weight reduces fuel burn. Especially if it also allows you to fly higher.

[@abarratt8869]

@@k9killer221 Airbus recently increased the MTOW of the A350-1000 too, which is probably a nearly final nail in the coffin of the 777-9.

[@idanceforpennies281]

@@abarratt8869 As many years of real operator data becomes available, and tweaks are made, some planes can "grow" in capability. And the Sunrise planes will have additional fuel tankage.

[@AndresDeLaTorre-xv7wy]

Si existe hay datos que solo falta pintura y motores y listo

[@user-nu1dd8tx5n]

Given Qantas’s focus on safety I am expecting Boeing will be off their shopping list until Boeing’s safety culture improves.

[@loeffelm]

If it's Boeing, I ain't going

[@Concorde_001]

AIRBUS are the masters of the skies, Boeing will not recover for several years

[@FLIGAVIA]

agree

[@r12004rewy]

If at all 001

[@richjames2540]

I think your ID suits you. Airbus have major issues with A321 neos and Engines that are defective and the supplier has a backlog causing airlines to park large numbers of these. Boeing need to change their management but I regard the Boeing Engineers as superior. I guess we watch this space.

[@r12004rewy]

richjames2540 That's the funniest thing i have read for a long time about Boeing engineers being superior over Airbus . I'm sure if RR had not pulled out of the narrow body market Airbus would not have a problem with the engine choices. Glad you like the ID 😉

[@Concorde_001]

@@richjames2540 maybe but Airbus planes don't kill people. I worked at both Lockeed and Airbus, trust me , no comparison at quality control level, European engineering for that matter is far ahead

[@aryaansrivastava3756]

A350 is a Perfect fit with Qantas!

[@FLIGAVIA]

waiting for the A350 flying in the Qantas fleet ✈

[@widget787]

2:22 absolutely wrong, the 777-8 has a range of more than 16.000km, about identical with the A350-1000. It was the 777-8 that Qantas was eyeing, not the 777-9, which would be too big. 3:54 wrong again. First, the 777X has its fuselage from Aluminum Lithium Alloy, not conventional Aluminum. This is a big difference, second the wing of the 777X is full composite and a whole lot bigger than the A350 wing. This bigger wing makes up for the lighter fuselage of the A350, plus the fact that the 777-9 has more capacity than the A350-1000, when comparing these two as Boeing did. The A350-1000 only wins slightly in efficiency by seat when factoring in a 10 abreast seating in Economy, which is so tight that no legacy Airline is likely to go for it, so they will be stuck at 9 abreast.

[@Starcraftmazter]

They say the A380 was not a commercial success, but ultimately it was the R&D testbed for the technologies which led to the A350 and it's amazing success and safety.

[@DerekDavis213]

If its Boeing, I'm not going.

[@masumabid4883]

@@DerekDavis213 You are irrelevant even you aren't going.

[@DerekDavis213]

@@masumabid4883 I have told all my friends and family and colleagues at work to *avoid* *Boeing* , because their planes are not safe. That makes me very relevant .

[@masumabid4883]

@@DerekDavis213 You must be a very loyal salesman for Airbus.

[@davidforde9341]

I have flown both these aircraft and the Airbus is a far more quieter and more comfortable aircraft.

[@FLIGAVIA]

same here, I also prefer Airbus

[@jacobzimmermann59]

You wouldn't have flown on the 777X. The old 777 was definitely very noisy inside, I'm curious to see what the X will be like. In the meantime there is nothing like the A380 when it comes to passenger comfort, with the A350 in a somewhat distant second position.

[@davidlamb8229]

Yes to the A350. A great aircraft.

[@FLIGAVIA]

Looking forward to seeing it in Qantas livery

[@nealbethune3252]

Allan Joyce is no longer CEO. He was pushed out in disgrace. He was the prime mover re the sunrise project.

[@youtube2be892]

Lets be honest... Quantas is a legit air carrier. A350 is an equally legit tool to do the long haul job for the next 10-15 years.

[@user-oj4xp2lh4d]

Excellent decision, Qantas.

[@gsjame]

Qantas have never had any 777’s of any description. They had the 747 but that’s gone…. Boing need to have a reboot and get back to the company they once where!

[@FLIGAVIA]

Thanks for sharing

[@troelskiel1167]

Were.

[@tornadoxt]

Qantas will have many happy economy passengers The a350 specs..... , against the 777x is impressive Should Airbus further stretch the a350 1000,,,,??????

[@johnchristmas7522]

No need, I think their next move will be for the Neo version with probably the RR Ultra engine. Who knows!

[@codyslade5558]

How can Qantas let go of something they never had?

[@stevevisscher1350]

Thank you, poorly narrated AI voice expert for this gem of old news - in fact nearly two year old news now. The 777X was never at any stage in the race for Project Sunrise, and Allan Joyce’s board at the time were increasingly fans of the Airbus product, in any form, as is now being seen with other Boeing fleet replacements coming on-stream from 2024 and beyond.

[@FLIGAVIA]

thanks for your feedback

[@holdensv2000]

Boeing has lost its way so please do go in that direction 😮😮😮😮

[@WorstAviationYouTuber]

Good to know. Avoiding Airbus and Qantas.

[@holdensv2000]

Well my comments is 1 for Airbus safer and better by far 😊😊😊😊😊😊❤❤❤❤

[@FLIGAVIA]

Yep, agree

[@dcsyd16]

2000 people + have died flying Airbus with faulty controls and sensors. If it was not for two sets of extraordinary Qantas pilots we would have had crashes in learnouth a330 and Singapore a380. With the repurchase of spirit and Boeing governing airframes before they leave the Boeing / Spirit Wichita factory, Boeing will bounce back quicker than we all think The U.S. military needs Boeing to be successful for the production of the mags fighter. BTW Spirit in Wichita makes Airbus’ a350 fuselage for Airbus and Boeings 737, 787 and 777x fuselage

[@dutchbavarian]

One advantage of the Dreamliner is the air bleed system. It no longer is provided via the engines. This is a key health improvement. I am not sure how the A350 does this and what pressure the cabin is at flight level with which humidity. These are key topics I hope Airbus has addressed in the A350. With the latest order from Saudi for 105 A320/A321 Airbus is really on fire. Their technology is great, they are reliable regarding delivery and also technical stability. All of that can no longer be said about Boeing.

[@FLIGAVIA]

Thanks for sharing 🫶

[@johnchristmas7522]

If you look up the A350 abilities, you will see that its cabin pressure is 5% better than any competitor. So yes, Airbus did not miss that.

[@JPB57]

Could you explain, because “5% better” means nothing

[@dutchbavarian]

@@johnchristmas7522 how does that compare to the dreamliner?

[@thedon7294]

Quantas just follows the new rule: If it's Boeing, I ain't going.

[@masumabid4883]

Quantas is bound to regret later.

[@icare7151]

Boeing, Boeing….Gone.

[@Davidwilliams-lk7hb]

Generally airbus is a better product. As Boeing is out dated as it is evolved technologies and not new from in the formation of airbus

[@karstenscherling4665]

The Main competion to Europe is Emirates. They have a lot of connections from different places in Europe to Dubai. So if Qantas likes to be better and faster they need to go from more towns than London.

[@FLIGAVIA]

yep thanks for sharing ✈️✈️✈️

[@SuperAirplanemaster]

Qantas still order 7X but they’re going to use it on different route. It would’ve been nice if they did have the triple 78X for project sunrise but I see why Qantas work with the airbus A350-1,000ULR aircraft.

[@FLIGAVIA]

thanks for sharing

[@brahmhenkins8732]

The 777x is still not certified, so no surprises there.

[@FLIGAVIA]

Thanks for your comment

[@FLIGAVIA]

✈️✈️✈️

[@user-iu9py5vu9x]

1 Airbus any time...

[@TheRealJohnHooper]

A 20hr flight however is super exhausting..

[@FLIGAVIA]

yep but it's worth trying once ✈️✈️✈️

[@JamesStiles-ij3mm]

What will Prince Habebe paint scheme look like?

[@AlfCalson]

✈️

[@FLIGAVIA]

✈️✈️✈️👍🏻

[@KeithHeinrich]

Thank goodness for improving space. Had the great misfortune to spend the longest flight ever in super cattle class on a Boeing aircraft and what a miserable experience that was.

[@ETW1]

Good decisions

[@FLIGAVIA]

thank for your comment

[@LongHaulPilot]

someone is late to the party,

[@EC4U2C_Studioz]

I think Southeast Asian carriers will want plane types that can have a non-stop between their respective home airport and any major international airport in the world most likely the furthest for Southeast Asia to be the Southeastern United States. Most likely, Philippine Airlines will want to add non-stop flights to the Southeastern United States from Southeast Asia as there are plenty of airplane types capable of handling a non-stop flight range between Manila and major international airports in the Southeastern United States.

[@FLIGAVIA]

thanks for sharing

[@thineshkaransritharan7648]

Sure A350

[@FLIGAVIA]

thanks for the feedback

[@1Maverick747]

6:29 - after the Singapore Air incident, I’m not sure if that’s a good idea anymore.

[@garethdavies4487]

what are you talking about?????

[@bossmikey7301]

What does that have to do with anything? Didn’t the plane hold up like it was designed to do? Y’all just be running your mouths with zero fact’s.

[@alalfred3474]

Not sure the RR engines used on A35K are that great compared to GE engines on B777-9. Tim Clark had reservations on this engine type under Mideast operating environment.

[@dmcnamara9859]

Definitely, and RR have always been expensive to maintain compared to P&W and GE. Think " buy British" had much influence on purchase,as Australia is so much tied to UK. Does not help 777X Program is so far behind in deliveries, proper response is too buy Airbus.

[@davidforde9341]

I really believe that the RR engines have already proved them selves over the GE engines.

[@abarratt8869]

RR announced in response to Clark’s criticism a design refresh for the XWB-97. Plus, RR has Ultrafan lurking in the background. It’s only a matter of time before they neo-ise the A350 with that, and then it’s very difficult for GE to catch up. GE has already lost a ton of money on 777x, hasn’t earned a penny from it, and is at risk of losing that altogether. RR is earning money and already has the future in hand. I know which company I’d prefer to be at the moment!

[@jacobzimmermann59]

True, but this is for Sunrise, which means direct flights between Australia and Europe. Very different operating conditions.

[@edwardwilcox6606]

Your words make no sense at all. How can you suggest GE`s GE9X is a better engine than RR Trent XWB when it isn`t even in service yet? For a start we all know GE have had problems what with the advertised delays, this isn`t unusual as new designs & materials can take time to mature within a new program. Secondly this engine has to prove itself after EIS to be certain of success paticularly in despatch reliability & ultimately it`s durability over time. T-XWB -84 & -97 have both proven themselves to be reliable offering terrific despatch reliability, very fuel efficient ( the worlds most efficient turbine ) & the airlines that purchase them buy them for a reason. Sir Tim Clark has expressed reservations on the -97 reliability. GE9X will be a decent engine I`m sure & GE engineers will be hoping that it will have the success of the T-XWB series also!

[@dmcr9525]

They never said hello to the 777x. lol

[@Piusplac]

Would I fly with Boeing? Yes of course. But I would feel more safe in an Airbus.

[@eduardodaquiljr9637]

Just imagine a bird with rigid wing,787,&777-8/9 has a real flexible wing that simulate a real wing.It flex freely as air stream dynamic changes,the result it reacts like absorber of air impact and fluctuation ,Passengers will experience the smooth ride of their life.Pilto has less stress controlling the plane during unstable flying condition.the controls are located in front of pilot not on the side,just like driving a car,imagine a car or backhoe with joy stick on the side?

[@johnchristmas7522]

Its what you get used to. Many pilots like the A 350 ability to have a table-top across their lap either for a laptop computer or lunch!

[@barrylenihan8032]

I have no difficulty driving a car either left or right handed, or whether manual transmission or automatic. I would imagine flying an aircraft with side stick or centre stick is no different. It's just a matter of being able to adapt.

[@eduardodaquiljr9637]

@@barrylenihan8032 good luck

[@user-tc3fp5uh3u]

They should have try out the a380

[@jacobzimmermann59]

The A380 can't fly Sunrise routes.

[@Andreas.Berger.87]

Well, let's see how this is one is gonna play out... I'm honestly rather in for an all or mostly aluminium construction, since it's a much more proven material. Both Boeing (787) and Airbus had issues with their composite construction. Its much harder to detect defects of the material then with aluminum. The A350 might be cheaper to operate fuel wise but if any construction issues will arise its total operation costs might be higher then that of an 777X. Also quite honestly I don't know a lot a people that are willing to sit 15-18 hrs in an aircraft even if its a business seat. Time will tell.

[@andreasgasser5823]

Quite honestly, I am glad, that I do not know you. And aluminium exhibits fatigue cracks with time, quite in opposite to carbon fibre structures.

[@Andreas.Berger.87]

@@andreasgasser5823You just trollin dude... I work in aviation and I worked on 60yr+ old aircraft that have flown thousands of hours and the material is still perfectly fine. Stop talking 💩 and get a life dude 😃

[@johnchristmas7522]

Look at the Japan Airlines A350 crash in Haneda Airport Japan. Where already, many people are saying that the composite body of the aircraft gave time for passengers to escape, aluminium has a low melting point. I know which aircraft I would want to be on. Thats over and above the murderous management at Boeing.

[@andreasgasser5823]

@@Andreas.Berger.87 Dude, dude, dude, dude!

[@josefernandezmelgarejo2482]

Qantas tras la pandemia realizo un pedido por 12 A 350-1000 ULR dado que el 777X aun se encuentran en fase de certificacion y el a 350 lleva unos años ya en servicio y la aerolinea australiana necesitaba un avion para su proyecto sunrise cuando estallo la pandemia qantas iba a realizar el pedido al fabricante europeo pero la crisis del covid y el cierre de las fronteras para vuelos comerciales obligo a la aerolinea a posponer el pedido

[@FLIGAVIA]

yep thanks for sharing

[@ae747sp5]

Joyce got his retirement money

[@bwithrow011]

1

[@FLIGAVIA]

yeah always Airbus ✈️✈️✈️

[@bwithrow011]

​@@FLIGAVIABoeing has dug their grave and now they have to lie in it

[@unggrabb]

20 hour flights are silly, i love getting up and move after 10-12 hours. And carrying 20 hours wirth of fuel than 10 hours is a cost that i am not willing to pay for.

[@VeniVidiAjax]

Lol. You basically pay the same dude.

[@unggrabb]

@@VeniVidiAjax so you mean there is no cost to carry 100 tons of fuel for 10 hours?

[@nntflow7058]

When you are in first, business and premium economy. Most people prefer nonstop flight.

[@unggrabb]

@@nntflow7058 no they dont

[@Dirk-van-den-Berg]

On 9.24 you show a Boeing cockpit instead of the 350-cockpit. 2. Airbus makes better planes, and Qantas decision can be influenced by the Haneda-incident.

[@FLIGAVIA]

thanks for your feedback

[@johnstevens213]

Most pilots don't think so. Not to mention the flight deck isn't Airbus anyway.

[@damienmoulton9797]

No one's going to agree on this one. As they say in Life.. Limit your risk. SO, choose another airline than Qantas. I do. Cheers to all.

[@elestromusicgamesfun1101]

Boeing cutting cost not using carbon fiber.

[@meibing4912]

Never liked flying on the 777. YMMV.

[@stephenwood9703]

I flew a lot of 767 and 777 back in the noughties and the 777 always felt like an inflated 767, IMO the only real plane boeing created was the 787 and there are still issues with it and concerns about it's build quality, boeing need a hard reboot with an engineering and innovation lead management team.

[@tomhsia4354]

@@stephenwood9703 The 777 doesn't seem to have any improvements over the 767 in terms of passenger comfort. It is a boring reliable workhorse of a plane, which is important to airlines. The 787, A380, and A350XWB all have much better passenger comfort compared to older planes.

[@pierrechardaire8525]

Rest zone, wi-fi, on board entairtainement, head rests, reclining chairs, leg room, etc..., but they never mention the toilets! 20-hour flights. I hope they have good toilet cleaning products on board.

[@pierrechardaire8525]

@Hypersonic-es6vh Yes, but in some long haul flights, the toilets become a bit, let say, less than clean as the journey progresses. Will they retrain their flight attendants to include toilet cleaning as part of their duties?

[@dcsyd16]

Hate to break it to everyone Qantas will buy 777x to replace its a380 and 747/330 freighters (which getting very old). It will be the only choice to carry larger numbers of passengers and freight in large hub destinations. The 777x is a much bigger plane than the a350 and carries a significantly higher load. Its wing design will help them take off from higher altitude airports like Jo’burg and South America. It will also be a better plane to handle the heat (and associated turbulence) in WA, SA, Qld, Dubai, Bangkok, Malaysia, Texas, Singapore & Abu Dhabi

[@Iwishiwasflying]

Qantas has never been big on freight. They had one 330 which was operated on behalf of others. Unlike SQ which also has a dedicated freight arm. More proof of your allegations or I’ll call BS

[@stuartpalmer3404]

The 747/330 and A380 maybe getting old. But the 777X has not even taken its first commercial flight yet. When do you think this might happen?

[@dcsyd16]

@@Iwishiwasflying sorry was referring to Star Track express. The Australian government has significantly boosted Qantas freight capabilities for both humanitarian relief purposes, rapid freight and military mobility purposes

[@Iwishiwasflying]

@@dcsyd16 maybe but one of the many responsibilities of the RAAF is humanitarian work. Be that the C130, Spartan or C17. I think the RAAF will do more of that work than Qantas. Inside info I have (a couple of Qantas pilots) have all denied the allegations you make re Qantas being more heavily involved in Freight

[@1chish]

Hate to break it to you but I think I would prefer a proven older A380 to a yet to be certified, years late 777X with unproven engines built by Boeing safety standards. Thanks for the advert though.

[@JamesStiles-ij3mm]

State owned aircraft

[@reylandvilla6646]

Over 10,000 miles?? Both planes have a range around 8,700+ miles😅😅😅

[@leroywilliams6679]

Comment 1 love Airbus..

[@FLIGAVIA]

as always!!

[@edwinotiatomarwa.6361]

I wish there was still an A380 production. The very best passenger aircraft ever built. I do also like B787 and A350. No to 737s, 757s, and 777s

[@FLIGAVIA]

thanks for sharing your thoughts

[@helihoot]

Either way I would not like to be in any aircraft for 20 hours.

[@FLIGAVIA]

yes I know that it will definitely cause exhaustion 😀

[@masumabid4883]

@@FLIGAVIA Not only cause exhaustion, the toilets become disgusting after 8/9 hours of flight.

[@wotan20]

It's a petty that the program is hardly more, than a PR presentation of Quantas' Sunrise project, even though this so called project got plenty of criticism from a wide range of advocacy groups ever since it was floated as an idea. In my opinion the "Sunrise Project" would only make sense, if the airplanes involved were capable to fly significantly faster than the present versions of either the Boeing, or Airbus models.

[@1chish]

Why on earth would any airline buy a 777X? It has not even been crtified yet and delivery dates are now years late and totally unreliable. And its a Boeing! Whereas the A350 family has proven performance and reliability in service and (sadly) even when it crashes people get out safely. Composites are better for many reasons. Well done the Aussies foregoing seat numbers for comfort and well being. I am also pretty sure fewer seats = less weight = less fuel needed = more profits.

[@toms1348]

They didn't forego seat numbers...to achieve the ultra long haul range, they have no choice but to limit the number of seats. This is a premium service with limired capacity, high priced lay flat seats.

[@Infiltator2]

Its only due to the RR Engines. They are making a lot of troubles especially on the -1000.

[@1chish]

@@Infiltator2 What 'troubles'?

[@Infiltator2]

@@1chish Maintenance intervalls are quite short. Especially on the -1000 because its basically the same engine with just a higher power setting. That is the sole reason emirates doesn’t like the aircraft.

[@1chish]

@@Infiltator2 You are casting a criticism of all WXB engines becasue you seem to have been reading Clark's comments post Dubai. All WXB-84s on the A350-900 are operating as per operator demands and no complaints. Even Clark says its fine. The other operators of the WXB-97 on the A350-1000 are all perfectly fine with it. Clark has now ramped up his demand and asked for 107,000 Ib of thrust and saying its 'not proven'. Well no shit sherlock... Clark for some reason seems to want to pick a fight with Rolls Royce and its usually down to price. Nothing new. And yet he is perfectly happy still buying the unproven, late and uncertified 777X with unproven GE9X engines. No argument there apparently. Go figure. To close let me quote from 'Aircraft Commerce' last year with a comment from Qatar: "The Trent XWB had one of the best entry-into-service records of any widebody engine. The lead engines that are operated on Qatar Airways’ A350-900 fleet have been in service since 2014. These engines have accumulated the highest amount of engine flight hours (EFH), which is in excess of 20,000EFH. They have reached their first target overhaul life in this time, meaning they have behaved exactly how we wanted them to over time, with no unplanned maintenance"

[@thomassharp2719]

Alan Joyce is long gone. And should be in prison by now !!

[@Candy-wm4nc]

Why

[@codyslade5558]

No one in Australia (except a few avgeeks) really cares what plane was chosen. The 777-9X is wider, longer and more powerful than any a350! Really.

[@chrisweavers903]

But it doesn’t have the range to fly those sectors and generally AIRBUS is loads quieter unless the 777x has newly designed low velocity air conditioning systems

[@richarddastardly6845]

0✈️💫

[@FLIGAVIA]

yeah thanks for your comment

[@darwinstubbie860]

I don't know anyone who enjoys flying Australia to Europe non stop. I would not care what to fly, as long it is not a 737 Max.

[@WorstAviationYouTuber]

0

[@FLIGAVIA]

thanks for your feedback

[@nealbethune3252]

1. If it’s Boeing I’m NOT going.

[@FLIGAVIA]

thanks for your feedback

[@toms1348]

Yay for you.. I fly Boeing twice weekly.

[@stuartpalmer3404]

1 Airbus

[@FLIGAVIA]

thanks for your feedback

[@leeandadaelliott]

The longer the flight time the more fuel needed and the less revenue weight possible. So the more each ticket has to cost. Twenty hours coach, wow, they'd have to pay me to endure that torture. Now, as far as Boeing goes, according to our tainted SCOTUS corporations are people, and when people screw up (such as sending a major portion of your manufacturing to scabby South Carolina) then they deserve to be punished. GM is still paying the price for the bean counters decision that making making tons of money for the top execs is more important than making cars that don't fall apart. Boeing should hire me, I'm perfectly willing to screw up for half of what they're paying their current crop of Bozos.

[@Infiltator2]

But you need less personell. Less fees for the airports. Singapure Airlines has a similar flight which is profitable.

[@mindguru22]

Quantas also didnt go for 777 when it was launched in 90s. So what … they will decide what suits them… they will again come back to 777X when they see other airlines are successful with it.

[@dbertobis]

Will “again” is not correct. Qantas never had a Boeing 777

[@andreaseufinger4422]

Other airlines are waiting for it since forever. I expect quite the opposite. The A350 is the best longrange aircraft on the market.

[@mindguru22]

@@andreaseufinger4422 even A350 was not built overnight. It also took forever to be delivered.

[@andreaseufinger4422]

@@mindguru22 But now it's there. The B777x is only an extension of an older aircraft (which was probably the best when it came out), so Boeing should fix the problems with the B787, develop a serious alternative to the A320 and then we talk again. The B777 is one generation behind the B787 and A350, don't forget that. And the B737 just survived from the stone-age

[@AndresDeLaTorre-xv7wy]

Las turbina de mil no cumple bien lo digo Qatar

[@FLIGAVIA]

Gracias por tu comentario! ✈️✈️✈️

[@BadYossa]

AI generated?

[@FLIGAVIA]

We only use AI to read the script

[@Trunka34]

787 is better but I guess it's too small?

[@trasewagner7582]

No way I’ve flown both and passenger comfort on the A350 is superior. The 350 is quieter and the air is more humid.

[@edwardwilcox6606]

B787 is in no way a competitor to A350-1000 totally different beasts.

[@Trunka34]

@trasewagner7582 quieter is subjective. Did you sit in exactly the same place? I thought the 787 was quieter from business class on both planes.

[@kariylivirta7954]

1 airbus

[@FLIGAVIA]

me too

[@AlfCalson]

Will Airbus open a new factory? Maybe in India?

[@johnchristmas7522]

Maybe, they have factories already in the USA/CHINA/FRANCE/GERMANY/UK/SPAIN AND SUPPLIERS WORLD WIDE.

[@FLIGAVIA]

hope it's soon

[@ianmorris7485]

1 of course.

[@FLIGAVIA]

thanks for your feedback

[@muradahmad9398]

Airbus

[@patriziobucher2145]

1!!!!

[@FLIGAVIA]

thank you for the feedback

[@John-nc4bl]

The 777-9 and 777-8 GE engines are newer designs, more advanced with better on wing time than the RR engines have on the A350. Qantas will have the new 777 aircraft in their future fleet.

[@cayancankiran9647]

And? The range is better, wayyyy better. You dumb?

[@1chish]

Please define 'better on wing time' when the 777X engines are not even in service. And remind me how late are they getting to full power and reliability? RR WRX engines are proven in thousands of hours in service. Plus RR engines can be funded on a 'cost per hour' service lease and whether purchased or leased they are monitored 24/7 in real time and RR can tell an airline how they are performing while in flight. GE don't do this.

[@VeniVidiAjax]

Haha whattt? They aren’t even in the air. How could you make such a dumb statement?

[@Infiltator2]

The Engines are literally one point if the delay if the aircraft

[@Aspen51]

How about Alan Joyce has not been the C.E.O of Qantas for about a year now since he got thrown out on his butt.......

[@OneAviation]

Nah boeing is in a hole now

[@richjames2540]

Big mistake. They will regret this.

[@richjames2540]

@@Hypersonic-es6vh The Rolls Royce engines. They have problems. Qantas already experienced Rolls Royce Engines problems when one blew up on an Airbus 380 flight. Rolls Royce have defended their engine but there remains an issue with it. Emirates have avoided it and some other big carriers too. A350-900 is fine but the engines on the 1000 have an issue.

[@richjames2540]

@@Hypersonic-es6vh are you a qualified Aeronautics engineer? Or can you provide any technical evidence for your claims? We all know that the Rolls Royce Engines were fixed on the 380 but Rolls Royce have had a series of problems with their engines both Boeing and Airbus equipment. I have flown the A350-900 on Iberia to Mexico and would happily flight it again but I would not fly the A350-1000 until it is resolved. Japan Airlines which I fly a lot have put a 1000 into service to JFK but luckily the flight to London is still B777 300er.

[@John-nc4bl]

@@Hypersonic-es6vhRR over propmise with fuel burn and on wing time and fail to meet the standards.

[@SirHotBTZ9]

The Airbus A350 is the best long-haul aircraft that has been created.

[@user-zy3bh3bs7k]

ALL INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES ARE REQUESTED TO KINDLY START FLYING DAILY DIRECT FLIGHTS TO ATQ , AMRITSAR , INDIA . MOST UNDER SERVED AIRPORT IN WORLD .

[@AnoNymous-it8vi]

Allah chose Airbus and so do I.

[@vgkk5637]

wtf?

[@AnoNymous-it8vi]

@@vgkk5637 wallahi inshallah

[@silvestersze9968]

1 🎉

[@FLIGAVIA]

✈✈✈✈✈

[@andrewswinton9878]

Terrible AI generated VO, however great content

[@FLIGAVIA]

Thanks for your feedback, we’ll use real voice soon!

[@barrylenihan8032]

AI is the best option if English is not your native language.

[@FLIGAVIA]

@@barrylenihan8032 thanks for your support

[@user-tw7hq4cp4m]

1 A350.

[@FLIGAVIA]

💙 Airbus

[@benwingreeff2652]

1❤

[@FLIGAVIA]

thanks for your feedback ❣❣❣

[@WorstAviationYouTuber]

Good to know. Avoiding Qantas now.

[@garyrea2320]

Why, Airbus is good aircraft.

[@Misterdu64]

Really curious to hear your argument on that

[@florencioigual]

YEAH!! LET'S GO FOR 737MAX ONLY!!

[@jjaus]

Aww, like you were going to fly here. Bless.

[@WorstAviationYouTuber]

A350? A330? Pfft. 777 🔛🔝

[@jf2187]

Australia also made a bad choice for purchasing submarines, the agreement was signed with the French state, you were manipulated by the English and the Americans to cancel the contract with France to buy theirs. The English and American submarines are bad, expensive and the construction times are very long. As for the planes, France had to be chosen: a shame From France

[@FLIGAVIA]

thanks for sharing

[@FLIGAVIA]

❣

[@alalfred3474]

Not sure I agree with you on French supply. US certainly has superior nuclear attack submarine technology and products than French. Furthermore, French suppliers are notorious in milking weapon buyers through expensive MRO expenses. Australians worked with French on this project for several years and it was not heading toward the right direction. Working with Americans guarantees timely deliveries of proven submarines, although the cost may be high.

[@codyslade5558]

My word, the Boeing 777-9x will STILL BE A SUCCESS. The a350 won because it is a cheaper airplane. Period!

[@torbenhilbig4185]

Well… 777-9x is not even Certified.

[@codyslade5558]

@@torbenhilbig4185 Good point. “Project Sunrise” is years away too. Thanks for responding. :-)

[@Adam-eg6cz]

Never say goodbye to Boeing i love boeing 777 is incredible machine🍀🍀🍀🍀❤❤❤❤

[@FLIGAVIA]

thanks for your comment

[@Yk3d05bm]

Boeing is shit 777x and max are ticking timebombs.

[@othmarbrunner9639]

Who in the world gives a dam you people are like little kids There are several airlines which don’t want the A350 but want the 777X that is the way business works the time will come when Airbus will be unable to deliver due to an overloaded order book Flying has become such a nightmare i have decided to never fly again after decades of flying and I have chosen a different means if travelling without the stupidity of flying consisting of taking off your shoes guards touching you inappropriate lost luggage people cramming luggage in to overhead bins people picking their nose and putting the snow on the seats etc would you like me to go on

[@user-nu1dd8tx5n]

The appalling culture at Boeing probably extends to the design office. Personally, given that the FAA must now be very risk adverse, I wonder whether the 777X will ever be delivered to customers.

[@oli5162]

Being unable to deliver due to an overloaded order book (Airbus) is better than being unable to deliver due to regulatory technical deficiencies, on top of an overloaded order book (Boeing). Ordering the same major quantity from a poor quality manufacturer, only based on the notion that you need the equipment immediately, is ridiculous (unless you only had that single bigtime supplier ever since, like Southwest and Ryanair). Otherwise, the long term costs the new poor equipment will cause, will offset any short term advantage.

[@jamesstewart4402]

1

[@FLIGAVIA]

Same here

[@user-en2pf2ce1n]

0

[@nickdunstone]

1 Airbus

[@FLIGAVIA]

🤍 Airbus

[@karstenscherling4665]

Airbus

[@FLIGAVIA]

thanks for your feedback ✈️

[@masumabid4883]

I would prefer a plane rather than bus. Although it's airbus - it's still a bus.

[@rvhjr1961]

1 airbus

[@FLIGAVIA]

✈✈✈☁

[@stephanguitar9778]

There are far more than 1 airbus.

[@ericsonlopez2342]

1

[@FLIGAVIA]

thanks for your feedback

[@dumbo1264]

1

[@FLIGAVIA]

Thanks for your feedback ❤

[@shobankumar9769]

1

[@FLIGAVIA]

thanks for the feedback