The 5 New Commercial Aircraft That Will Change The Way We Travel

[@scottbernard8824]

Wider seats in concept always morph into more seats in production.

[@camf7522]

Agreed, airlines always ruin manufacturer’s space for passenger concepts, for higher density and revenue.

[@patthewoodboy]

correct

[@jamescapaldi6362]

​

[@RossPayne]

Truer words never spoken.

[@bobdonovan34]

The seats don't even line up with the windows anymore.

[@Sh9168]

I love watching these videos and counting all the errors.

[@thebutterman6035]

Like all the fake “concepts” in the intro?

[@ahmetadam-fe9vm]

​@@thebutterman6035no there are some regular mistakes like overture top speed is 1.6 mach and she said slightly over mach 2

[@Crabonoe]

@@thebutterman6035the concepts in the intro are real tho?

[@martindehavilland-fox3175]

Rolls-Royce pulled out of the Boom project quite some time ago

[@Deltaflot1701]

That is very true, but they did manage to get a couple of other lesser known companies to start developing the necessary super cruise engines. interesting how this video only came out days ago, but has info that is a year + out of date.

[@ericinzesky1077]

great video ! I can't wait to try these beautiful birds 🙂

[@Truth-of-the-matter]

Given the current design of airports it will be hard to completely redesign aircraft if they are unable to fit into the gates. I think airplanes will remain fairly close to current designs but the biggest modifications will be more aerodynamic wings and more fuel efficient engines. Ideally if engines could use biofuels that were cheaper to source (and cleaner) I think that would make a huge impact on air travel.

[@7yrsand]

Biofuels at altitude...pfft

[@jonsant7232]

Totally agree with you that airports all around the world had to make costly alterations to accept the A380 it would crazy to redesign the world's airports for one type of Aircraft as for biofuels I have no idea but never say never

[@avand2794]

On a small scale biofuels are sustainable, but on a large scale they aren't, unless we start growing plant artificially in very efficiently spaced buildings or whatever, which I don't see happening as that is very expensive for a product which is produced in a very inefficient manner...

[@avand2794]

You might ask then, what are you going to fuel aircraft then? That is what engineers are looking for now (biofuels are still being researched also) but it's probably going to be hydrogen, or perhaps some kind of nuclear propulsion.

[@aspmusic5904]

If your airports concern is due to the V-shaped planes, then as long as the wingspan of those V-shaped planes does not exceed that of the widest incumbent plane, then all good.

[@hendrsb33]

Somehow, no matter how large the airframe, I still get the feeling that passengers will still be packed into airplanes like cattle. So much for passenger "comfort".

[@wolfschwarzmond]

Yup. I worked for Boeing, the seat locations/spacing were an Airline determined item. Didn't matter what size airframe they wanted the max number of seats the FAA would let them get away with.

[@hendrsb33]

@@wolfschwarzmond I say that as a tall man with long legs. If I fly long distance, I'm resigned to paying extra for extra leg room to make the flight bearable.

[@racketman2u]

and our checked baggage will still end up in Frankfurt, no matter where we are bound.

[@alankirby1353]

A380 is love by the public

[@adrianbriggs2763]

Funny now that we are post pandemic, how many airlines have returned their A380's back to the fleets asap. Who wants to fly on a crappy dreamliner (dimming windows my ass) or the biggest of them all the A380. The 777x is soooooo late, Boeing will be paying millions back in lost revenue to the airlines it will not make much money for years to come.

[@rickstclair2217]

just do not treat us as cattle, give us room to move, breathe.

[@basilpunton5702]

Where does this channel get data from. The 17in seat width only applies to one manufacturer.

[@tsr207]

Correction - The Anglo-French Concorde - a collaboration of Sud Aviation and The British Aircraft Corporation

[@white-dragon4424]

When they start building space airliners, planes that take off like normal planes and then enter space, taking about an hour to travel around the world, then I'll take notice.

[@fizzball13]

Didn’t RR pull out if doing the engines??

[@johnholt890]

Don’t think the French would be impressed with it being referred to as the Anglo Concorde.

[@lamiche89]

Indeed they almost lost me there 🇫🇷

[@basilpunton5702]

But it did provide a laugh at one of the errors.

[@robinharwood5044]

Especially since the French put so much effort into the project in order to get hold of advanced British technology.

[@orlandonelthorpe9027]

Well considering that the plane was actually devised by the UK, and they went to the French to aid with funding (the US was not interested as it was developing a similar jet of its own), the Concorde was really 'Anglo'. The French, in my view, got disproportionate kudos for the plane.

[@PureMatteo]

​@@orlandonelthorpe9027 The fact a country reaches out and a treaty is made doesn't make the plane more of the first country than of the second. Most of the engines and power + supersonic experience came from the british from obvious similar planes (the french had fast planes, but not with the kind of wings that would work in supercruise, notably the Avro). The brits started from the avro and starfighter experience. Long story short they ended up with a project but were lacking in several key areas, reaching out to sud aviation, Nord and.. dassault which is not unfamiliar with supersonic endeavours. All 3 made a design of their own that merged with the brits early design. The "super caravelle" design from Sud Aviation won the competition, for being pretty close to the british design. Both parties agreed on everything for the design except for size and range, but they quickly agreed on making 2 variants (one with bigger fuselage and 6 engines for improved range). The name "concorde" was chosen for its meaning, similar to "union/harmony" between the two teams. A lot of the engine work was indeed english, a lot of the fuselage work was french, the wing itself mostly english because of the original design although in cooperation with sud aviation. Construction was 50/50. It all led to Airbus Industries. It's pretty safe to say it's overall a 50/50 project.

[@WestValleyTransparency]

Supersonic passengerliners should be the gold standard in future air travel. It will be expensive at first, but should be more affordable and competitive when other airline companies add them to their fleets.

[@hanskaesbohrer2809]

The Concorde was a failure for some reasons. Also clima change is real and there is no point in (fuel guzzling and super high emissions) supersonic airtravel in our times for a few people, thats why the Boom won´t be a success, in my view. The aerospace industry has to adapt, not with the old supersonic concept of the 50`and 60`s ofg the last century, but with single aisle long-haul planes like the Airbus A321 XL and the A220-500: That means less weight, less full consumption and less emissions before we have other concepts available like the V shaped planes. And I wonder - where is Boeing in this segment, are they sleeping? I really do see no point in old supersonic concepts in 2030!

[@toffonardi7037]

@@hanskaesbohrer2809 Boeing maybe will not exist anymore in 20 years from now...

[@haakonht]

If we're in the land of dreams I'd rather have a teleportation device.

[@WestValleyTransparency]

@@haakonht I watched "The Fly" and familiar with the idea of teleportation devices. I'm good being human and not some fuzed creature😆

[@lucrolland7489]

Let me remind you that the Concord is a collaboration between France and the UK and was never matched.

[@alexrebmann1253]

My father inlaw worked on the Boeing 2707. Was a good thing that they stopped in favor of the 747. While it was great the Concord was a financial disaster.

[@lucrolland7489]

@@alexrebmann1253 At the time when the Concord was imagined followed by the 2707, the business plan was fine. Then came two problems: the first is that the Concord was not allowed fly over USA and this killed the chance for it to service Montreal. Then came the OPEC and the petrol crisis in 1973.

[@AlanDickens]

3:38, the prospect of short Trans-Atlantic flights! I can see the marketing now: "OceanAir - we get you nearly there!"

[@GodSEndOMG]

Well fighter jets have engine in the back... so did the old commercial airplanes in some companies in the past and they somehow feature more in air crash investigation...

[@Sartorius988]

A-220 is THE BOMBARDIER CS300 A CANADIAN PLANE, WE WILL NEVER FORGET

[@mikewalsh1402]

The 777X is awesome, hope it gets in the air, soon.

[@nzmarty]

It's been flying/testing for 2 years now kzbin.info/www/bejne/mJDJpKaXntp5prc

[@timothyharrison8953]

The A220-500 is a great dream. I've enjoyed working the CSeries to the A220 program. It's a hell of an aircraft and I'm going to miss working on it at the end of the year

[@Adscam]

@Timothy Harrison Is it viable or even feasible for CFM Leap to offer an alternative engine for the A220 and E2 series planes? As we know P&W has engine supply issues.

[@salehwahib3749]

Where is Airbus A321 XLR made

[@noraprojects2022]

nice!

[@ntdscherer]

Rolls-Royce quit the Boom Supersonic project last year. Is the rest of this info similarly out of date?

[@avand2794]

Lol, I like the comparison. Henceforth the TU Delft shall be known as: "The Dutch MIT"...

[@erics1626]

What does Covid have to do with getting rid of old planes?

[@patthewoodboy]

WEF goal of net zero will kill all of them , unless the people tell the WEF to do one 🙂

[@final_mile_music9713]

Are these scripts written and delivered by chatGPT?

[@royalmaroc001]

yes

[@davidlarson8258]

Surprised there’s no mention of the truss brace wing design

[@bobboberson2024]

I like how it starts all futuristic - a Flying V, Boom - then right to the A220. Haha. No plane is going to change the way we fly - but perhaps Boom might have a seat in our destination planning. Time is the killer. Ultimetly, we still have to deal with airports - that will never change. What accent does this narrator have?? With her "plethora of passenger-pleasing.ammenities."

[@ljessecusterl]

"As the economy gets better" honestly seems like more wishful thinking than Burt Rutan's wildest fever dreams.

[@MrGlaucos1]

Where is embraer?

[@steve-marsh]

Wow, there are so many mistakes in here it's almost funny. Almost.

[@c.san.8751]

The A220 is designed and built by Bombardier. Airbus only owns it now because of Bombardiers ineptness.

[@cameronballantyne1149]

or Boeing's greed!

[@c.san.8751]

@@cameronballantyne1149 Ugh. Greed or the drive for profit and trying to protect market share. Why is that such a problem?

[@foxlake6750]

Bombardier was trying to develop the Lear 85 (composite), a new Global and the Cseries at the same time, which financially crippled them. Really dumb. So, they ended the Lear 85 and gave away the Cseries, sold Shorts, closed Lear, sold Dehavilland, sold the regional jet division and hung on to the higher margin business jet business……

[@c.san.8751]

@@foxlake6750 Bombardier is one of the worst run companies on the planet. I am very familiar with this company.

[@patrice5976]

Nothing inept about Bombardier

[@PoesRaven73]

Sure, sure, sure. I remember when the Concorde debuted. THAT was going to revolutionize air travel too! Around the world in 18 minutes! Champagne and caviar for economy class! Turns out it was too expensive for anyone to fly on except the very rich, and was finally scrapped because too many people complained about the sonic boom. So dream all you want, but the average person isn’t going to get within a country MILE of these planes even IF they come to pass.

[@PearlCityBeats]

who woulda thought that MIT engineers would model their futuristic plane shape after the Flying V guitar!

[@aperson5062]

Boom engine info is out of date, they are no longer working with Rolls Royce. They are developing their own engine.

[@juliane.alexander619]

These are great, but what did they decide for the new air force one?

[@SUNNYSTARSCOUT365]

Planes nowadays are usually slower than they were before

[@arjunsavanur7242]

The faster you go, more fuel you burn

[@7yrsand]

​@@arjunsavanur7242 Who cares?....I want to get there....FAST!

[@arjunsavanur7242]

@@7yrsand Pay double money for fuel and wear and also pay more tax 😂

[@everybuddy5924]

Other than the flying wing planes, the other aircraft can already take advantage of the new technology the new aircraft will bring. Such as putting on the newer engines on the older models, making the older models more fuel efficient and faster. Or stretching some of the current models such as the 737, 757 and so on. Same with the current Airbus aircraft. As for the 747's, they are already no longer in production. The last 747 rolled off the production line on Dec. 7. So wasn't no point in even mentioning them. But if you are going to mention the 747's, then you might as well mention the DC-10 that are still in use though not in passenger service.

[@JDAbelRN]

Nor is Airbus 380 still in production.

[@apveening]

Stretching 737 has already been overdone past the breaking point.

[@everybuddy5924]

@@apveening It can still be stretched until you just have a single row of seats in the plane Who would care if the plane ended up 2500 ft long, as long as it flies.

[@Kwint.]

Ive flown dc10 two years ago

[@thomassadlowski4012]

Rolls Royce is not developing the engines for the Boom jet any longer - the pulled out quite some time ago already in an official statement. Why can´t you guys sort out the recent information before you put this little flix together?

[@chillout1109]

Is this an old video being reposted, or has no research actually been done before creating and posting the video? There are so many errors.

[@larry4111]

Odd that this was posted 10 days ago but talks about a plane coming into service in 2022. But okay. I liked it anyway.

[@rdspam]

Boom “recently announced a collaboration” with Rolls-Royce? That was three years ago. It has already failed. And a 777 image that’s backwards? Hard to take anything seriously in this video.

[@cameron.t]

A220-500 is gonna be the real game changer when it comes out. Like a smaller 757 but for it’s class. Similar to 757 vs 767/A300 back in the day. I’ve said it many times but I would absolutely not mind a transcon or international flight on the A220. One mid-cabin lav on a stretched -500 would make it huge for airlines.

[@NikanDragosysSerpenDra]

uhm no thats what the A321 XWLR NeoCX is gonna be for, long haul 757 style and 767's? FOr reeL/ they've been replaced with A300 A310 A330's neeed I go on?

[@cameron.t]

@@NikanDragosysSerpenDra You edited your comment and I still can’t understand it. The 757 opened up transcon/overseas flights for carriers that didn’t want to use a 767 or didn’t have them. The A220-500 would do the same for carriers that don’t want use a NEOLR or don’t have them. I believe B6 is already planning to do this with the CS3. Frontier is struggling to fill their 321s. I imagine most budget carriers would. So a CS3 or A225 would be great for them. Long range for smaller capacity, with (in my opinion) great comfort. Cabin designed to be spacious at 2x3 and I believe they made it impossible for 3x3.

[@bash102]

You’re comparing a potential A220-500 to a 757 😂😂😭

[@cameron.t]

@@bash102 And you're not reading what I read just to use emojis. Other people have no problem understanding the tiered comparison I am making. 😂😂😭😂😂😭😂😂😭 Using emojis is pretty great, tho. 😂😂😭😂😂😭😂😂😭😂😂

[@cleo5610]

​@bash102 .... because its purpose would be the same. it would open up more direct routes with less demand, just like the 757 did decades ago.

[@deejieweejie815]

When the airlines have “NO BABIES/KIDS ALLOWED” flights (or at least a “baby/kid” section with a THICK WALL BETWEEN THE SECTIONS, then I’ll buy a ticket, OTHERWISE I’m sticking to PRIVATE JET FLIGHTS. Guaranteed!

[@MANUbjx]

But how long will passengers be willing to seat on a narrow body plane? (Which has the same type of seats as a wide body plane 😂)

[@michaelcavalier8750]

I care much more about the width of the seat than the width of the plane. Some planes that I have been on were so narrow that, on one side, there was only one seat. That was better than sitting next to someone.

[@MANUbjx]

@@michaelcavalier8750 yeah, and some widebody planes are so densely packed, feeling more cramped than on a narrowbody jet.

[@billmielke7395]

Rolls Royce pulled out of the Boom Partnership

[@cuttersgoose]

Somehow, I just don’t see me on an aircraft made by a company who’s name is BOOM.

[@Edatjazz]

You say the Anglo Concord at a moment ; You meant Anglo-French Concord I suppose…

[@TheGecko213]

Bigger planes will have folding wing tips like the 777X

[@abdullasiyam721]

They only exist to allow the 777X to fit into Code E gates (the minimum that today's 2nd generation 777s use).They have no purpose other than that.

[@bobby-lax5443]

Are 15 extra seats really a game changer? And wouldn't the A220-500 compete with Airbus' own A320NEO?

[@TheGecko213]

Day is not far out when Airbus will own Boeing just like it owns Bombardier. At least the commercial aviation division. Boeing will be only left as a defense contractor like Lockheed Martin.

[@timothyharrison8953]

Airbus does not own Bombardier, it just has the A220 aircraft (CSeries). It's business jets, the Global, and Challengers are still Bombardier.

[@gsoutien1]

Spoken like a true ignorant. 🤣

[@viciadoemhalo3]

Flying V looks like a pain to take off and land.

[@digitalalchemy6414]

In the states the TSA already changed the way I fly... I drive. lol.

[@tnix80]

New mc-21 is the best plane on airline manager 4

[@camf7522]

2:21 Overture or ‘Over Time and Over budget’

[@Double_deuce22]

Would you say I have a plethora of piñatas.

[@Dan.d649]

The Boom Overture may not become a reality now, but it would've catapulted the industry to newer, and exciting heights. We would only dream to see this airplane actually be built and enter service. It would've cost a fortune to continue this program. The fact that a sufficient Power Plant could not be found, it still would create a big problem of unfortunate proportions. The Boeing 787 Dreamliner is an amazing airplane that is doing quite well with airlines that need it primarily for long-haul, and also capacity. I am hoping for Boeing, to develop a 787 freighter version really soon. The 777-9X is an exciting new approach for higher capacity and long-haul. However, based on the Pandemic, and COVID 19 issues, the program was frozen for some time. Finally, and hopefully it will start service with the airlines soon. It's gonna be an airplane that will be loved by all crews, and passengers alike. The 777-8X will also become a big step for Boeing for an ultra-long-range airplane. The A350-900, and 1000 are also two great selling airplanes for Airbus. These are two great developments I see many more of being produced, and to also mention the A350-900 freighter version that is forthcoming.

[@NikanDragosysSerpenDra]

it has hell of a performance the A359

[@toffonardi7037]

I don't believe it will ever become reality

[@robertursiny6828]

Will airlines replace A321XLR for old B757?

[@francoisvillon1300]

I love your accent! Russian?

[@okindamichael9526]

i have not seen anything that excites my imagination. this is the same things i see in planes. if i saw a disc shaped plane flying ,,,that would catch my attention

[@beornthebear.8220]

I don't think the world is ready for another supersonic passenger plane.

[@TheCaptain7190]

I think that as soon as the major plane manufacturers read your comment they will immediately stop all development of supersonic aircraft. Thank goodness for forward-thinking and perceptive people such as yourself.

[@TheCaptain7190]

@@valleyofiron125 Stop taking life so seriously dude, Humour not your thing?

[@TheCaptain7190]

@@valleyofiron125 You obviously don't do humour, sarcasm seems to go over your head too

[@frederiktappe1734]

I was just scrambled in a 787 with 9 narrow seats per row... So what is more comfortable... A narrow body with comfortable seats or a wide body with narrow seats? 😅

[@robinharwood5044]

MIT is the US version of Delft Technical University.

[@NeverlandSystemZor]

I feel like that first one is doomed by engine over body- the Soviets had a bomber that did that and it was AWFUL to fly and prone to accidents bc the thrust generated was OVER the body/wing rather than UNDER it. That is a problem. The ONE THING passengers care most about- MORE SPACE. Being crammed in like sardines in a tiny can is the BIGGEST gripe about flying.

[@saikumarkhan]

நல்ல தகவல் 👍👍

[@vidan3018]

give me one that disallows airlines tampering with seating size and if it is a reasonable price then I might become enthusiastic (overseas). Not otherwise.

[@dsanchez9703]

Cool

[@adrianciobotaru9595]

a supersonic plane, to be launched in 2026? THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE. we are in 2023, and it should have been ready already... in testing phase... in order to start working in 2026..

[@HRHolm-bi6zu]

Just don't tell me that 'green' electric engines or solar power will even start to move a sizable airliner down a runway, much less make it take off and fly. Total fanaticism.

[@sdcoinshooter]

Weren’t you the one that said the same thing about automobiles replacing horses?

[@HRHolm-bi6zu]

@@sdcoinshooter No, I did not say anything like that, never have. Besides I would think then that you would consider horses to be 'greener' than gasoline-powered vehicles, hm? Poop and all. But then, you climate crazies are used to spreading manure around quite liberally.

[@sdcoinshooter]

@@HRHolm-bi6zu Speaking of spreading manure. Do you have kids? I don’t, I have solar on my house and charge an EV with it so your grandkids will have cleaner air to breathe; you’re welcome. Meanwhile, you keep burning your coal and driving gas hogs, you probably removed your catalytic converter didn’t you? I thought so. That was a very interesting term, “climate crazy” That’s a big word for someone with your intelligence, how long did it take you to come up with it?

[@galvinstanley3235]

Solar panels would be a great way to power the lights inside the plane,if solar panels get that far in technology which will likely happen.

[@HRHolm-bi6zu]

@@sdcoinshooter I do not have children or grandchildren, but that does not mean I do not worry about future generations. And what do solar panels have to do with it? I am so sick of people posing solar panels and windmills as 'renewable' panaceas, when they only function well when there is 1) continuous plentiful sunshine, and 2) continuous plentiful wind. I'll take my dependable and CLEAN natural gas for my heat on below-zero winter nights, thank you, good luck with solar and wind keeping you warm for that! And no, I have not removed my catalytic converter from my more fuel-efficient 2021 Chevy Trax, that would likely be illegal, and besides it would render the engine non-functional rather quickly, anyway. Don't know much about motor vehicles, do you? (Yeh, and you talk big about me not having intelligence.) Baselessly presume an awful lot, don't you? As for the term 'climate crazies', it is not hard to come up with that when these knucklehead activists are gluing themselves to roads to block traffic and going into art galleries to sabotage paintings. Just like these anti-Israel demonstrators yelling 'from the river to the sea Palestine will be free' when half of them can't even name the river or sea involved. (Can you? I would doubt it.) They're all part of the same loony left bunch anyway. Proud to be a member of that group?

[@MH-fb5kr]

Should I say none of these planes will be on the order books anytime soon.

[@hughmacdonald3595]

Lol. If any of them go into production. Skip this video.

[@royalmaroc001]

a321xlr is into production

[@AlbertoPirrotta]

Interesting video !!!

[@ronch550]

For over 70 years now the basic shape of passenger planes hasn't changed. Betcha it'll stay the same for the next 50 years.

[@JulianPerale-wc5sy]

GENIAL

[@krazykris9396]

One time I was looking at the sky and saw a contrail of a large plane. My flight tracking app said it was a 777x. They are already doing test flights of the type.

[@appleintosh]

It flew for the first time in 2020

[@drjojo4624]

Been flying for a while - what is more worrying is that it’s been flying for so long and still nowhere near certification.

[@truebras]

Your Boom Supersonic info is outdated. Rolls Royce has pulled out of partnership with this manufacturer and actually cruise project speed is not March 2.2, but March 1.7.

[@abdullasiyam721]

Do you mean Mach?

[@telekommandant]

They should rename the Flying V into Flying Tin of Sardines. 314 passengers, but the plane is just the size of the Airbus 321.

[@nazari780]

Passenger planes should look similar to “long range strike bombers” in order to cut CO2, fuel, cost and travel time.

[@SUNNYSTARSCOUT365]

I love Airbus more than Boeing

[@ziziessal7ie103]

Me too!!! Better quality, better comfort, more fuel efficient and much safer than Boeing!!!

[@thabotshabalala7114]

True true

[@frankanderson4176]

If it ain't Being, I ain't going.

[@frankanderson4176]

...Boeing (correction).

[@SUNNYSTARSCOUT365]

@@frankanderson4176 OK 👍👍👍

[@jarrowmarrow]

walking is the future.

[@dmitripogosian5084]

Yep, 'in more comfort', of course

[@erichvonmolder9310]

Sure, these planes you won't see for many decades. You don't get rid of the old planes, it takes many years to do so, if the airliner is still in business. No one hold your breath.

[@elbuggo]

I would like to see a new Burnelli!

[@con8848]

What about the a350?

[@brianwillson9567]

The word route is ‘root’ not ‘rowt’.

[@dmitripogosian5084]

Depends where you live

[@NikanDragosysSerpenDra]

Dont bother calling the tripple 777X boeing' s It's the A370 because boeing atocks are plummettingso far, they might just sell this project to airbus

[@MrSinghKhanna]

All of this means more money for the airlines, higher prices and fewer amenities and higher luggage costs for passengers.

[@Lodai974]

The best ...Concorde ,flying at the F14 speed...without Tom cruise

[@jdwht2455]

Some of these concepts remind me of the 1920s - 1950's Popular Science/Mechanics articles - interesting but not there and only in the minds of the 'inventors' . With that said, I do hope that some of these outside of the box ideas come to real life.

[@Sports-Jorge]

1. V Wing: An inherently unstable design that would require massive reconfiguration of runways, taxiways and terminals… so likely a dead end. 2. Boom Jet: Still no engines, still banned flying supersonic over land, still outrageously expensive for seats… so not likely and never by 2026. 3. Stretched A220: Too stretched will cause issues similar to 737 with tail strike issues, landing speed increases, and lower thrust weight ratios; these all hinder performance and will limit where it can fly. Not to mention big profit source for trans-con is mail/cargo, which narrow bodies carry less of… so possible but maybe not best option. 4. XLR: Delays… see what Airbus can do. A stretched 320 will never have as good of performance as 757, but it gets better fuel economy. Likely. 5. 777X: Boing keeps screwing up so this has multiple delays / cost overruns. United and others said they don’t want it. It will mainly have cargo buyers if it ever makes it production. Maybe.

[@Yourdino48_]

Airbus Rule the sky

[@krisstopher8259]

Even tho i like the design of the BOOM but the name is a bit disturbing lol

[@JohnDoe69X]

"These new planes will use less fuel, which is something that more and more travelers want" Really? I don't know a single person that asked for this, but I certainly know scores of people who want more legroom and wider seats. So, please, refrain from projecting your environmental activism onto others, and just speak for yourself.

[@7yrsand]

I would like to buy a ticket thanks...but only if the Aircraft is fuel efficient....Something that will NEVER BE SAID OR ASKED by Any Traveller EVER

[@JohnDoe69X]

@@7yrsand LOL, exactly.

[@mariajesusrocha756]

Olá obrigada por compartilhar esse avião são os mais modernos e sensacional OK🌟🌷😁🇧🇷👍❤️

[@Commander_Shepard2000]

Yea the first one probably won’t even make it through production without failing 😂

[@AbdulgamidShruakinov]

Flying long haul is a no go for me. Hyperloop please

[@Aperson340m]

Interesting....

[@cesarmatiasbalderrama3658]

👍👍

[@martinv.352]

The interesting question is not the shape, it is the kind of CO2 free propulsion we will have in 2035. The intro shows the Airbus blended wing body of the ASCEND project at 0:47 . This is the only really fundamental new concept with a hydrogen cryotank at the middle and the passengers sitting in the wings, hydrogen fuel cell and superconducted electric motors.

[@atatterson6992]

We can look forward to that carbon free travel in about 2395 or so... maybe a little sooner (5-10 years earlier) if lucky.

[@7yrsand]

SCREW THAT

[@mrb43605]

Any flier does not care how much fuel a plane uses! Fossil fuels regenerate! Saving money is another thing !