Big Plane vs Little Plane (The Economics of Long-Haul Flights)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ก.ย. 2024
- Sign up for a 30 day Audible free trial: www.Audible.com...
Support Wendover Productions on Patreon: / wendoverproductions
Apply to animate for Wendover Productions:
www.wendoverpro...
Airbus made an enormous plane, Boeing made an efficient plane. They both had different ideas on how the airline industry would work in the future, and only one was right.
TH-cam: / wendoverproductions
Twitter: / wendoverpro
Email: WendoverProductions@gmail.com
Reddit: / wendoverproductions
Select visuals courtesy www.Shutterstoc...
Music by Lewis Bergen: joyga.in/lbamp/
Big thanks to Patrons: Dylan Benson, Brian Chaitanuvong, Victor Zimmer, Iracha Tantiwongchaichan, Konrad Armitage, f4r, Jon, Taras Halan, Peter Ramkissoon, and Camden Bauer
Dreamliner footage courtesy Amsterdam Airport Schiphol
Dreamliner composite construction photo courtesy Boeing
Sonic cruiser photo courtesy aircraft.wikia.com and used under creative commons guidelines
![[TH] FS vs BME - VCT Ascension Pacific - Lower Bracket Final](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wnygqsR2Fig/mqdefault.jpg)
2016: “What’s very exciting is the 737 Max”
Me in 2019: “Hmm, I don’t think so”
Haha was thinking the exact same.
Yep, I laughed at that!!
Same
Dude I thought the exact same
In his defense, it was exciting. Just not the type of exciting they were going for
7:27 “What’s even more exciting for consumers is the Boeing 737 MAX.” yikes..
Lol
@JPStudios it's not!! I flew on it several times and A380 is miles better in terms of comfort. You get a different feeling when you get inside an A380
Elias Khan People that don’t understand planes. AIRLINES design their cockpit, not Boeing or airbus. An Emirates a380 is clearly better then a Ryanair 737 for comfort. That doesn’t mean the plane itself is better.
@@iammeliaskhan It's as if you didn't watch the video at all. The A380 and the 737 Max do not compete on the same routes. Nobody is going to operate a super jumbo between Glasgow and Lagos.
@@iammeliaskhan of course it is, the 737 is a short to medium haul narrow body airplane, while the A380 is an intercontinental widebody jet, and the largest airliner in the world. It isn't even a fair comparison. But you have to compare with similarly sized aircraft.
"Wuhan to San Francisco"
"What's even more exciting for us consumers is the upcoming 737 MAX"
We just need another catastrophic event and we'll have the foreshadowing trifecta
No.
737 MAX: what are you?
Basically every airspace authority in the world: DEATH
Is Wendover guessing the bad stuff?
Ya, parts of this video did not age well
“Wuhan to San Francisco” I sure hope not...
Yeah bro, that's the exact thing that strike my mind when I heard of the route. 🤣
Didn't aged well
Locally produced bat soup will be served on board.
He also said exited for the 737 max
This episode is sponsored by plague inc.
Leaving economics aside, the a380 and the 747 are real beauties
You said it brotha
saw an a380 at the Dusseldorf airport a few months ago, it was amazing to see
Yeah, I fly on them 6 times a year
True! I saw an a380 at the Doha airport and was completely mesmerized.
I dont even know what that is but sure it really is cool
7:26 never mind...
hey i like ur videos
Lol
The audio is very, very well done!
Thanks! I had it done by someone who actually knows what their doing, as well as getting custom music done for the video which I think added a lot.
Yeah I saw that on patreon. It was definitely worth it.
If the information was also correct it would have been perfect
That's the first comment I've seen not discussing his exception of another plane in the video
bro ur smart as shit and you said the wrong theyre
when he talk about “Wuhan to San Francisco “ I screamed
(Filthy Frank screaming while holding skillet)
Didn't age well
Yu Hern Khoo well-
@@yhkhoo2269
Neither did the 737 Max statements.
Wuhan to New York also existed.
I think United airlines prefer the punch to drag model
ParAdoX__ Memecostore LOL
ParAdoX__ Memecostore XD
ParAdoX__ Memecostore what about the new drag and drop feature on their app?
ParAdoX__ Memecostore LMAOOO ROOFFFFFLLL XDDDD
It wasn’t even on United.
lmaooo awkward time to talk about how great the max is
indeed, it's promising as long as it doesn't crash
Part of the reason is because MAX is technologically great, airlines want to buy it faster and Boeing want to sell it faster, and it actually did, resulting in inadequate training and information distribution from both side.
@@saturnv2419 It's such a stupid thing for Boeing to do. Doesn't matter if airlines want to buy it faster, the blame will always be put on those who supplied the product. If anything, they should have upped the safety checks because as wendover explains, this plane was to serve long haul but low demand routes. They could not afford anything which could affect it's reputation and thus that low demand. It's not like many go from manchester to cleveland for example but the max was to provide the convenience for those that wanted to. But we will always pick safety over convenience.
@@Yunghamz The blame is on Boeing, but keep in mind the demand also forced a speedy supply, which we had already seen many times before in aviation.
@@saturnv2419 .. there's always the Airbus A320 and it's variants.
Just that some how American don't like European... mmnn.
Her: Come over!
737 max: I can’t, I’m grounded
Her: my parents aren’t home
737 max: You don’t understand, I’m literally grounded
Unlucky mate
Her: wait that’s illegal
Bad joke
underrated
Wuhan to San Francisco route exists. Literally everyone: Having the face like, 'Unsettled Tom'.
0% Of comments: "Wow cool video"
100% Of comments: "737 mAx"
And now Wuhan 🤣
Becca Balint ok boomer
Now wuhan bat soup
*my favorite*
@@Michi12 I KNEW SOMEONE WOULD SAY THAT 😂
Exactly. It's so annoying.
The 737 Max aren't looking so good now huh..
I was going to say the same thing but figured I'd check if anyone else did first
Nikhil Das You talking about the MAX series? Or the Max 8?”
All plane models have their flaws. At least Boeing seems to trying to fix it.
@@HorseCrazieGirl15 hmmm
Lol
This video didn't age well:
San Francisco - Wuhan Flight
"exciting" 737 MAX
him: whats even more exiting is the upcoming 737 max
etheopian flight 302:no
Lionair 610: hey there buddy wanna go upside down?
yall talk so much shit about the 737 Max without being knowledgeable on what actually happened and why it led to those crash.
@@SpikeNarration u also seem clueless.
@@SpikeNarration it has mcas man
the worst plane ever 2 deadly crash and Boeing is a criminal now man bad man bad
7:27
a320: hey 737 max come play
737 max: i cant im grounded (in 50 countries)
other planes: *snickers
love that
Then you realize that the 737 is the most widely used passenger plane in history.
Joe B thats the 737 not the max model
The timestamp is the Boeing 727!
"What's even more exciting for us consumers, is the boeing 737 max." That didn't age well
If only we could get 737 max flights to Wuhan
Well apparently we won't be seeing super low-demand routes like Manchester to Cleveland, Lyon to New York and Belfast to DC operated in the near future.
lmao
I’m Scottish and the thought of catching a long haul flight from Glasgow or Edinburgh, that is cheap and can take me to destinations further than I could have conceivably went before (at least from Scotland) is frankly thrilling.
In the UK, the only way you can get a non-stop flight to certain destinations is by flying out from London Heathrow.
Now it takes at least 8 hours on a coach to travel from Glasgow to London, that is if the traffic is flowing quickly into London and if the bus is not making any stops to pick up and drop off passengers along the way. You can understand why this isn’t the best situation, apart from the fact that you will have to make your way from London Victoria coach station to Heathrow via train, the trip down itself is exhausting and if you add in the fact you may have a lot further to go to get to your final destination, the thought of the experience is daunting.
You might ask, why not get a flight from Glasgow to London?. You can do that, but you will be arriving at one of the smaller and more out of the way airports ‘near’ London, if you want to spend as little as possible. Internal flights within Britain are expensive, or inconvenient. They are designed for business passengers and not budget travellers. Most young people travel around the country via bus because the cheapest tickets can be as little as £1.50 booked skilfully and in advance.
A one-way internal flight, from Glasgow to London Heathrow, costs more than getting a return ticket on a flight to most destinations in mainland Europe from Scotland!.
The train is the most balanced option you have, book in advance and you can get decently priced seats (which still cost at least as much as the cheapest flight) and you can be in London in half the time it would take via coach. Then you travel from London Euston to Paddington, and get the Heathrow Express and in 15 minutes you are at the airport.
Now if you add together all of the times, and weigh up your choices (whether you might as well just connect from an airport in Europe and save the money and hassle) or save only a marginal amount of time by getting the train to London Euston from Glasgow, you can see why Scotland deserves to have cheaper, long haul flights made available. Our options for easy travel are more limited. I shouldn’t have to travel to the other side of the country to get where I need to go. Internal flights in such a small country are inefficient, but we are large enough to deserve to have the north become a hub for international travel. It would serve those in the north of England as well. Travelling to Scotland for a flight would be faster for people who come from let’s say, Newcastle, than it would be to travel to London.
100% agree. Scotland is already great for going east to the Middle East, Far East or Australia because of the direct flights on Emirates, Etihad and Qatar. They are better for this route than going through London because you get to travel through much more efficient airports and save a lot of money on airport transport and travel fees without the absurd London costs for worse service.
Every airline that wanted the A380 already has it. Airbus hasn't gotten any new orders from other non A380 operators. Unlike the A350 which has a better future in front of it
incorrect. The giant A380 is a difficult sell in the current market, which is characterised by overcapacity, but the plane in 2016 received orders from two non-A380 customers: All Nippon Airways and Iran Air.
Airbus still has 27 A 380 to deliver.
julosx after that its done.
I sure enjoy to fly from Wuhan to San Francisco on a Boeing 737 Max.
This your first video that angers me. Firstly: A380 =/= B787. They're not competition! You could've compared that 787 to the a350 (which by the way already has 810 orders) or the a330 neo. Oh, and your little spike about the A380's slow orders? Its REAL competition is the B747-8i, that has thus far only rounded up 50 orders. The A380's orders you ask? 319.
He is not comparing planes, he is comparing the difference in manufacture philosophies at the time (early 2000s).
no he's not.
Martin Wessels thank you, this statement is completely true, it's like saying the difference between a car and a coach, there no competition. The a350( a far better aircraft) is a far better comparison than the a380 which is still an amazing aircraft and considering the designing started 30 years ago and the first flight was 27 April 2005 making it 11 years old, and the Boeing 787 is far far far newer, new techonologies and engines have been created
He however forget to mention that Airbus never believed in a 100% Hub model for commercial aviation (the creation of the a350 is a good proof). It's just that proportions of direct flights they "believe" in are different than Boeing's ones. There is a little bit of oversimplification in this video. A person not knowing anything about commercial airplanes would just think "Airbus are a bunch of idiots" after seeing this video, while the reality is way, way more complex than that.
Airbus lover
It's Big Planes Vs Small Planes Right?
Or Airbus Vs Boeing?
Big planes vs. small planes
Muhammad Nur Arifin I
No Muhammad Nur Arifin is big plane vs little plane
Nope everybody thinks defrint things
Леонид Декабрёв the 787 is no small plane.
Nice (and long) Boeing commercial
Sorry, it's the truth. He's just telling like it is. A380 is a huge flop! Airbus went down the same wrong path like Concorde did decades ago. Both planes are not profitable.
the 747-8 is actually doing quite well a lot of people forgot something the brand new 747 wasn't made for passenger transport that's the 747-8I (after a couple airlines asked for it) the 747-8 was mainly designed to be an cargo aircraft and it's doing that job quitte well
"the 747-8 was mainly designed to be an cargo aircraft".....Wrong! Demand for mainly cargo configurations has made it that way. It was not mainly designed for cargo.
I read somewhere (have the slightest clue where) that's the reason the people version has the I for intercontintal
Flop in terms of absolute orders, or flop in terms of revenue? Remember, the 747-8 is essentially a variant on one of the world's most popular planes, the 747. The R&D for that plane is minimal as most of its innovations are already done. Is essentially the iPhone 7 of iPhones.
Most feel that its break-even point is around 100 planes. In 5 years, Boeing has delivered 41 passenger versions and 68 freighter version, with another 15 on order. The A380 has been estimated to need ~420 planes to break even (the 787 needs about 1100). 195 A380s have been delivered... out of 319 orders and orders have almost stopped since 2014.... with 2 planes ordered.
In addition, they are mostly purchased by a small number of airlines, like Emirates(43% of ALL deliveries), Singapore(10%), Lufthansa(7%). When three airlines makes up 60% of all your deliveries it's not a good thing. The ONLY thing keeping the A380 in production is Emirates, with 45% of ALL orders. And think about that, Emirates and Singapore both have SINGLE HUB strategies. How many airlines have that business model?
Resale of the A380 will be lower than expected as the airline industry is pivoting towards a cheaper no-frills model between smaller airports. The inconveniences of security at airports as well as the rise of the LCC has meant that re-selling or leasing a A380 will be difficult. They can't FLY into many of the smaller airports.
The A380 will likely **NEVER** the recoup the $25 Billion it costed to build it. Hopefully Airbus can use some of that R&D and apply it towards other future more profitable planes. It's a shame really, if the A380 hadn't sucked the wind out of Airbus's sales (pun intended), they could have spend all that money and effort on building a truly new and completely innovative aircraft instead of playing catch-up with the A350AWB.
Why this video didn't age well:
1) The 'exciting' Boeing 737 Max turned out to be the *most* unsafe passenger plane in recent decades.
2) Nobody would ever want a Wuhan to San Francisco flight from 2020 onwards.
3) Boeing is neck deep in loss. Lost its trust.
4) The entire fucking aviation industry just collapsed.
5) Oil prices are in their historic lows and even dropped to negative value for a few hours.
It's so weird imagining if someone said this 3 years ago, people would consider him/her crazy....
Not to mention that no one flies any of the point to point routes (e.g. Manchester to Cleveland, Hartford to London) that he mentioned, and if anyone might have, it would have been a carrier with a hub at one of those airports, e.g. Thomas Cook in Manchester when they were still flying.
Most of the "point-to-point" routes mentioned are in fact high demand routes connecting countries with historic and linguistic commonalities. Santiago to Madrid, for example, is an important route for both LATAM and Iberia, just as New York to London is for American Airlines and British Airways. Passengers from all over South America connect at Santiago for the flight, and on the Iberia flight, passengers transfer at Madrid to other European destinations.
Now it'd be Wuhan wanting to keep from getting infected from San Francisco.
Saying gas is historically low didn’t age well 😅
I miss the historic lows.
Number 5 didn't age well either.
To all the people "calling out" Wendover for being biased towards Boeing, I think you 1. misread the title, and 2. you don't know what he's actually comparing.
He's comparing two airline ideas, the hub-and-spoke model, and the point-to-point model.
I do believe that he used very powerful words in calling the A380 a failure, as it has served a very specific purpose, but I can see why he said so. Boeing struck gold when they developed the 747 and it outright saved the company. Airbus needed competition and so the developed the largest passenger airplane to ever fly. They had a problem, the A380 was introduced long after the market had expanded to accommodate the long-haul aircraft.
With new technologies and innovation with composite materials, the long-haul aircraft simply cannot compete. The sales of A380s and 747s have slowed to a crawl. Both Airbus and Boeing feel this. Both companies have invested in newer thin body planes while Boeing has gotten all the press due to their revolutionary composite technology of the 787.
The A380plus, the new premier A380 model has had a total of zero orders. The hub-and-spoke model has its place and serves its purpose. However, it's slowly being overtaken by the point-to-point model and its enabling by planes such as the 787. The A380 was revolutionary and is a majestic plane, but its purpose has been served. We will see it slowly be phased out with the 747 in favor of planes such as the 787 and A350.
I hope that you children can look beyond the Boeing vs. Airbus battle and see the bigger picture.
He only used the A380 and the 787 as the best and most recognizable examples of each model.
Now prepare for the most reasoned and well thought out comment to get drowned in the sea of Airbus vs. Boeing battle.
Yes, but he says that "point to point" flying is the future but all the routes that get touted as examples of the Dreamliner's Point-to-Point capabilities (SFO-XMN, SFO-WUH, LHR-AUS, NRT-SJC, PVG-BOS) are actually Hub-to-Point routes. From what I can tell, despite all the hype, the 787 hasn't opened up any actual Point-To-Point routes.
Opening up hub to point flying is nothing special. 767s have done that, as have A330s, 777s etc.
Sooner or later, Airbus will also serve the demand for point-to-point flights with the A321LR, so its not only Boeing who succeeds. By the way, the 747-8 has also been a failure as it has been released almost half a century later than its succsessful forerunner
You have time to write this ???
Pixoon Tube Boeing knew it will fail. That’s why the 747-8I isn’t widely know a failure because Boeing saw it coming, they also didn’t lose money.
The a380 is still a fail because airbus though they’ll sell 1,200+ and they keep losing money.
Erndem Sterff Prederctions But the title gives a different impression. Airbus isn't saying they don't believe in point to point. That's why they're producing literally handfuls of models in the point to point range, except, he didn't list any of them. He only ever spoke about the Dreamliner.
It would have - perhaps - sounded less biased, at least from an airliner point of view anyway, and certainly more informative to the casual viewer who may not know and offer lot about airliners, if he had suggested some more point to point aircraft from both Airbus and Boeing and or maybe others after he had covered the policy differences between Boeing and Airbus in the recent past.
Boeing, yes, are producing aircraft from a belief (or policy) in point to point, and that's what they have touted, certainly in recent years anyway. Airbus when they started producing the A380 and Co. touted the hub and spoke model.
Since then however, mainly due to the way that airlines are buying aircraft, and due to the way that they are operating from smaller airports (or destinations) in order to save money, Airbus have changed their tune somewhat.
Airbus are no longer solely interested in hub and spoke operations with respect to their long-haul products, but are now actively changing policy decisions down the line in order to match Boeing on an aircraft to aircraft basis.
So it would have perhaps been prudent for the narrator to mention this, as it is an important development in the world of airliner marketing and production - especially from the second giant manufacturer. And there are only two of them.
No mention of the A350? Its airbuses answer to the 787 knowing the A380 isn't as demanded considering all the point in the video.
Excellent video as always though!
airbus always copies
Average Alien And apparently do it better when you look at the order books
So why Boeing annouced the B737MAX after Airbus annouced the A320neo?
Peter Zwegert 2 years difference does not make up for 1000 extra orders for the A320neo. The A350 enters service 5 years later than the 787 and yet the A350 is winning in terms of orders (excluding the 787-8s orders as Airbus' answer to this is still in development)
The video is actually about the two different transport models (hub and spoke, and point to point) and the two different planes developed to fit those models. The A350 is only being developed now and so doesn't serve as a good comparison.
787 - point to point
vs
A380 - hub and spoke
787 - point to point
vs
A350 - point to point
He can't really make a good comparison about the two models using the A350.
I flew on a 787 dreamliner with American airlines from Venice to chicago. It was amazing. The windows tint instead of shut, the screens have remotes/game controllers, and it was probably the best plane ive ever flown on, and ive only flown 10 times
A boeing is never good
@@IBo99608 lol boeing > airbus
AA is the only Us airline to have remotes, nice gimmick
Everyone's complaining about the Boeing bias, and I'm just sitting here wondering why he doesn't use metric units as the primary system.
For some reason the USA people dont like change. Maybe its too hard for them. We changed to metric just after WW2 and never looked back
it would cost the US trillions of dollars to make the switch because we have hundreds of millions of signs and such to replace and it's not practical to update the world's largest road and rail networks.
***** so an entire nation is dumb because they won't switch over to a system that most everyone else uses? Lol. Your logic is flawless... Said no one ever!
They could start by learning all students the metric system, and slowly adapt to it. Thats dheaper than an overnight change and would be better in the long run
There is no reason for the US to switch over just because others don't like that they don't use their system. Such an egotistical train of thought. It is no wonder some foreigners are viewed as assholes by the USA!
I find it amusing that there seems to be fanboys for plane construction companies of all things.
I mean, to each their own, I just never really thought of that possibility.
Foxymew welcome to the aviation world
There is a fandom for everything. Everything.
It's a form of nationalism.
iF iTS noT BOeInG i'M nOt gOinG !
Nothin’ beats the 789
This video has aged very well.
“Wuhan to San Francisco”
“Very excited about the upcoming 737 MAX”
.
.
.
.
2020 is gonna ruin this mans whole video
"Focus on passenger comfort"
Sees United logo
_Hmm..._
Lol can't wait for the 737 MAX! And also Airbus is stopping a380 production, and 787's are built in not so safe factories
I think one huge mistake Airbus made with the A380 was putting the flight deck on the lower level.
This put the pilots closer to the ground, but it also cut capacity. You can place passenger seats under the flight deck, but not over it.
In addition they made it harder to create a freighter version of the plane.
Boeing 747 freighters can carry quite a lot of freight, and the nose and tail of the plane can open making loading and unloading easy.
Airbus could have created a freighter A380 to compete with the 747, but they didn't think ahead much.
The avionics bay is under the cockpit, so it would be hard to put any seats under there. And it would change aerodynamics characteristics
Eric Taylor I believe the reason for this is airbus' fly by wire, allowing pilots to familiarise themselves a lot more easily whereas the Boeing 747 is placed far higher up
Don't you think that the choices of conception have been made by 1000+ engeeners working 24/7 on the project? There are plenty of reasons why they didn't adopt the 747 configuration
737 is by far the best plane and the a320
AirbusAviation-photography
"Fly by wire" is a computerized system for control. Traditionally there are cables (or hydroponic lines) attached directly to the flight controls. The pilot moves the control and the cables pull or push the corresponding movable surface on the wing or tail..
In fly by wire the pilot's controls are hooked to a computer. The computer analyzes these inputs then (you hope) sends the appropriate commands to move the control surfaces.
In fly by wire the pilot doesn't even need to be on the plane to fly it. It doesn't matter where he sits.
The 737 Max is gonna be awesome! I hope nothing terrible happens to mess it up!
Imagine Ryanair 787s LOL!!!
Brussels_aviator imagine Ryanair a380
Hell yeah
Oh god, the 787 will have the hardest landing with ryanair
Ryanair: the most profitable airline on the planet ?
Scoffs away ...
The plane is extra...
Isn't the majority of Emirates airlines based on the A380? How is it a failure when a big airline like that has a massive fleet of them. And as a big guy I like these big planes a lot more. I can't even stand up on a lot of these small and skinny planes.
Nope, they have more 777-300, 777-300ER, 777-200, 777-200ER than the a380, plus they have just ordered 150 777-8 and 9 :)
Okay, one airline cannot keep an aircraft in production. The A380 is only highly used by Emirates as they fly extremely long routes. And that's literally it. No other airlines do this, as the 777, A330neo, A350, 787 all are more efficient. A380s often fly 1/3 to 2/3 thus not making a complete profit. It's difficult to completely fill an A380, yet an 777 or A350 is much easier. If you think airlines honestly care about "space for tall people" then you shouldn't' even be here. Airline configuration deals with this manner. 787, 777, A350s and other widebodies all have fine amounts of space and are better to operate than the A380. Heck, even a Delta 757-300 I was on felt roomy. Airbus stupidly did mot make a freighter, and cannot get any sales. The project was over budget and now is going to collapse in the near future
The emirates fleet has 2 a330-200s, 3 a340-300s, 84 A380-800s + 54 on order, 3 777-200ERs, 10 777-200LRs, 10 777-300s, 123 777-300ERs + 23 on order, 35 777-8x on order, and 115 777-9x on order. So 323 777s in total and 142 a380s. So 68 percent of the fleet is 777s and 30 percent is a380s.
And your point is? If all, proves my claim that they heavily run the A380, and are literally rhe only airline to do that. Approx. 1/3 of all aircraft are run by the A380. And I have no idea why you are factoring in orders...why? It's not something you would add into a data equation. But nice job point it out Sherlock Holmes
Anze G Emirates is THE hub for connections with massive amounts of people coming through Dubai going to Asia, Europe or America. Emirates do make profit off it
I abuse to say:
this is almost the perfect channel, always sharing interesting notices for us, thanks from Brazil
I've flown on A380's and Dreamliners and I can say with certainty that the Dreamliner in nowhere near "unrivalled in passenger comfort". The A380 is *much* more comfortable than the Dreamliner, even in economy. Boeing put a lot of PR spin on the Dreamliner, entirely undeserved.
It's not about comfort these days, it's about price, there is a race to the bottom currently happening in the airline industry.
Gerald Tomyn its more likely that these differences come from different layouts and seat designs of different airlines
When It comes to comfort, I rather fly the A350 over the 787. Never flown with the A380, but I hope to get an opportunity soon.
Can we mention that a380 has more reliable engines. B787 Dreamliner has become major problem for Norwegian it lowers their profit alongside with MAX’s grounding that put even more troubles to pay off their debt.
It's the airline's decision Boeing or Airbus does not choose where the seats are.
I'm seriously loving your videos on commercial aviation! Keep them coming brother!
I recently flew aboard one of American Airlines' [2016 refit] B-787 Dreamliners, and it had the most luxurious economy-class flight accommodations I've ever experienced!
In addition, I often refer to the Dreamliner as the "DreamNiner', because of its 9-seats-per-row interior configuration.
A380 will soon collapse. 787 and A350 will rule out the sky in the future.
Don't forget the Boeing 777! The actual competitor of the A350 is the B777.
my thoughts is that a350 is kinda more into 787 than 777, and i dont think 777 have a competitor as of now but in the near future maybe a330neo ?
Idk but I guess A350 is a better fuel saving compare to 777 because of the new technologies, developement and such. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Thanks for the clarification. And also for the nice respond :D
The uploader already stated that A380 is only to compete with the 747. it's all about competition mate.
3:06 Wow, never expected to see Aeroswit-operated plane in a video :)
dude these videos are addicting
“If you’ve lived for the past 10 years...”
10 Year Old:Sup
banned.
6 year old: HeY
if you are under 13 you can get banned
MyNameIsJason Ik Im not ten
@@tireswings Your probs under 13, thats semi-factual.
My beloved 777, where are you!
As someone from Connecticut, you wouldn't even bother connecting from Hartford. You'd just directly depart from Boston or New York. Just an example I know lol.
well the last point really depends base on which country u r at and how small the the country is. say country like singapore and UAE. they dont need small planes cause they dont really fly domestically. therefore a380 comea in good use
+Eric Wang But they can fly to smaller airports in the region. Singapore can fly to smaller airports in SEA, and UAE can fly to smaller airports in the middle east.
1:50-2:09
Why 16 routes? Isn't it 15?
Its actually 20 XD
Staszini 15.
7:32
very excited
The 737 Max part has not aged well. 😁😁
This video is a bit weird considering it ignores the A320 Neo (The very reason the 737 Max exists) and the A350, which is a direct 787 competitor.
On top of Airbus already having the 330 for decades, and the A300 before it. For hell's sake, Airbus literally invented the twin engine, wide body, long haul plane when Boeing was all in on the 747.
The 737 plug aged like milk
Made me notice how old the video is
Like with your other aviation videos, I really enjoyed this one. I'm flying with a A380 to China over a hub in a few days! I agree with you, that point to point flying probably is the future and Airbus seems to anknowledge that with the A350, but it's a shame, that this means, that those huge majestic planes like the 747 and the A380 are going out of fashion. I hope that even without the hub system there will be a place for them for example on ultra high demand lines, like London - NYC!
Apace dont worry. Big planes will be more common in the future with an increasing population.
Great video! You make the complex, easy to understand!
I have to say, this is pretty bias seeing that that Boeing is an american company and you are american as well... Anybody from France could easily go ahead and say why the A350 XWB is so good as well
I'm actually French-American living in the UK. ;) I personally love flying on the a380. It's an awesome airplane, it's just not well suited for current economics.
Well said
for me the a350 has more beautiful shape than 787 and for efficiency and things, i think there is small different between them
He wasn't comparing the 350 with the 787, he was comparing two fundamental views of the industry as it applies to the A380 and the 787. The success or failure of the A350 is an indication of how well Boeing made the right guess, because the A350 is intended to be a direct competitor to the 787, albeit with slighly less efficiency, but still applicable to the point to point model.
The 380 was a mistake, it will die within a few years. It effectively has only one buyer at this point, Emirates. The hub and spoke model is dying, and good riddance, as far as passengers are concerned. I'm tired of flying 7 hrs to make a 4 hour destination, because I spend half of the flight time heading in the WRONG direction to meet a major hub
The problem is although he compares more 2 types of Planes he was highly critcal about Airbus and only mentioning Boeings new Planes regardless, that Airbus got around 4800 orders for the A320neo and Boeing only 3300 for B737MAX
A380 was the most comfort I’ve had on a flight. Gonna miss that beauty:(
funkyleah I know it was such an incredible plane
It's that darn 787
AND it's only the a350 that can save airbus.
Just as 'Video killed the Radio Star', 'ETOPS sure as Hell killed the 'Jumbo Jet/s.'
Sorry, I can't fly with united- I'm not a fan of being kicked of the plane
Legit Breve Fan just be cool. keep all your offensive opinions to yourself, whatever they are. it's called "live and let live", and most people practice it.
Shots Fired 🤣🤣🤣
Well that depends, are you a white guy/gal?
4/5 doctors recommend United Airlines.
I wouldn’t have a big problem with Delta. United not so good.
I gave this a thumbs up, but i didn't learn anything new.
Thanks for the video, Wendover!
KBDL Hartford/Springfield Bradley International Airport represent
Because flights to Toronto are technically international.
Sean Lapuk we have nonstop to Dublin
Even though Bradley is a piddly little airport, I have a soft spot for it because it always means it's the start of a greater journey. Plus it feels very familiar and like "home" when you're returning from a long trip overseas.
2chenz it's a gigantic small airport
Heh, yeah. But it's quite small for an airport that jetliners can actually take off from.
There's a municipal airport near me that has two runways that long, and probably covers more acreage, but feels small because there's no terminal and no scheduled service.
This video did not age well. He mentioned Wuhan and the 737 Max💀
Bruh he literally just foreshadowed the 2 biggest disasters of the past 5 years in the airline industry
Flying intercontinental on a single-aisle airliner? So much nope.
Actually, I did it once (return): Funchal-Ponta Delgada-Monreal-Toronto... boooooooring... even with the stops. Amsterdam to Vancouver was a lot better.
atopeconlatxabaleria dude it's super low cost
Yeah.. I don’t remember the last time I’ve flown translatlantic on anything that wasn’t a 777. I would still feel a little strange ngl
E. R. E. Jones I think (I’m not 100% sure) I flew transpacific or transatlantic on an A380 and 787 before
I have flown on the Finnair 757 not once, not twice when they were operating it daily from Toronto to Helsinki and I can say it was a LOT better in general than the British Airways 787/777 that are flown now from Toronto to London.
Airbus orders have exceeded those of Boeing for 4 of the past 5 years. Emirates alone has over 100 A380 fleet and a current order backlog for 41 aircrafts.
Emirates is the only reason that the a380 received any orders.
@@badgerattoadhall no
Aaaand...not anymore
Well Emirates canceled the orders and no other airline wants the A380 because it’s inefficient
Resize Films Most of Airbus orders are from A320neo’s, proving Wendover is here right (point to point, smaller plane but longer range) and Emirates is reducing its A380 orders. Also Airbus themselves said they will stop A380 production in a few years.
Belfast YEEEOOOOOOO
YEOOOOOO
YOEEEEEE
'bout ye!
What's the craic?
up the hoods lol
The A-380 can function point-to-point IF...
It is reconfigured as a CF , and all heavy-freight is packed into the cargo-holds , light-freight onto the mid main-deck , luggage onto the aft main-deck , and auxiliary pax onto the fore main-deck . This arrangement yields profits similar to full pax-load profits . That is , over $1.1m. per trip , net revenue .
Definitely a good flexible - flyer !
D.H.
>Wuhan to San Francisco
>737 max
This video was cursed, wasn't it?
the reason why I've heard of those planes is because of you and Real Engineering's videos
after seeing the coment section i have to say most of the argument is bullshit.Because the argument of this video is "Big vs Small planes" not "Boeing vs Airbus" and even thou he did made a mistake with mentioning boeing a lot more its hard to not to because a video like this must have a winner and a looser and because the winner is small plane (787) he would be drift along the boeing manufacturing plan in the future a lot more than airbus manufacturing plan wether you're a fanboy or not.
The Boeing 737 already had a maintenance failure on engine leading to a crash
Most aircraft have had failures an airbus flew into the ground because of their fly by wire system.
@@ant21b NOt just once, and there have been other near misses. Including one with an A380, that thankfully, was able to land safely
“Wuhan, China to San Francisco”
“What’s even more exciting for customers is the 737 MAX”
Aged like Milk
Norwegian recently sold their 787 fleet citing that their long haul division has lost them lots of money during Covid-19 which is sad. I remember flying the Dreamliner from Los Angeles to Paris and it was fun
Point to point haha
okay, airports can only handle soo much aircraft, there is a limit. As air travel continues to increase, which is obvious, lots of main airports are just very conguested.. Hence heavies like 74 and the A380 are ideal, as they can take 2 or 3 the capacity of other aircraft, and keep slots, gates etc down..
Its interesting how you didnt mention the A350 With its variants beating the 777 and the 787 rivals. The A350 will be more efficent, its also has more carbon materials, I cant remember the figures off the top of my head
The A350, also has more orders, and having flown both, the A350 was nicer flight( 787 Was also very nice, great plane, but the A350 Wins)
But hey, guess being sponsored or owned by boeing even, causes some bias? haha,
You can always build more airports, or put more runways on the existing ones. "Hub-and-spoke" also uses airport capacity inefficiently...all the flights come in, at once; everybody switches planes, then all the flights leave, at once. It also means some airports are swamped (hubs) and others are greatly under-utilized (everyone else).
The best way to cut congestion (IMO) is replace commuters with rail. A Beech 1900 takes as much sequencing, etc, as a 747, for only 19 passengers. Flying RDG --> PHL is pretty stupid, when you think that most of the loggable flight time consists of taxiing around!
Cute bro an Airbus fan.
As someone who *_likes both_* hear me out.
777 has greater range, and greater payload capacity. I know there is an A35K yet do you honestly expect that to compete with the 777X? Not the range, or performance, or efficiency. I'm not saying the A350 is a bad aircraft, as its very nice. Yet you are seriously forgetting airline configurations. Flown on an Airtran 712 years back then on a Delta 712. I honestly prefer the AT yet all up to airline configurations. Anyways back on track, Ill check my sources, yet the 787 is currently outselling the A350 (as project was launched earlier and gained more interest earlier). Airbus is showing no signs of an A350F, which Airbus stupidly rarely considers freighters (there are exceptions such as the A320neo and A330) which easily can boost the 777 and maybe even 777X (if a freighter is launched). Again, I'm not saying "OMFG AIRBUS SUXX BOEING FTW" (as most little kid Airbus fans immediately believe that), as there are things Airbus does better than Boeing. And the same applies with Boeing towards Airbus.
Not at all. Building more airports is almost impossible. Nobody wants them built where land exists, and in congested small countries, there is no land., Secondly,. you can't just build new runways. Most major airports have no room for more runways.
Once the space runs out,. they only way to increase capacity is to have bigger planes.
Mark S Or to have more efficient aircraft and of a decent relative size.
*"Building more airports is almost impossible."* Bull.
*"Nobody wants them built where land exists,"* There's a solution to this problem; it's called "eminent domain."
*"and in congested small countries, there is no land"* Yeah, poor Lichtenstein. Most countries are nowhere near "running out of land."
Dat transition tho ( at 3:29 )
Must've took him hours😆
i thought it was gonna crash lol
Something you forgot to mention is, that in the hub system airports need to be bigger, since the hub airport will obviously have the planes start and land to the close destinations, so in reality you don't even safe on gates at all, and only a little on pilots. Another point is, that planes 'decay' faster on the ground, compared to in the air and in general it's easier to build a plane that can fly a long time, compared to a plane who lands very very often. And fuel consumption is the highest when starting and gaining heigth, so by simply flying a route, no matter how long it is, you already consume a lot of fuel, therefore you might need more expensive prices.
Is the hub and spoke really that inefficient because how frequently would someone fly from somewhere like Austin to Plymouth? It would be too long to wait to fill the plane.
Michael Robinson exactly.
The 787 is a fuel effecient plane.
Airbus A350: Am I a joke to you?
@@77l96 I think if the GEnX version, but IDK about the Rolls Royce trent 1000 version.
@@gkfujiwaraesquibel7998 787 with Trent 1000 < A350 787 with GENX > A350
@@meganthai1998 So the RR in the A350 is more efficient than the RR in the 787?
@@gkfujiwaraesquibel7998 Yes. They both are efficient but the Trent 1000 on the 787 explodes a lot.
the A380 is so much better to travel in Economy than the 787.....
2:20 So this explains why they use a 777-200 to fly from Chicago O’Hare to Newark Liberty
That thumbnail... A 787 isn’t a little plane
It is compared to an A380
It is if you compare it to an a380. And considering it's the smallest wide body, it is small
Blood Kitten smallest wide body is in fact 767
So much for the point to point model. The 13th largest airport (by passenger throughput) in the US still only has two long haul destinations.
Wuhan to San Francisco in a 737max.
Some things can only get worse.
Kind of a shame airbus never made it so big in the americas, and that not enough people are flying around here.
Live right next to a high trafic airport and how cool it would be to see an A380 each day
A380 was a failure because most airport runways can't fit such a large plane.
The A380 was build to fit into the Boeing 747 requirements, so it actually can use shorter runways than the 747.
can it? i don't think so... maybe for emergency... Many major airports had to be re-fitted/newed/built/whatever to accommodate the larger plane as far as i'm concerned...
No Airlines would want to operate A380 into small airports......
It can definitely use the runways, and yes even shorter than the original 747. The problems were in the terminals, usually they cannot accommodate the A380 without modifications, but that's not the reason it "failed" either.
Yeah, you are right, but instead of the runways, the terminals have been upgraded to cope with the larger passenger numbers.
Hub and spoke model is still existent and popular. It's just that from a hub like Newark it's possible to fly to smaller cities.
im watching in march of 2019. Yea, the 737MAX got grounded...
7:26 That one didn't age very well lol
This hub set up is why live abroad but have never been to the closest airport. I always end up taking a train to the next closest.
you use the term 'small airport' pretty loosely
"Relatively small" not "small"! Newark vs JFK? Newark isn't "small" but JFK is humongous
+CallmeMiner I was talking about the the UK airports
When I (being from northern Norway) think "small airport", I generally think STOLport.
Thomas Roberts When you mostly see airports like DFW and ATL, it changes your idea of large.
Any one herd of AirAsiaX that uses the A330
Yup but i hate air asia cus i hate budget airlines
Everyone that knows airasia x knows they uses a330...
this is the coolest thing ive ever seen
now in 2019 we scream when we hear or see the 737 max
United airlines were innovators. until they bashed a doctor.
Liam Farrell still innovative, they just made a new way to "reaccomidate" people. Also a new way to stir up massive internet debates
Liam Farrell they just want to get infected
Are you bored?
Well I'll show you how it feels to get hit in face with board.
how? he was an idiot for wanting to get home as soon as possible to save lives?
He wasn't concerned about saving lives, just his own convenience.
8:26 Phoenix Sky Harbor. Love that airport.
380? Why not 350?
The whole point of this video was to compare the efficiency of larger plans to smaller ones. It's NOT a video comparing similar airplanes. Please read the title of this video!
He was just using a pretty stark difference. Comparing two airbus planes wouldnt perhaps give as much of a clear image especially when the A350 isnt as noteworthy to the public at large
why not compare the Boeing 747 as well against the smaller plane? Would he have come to the same conclusion? Also, the economics off smaller planes might be better, but I've flown in both of these planes and the A380 is far more comfortable
he didn't need to
ReverendRocky a350 has wayyy more orders than the a380 so I would say it's noteworthy
Airline Manager 2 anyone?
O boi
Isn't Turkey going to have the biggest airport next year?
Juve 132 Idk I think it’s singapore
Jaret Dueñas no yuo dumb Singapore got a big airport
Juve 132 The one replacing Ataturk airport in Istanbul?