Qatar Places Order For 50 Boeing 737 MAX Aircraft

so this post is redundant now?

2 Likes

No

You see, the A350-1000 is essentially just a stretched A350-900, very much unlike the 737-100 and the 737 MAX 9, which has a completely different cabin, cockpit, engines, heck even the wings are different (they redesigned the wing when making the NG)

And with that yes Iā€™m saying that flying on, say an A320neo is a different experience than flying an A320ceo, but not an A321neo

1 Like

This is why you have no friends. I can list multiple reasons why the 787 is better.

  1. 787 is much more efficient
  2. 787 is cheaper by 10%
  3. 787 employed much more advanced features such as the large windows and passenger cabin humidity.
  4. Industry prefers the 787, it has 30% more orders than the A350
  5. 787 does not have skin-fuselage cracking issues alike the A350.
1 Like

Before @TheGlobalAviator comes here saying about the wing, it appears Boeing knows what the issue is and is working on both an immediate and a long-term solution.

1 Like

Not a Boeing issue, a carbon fiber manufacturer issue (the carbon fiber parts are built by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries in Japan). They said some parts may have been contaminated but are no cause for concern.

both planes suck

casual 787 pfp

yes

1 Like

The 787 was introduced 4 years before the A350. This could be one of the reasons why; and due to the fact that there are 3 787 variants compared to 2 for the A350, the 787 as a whole can serve a wider range of markets for obvious reasons.

It depends. Take the 787-10 and A350-1000 for example, per seat the 787 might be cheaper/more efficient but since the A350-1000 has a higher capacity this can negate any substantial savings unless the 787-10 was in a high-density configuration. (This does not necessarily apply to the other 787 and A350 variants.)

There are also reasons why the A350 is better:

  1. Performance: The A350-900 comes out slightly better compared to the similarly-sized 787-10 in terms of performance; the takeoff distance is 8500ft for the former compared to 9100 for the latter.
  2. MTOW: The A350-900 has an MTOW of 283t while it is about 254 for the 787-10. The range of the standard A350-900 is 8100nm while it is 6430 for the 787-10. (The potential 787-10ER and A350-900ULR are not included.)

As for passenger comfort, both the A350 and 787 have their advantages and drawbacks.

Seat width: Since the A350 has a wider fuselage, the standard seat width (the most common 9-abreast configuration) is around 1 inch wider than that of the 787 with a similar layout (also 3-3-3, which is used by the vast majority of 787 operators. I am not including less common layouts such as 3-4-3 on the A350 and 2-4-2 on the 787 in this comparison.)

Windows: The 787 has larger windows so it is better in this sense.

Cabin pressure: Itā€™s pretty much a tie between the two, at about 6000ft for both the A350 and 787, 2000ft lower than most other aircraft.

In conclusion, neither plane is perfect and they each have their pros and cons; you cannot deny the fact that the 787 is mostly cheaper to operate and that the A350 has a higher MTOW and range compared to similarly-sized 787 variants.

2 Likes

The A350 actually was supposed to have an -800 variant, nobody wanted it and it was later transformed into the A330neo that still no one wants.

For some reason you changed from comparing the 787-10 and the A350-1000 to comparing the A350-900 with the 787-10. No wonder they have differences, because the 787 is bigger :joy:

The A350 is 10 CENTIMETERS wider than the 787. Honestly, it doesnā€™t matter. If it was a foot or so then yes it would but 4 inches, nah.

Still. According to various sources the A350-1000ā€™s takeoff distance at MTOW is also 8500ft, and range for the 316t version is 8700nmi.

Bear in mind that the A350-1000 is heavier and larger than the 787-10;

ā€¦and even though the 787-10 is bigger than the A350-900 it is lighter.

1 Like

ā€¦which is great for airlines because landing fees are cheaper

1 Like

And better for efficiency

Yeah the 787-10ER is outright gonna kill the A350-900 for airlines wanting to replace 772s

Only if that was the standard -10ā€¦

2 Likes

Well, Boeing already hinted that they will be increasing the MTOW in order to achieve a higher range for the 787-10ER, so the extended range version will be heavier than the current 787-10, potentially making its specifications closer to that of the A359.

While thatā€™s true, remember itā€™s way cheaper to change pilots from the 777 to the 787 than from the 777 to the A350.

1 Like

Even if that is the case, there are airlines which are already using the A359 to replace the 772, or even completed doing so. Examples include Air France, JAL and Malaysia Airlines. Singapore Airlines is using both the A359 and 78X to replace the 772.

Some of these have been already flying the A350 before they decided to retire the 772.

Remember they got those A350s way before Boeing announced works on the -10ER

Iā€™m looking at airlines such as Air New Zealand, British Airways, United and American, which are yet to replace their -200ERs

2 Likes

Rendering of the MAX 10

images (1)

2 Likes

i have flown on it

and i can say
737 is better than that :joy: