What’s WRONG with the Airbus A350?!

Go to drinkag1.com/mentournow to get a FREE 1-year supply of Vitamin D3+K2 and 5 AG1 travel packs with your first purchase. Thanks to AG1 for sponsoring today's video!

After watching the disaster at Tokyo, I would say absolutely nothing is wrong with the A350. I can not believe how intact thecA350 was after it came to a stop. The fact that the main landing gear and wings were still intact after running through the Dash 8 is a testament to the aircrafts strength.

Hi, A350 pilot here. Some of the info shared in this video are not accurate. The -84 and -97 have absolutely nothing to do with fan diameters, as the two variants have the same fan diameter of 3,0 meters, or 118 inches. Actually you could even say that the -900 and the -1000 are powered by two variants of the same engine, the difference being that the Trent XWB-84 that powers the -900 has a thrust output of around 84000lb, and the Trent XWB-97 that powers the -1000 has a 97000lb thrust output and a slightly larger core (around 5% larger), and runs a bit faster.

I need to make a correction regarding the Trent XWB engines of the Airbus A350. In the video, I say that the A350-1000 has a more powerful engine, which has a larger fan diameter, of 97 inches, whereas the smaller A350-900's engine has a fan diameter of 84 inches. In reality, BOTH variants have the same fan diameter, which is about 118 inches or exactly 3 meters. As some of you have guessed in the comments of the video, this mistake is due to a misunderstanding about the name of the two engine variants: Trent XWB-84 and Trent XWB-97. My team and I were more familiar with Pratt & Whitney engines, many of which have a number at the end, which denotes the fan diameter, and assumed that this is what Rolls-Royce does, to. And you know what happens when one assumes… 😔 In reality, those numbers have to do with the takeoff thrust of the two engines: 84,200 pounds for the -84 variant, and 97,000 pounds for the -97. I really appreciate all of you who pointed this error out as we pride ourselves to always try and bring you the most accurate content possible. Listening to you and your comments often teaches me a lot of and I’m feeling very grateful that I have such an engaged and knowledgeable audience. 💕 //Petter

The feature I like about AIRBUS is that it doesn't have the MCAS Rock & Roll feature and the doors don't fall off.

The answer is nothing.

Well the accident a Japan showed a very strong airframe, I think this was also one of, if not the most, critical factor that everyone in that plane survived.

Oh man, I'm still bummed that the A380 wasn't enough of a success for Airbus. I so rarely sleep on airplanes since I'm over 1m in height and they're apparently designed / laid out for the other group... But once on a Singapore 380 I turned to my wife and said "are we STILL taxiing?" and she said "we've been airborne for 3 hours, you've been asleep for most of that." Damn shame.

Yeah, big problems! Airlines should all opt for Boing's 737 Max, it comes with automatic emergency door opening!

Boeing sold a shed-load of 777-300ERs in the 2010s and most carriers are not yet ready to replace them with new A350-1000 or 777-9. Both frames should see much stronger sales towards the end of this decade and into the 2030s.

To be honest: Whenever I hear a CEO saying "We have to quadruple our profit margins over the next five years," I also hear "The pernickety complaints of engineers and their hairsplitting about safety is an irritation we can't use." Many major industrial accidents are not engineering problems, they are caused by the profit margins being boosted on cut corners." I understand RR needing to compete... but huge airplanes also have huge numbers of people inside.

MentourNow is a very Boeingcentric. I think Airbus is doing just fine. And the Boeing build quality again coming into focus with the Air Alaska 737 900Max fuselage damage. One problem after another

All 379 pax successfully evacuated with minimal broken fingernails, evacuated after a 350 (airborne, at landing speeds) impacts a stationary airframe on the deck in Japan - everyone out, with several exit doors blocked, nosewheel absent so front slide too shallow and tail end high. I'd fly on a 350 ANY DAY (but the 380 is still the best IMHO).

We must also not forget, Emirates have a large fleet of 777-300ER's and 777Fs, bying the new 777X will keep crew familiarisation and maintenance as they all use the core GE 90 engine which yes it's new family on the 777X but still GE, flight crews inc cabin and cockpit crew will be familiar and trained on the current 777 so transitioning to the new one will cost less. It just makes more sense for Emirates to go this route. Also the only aircraft within the size of the A380 is the 777-9.

All I can say is that the A350 is the most comfortable longhaul flight I've ever flown economy on.

I believe there's nothing wrong with the A350, never have I seen and travelled in such a well build, safe- and comfortable plane. And like others have mentioned, look at what happened in Japan.

Captivating analysis, full of detailed product comparisons and understanding of each market player's motivations. We began watching with the intention of merely "sampling" the episode, but ended up watching it twice.

Just a minor point about the 787. It actually does have bleed air but only for the inlet lip. All other systems that traditionally used bleed air are now electric. I have a friend who is currently in 787 transition training and he was as surprised as I was. And I actually work on the 787 for a living!

Cheers and thank you so much for not just covering airplane incidents and piloting insights but also industry usage, needs, overview, and ternds. I appreciate the insight into this industry you provide that outsiders like me greatly appreciate experiencing.

Love the lines of the A350. A beautiful aircraft. ✈