cwk wrote:
Well here's another metric to think about: fuel burn per empty seat.
Boeing's contention has for a long time been that there's more to be
gained by having more direct routes served by smaller planes.

In this view, the Sonic Cruiser was a strategic feint which forced
Airbus to put all its resources behind the A380, while Boeing's plan
all along was for something more like the 787.

The day the Sonic Cruiser was announced, I told my friends in Seattle that
there was absolutely no way Boeing could deliver on their promises and that
the plane would never be built. Given that the guys at Airbus are obviously
a LOT more knowledgable than me about aerodynamics, I would bet they didn't
lose a second of sleep over it, let alone change their entire company
strategy.


The A380 will turn a
profit but the 787 may be a much bigger financial success, and now
Airbus has to play catch-up me-too with the A350.

While you might be correct, this statement is just too biased to consider.
If you would like to just stick to the facts, i.e. numbers, the company
playing catch-up right now is Boeing since they are being outsold by Airbus.
FYI: I'm not a Boeing-basher or an Airbus-lover, I'm just telling the facts
as they are. I think they both make excellent aircraft. The 747-400 on
short final is a thing of beauty.

Hilton