Scott McCartney in today's Middle Seat column in the WSJ talked about the new cabin features planned for the 787. These include larger windows, 'mood' lighting (i.e. LEDs rather than flourescent and windows that have adjustable tint), and most significantly much higher humidity - 20% vs 4% or so currently - plus more cabin pressure, 6,000ft altitude equivalent versus the current 8,000ft. This all sounds perfectly nice; my question is, what will customers pay up for? To the best of my knowledge, these are not features that will be able to be replicated in the A350 (which as I understand it will essentially be an A330 fuselage with a new wing and engines).

With the experience of Concorde we know that not a lot of customers (not enough, apparently) were willing to pay 70 - 100% premiums over F or 10x premiums over discounted Y to get there twice as fast. Let's presume for a second that two airlines were flying, say, SFO - LHR and one was offering an A350 with 4% humidity and 8,000ft pressure and the other was offering a 787 with 20% humidity and 6,000ft pressure. (Let's assume for a second that all the status/miles/promotions are the same between the carriers - I know, a big assumption). How much more is the ticket on the 787 worth to you as a passenger? 10%? 20%? 30%?