Originally Posted by SEA_Tigger
So, given that the "price" will be the same, Boeing is pitching to the airlines that those customers will prefer being on a 787 for 8000nm then an A350. They are also pitching that the passengers will be better prepared to "hit the ground running" when the arrive at their destination, which will appeal to corporate travel departments who can reduce "R&R" periods for their travellers.
First off, the price to the airline is probably not the same, due to Airbus' willingness to throw in the kitchen sink during negotiations versus Boeing's somewhat harder line on discounting. Or so it sounds, anyway, from the coverage of all these deals.
So the question is - do you believe Boeing's pitch? Are you going to be one of those passengers that says aha, by traveling on the 787 I will be able to hit the ground running when I arrive at my destination - thereby increasing your loyalty to that carrier and/or making you willing to pay slightly higher prices than on airlines with other aircraft types?
My ultimate question is, who wins? Airbus, because an airline seat is an airline seat - it's a commodity? Airbus is focusing its R&D money on efficiency, whereas Boeing is spending more to build from the ground up? Boeing's plan works great if passengers actually care about the levels of comfort they're promoting on the 787. Airbus will be in great shape if passengers don't care if it's different from what they've got today.
So far, it sounds like the FT conventional wisdom on this issue is somewhere between "huh..?!?" and "a few % humidity or thousand feet of pressure aren't relevant to me."