Quite right. There's no reason to believe that there are elements of the new design that will be a lot more expensive on a variable basis (i.e. each unit of LED lighting versus flourescent, and so on). It's not quite as bad as the pharmaceutical business, but still there are huge costs up front in R&D that impact profitability as much or more than the actual cost of making one plane, or one pill.

Specifically, Airbus, by adapting an existing airframe, has a lot lower R&D cost for the A350 than does Boeing for the all-new 787. Boeing's bet only pays off if the new stuff inside the fuselage that they're paying to research and develop actually makes for a product with a meaningful competitive edge. If not, then Airbus made the right call by simply adapting an old design with a new wing and engines and paying less out in R&D costs.

So far based on the responses here, it looks like advantage: airbus.

Scott,

I think this should be the number 1 issue Boeing exploits. On a typical plane I and 1000s of other people get dried out, get headaches (especially the kids) on landing due to cabin pressure changes and can never see out of the windows very well.

Imagine for a moment that the prices are the same for either flight. People will get a chance to fly both flights. If the cabin pressure and humidity make that much of a difference, which I believe they will, let me ask you this.

Would you prefer the plane with or without the babies yelling due to cabin pressure and humidity differences?

Would you prefer the plane that has bigger windows that you can see out of?

Would you prefer to arrive feeling fresher (more humidity, more pressure) and less tired or not?

Now, what you should be asking is, what does an Airline do with its A350s once passengers have flown on a 787? How much of a discount does it give and is it worth it to the passengers?

All I know is if the pressure and humidity claims are true about the 787 I will refuse to fly any other plane whenever I travel and will fly the airline that offers me a 787 to the destination I want to go.

...or close.

Welcome to FT, brasil2!

I fear that you will be in a minority, just as current airline pax who have any views at all about the aircraft type on which they're flying are a minority. Most pax neither know, nor care, nor will they ever put in the smallest bit of effort into finding out or remembering.

Until you have to go someplace not served by a 787, in which case you'll fly on whatever the airlines use to get there (even if it's made by Airbus). You will then, in all likelihood, realize that the experience wasn't so bad - wasn't even all that different from a 787 - and will be less dogmatic from then on, to the great relief of your travel companions.