A few weeks ago I was in Washington, D.C., talking with a lot of people about aviation and all of the changes that have been going on in the industry in recent years. These changes are being driven mostly by the more competitive marketplace that airlines have found themselves in.

Our all-new breakthrough airplane: the 787 Dreamliner.

And while I was in Washington, it dawned on me that it had been about two months (and now almost three) since Airbus announced it was going forward with the A350 in direct competition with our new airplane, the Boeing 787 Dreamliner. I remember that day, December 10, very vividly, because I did eight telephone interviews with reporters, all wanting to know what Boeing thought of the Airbus announcement.

Well, I told the reporters it was "a great day for Boeing." It certainly wasn't what they expected to hear. It caught them a bit off guard.

What I was really saying was this: It's great for Boeing because with the announcement of the A350 (a twin-engine airplane based on the A330), Airbus has validated what we've been saying since the launch of the 777 - that twin-engine airplanes are more efficient for short, medium, or long-range flights than airplanes with four engines.

What's even more interesting about the A350 offering is that it throws the Airbus product strategy out the window. Their strategy for 20 years has been that twin-engine airplanes like the A330 were the most efficient way to service short and medium range routes, but that you needed four engines for the long haul, or "4 engines 4 long haul" as their slogan went.

So, what happened? Apparently something changed.

Here's another way to think about it. The A350, being an A330 derivative, is good enough to obsolete the A330 and A340. But the key is, the A350 still falls short. It just isn't a breakthrough product like the 787.

The 787 is the most efficient airplane with the lowest fuel consumption by far.
The A350 would adopt some new technologies, making the A330 and A340 obsolete. But the all-new technology of the 787 is still significantly more efficient than the derivative A350.

Another thought popped up about the A350 offering. Last year I got a lot of questions about whether the A350 had slowed enthusiasm for the 787. I said back then that the enthusiasm was still there, but airlines were watching to see what Airbus would do. Today I think it's clear where the enthusiasm and momentum is.

Ethiopian Airlines is one of the latest members of the 787 family, and the first to bring the Dreamliner into service in Africa.

On December 10, when Airbus defined their offer as the A350, they announced one commitment from one airline, for 10 airplanes. Since that day, there have been no new orders for the A350, and the airplane has not officially been launched.

On the other hand, just since December 10, the 787 program has added 11 new airline customers from around the world announcing their commitments for 111 airplanes. Now that's momentum! And it says to me clearly that the market prefers the breakthrough technology of the 787.

So when someone asks me about the A350, I still respond that it's great when the competition validates our strategy.

They've validated the need for airplanes that take people "where they want to go, when they want to go."

And the competition has also validated that twin-engine aircraft with a range of about 8,500 nautical miles (15,700 km) are the efficient way to go for long range.

So, I just have to ask again. What happened to "4 engines 4 long haul"?