Got this from a friend of mine in the know...
Hi Y'all,
Here's a tidbit for you. I've been processing the records of the former High Speed Research program's aerodynamic configuration manager for the last few days. As I've told some of you, the "Sonic Cruiser" is just the 1999 version of the NASA/Boeing "High Speed Civil Transport" minus the fancy supersonic inlets, engines, and nozzles. Today I ran across the 1999 drag chart for the configuration: no transonic drag rise at all until after Mach .98. No drag rise, no fuel burn increase, Sonic Cruiser's a no-brainer from the Direct Operating Cost standpoint.
Sucks to be Airbus. No wonder the EU Propaganda Ministry is in maximum spin mode. Airbus has to know this by now too. If the "Sonic Cruiser" siphons all the first and business class pax off the A380 (which we know it will if Boeing builds it), the A380 is a $15 billion corpse.
Look for the EU to try to impose discriminatory rules on the Cruiser based upon "high altitude emissions"--the Cruiser will have better noise characteristics than the A380, so this is their only option to block it. After Boeing defeats the "it'll burn more fuel" argument through major airline sales, the EU will shift their argument to "higher cruise altitude poses more risk to the ozone." Count on it.