Exactly. Let's assume that Airbus is right that a .98M aircraft will burn 40% more fuel than a .80-.85M aircraft. Typically, 20% of an airline's unit cost is spent on fuel. A 40% increase in fuel cost translates into an 8% increase in unit cost. However, the 15% reduction in crew cost, and more importantly, the 30-50% increase in aircraft productivity will more than likely reduce the overall unit cost. If I were an airline executive, I would ask Boeing to give me a B747-sized SC, too. Driving down the cost is what most airlines are looking for. Having bigger planes is one way to drive down the cost, but it's effective only if you can fill the planes. The bigger the plane is, the fewer the number of routes it can be used. The SC should be able to offer airlines more flexibility and more opportunities. If Boeing's claim is true, that is, it will only burn 20% more fuel, then it means even more saving.
I have come up with the following simple example from HKG to LHR, LAX, and SYD. The schedule is a bit tight, but you can get a rough idea of the value of 15% increase in speed. Theoretically, I can use only three planes to provide daily service to the above three cities from HKG.
Times in parenthesis are SC flight time vs current flight time.
HKG-LHR 19:00 - 21:20 (11h20m vs 13h25m)
LHR-HKG 23:45 - 18:00 (10h15m vs 11h55m)
HKG-SYD 20:30 - 07:00 ( 7h30m vs 8h50m)
SYD-HKG 09:00 - 13:40 ( 7h40m vs 9h00m)
HKG-LAX 15:20 - 10:00 (10h40m vs 12h25m)
LAX-HKG 12:00 - 17:00 (13h00m vs 15h15m)
That's a whopping 20:08 of daily untilization rate with three planes. More realistically, with four planes (and perhaps an additional trip to Tokyo), I can still get about 16+ hours of utilization rate. It's simply impossible to get that kind of utilization rate with a .85M aircraft.
(I can have another early afternoon departure to LHR so that the 9:00 SYD passengers can transfer to.)
The SC does make midnight departure to Europe from the Far East infeasible. But anytime between 06:00 to 19:00 should work fine. That means airlines might be able to use busy airports, such as LHR, when they are less busy.
To the US West Coast, I can come up with quite a few possibilities, e.g.:
HKG 1200d 0640a LAX 0900d 1400a HKG
HKG 1600d 1040a LAX 1230d 1730a HKG
HKG 2000d 1440a LAX 1700d 2300a HKG
HKG 0100d 1940a LAX 0100d 0600a HKG
The more I look at it, the more I think the SC has a great potential.