Well, let me elaborate on my posting above:
I really think that Boeing has all its advantages with the 787 at the moment. It will generate a huge cash flow which will in turn help to develop new projects. But this arcticle implies that Boeing is going so well because of the airliners success, and this is surely only one part of the story. All defense companies in the US (and elsewhere) generated remarkable profits since Mr. Bush jun. entered the office, namely Northon Grumman, and merger & acquisition happen on a big scale.
Dreamliner's technology is derived directly from the B-2, the first "plastic" aircraft. Airbus, even if they wanted to build a purely composite A350, couldn't do it because of lack of production capacitiy.
Talking about A300/330/350: It's not the fuselage that makes an aircraft fly, it's the wing! And its not the fuselage that is the same, but the fuselage diameter. Of course, both fuselages are made in the same classical way in metal and with frames and spars. Are you aware that all Boeings from 707 to 737 have the same fuselage? And that Boeing is actually still producing wings that are not super-critical!
And then again this old blabla about "A380, no success". If you have a little bit of long term memory, you all remember how the market was: Boeing subsidized their smaller aircraft with its 747 profits, because it was a pure monopoly on the market. Airbus had to enter to break it. Then Boeing said "we don't see a market for big aircraft", it's the point-to-point, not the megahub. Now they produce the 747-8. And journalists still repeat the fairy tail of the 787 as a bypass-hub concept.
I'm not a Boeing-basher, I really think that Boeing is a great company with great aircraft, but this article is once again short-sighted, monothematic and simply incorrect.
Dani