Despite similar fuselage size, the 350-1000 will not carry anywhere near the payload HKG-JFK or LAX-HKG that the 777-300ER does. So it is not a 777-300ER replacement on missions over approximately 7000 air miles. Hence the reason CX is touting it for Europe. I think the only Pacific crossings you might see it on are YVR or SEA. The range numbers listed for the 1000 are very misleading because it won't carry the 40-50T payload that the 777 does over those distances.
Don't believe me, run the numbers yourself. For 350-1000:
MTOW ~ 302T
BOW ~ 160T (in theory)
Trip Fuel ~ 20% better than -300ER (in theory)
Use these and compare to a MTOW -300ER to JFK...
Looks like Airbus has come up short on wing and/or powerplant.
I believe this is why Boeing is not rushing to develop the 777X. The threat is not real on true ULH missions. For shorter missions (<6000nm), the 787-10 is a very attractive aircraft next to the A359/1000. So what you have is a hypothetical Airbus sandwiched between two very real Boeing types.
Last edited by cxorcist; 17th Nov 2012 at 22:24.