West Coast
Both Boeing and Airbus have corrupted the generally accepted meaning of "break even" - they are both using it to mean that they are making money on each aircraft they deliver (i.e. it's costing them less to bolt it together than what the customer is paying for it), not that the program as a whole is in the black. Airbus says they will "break even" on the A380 this year, as has Boeing on the 787. In both cases there are tens of billions of investment costs that will take hundreds of future aircraft deliveries before the program is truly making money. Boeing has continued to invest heavily in the 787 program since initial type cert - the -9 and upcoming -10 models, but more importantly into higher, more efficient production rates. At one time, the max production rate for the 787 was targeted as 7 per month - current investments are targeting 14/month (current rate is already 10/month).
As for the 777X, there are a lot of lessons learned from the 787 experience - for a start the level of outsourcing on the 'X' isn't meaningfully different than the original 777. However I'm remain unconvinced Boeing has learned the
correct lessons from the 787 (I see much of the same dumbass that so badly affected the 787 being repeated on the 767-2C/KC-46
).
HH, it might be worth pointing out that most of the criticisms of that you aimed at the 787 apply similarly to the A380, with one very notable exception. Boeing has orders in-hand for the ~1,100 aircraft it will take for the 787 program to become profitable, and it continues to be a solid seller - the A380 not so much.
