lets see, A350 on schedule, and much less then half the cost build. Wasn't even off the drawing board when the 787 had the roll out bash. What else, how about an 8% seat mile cost advantage over the 787, 25% over the 777. Quieter. And a strange thing, remember when the 787 first flight, and those wings were bent up so much? There is something wrong there. Anyhow the A350 wings didn't do that and they are similar wings, similar aspect ratios.
The Boeing philosophy is to design the lightest possible wing. To achieve this they choose to use a raked wingtip instead of a winglet, the raked tip introduces less torsional loads then a winglet for the same virtual span increase. The result is that Boeing can design a less stiff wing as they have less torsion loads from the wingtip device. To profit from the less stiff wing B can not have the normal aileron being used as high speed aileron, they have a separate high speed aileron directly behind the engine. This loads the wing less in torsion when engaged, thus avoiding the dangerous aileron reversal phenomenon when using an outboard aileron at high speed on a torsionally weak wing. The drawback of an inboard high speed aileron is that it interrupts the flap line when starting and landing. B has mitigated most of that by letting it work as a flaperon during these flight phases.
The Airbus philosophy is to have an uninterrupted flap line from body to outboard high speed aileron (the aileron is split in two, inner and outer where the both are used for low speed and only the inner at high speed). This requires a somewhat stiffer wing because of the high speed aileron placement. When you have this stiffer wing you can also use a non planar wingtip device, ie a winglet. The secondary effect is less wing-flex
Go watch the 787 static test video of the wing ultimate test. The wings are as high as the top of the tail and never broke. I don't think they pushed to to the breaking level, but the flex was within predictions with no failures.(except maybe the side of body joint which they corrected)
Lets be real, with all of the misques that Airbus has had, they are about 3 years behind schedule on the A350 program also. I don't know what you read or smoke, but remember this, Airbus was so sure of themselves, they felt that they could compete with the 787 with a slightly modified A330 until 500 orders or so, they realied that they made a bad assumption.
You are aware that the 787 is lighter then the A350, and except for the A350-1000 the A350-800 and A350-900 virtually use the same engines as the 787s. You are aware that the airlines that have 787s have report that the 787 have exceeded expectations and are getting better fuel economy then advertised.
lets see, A350 now 90 days behind schedule- soon in typical Airbus fashion just as they did with their vaunted military transport the A400M, (20-30 billion euros over budget and 5 years behind schedule) Airbus will begin to screw up on the A350. They have done it with every airplane they ever attempted to build. The A320 with its fatal fly by wire problems, the A330 with its inadequate flight instrumentation, the A380 with its failed schedules and engine problems etc etc etc-oh and last but not least the A350 is several percentage points BEHIND the 787 on fuel efficiency
Hey Wayne Paul and I are meeting for late breakfast at Elliotts later this morning- if you hadn't lost your Boeing job and could afford transportation over to the bay we might ask you to join in if you aren't too grubby looking these days might even get you a ride on Pauls submarine