I've heard this argument many times, but people seem to forget that Boeing also launched the passenger version of the 747-8, 5 years after the launch of the 380. And Airbus also made the 350. Both Boeing and Airbus, were obviously trying to hedge and not put all their eggs in one basket.

Boeing did bet on more point to point connections. Their 2003 commercial market outlook states "Passenger preference for more frequent, nonstop flights with shorter trip times will continue to drive market evolution and airline strategies. After all, air travel is all about passenger convenience and saving time." - [0]

They projected 18% or airplane deliveries would be for smaller regional jets. 56% for larger regional jets and single-aisle airplanes. Only 4% (or about 890 deliveries) for 747-size airplanes.

Airbus on the other hand were much more bullish on hub and spoke model: "After a period when airlines experimented with services linking almost all possible combinations of cities, the global route network seems to have reached a point of saturation. Moreover, the bulk of air travel will continue to be generated by the concentrations of population, business and industry in and around the major cities, and the great majority of passengers will be carried over and through the major hubs." - [1]

Airbus projected 1,535 VLA (i.e. A380) as opposed to 890 by Boeing.

It cost much less to Boeing to offer 748 compared to full program like A380. Also most of 748 orders have been cargo, which is still a very healthy market.

[0] - http://www.asiatraveltips.com/travelnews03/166Boeing.shtml

[1] - https://airinsight.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Airbus-GMF...

Sure, I see your points, just 2 counter arguments:

1. The reason why it cost less for Boeing to offer the 748, and the reason why the 748 is well suited for cargo, are both the result of choices made several decades ago not just the result of a bet made by Boeing in recent times on the point to point model. (IIRC at some point during design it was thought that supersonic aircraft would soon replace all conventional airliners so they developed the 747 in such a way that it could be easily converted for cargo).

2. The A350 suits the point to point model so well that I believe it was developed by Airbus with that model in mind.

Airbus comparatively spent more then Boeing on the hub and spoke model, sure, but unlike Boeing they didn’t have a pre-existing 4-engine type to build upon.

But who is going to fly on a 737 willingly again? Boeing is trying to ditch the “max” moniker in their new releases and to play it safe people will just avoid all 737s in the future.

Unfortunately this doesn’t end well for those airlines who have large numbers of them, because if you have a crapshoot on whether you are going to fly a 737 max death or not, it’s easier to choose a different airline who doesn’t run that particular model of Boeing.

> But who is going to fly on a 737 willingly again?

I will. And the airlines and environmentalists need it because the reason for the MAX is 15% less fuel burn. That's a whopping improvement.

It should be the safest airplane in the sky after how much attention it's getting.

Weren’t they recently caught meddling with FAA regulations to continue with non-redundant MCAS implementation?