But, the duopoly had a benefit, it was what australians call in politics "keep the bastards honest" qualities. The price of the product, it's safety record, had the element of "the competition is there" -albiet with some dirty fighting around state support. It amazed me how clearly the word went out to US carriers not to buy airbus (if this is a myth, I apologise. It feels true)
But noise and comfort aside (looking at you 777. those engines) I would say "if its not Boeing I'm not going" has fully inverted. I don't know another professional fly-for-work person who wants to be booked on a Boeing jet.
Let that sink in. It had a catch phrase as the only rational safe choice. and they completely fucked it up.
I have a bias. I've flown Bombardier, Embraer, Comac, De Havilland as well. I just prefer the airbus product, for probably highly irrational reasons, engine noise aside.
I have no idea if the embedded certification stuff is also in airbus, but after the spate of "we did this to avoid having to entirely re-certify pilots even though the flying experience really is different" incidents, it felt like a system of checks and balances, manufacturers actually getting externally reviewed for compliance and fit-for-purpose has gone out the window. I am not saying HAS. I am saying FEELS LIKE.
The "vent battery to outside" and "reboot plane no later than every 51 days" 787 incidents I can laugh off. Kinda.