The problem with the 787 is that lot of it was outsourced, and outsourced incorrectly.
Boeing decided that trying to make everything in the US was too expensive, so they outsourced a lot of it. For example almost 35% of the plane is made in Japan (the wings, electrical bits, doors etc). Parts are made in South Korea, and other smaller bits in Italy, France and Sweden.
Now originally Boeing sent specs to all the other companies that were making those parts and told them to follow them to the letter. But now those companies outsourced those parts to other companies and so on. For example the Wing Ribs were originally sourced to a Japanese company that then sourced them to Hyundai who then sourced them to a Chinese company. Boeing contracted a Japanese company to design and build the batteries and they manufactured them in China and then sent them to a french company who packaged the whole thing and sent it to Boeing.
When you have so much work being sourced out, to different companies and countries quality will suffer. Had those companies kept their work in-house, things might have been different but everyone was looking for a quick way to make a buck.
I'd rather have Boeing's problem - as noted it's either components, like batteries that can be re-sourced, or installation/maintenance etc. As for the cabin windscreen breakage, I asked a pilot friend and he's had several break over the years so that's probably a 'so what?' Hit a bird or hailstone at 300+ knots and what do you expect?
The cockpit window broke without anything hitting it. And it's not a "so what" event, sorry. Had the entire window shattered, the plane would depressurize and the pilots would have had to make an emergency descent (well they would have started to do that when a crack appears).
With the A380 it sounds like a fundamental airframe issue.
Which Boeing will have due to the airframe being completely composite. Boeing likes to claim that composite aircraft are so much stronger and safer but go to any diamond flight school's maintenance hanger and see how many times their composite aircraft have skin problems.
Hell a senior Boeing engineer complained to management that composite fuselages weren't totally safe and in a crash they could quite easily shatter and burn with toxic fumes. Know what Boeing did with that information? They fired the guy.
just 4-5 sales of those big $$$$ birds for all of 2012.
Both Boeing and Airbus had better watch out for the coming onslaught of new, very modern and well priced birds from China's Comac (Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China.) The narrowbody C919 is due next year, and widebodies can't be far behind.
The problem with A380 sales has more to do with the market and not the quality. Airlines are moving away from the hub and spoke model because its not fuel efficient. They're also replacing the 747 routes with the 777 because its more fuel efficient. Now in the midst of this Airbus introduced a giant plane that depends on the hub-spoke method and has 4 engines. Something that airlines don't want.
And as for a chinese commercial plane? Sorry I'd rather shoot of my legs and crawl to my destination than sit on a plane made in China. At some point in the future they might be great planes, but next year nope.
Hell Russia has decades worth of aircraft building experience and most people wouldn't go near their commercial aircraft with a 100 foot pole. China has next to no experience and the only planes they've made are copies of Russian ones (and poor copies too).