I haven't flown a A350 yet, but my understanding is that the humidity is lower (due to the fact it's not a true composite frame) so I am more likely to get jet-lag.
The problem with the 787 is that pretty much every operator has decided to cram as many seats in as possible. It's probably the worst plane to fly long haul in currently. The A380 is by far the quietest and smoothest plane operating at the moment. EK's A380 in particular have ample legroom and seat width.
I've flown on numerous 787, A350 and A380 flights on various operators and although I can definitely tell the difference between an A330/777/747 flight and the planes above in terms of jet-lagginess after a flight, I can not tell the difference between these newer planes. All three of them are much more comfortable and have better air.
That gave me a pained laugh. I’m doing a 17 hour flight next week and expect to be feeling pretty bad.
The from/to really matters here.
NYC-London is about 7 hours. LA-Rome is about 12 hours.
I will grant you that the A380 is super duper crazy quiet compared with most other large jets. But legroom and lie-flat seats are available on all kinds of jumbo jets.
Except the Concorde. I had the privilege of flying that once. It was significantly smaller and less comfortable than I'd imagined it would be. But it made up for it in flight time.
Short flight with less comfort > Long flight with more comfort.
I could barely board the thing and walk down an aisle, let alone try sitting in a seat. I can't imagine it being comfortable for anyone over 5'5".