OK, I hate to jump in here since I am not to familiar with the sort of subsidies wrt Airbus, however I can comment on the subject of the misconception I keep reading here in that getting military contracts is somehow = subsidies, which I disagree with.
I have worked in the defence /aerospace field for many years and fail to see the similarity. A defence contracter be it Boeing or whoever is contracted by DoD to produce a service or product (airplane, radar system or whatever)for the military, frequently including any research and development costs. That money is all spend on the final product produced for the military and any design efforts needed for any civilian airliners has to be provided by other sources.
If any of you think that there is so much "fat" in military contracts nowadays that it equates to subsidies you are mistaken.
I have the greatest respect for both companies, Boeing and Airbus as they both produce fantastic products and if Airbus is getting subsidies that Boeing is not getting there is ground for "unfair" Trade practices.
Having said that the rules of this game are far more complex than we can imagine and I suggest we leave it to those experts to sort out.
It has nothing to do with "Boeing growing up". I am sure if the shoe was on the other foot Airbus would be filing the same sort of complaints.
Just my 2 cents worth (Cdn)
The Boeing/Airbus Subsidy battle just got really nasty
Moderator: Latest news team