Yep, I think the A380 helped both Airbus's and Europe's brand.
And that's why the government assistance in the form of launch aide might have been worth it.
And that's why the government assistance in the form of launch aide might have been worth it.
The US subsidizes Boeing, European countries subsidize Airbus, and Canada subsidizes Bombardier. Playing semantic games doesn't alter that reality.
Boeing lost money for the first 10 years on the 747, but then it started making massive amounts of money off of it. Those profits funded the 757, 767, etc.
Tax breaks for companies are a subsidy. (Aside from the military cross-subsidisation.)
2. Having the government take less of your money is not a subsidy.
3. Boeing 2016 revenue was $95.5 billion. The tax break is about a quarter of a percent of that.
4. I'm curious what you consider military technology that makes up the 747.
5. I'm curious what part of the Everett plant, which was built from scratch to build the 747, was built with government/military funding.
Tax abatements are not subsidies.
Here's the rebuttal to your link:
http://www.boeing.com/company/key-orgs/government-operations...
In particular,
"The USG's defense against the charges noted that the NASA and DoD contracts in question were arms-length commercial transactions where Boeing was paid for research commissioned by the two government agencies. The USG further noted that the NASA research projects were undertaken for public benefit, and that the results and benefits were widely shared, including with Airbus."
If there's a belief that BCAC is actually a money-losing operation propped up by money funneled from BMAC, there needs to be some strong evidence for this. BCAC is massively profitable.
The 707 did have a tanker version, the KC-135, but that happened after the 707 was flying. The 707 was funded entirely out of profits.
Boeing is subsidized by the USG, there's no realistic debate on that. That subsidy applies across their product line.
These subsidies made the development of the 747 possible.
Without cost-plus contracting paying for cutting-edge R&D, they would have been about as capable of building airplanes as I am, in my garage. Their entire business is built on millions of hours of engineering experience in building planes for the military, applied to the commercial sector.
That's not what your source says at all. Boeing, for example, developed the first modern airliner in the 1930's. Pretty much all airliners derive from that. In fact, you can reasonably argue the other way - Boeing's military designs derived from their airliners. This is certainly the case for the B-17 and the KC-135.
Please identify the military technology and subsidy in the 747, and where the money came from to build the Everett plant.