[seppel]

The planes are technically excellent. And Boeing lives off the US Defence contracts, which is also a form of subsidisation.

[taxed2death]

"The planes are technically excellent."

Is that why they had to change the approved flight parameters to stop the rudders from falling off?

[bill1952]

both of your statements are incorrect. you have to know it.

[Paddlefish]

Well, if your technical expertise is as good as your spelling, I'm never getting on any of those planes. Spellchecker is our friend.

[MARKUSPRIME]

Boeing>Airbust. Socialism dose'nt work. Eurabia incoming!

[Leisler]

Airbus/EADS started with, and is still joined at the hips with most of the major European defense companies. I don't think the US Defense Department cares one whit about Boeings civilian side and doesn't want to pick up a nickle of costs/overhead from some profit making people hauling sled. Generals who are military program mangers careers are on the line and would be more likely to tell Boeing off. If anything the US Defense Dept/Government would be more inclined to dump military costs onto the civilian side.

About half the value in aircraft are engines, electronics and such. Most come from the US or England.

Boeing was conservative in using composites for passenger aircraft. I feel they were waiting until military use and Airbus use provided enough historical, engineering and customer acceptance. With the 787, Boeing is full in.

Economic/finance at Airbus isn't the problem, but the symptoms of the problems. That is a heavily politicized economic company in a time sensitive and technically and manufacturing complex business. The Airbus system all works well with politicians, unions, citizens and of course Airbus. It is just a little trouble with the last one in on the deal, the customer. Someone has to pick up the costs/inefficiencies of this system. Taxpayer, Airbus or Customer. I'm betting on the Taxpayer. What's a more Euros out of every European's paycheck?

[antiRepublicrat]

And Boeing lives off the US Defence contracts, which is also a form of subsidisation.

But the finances are separate. It would be a real jail-time criminal act for Boeing to pay for a commercial airliner using funds from the defense contracts. Boeing's commercial airliners actually have to pay for themselves.

Besides, EADS also has billions in defense contracts, including its military transport/tanker business and about a half stake in both Dassault and Eurofighter.

[4rcane]

The planes are technically excellent. And Boeing lives off the US Defence contracts, which is also a form of subsidisation.

thats like saying Boeing is subsidies by their customers. You're twisting the definition of subsides. By your definition anything a government buys from a company is subsidies

[muffaletaman]

Boeing Commercial Aviation earned $2.1B on revenues of $20.9B in the first 9 months of 2006.

Boeing Integrated Defense Systems earned $2.0B on revenues of $22.8B in the first 9 months of 2006.

ALL of these earnings were based on items they made a delivered.

Looks like a good balance between defense and commercial business, and with earnings at a lower % rate in defense, it begs the question that this defense work is a subsidy - which normally should be taken to mean "free money" just for being there and needing / wanting it.