Still Boeing provides the customer, although it's the government, specific products and services for existing contracts.
In the case of the EU, they throw money (grants) at a company to ensure a product is available to customers, where they are clearly not the customer, before any contracts are in existence. The definition of subsidy.
When a system of grants and government subsidies exists, you get Amtrack. They become bohemeths which are never going to be capable to exist long term within a competetive environment. Give it time.
It's a subjective point as to whether the DoD Boeing contracts amount to a subsidy. But I would point out that it's not like Boeing is a sole-source, DoD procurement rules still apply.
However, with the massive consolidation in the defense industry, and the teaming for big projects among the majors, one could possibly construe it as a quasi-subsidy. For example, whats the real difference between at 70-30 Lockheed/Boeing team, and a 30-70 Boeing/Lockheed team? (I'm not sure if foreign suppliers can bid on big-ticket contracts).
At least on the shipbuilding side, there is an informal system of corporate welfare going on. For example Newport News is the only yard that builds carriers.
In cases like that, theres a strong incentive to keep the contractor liquid since theres no other place for DoD to go, and there are flag-level reputations on the line to keep the project on schedule.
(By the way, threads like these are what makes FR great)