There you go...this lawsuit is a fact. The US has accused that Airbus is subsidized by government...yet awarded a contract for our plane-this make no sense. I wouldn’t award a contract to a company that I was suing...claiming on one had that they had best bid and on other hand Boeing could not compete fairly because of government subsidies (lawsuit). Go figure.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/16/business/airbus.php
‘It also came amid reports from Geneva that a World Trade Organization panel was likely to delay until the summer a ruling on a U.S lawsuit that alleged Airbus had received billions of dollars in subsidized government loans for aircraft development in violation of global trade rules. A WTO verdict in the case - which has dragged on for more than two and a half years - had been expected in April.’
Boeing has benefited from government grants and tax breaks just as Airbus did.
From YOUR article:
"Airbus lost $27 billion in revenue from 2004 to 2006 as a result of state tax breaks and outright government grants to Boeing. It also alleges that Washington has provided billions of dollars in indirect support to Boeing's commercial jet programs through contracts with the U.S. military and space programs."
Quit your whining already.
Boeing offered an inferior product based on an OBSOLETE airframe that neither had the range or load carrying capability that the Airforce was looking for. And Boeing can't even deliver the 8 KC767 tankers that were ordered on time.