First point - might well be true, but why would they want to do that?
Second point - no it isn't, it's already been leased (tentatively), though a vertain someone in the know was the one who told me that the IMC was paid for by Indiana. If you know people high in the United eng. org., you'll probably know who.
Third point - may be less but still over the odds....
What military contracts would they be? As far as I know they only have the A400M, don't they? And that A310 tanker thing of which there are what, half a dozen? Compare that to Boeing's mil. work.
Your next point is no doubt true - launch customers no doubt get big discounts. But tell me, what gives more to Airbus - 85% of 200 million or 85% of 300 million?
Where did you hear that Airbus R&D is paid by anyone other than Airbus?
I haven't dumped aircraft - I can't. I'm a lowly engineer for an company that knows the A380 well. But I'm stongly pro A380 and anti-poor-Boeing-it's-not-fair-they're-not-nice-to-us-in-Europe-meisters. Too good for too long. Don't get me wrong. I love the Boeing products too - without them I wouldn't have a job. I don't love the whingeing, though. I mean, airlines continued ordering aircraft. What were Airbus supposed to do? Stop building them? "Nope. Sorry. Wino says we're dumping aircraft. Can't let you have any aircraft, matey! Come back when Boeing are churning 'em out and we might be allowed to talk". What ARE these subsidies you keep banging on about? Oh, loans, I see.
And on your final point - my belief is that, yes it is. It would always have made sense only over water due to the sonic boom (or vast expanses of desert). You evidnetly didn't hear about the service to Bahrain, Singapore and Rio, then? Or are they all a part of America now?
This is my last post on the subject unless it returns to the original point - is there a market. This bashing isn't getting anybody anywhere.