cejekovich
Only one airbus product has ever repaid its state aid. That is the A320 series. Every other aircraft has most certainly not repaid its aid.
The terms of airbus's aid are something akin to going out and picking yourself out a house, and then saying to the bank, if I happen to get a job, maybe I will repay you.
Airbus does not have to make a commercial decision on whether or not developing an aircraft is viable. They don't have any risk, because they don't have to repay if it doesn't sell. That is flat out ludicrous, and there is no reason for that to exist anymore.
Furthermore for CAP56, the companies that make up the airbus consortium to more defense work than boeing does according to flight international and aviation week, so that doesn't hold any water either (aside from the fact that amercian accounting laws would forbid the kind of cash diversions you are hinting at)
To compare to the American steel tarriffs are not fair either because those are meant to be a temporary measure while an industry reorganizes, not a 30 year long thing to continue should steel happen to take the lead. Furthermore I am against that tarriff because it hurt every other manufacturer that uses steel in America, so what you lost in your steel mills you gained in your auto production and other steel using industries.
So Yes, Airbus is accorded greater aid than any other industry because they don't have to base their product developement decisions on whether or not a product is actually commercially viable (strangely like the concorde as it turns out) and that allows airbus to put out a whole line of aircraft that it could not have put out.
If you want to know why boeing is complaining, its because they are about to sink a lot of money into the 7e7, and when the competition to it comes out (and it will) they want to make sure that they are competing with Airbus on equal grounds and not the whole European aid largess...
Cheers
Wino