GearDown&Locked said:
Why doesn't the US gov help boeing openly? why does it have to be trough MIL programms, or NASA, and not directly? Will they stand and watch boeing go down in flames as the competition is climbing all over their backs?
At least airbus has a more transparent way of doing things, every European knows what is being done, and in the end they can vote against if they think the EEC is wasting taxpayers money.
The US government doesn't help Boeing directly because the average American does not want the government to prop up commerical interests. If you do that, it leads to things like Concorde proceeding when it was economically unviable, and having two different production lines in two different countries that build seven planes each then shut down.
Of course, the average American doesn't always get what he wants, and that leads to things like the B767 tanker program, which thanks to Sen. John McCain did not come to reality (yet, and hopefully never).
I think the average American has learned that corporate welfare is a bad thing, even though the average American CEO and/or lobbyist of course disagrees.
As others have pointed out, both corporations (A and B) are businesses, and such are obliged to get the best possible outcome for their shareholders. So of course they each will take whatever they can get from their own governments, and bad mouth the other for doing the exact same thing.
I think the average American supports MIL programs because in general they are run on a cash paid for goods rendered basis, and are highly competitive. If you look at the breadth of the American defense sector you find two or more competitors for almost everything being built, and a competition held for almost every project (witness the recent JSF competition, for instance). I'm not sure if you can say that for the European defense industry, I don't know all that much about it. But it seems the average European does not support defense spending, so I wonder if it's due to a lack of competitive forces in defense procurement. Whatever the cause, it seems most Europeans see defense spending as corporate graft, whereas most Americans do not.
Since MIL programs are bad, shouldn't Airbus return any profit it makes on the A400M to the governments buying the aircraft? You would not want the profits to subsidize A380/A350/etc, right? Somehow, I bet Airbus intends to keep the profits. So, Airbus is a player in the defense space, and its corporate owners have been for decades too. BAe et al are hiding behind the Airbus name, but the effect is the same.
The US government has watched Boeing shut down B757 production without batting an eye. God knows what would happen if politicians were calling the shots.
I think if some of the info from this thread showing the terms of the various Airbus loans, and the lack of repayment in most cases, were put to a referendum in Europe, future loans would be voted down. But it doesn't really work that way. From what I can tell most Europeans don't even bother to vote in the EU elections anyway!
--ev--