OAG, thanks for the courteous follow-up question. I don't know enough about current civil or military programs, or about any in the last few years, to know how relevant it is at present. My interest (and question, not political rant) was prompted by references in various PPRuNe threads from people alleging various degrees of government assistance to Airbus vs Boeing.
I worked at a well-known maker of aero engines in the 1960's, outside the USA. I was told there that whereas we had to make our components on mostly prewar machinery, funded entirely by the company, our then principal competitor in the USA used ranks of machines funded by the US government on military contracts which, at the end of the contract, were able to be purchased for $1 each. That, if true, would certainly have given them a commercial advantage.
In later life, I changed career from being an engineer to being a bean counter in the car industry. There I learned of ways of costing things on marginal, fully accounted, and apportioned methods. Part of my function was to try to use the right, most appropriate, method depending on the type of decision being contemplated.
Just out of my own interest, I wondered to what extent apportioning costs might be affecting the costs Boeing attribute to civil sales - a large part of which includes engines, I believe. It seems to me apparent already that Airbus gets benefit from government grants or loans, at least for R&D and maybe for some machinery etc., but I see little about what Boeing or its engine suppliers get.
Either way, I do not expect to change the mind of anybody on PPRuNe - I have not yet seen any evidence that people who hold strong views change them when learning any new facts!
Chris N.