No one denies that the European subsidies exist. The EU gives Airbus “launch investment” for new models, which it need pay back only if they are successful. The EU counters that Boeing, too, gets subsidies. It receives direct help from Washington State.
The tax "subsidies" that Boeing gets from WA State are a pittance compared to the subsidies necessary for "launch investment." Think about it...how incredibly risky you can be if you know that for every new launch idea you attempt, someone is going to come in and reimburse you if it doesn't work out. Boeing gets nothing like that.
Does the US apparent dislike of subsidies extend to the money given to bankrupt airlines and their protection from creditors afforded by Chapter 11?
A very valid point. The US gov't has only GUARANTEED loans for airlines, which, BTW, were the result of 9/11. And, while the media is fond of quoting $15 Billion in gov't loans, the actual amount ended up being approx. $1.9 Billion, and again, they were guarantees, not actual loans.
Now, what I do have a beef with, is the fact that the US Gov't meddles itself to death in an industry that is supposedly deregulated. If they would leave the airlines alone, the weak ones would simply go out of business. Additionally, we've got companies like GE who seem only too happy to lend tons of money to failing airlines. They're not subsidies, though; I assume you know the difference. These lenders are getting equity and control of the companies in question, but it's killing the rest of the industry. Something's gotta change, and bankruptcy laws in the US would be a good start.
Mo