Go back and check the stats. Even if you exclude early model 737s they have a poorer record than their Airbus equivalents. The 747 does worse than the A330/340, etc. etc. Even with creative recording which blames every 737 rudder hardover on pilot error, and every fuel tank ka-boom on missiles fired by the US navy or by little green men
Beagle makes the point about Concorde, though I didn't think we were talking about aircraft which had never suffered an accident (is there a single Boeing type which would qualify, I wonder?).
I was merely pointing out that the Europeans who you despise (too liberal for you, perhaps?) have succeeded in producing some great, and commercially successful aircraft, both historically (as have Boeing) and more recently (ditto).
The Japanese, on the other hand, haven't exactly set the world alight with the quality of their indigenously designed aeroplanes since about 1942. Indeed I'm hard pressed to think of a Japanese aircraft programme that has even broken even - perhaps the YS-11? In the F-2, your beloved Mitsubishi have done an excellent job in producing an F-16 clone at roughly triple the cost, however, I have to admit!
And Hectorus, the current Boeing product line is pretty slim, while production figures are modest (there's an airline recession, in case you hadn't noticed) and without levels of support and subsidy which have attracted the interest of the WTO, Boeing would be deeply mired.
The point was that we should not knock the A400M simply because of its parentage. Indeed technically and technologically, its Airbus heritage might be expected to make it a superior aircraft. In recent years, Airbus have pushed the technology forward while Boeing have been over-conservative and risk-averse. There are grounds for knocking the A400M, of course, not least because of the partners seeming inability to actually get the programme moving.