Boeing versus Airbus Subsidies
Under certain Free-Trade laws, the government-funded launch aid is prohibited if it brings harm to competitors, in which Airbus was receiving Government assisting through forgiven debt, huge equity infusions, dedicated infrastructure support and even financed R&D for civilian aircraft projects, which I believe to be a disadvantage. I believe that it’s unfair and consider Boeing to be right and Airbus to be wrong due to Airbus been given a huge pricing advantage competing against Boeing’s value of subsidies. The benefits that Boeing receives from military, or state and local aid are the same advantages also given to Airbus, but although both companies received aid, it matters if the aid is permissible under trade rules which the World Trade Organization (WTO) has ruled that some of Airbus’s subsidies from the European Government were illegal. The aid that Airbus received alters the competition with Boeing because it enables Airbus to develop new planes quicker and faster production.
With the incentives and infrastructure funds provided to Boeing from the state of Washington, it can be considered unequal to the European subsidies because Boeing gets no benefit from partial-tax forgiveness unless it first spends its own money to develop and market a profitable product. Washington’s incentives benefit the development, production, and sales, but are not limited to tax and other advantages. Boeing’s operation received billions of dollars and research grants from NASA and the US Defense Department, which Airbus finds to be an illegal action because they felt that additional subsidies