[Someone1234]

Boeing as a company is massively subsidized. People often like to play this game where they specifically mention a model number and make the claim that that specific model wasn't, while ignoring that the entire company, infrastructure, and apparatus is.

The US subsidizes Boeing, European countries subsidize Airbus, and Canada subsidizes Bombardier. Playing semantic games doesn't alter that reality.

[WalterBright]

Boeing bought the land and built an entirely new plant and factory for the 747 (the Everett plant). No government funds were received for it.

Boeing lost money for the first 10 years on the 747, but then it started making massive amounts of money off of it. Those profits funded the 757, 767, etc.

[toweringgoat]

https://www.heraldnet.com/news/boeings-washington-tax-break-...

Tax breaks for companies are a subsidy. (Aside from the military cross-subsidisation.)

[WalterBright]

1. Your article is about 2016, 50 years after the 747 was developed.

2. Having the government take less of your money is not a subsidy.

3. Boeing 2016 revenue was $95.5 billion. The tax break is about a quarter of a percent of that.

4. I'm curious what you consider military technology that makes up the 747.

5. I'm curious what part of the Everett plant, which was built from scratch to build the 747, was built with government/military funding.

[rbanffy]

Every government dollar (over)spent in Boeing-branded thing is a subsidy for every other Boeing-branded thing. The same way every dollar NASA spends with SpaceX's Falcon 9/Dragon systems subsidizes the development of further generations of Falcon/Dragon/BFR systems. It's really hard to assume this money is not spent thinking about the strategic side effects.

[WalterBright]

You'll need better evidence for comingling of funds than that. I'd have a better case for saying that the immense profits from BCAC are what enables Boeing to even bid on defense contracts.

[somecontext]

This page makes the case that Boeing's large commercial aircraft division is subsidized in some detail: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/html/146484.htm

[WalterBright]

Thank you. What's glaringly missing is what timescale these figures cover. Annual? Aggregate? It's also pretty clear that the figures have no relevance to the 747.

Tax abatements are not subsidies.

Here's the rebuttal to your link:

http://www.boeing.com/company/key-orgs/government-operations...

In particular,

"The USG's defense against the charges noted that the NASA and DoD contracts in question were arms-length commercial transactions where Boeing was paid for research commissioned by the two government agencies. The USG further noted that the NASA research projects were undertaken for public benefit, and that the results and benefits were widely shared, including with Airbus."

[mc32]

I guess the question if it could be answered would be can the profits and losses of civ vs military programmes be sussed out somehow? That would shed some light on whether subsidies play a role, discounting “pollination” from skunkworks.

[WalterBright]

It would be illegal for Boeing to funnel money for military contracts to the civil aviation side. In fact, BCAC (Boeing Commercial Airplane Company) and BMAC (Boeing Military Airplane Company) are separate accounting entities for this reason.

If there's a belief that BCAC is actually a money-losing operation propped up by money funneled from BMAC, there needs to be some strong evidence for this. BCAC is massively profitable.

[mc32]

Interesting, so does that mean there is no merit to the accusation made by euros that Boeing commercial is subsidized by Boeing military? I mean, I keep hearing people say that as received knowledge, but perhaps they are just thinking about technological cross pollination which while important, doesn’t help that much in bringing new products to market.

[WalterBright]

There's not any merit in the accusation. The government did subsidize Boeing's SST program, but the technology developed for that wasn't usable for the subsonic jets. (For example, Boeing airliners use 3000 psi hydraulics, while the SST used 4500 psi to save weight. Such required a totally redesigned hydraulic system. 4500 psi is very dangerous, spray from a pinhole leak will cut right through you.)