Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by WalterBright 2937 days ago
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.
2 comments
toweringgoat 2937 days ago
https://www.heraldnet.com/news/boeings-washington-tax-break-...

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

link
WalterBright 2937 days ago
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.

link
rbanffy 2937 days ago
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.
link
WalterBright 2937 days ago
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.
link
somecontext 2936 days ago
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
link
WalterBright 2936 days ago
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."

link