[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.)