As a Boeing shareholder,this is going to sound wierd,but can we imagine a world without Airbus? Who would be a DISTANT #2 right now? Both sides are right,Airbus recieved huge subsidies to get started,how else are you get into the heavy aircraft business,the europeans were wondering why they could not build aircraft,and they did. We also need to keep in mind Europe is not the US. Both continents have different politics. European countries pay for health,extra education,and so on,they are Socialists. Nothing wrong,just a different way of doing things,so its not foreign to them spend money on such a grand project as Airbus. While in US,we cannot fatham such a thing,and naturally think its unfair. And you know what,the European nations got together and built an "Eurofighter",and are in the process,according to Defense Weekly,of making a military cargo plane.
But Boeing has recvd "subsidies"if thats what you want to call them. If you look at the illustrious history of Boeing's military aircraft,the R & D money did come from the Pentagon,Boeing supplied the thinking,engineering,and production. Now if thats called a subsidy,you can argue,its subjective,and if you want to argue that its military research helped its civil aviation division,well thats subjective too.
But again,think about it,if there were no Airbus,how strong of a competitor do you think they would be? Would there have been a need for the 777? Would it had been fly by wire? Who introduced that technoloy to civil aviation(no the Concorde does not count)? Would the 777have been NEEDED to be built? Would we have a 737NG? What was the reasoning behind making a 737NG? You see with hindsight we can say all kind of things about history,but think about it,would civil aircraft be as good it is today without Airbus? The answer,no matter what side you are on is NO! Its called competition,be thankful for it.