Special pleading I'm afraid N79667. My experience of strategic decision making at Airbus is that they are able to fudge commercial decisions because of the mechanisms you describe. But my experience of strategic decision making at Boeing is that they are able to do exactly the same thing because of their capacity to shift cash around from feather bedded military contracts, leavened by the sorts of incentive tax breaks that states give to US companies to stay in their district.
The result is that BOTH companies have decision making cultures that are nothing like those you find in competitive environments where costs of production really have to be fully factored in. When they are competing for a big deal both companies send people scuttling off to their domestic politicians to see what can be done.
I would agree that Airbus started this stuff, but there was absolutely no other way for a non-American competitor to get into the game given the absurd generosity of US military contracts, which were far more of a feather bed then than they are now.
My main point was, however, that both the US and Europe preach free trade abroad and don't practice it at home, to the cost of the rest of us. Thai and other airlines are merely trying to make the best of it according to the dictum stated by somebody-or-other "Large nations always behave like gangsters and small nations always behave like prostitutes." (Yes, and I DO
know that the EU isn't a nation. It is a new type of institution - a geopolitical whore house run by a gangster).