Boeing is worth far more as a going concern than it is as a collection of individual warehouses, ideas, offices, contracts, workshops, parts, and employees.
In the unlikely event that the government allowed the airliner side of Boeing to go bye bye (for a given value of bye bye), then much of it would be bought by creditors and would reappear in new, smaller firms; or as new arms of existing firms currently in the market; or maybe even an MBO.
In the very
unlikely event that Boeing collapsed and nobody else took over airliner production, it's silly to claim that this would reduce airliner sales by other manufacturers.
(assuming that whatever caused Boeing to collapse is not a global factor, IE
somebody inventing a teleporter machine)
What would happen after that is that the price of Airbus aircraft will skyrocket, the only reason they're selling them low gone forever.
(Except insofar as other competitors appear at the edge of the market; IE
RJs on steroids, or revitalised Tupolevs, or...)
That will have an adverse affect on ticket prices, reducing passenger volume and thus airline buying power.
That will reduce the number of aircraft Airbus can sell, reducing their profits and maybe meaning the end of them as well.
False. You seem to be claiming that, if Airbus (or anybody else) had a monopoly, they would intentionally set their prices so high that their sales collapse.
Rather, Airbus (or anybody else) would enjoy bigger margins, and on higher sales than before - but lower than the total number of sales across all manufacturers before the collapse of Boeing.
At the very least they'll slow down or stop new development (why innovate if there is no competition driving you to do so in order to stay or get ahead?).
By that argument, Microsoft has little incentive to continue producing new versions of Windows and Office.