Boeing has military contracts, but I'm not including that in my answer here, referring only to commercial aircraft.
I've seen others refer to the military contracts as "subsidies" for Boeing. One thing I've never pointed out (because it didn't occur to me that people might not understand it) is that Boeing has to spend billions of dollars to develop that military hardware before it gets any money to build it.
Military hardware, in this country, has been developed by the manufacturers, not the government, since th early 1920s. The last government-developed military system I am aware of is the M3
-A1 Lee light tank, which was a terrible vehicle to inflict upon the allied troops. Almost all military systems since (except the original atom bombs and the first couple of thermo-nuclear devices, and some of the X-planes) have been developed by civilian contractors with input from the military in regards to "this is what we want."
I am not saying that it isn't a significant source of revenue or that the technology and aerodynamics learned cannot be applied to civilian use. But Boeing actually has to do something for the money.
As I now understand it, Airbus does not recieve direct subsidies, but rather discount-rate loans, which apparently must be paid back. I have less difficulty with this concept that I do with direct subsidy.
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it in summer school.