The silliness is with you. The 787 program has a accumulated a production loss of 25-30 Billion USD. Somewhere this money has to come from. It is either on loan, or it is provided by other programs, that turn a profit.
You keep making the same argument again and again to tedium. Can we at least stipulate that whatever the amount of money, it has been spent? That the cash has walked out the door? And I don't recall if it was from you or one of your like minded usual suspects who said that on the A320 Airbus paid back so much to the funding governments and increased shareholder value that it didn't matter that the A380 was in the red?
So there is absolutely no question about there being cross subsidizing at Boeing. It is actually normal that a mature program provides the money for a new program.
So wait, is what you just went on about a normal thing or an evil thing? I can't keep it straight, unless you mean it's fine for one and yet not for the other.
But there are around 650 787 delivered and no sign of the 787 turning profitable.
On a total basis, likely not. But as I have pointed out many many times to exhaustion, you mistakenly allocate deferred costs (intangible) to production costs (tangible). By that metric, you're saddling each new potential sale with the 25-30 billion, just so you can make your specious case. The standard, "yeah but". The only way that deferred cost gets reduced is by selling for greater than your tangible production costs, therefore making a profit on a per frame basis. Making money on a per frame basis is what Boeing is doing. There is nothing to whine about there though, except that it may not ever get back 30 billion.
Did Boeing sell the the 787-9 to Hawaiian below production cost, or at least for a lower price than to other airlines?
Those are two entirely different things, and you're smart enough to know that. Conflating them is disingenuous.
Than Boeing is doing what the accuse Bombardier off. It is only OK because an USA producer does it with an USA airline and therefore it is not defined as dumping.
If Boeing made money on the sale to HA, and the deferred goes down, then QED they didn't dump. What evidence do you have to support your case? Given that the frames won't be built until 2020 when most sensible folk would say production costs will be lower than today, I guess we can wait and see.