Sorry the burden of proof is on you. Don't expect me to do your research for you.
Info about A380 RLI and repayments: https://simpleflying.com/airbus-a380-loan-dispute/
AND https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/taxp ... -xvjnjb93p
Info about A320 program: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... er-447206/
Info about A320 for UK portion of RLI: https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... neindustry
Info about RLI and repayments since 1992: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2 ... 146485.pdf
(see the last paragraph on page 3)
Info about A345/346 RLI: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 600-32624/
Info about RLI in general: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/ ... a8d0afcea1
WTO provides details of EU member state RLI agreements (Page 67): https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/di ... abrw_e.pdf
WTO provides details about each RLI agreement for A350 (starting page 95): https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/di ... abrw_e.pdf
Airbus provided (redacted in the report) data to WTO on RLI beginning and repayment year for each Airbus program (page 316): https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/di ... abrw_e.pdf
You provided very little beyond speculation.
See links above for substantiation. I continue to stress that my post was based on publicly available information.
When all else fails, resort to 'whataboutism.' If you want to discuss this start a new topic about it. I'm sure it will be a lively discussion.
Nah. "Not all has failed" yet, and in some cases, it is important to look at the general landscape to make an assessment whether certain expectations are reasonable. Your idea of every tiny little detail of every agreement needing to be transparent isn't a reasonable expectation when the competitors in this industry do not provide similar transparency. That isn't whataboutism.
Again, speculation. In the absence of information, how can we come to any meaningful conclusions?
Proof provided for you in the WTO doc starting on page 95. Turns out that my "speculation" was somehow on the money.
Which begs the question, why do they need launch aid in the first place?
That is an EXCELLENT question. Before I will share why I believe Airbus does what they do, I can tell you how I would handle RLI in an IDEAL WORLD if I were Airbus CEO...I would scrap RLI for good. I would then carbon copy Boeing in every respect and beat Boeing at its own game. Secure grants for "research" in the military division, seek massive government tax breaks from every country I operate in and outsource several manufacturing processes abroad to countries that are happy to violate WTO rules (like Japan). MInd you...I think all of those practices are just as shifty as RLI. But if you carbon copy, Boeing would effectively take itself to the WTO in future complaints.
Now...things are obviously not as simple as that. For one, the EU or its member States simply don't spend on defense what the US does. So these large research grants don't exist at all and would be indefensible in scope relative to the military spending overall. There is also a MUCH tougher tax burden in the EU than in the US, much tougher enforcement, and a much deeper general willingness and dependence on everyone paying into the kitty. So what goes down in the US is effectively unthinkable on a large scale in the EU countries that provide RLI. I suspect that when you combine those factors, it would leave Airbus in a situation where they would not have access to RLI, would not be able to gain similar tax breaks and grants that Boeing routinely receives, and would have only risk-sharing partners and their own cash flow as a way to support developing new technology...which would be a vast disadvantage relative to Boeing's resources ex-own cash flow.
I also think this is an interesting thought excercise to turn around...if RLI is so advantageous, why doesn't Boeing copy what Airbus is doing? I suspect the answer is somewhat similar..namely that cultural and military spending practices make it less desirable.