you're young so I am assuming you have no idea how economics works. Let me tell you this. Buying a Boeing just because it is american doesn't necessarily create more American Jobs or creater american wealth just because boeing is based in America.
Your thinking is refered to as Mercantilism, and, even as far back as Karl Marx, it was recognised it didn't work and things weren't necessarily one can only win at the others expense. (in other words, win-win situations are possible)
Boeing isn't exactly about to shut down either folks... It just doesn't have 90% of the market anymore. The only reason boeing ever got in a position like that was more to do with the fact McDonell Douglas wasn't aggressive enough to keep its marketshare. too many gaps in its product line. Your also forgetting that EVERY TIME an A320 rolls of the line, the engines have american components, and EVERY time a 737 rolls the line, the engines contain FRENCH components.
When it comes to an election, your not going to hear what honestly needs to be done. Both G W Bush and Kerry are both going to say that they are going to do absolutely everything they can to "save boeing". The reality is, if they start causing too many problems internationally and throwing their weight around, it may cost them orders in places like the UK, or even result (in an extreme case) on the EU putting Tariffs on their aircraft. (Air France/KLM, the biggest airline in EU, prefers the 777 for long haul ops folks...lets not forget that!!!!!) Just stop for a second and remember who's airlines are actually making big profits at the moment????? I'd feel a lot more comfortable trying to sell to BA
or Virgin than to USAirways.
This debate is far from realistic, and it isnt going to look at actual economics. This is purely to appeal to "the bleeding heartstrings", to Unions who fear for their jobs, and to the masses who just don't understand that things don't happen in isolation. Also, the aerospace industry isn't about to leave the United States. 737s can't be built in India for the same price they can in seattle because the skill base isn't in that economy in the same way. It would cost more to do it there. It would be less efficient to do it there.
This is the same reason why the chinese MD
-90 program failed, and the Indonesian attempt to enter the turboprob market.
This is no different to the situation with NAFTA. Now did everything end up in mexico? Did mexico get rich and Canada and the USA just fail? Or did everybody benifit? Have some faith in your own company. Or better still, if you really do believe airbus is in the wrong for taking these loans (which i may add, although it doesn't have to repay until profits are seen, it HAS BEEN REPAYING THEM) why don't you see either KERRY OR
BUSH offer boeing such loans?
Seriously why not? If they really cared, and weren't playing politics why don't they step in and match the EU's offer? Because they don't, and it isn't going to ever give boeing back a 90% marketshare. If they take this to the WTO and the BOTH loose their existing finances, it still isn't going to get boeing to its old 90% marketshare. Those days are over.... and it was largely due to Microsoft, and IBM and these companies. Their success is what drove the American dollar so high in the 1990s, that it became more economical to produce Aircraft in Europe. So The american economy switched its resources out of things like manufacturing and into the ultra high tech... which it exported to the rest of the world with amazing success. That is what made it hard for boeing. It would be no different to such success making it hard for textile manufacturers, or for Farmers. The dollar was too strong, and nobody could afford american basically!
So take a chill pill.