I am trying to understand some of the arguments here, so please use non-emotional arguments in response. I do understand the emotion, as jobs are at stake, but I honestly don't think that will sell the American public or politicians, whereas honest and open discussion is more likely to win people over.

So, it does seem that the ME carriers have received some subsidies, but the amount may be questionable. For instance, what is the difference between "$2.3bn of savings from artificially low airport charges" and what some US carriers receive? Specifically, do US carriers get charged the same landing fees, handling fees, airport passenger fees, TSA fees, etc. at LAX or Atlanta as does a foreign carrier? I honestly don't know ...

Further, how is "$1.9bn of savings from Emirates’ non-unionised workforce" different than non-unionised US airlines (JetBlue until recently or Delta's Flight Attendants, for instance)? Or, how is that different than the savings Delta and United realised when they handed their retirement obligations to the U.S. government, thus massively reducing their debt and future expenditures?

Foreign airlines receive interest-free loans from their government ... And US airlines benefit from the falsely low interest rates that derive from the U.S. Fed setting the prime interest rate. Not the same, I know, but without government backed-loans at artificially low interest rates, what would be the status of some legacy carriers today?

I have been scolded here for not understanding the importance of the CRAF fleet (which I do, btw!), but do US airlines receive money to be part of the CRAF fleet? Is this money only if they are used, or is some money paid to the airline each year for being part of the CRAF Fleet, regardless of whether or not they are used? Was the importance of the CRAF fleet and the U.S. airline industry some of the rationale to have government-backed loans to keep the US big three from going out of existence when they went bankrupt?

The Economist article was a thoughtful piece. It brought up a good point about US Chapter 11 laws not quite equating to subsidies. (Although that didn't completely answer the questions I asked above.)