BeatNavy

We couldn't build cars in America without a welfare check, and our auto makers would have gone buy buy if they weren't gettig bailed out...same with many banks. And oil companies. And solar companies. And defense companies that have sucked off the DoD teat and wouldn't be around otherwise. Boeing has received how much from the government in the last several decades, to include many tax breaks?

No other companies in the world will likely ever be able to enter the duopoly that Boeing and Airbus have because they have killed off competition and continue that tactic. BBD had a small chance to enter the mainline narrowbody market for a segment that had no competitors (100-150 seat) because they had revenue from trains and planes. And they bet the company on it. Just like many US corporations, delays and budget overruns caused a need for bailouts. That's to be expected for a project like this. And selling at a discount to gain traction that generates more orders is standard. Boeing has sold jets at a discount. How much a business discounts their product it is up to them.

When it comes to ME3, the difference is they are subsidized indefinitely by their government with oil money. There is no end. The lower cost of the planes BBD sold could effectively get them more orders, and eventually BBD will make money on the C series. It's a temporary price drop with a mid-long term recovery plan.

In a david and Goliath environment, how else can anyone innovate and make a new plane that competes? It's an unfair playing field, which is why Boeing is selling a brand new 1966 plane with many things unchanged since it first rolled off the production line 50+ years ago. What's sad is they have to cry to daddy because BBD has a product that is superior to anything they have that's even close to that size range. Sounds whiny to me. 219% won't stick.

CrimsonEclipse

Boeing, Airbus, Embraer, Bombardier, and Comac.

You think there is free market here?

BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!
(wipes tear)
oh my...

Dolphinflyer

Uhhhhh, no. Boeing come the closest though, especially with the 707 and 747 bets.

CrimsonEclipse

(*blinks*)

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Oh wait, you're serious!
Let me laugh even harder:

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

You're precious....

Dolphinflyer

CE,
Yes they all have a long list of gimmees from their respective governments.
Boeing benefited from the Military side of things, but still made large bets on the 707 and 747 for civilian use of which both had some $$$ for R&D from the Tanker and Freighter side of things. That funding did have a purpose other than basic welfare.

Original point was that Boeing,McD and Lockheed weren't given the percentage of government handouts to specifically build a jet like the original RJ's and their follow on models received from Brazil and Canada and probably Japan with the MRJ.

tomgoodman

Boeing appeared to lose their bet on the 747, because the USAF chose Lockheed’s C-5 instead. Juan Trippe was the only customer at first, but then foreign airlines started to order 747s, mainly for reasons of national pride. That gave Boeing enough time for the civilian marketplace to catch up with the airplane’s huge capacity.

freezingflyboy

Does anyone else feel a bit of irony when they pull up next to a shiny, new 787 from Third World Airlines?

Chakerik

Absolutely. Ironic, isn't it?

Dolphinflyer

Yup.

At least 10 years ago we'd pull into the gate at CDG with our multiple MEL'd, beat up, speed tape covered 767 next to a shiny new 777 in Viet Nam colors.

Sounds like they've gone to the crapper and we've gotten shiny new jets. Things will change again.

deadseal

Lol, this summer I drove by a beautiful Vietnam airlines 787 at cdg in a scraped up 767 so not sure where you're going with this.