While you're correct that strictly speaking these incentives are not subsidies, it's still a govt incentive to help Boeing. From a balance sheet perspective, reduced tax payments are an asset just like a subsidy.
Beyond that, I think you've missed the point. This isn't about what "most big businesses" see, nor what un/favorable tax environment Emirates has. My point is Boeings asset sheet is bolstered by a government just the same as Bombardier's. How much is the question?
1. boeing receives significant tax incentives in both washington state and south carolina.
2. boeing was also the beneficiary of 40% of the export-import bank's 2014 disbursals.
do these not represent government subsidies to help compete?
yeah, that's interesting. so wn has too many types but dl and ua don't run up against the same limit? i think maybe the faa was a convenient scapegoat for a decision forced through by the wn accounting department.
i mentioned it elsewhere, but its hard for me to bemoan boeing leadership for terminating a product line that netted 0 passenger orders and 7 total orders in 4 years after 9/11.
perhaps the root cause was sub-optimal deployment of the 757 or operators deferring on new aircraft orders for too long, but its hard for me to jump on the "boeing was stupid" bandwagon.
it can't be understated that after 9/11, there was not a single order for a passenger-configured 757, and only 7 orders total. what business wouldn't terminate that line?
748i eis was june 2012. so no, but they will have been by the time usaf lets a contract for the aircraft. is this 5-year requirement documented anywhere? I've not heard that before.
