[strong_silent_t]

I think if the government is going to subsidize something, politically aerospace makes a lot of sense. It has jobs for engineering, technicians, and high-skill trades. It has a long planning horizon and lots of regulation (meaning less short term competitive forces at play). It has defense applications. The downside is that everyone else is also subsidizing it, so it is still hard to compete.

[WalterBright]

The 747 was not subsidized.

[Someone1234]

Boeing as a company is massively subsidized. People often like to play this game where they specifically mention a model number and make the claim that that specific model wasn't, while ignoring that the entire company, infrastructure, and apparatus is.

The US subsidizes Boeing, European countries subsidize Airbus, and Canada subsidizes Bombardier. Playing semantic games doesn't alter that reality.

[toweringgoat]

But Boeing is - majorly. Cross-subsidisation essentially.

[vkou]

The 747 only exists because of subsidies and defense contracts. If the US government were not heavily involved in the industry, we'd all be flying in Airbus jets.

These subsidies made the development of the 747 possible.