Here's a little one month old news item that illustrates nicely what the government subsidized or owned (more or less) makers *compete*. Notice the A330 data point.
Uganda Airlines
The discounts you're citing are typical for both Boeing and Airbus. The list price is but a wet dream and half off that is normal.
How about Boeing's having sold UAL 737s dirt cheap to keep Bombardier out of the game?
Cutthroat competition didn't begin with the modern Airbus and Boeing although between Bombardier and Embraer, I know who got the better deal.
As a Boeing shareholder, I really wish Boeing had.
We don't disagree on the cutthroat competition. But the significance of the Uganda Airline example is twofold: first is the nearly 60% discount on a single aircraft sale. That ain't normal. Second is that only Uganda (as a result of the low price no doubt) has bought the 330-800. Excitement for the A330 must be waning (that's a guess).
Bombardier's competitive problem with Boeing is based on the fact that there are quite literally thousands of 737's and it's still in high rate production making honest low price possible. Bombardier, on the other hand, can't come far enough down the price curve to meet the Boeing price without going under their own cost line, i.e., dumping. Boeing's early and continuing success causes a very high barrier to market entry. Two things happen. As a state supported player Bombardier's fully loaded cost will tend to be higher because of the financial structure alone, never mind the low rate of production. And, because the state stands behind it, the banks LOVE to loan money to them. So the manufacturer will tend to carry a higher debt load even BEFORE seeking more direct investment from the state as they get deeper into trouble. Hello Boeing lawyers. It's a bad spiral, all caused by trying to get into an established market. It's a very tough game.
When they were going to lose the legal dumping problem again recently this past time they literally gave away that design and production to Airbus to become a supplier instead of a prime. Effectively it was to hide under the skirts of Airbus's accounting system....which we know a little bit about. Meanwhile Boeing reacts by entering a joint venture with Embraer (they basically bought the airliner branch) to get even lower cost production capability. I know you know all this. I'm just trying to explain, badly I'm sure, to other readers who aren't in the business. I'm not in the plane business either but watch it from the avionics standpoint.
Finally, if Quebec had not supported Bombardier fully and from Day 1 it would have gone out of business long ago. Quebec won't let it die. It's a pride thing and a jobs thing to them. And, according to some, it goes deeper than that. Having an aerospace prime is another credibility check mark that says, in Quebec's mind, that Quebec can legitimately be it's own country, a position they take on a regular basis to shake down the Canadian federal government.
Bottom line: the "it can not die" nature of the public purse they receive absolutely defines them as an unfair competitor.
