tegy but also for the subsidies. They had good marketing and wisely targeted underserved market segments, but subsidies certainly helped them quickly gain market share. I do not believe that Airbus could have become a viable competitor without subsidies. Having Great Britain, France, Germany, and Spain contributing 25.9 billion dollars in the form of loans in below-market interest rates and tax breaks to the company certainly helped them compete with Boeing and McDonnell Douglas. This money helped Airbus provide attractive financing terms for their customers. I do believe their very existence in the global market is pending to an extent upon subsidies they have previously received.
             The European Union said they would oppose the merger if doing so was necessary to preserve competition. The United States wondered what authority a European body would have over a merger between two US firms who had almost no assets in Europe. Some politicians claimed that the EU's stance was a flagrant violation of US national sovereignty. Their attempts may have been a violation of national sovereignty. To me the reason that the EU made a threat was because they new that Boeing and McDonnell had double power now because they had a lot more experience in the industry and because of the 20 year exclusive supplier agreements with three major American airlines. It was more like a threat as if to say: "Americans, we are here and we are aware of what you're up to." If the merger was claimed to be illegal, EU could have restricte
             ...