Another low cost airline in US has just chosen Airbuses. These aircraft are at the centre of a trade dispute between EU and US. Just as production cost is hard to measure in dumping disputes, so are subsidies. However, the allegations from Boeing are of European government subsidies for Airbus.

Some jobs might be lost at Boeing, but many more might be created by the extra trade facilitated by cheap aircraft. Using EU tax to facilitate growth in US seems bizarre, and the US economy will no doubt appreciate the generosity of EU taxpayers in providing it with cheap aircraft. The EU would do well to consider if its subsidy to aircraft manufacture, or agriculture for that matter, might create more growth and employment in the EU if spent differently.

A rational examination of what subsidies cost, the distortion they cause to markets, and how the money might otherwise be used, might do more to liberalise trade than the current WTO with its halting deregulation and failed negotiations. Its all-night deliberations seem more geared to retaining employment in its own offices than in getting to the root of trade problems

There might be less acceptance of support for 'national flag carriers' if more people knew what their full cost was. Meantime, US passengers who fly Airbus might give silent thanks to EU taxpayers (like me) who help them get such good value.