Airbus has never been a Boeing joint venture. It is a politically desired united European aircraft company (doesn't sound good so far?) that somehow took off (heh).
Maybe it worked because the predecessor companies' main problem was "just" scale - they made some decent planes already.
It’s rather ironic that by claiming their comment lacks credibility without including any counterpoints it makes your comment itself lack credibility too.
ignoring various questionable details here, the one main point is correct: Boeing and Airbus are strategic industrial assets of USA vs EU and have deep implications for strategic security for both US and EU and their clients. For example, servicing these machines provides access to sensitive infrastructure all over the planet to these two companies’ employees & “certified” 3rd party consultants. If you are sitting say in UAE, buying Boeing vs AirBus is a political decision as well as a practical decision.
> American Airlines replaced a chunk of their fleet with the A320 because the Dreamliner was literally killing about as many people as it managed to transport when it wasnt down for loose bolts or reboots due to battery issues.
From Wikipedia:
> The Boeing 787 has been involved in seven accidents and incidents as of November 2023, with zero fatalities and no hull losses.
This makes no sense. The Comac 929 is a widebody that is still in the prototype stage, the SSJ100 is a regional jet that competes with the A220 or Embraer (a market where Boeing doesn’t even have a product), and the A320 is not a widebody. No airline replaces Dreamliners with A320s.
