AA and UA cannot be allowed to go out of business. Time and time again, airlines such as Southwest, Jetblue, etc. which only serve domestic markets have complained to the fact that they must work for their money while the big airlines, none of which can consistently manage to make a dime are bailed out by the federal government. If we running a true capitalist society, UAL, AA and US would have been allowed to disapear a long time ago. Instead we see these carriers as essential, so we bail them out. BA is privatized but even if they made no money, they would be bailed out. How often has Branson complained about BA favoritism? Or Neeleman complaining about virtual subsidies for UA, which hemorrhages money, and even in F fails to provide consistent service. For some reason these carriers are seen as to vital to a nation to fail. In this way, yes, these carriers are defacto "flag carriers."

As to the A330 not being outdated. Both the A330-300 and 763ER were launched the same year. They serve similar markets. Yes, the 767 is at a disadvantage to the A330 (as the 767 program was launched much earlier). However look at the specs for the A330 and B787-8. 20% less fuel, can fly farther (787-8 8000nm, A333/A332 5500nm/6400nm) and employs technology not used in the A330 series. So in that respect, yes the A330 is inferior to its competitors. Also, the 787-3 (@ 3000nm) and 787-9 (@ 9000nm) will share the same type rating. Something I believe coming from Boeing--rather than Airbus' history of broken promises. Need I mention the disappointing A345 SQ wants pawned off, the A346 which CX and Virgin have had some serious "teething" problems, or the grossly underestimated weight of the A380, or even the misleading information regarding having the same type rating for the A319/320 and to some extent A330/340 series? I have nothing against them, they just make an inferior, overhyped, product.