washingtonflyer
Posts: 1160
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:45 pm

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Sat Oct 07, 2017 4:49 pm

StTim wrote:
I am led to believe that the tariff (well the $80 million part) applies to all plans delivered to the US from International suppliers which are in the class 100-150 seats and a range of more than 2900nm



You forgot about the part - manufactured in Canada.
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7991
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Sat Oct 07, 2017 4:50 pm

FYI,

ALL of the C-Series competitors use American-made engines. And of course, many other systems, too.

That economic argument is practically moot because a loss for the C-Series is a gain for a slightly different version of the same engine. Probably made at the same factory, too.
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
Siddar
Posts: 60
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Sat Oct 07, 2017 5:26 pm

washingtonflyer wrote:
My reality is that I've been doing trade cases for nearly two decades and not once have I heard of an instance where an official from Commerce or an attorney who is a signatory to a protective order has given documents to their client that their client did not have access to. And I've worked on cases where the level of sensitivity and trade secrets are much higher than for BBD or Boeing.


And weren't criminal charges filed against those government employees involved?
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 471
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Sat Oct 07, 2017 6:23 pm

bigjku wrote:
If the US subsidized a more efficient but otherwise uneconomical train engine...
More efficient, but otherwise uneconomical?How does that add up?
bigjku wrote:
It’s pretty simple. If the cost of production and the cost of R&D make the acquisition cost increase too much an operator then an operator can’t make back the acquisition premium over their existing cheaper options.

If the cost of production and the cost of R&D make the acquisition cost increase too much .... then despite the subsidies, the operator will not buy it, and it isn't a threat to the (cheaper) locally produced equivalent. I'm sure the US is welcome to dump as many trains (or aircraft) in that category as they like, on any country. Quite who will buy them if they are more expensive, I can't say

Somehow I'm still missing something here. Again, please help me understand your point.
bigjku wrote:
The subsidies are the point here.
My contention is that if BBD was forced to sell the C series ...blah blah blah

It's like dealing with a politician; I ask you one question, and you totally ignore it and use the opportunity to push your own views. Repeatedly
Never mind Bombardier and Boeing, and for that matter the US vs Canada. Please just concentrate on the actual words you used in the hypothetical situation you introduced.

bigjku wrote:
If the US subsidized a more efficient but otherwise uneconomical train engine...

It's a train (not a CS100 airliner) :checkmark:
It's produced in the US, with subsidies. :checkmark:
It's exported ("dumped") in another country, maybe Mexico, maybe Tajikistan, anywhere at all except Canada. :checkmark:
Why would it be a threat to the local economy if despite it's subsidies, it is "uneconomic"? (your original wording)
There are two things that happen when you get old.
1. You start to lose your memory.
2. What was I saying again?
 
aa777lvr
Posts: 198
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 6:42 am

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Sat Oct 07, 2017 6:27 pm

What are some crafty workarounds the lawyers could use? If there was a US facility (existing or to-be-built) for final assembly, would this avoid the tariffs (thinking something like the Airbus facility in Mobile)? I realize the logistics to get up and running would take some time. Could DL set up some sort of Canadian-based subsidiary that BBD could delivery of the planes? Curious if there's any outside-the-box solutions?
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7991
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Sat Oct 07, 2017 6:28 pm

SheikhDjibouti,

The C-100 might burn less fuel than the E195E2, but it costs $14 million more per airplane. It might be more efficient on a fuel basis, but that's not the only metric that matters. It could be uneconomical because its cost of production is too high. And/or maintenance, for example.

I AM NOT SAYING THIS IS THE CASE. Just an example.
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
washingtonflyer
Posts: 1160
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:45 pm

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Sat Oct 07, 2017 6:36 pm

aa777lvr wrote:
What are some crafty workarounds the lawyers could use? If there was a US facility (existing or to-be-built) for final assembly, would this avoid the tariffs (thinking something like the Airbus facility in Mobile)? I realize the logistics to get up and running would take some time. Could DL set up some sort of Canadian-based subsidiary that BBD could delivery of the planes? Curious if there's any outside-the-box solutions?


The scope of the order encompasses finished and partially assembled aircraft. The question becomes when is an aircraft an aircraft. That becomes a customs question. It also leads you vulnerable to circumvention - which is a tool that is often employed to avoid duties.

As to who takes ownership and where, it doesn't matter - if you're going to enter a good into the United States for consumption in the United States, USCBP is going to want their duties. They are very aware of this and other cases and the shenanigans that importers and companies attempt and its not worth it. Fraudulent entries risk a penalty equal to the value of the goods (on top of the duties owed). You want to really try that type of gamble?

Its not like you're bringing in a pallet of pumpkins. A 110,000 pound aircraft flying in Delta colors is hard to miss.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 1672
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Sat Oct 07, 2017 7:34 pm

So Bombardier goes bankrupt and sells itself off to China who ships it all home. We won't tangle with China, and they will sell it cheaper than Canada would. Way to Go!
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
User avatar
aerolimani
Posts: 775
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 5:46 pm

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Sat Oct 07, 2017 7:50 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:
So Bombardier goes bankrupt and sells itself off to China who ships it all home. We won't tangle with China, and they will sell it cheaper than Canada would. Way to Go!

The feeling is that the US market is safe from China because no US airline is going to buy a Chinese-made plane. That might be true now, but that's going to change someday. Plenty of Americans fly around on jets from Brazil, and I’m sure there was a time when that was unimaginable.

This short-sighted protectionism is going to bite Boeing and the USA in the butt. Maybe not now, or next year, or the year after that. But it’s coming. As I’ve said before, you’d think the USA would prefer a friendly competitor to the north, who’s economically joined to the USA, at the hip. It would be better to get BBD established now, at the small end of the narrowbody world, so that we’re all ready for the coming storm.
 
bigjku
Posts: 1135
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Sat Oct 07, 2017 8:57 pm

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
bigjku wrote:
If the US subsidized a more efficient but otherwise uneconomical train engine...
More efficient, but otherwise uneconomical?How does that add up?
bigjku wrote:
It’s pretty simple. If the cost of production and the cost of R&D make the acquisition cost increase too much an operator then an operator can’t make back the acquisition premium over their existing cheaper options.

If the cost of production and the cost of R&D make the acquisition cost increase too much .... then despite the subsidies, the operator will not buy it, and it isn't a threat to the (cheaper) locally produced equivalent. I'm sure the US is welcome to dump as many trains (or aircraft) in that category as they like, on any country. Quite who will buy them if they are more expensive, I can't say

Somehow I'm still missing something here. Again, please help me understand your point.
bigjku wrote:
The subsidies are the point here.
My contention is that if BBD was forced to sell the C series ...blah blah blah

It's like dealing with a politician; I ask you one question, and you totally ignore it and use the opportunity to push your own views. Repeatedly
Never mind Bombardier and Boeing, and for that matter the US vs Canada. Please just concentrate on the actual words you used in the hypothetical situation you introduced.

bigjku wrote:
If the US subsidized a more efficient but otherwise uneconomical train engine...

It's a train (not a CS100 airliner) :checkmark:
It's produced in the US, with subsidies. :checkmark:
It's exported ("dumped") in another country, maybe Mexico, maybe Tajikistan, anywhere at all except Canada. :checkmark:
Why would it be a threat to the local economy if despite it's subsidies, it is "uneconomic"? (your original wording)


It’s a threat if it undercuts a locally produced but less efficient to operate item that more than makes up the difference by being cheaper to purchase. It isn’t that complicated.
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7991
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Sat Oct 07, 2017 8:59 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:
So Bombardier goes bankrupt and sells itself off to China who ships it all home. We won't tangle with China, and they will sell it cheaper than Canada would. Way to Go!


Presumably, BBD and the Canadian government would seek the highest bidder. Maybe it's China, but would the Chinese sell the airplane at a loss? An airplane that is already designed and in production?

I don't know the answer to that. I'm sure they could still learn a lot, but I have a feeling they'd be more interested in learning from scratch.
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
Skywatcher
Posts: 570
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2002 11:19 am

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:52 pm

The more I think about it the more I think a Canadian "anti-competitive" duty on Boeing imports into Canada makes sense.
I know the Canadian market is peanuts to Boeing but a made up number (300%?) duty would do the following;

1) screw up the 737 max order to Air Canada just like the U.S. duty did to Delta. I suspect the order would be cancelled. Isn't it around 80 aircraft? Airbus has plenty of alternatives/maybe up the C-series order too?
2) screw up the WestJet 737 future deliveries. Maybe they could go C-series instead? I'd rather WestJet take advantage of the Canadian government subsidies than Delta.

I know that none of this is desirable but Canada needs to retaliate against this ridiculous 300% duty (300 planes in backlog x $25 million est. Delta cost x 300% duty= $22.5 billion implied subsidy). What a joke.

The truth is that the subsidy (not including repayable loans) is maybe $5 million per plane, not $75 million. The dept. of commerce is out of their minds and I hope that they are called to task for their total BS.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 5003
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Sat Oct 07, 2017 10:10 pm

Boeing has a supersizing issue. Where a customer wants 100 seat plane, it wants to sell 189 seat plane at the same price. Delta needs a 100 seater. Bring back 717 if you want to compete.

While most customers want 250 seat WBs it is building a 440 seat WB and probably will sell it for less than 250 seat WBs.

Like someone selling 32oz soda for the same price of 12oz.
 
User avatar
Super80Fan
Posts: 522
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2017 4:14 am

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Sat Oct 07, 2017 10:34 pm

Disclaimer, although I dislike what Airways has become and disagree with a lot they say, this is one Op-Ed I actually agree with: https://airwaysmag.com/industry/op-ed-d ... e-can-sue/

Boeing simply doesn't want to compete or innovate, so they take the low road and force the competition/better aircraft out. Sad.
RIP McDonnell Douglas
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 7426
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Sun Oct 08, 2017 12:34 am

[quote="Super80Fan"
Boeing simply doesn't want to compete or innovate, so they take the low road and force the competition/better aircraft out. Sad.[/quote]
Why would they, they have not yet recovered with the moon shot that was the 787 program, full plastics plane with no bleed air, heavy battery use, all electric. bolt together in a few days, production all over the world, etc etc. you loose billions under the guise of new tech and innovation you will also be gun shy.
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 471
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Sun Oct 08, 2017 12:48 am

bigjku wrote:
It’s a threat if it undercuts a locally produced but less efficient to operate item that more than makes up the difference by being cheaper to purchase. It isn’t that complicated.

This is just too funny for words. It is complicated because YOU DISAGREE WITH YOURSELF within the same sentence, and this has been the problem all along. Do you not understand basic math? Or is it English you have a problem with?

Your statement can be more properly analysed by breaking it down into three clear, easily understood, unambiguous elements
Part 1
It’s a threat if it undercuts a locally produced (item) = It (the US export item) is cheaper to purchase than the local equivalent. :checkmark:
Part 2
...a locally produced but less efficient to operate item = the locally produced equivalent is less efficient to operate :checkmark:
Part 3
...a locally produced item that more than makes up the difference by being cheaper to purchase = the locally produced item is cheaper than the US exported item X

Part 1 and Part 3 are the total opposite of each other.
It is at this point that I give up. You win. I cannot compete with such ongoing stupidity. :white:
There are two things that happen when you get old.
1. You start to lose your memory.
2. What was I saying again?
 
User avatar
LockheedBBD
Posts: 206
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 6:59 pm

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Sun Oct 08, 2017 1:58 am

PPVRA wrote:
would the Chinese sell the airplane at a loss? An airplane that is already designed and in production?

I don't know the answer to that. I'm sure they could still learn a lot, but I have a feeling they'd be more interested in learning from scratch.



I don't think China is making any money (or even looking to make any money) from any of their aircraft programs at the moment. The Chinese could buy BBD for their IP, and BBD could help teach the Chinese how to design/build planes from scratch. After the Chinese are done and have learned everything they need from BBD, they will most likely scrap the company and probably close down BBD's western operations and offices in Canada and the UK. Perhaps the Chinese could also utilize some of BBD's support network to support their aircraft if they are able to sell them in other countries.
 
User avatar
LockheedBBD
Posts: 206
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 6:59 pm

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Sun Oct 08, 2017 2:01 am

aerolimani wrote:


This short-sighted protectionism is going to bite Boeing and the USA in the butt. Maybe not now, or next year, or the year after that. But it’s coming. As I’ve said before, you’d think the USA would prefer a friendly competitor to the north, who’s economically joined to the USA, at the hip. It would be better to get BBD established now, at the small end of the narrowbody world, so that we’re all ready for the coming storm.


Isn't China one of Boeing's biggest markets (or is projected to be)? I guess Boeing (and Airbus) can kiss that goodbye if China is eventually able to produce a complete range of viable aircraft.
 
Jamie514
Posts: 59
Joined: Thu May 18, 2017 4:36 pm

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Sun Oct 08, 2017 3:19 am

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
bigjku wrote:
It’s a threat if it undercuts a locally produced but less efficient to operate item that more than makes up the difference by being cheaper to purchase. It isn’t that complicated.

This is just too funny for words. It is complicated because YOU DISAGREE WITH YOURSELF within the same sentence, and this has been the problem all along. Do you not understand basic math? Or is it English you have a problem with?

Your statement can be more properly analysed by breaking it down into three clear, easily understood, unambiguous elements
Part 1
It’s a threat if it undercuts a locally produced (item) = It (the US export item) is cheaper to purchase than the local equivalent. :checkmark:
Part 2
...a locally produced but less efficient to operate item = the locally produced equivalent is less efficient to operate :checkmark:
Part 3
...a locally produced item that more than makes up the difference by being cheaper to purchase = the locally produced item is cheaper than the US exported item X

Part 1 and Part 3 are the total opposite of each other.
It is at this point that I give up. You win. I cannot compete with such ongoing stupidity. :white:


No no youve interpreted it correctly. He says its a threat because its now cheaper than the domestic product they sell for lower value b/c its a pig. Hes unwittingly admitted Boeing can't compete here and dumps with below market pricing. Youve won.
 
Beatyair
Posts: 767
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:09 pm

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Sun Oct 08, 2017 3:33 am

Boeing asked for 80% duties. The government backed itself not Boeing. Boeing should stick with aircraft with a 175 and over.
Boeing was not an could not compete for the 100 passenger segment. Delta has only 10 737-700's and they are not buying more or they would have already done so.
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 877
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Sun Oct 08, 2017 4:25 am

CX747 wrote:
BBD CHEATED AND GOT CAUGHT.


See, here's the thing...

NO IT DID NOT, THAT'S HOW AEROSPACE WORKS AND BOEING HAS USED GOVERNMENT MONEY MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE.

The reason this whole thing stinks is not the details of the actions undertaken, its the utter hypocrisy and nastiness of those making a case out of it.
"As with most things related to aircraft design, it's all about the trade-offs and much more nuanced than A.net likes to make out."
 
MSPNWA
Posts: 2270
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:48 am

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Sun Oct 08, 2017 6:30 am

Super80Fan wrote:
Disclaimer, although I dislike what Airways has become and disagree with a lot they say, this is one Op-Ed I actually agree with: https://airwaysmag.com/industry/op-ed-d ... e-can-sue/

Boeing simply doesn't want to compete or innovate, so they take the low road and force the competition/better aircraft out. Sad.


I'm wondering if that article was written by an adult.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
This is just too funny for words. It is complicated because YOU DISAGREE WITH YOURSELF within the same sentence, and this has been the problem all along. Do you not understand basic math? Or is it English you have a problem with?

Part 1 and Part 3 are the total opposite of each other.
It is at this point that I give up. You win. I cannot compete with such ongoing stupidity. :white:


The sentence is confusing, but there was no contradiction. You have part 3 backwards. The last clause is saying the imported item is less expensive to purchase thanks to the subsidies. It's not talking about the local item.

Don't be that foolish. It's been explained to you how an efficient but otherwise uneconomical product can exist. And that's precisely the drama with the CSeries. It's a fine plane technically, but it's a commercial failure. Propping up bad airplanes with taxpayer dollars means few win and many lose. If everything was run that way, we'd have a collapse of the global economy.
 
User avatar
Boeing778X
Posts: 3218
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 7:55 pm

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Sun Oct 08, 2017 7:20 am

Boeing has stated that the CSeries doesn't compete with anything they make, but it's obvious that they are afraid of what it would become.

The prospect of a CS500 should really weigh in the mind of BBD. Such an aircraft would blow the A320neo and 737 MAX 8 out of the water. For Boeing, that's obviously unacceptable. The MAX 7 is not selling (which the CS300 beats), and the MAX 9 and 10 are bested by the A321neo, and then to have their staple MAX 8 taken out by the CS500? Well, that does it.

What does Boeing want? Do they want DL to cancel their CSeries order outright and "say sorry" by buying 100x MAX 7s?

Look, I'm a 737 fan. It's my favorite plane. But the MAX was clearly a kneejerk reaction to the NEO in an attempt to keep market share, when the NSA was more than being talked about. Instead of stomaching it for a few years and continuing on that route, they'll probably have 8-10 years of this nonsense before they get to that point again.

I totally agree with what was stated by Flight Global a few months back. They qualified the move as "perhaps the most back-handed compliment one manufacturer can pay another."

The CSeries is a legitimate player on the field now, and I hope it succeeds.
United Airlines: $#!ttin' On Everyone Since 1931
 
bigjku
Posts: 1135
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Sun Oct 08, 2017 11:06 am

MSPNWA wrote:
Super80Fan wrote:
Disclaimer, although I dislike what Airways has become and disagree with a lot they say, this is one Op-Ed I actually agree with: https://airwaysmag.com/industry/op-ed-d ... e-can-sue/

Boeing simply doesn't want to compete or innovate, so they take the low road and force the competition/better aircraft out. Sad.


I'm wondering if that article was written by an adult.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
This is just too funny for words. It is complicated because YOU DISAGREE WITH YOURSELF within the same sentence, and this has been the problem all along. Do you not understand basic math? Or is it English you have a problem with?

Part 1 and Part 3 are the total opposite of each other.
It is at this point that I give up. You win. I cannot compete with such ongoing stupidity. :white:


The sentence is confusing, but there was no contradiction. You have part 3 backwards. The last clause is saying the imported item is less expensive to purchase thanks to the subsidies. It's not talking about the local item.

Don't be that foolish. It's been explained to you how an efficient but otherwise uneconomical product can exist. And that's precisely the drama with the CSeries. It's a fine plane technically, but it's a commercial failure. Propping up bad airplanes with taxpayer dollars means few win and many lose. If everything was run that way, we'd have a collapse of the global economy.


Yup, that is the point. For the new product to be truely competitive its purchase cost has to be low enough that it’s ongoing operating savings make up for it being more expensive up front. The C series is more efficient but not enough more efficient to recoup the cost of producing it in the sales price. Hell it even is a threat to real innovation because you move the bar for a truely better product that could compete without subsidy just a bit higher.

FWIW I expect and hope some sort of agreement is reached. I grew up not far from the Learjet facilities BBD owns. But BBD was clearly in the wrong here. They will lose the WTO case with Brazil as well. They won’t get off clean I don’t think.
 
WIederling
Posts: 4669
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Sun Oct 08, 2017 11:32 am

bigjku wrote:
It’s a threat if it undercuts a locally produced but less efficient to operate item that more than makes up the difference by being cheaper to purchase. It isn’t that complicated.


And again we see that the nation of "The Market" as a religion can not stand their own religion when they do not turn out sitting on top.

From Steel mills to Small Trucks and passing by shipbuilding and shipping , ....
all are or were protected from more efficient foreign produce by way of protectionist tariffs or legislation.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 471
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Sun Oct 08, 2017 12:25 pm

bigjku wrote:
For the new product to be truely competitive its purchase cost has to be low enough that it’s ongoing operating savings make up for it being more expensive up front.

Clear, unambiguous, and spot on too. :checkmark:

bigjku wrote:
The C series is more efficient but not enough more efficient to recoup the cost of producing it in the sales price.

Clear, unambiguous, but definitely open to some sort of discussion.

I will freely admit that I do not have all the figures. Or even a sizeable fraction of them.
For instance, I don't know what will happen to the price of oil. AFAIK, nobody knows that.
I heard that the CS100's fuel consumption in service was better even than the factory projections. But let's be honest, it's early days.
I also don't know the true cost of producing the CS100, or whether a "true" cost can ever be derived when there are so many real world variables, let alone accounting sleights-of-hand. (searches for a Smilie chucking up into a bucket; settles for a poor substitute) :hissyfit:

I'm not even sure that the "experts" at Bombardier, Boeing, Delta, or anyone else, are going to nail down the numbers either.

SO WHAT MAKES YOU THINK YOU KNOW THE ANSWER?
There are two things that happen when you get old.
1. You start to lose your memory.
2. What was I saying again?
 
washingtonflyer
Posts: 1160
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:45 pm

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Sun Oct 08, 2017 12:58 pm

WIederling wrote:
bigjku wrote:
It’s a threat if it undercuts a locally produced but less efficient to operate item that more than makes up the difference by being cheaper to purchase. It isn’t that complicated.


And again we see that the nation of "The Market" as a religion can not stand their own religion when they do not turn out sitting on top.

From Steel mills to Small Trucks and passing by shipbuilding and shipping , ....
all are or were protected from more efficient foreign produce by way of protectionist tariffs or legislation.


Funny that that you mention efficient production with respect to things like steel and protection with respect to steel. The irony here is that there are -annual- global meetings in places like Geneva, Tokyo and other cities where folks come together to address major imbalances in steel trade and steel capacity. The Chinese themselves admit that they have subsidized their steel industry which has thrown the global market off balance. If there was not an issue, why are there trade orders against China in Canada, Mexico, India, Brazil, the EU, Australia, Argentina, Egypt, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, etc., etc. Gee, if this many countries have reported AD orders against China, you might have to conclude that maybe, just maybe there is a problem, no?

http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/ ... fm?id=1473

https://hbr.org/2008/06/subsidies-and-the-china-price

Now China is not alone in this - there have been a slew of complaints against other countries by the various countries. Indeed, you'll find that one of the biggest users of the trade laws is actually India, not the USA. The EU is not far behind the USA.
Last edited by washingtonflyer on Sun Oct 08, 2017 1:13 pm, edited 3 times in total.
 
washingtonflyer
Posts: 1160
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:45 pm

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Sun Oct 08, 2017 1:05 pm

Boeing778X wrote:
Boeing has stated that the CSeries doesn't compete with anything they make, but it's obvious that they are afraid of what it would become.


Thats not what they told the Commission....But we'll wait for the final hearing.
 
User avatar
OA940
Posts: 924
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 6:18 am

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Sun Oct 08, 2017 4:49 pm

Remember when Boeing was a respectful manufacturer and didn't go for the low blows? Seems so old now...
A350/CSeries = bae
 
washingtonflyer
Posts: 1160
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:45 pm

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Sun Oct 08, 2017 5:08 pm

Wait for the ITC final...
 
StTim
Posts: 2519
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Sun Oct 08, 2017 5:10 pm

OA940 wrote:
Remember when Boeing was a respectful manufacturer and didn't go for the low blows? Seems so old now...



Quite some time ago now.
 
SteelChair
Posts: 109
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Sun Oct 08, 2017 6:18 pm

washingtonflyer wrote:
Boeing778X wrote:
Boeing has stated that the CSeries doesn't compete with anything they make, but it's obvious that they are afraid of what it would become.


Thats not what they told the Commission....But we'll wait for the final hearing.


But Ray Connor did tell investors on May 11, 2016:

"At the lower end the airplanes that have been purchased have been CS100s. We aren't competing with those with the the MAX."

And this quote was submitted by Bombardier in their testimony to the ITC.
Last edited by SteelChair on Sun Oct 08, 2017 6:36 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 
SteelChair
Posts: 109
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Sun Oct 08, 2017 6:19 pm

And he also said, "We competed Delta with used 717s and used Embraers."
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 4049
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Sun Oct 08, 2017 6:26 pm

So is Canada put in a tax of 300% on Boeing craft? Than Airbus will be the laughing third party in this.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 471
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Sun Oct 08, 2017 7:07 pm

OA940 wrote:
Remember when Boeing was a respectful manufacturer and didn't go for the low blows? Seems so old now...

The thread covering the demise of Monarch Airlines reminds us that Monarch, in the midst of all it's financial problems, ordered a large number of B737MAX from Boeing. A number of contributors wondered why on earth Monarch would commit themselves to such a huge investment, switching their entire fleet from 35 x A320/A321, to 45 x B737MAX. And above all why take this stupid action at such a stupid time.
We now seem to have the answer.
f4f3a wrote:
Article in The Times says last years cash injection was from Boeing as part of the MAX order.
I'm sure it was all perfectly above board & legal.

OA260 wrote:
Revealed: Monarch owner’s secret deal with Boeing
Vulture fund propped up airline through offshore transaction with planes giant

The secretive owner of Monarch Airlines, which collapsed last week, drastically cut its exposure to losses through a back-door deal with aerospace giant Boeing.
Vulture fund, offshore transaction, back-door deal. Sounds perfectly normal.

OA260 wrote:
The Sunday Times can reveal that Monarch received the bulk of the money to fund a £165m bailout one year ago from the Chicago-based plane maker — not from its private equity owner Greybull.
Chicago-based? :o Technically correct, in terms of HQ, but not exactly helpful. Or is that just me?

OA260 wrote:
Boeing is understood to have injected the money via Monarch’s offshore holding company, Petrol Jersey Ltd.

Offshore-holding company. Just the ticket. All perfectly legal. Nothing to see here, please move along now :lol:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/busi ... -2cjp8t9rj [/quote]
There are two things that happen when you get old.
1. You start to lose your memory.
2. What was I saying again?
 
Jamie514
Posts: 59
Joined: Thu May 18, 2017 4:36 pm

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Sun Oct 08, 2017 7:13 pm

PPVRA wrote:
FYI,

ALL of the C-Series competitors use American-made engines. And of course, many other systems, too.

That economic argument is practically moot because a loss for the C-Series is a gain for a slightly different version of the same engine. Probably made at the same factory, too.


Fact-check while you get down off that high horse bud.

FYI, ALL of the engines built for the 737, starting with the -300 right through to the 10MAX, are supplied by a company that is 50% FRENCH. And of course many other parts of the plane like the vertical fins from Xian in China, or inboard wing flaps from Mitsubishi of Japan. On the interior, Zodiac is French, alternate supplier Encore have their production line in Mexico...

eta: the IAE V2500 is even less American. Leaving only the PW GTF as an American based...-oh wait thats the one the CS uses. LOL.
 
User avatar
Thunderboltdrgn
Posts: 1868
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:39 pm

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Sun Oct 08, 2017 7:15 pm

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
OA940 wrote:
Remember when Boeing was a respectful manufacturer and didn't go for the low blows? Seems so old now...

The thread covering the demise of Monarch Airlines reminds us that Monarch, in the midst of all it's financial problems, ordered a large number of B737MAX from Boeing. A number of contributors wondered why on earth Monarch would commit themselves to such a huge investment, switching their entire fleet from 35 x A320/A321, to 45 x B737MAX. And above all why take this stupid action at such a stupid time.
We now seem to have the answer.
f4f3a wrote:
Article in The Times says last years cash injection was from Boeing as part of the MAX order.
I'm sure it was all perfectly above board & legal.

OA260 wrote:
Revealed: Monarch owner’s secret deal with Boeing
Vulture fund propped up airline through offshore transaction with planes giant

The secretive owner of Monarch Airlines, which collapsed last week, drastically cut its exposure to losses through a back-door deal with aerospace giant Boeing.
Vulture fund, offshore transaction, back-door deal. Sounds perfectly normal.

OA260 wrote:
The Sunday Times can reveal that Monarch received the bulk of the money to fund a £165m bailout one year ago from the Chicago-based plane maker — not from its private equity owner Greybull.
Chicago-based? :o Technically correct, in terms of HQ, but not exactly helpful. Or is that just me?

OA260 wrote:
Boeing is understood to have injected the money via Monarch’s offshore holding company, Petrol Jersey Ltd.

Offshore-holding company. Just the ticket. All perfectly legal. Nothing to see here, please move along now :lol:


Your link is dead bhere is the story in The Sunday times and the
TST: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/busi ... -2cjp8t9rj
FT: https://www.ft.com/content/a7cb0a40-ac4 ... aa44b1e130
Like a thunderbolt of lightning the Dragon roars across the sky. Il Drago Ruggente
 
yyztpa
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 7:10 am

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Sun Oct 08, 2017 8:30 pm

Jamie514 wrote:
PPVRA wrote:
FYI,

ALL of the C-Series competitors use American-made engines. And of course, many other systems, too.

That economic argument is practically moot because a loss for the C-Series is a gain for a slightly different version of the same engine. Probably made at the same factory, too.


Fact-check while you get down off that high horse bud.

FYI, ALL of the engines built for the 737, starting with the -300 right through to the 10MAX, are supplied by a company that is 50% FRENCH. And of course many other parts of the plane like the vertical fins from Xian in China, or inboard wing flaps from Mitsubishi of Japan. On the interior, Zodiac is French, alternate supplier Encore have their production line in Mexico...

eta: the IAE V2500 is even less American. Leaving only the PW GTF as an American based...-oh wait thats the one the CS uses. LOL.


I expect he is referencing E2s from Brazil.The 195E2 competes in the 100-150 where Boeing is claiming damages.
 
Jamie514
Posts: 59
Joined: Thu May 18, 2017 4:36 pm

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Sun Oct 08, 2017 9:29 pm

yyztpa wrote:
I expect he is referencing E2s from Brazil.The 195E2 competes in the 100-150 where Boeing is claiming damages.


This was his original statement, with his original formatting.

PPVRA wrote:
FYI,

ALL of the C-Series competitors use American-made engines.


I cannot reconcile that to your interpretation.

And if by allcaps underlined “all”, he did mean just the Embraer, I’d just point out the 195E2 is also powered by the PW GTF just like the CS so not sure what the point was then.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 303
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Sun Oct 08, 2017 9:51 pm

BBD could easily restrict the fuel quantity to get around the “range > 2900 nm “ standard. Replace a couple of Y rows for a F row and you have 99 seats on the CS100
 
danj555
Posts: 98
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 7:16 am

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Sun Oct 08, 2017 11:02 pm

Yo 80% on any bombardier plane..... 300% on C series. geez.

Is this a trump thing? I don't want to hear trump administration, or branch of gov't led by trump. His words, his mouth. Is this him?

Has there been a precedent? It sorta sounds like out of nowhere.
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7991
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Sun Oct 08, 2017 11:27 pm

Jamie514 wrote:
PPVRA wrote:
FYI,

ALL of the C-Series competitors use American-made engines. And of course, many other systems, too.

That economic argument is practically moot because a loss for the C-Series is a gain for a slightly different version of the same engine. Probably made at the same factory, too.


Fact-check while you get down off that high horse bud.

FYI, ALL of the engines built for the 737, starting with the -300 right through to the 10MAX, are supplied by a company that is 50% FRENCH. And of course many other parts of the plane like the vertical fins from Xian in China, or inboard wing flaps from Mitsubishi of Japan. On the interior, Zodiac is French, alternate supplier Encore have their production line in Mexico...

eta: the IAE V2500 is even less American. Leaving only the PW GTF as an American based...-oh wait thats the one the CS uses. LOL.


GTF and LEAP are built in the USA. Those are the two that really matter going forward. I never claimed any airplane was 100% made in USA.

I stand by my previous statement.
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
c933103
Posts: 1333
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:43 am

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
bigjku wrote:
If the US subsidized a more efficient but otherwise uneconomical train engine...
More efficient, but otherwise uneconomical?How does that add up?

Economic of scale?
 
CX747
Posts: 5869
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Mon Oct 09, 2017 2:13 am

All the crying here will not put the CS Humpty Dumpty manufacturing/subsidy violations back together again. BBD and the Canadian government better get on the phone with the Commerce Dept and try to fix this. The Commerce Dept does not care who you are, just ask Catapillar. The CS is a walking dead man unless their is some remedial steps taken by those in violation. Screaming about it won't make the problem go away. The Boeing deals with Air Canada and Westjet are legit. Better focus on what can be done to save the CS instead of going after Boeing.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
washingtonflyer
Posts: 1160
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:45 pm

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Mon Oct 09, 2017 2:46 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
BBD could easily restrict the fuel quantity to get around the “range > 2900 nm “ standard. Replace a couple of Y rows for a F row and you have 99 seats on the CS100


Two problems:

#1 The scope states that the investigation covers aircraft that are capable of holding at least 100 seats - using certain pitch configurations. The CS100 certainly falls within that size range.
#2 Changing the fuel capacity to reduce the range by 100 miles would be belied by the fact that company literature sent to airlines around the world tout the CS100s range. Telling USCBP one thing but telling other people another thing is a sure bet way to get yourself an 18 USC 2001 false statements penalty. On top of that, even if you changed all CS100s to <2900 miles, the alteration was specifically contemplated to avoid the scope of an antidumping and/or countervailing duty order. That type of alteration is usually going to be found by USDOC to be an instance of "circumvention" of the orders through its minor alteration analysis and you're going to be back under the order.
 
User avatar
aerolimani
Posts: 775
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 5:46 pm

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Mon Oct 09, 2017 5:07 am

CX747 wrote:
All the crying here will not put the CS Humpty Dumpty manufacturing/subsidy violations back together again. BBD and the Canadian government better get on the phone with the Commerce Dept and try to fix this. The Commerce Dept does not care who you are, just ask Catapillar. The CS is a walking dead man unless their is some remedial steps taken by those in violation. Screaming about it won't make the problem go away. The Boeing deals with Air Canada and Westjet are legit. Better focus on what can be done to save the CS instead of going after Boeing.

Oh, come now. It's a fairly safe bet that no one posting here has any meaningful influence over decisions at the DOC, the ITC, BBD, or the governments of Canada, Quebec, and the USA. So, just let us have our own little town hall mock trial on a.net. Okay? No one's making you read it.
 
StTim
Posts: 2519
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Mon Oct 09, 2017 6:08 am

CX747 wrote:
All the crying here will not put the CS Humpty Dumpty manufacturing/subsidy violations back together again. BBD and the Canadian government better get on the phone with the Commerce Dept and try to fix this. The Commerce Dept does not care who you are, just ask Catapillar. The CS is a walking dead man unless their is some remedial steps taken by those in violation. Screaming about it won't make the problem go away. The Boeing deals with Air Canada and Westjet are legit. Better focus on what can be done to save the CS instead of going after Boeing.

Pretty standard US view. Do as we demand. Well that is something the rest of the world is getting mightily pissed off with - especially as the US declines in importantance.
 
User avatar
aerolimani
Posts: 775
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 5:46 pm

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Mon Oct 09, 2017 6:13 am

Shared here mostly for an interesting perspective.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trump-t ... -1.4344688

I’ve always preferred to think of the USA as being a good neighbour; someone with whom Canada can reason, and come to fair agreements. Unfortunately, all sense of neighbourliness seems to have gone out the window.

Perhaps, as the article suggests, it’s time to get creative and find some legal but effective ways of pushing back. Something a lot more devious than simple counter-tariffs. As the saying goes… no more Mr. Nice Guy.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 4049
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Mon Oct 09, 2017 6:19 am

danj555 wrote:
Yo 80% on any bombardier plane..... 300% on C series. geez.

Is this a trump thing? I don't want to hear trump administration, or branch of gov't led by trump. His words, his mouth. Is this him?

Has there been a precedent? It sorta sounds like out of nowhere.


Probably yes. It is a bullshit argument with a severe penalty designed to take BDD out of the turf which sees Boeing as the Duopoly country. Free market is not something which is desired by America I guess.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 4049
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Mon Oct 09, 2017 6:26 am

aerolimani wrote:
Shared here mostly for an interesting perspective.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trump-t ... -1.4344688

I’ve always preferred to think of the USA as being a good neighbour; someone with whom Canada can reason, and come to fair agreements. Unfortunately, all sense of neighbourliness seems to have gone out the window.

Perhaps, as the article suggests, it’s time to get creative and find some legal but effective ways of pushing back. Something a lot more devious than simple counter-tariffs. As the saying goes… no more Mr. Nice Guy.


:checkmark: Make the American political system work for you to target specific Senators where it hurts in their states. The gloves must come off with this regime in Washington D.C.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos