thumper76
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2017 10:18 pm

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

Sat Oct 14, 2017 1:52 am

I don't know.... Maybe a company can on multiple occasions sell their aircraft below cost (united of course not being an example) to ensure a rival can not get the sale. Please do not confuse this with launch pricing. It is very beneficial by the way being one of the duopoly members. For some reason they can sell below cost but not a new entrant. If you think that is funny you need to do some self study
 
thumper76
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2017 10:18 pm

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

Sat Oct 14, 2017 1:55 am

If you did not get a hint of sarcasm you likely read it wrong
 
thumper76
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2017 10:18 pm

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

Sat Oct 14, 2017 2:00 am

Just curious... Do you need imput into launch pricing? Ask Boeing or airbus I am sure they could tell you
 
washingtonflyer
Posts: 1325
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:45 pm

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

Sat Oct 14, 2017 2:55 am

mjoelnir wrote:
washingtonflyer wrote:
thumper76 wrote:
So you are saying that the airline industry is different than standard industry? Then why are you so bias in this case? Does everyone in the DOC act and think the same as you? I understand that you can't speak for the people involved. But would hope that they did not base their findings on bias views.. That you seem to have.


I'm not sure what bias you're speaking of. Commerce found that Bombarier availed itself of subsidies through it not being equityworthy or creditworty. That was its factual determination. Most folks on here agreed that the government bailout was effectively a cash infusion and instead of recognizing it as such, repeatedly say "Boing got subsidies too"! Commerce also found that Bombardier refused to answer the agency's questions in the dumping case. That was either a tactical decision or a very stupid thing to do. As I wrote upthread, thumbing your nose at the agency gets you -nowhere-. I cannot tell you how many cases there are where an interested party told Commerce that they were refusing to provide information for whatever reason (excessive burden, no resources, supposedly don't have the records, can't provide it in the form Commerce wants, etc., etc.). The result is always the same - a determination using facts that are otherwise available. And the CIT and the CAFC upholds those determinations.

I made an AFA (adverse facts available) prediction probably 6 or 7 weeks ago. All of my colleagues who were following this case (inside my firm and outside my firm) agreed.


You keep factual out of your description. The simple point that Boeing does not produce a competing frame to the CS100 should have blown this case. The arbitrary definition of a 100 to 150 passenger size range, therefore putting a CS100 and 737 in the same size range, shows that this decision was prearranged.


You're discussing an issue that is not relevant to Commerce. Whether there is a competing like product is the question for the USITC, not Commerce.
 
bigjku
Posts: 1638
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

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

Sat Oct 14, 2017 12:08 pm

thumper76 wrote:
I don't know.... Maybe a company can on multiple occasions sell their aircraft below cost (united of course not being an example) to ensure a rival can not get the sale. Please do not confuse this with launch pricing. It is very beneficial by the way being one of the duopoly members. For some reason they can sell below cost but not a new entrant. If you think that is funny you need to do some self study


I don’t think the situation is funny. Stupid decisions by BBD have put huge numbers of their employees at risk. That isn’t funny. I grew up where Learjet was a major player in employment. I don’t want BBD to collapse. But let’s summarize some of your points and explain why you are wrong.

1. Everyone gets subsidies- While this may be true to some degree there are key factors here that make it quite different that you continue to ignore.

The real key in the decision seems to be the fact that BBD wasn’t credit or equity worthy when it got the money. That is what you don’t seem to get when to rant about the duopoly. Airbus and Boeing are both credit worth and equity worthy. Thus I believe the discussions around Airbus launch aid in particular generally revolves around how the terms of that aid vary from what they could get commercially.

BBD couldn’t get anything commercially. Their stock price was collapsing so raising equity would be very difficult. Their credit rating was below key benchmarks for institutional investors and lenders. This is a hugely important difference you don’t seem to acknowledge.

2. The C-Series is competitive- But the key issue is it doesn’t seem to be without subsidy. In fact without the subsidy BBD would be on the verge on bankruptcy today because of the C-Series. Here is a summary of the problem they got bailed out from.

They spent too much developing the plane relative to their resources. This ate up their cash and drove down their stock price making it impossible to raise funds on the open market. They tried to generate more cash by spiking production rates on other products. They needed to start making money on the C-Series before they hit the ground cash wise. However they couldn’t sell any for 18-months. They cancelled or out of other product developments to try and preserve cash. Then they got government money and publicly said they would be more flexible on price and got the Delta order.

So we know at the price BBD determined they needed to get for 18-months they couldn’t get any orders and were losing to Airbus and Boeing undercutting them. The C-Series is technically competitive for an operator. But it hasn’t proven it is a competitive option at the price BBD can afford to produce it at.

3. Launch Pricing- I feel like this is so simple it shouldn’t be necessary to explain but no one has any issue with launch pricing or discount pricing. The issue here is that it doesn’t seem like BBD will make money on any of the C Series it has sold. The difference between early losses while you scale up and dumping is if and when you will make money on a per frame and program basis. But BBD isn’t disclosing this. I and others suspect it is because at the prices they are able to move product at there is no possibility of a per frame profit at projected production levels. That makes this dumping.

4. Predatory Pricing- There really is no such thing honestly. But because of their production volumes I believe Airbus and Boeing both make money even when they have cut prices to kill C-Series sales. And even if they lose money on a single deal we know that both the 737 and a320 programs individually and the companies overall are greatly profitable. BBD isn’t. Without government money they can’t sustain negative margin sales on the C-Series because the overall company isn’t strong enough and they ran themselves out of money.

FYI being undercut by the existing model is exactly why Boeing didn’t launch a new narrowbody. This is why many in the industry aren’t surprised about what happened and thought the program was a disaster waiting to happen.

The discussion worth having is what to do about the situation rather than trying to deny what happened. I would guess BBD is back for more money in 24 months or so. What do we do at that point?
 
Jamie514
Posts: 81
Joined: Thu May 18, 2017 4:36 pm

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

Sat Oct 14, 2017 3:45 pm

That is all well and good but there has to be a remedy to balance the unfair advantage Boeing maintains by having originated as a military supplier and having secured massive orders for the KC 135 upon which so much of their entire narrowbody product line has relied.

Maybe if they’d had to go get market rate financing to do the civilian 707 you’d have a valid point. But being a sole vendor setting the price for 800 KC135 units not to speak of the other variants, gave it an advantage you continue to ignore or casually write off.

The duopoly has effectively lowered their average pricing in the segment as a result of BBD’s presence and as has been noted, undercut the Cseries. Canada cannot disguise a Bombardier support package as an order for 800 military jet transport aircraft based on the CS100 because we do not have an international role as interventionists nor any interest in that role. That is our choice. I’m not convinced Boeing wouldn’t take issue with it anyway if we did but its moot since we won’t. We still wish to participate in the commercial side. The bigger picture is that 5billion to get a large order for the Cseries past the duopoly’s undercutting tactics and into blue chip Delta is needed to prove the aircraft and attract other customers. That 5 billion is a drop in the Olympic pool of government money Boeing swims in. The fact remains the narrowbody market rate is set by the dominant suppliers in the market. Not vice versa. Not at the current production rates or considering BBD’s financial position.

Nobody up here dares tell the duopoly to stop the price war they started and you can’t really tell Bbd what price point they need to find buyers at either. Its much more complex than arguing BBD must find private investors while ignoring Boeings revenue sources and military benefactors when their airframe’s origin is completely intertwined and underwritten.

Boeings prerogative to recycle that cross section and cockpit structure for 65 years have not been in the best interest of fuel efficiency or operating costs nor apparently pilots auditory health. Now they want all competing narrow-bodies to remain old designs with new engines “because new designs cost too much to do”. Arguing against our “anti free market spirit” while towing that line is ripe hypocrisy.

The world is slowly moving on.
 
bigjku
Posts: 1638
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

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

Sat Oct 14, 2017 4:48 pm

Jamie514 wrote:
That is all well and good but there has to be a remedy to balance the unfair advantage Boeing maintains by having originated as a military supplier and having secured massive orders for the KC 135 upon which so much of their entire narrowbody product line has relied.

Maybe if they’d had to go get market rate financing to do the civilian 707 you’d have a valid point. But being a sole vendor setting the price for 800 KC135 units not to speak of the other variants, gave it an advantage you continue to ignore or casually write off.

The duopoly has effectively lowered their average pricing in the segment as a result of BBD’s presence and as has been noted, undercut the Cseries. Canada cannot disguise a Bombardier support package as an order for 800 military jet transport aircraft based on the CS100 because we do not have an international role as interventionists nor any interest in that role. That is our choice. I’m not convinced Boeing wouldn’t take issue with it anyway if we did but its moot since we won’t. We still wish to participate in the commercial side. The bigger picture is that 5billion to get a large order for the Cseries past the duopoly’s undercutting tactics and into blue chip Delta is needed to prove the aircraft and attract other customers. That 5 billion is a drop in the Olympic pool of government money Boeing swims in. The fact remains the narrowbody market rate is set by the dominant suppliers in the market. Not vice versa. Not at the current production rates or considering BBD’s financial position.

Nobody up here dares tell the duopoly to stop the price war they started and you can’t really tell Bbd what price point they need to find buyers at either. Its much more complex than arguing BBD must find private investors while ignoring Boeings revenue sources and military benefactors when their airframe’s origin is completely intertwined and underwritten.

Boeings prerogative to recycle that cross section and cockpit structure for 65 years have not been in the best interest of fuel efficiency or operating costs nor apparently pilots auditory health. Now they want all competing narrow-bodies to remain old designs with new engines “because new designs cost too much to do”. Arguing against our “anti free market spirit” while towing that line is ripe hypocrisy.

The world is slowly moving on.


Absolutely none of this has anything to do with flagrant violation of US laws which led to this problem and violation of WTO rules that will lead to BBD getting smoked at the WTO with Brazil’s complaint.

You can scream about military contracts all you want. They aren’t against any rules and Canada signed up for them with the WTO and has to abide by US rules to sell in the US.
 
User avatar
aerolimani
Posts: 912
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 5:46 pm

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

Sat Oct 14, 2017 6:34 pm

Yeah, we all know. Nobody ever said the law was fair. But, this issue is MUCH bigger than domestic US law. Currently, Boeing and the USA are getting zero international support for this move. And that's why, ultimately, this matter will be settled politically. The law is only inside the USA, and when it comes to things international, there's no laws. There's only agreements. Agreements are changed, broken, and brokered by politicians, bureaucrats, and diplomats. The agreements are what determine what kinds of laws each country can make. Those laws absolutely can be challenged as to whether they are in line with said agreements.

Boeing is very foolish if they think that the rest of the world is going to sit idly by, and just let this happen. This situation will be neutralized, and an agreement will be reached, or there will be a trade war. And, like any other war, even if you win, you still lose. Everybody loses. Not only that, but it can take decades for the animosity to go away, even after things settle down. This is not a time when the world needs more bad blood, ESPECIALLY between traditional allies Canada, the USA, and the UK.

I'm not opposed to the investments and loans BBD has received from the governments, because personally, I think that free market economics is about as effective as trickle down economics. The real world just doesn't work that way. Unrestricted free market economics is just the corporate version of trickle down economics. It's just a way to keep the powerful companies in place, and to stifle any new competition. That's my opinion, and while I remain open-minded, it's going to have to be a damned good argument to change my mind on this one.
 
thumper76
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2017 10:18 pm

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

Sat Oct 14, 2017 9:28 pm

thumper76 wrote:
bigjku wrote:
thumper76 wrote:
I don't know.... Maybe a company can on multiple occasions sell their aircraft below cost (united of course not being an example) to ensure a rival can not get the sale. Please do not confuse this with launch pricing. It is very beneficial by the way being one of the duopoly members. For some reason they can sell below cost but not a new entrant. If you think that is funny you need to do some self study


I don’t think the situation is funny. Stupid decisions by BBD have put huge numbers of their employees at risk. That isn’t funny. I grew up where Learjet was a major player in employment. I don’t want BBD to collapse. But let’s summarize some of your points and explain why you are wrong.

1. Everyone gets subsidies- While this may be true to some degree there are key factors here that make it quite different that you continue to ignore.

The real key in the decision seems to be the fact that BBD wasn’t credit or equity worthy when it got the money. That is what you don’t seem to get when to rant about the duopoly. Airbus and Boeing are both credit worth and equity worthy. Thus I believe the discussions around Airbus launch aid in particular generally revolves around how the terms of that aid vary from what they could get commercially.

Thumper76
Ohh I get it... What BBD did wrong was not recieve billions in tax exemptions and should also have done some work for Canada's defence department making $35000 dollar toilet seats for our Buffalo aircraft. That would work right? If BBD did all this before starting on the cseries they would be financially strong enough to build the aircraft and push it into the duopoly market.

BBD couldn’t get anything commercially. Their stock price was collapsing so raising equity would be very difficult. Their credit rating was below key benchmarks for institutional investors and lenders. This is a hugely important difference you don’t seem to acknowledge.

2. The C-Series is competitive- But the key issue is it doesn’t seem to be without subsidy. In fact without the subsidy BBD would be on the verge on bankruptcy today because of the C-Series. Here is a summary of the problem they got bailed out from.

They spent too much developing the plane relative to their resources. This ate up their cash and drove down their stock price making it impossible to raise funds on the open market. They tried to generate more cash by spiking production rates on other products. They needed to start making money on the C-Series before they hit the ground cash wise. However they couldn’t sell any for 18-months. They cancelled or out of other product developments to try and preserve cash. Then they got government money and publicly said they would be more flexible on price and got the Delta order.

So we know at the price BBD determined they needed to get for 18-months they couldn’t get any orders and were losing to Airbus and Boeing undercutting them. The C-Series is technically competitive for an operator. But it hasn’t proven it is a competitive option at the price BBD can afford to produce it at.

Thumper76
Airlines looking at the cseries even before delta were not willing to gamble on the aircraft because they were aware of the hostility the aircraft was going to recieve from the duopoly. This caused the lack of sales! Can you please show me the legal documents from BBD not Boeing showing the actual sales prices? No you can not! Speculating the price and or cost to produce should not be usable in court.

3. Launch Pricing- I feel like this is so simple it shouldn’t be necessary to explain but no one has any issue with launch pricing or discount pricing. The issue here is that it doesn’t seem like BBD will make money on any of the C Series it has sold. The difference between early losses while you scale up and dumping is if and when you will make money on a per frame and program basis. But BBD isn’t disclosing this. I and others suspect it is because at the prices they are able to move product at there is no possibility of a per frame profit at projected production levels. That makes this dumping.

4. Predatory Pricing- There really is no such thing honestly. But because of their production volumes I believe Airbus and Boeing both make money even when they have cut prices to kill C-Series sales. And even if they lose money on a single deal we know that both the 737 and a320 programs individually and the companies overall are greatly profitable. BBD isn’t. Without government money they can’t sustain negative margin sales on the C-Series because the overall company isn’t strong enough and they ran themselves out of money.

FYI being undercut by the existing model is exactly why Boeing didn’t launch a new narrowbody. This is why many in the industry aren’t surprised about what happened and thought the program was a disaster waiting to happen.

The discussion worth having is what to do about the situation rather than trying to deny what happened. I would guess BBD is back for more money in 24 months or so. What do we do at that point?
 
User avatar
aerolimani
Posts: 912
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 5:46 pm

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

Sat Oct 14, 2017 9:29 pm

thumper76 wrote:
More filler.. One day I will learn this site
:smile:

You can practice with the full editor & preview. Save yourself the trouble of posting incorrectly.

Just FYI, for an image, you need to use an URL which is just for the image in question. Typically, on the webpage containing the desired image, you right-click the image, and do something like “open image in new tab.” The link in that tab (or window) will be the one that works on here. If you’re going n a mobile, typically you tap and hold on the image for similar options as on a desktop computer. In the post on a.net, it should look like:

[img]imageURLhere[/img]

I hope this helps!

Also, it should be noted that not all sites permit hotlinking like this.
 
thumper76
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2017 10:18 pm

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

Sat Oct 14, 2017 9:41 pm

aerolimani wrote:
thumper76 wrote:
More filler.. One day I will learn this site
:smile:

You can practice with the full editor & preview. Save yourself the trouble of posting incorrectly.

Just FYI, for an image, you need to use an URL which is just for the image in question. Typically, on the webpage containing the desired image, you right-click the image, and do something like “open image in new tab.” The link in that tab (or window) will be the one that works on here. If you’re going n a mobile, typically you tap and hold on the image for similar options as on a desktop computer. In the post on a.net, it should look like:


[img]imageURLhere[/img]

I hope this helps!

Also, it should be noted that not all sites permit hotlinking like this.

Thanks... I need all the help I can get
 
thumper76
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2017 10:18 pm

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

Sat Oct 14, 2017 10:53 pm

It would seem that some posters on this site believe that the reason why bbds subsidies are illegal is because BBD at the onset of the cseries program was financially weak. They figure that if a bank won't support them the company should have dissolved during the cseries program and never have received subsidies.
Now to insure that no other aircraft manufacturer makes the same mistake what has to be done?
The first thing that BBD should have done is receive billions in tax breaks that will never have to be reimbursed.
The second thing that BBD should have done is gotten a defence contract from Canada to develop items like $35000 toilet seats for Canada's Buffalo aircraft.
But to make sure everything is legal this all must be done before attempting to start a commercial aircraft program that might cause other manufacturers concern.
One cannot stress enough
The importance of getting subsidies BEFORE Starting the program. By using this method BBD would have been able to start the program in a strong financial state.
If this was done by BBD the DOC would have had to find something else to use.
For Boeing to use the "fair and level playing field" quote is so stupid it could only have been a direct slap towards all trade.
Is the world supposed to fear trade? No! Trade should be beneficial for all. I am sorry for Britain having to set up a trade agreement from scratch during a time like this.
 
thumper76
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2017 10:18 pm

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

Sat Oct 14, 2017 11:19 pm

aerolimani wrote:
Yeah, we all know. Nobody ever said the law was fair. But, this issue is MUCH bigger than domestic US law. Currently, Boeing and the USA are getting zero international support for this move. And that's why, ultimately, this matter will be settled politically. The law is only inside the USA, and when it comes to things international, there's no laws. There's only agreements. Agreements are changed, broken, and brokered by politicians, bureaucrats, and diplomats. The agreements are what determine what kinds of laws each country can make. Those laws absolutely can be challenged as to whether they are in line with said agreements.

Boeing is very foolish if they think that the rest of the world is going to sit idly by, and just let this happen. This situation will be neutralized, and an agreement will be reached, or there will be a trade war. And, like any other war, even if you win, you still lose. Everybody loses. Not only that, but it can take decades for the animosity to go away, even after things settle down. This is not a time when the world needs more bad blood, ESPECIALLY between traditional allies Canada, the USA, and the UK.

I'm not opposed to the investments and loans BBD has received from the governments, because personally, I think that free market economics is about as effective as trickle down economics. The real world just doesn't work that way. Unrestricted free market economics is just the corporate version of trickle down economics. It's just a way to keep the powerful companies in place, and to stifle any new competition. That's my opinion, and while I remain open-minded, it's going to have to be a damned good argument to change my mind on this one.

This is the most sane thing I have read or heard in quite some time! Bravo!
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 8028
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

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

Sun Oct 15, 2017 1:00 am

thumper76 wrote:
It would seem that some posters on this site believe that the reason why bbds subsidies are illegal is because BBD at the onset of the cseries program was financially weak. They figure that if a bank won't support them the company should have dissolved during the cseries program and never have received subsidies.
Now to insure that no other aircraft manufacturer makes the same mistake what has to be done?
The first thing that BBD should have done is receive billions in tax breaks that will never have to be reimbursed.
The second thing that BBD should have done is gotten a defence contract from Canada to develop items like $35000 toilet seats for Canada's Buffalo aircraft.
But to make sure everything is legal this all must be done before attempting to start a commercial aircraft program that might cause other manufacturers concern.
One cannot stress enough
The importance of getting subsidies BEFORE Starting the program. By using this method BBD would have been able to start the program in a strong financial state.
If this was done by BBD the DOC would have had to find something else to use.
For Boeing to use the "fair and level playing field" quote is so stupid it could only have been a direct slap towards all trade.
Is the world supposed to fear trade? No! Trade should be beneficial for all. I am sorry for Britain having to set up a trade agreement from scratch during a time like this.

You do realize that what you have said is spot on, that is the American way. The European method of RLI could also have been used, instead, BBD decided to re-invent the wheel so.....
The WTO has already given its blessings to tax breaks and RLI, let's see what it does when the Canadian version of subsidies get's a hearing.
 
WIederling
Posts: 6335
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Sun Oct 15, 2017 9:34 am

bigjku wrote:
Administrative law is a well recognized branch of law in both common law and also in many civil law nations. It is not guilty until proven innocent.


What I see here is the Kangaroo Courtship of Boeing and the US administration. i.e. one sided table tilting to boot.
Murphy is an optimist
 
Amiga500
Posts: 1641
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

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

Sun Oct 15, 2017 3:31 pm

bigjku wrote:
BBD put itself out of business trying to build this plane. The numbers are right there in their financial statements


I don't want to get too involved with this thread again, its just looping around in circles and its pretty clear none of us are going to change our viewpoints.

That said - I'll just point out BBD almost put itself out of business because it tried to build the Lear 85. That program gave nothing back in return (in terms of IP), cost ~$ 2.5B USD before being abandoned and sucked up engineers that could have shortened CSeries time to market.

All of that idiocy ultimately rests on the shoulders of one man. Pierre Beaudoin. He should have long since been hunted out the door.
 
User avatar
aerolimani
Posts: 912
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 5:46 pm

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

Sun Oct 15, 2017 4:11 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
bigjku wrote:
BBD put itself out of business trying to build this plane. The numbers are right there in their financial statements


I don't want to get too involved with this thread again, its just looping around in circles and its pretty clear none of us are going to change our viewpoints.

That said - I'll just point out BBD almost put itself out of business because it tried to build the Lear 85. That program gave nothing back in return (in terms of IP), cost ~$ 2.5B USD before being abandoned and sucked up engineers that could have shortened CSeries time to market.

All of that idiocy ultimately rests on the shoulders of one man. Pierre Beaudoin. He should have long since been hunted out the door.

:checkmark: It’s beyond overdue for BBD to become a proper corporation, and to leave behind all vestments of being a family company. This topic pretty much deserves a thread all to itself. Of course, I doubt there’d be much argument from anyone there.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 1641
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

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

Sun Oct 15, 2017 4:17 pm

aerolimani wrote:
:checkmark: It’s beyond overdue for BBD to become a proper corporation, and to leave behind all vestments of being a family company.


Ironically, I like the idea of family having a hand on the tiller. It adds a long term view that typical shareholder driven environments don't have in their race to return quarterly results.

But, if the family members in the role aren't competent, they have to defer to those that are.
 
bigjku
Posts: 1638
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

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

Mon Oct 16, 2017 2:53 pm

aerolimani wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:
bigjku wrote:
BBD put itself out of business trying to build this plane. The numbers are right there in their financial statements


I don't want to get too involved with this thread again, its just looping around in circles and its pretty clear none of us are going to change our viewpoints.

That said - I'll just point out BBD almost put itself out of business because it tried to build the Lear 85. That program gave nothing back in return (in terms of IP), cost ~$ 2.5B USD before being abandoned and sucked up engineers that could have shortened CSeries time to market.

All of that idiocy ultimately rests on the shoulders of one man. Pierre Beaudoin. He should have long since been hunted out the door.

:checkmark: It’s beyond overdue for BBD to become a proper corporation, and to leave behind all vestments of being a family company. This topic pretty much deserves a thread all to itself. Of course, I doubt there’d be much argument from anyone there.


This I agree with. I just don’t know what you do now. The C-Series exist as a political football but keeping BBD afloat if it can’t raise a bunch of cash by asset sales is going to require another round of bailouts.

Ironically probably the biggest non-commercial aspect of the bailout is the management wasn’t cashiered across the board. Any commercial investor would have demanded such action.

Like I said before I like BBD (I grew up near Learjet) and don’t wish them to have issues. But they put themselves in a real bad place. It’s mostly sad more than anything.
 
User avatar
aerolimani
Posts: 912
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 5:46 pm

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

Mon Oct 16, 2017 3:56 pm

Here's a question… the DOC process is supposed to take into consideration the price paid for the same aircraft in its home market. Yes? So, the only sale in Canada was to AC for 45 x CS300, and the Delta is for 75 x CS100. Therefore, what basis is there for comparison, when both airlines have exclusively ordered different models?
 
bigjku
Posts: 1638
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

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

Mon Oct 16, 2017 3:58 pm

aerolimani wrote:
Here's a question… the DOC process is supposed to take into consideration the price paid for the same aircraft in its home market. Yes? So, the only sale in Canada was to AC for 45 x CS300, and the Delta is for 75 x CS100. Therefore, what basis is there for comparison, when both airlines have exclusively ordered different models?


I believe it’s an either or situation where it’s the comparable price sold or the cost of production. I also think that is only on the dumps my issue and the bigger part of the duties are separate but Washington flyer could answer both much better than I.

I think it’s an overly complex formula all around.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2223
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

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

Mon Oct 16, 2017 10:19 pm

Looks like Bombardier has unes ami nouveaux...

http://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-re ... ement.html
 
racercoup
Posts: 408
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 10:48 pm

Re: Boeing targets Bombardier for “price dumping” CSeries

Mon Oct 16, 2017 10:20 pm

rikkus67 wrote:
So, please enlighten me on how an aircraft that is BELOW the size of anything Boeing now offers, is hurting Boeing in any way? Boeing has sold over 10,000 737's in its production run. Bombardier has sold less than 400 CSeries. Obviously it was easier to go after BBD rather than Airbus. Don't tell me that Boeing hasn't brokered deals, or has had government subsidies in its lifetime. Pure protectionism at its ugliest, and this will have far reaching effects well past the aviation industry. This is history repeating itself... Can anyone say AVRO CF105 Arrow and C102 Jetliner (like the USA didn't have a say in that program ending...)?! TUCK FRUMP.


Bombardier's dumping of large number of frames with Delta could be very harmful( and unfair) for instance to Southwest. Hurt Southwest you hurt Boeing.
 
User avatar
aerolimani
Posts: 912
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 5:46 pm

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

Mon Oct 16, 2017 10:59 pm

MrHMSH wrote:
Looks like Bombardier has unes ami nouveaux...

http://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-re ... ement.html

:o :o :o

Well… I wonder how Boeing feels now. Perhaps Airbus can send them a thank-you card for helping bring down the purchase price.

I’m a little sad for BBD, but I am happy for the CSeries program. It does beg the question about a potential CS500. Would Airbus.

So… I’m guessing that Alabama-built CSeries would not be subject to an import tariff. Correct?
 
bigjku
Posts: 1638
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

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

Mon Oct 16, 2017 11:00 pm

aerolimani wrote:
MrHMSH wrote:
Looks like Bombardier has unes ami nouveaux...

http://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-re ... ement.html

:o :o :o

Well… I wonder how Boeing feels now. Perhaps Airbus can send them a thank-you card for helping bring down the purchase price.

I’m a little sad for BBD, but I am happy for the CSeries program. It does beg the question about a potential CS500. Would Airbus.

So… I’m guessing that Alabama-built CSeries would not be subject to an import tariff. Correct?


Not sure. Maybe the dumping goes away. Not sure about the countervailing duties.

It’s interesting to be sure. If I am Boeing I don’t have an issue with it will. You have to at some point set a precedent to be enforced when COMAC comes looking to do the same. Things may get ugly but that is life.
 
leghorn
Posts: 544
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2017 9:13 am

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

Mon Oct 16, 2017 11:09 pm

Would Trump administration have the audactity to claim this is a positive example of America First where jobs come to the U.S. on an airbus production line completly ignoring the major damage that has been done by this misadventure to American Aviation Industry in general.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 6064
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

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

Tue Oct 17, 2017 12:04 am

leghorn wrote:
Would Trump administration have the audactity to claim this is a positive example of America First where jobs come to the U.S. on an airbus production line completly ignoring the major damage that has been done by this misadventure to American Aviation Industry in general.


Absolutely. DL, BBD and Airbus should invite Trump for first Mobile built frame roll out.

DL and BCA need to put this fued behind. While I am happy that DL getting the plane it needs, Boeing’s success is equally important for US aviation. Though Boeing is a global company, it should show some national solidarity and not try to hurt US carriers. Don’t forget this is a 4000 frame market and just because couple of large fancy orders from foreign carriers.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 2967
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Boeing targets Bombardier for “price dumping” CSeries

Tue Oct 17, 2017 12:26 am

FoxtrotSierra wrote:
LockheedBBD wrote:
trex8 wrote:
Hmmm 80% local content? Whats the duty going to be on 787s and 777Xs then??


Maybe BBD should move their head office and incorporate in the US? :duck:


Or DL should set up a Canadian division.

So ecatly How would Delta Become a canadial airline? And EXACTLY what would they do with their Hubs and routes in the USA?
Do you REALLY think it's that important to Delta to give up their US DOT registration for the sake of a couple of airplanes??
Their Atlanta hub alone is worth 300% of BBD Talk Sense!! Delta is NOT going Anywhere Nor will they DO anything of the sort!!
GET REAL!!
 
ExMilitaryEng
Posts: 332
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 7:12 pm

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

Tue Oct 17, 2017 1:10 am

Well, this is not an happy ending to Boeing.

The CSeries it hoped to destroy just got stronger. And thanks to Airbus supply chain/economy of scale, the CSeries will sell for even cheaper in the future.

If a CS500 is eventually launched, it would probably be a simple stretch with less range (ie with minimal take off weight increase).

That would make it a CASM champion, while not encroaching much into the longer range A320NEO territory.
 
SteelChair
Posts: 331
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

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

Tue Oct 17, 2017 1:30 am

[threeid][/threeid]
dtw2hyd wrote:
leghorn wrote:
Would Trump administration have the audactity to claim this is a positive example of America First where jobs come to the U.S. on an airbus production line completly ignoring the major damage that has been done by this misadventure to American Aviation Industry in general.


Absolutely. DL, BBD and Airbus should invite Trump for first Mobile built frame roll out.

DL and BCA need to put this fued behind. While I am happy that DL getting the plane it needs, Boeing’s success is equally important for US aviation. Though Boeing is a global company, it should show some national solidarity and not try to hurt US carriers. Don’t forget this is a 4000 frame market and just because couple of large fancy orders from foreign carriers.


The DL/Boeing fued has been simmering for years, all the way back to Boeing capitalizing Valujet with DC9s traded in by Delta. It got worse during the economic downturn when Boeing started catering to the ME3. It worsened just a few years ago when Delta cancelled the 787s on order and ordered the 350 and 330neo. It worsened even further when Boeing ran to the government about the CSeries order.

For all these reasons and more, the relationship is unlikely to improve soon imo.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

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

Tue Oct 17, 2017 9:26 am

From the press release:

Growing market for C Series results in second Final Assembly Line in Mobile, Alabama, serving U.S. customers


What a clever way to avoid the CSeries import tariff.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
SteelChair
Posts: 331
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

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

Tue Oct 17, 2017 2:25 pm

It's interesting that a couple of posters who have been very verbose on this thread haven't posted a reaction yet.......crickets. Karma much? I'm half expecting them to say that the proposed transaction between Airbus and Bombardier isn't legal, or that Boeing planned this all along, or that the state of the art CSeries still isn't viable. ..
 
AirbusCanada
Posts: 632
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 5:14 am

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

Tue Oct 17, 2017 2:53 pm

leghorn wrote:
Would Trump administration have the audactity to claim this is a positive example of America First where jobs come to the U.S. on an airbus production line completly ignoring the major damage that has been done by this misadventure to American Aviation Industry in general.

Can you please elaborate on the "misadventure" part?
 
ExMilitaryEng
Posts: 332
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 7:12 pm

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

Tue Oct 17, 2017 3:08 pm

ssteve wrote:
I hope the top folks at Boeing who thought this was a good idea get fired. #1 because it was purely a dick move. #2 it just backfired even if considering only the narrowbody market #3 it's going to cost them in other areas, like defense contracts with Canada and simple bad PR. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.


Agree with above. I also see a permanent shift away from Boeing in future Canadian military procurement, and closer ties with Airbus. This Airbus 50.01% equity in the CSeries (and its commitment to expand the Montreal area aerospace cluster) will definitely see the Canadian government having more economic incentives to partner with Airbus rather than Boeing. (And anyways, the procurement of new SH was just a total / monumental waste of money to begin with)

With the heavy bully / protectionist twist of current US administration (those 300% CSeries duties, NAFTA negotiations insane demands, softwood lumber continuous bullying etc), there is now a greater possibility that Canada starts a strategic shift of trade toward Europe - were we have a free trade agreement in place.

IMHO, we just witnessed, overnight, a monumental shift of aerospace allegiance (of one of US closest ally). What a disastrous consequence of this stupid blind bullying. That sale to Airbus (or to China) was such an obvious possibility. It was even discussed here countless times. (I personally brought the COMAC possibility many times)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

YOU HAVE NO IDEA of the considerable perception damage Boeing created on itself, north of the border. By example, Quebec, which used to be the most US friendly province in Canada (we kind of forced the original US free trade agreement onto Ontario) seems now on a mission to cause the most damage possible to Boeing. That's what I'm hearing, even here in Ottawa (where I work) which used to be not really BBD friendly. Also, just look look at Quebec's push to get the CSeries in Airbus's hand, at whatever the cost.
Last edited by ExMilitaryEng on Tue Oct 17, 2017 3:34 pm, edited 4 times in total.
 
cledaybuck
Posts: 806
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2016 6:07 pm

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

Tue Oct 17, 2017 3:25 pm

ssteve wrote:
Read it again.
You are going to have to explain.
 
bigjku
Posts: 1638
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

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

Tue Oct 17, 2017 4:34 pm

SteelChair wrote:
It's interesting that a couple of posters who have been very verbose on this thread haven't posted a reaction yet.......crickets. Karma much? I'm half expecting them to say that the proposed transaction between Airbus and Bombardier isn't legal, or that Boeing planned this all along, or that the state of the art CSeries still isn't viable. ..


The subject of the tariff itself is pretty talked out. I suspect the dumping part is off the table if they are really built in Alabama but I don’t know about the bigger portion for the subsidies. Have to see what is said.

The proposed transaction isn’t illegal and no one would say that because it’s illogical screeching.

We will see what happens. It seems telling that Airbus paid basically nothing for this and assumed no risk. Will see what they make of the whole thing in the end. They can dump a limited amount of operating cash loss back on BBD for 3 years and then they will have to see if its cash positive or not and make decisions accordingly.
 
bigjku
Posts: 1638
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

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

Tue Oct 17, 2017 4:41 pm

ExMilitaryEng wrote:
ssteve wrote:
I hope the top folks at Boeing who thought this was a good idea get fired. #1 because it was purely a dick move. #2 it just backfired even if considering only the narrowbody market #3 it's going to cost them in other areas, like defense contracts with Canada and simple bad PR. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.


Agree with above. I also see a permanent shift away from Boeing in future Canadian military procurement, and closer ties with Airbus. This Airbus 50.01% equity in the CSeries (and its commitment to expand the Montreal area aerospace cluster) will definitely see the Canadian government having more economic incentives to partner with Airbus rather than Boeing. (And anyways, the procurement of new SH was just a total / monumental waste of money to begin with)

With the heavy bully / protectionist twist of current US administration (those 300% CSeries duties, NAFTA negotiations insane demands, softwood lumber continuous bullying etc), there is now a greater possibility that Canada starts a strategic shift of trade toward Europe - were we have a free trade agreement in place.

IMHO, we just witnessed, overnight, a monumental shift of aerospace allegiance (of one of US closest ally). What a disastrous consequence of this stupid blind bullying. That sale to Airbus (or to China) was such an obvious possibility. It was even discussed here countless times. (I personally brought the COMAC possibility many times)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

YOU HAVE NO IDEA of the considerable perception damage Boeing created on itself, north of the border. By example, Quebec, which used to be the most US friendly province in Canada (we kind of forced the original US free trade agreement onto Ontario) seems now on a mission to cause the most damage possible to Boeing. That's what I'm hearing, even here in Ottawa (where I work) which used to be not really BBD friendly. Also, just look look at Quebec's push to get the CSeries in Airbus's hand, at whatever the cost.


Ehh, we will see how it shakes out. From where I sit what BBD did subsidy wise was clearly wrong and I have no problem with the complaint. I thought 300% was too high but understood how they got there.

Canada may well be pissed. That is their right and you won’t find me telling them not to be mad. There are always two sides to any dispute though and it’s silly to assume the other side doesn’t have legitimate grievances of their own, at least from where they sit.
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 1968
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

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

Tue Oct 17, 2017 5:08 pm

Looks like the US Department of Commerce backed Boeing into a corner.
 
User avatar
northstardc4m
Posts: 3040
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2000 11:23 am

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

Tue Oct 17, 2017 5:35 pm

Wow I go on a two week cruise come off it and sitting in cdg having just watched planes including a couple cseries for a few hours I get to read the biggest 'go f yourselves Boeing and USDOC' ever seems like my vacation just got extended!
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 995
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

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

Tue Oct 17, 2017 5:52 pm

northstardc4m wrote:
....sitting in cdg having just watched planes including a couple cseries for a few hours I get to read the biggest 'go f yourselves Boeing and USDOC' ever. Seems like my vacation just got extended!

I assume you are talking Swiss & Baltic; but were you there when the CS300 demonstrator rocked up?
I promised myself I'd leave before the party turned ugly. I would quit at 1000 !
Here I am stuck at 994; each time I'm tempted to post, I find myself wondering who will even read it / what is the point?
Or maybe I've just got nothing left to say.
 
User avatar
northstardc4m
Posts: 3040
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2000 11:23 am

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

Tue Oct 17, 2017 6:01 pm

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
northstardc4m wrote:
....sitting in cdg having just watched planes including a couple cseries for a few hours I get to read the biggest 'go f yourselves Boeing and USDOC' ever. Seems like my vacation just got extended!

I assume you are talking Swiss & Baltic; but were you there when the CS300 demonstrator rocked up?


Only Baltic today (and at bcn yesterday) and Swiss at lhr on my way in to the cruise. I've seen 4 demonstrators in Canada however including the cs300 one.
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
 
User avatar
ssteve
Posts: 1306
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 8:32 am

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

Tue Oct 17, 2017 8:24 pm

cledaybuck wrote:
ssteve wrote:
Read it again.
You are going to have to explain.


I'll try, even though someone deleted the original post. A few quoters rescued the other part.

I said something along the lines of "Boeing even managed to dick over machinists in Quebec in favor of non-union machinists in Alabama even with no skin in that game." Boeing doesn't have a financial interest in dicking over Quebec machinists in favor of Alabama machinists, yet there's a certain dark humor to the fact that they're dicking them over regardless. I think you misinterpreted what I meant by "no skin in that game."
 
N212R
Posts: 117
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 5:18 pm

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

Tue Oct 17, 2017 8:34 pm

SteelChair wrote:
It's interesting that a couple of posters who have been very verbose on this thread haven't posted a reaction yet.......crickets. Karma much? I'm half expecting them to say that the proposed transaction between Airbus and Bombardier isn't legal, or that Boeing planned this all along, or that the state of the art CSeries still isn't viable. ..


What's more interesting is the overwhelming majority of pro-Airbus posters on this thread (and others). You'd almost think the Delta PR department was at work....
 
SteelChair
Posts: 331
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

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

Tue Oct 17, 2017 10:08 pm

N212R wrote:
SteelChair wrote:
It's interesting that a couple of posters who have been very verbose on this thread haven't posted a reaction yet.......crickets. Karma much? I'm half expecting them to say that the proposed transaction between Airbus and Bombardier isn't legal, or that Boeing planned this all along, or that the state of the art CSeries still isn't viable. ..


What's more interesting is the overwhelming majority of pro-Airbus posters on this thread (and others). You'd almost think the Delta PR department was at work....


Then again, maybe they believe Boeing is really in the wrong. I am an American and have long been a Boeing admirer. It seems like they have gotten off track the last 10-15 years or so. Its a real shame to see them make mistake after mistake.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 11400
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Tue Oct 17, 2017 10:55 pm

The US Department of Commerce looks like the FAA years ago, supporting Boeing a few days before the 787 grounding.

Credibility destroying patriotism.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
bigjku
Posts: 1638
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

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

Tue Oct 17, 2017 11:28 pm

SteelChair wrote:
N212R wrote:
SteelChair wrote:
It's interesting that a couple of posters who have been very verbose on this thread haven't posted a reaction yet.......crickets. Karma much? I'm half expecting them to say that the proposed transaction between Airbus and Bombardier isn't legal, or that Boeing planned this all along, or that the state of the art CSeries still isn't viable. ..


What's more interesting is the overwhelming majority of pro-Airbus posters on this thread (and others). You'd almost think the Delta PR department was at work....


Then again, maybe they believe Boeing is really in the wrong. I am an American and have long been a Boeing admirer. It seems like they have gotten off track the last 10-15 years or so. Its a real shame to see them make mistake after mistake.


I don’t particularly care if Boeing makes it or not. If they went down there is talent, capital and industrial base for someone else to pickup and move forward. That’s how it is supposed to work and I am fine with it.

The only bailout I have ever been marginally in favor of was the financial sector (and contrary to what some have said that occurred worldwide on many levels for many reasons) simply because it would have destroyed societal trust when no one could get any money out. It should have come with draconian penalties and a massive shrinking of banks globally in terms of asset size at individual institutions. I would have let automakers go.
 
SteelChair
Posts: 331
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

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

Tue Oct 17, 2017 11:43 pm

bigjku wrote:
SteelChair wrote:
N212R wrote:

What's more interesting is the overwhelming majority of pro-Airbus posters on this thread (and others). You'd almost think the Delta PR department was at work....


Then again, maybe they believe Boeing is really in the wrong. I am an American and have long been a Boeing admirer. It seems like they have gotten off track the last 10-15 years or so. Its a real shame to see them make mistake after mistake.


I don’t particularly care if Boeing makes it or not. If they went down there is talent, capital and industrial base for someone else to pickup and move forward. That’s how it is supposed to work and I am fine with it.

The only bailout I have ever been marginally in favor of was the financial sector (and contrary to what some have said that occurred worldwide on many levels for many reasons) simply because it would have destroyed societal trust when no one could get any money out. It should have come with draconian penalties and a massive shrinking of banks globally in terms of asset size at individual institutions. I would have let automakers go.


While I would normally tend to agree with you, I must add that Boeing military contracts are unending bailouts. Exhibit one: the long sad saga of the KC-46.

It's all "aid." It's just in what form it appears.
 
bigjku
Posts: 1638
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

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

Tue Oct 17, 2017 11:51 pm

SteelChair wrote:
bigjku wrote:
SteelChair wrote:

Then again, maybe they believe Boeing is really in the wrong. I am an American and have long been a Boeing admirer. It seems like they have gotten off track the last 10-15 years or so. Its a real shame to see them make mistake after mistake.


I don’t particularly care if Boeing makes it or not. If they went down there is talent, capital and industrial base for someone else to pickup and move forward. That’s how it is supposed to work and I am fine with it.

The only bailout I have ever been marginally in favor of was the financial sector (and contrary to what some have said that occurred worldwide on many levels for many reasons) simply because it would have destroyed societal trust when no one could get any money out. It should have come with draconian penalties and a massive shrinking of banks globally in terms of asset size at individual institutions. I would have let automakers go.


While I would normally tend to agree with you, I must add that Boeing military contracts are unending bailouts. Exhibit one: the long sad saga of the KC-46.

It's all "aid." It's just in what form it appears.


Agree to disagree. I think the KC-46 contract is actually done right (aside from the original lease debacle then the rebid issue which is for another thread). Boeing eats their overrun for what should be a simple issue. The other military stuff is actually buying useful things mostly. No military on planet earth buys things cheap anymore. It’s not how I would buy things but I am not in charge. But Boeing has to deliver things and the margins aren’t that great in the end.

All the major airframe companies have tons of military work so it kind of is what it is. Except for BBD but Canadian military procurement makes the rest of the worlds look sane.
 
CX747
Posts: 6026
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

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

Wed Oct 18, 2017 12:27 am

This idea that DOD contracts are "aid" is such a foreign concept to me and others I speak with in real life. I've never heard that phrase used.

Now, I've heard of Pork Barrel Spending and Kickbacks. Boeing is 1 of many Defense Contractors that for most DOD desires compete to win a contract. They just competed in a USAF competition to replace the B-52 and lost. Where is the aid? Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, L3, Sikorsky, Bell are all in the same boat. The DOD needs a new aircraft and the companies put forward their best offering.

Yes, there are single source contracts from time to time but that is not regular. Heck, Boeing just lost the sole source contract to replace Commando Solo C-130s. It went to L3 who picked Gulfstream to supply the new airframes. No "launch aid" there.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
SteelChair
Posts: 331
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

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

Wed Oct 18, 2017 12:44 am

Oh please. If you think DOD contracts are "real," then i guess we are at loggerheads.

I thought that EVERYONE knew that defense acquisition is broken.

Imagine if Delta sold you a ticket and then didn't deliver upon it and decided to charge you 150% of the previously agreed price....just because they could.

And your listing of a few examples where there wasn't graft and corruption doesn't erase the many instances where there was. I could list many. Years ago, when I was in college, a friend did a coop at GD when the F16 program was humming. He came back and told me about the many engineers hired to sit around and do nothing, because the money was budgeted. I sense that not much has changed. And then there were the $500 toilet seats on the C5, and the $300 coffeemakes.

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