washingtonflyer
Posts: 1257
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:45 pm

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

Mon Dec 18, 2017 11:39 pm

pugman211 wrote:
@washingtonflyer, can you give an update of the outcome, if you are able to that is.

Thanks


Didn't go. Dealing with a client train wreck today. I've asked a colleague for a copy of the transcript.
 
VS11
Posts: 1201
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2001 6:34 am

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

Tue Dec 19, 2017 12:00 am

Varsity1 wrote:
In this thread all the Euro's and Canadians are sour that their domestic market sucks and time and time again must sell into the U.S. market to make things work.



Yeah, because Boeing only needs to sell to the US carriers and there is never a Boeing plane to be found in Europe, Asia, Africa or Australia, or Latin America.
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 999
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

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

Tue Dec 19, 2017 12:03 am

Varsity1 wrote:
In this thread all the Euro's and Canadians are sour that their domestic market sucks and time and time again must sell into the U.S. market to make things work.

Gee, thanks for that inciteful (US) perspective on where Europe & Canada have been failing.
But how exactly are you going to explain the murmurings from the rest of the planet - or are they even less important?

And for the benefit of our foreign readers;
Insightful; having or showing an accurate and deep understanding
Inciteful; a homophone, with an entirely different meaning.....
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.
 
CX747
Posts: 5995
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

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

Tue Dec 19, 2017 12:35 am

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
CX747 wrote:
Boeing has made a calculated decision. Now we shall see what happens. They lost the Canadian F/A-18 interim replacement contract for 18 jets......and won an order for 80+ from the USN. So far, so good.

I confess I didn't realise the USN had an interest in the Bombardier dispute too.
So I guess you're saying this order is their way of saying "thank you" to Boeing?

If not, please explain your logic here, whilst I google phrases involving the words "clutching" and "straws".


Sure, not a problem. Yes, Boeing lost the opportunity to win the Canadian interim deal. To make that a "MAJOR" deal is a stretch. Important and one Boeing would have liked to win but not Earth shattering. Since that time, Boeing has been able to win a follow on order for 80+ Super Hornets by the USN. It is not tied to the Bombardier deal (never meant my original post to show that) nor was it a gift to Boeing, as Lockheed Martin would love to have added 80+ F-35Cs to their bottom line. It shows how life goes on. The Bombardier deal was important enough for Boeing to move forward on the Commerce Complaint. The sky hasn't fallen, time has marched on and Boeing won a 80+ aircraft deal.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
User avatar
LockheedBBD
Posts: 417
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 6:59 pm

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

Tue Dec 19, 2017 12:48 am

Some hearing documents/presentations available for viewing courtesy of Leeham: https://leehamnews.com/2017/12/18/boein ... uare-off-n
 
User avatar
LockheedBBD
Posts: 417
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 6:59 pm

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

Tue Dec 19, 2017 12:51 am

CX747 wrote:
I'm pretty sure Cessna, Lockheed and Northrop Grumman don't see it that way. If given the opportunity, they too would love to build lucrative large aircraft. They don't have a government support system in place to allow it. Therefore, the financial jump is too great.


Lockheed Martin doesn't have any U.S. government support or the money to build an airliner?.......that is news to me....

If Lockheed, Northrop, or Cessna were interested, they would have designed a commercial airliner themselves.

Lockheed Martin made $46.132 billion in revenue in fiscal year 2016. https://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.or ... eed-martin
Northrop Gruman made $24.508 billion in revenue in fiscal year 2016. https://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.or ... op-grumman
Textron (Cessna's parent company) made $13.423 billion in fiscal 2015. https://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.or ... nt=textron ($3.6 Billion in gov't loans)
Bombardier made $16.34 billion in revenue in fiscal 2016.

Cessna and Northrup have been in the game for much longer than Bombardier, yet they've never entered the large commercial airliner market. Lockheed quit the commercial market after a string of failures, and they haven't looked back.

Bombardier was pretty much bankrupt and was trying to sell the company in 2015, their stock price was around 60 US Cents per share (a penny stock!). Any company interested in commercial aviation could have swooped in and picked up a bargain if they were interested enough in entering the market.
Last edited by LockheedBBD on Tue Dec 19, 2017 1:16 am, edited 5 times in total.
 
MSPNWA
Posts: 2510
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:48 am

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

Tue Dec 19, 2017 12:58 am

wrongwayup wrote:
Delta bought every single used aircraft Boeing offered them. 19 of the 20 E190s Boeing took in trade from Air Canada were purchased by Delta (the 20th being parted out before Delta could get ahold of it). McAllister seems to have conveniently forgotten this.


On the flip side, that sale also destroys DL's argument that Boeing wasn't a competitor for the CS order and had nothing to offer. Clearly Boeing did according to DL's actions.

Jetsouth wrote:
The sad and shortsighted view by the US on this issue is that if these duties are imposed, even if Bombardier tries to manufacture the jets at the US Airbus plant, there is no incentive for Bombardier to subcontract any of the CSeries assemblies/parts to any manufacturers based in the US, resulting in net job losses in the States. The sensible thing to do is to allow Bombardier to build the jets in the US, which would actually create US jobs, not eliminate them.


The shortsighted view is thinking that purchasing an aircraft that you contribute to the production of is more helpful to the economy than buying from a domestic corporation with the majority of their development and production spending remaining local. It's all about cash flows and where the money (and hence jobs) goes. For example, when a U.S. airline buys an Airbus product instead of Boeing product, everything else being equal, more money flows out of the U.S. and boosts other economies. That's not to say a company should or shouldn't buy domestically, but it is the facts of the case.
 
User avatar
LockheedBBD
Posts: 417
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 6:59 pm

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

Tue Dec 19, 2017 1:08 am

Varsity1 wrote:
If Delta didn't order the C-series it would be dead.


That is true.
 
VS11
Posts: 1201
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2001 6:34 am

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

Tue Dec 19, 2017 1:35 am

LockheedBBD wrote:
Some hearing documents/presentations available for viewing courtesy of Leeham: https://leehamnews.com/2017/12/18/boein ... uare-off-n



Thanks for the tip and link. Very interesting submissions by both companies, if one has the time to read and process them. First impression I got is that BBD's submission is more to the point and more convincing. Boeing's is more like Donald Trump's speeches - a bit repetitive and full of claims but failing to be convincing.
 
hitchy81
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 1:27 pm

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

Tue Dec 19, 2017 1:54 am

For the tariff to finalised, Boeing has to show that it was harmed. Today they claimed that because Bombardier offered CSeries planes at a low price, that Boeing was forced to respond by offering 737-700s at a low price also. They then claimed that since they offered -700s at a low price that airlines then expected -800s and MAXs at a low price too. So the ITC asked them if that meant when United converted their -700 order to MAX8s, did they get to keep the absurdly low pricing (that Boeing had offered to win the -700 order early last year) and Boeing refused to answer that - saying they didn't want to talk about -8 pricing.

So basically they're asking the US Government to start a trade war with the country's two closest allies on the basis that they were harmed, but they refuse to provide any actual evidence of that harm and they just want the government to take their word for it.
 
Andre3K
Posts: 329
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 10:11 pm

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

Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:03 am

CX747 wrote:
Boeing has made a calculated decision. Now we shall see what happens. They lost the Canadian F/A-18 interim replacement contract for 18 jets......and won an order for 80+ from the USN. So far, so good.

As for Bombardier/Airbus creating US jobs, I disagree. I'm pretty sure Cessna, Lockheed and Northrop Grumman don't see it that way. If given the opportunity, they too would love to build lucrative large aircraft. They don't have a government support system in place to allow it. Therefore, the financial jump is too great. Having government backed competitors get unfair boosts isn't a fair and level playing field.



You hit the nail on the head about the want's of those aircraft manufacturers. I can say at least for Lockheed Martin, the only reason we are doing the LM-100J is because it's only marginally different than the C-130J and they were able to slide it in there for much less than you would for an all new unproven design.

Remember what happened with the L-1011? If they have big brother government back then carrying the purse on that, it might have went differently(though Rolls Royce didn't help the situation).
 
User avatar
LockheedBBD
Posts: 417
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 6:59 pm

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

Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:16 am

Andre3K wrote:

Remember what happened with the L-1011? If they have big brother government back then carrying the purse on that, it might have went differently(though Rolls Royce didn't help the situation).



Source: http://www.nytimes.com/1981/12/08/us/lo ... wanted=all
In 1971 Congress agreed to establish Federal loan guaratees to help keep Lockheed afloat. But it was generally agreed in the aerospace industry that Lockheed's marketing effort for the Tristar never recovered from the momentum it lost in the early 1970's. Many Wall Street analysts have been predicting for years that Lockheed would have to abandon the money-losing program.


Source: http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1976/ ... actor-pon/
By 1971, only a $250 million U.S. government guarantee of private bank loans enabled the company to survive.


According to this inflation calculator: http://www.in2013dollars.com/1971-dolla ... =250000000
$250,000,000 in 1971 would be worth $1,511,024,691 today.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_bribery_scandals
Lockheed paid ¥2.4 billion to earn the contract from ANA. ¥500 million of the total was received by the Prime Minister. ¥160 million was received by ANA's officials. ¥1.7 billion was received by Kodama. On October 30, 1972, ANA announced its decision to purchase 21 Lockheed L-1011 Tristars, which cost approximately $5 million each, even though it had previously announced options to purchase the DC-10.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_bribery_scandals
Between 1970 and 1975, Lockheed paid Saudi Arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi $106 million in commissions. His commissions started at 2.5% + and eventually rose to as much as 15%. Khashoggi "became for all practical purposes a marketing arm of Lockheed. Adnan would provide not only an entree but strategy, constant advice, and analysis," according to Max Helzel, then vice president of Lockheed's international marketing.
 
User avatar
LockheedBBD
Posts: 417
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 6:59 pm

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

Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:15 am

If anyone is interested in the questions the ITC asked during the hearing: https://twitter.com/FG_STrim




https://twitter.com/FG_STrim/status/942826882147540992
ITC chair asked why they offered used E190s to Delta instead of 737s. Boeing panel witness responds that it offered a mixture of used E190s to compliment transcon 717s.
 
User avatar
coronado
Posts: 1225
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 1999 9:42 am

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

Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:44 am

What is a transcon 717? IIRC correctly atl-slc is about at most 3/4 transcon.
The Original Coronado: First CV jet flights RG CV 990 July 1965; DL CV 880 July 1965; Spantax CV990 Feb 1973
 
Andre3K
Posts: 329
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 10:11 pm

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

Tue Dec 19, 2017 4:10 am

LockheedBBD wrote:
Andre3K wrote:

Remember what happened with the L-1011? If they have big brother government back then carrying the purse on that, it might have went differently(though Rolls Royce didn't help the situation).



Source: http://www.nytimes.com/1981/12/08/us/lo ... wanted=all
In 1971 Congress agreed to establish Federal loan guaratees to help keep Lockheed afloat. But it was generally agreed in the aerospace industry that Lockheed's marketing effort for the Tristar never recovered from the momentum it lost in the early 1970's. Many Wall Street analysts have been predicting for years that Lockheed would have to abandon the money-losing program.


Source: http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1976/ ... actor-pon/
By 1971, only a $250 million U.S. government guarantee of private bank loans enabled the company to survive.


According to this inflation calculator: http://www.in2013dollars.com/1971-dolla ... =250000000
$250,000,000 in 1971 would be worth $1,511,024,691 today.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_bribery_scandals
Lockheed paid ¥2.4 billion to earn the contract from ANA. ¥500 million of the total was received by the Prime Minister. ¥160 million was received by ANA's officials. ¥1.7 billion was received by Kodama. On October 30, 1972, ANA announced its decision to purchase 21 Lockheed L-1011 Tristars, which cost approximately $5 million each, even though it had previously announced options to purchase the DC-10.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_bribery_scandals
Between 1970 and 1975, Lockheed paid Saudi Arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi $106 million in commissions. His commissions started at 2.5% + and eventually rose to as much as 15%. Khashoggi "became for all practical purposes a marketing arm of Lockheed. Adnan would provide not only an entree but strategy, constant advice, and analysis," according to Max Helzel, then vice president of Lockheed's international marketing.


Thanks for that. I've always wondered if there was a quick summary of all the foul shiat that Lockheed has done.

Didn't know the L-1011 had government loans (or was it just straight up given, i'm too lazy to read into all that stuff you posted). I guess most aerospace companies have been on the verge of bankruptcy at least once (Airbus might be an exception?)
 
CX747
Posts: 5995
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

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

Tue Dec 19, 2017 4:15 am

scbriml wrote:
CX747 wrote:
They lost the Canadian F/A-18 interim replacement contract for 18 jets......and won an order for 80+ from the USN. So far, so good.


The USN part is irrelevant since they would have 'won' that order regardless of what happened with Canada. So, more accurate to simply say "They lost a multi-billion dollar order from Canada."


Yes, they lost the Canadian deal. They also won a deal for 80+ jets from the USN. The two are NOT tied together but illustrate how business moves on. Lost a deal for 18 new jets, won a deal for 80 new jets and have the contract to return 30-40 F/A-18Cs to combat ready status on behalf of the USMC from AMARG. Life and business go on.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
CX747
Posts: 5995
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

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

Tue Dec 19, 2017 4:21 am

Jamie514 wrote:
CX747 wrote:
Boeing has made a calculated decision. Now we shall see what happens. They lost the Canadian F/A-18 interim replacement contract for 18 jets......and won an order for 80+ from the USN. So far, so good.

As for Bombardier/Airbus creating US jobs, I disagree. I'm pretty sure Cessna, Lockheed and Northrop Grumman don't see it that way. If given the opportunity, they too would love to build lucrative large aircraft. They don't have a government support system in place to allow it. Therefore, the financial jump is too great. Having government backed competitors get unfair boosts isn't a fair and level playing field.


Stop with the disengenous attempt to link a USN order to any of the BBD dispute. Zero relationship.

Stop pretending American industry doesn’t get any “unfair boosts”. Your “freedom of opinion” is willful ignorance to proven fact at this point in the debate. Astounding and a discredit to the forum.


Not trying to link the two my friend, just show that business goes on. Not sure where the rest of your rant came from but good day.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 999
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

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

Tue Dec 19, 2017 11:54 am

CX747 wrote:
SheikhDjibouti wrote:
CX747 wrote:
Boeing has made a calculated decision. Now we shall see what happens. They lost the Canadian F/A-18 interim replacement contract for 18 jets......and won an order for 80+ from the USN. So far, so good.

I confess I didn't realise the USN had an interest in the Bombardier dispute too.
So I guess you're saying this order is their way of saying "thank you" to Boeing?

If not, please explain your logic here, whilst I google phrases involving the words "clutching" and "straws".

Sure, not a problem. Yes, Boeing lost the opportunity to win the Canadian interim deal. To make that a "MAJOR" deal is a stretch. Important and one Boeing would have liked to win but not Earth shattering. Since that time, Boeing has been able to win a follow on order for 80+ Super Hornets by the USN. It is not tied to the Bombardier deal (never meant my original post to show that) nor was it a gift to Boeing, as Lockheed Martin would love to have added 80+ F-35Cs to their bottom line. It shows how life goes on. The Bombardier deal was important enough for Boeing to move forward on the Commerce Complaint. The sky hasn't fallen, time has marched on and Boeing won a 80+ aircraft deal.

I don't know whether someone has slipped some mellow juice into my morning coffee, but I'm sitting here smiling. I confess I woke up all ready to go to war with you on this, but your response is so.... polite, (and reasonable too!) that I'm just going to let it slide on by. Have a great day. :D
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.
 
washingtonflyer
Posts: 1257
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:45 pm

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

Tue Dec 19, 2017 1:28 pm

I got a copy of the transcript this morning as well as some of the materials. If I were a betting man, I'd be putting money down on a negative vote. Broadbent is a definite no. Johanson probably no.
 
CS500
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2017 4:31 pm

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

Tue Dec 19, 2017 1:36 pm

negative vote as in tarrifs are rejected? Or go ahead as is?
 
washingtonflyer
Posts: 1257
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:45 pm

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

Tue Dec 19, 2017 1:41 pm

CS500 wrote:
negative vote as in tarrifs are rejected? Or go ahead as is?


I'd vote no tariffs.
 
leghorn
Posts: 460
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2017 9:13 am

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

Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:29 pm

When is this over?
When can Bombardier start competing in the market and not in the Court Room?
 
User avatar
northstardc4m
Posts: 3012
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2000 11:23 am

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

Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:37 pm

leghorn wrote:
When is this over?
When can Bombardier start competing in the market and not in the Court Room?


February 9th 2018... assuming it doesn't get changed... that should be the end of the USITC portion.
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
 
User avatar
aerolimani
Posts: 825
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 5:46 pm

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

Tue Dec 19, 2017 5:05 pm

washingtonflyer wrote:
I got a copy of the transcript this morning as well as some of the materials. If I were a betting man, I'd be putting money down on a negative vote. Broadbent is a definite no. Johanson probably no.

I’m not much of a betting person, and I definitely wouldn’t bet on the US legal system. So, I’ll hold off any emotional response until the verdict is final. Nonetheless, thank you again for your insights!

It gets me to thinking, though, what might occur should the result reject the tariffs. Are there alternatives US legal paths which Boeing could pursue? Could BBD pursue a damages lawsuit against Boeing?
 
washingtonflyer
Posts: 1257
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:45 pm

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

Tue Dec 19, 2017 5:38 pm

There could be alternates - maybe a Section 232? BBD cannot sue Boeing.
 
User avatar
aerolimani
Posts: 825
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 5:46 pm

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

Tue Dec 19, 2017 5:47 pm

washingtonflyer wrote:
There could be alternates - maybe a Section 232? BBD cannot sue Boeing.

It would seem like quite a stretch to make a national security argument, but stranger things have been attempted before. Would a section 232 case have the same possibility of preliminary duties as has happened with the DOC?
 
Capn
Posts: 191
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2017 4:14 pm

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

Tue Dec 19, 2017 5:58 pm

Probably a very dumb question... but could they vote to suspend the hearings and throw this matter out ?
Thanks
UH-1 DEHAVILAND HERON MARTIN 404 DC-9 CHALLENGER 601 FALCON 50 & 900EX
 
washingtonflyer
Posts: 1257
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:45 pm

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

Wed Dec 20, 2017 3:12 pm

aerolimani wrote:
washingtonflyer wrote:
There could be alternates - maybe a Section 232? BBD cannot sue Boeing.

It would seem like quite a stretch to make a national security argument, but stranger things have been attempted before. Would a section 232 case have the same possibility of preliminary duties as has happened with the DOC?


232 is a very different animal. There are two pending now (something that hasn't happened in decades).....steel and aluminum.
 
User avatar
northstardc4m
Posts: 3012
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2000 11:23 am

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

Wed Dec 20, 2017 3:48 pm

With the aircraft being built in Mobile I really don't see how Boeing can realistically show a threat to the national security or industry to justify a 232 investigation... but might be interesting to see them try.
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
 
Skywatcher
Posts: 653
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2002 11:19 am

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

Wed Dec 20, 2017 4:28 pm

The Boeing legal dept. must be very costly-their outsourcing expense and departmental budget growth must be way outpacing inflation. The growing "litigation style" of American business is very much exemplified by Boeing.
In general, people feel that this style of operating a business is somewhat bully like and is akin to cheating-hence the overwhelming support for BBD/Airbus in this thread. I personally resent the way lawyers are relentlessly taking over more and more of politics/business and American life in general. I hope Boeing is not rewarded for their tactics.
 
SteelChair
Posts: 220
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

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

Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:57 pm

So, at the end of the day, assuming Boeing loses, does Delta get to take planes from YMX, or just MOB?

If Delta gets the YMX built planes duty free, does the MOB production line get slowed down or dropped?

Boeing has lost an incalculable amount of goodwill with their shenanigans.
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Topic Author
Posts: 22469
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

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

Wed Dec 20, 2017 7:21 pm

Commerce Dept upholds Boeing's subsidy complaint against Bombardier CSeries in final ruling.


On December 20, 2017, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) announced its affirmative final determinations in the antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) investigations of imports of 100- to 150-seat large civil aircraft (aircraft) from Canada.
https://www.commerce.gov/sites/commerce ... canada.pdf

=

Commerce Dept also agrees with Boeing's point that tariffs apply to both fully and partially assembled CSeries aircraft that cross the US border.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 2723
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

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

Wed Dec 20, 2017 7:47 pm

LAXintl wrote:
Commerce Dept upholds Boeing's subsidy complaint against Bombardier CSeries in final ruling.


On December 20, 2017, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) announced its affirmative final determinations in the antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) investigations of imports of 100- to 150-seat large civil aircraft (aircraft) from Canada.
https://www.commerce.gov/sites/commerce ... canada.pdf

=

Commerce Dept also agrees with Boeing's point that tariffs apply to both fully and partially assembled CSeries aircraft that cross the US border.



:stirthepot: Boeing could have offered Delta the 737-10Max at 737-700 prices, Delta was still going with Airbus and the third party engine business anyway. :twisted:
 
DCA-ROCguy
Posts: 4047
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2000 5:03 am

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

Wed Dec 20, 2017 7:59 pm

LAXintl wrote:
Commerce Dept upholds Boeing's subsidy complaint against Bombardier CSeries in final ruling.
On December 20, 2017, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) announced its affirmative final determinations in the antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) investigations of imports of 100- to 150-seat large civil aircraft (aircraft) from Canada.
https://www.commerce.gov/sites/commerce ... canada.pdf
Commerce Dept also agrees with Boeing's point that tariffs apply to both fully and partially assembled CSeries aircraft that cross the US border.


If the ITC does not rule against Commerce and Boeing in February, Congress should throw out the tariff legislatively. The complaint and Commerce's support for the complaint amount to corporate welfare that is harmful to American consumers and communities, who would benefit from more-efficient 100-150-seat aircraft; the airlines that would fly them; and to Americans who would be employed in their assembly in Alabama and the making of any parts. The government's entertainment of Boeing's complaint is bad policy. The complaint should be thrown out so hard that it splashes Potomac River water onto both shores.

Jim
Need a new airline paint scheme? Better call Saul! (Bass that is)
 
BlueSky1976
Posts: 1734
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:18 am

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

Wed Dec 20, 2017 8:26 pm

LAXintl wrote:

Commerce Dept also agrees with Boeing's point that tariffs apply to both fully and partially assembled CSeries aircraft that cross the US border.


Good. This means full production of CSeries in Mobile. Boeing will only lose in the long run.
Rule #1: Never trust your government. EVER.
Rule #2: In case of any doubt, see Rule #1.
Rule #3: If it's a boeing, I'm NOT going!
 
Jetsouth
Posts: 273
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2016 12:59 pm

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

Wed Dec 20, 2017 8:28 pm

BlueSky1976 wrote:
LAXintl wrote:

Commerce Dept also agrees with Boeing's point that tariffs apply to both fully and partially assembled CSeries aircraft that cross the US border.


Good. This means full production of CSeries in Mobile. Boeing will only lose in the long run.


I believe that you may be wrong, because tariffs apply to partially assembled aircraft coming in to the US. As the fuselage and other parts are partially assembled parts of the plane that are manufactured in various countries around the world that would be imported into the US for assembly, it would appear that the only way to avoid tariffs is if the plane and all its parts are manufactured and assembled in the US. I guess it all depends on what the definition of "partial assembly" is.
 
jumbojet
Posts: 2335
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 3:01 am

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

Wed Dec 20, 2017 9:03 pm

Jetsouth wrote:
BlueSky1976 wrote:
LAXintl wrote:

Commerce Dept also agrees with Boeing's point that tariffs apply to both fully and partially assembled CSeries aircraft that cross the US border.


Good. This means full production of CSeries in Mobile. Boeing will only lose in the long run.


I believe that you may be wrong, because tariffs apply to partially assembled aircraft coming in to the US. As the fuselage and other parts are partially assembled parts of the plane that are manufactured in various countries around the world that would be imported into the US for assembly, it would appear that the only way to avoid tariffs is if the plane and all its parts are manufactured and assembled in the US. I guess it all depends on what the definition of "partial assembly" is.


Didn't Airbus buy a stake in the C series? Why not just build it in Toulouse? Not only will this rankle Boeing but it will be a big slap in the face to the rest of the US. Build the damn thing overseas and be done with this nonsense.
 
User avatar
LockheedBBD
Posts: 417
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 6:59 pm

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

Wed Dec 20, 2017 9:08 pm

Jetsouth wrote:
BlueSky1976 wrote:
LAXintl wrote:

Commerce Dept also agrees with Boeing's point that tariffs apply to both fully and partially assembled CSeries aircraft that cross the US border.


Good. This means full production of CSeries in Mobile. Boeing will only lose in the long run.


I believe that you may be wrong, because tariffs apply to partially assembled aircraft coming in to the US. As the fuselage and other parts are partially assembled parts of the plane that are manufactured in various countries around the world that would be imported into the US for assembly, it would appear that the only way to avoid tariffs is if the plane and all its parts are manufactured and assembled in the US. I guess it all depends on what the definition of "partial assembly" is.



I don't know if anyone noticed, but the Commerce Dept. generously reduced the tariff to 292%, compared to the previously announced 299%.
 
User avatar
LockheedBBD
Posts: 417
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 6:59 pm

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

Wed Dec 20, 2017 9:10 pm

jumbojet wrote:
Jetsouth wrote:
BlueSky1976 wrote:

Good. This means full production of CSeries in Mobile. Boeing will only lose in the long run.


I believe that you may be wrong, because tariffs apply to partially assembled aircraft coming in to the US. As the fuselage and other parts are partially assembled parts of the plane that are manufactured in various countries around the world that would be imported into the US for assembly, it would appear that the only way to avoid tariffs is if the plane and all its parts are manufactured and assembled in the US. I guess it all depends on what the definition of "partial assembly" is.


Why not just build it in Toulouse?


It would be subject to tariffs.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 7759
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

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

Wed Dec 20, 2017 9:19 pm

jumbojet wrote:
Didn't Airbus buy a stake in the C series? Why not just build it in Toulouse? Not only will this rankle Boeing but it will be a big slap in the face to the rest of the US. Build the damn thing overseas and be done with this nonsense.

Well there are hundreds of Airbus a/c flying around in the USA by local carriers, and only 50 of those planes were built in the USA, so the nation and Boeing are used to having a/c used by local carriers being made in Europe.
 
PITingres
Posts: 1175
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 1:59 am

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

Wed Dec 20, 2017 9:31 pm

Jetsouth wrote:
I believe that you may be wrong, because tariffs apply to partially assembled aircraft coming in to the US. As the fuselage and other parts are partially assembled parts of the plane that are manufactured in various countries around the world that would be imported into the US for assembly, it would appear that the only way to avoid tariffs is if the plane and all its parts are manufactured and assembled in the US. I guess it all depends on what the definition of "partial assembly" is.


GIven that big chunks of the 787 are manufactured outside of the US (Japan, Italy), I'd say that an all-US argument would be pretty hard to sustain. Unless we want to slap tariffs on the 787 as well... :banghead:
Fly, you fools! Fly!
 
CFRPwingALbody
Posts: 181
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 8:13 pm

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

Wed Dec 20, 2017 11:38 pm

This confirms again that the USA and it's companies work with two sets of standards. Good luck Boeing dumping your MON and new NSA in Europe, UK and Canada, as they did with the 787. :box:

Good luck US determining the value of imported airplane components. It's wings from the UK, and body from Canada. Engines, avionics, seats will come from the US and assembly will be done in Mobile for the 75 Delta planes. I expect >75% value is added in the USA with CSeries production in Mobile. :twisted: CS100's are still cheaper than 737-7. :tapedshut:

Let's add:
1) Boeing 737MAX brochure Don't forget the 12 additional Y seats, makes the 737-7 a 138pax two class.
2) BBD CSeries brochure CS100 is 108pax, CS300 130pax.
 
danman132x
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 4:57 pm

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

Thu Dec 21, 2017 3:57 am

It's a sad day when the only hope we have left is the ITC ruling next month, and they probably have already been payed under the table to favor Boeings outcome..
 
1900Driver
Posts: 123
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 3:17 pm

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

Thu Dec 21, 2017 6:10 am

LockheedBBD wrote:
Jetsouth wrote:
BlueSky1976 wrote:

Good. This means full production of CSeries in Mobile. Boeing will only lose in the long run.


I believe that you may be wrong, because tariffs apply to partially assembled aircraft coming in to the US. As the fuselage and other parts are partially assembled parts of the plane that are manufactured in various countries around the world that would be imported into the US for assembly, it would appear that the only way to avoid tariffs is if the plane and all its parts are manufactured and assembled in the US. I guess it all depends on what the definition of "partial assembly" is.



I don't know if anyone noticed, but the Commerce Dept. generously reduced the tariff to 292%, compared to the previously announced 299%.


Is that supposed to be a joke?
 
BlueSky1976
Posts: 1734
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:18 am

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

Thu Dec 21, 2017 7:19 am

Jetsouth wrote:

I believe that you may be wrong, because tariffs apply to partially assembled aircraft coming in to the US. As the fuselage and other parts are partially assembled parts of the plane that are manufactured in various countries around the world that would be imported into the US for assembly, it would appear that the only way to avoid tariffs is if the plane and all its parts are manufactured and assembled in the US. I guess it all depends on what the definition of "partial assembly" is.


Wings are made in the UK. Tarrifs won't apply, as they're of non-Canadian origin. Same for the engines (US made) and fuselage elements (China). Move everything to Wichita and Mobile, and kill boeing's nonsense.
Rule #1: Never trust your government. EVER.
Rule #2: In case of any doubt, see Rule #1.
Rule #3: If it's a boeing, I'm NOT going!
 
User avatar
EMBSPBR
Posts: 337
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 9:03 pm

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

Thu Dec 21, 2017 9:05 am

BlueSky1976 wrote:
Wings are made in the UK. Tarrifs won't apply, as they're of non-Canadian origin. Same for the engines (US made) and fuselage elements (China). Move everything to Wichita and Mobile, and kill boeing's nonsense.


Nope:
Excerpt:
"The scope includes all aircraft covered by the description above, regardless of whether they enter the
United States fully or partially assembled, and regardless of whether, at the time of entry into the United
States, they are approved for use by the FAA."
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 15457
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

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

Thu Dec 21, 2017 9:29 am

EMBSPBR wrote:
BlueSky1976 wrote:
Wings are made in the UK. Tarrifs won't apply, as they're of non-Canadian origin. Same for the engines (US made) and fuselage elements (China). Move everything to Wichita and Mobile, and kill boeing's nonsense.


Nope:
Excerpt:
"The scope includes all aircraft covered by the description above, regardless of whether they enter the
United States fully or partially assembled, and regardless of whether, at the time of entry into the United
States, they are approved for use by the FAA."


Nope:
Excerpt:
"On December 20, 2017, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) announced its affirmative final
determinations in the antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) investigations of imports of
100- to 150-seat large civil aircraft (aircraft) from Canada.
"

Components manufactured outside of Canada and imported to Mobile for final assembly should not be subject to tariffs. No part or component manufactured in the US for assembly in Mobile will be subject to tariffs.

It will eventually be up to a judge to decide what, exactly, constitutes "partially assembled". If nothing is assembled in Canada, what's left to apply tariffs on?
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
BlueSky1976
Posts: 1734
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:18 am

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

Thu Dec 21, 2017 9:51 am

Some characters here are so fixated on hope for enforcing the tariffs they forget to read their conditions with a bit of understanding the actual text.
Rule #1: Never trust your government. EVER.
Rule #2: In case of any doubt, see Rule #1.
Rule #3: If it's a boeing, I'm NOT going!
 
User avatar
EMBSPBR
Posts: 337
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 9:03 pm

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

Thu Dec 21, 2017 10:21 am

BlueSky1976 wrote:
Some characters here are so fixated on hope for enforcing the tariffs they forget to read their conditions with a bit of understanding the actual text.


Meanwhile other enforcing that Bombardier did not practice dumping ...
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 3038
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

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

Thu Dec 21, 2017 10:04 pm

EMBSPBR wrote:
BlueSky1976 wrote:
Some characters here are so fixated on hope for enforcing the tariffs they forget to read their conditions with a bit of understanding the actual text.


Meanwhile other enforcing that Bombardier did not practice dumping ...


Seems that Boeing started the dumping by selling 737s at ATR prices to United.

Thus, ironically, it was Boeing dictating market value for the C-series . . .
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"

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