Now that U.S. has essentially blocked the C-Series from entering the U.S,
It's time to speculate on what kind of retaliatory measure Can Canada put forward without damaging it's own economy?

One of the ideas that would have minimal effect on Canadian economy , is to impose exuberant higher fees on All Boeing aircraft overflying Canadian Aerospace.
This will negatively effect substantial part of Boeing's global long haul fleet, with minimal effect on Canadian economy.

Since Canadian Long haul feet is mostly Boeing (except for few 330s) it would be difficult for FAA to impose similar measure.

Is there any provision under ICAO/WTO that would make this move legally sketchy?

Would not hurt their own Canadian fleet,
WestJet 737, 767
Air Canada 777, 787
Sunwing 737

rtii wrote:

Would not hurt their own Canadian fleet,
WestJet 737, 767
Air Canada 777, 787
Sunwing 737

Yeah, that's the point.

Even the British know Bomardier is guilty here. If you really think all Canadians should suffer the results of a major trade war with the US over this?

Why punish non-involved operators? What did AA or AS or for that matter CX do to warrant punishment by the Canadian government for simply flying Boeing aircraft over Canada?

I think that having both the RAF and RCAF not buy any Boeing defense products ever again is enough of a penalty for Boeing. The RCAF super hornet cancellation is already $5.6 billion. It could end up being far higher than that in the next decade.
I also don't mind giving the huge Canadian taxpayer financed C-series subsidy to a more "Canada-friendly" country than the U.S. anyway. I was never comfortable with subsidizing American airlines/passengers with a $75 million per plane subsidy ($25 million est.Delta purchase price x 300% duty). That works out to $75 million subsidy per plane x 75 planes = $5.625 billion total.
That is a huge subsidy/gift that I'm sure the Chinese or Europeans wouldn't mind taking advantage of I would think.

I think that having both the RAF and RCAF not buy any Boeing defense products ever again is enough of a penalty for Boeing. The RCAF super hornet cancellation is already $5.6 billion. It could end up being far higher than that in the next decade.

I say this deal still goes thru after all the dust settles. Fact is the British are pissed at Canada over all this.

rtii wrote:

Would not hurt their own Canadian fleet,
WestJet 737, 767
Air Canada 777, 787
Sunwing 737

The propose fee is for Boeing aircraft overflying Canada, not any aircraft that is touching Canadian soil.
You do not want to tax trans-boarder flight, as it might negatively effect Canadian airlines as well cross boarder business.

All U.S bound flights originating in Europe or Asia will get negatively effected, with the exception of large cities in the South.(LAX/MIA)

You want to careful about the exact amount of tax as it should be just a little bit cheaper than flying around Canada. You do not want NAVCanada to loose revenue.
Just make Boeing aircraft little bit more expensive to operate to/from the U.S. compared to Airbus.

US cannot do the same for two reason.
Canadian long haul fleet is mostly Boeing.
Except for few Caribbean and South American routes, most of the international flight originating in Canada does not overfly U.S territory.

DarthLobster wrote:

Why punish non-involved operators? What did AA or AS or for that matter CX do to warrant punishment by the Canadian government for simply flying Boeing aircraft over Canada?

Same reason U.S Commerce dept is punishing their own companies.
Why Pratt is getting punished for selling american made Engine to Delta airline?
Why is Honeywell is getting punished for providing the APU for CSeries?

AirbusCanada wrote:

DarthLobster wrote:

Why punish non-involved operators? What did AA or AS or for that matter CX do to warrant punishment by the Canadian government for simply flying Boeing aircraft over Canada?

Same reason U.S Commerce dept is punishing their own companies.
Why Pratt is getting punished for selling american made Engine to Delta airline?
Why is Honeywell is getting punished for providing the APU for CSeries?

Because BBD was subsidized in violation of US laws? I get that you don’t like that finding but few have disputed that it happened and was a clear violation.

Your suggestion is to simply retaliate without any basis in law. Your response is basically all emotional.

AirbusCanada wrote:

DarthLobster wrote:

Why punish non-involved operators? What did AA or AS or for that matter CX do to warrant punishment by the Canadian government for simply flying Boeing aircraft over Canada?

Same reason U.S Commerce dept is punishing their own companies.
Why Pratt is getting punished for selling american made Engine to Delta airline?
Why is Honeywell is getting punished for providing the APU for CSeries?

What a fantastic way for Canada to rise above the madness, by punishing everyone.

If the Canadian government is truly as petty as you’re suggesting they should be, then BBD and Canada as a whole will lose a lot more than just US CSeries orders.

Also, Pratt and Honeywell are only “punished” if the Delta order is cancelled. Anything else is total bloated speculation on your part.

bigjku wrote:

[

Because BBD was subsidized in violation of US laws? I get that you don’t like that finding but few have disputed that it happened and was a clear violation.

Your suggestion is to simply retaliate without any basis in law. Your response is basically all emotional.

Fair enough.


However, Canada has the right no to do business translation with companies that sues them. And business transaction includes business with NAV Canada.
Airlines are just 3rd party victim of this trade war, just like US supplier of the CSeries.

That sounds like a horrible idea, engaging in a trade war with the United States is not what Canada needs. Bombardier has been gifted life from the Canadian government for years, the hypocrisy in this ordeal is high.

DarthLobster wrote:

[
Also, Pratt and Honeywell are only “punished” if the Delta order is cancelled. Anything else is total bloated speculation on your part.

Who are you kdn, with a 300% duty and all this uncertainty, US market for the Cseries is essentially dead.

racercoup wrote:

I. Fact is the British are pissed at Canada over all this.

Where do you get that notion from? They will likely be pissed alright - but at who would you think?

AirbusCanada wrote:

Now that U.S. has essentially blocked the C-Series from entering the U.S,
It's time to speculate on what kind of retaliatory measure Can Canada put forward without damaging it's own economy?

One of the ideas that would have minimal effect on Canadian economy , is to impose exuberant higher fees on All Boeing aircraft overflying Canadian Aerospace.
This will negatively effect substantial part of Boeing's global long haul fleet, with minimal effect on Canadian economy.

Since Canadian Long haul feet is mostly Boeing (except for few 330s) it would be difficult for FAA to impose similar measure.

Is there any provision under ICAO/WTO that would make this move legally sketchy?

Ignoring the fact that Bombardier is completely wrong on this measure, let’s flush this ridiculous idea out.

So Nav Canada is going to charge any Boeing plane for overflying Canada. So since the airlines pay overflight fees, are you seriously considering asking an international airline like, LH, BA, AF, EK, JL, CX, etc. to be penalized for flying Boeing aircraft over Canada? So a German company is responsible for a trade dispute between the US and Canada?

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

needmolegroom wrote:

racercoup wrote:

I. Fact is the British are pissed at Canada over all this.

Where do you get that notion from? They will likely be pissed alright - but at who would you think?

bigjku wrote:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... oeing-spat

Bloomberg wrote:

Privately, it believes that Canada has overstepped the mark in aid to Bombardier, according to two officials who declined to be named

Really? Is that the best you have got? I believe it is called FUD (and I only learned that term earlier today)

No one is going to put their name out there because of the U.K. government situation. They can’t alienate Norther Ireland party right now.

Imposing extra charges on 777 belonging to JAL , ANA, Cathay , Korean Air, Cina Southern, China Eastern and Air China would be a great idea for over flying Canada. In the eyes of Ottawa and Havana only.

bigjku wrote:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... oeing-spat

"Privately, it believes that Canada has overstepped the mark in aid to Bombardier, according to two officials who declined to be named"

No one is going to put their name out there because of the U.K. government situation. They can’t alienate Norther Ireland party right now.

I'm guessing British politics isn't your strong card?
And if Bloomberg couldn't find anybody in government to speak out, there is always the opposition who would love to get a quote on record. How did Bloomberg miss that?
Basing an article on pure invention is just cheap; I don't know why I expected any better from them.

Meanwhile, try this for size;
Apparently, Michael Bloomberg is a staunch advocate of free trade and is strongly opposed to protectionism.

I'm not sure that the news corporation that carries his name shares that view. The picture at the head of the article claiming the UK is upset with Canada over Bombardier, shows us a picture of a freshly minted C-series CS100.... er I'm sorry that's incorrect; it shows a glorious view of the Boeing 777 production line. What has that got to do with things except reinforcing what a fantastic company Boeing must be? Bloomberg biased? Just a little.

Why would NAV Canada get involved at all? From their own website - they are a private company and receive no subsidy from the Canadian government. Is there a relationship between the two? Of course. If the Canadian Government uses them in retaliation they are essentially using a private company for political reasons.

jfk777 wrote:

Imposing extra charges on 777 belonging to JAL , ANA, Cathay , Korean Air, Cina Southern, China Eastern and Air China would be a great idea for over flying Canada. In the eyes of Ottawa and Havana only.

It is a great idea because Boeing will make 300 percent duty against cseries go away overnight to please their best customers.
No harm done and everyone is happy except maybe for the lawyers at Boeing.

AirbusCanada wrote:

jfk777 wrote:

Imposing extra charges on 777 belonging to JAL , ANA, Cathay , Korean Air, Cina Southern, China Eastern and Air China would be a great idea for over flying Canada. In the eyes of Ottawa and Havana only.

It is a great idea because Boeing will make 300 percent duty against cseries go away overnight to please their best customers.
No harm done and everyone is happy except maybe for the lawyers at Boeing.

Actually Boeing would just leave it be and watch all their best customers (and their governments) get pissed at Canada. Not really a great way to sell the C series (which BBD wants to be a success worldwide)

You have to keep in mind most airlines/countries have no dog in this fight. If Canada punishes them based on Boeing’s actions they will get annoyed at Canada, not Boeing.

AirbusCanada wrote:

DarthLobster wrote:

[
Also, Pratt and Honeywell are only “punished” if the Delta order is cancelled. Anything else is total bloated speculation on your part.

Who are you kdn, with a 300% duty and all this uncertainty, US market for the Cseries is essentially dead.

There never was a US market beyond DL! B and A have made sure of that. Tariff or not, no one else in the US save a lost drunken bet by someone like F9 was going to result in more CSeries orders in the states.

AirbusCanada wrote:

It is a great idea because Boeing will make 300 percent duty against cseries go away overnight to please their best customers.
No harm done and everyone is happy except maybe for the lawyers at Boeing.

Just like you are cooking up a wacky retaliation, so could the US if Canada comes up with such a measure. Great idea....????

The US GDP is more than 10 times that of Canada. Any trade war that hits both countries equally is much more significant to Canada. There is ZERO chance Canada wins a trade war with the US.

I can tell you as a resident of the UK that it's big bad Boeing/the USA who has been getting a trashing over here about all of this.

I imagine there will be some warplane cancellations but that's about it. It's not like the government can instruct BA not to buy Boeing next time to teach them a lesson.

Armodeen wrote:

I can tell you as a resident of the UK that it's big bad Boeing/the USA who has been getting a trashing over here about all of this.

I imagine there will be some warplane cancellations but that's about it. It's not like the government can instruct BA not to buy Boeing next time to teach them a lesson.

Why not, you really believe private companies are private with no influence from government?
Government involvement in Europe is much more "hands on" than in the USA, do you also believe that the founding governments of Airbus sold off all their shares?

As time goes on, the US is doing math, the UK is doing a face palm and Canada is looking at the UK and saying "WHAT"?

The CSeries is a dead man walking now. No way does the UK go along for the ride. At the end of the day, I bet the DL contract is cancelled, Canada buys the Super Hornet and the UK goes back to helping Boeing set up it's first factory on the island!

jaybird wrote:

Why would NAV Canada get involved at all? From their own website - they are a private company and receive no subsidy from the Canadian government. Is there a relationship between the two? Of course. If the Canadian Government uses them in retaliation they are essentially using a private company for political reasons.

This is a great point jaybird. Why make ATC the middle man in this spat between the companies (and maybe countries)?

NAVCAN is a private entity who provides air traffic service to aircraft in Canada's airspace. Because they are privatized, I'm guessing they already collect fees from operators who use the system. I'm very much against ATC privatization to begin with because I believe ATC is a SERVICE to the flying public to begin with and this just seems like another way to squeeze a dollar from people using a NOT FOR PROFIT company whose sole purpose is a safe, orderly and efficient flow of air traffic; just like it should be anywhere.

If Canada wants to retaliate against the US for this ruling against BBD, fine. But why put the onus on ATC to do their work? I know I wouldn't like it if congress or whoever mandated that the FAA started doing it to our users.

BlatantEcho wrote:

I’m all about free trade, and all big companies on both sides of the boarder get subsidizes of some kind in some fashion.

It’s nothing about free trade or following WTO rules, they turn a blind eye to it whenever it suits the US. The amount of money that went into the C series is nothing compared to what Japan put into the 787.

This is all about blocking a very competitive product so Boeing can sell more old technology aircraft, or keep the current ones in service longer that’s generates support fees.

This is all about greed and money, not free trade.

Armodeen wrote:

I can tell you as a resident of the UK that it's big bad Boeing/the USA who has been getting a trashing over here about all of this.

I imagine there will be some warplane cancellations but that's about it. It's not like the government can instruct BA not to buy Boeing next time to teach them a lesson.

As opposed to the other time that EU news didn't trash the US and Boeing? Sarcasm off.

There's a lot of irrational emotion in this thread. Fact is Canada subsized the C series ... Canada knows this , the US knows this, and the UK knows this. Just because the US and Boeing is "bigger" doesn't mean it's OK for BBD to break the rules so flagrantly. It blows my mind how many people think it's OK that Canada protects its interests with BBD but when the US does the same thing for Boeing , the US is evil and a bully ...

phxa340 wrote:

Armodeen wrote:

I can tell you as a resident of the UK that it's big bad Boeing/the USA who has been getting a trashing over here about all of this.

I imagine there will be some warplane cancellations but that's about it. It's not like the government can instruct BA not to buy Boeing next time to teach them a lesson.

As opposed to the other time that EU news didn't trash the US and Boeing? Sarcasm off.

There's a lot of irrational emotion in this thread. Fact is Canada subsized the C series ... Canada knows this , the US knows this, and the UK knows this. Just because the US and Boeing is "bigger" doesn't mean it's OK for BBD to break the rules so flagrantly. It blows my mind how many people think it's OK that Canada protects its interests with BBD but when the US does the same thing for Boeing , the US is evil and a bully ...

The point is that they’re all heavily subsidized. ExIm bank, tax breaks, the list is endless. It’s the pot calling the kettle black even though the pot doesn’t make a product in the same category.

ATCSuggester wrote:

jaybird wrote:

Why would NAV Canada get involved at all? From their own website - they are a private company and receive no subsidy from the Canadian government. Is there a relationship between the two? Of course. If the Canadian Government uses them in retaliation they are essentially using a private company for political reasons.

This is a great point jaybird. Why make ATC the middle man in this spat between the companies (and maybe countries)?

NAVCAN is a private entity who provides air traffic service to aircraft in Canada's airspace. Because they are privatized, I'm guessing they already collect fees from operators who use the system. I'm very much against ATC privatization to begin with because I believe ATC is a SERVICE to the flying public to begin with and this just seems like another way to squeeze a dollar from people using a NOT FOR PROFIT company whose sole purpose is a safe, orderly and efficient flow of air traffic; just like it should be anywhere.

If Canada wants to retaliate against the US for this ruling against BBD, fine. But why put the onus on ATC to do their work? I know I wouldn't like it if congress or whoever mandated that the FAA started doing it to our users.

Nav Canada is not a private company. It is more like a not for profit crown corporation. If govt of Canada can close it's airspace to any country as it see fit, and nav Canada is obliged to obey it. In the past Nav Canada has closed it's airspace to Russian aircraft as per direction of the federal government.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theglo ... ervice=amp

AirbusCanada wrote:

DarthLobster wrote:

[
Also, Pratt and Honeywell are only “punished” if the Delta order is cancelled. Anything else is total bloated speculation on your part.

Who are you kdn, with a 300% duty and all this uncertainty, US market for the Cseries is essentially dead.

I thought it was 217% charge, not 300.

This conspiracy this (me) says that this is a long play by Boeing to depress Bomabardier stock to cheapen the acquisition cost of it so that Boeing has ready to offer products on a market segment (100-150 seats) that it is A) Not developing a product for B) Can’t sell at its own product at the high end (737-7). Think about it.... a fully developed program with large customer orders (AC, DL) acquired on the cheap...

AirbusCanada wrote:

The propose[sic] fee is for Boeing aircraft overflying Canada, not any aircraft that is touching Canadian soil.
You do not want to tax trans-boarder flight, as it might negatively effect Canadian airlines as well cross boarder business.

All U.S bound flights originating in Europe or Asia will get negatively effected, with the exception of large cities in the South.(LAX/MIA)

You want to careful about the exact amount of tax as it should be just a little bit cheaper than flying around Canada. You do not want NAVCanada to loose revenue.
Just make Boeing aircraft little bit more expensive to operate to/from the U.S. compared to Airbus.

US cannot do the same for two reason.
Canadian long haul fleet is mostly Boeing.
Except for few Caribbean and South American routes, most of the international flight originating in Canada does not overfly U.S territory.

Long story short, no. I can't see this being feasible. First off NavCan is not a Crown corporation. It has no reason to put itself at the centre of a trade row involving the Canadian government. Additionally, as a private company, such a move could leave it open to a lawsuit. You make the assumption that by applying this to ALL Boeing aircraft that only the US will be miffed by it. Such a move would surely invoke the ire of American, Asian and European carriers alike, almost all of whom have to either use Gander Oceanic control and/or overfly Canadian soil and could possibly result in retaliatory measures against any aircraft carrying a C- registration, Boeing or otherwise. Consider that AA, BA, CA, CX, DL JA, KE, NH, UA, Air France/KLM and the Lufthansa Group airlines, amongst many others, all have considerable Boeing operations that overfly Canada.

As I mentioned before, there could be a legal case against NavCan for unevenly applying a tariff, in this case levying an additional charge to international flights that overfly Canada but don't land there. By unequally charging airlines for what is effectively the same service, it could be seen as giving a competitive advantage to Air Canada and Westjet, which are both network carriers with commercial agreements and sales targeting American and European travellers to make international-to-international transfers in Canada.

As it stands, my understanding is Nav Canada, as the purchaser of rights to operate the Air Navigation Services for Canada, and as a private, not-for-profit company, are the sole authority to set fees and can effectively tell the government to stuff it should they come knocking. For the government to overrule, it would require a change to the ANS Act and the Government's relationship with Nav Canada so as to be able to dictate what NavCan can charge and to whom. Such a move would effectively reverse the privatization of Canada's ATC and turn Nav Canada into some kind of quasi-public entity. It would also, almost certainly open up Canadian carriers to reciprocal moves across almost their entire international networks. Remember, the US doesn't need to apply a charge to AC's long-haul network, when almost all of its current US network is comprised of Airbus, Embraer and, indeed, Bombardier flights (minus a few 767s and 787s to Florida and California). And the US applying such a charge to non-Boeing aircraft would be a nice boon to Westjet, which would see Air Canada calling to the mat Marc Garneau in no time flat (Hey look, I'm a poet and I didn't even know it!).

Lastly, if the US government were to reciprocate and hit Canadian aircraft, regardless of manufacturer, you might want to revise your last statement. At 06:50 Central on 7th October, I count 7 AC aircraft over or on track to overfly Alaskan airspace, and an additional 5 that may very well follow, and 4 AC aircraft squarely under Oakland Center control, two of which having already overflown Hawaii. In fact, on any given day, the bulk of AC's East Asian network will pass through US airspace and its Australian flights will spend a considerable amount of time under Oakland Center control. That might not be the same as AA's network from Chicago, Dallas and Los Angeles to Europe and Asia overflying Canada but make no mistake it'd hurt AC quite a lot.

What Canada could do is forbid Boeing Co operated flights (test flights, company executive shuttles, etc) from operating within Canadian airspace. Or they could do something like impose a $10 million surcharge on any flights to YFB for cold weather testing, or not allow those flights access full stop. I'm not sure how well-equipped comparable airports in Alaska are, though I imagine FAI could (or maybe already does) stand-in for YFB.

In summary, however, there is very little upside for Canada and a whole lot of a potential downside. A fun exercise in mental masturbation but one that doesn't hold water in the real world.

LH423

surfdog75 wrote:

phxa340 wrote:

Armodeen wrote:

I can tell you as a resident of the UK that it's big bad Boeing/the USA who has been getting a trashing over here about all of this.

I imagine there will be some warplane cancellations but that's about it. It's not like the government can instruct BA not to buy Boeing next time to teach them a lesson.

As opposed to the other time that EU news didn't trash the US and Boeing? Sarcasm off.

There's a lot of irrational emotion in this thread. Fact is Canada subsized the C series ... Canada knows this , the US knows this, and the UK knows this. Just because the US and Boeing is "bigger" doesn't mean it's OK for BBD to break the rules so flagrantly. It blows my mind how many people think it's OK that Canada protects its interests with BBD but when the US does the same thing for Boeing , the US is evil and a bully ...

The point is that they’re all heavily subsidized. ExIm bank, tax breaks, the list is endless. It’s the pot calling the kettle black even though the pot doesn’t make a product in the same category.

Even if one conceded this is true what happened with BBD is different in the way it was done which is what makes it so egregious and such an open and shut case. If they do it the way other nations have allegedly done things it’s not so clear and easy.

They lost badly here. They are going to lose badly at the WTO in the case brought on by Brazil too. The kind of aid they got does not seem to be at all like what other airplane builders have gotten.

bigjku wrote:

Because BBD was subsidized in violation of US laws? I get that you don’t like that finding but few have disputed that it happened and was a clear violation.

You overlook that the biggest global offender tries to stomp on some smaller ...
Pot calling kettle black and such.

together with other activities it looks as if the US is going
for an undeclared full spectrum war of supremacy
on a global scale.

I find that this website has far too much ingrained pro or anti American/Boeing sentiment to have much of a sensible discussion about tariffs or subsidies for Bombardier, so I am avoiding that discussion even though there are some well thought out reasonable posts. Most of the posters on this forum are from outside the United States and a few posting anti American sentiment and then responses to that are rather disheartening on a website that is supposed to be devoted to the love of aviation.

With regards to over flight fees. I expect that Canada would run afoul with ICAO and possibly the WTO if they start charging different overflight fees depending on airplane manufacturer or even the origin of the operator. Giving higher fees for one manufacturer over the other is not going to be taken well by foreign carriers flying to Canada. Canada would have inflamed relations with China, Japan, Korea, UK, EU etc. Global trade wars don't help anyone and Canada certainly doesn't want other countries placing tariffs on the C Series.

LH423 wrote:

Long story short, no. I can't see this being feasible. First off NavCan is not a Crown corporation. It has no reason to put itself at the centre of a trade row involving the Canadian government. Additionally, as a private company, such a move could leave it open to a lawsuit. You make the assumption that by applying this to ALL Boeing aircraft that only the US will be miffed by it. Such a move would surely invoke the ire of American, Asian and European carriers alike, almost all of whom have to either use Gander Oceanic control and/or overfly Canadian soil and could possibly result in retaliatory measures against any aircraft carrying a C- registration, Boeing or otherwise. Consider that AA, BA, CA, CX, DL JA, KE, NH, UA, Air France/KLM and the Lufthansa Group airlines, amongst many others, all have considerable Boeing operations that overfly Canada.

As I mentioned before, there could be a legal case against NavCan for unevenly applying a tariff, in this case levying an additional charge to international flights that overfly Canada but don't land there. By unequally charging airlines for what is effectively the same service, it could be seen as giving a competitive advantage to Air Canada and Westjet, which are both network carriers with commercial agreements and sales targeting American and European travellers to make international-to-international transfers in Canada.

As it stands, my understanding is Nav Canada, as the purchaser of rights to operate the Air Navigation Services for Canada, and as a private, not-for-profit company, are the sole authority to set fees and can effectively tell the government to stuff it should they come knocking. For the government to overrule, it would require a change to the ANS Act and the Government's relationship with Nav Canada so as to be able to dictate what NavCan can charge and to whom. Such a move would effectively reverse the privatization of Canada's ATC and turn Nav Canada into some kind of quasi-public entity. It would also, almost certainly open up Canadian carriers to reciprocal moves across almost their entire international networks. Remember, the US doesn't need to apply a charge to AC's long-haul network, when almost all of its current US network is comprised of Airbus, Embraer and, indeed, Bombardier flights (minus a few 767s and 787s to Florida and California). And the US applying such a charge to non-Boeing aircraft would be a nice boon to Westjet, which would see Air Canada calling to the mat Marc Garneau in no time flat (Hey look, I'm a poet and I didn't even know it!).

Lastly, if the US government were to reciprocate and hit Canadian aircraft, regardless of manufacturer, you might want to revise your last statement. At 06:50 Central on 7th October, I count 7 AC aircraft over or on track to overfly Alaskan airspace, and an additional 5 that may very well follow, and 4 AC aircraft squarely under Oakland Center control, two of which having already overflown Hawaii. In fact, on any given day, the bulk of AC's East Asian network will pass through US airspace and its Australian flights will spend a considerable amount of time under Oakland Center control. That might not be the same as AA's network from Chicago, Dallas and Los Angeles to Europe and Asia overflying Canada but make no mistake it'd hurt AC quite a lot.


LH423

Canada Federal govt can close its airspace or put additional tax to use its airspace as it see fit.
It did so with during a dispute with Russia just a few years ago.

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/report ... dmail.com&

It's possible for US to add extra taxes on CDN registered aircraft, but Canada is taking delivery of lots of 737MAX and 787 in the next few years.
Not the best strategy for Boeing to advocate that.

racercoup wrote:

I
Fact is the British are pissed at Canada over all this.

where are you getting this from? Its actually the exact opposite. It amazes me still that people speak and type before knowing any facts.

British Prime Minister Theresa May is poised to meet her Canadian counterpart, Justin Trudeau, on Monday in order to discuss a long-running corporate dispute threatening thousands of jobs in the U.K.
Boeing, a U.S. plane manufacturer, is currently locked in a legal battle against Canadian rival Bombardier and given the potential ramifications of the case include the loss of thousands of jobs, billions in illegal subsidies and potentially even a trade war, the dispute has forced international leaders into action.
As well as discussing a possible future free trade deal in Ottawa on Monday,May and Trudeau are likely to unite over plans to exert pressure on Boeing n order to convince the U.S. aircraft maker to drop its dispute with Bombardier.

More here

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/18/boeing- ... rs-on.html

Isn't it better to discuss the proposed US measures against Bomberdier in the original thread on that topic?


So turning to the question asked in the thread title":

Can Nav-Canada impose additional fee specific to Boeing aircraft overflying Canadian aerospace?

If you want to hurt airlines from Iceland, Norway, UK, Netherlands, Germany, France, Switzerland, and thus create a trade war with those countries, sure go ahead with this measure.

It's been mentioned enough times in the other thread. If Canada wants to strike back it will be in another economic sectors, like energy where it has larger negative impact on the US economy without hurting the Canadian or any other countries economies.

zeke wrote:

BlatantEcho wrote:

I’m all about free trade, and all big companies on both sides of the boarder get subsidizes of some kind in some fashion.

It’s nothing about free trade or following WTO rules, they turn a blind eye to it whenever it suits the US. The amount of money that went into the C series is nothing compared to what Japan put into the 787.

This is all about blocking a very competitive product so Boeing can sell more old technology aircraft, or keep the current ones in service longer that’s generates support fees.

This is all about greed and money, not free trade.

This is the first post to actually name the truth.

On the other hand I don´t think that it would be doable to retaliate Boeing´s (and the U.S. governments) actions by denying Boeing aircraft overfly rights over Canada. That´s simply impossible.

The only possibilities I see could be imposing a comparable tariff on any Boeing aircraft (and other Boeing products) imported into Canada including cancelling military purchases. It´s not like other manufacturers could not deliver e.g. comparable fighter aircraft (be it Swedish and/or French ones or even those built by multi country consortiums)
I don´t see why Canada could not send a clear message this way ...

zeke wrote:

It’s nothing about free trade or following WTO rules, they turn a blind eye to it whenever it suits the US. (...).

That is not true at all!

I have followed a few WTO cases where US was on the receiving end and lost. For example, in cotton subsidies against Brazil the US knew it was wrong. It persisted until it was about to face retaliatory tariffs, then settled by writing a 300 million check to Brazil.

The system is not perfect, but the vast majority of countries decided to follow and use it on a regular basis. Canada is no exception. Does anyone here think the C Series program should not go through scrutiny? Come on!

MHG wrote:

This is the first post to actually name the truth.
(...)...

No way that is the truth - only if you are using alternative facts.

I think a lot of people should take a deep breath and count to ten. As per Reuters, "The proposed duties would not take effect unless affirmed by the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) early next year." In that proceeding, Boeing has to prove it was harmed by Bombardier's actions, and I believe that argument already has a dent in it as per the initial finding.

So please let the process work out before making rash statements that would be a disaster to everyone, like trade war or economic retaliation. Let cooler heads prevail.

CX747 wrote:

As time goes on, the US is doing math, the UK is doing a face palm and Canada is looking at the UK and saying "WHAT"?

The CSeries is a dead man walking now. No way does the UK go along for the ride. At the end of the day, I bet the DL contract is cancelled, Canada buys the Super Hornet and the UK goes back to helping Boeing set up it's first factory on the island!

You may want that - I would like to see Boeing excluded from defence contracts.

Boeing is perpetually running to teach to get protection when others win against them. Well in this case it wasn't even against them. At the moment with the fool in the Whitehouse we are heading for a trade war. With one of those we all suffer. This won't make America great again - it will make the world poorer.

I suspect that Airbus are being encouraged to source more from Europe (or at least not the US).

Boeing can set up a plant here if it likes - but that should give it no political leverage.

smithbs wrote:

I think a lot of people should take a deep breath and count to ten. As per Reuters, "The proposed duties would not take effect unless affirmed by the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) early next year."

Sensible words.
My question is this; assuming the ITC affirm the decision early next year, will the duties be back-dated?
If the answer is to that question is yes, as I suspect, then we have a beautiful situation over the coming months
I'm sure I'm stating the obvious here when I say absolutely nobody but a fool would enter into a contract to buy the CS100 simply in fear of a negative ruling.
The best BBD can hope for is some contracts that are conditional on the duties being kicked out of court. These would amount to Letters of Intent or something similar, with very generous get-out clauses for the customer. Basically not worth the paper they are written on.

It's win-win for Boeing.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

smithbs wrote:

I think a lot of people should take a deep breath and count to ten. As per Reuters, "The proposed duties would not take effect unless affirmed by the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) early next year."

Sensible words.
My question is this; assuming the ITC affirm the decision early next year, will the duties be back-dated?
If the answer is to that question is yes, as I suspect, then we have a beautiful situation over the coming months
I'm sure I'm stating the obvious here when I say absolutely nobody but a fool would enter into a contract to buy the CS100 simply in fear of a negative ruling.
The best BBD can hope for is some contracts that are conditional on the duties being kicked out of court. These would amount to Letters of Intent or something similar, with very generous get-out clauses for the customer. Basically not worth the paper they are written on.

It's win-win for Boeing.

The duties are only for aircraft imported to the US, It doesn't apply to any plane sold to an airline which will register it outside the US. If eg Swiss has a contract for another 20 planes still, there are no duties on their planes to be delivered or already delivered as they aren't a US carrier. BBD has a contract to deliver said planes at x price, they may end up losing a lot more money on that Swiss contract than they expected as a result of "losing" the DL order. The duties and potential loss of the DL order may drastically affect BBDs financial status (maybe even the whole program) but Swiss is not affected on price as they have a contract already. Going forward the issue is what price will BBD now be able to offer on new contracts and what effect customers may see of the future of the whole program.