JoeCanuck wrote:washingtonflyer wrote:JoeCanuck wrote:
The U.S. has been active in trade matters for decades. So, I find this comment largely irrelevant.JoeCanuck wrote:If Boeing isn't claiming they are being harmed, then why is it up to them to initiate action against Canada? This would never have come up if Boeing hadn't started the action. Is that the way the system works...? Any entity that thinks that another country is 'dumping' into the US, even if they have no personal interest, can initiate action? That sounds like a bizarre system...but little surprises me about US politics anymore.
My mention of softwood lumber is merely to contrast that action, where there is the possibility of harm, (slim though that has historically been), to Boeing's, where they could only show harm to the most biased panel. Reasonable? Sure. In 30 years the softwood lumber dispute hasn't been reasonable...so this is even less likely to be. I know...you're working for the allegedly injured parties.
Sure...I get it....harm isn't necessarily the same as dumping...but, if Boeing isn't being harmed, why are they even involved? Altruism...? The love of baseball, hotdogs and apple pie...?
Not only is no American industry being harmed by BBD's sale of jets, American companies are being boosted by the sale...Delta, Pratt, Spirit....there is a long list of American companies who hire American workers who would be harmed if they sale DOESN'T go through.
That doesn't mean much when the top brass of Boeing is getting the president of the US to sell planes for them to Saudi...and they get a front row seat on AF1 for the show.
But that's not government assistance...no sir.
I didn't say that Boeing isn't claiming that they aren't harmed. They certainly are. However, the question of harm is a separate question from the question of dumping or the question of subsidies. Those are two distinct legal issues that are examined by two distinct federal agencies: the Trade Commission examines harm and the Commerce Department examines dumping and subsidization. Now I will say that you can't find injury (harm) without a finding of dumping/subsidies, but as I said before, I can all but guarantee you that Commerce will find that subsidies exist and I can bet you it will find dumping. The question really is going to be whether Boeing is injured (or threatened with injury). After reading the transcript over the weekend and shooting the breeze with my colleagues, I believe that there is a path to an affirmative finding - at the preliminary stage. I believe the final determination of injury is going to be much, much tougher.
This is kind of a case of first impressions for the Commission, and they're going to have to dig into Congress' intent of whether you can have injury (or threat) where you've not had an entry of goods, but where you've certainly have had a sale. The Commission will also have to assess whether Boeing, with a massive backlog, can possibly be injured, whether Boeing willfully exited this market by not producing the -700 or the 717 to any meaningful extent, and whether Boeing's definition of what constitutes the industry (100-150 seat jets with a range of at least 2900 miles) is the proper industry to be assessed. Bombardier complained at length that the proposed scope was written to eliminate comparisons to the E-195 E2s. I believe that is a very valid complaint and the Commission has the right to expand what is called the "like product" to assess whether harm exists.JoeCanuck wrote:Any entity that thinks that another country is 'dumping' into the US, even if they have no personal interest, can initiate action? That sounds like a bizarre system...but little surprises me about US politics anymore.
I strongly disagree with the notion that Boeing has no personal interest. They believe that that they have a very strong personal interest. From their perspective, they're trying to avoid Airbus II. I'd implore you to avoid references to politics. Trade cases are strategic business decisions and while there have been lots of run of the mill cases, there have been very sensitive ones from time to time that cause extra controversy: vector super computers, printing presses, crude oil, soft wood lumber, solar modules, etc.
I basically made the point earlier that the only harm Boeing can even theoretically show , is potential harm from a stretch of the cs300....which is currently as real as the Easter bunny and would be two sizes larger than the model Delta wants.
Delta has said Boeing had no product in the size they wanted and were never being considered.
Yet even though they as much as admit they don't have a competitive product, they still claim harm now. Boeing might as well start whining about Honda in case they build a flying car that might hurt 737 sales.
As for these being strategic business decisions....sure, but they are just as much politics. the orange one was elected partly on his USA uber alles trade platforms. Trade wars can win elections....just ask the senators in Oregon.
Is it too much to ask you to keep a minimum of objectivity in the comments? It is too childish to bring the Easter Bunny into the discussion.
Each aircraft is distinct in terms of capacity and range. It is not uncommon for US airlines to employ a varied mix of aircraft with between 100-190 passengers for the same domestic routes, so there is indirect competition between aircraft that you think are totally different.