michikawa wrote:

PPVRA wrote:

That would entail BBD flipping the bird to the Canadian government, who is keeping them in life support. I don't recommend flipping the bird to the guys who are holding the plug of your life support equipment.

I'm not talking about moving the engineers or corporate guys down there, just the parts by rail. It would cost a couple hundred assembler jobs and some political points, but it's certainly better than bankruptcy; Quebec's a shareholder. It's not like they can't manufacture other CS100/300 orders in Mirabel, just not the american orders until this legal mess is cleared up. If this is a potential solution, it'd be stupid to put billions in escrow when millions would set up a secondary assembly location.

washingtonflyer wrote:

This becomes an interesting question - at what point is an aircraft an aircraft. Is an aircraft an aircraft if you bring in the fuselage (kind of like what Boeing does when it ships a fuselage from Wichita to Seattle (and sometimes the fuselages like to take a swim in a local river)). Is an aircraft an aircraft if you only bring in completed frame sections and assemble them in the USA? How about one that files with one engine and the second pylon is mounted with a dummy?

washingtonflyer wrote:

IADCA wrote:

Bobloblaw wrote:

Dumping laws don't require that a competing product be offered. It is about selling well below marginal cost.

Yes, but isn't there a domestic industry requirement? Meaning that with no competing Boeing product, any harm to domestic industry becomes much more speculative?

Yes, that is a question for the USITC. If there is no injury, there is no illegal dumping. Dumping is not illegal if it does not cause harm.

PPVRA wrote:

northstardc4m wrote:

I never said it was a smart idea or likely... but it is a Nuclear option. And it would actually be Quebec that would be most affected... the Electricity exports to the US are massive and run greatly reduced because of the negotiated rates in NAFTA. Alberta oil can just as easily to Asia via Vancouver just not as cost effectively.

This is likely to just be a major issue with the renegotiation of NAFTA, and like i said it wouldn't surprise me one bit if that was the idea... this whole thing smells of political wrangling and not a valid trade tariff process.

Why does this smell of politics to you? The only politicians I see making a really loud fuss about this are Canadian and British.

tjh8402 wrote:

People criticize Boeing for it's not offering a more competitive airframe against the CS. However, this is part of what makes the government funding of the BBD plane unfair. If Washington state or the Us government offered to give Boeing billions in optionally paid back loans to develop a 737 replacement that could compete with the CS, they'd probably look at it. I'm sure they'd love to get that sort of help with the 797/MoM. Instead, they have to pay for its development out of pocket or raise the cash through loans and investors, limiting what they can bring to market and how competitive that entry can be.

I have to dispute Boeing's military contracts qualifying as "subsidies". The US military isn't paying them for things they don't need just to give Boeing money. These contracts are for necessary equipment. People have mentioned the Air Force helping fund development of the KC-135 and 707. They didn't do that because they wanted to help develop a new civilian airliner. They did it because they needed a jet tanker, and based on the plane's record, Boeing build them a damn good one, and were compensated appropriately. Boeing was savvy enough to use that to help with the 707, although I would note that the C135/717 airframe did require substantial reengineering (specifically widening to accept an additional seat) to become the C137/707. It was not as simple as putting an airline cabin in the KC 135 and calling it a day. Besides, if the RCAF has a plane they need, want to pay BBD to design and build it for them, and BBD figures out how to sell that on the civilian market, I don't think anyone would object.

I would also note that the defense market has not been as big a part of Boeing's post Korean War history as people like to make it out. In the time between the first gen turbines (B-52, KC-135, CH-47) and the V-22 and KC-46, Boeing has probably been the smallest airframe builder among US aerospace companies. Most of the companies recent offerings (the F-15, FA 18, C-17, and AH 64) all come from their purchase of MD ( who btw are a great example of how DOD "subsidies" are not enough to keep an uncompetitive civil airframe manufacturer afloat). MD, Northrop Grumman, Sikorsky, Bell, and especially Lockheed Martin, have been the major players since probably 1960. Indeed, many analysts have called the upcoming T – X contract a "must win" for Boeing since they have lost every other recent tactical aircraft competition and most, if not all, of their legacy MDD programs are coming to a close soon.

As far as using other industries to target the US in a trade war, I don't pretend to have any particular insight into Canadian politics, but one thing I have been surprised to learn over the last couple days starting to study this issue is how divided the country is. The East West divide somewhat reminds me of the USs north south divide. It sounds like western Canadians will be less than enthusiastic to have their trade (which would seem to include oil) hurt in an effort to support eastern BBD (correct me if I'm wrong, but some articles and comments seem to indicate there already is a fight over oil shipments between East and West Canada). That, plus whatever support WS and AC can drum up thanks to their Boeing heavy order books makes me wonder how united the country actually is against Boeing and for BBD. I don't know what the polls actually say but I'm gonna have to start paying closer attention to Canadian media now.

multimark wrote:

tjh8402 wrote:

People criticize Boeing for it's not offering a more competitive airframe against the CS. However, this is part of what makes the government funding of the BBD plane unfair. If Washington state or the Us government offered to give Boeing billions in optionally paid back loans to develop a 737 replacement that could compete with the CS, they'd probably look at it. I'm sure they'd love to get that sort of help with the 797/MoM. Instead, they have to pay for its development out of pocket or raise the cash through loans and investors, limiting what they can bring to market and how competitive that entry can be.

I have to dispute Boeing's military contracts qualifying as "subsidies". The US military isn't paying them for things they don't need just to give Boeing money. These contracts are for necessary equipment. People have mentioned the Air Force helping fund development of the KC-135 and 707. They didn't do that because they wanted to help develop a new civilian airliner. They did it because they needed a jet tanker, and based on the plane's record, Boeing build them a damn good one, and were compensated appropriately. Boeing was savvy enough to use that to help with the 707, although I would note that the C135/717 airframe did require substantial reengineering (specifically widening to accept an additional seat) to become the C137/707. It was not as simple as putting an airline cabin in the KC 135 and calling it a day. Besides, if the RCAF has a plane they need, want to pay BBD to design and build it for them, and BBD figures out how to sell that on the civilian market, I don't think anyone would object.

I would also note that the defense market has not been as big a part of Boeing's post Korean War history as people like to make it out. In the time between the first gen turbines (B-52, KC-135, CH-47) and the V-22 and KC-46, Boeing has probably been the smallest airframe builder among US aerospace companies. Most of the companies recent offerings (the F-15, FA 18, C-17, and AH 64) all come from their purchase of MD ( who btw are a great example of how DOD "subsidies" are not enough to keep an uncompetitive civil airframe manufacturer afloat). MD, Northrop Grumman, Sikorsky, Bell, and especially Lockheed Martin, have been the major players since probably 1960. Indeed, many analysts have called the upcoming T – X contract a "must win" for Boeing since they have lost every other recent tactical aircraft competition and most, if not all, of their legacy MDD programs are coming to a close soon.

As far as using other industries to target the US in a trade war, I don't pretend to have any particular insight into Canadian politics, but one thing I have been surprised to learn over the last couple days starting to study this issue is how divided the country is. The East West divide somewhat reminds me of the USs north south divide. It sounds like western Canadians will be less than enthusiastic to have their trade (which would seem to include oil) hurt in an effort to support eastern BBD (correct me if I'm wrong, but some articles and comments seem to indicate there already is a fight over oil shipments between East and West Canada). That, plus whatever support WS and AC can drum up thanks to their Boeing heavy order books makes me wonder how united the country actually is against Boeing and for BBD. I don't know what the polls actually say but I'm gonna have to start paying closer attention to Canadian media now.

Boeing sucks up huge amount of government subsidies.

"In late 2013, Washington state made history.

On a mid-November Monday, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D) signed into law the largest corporate tax break in any state’s history, with an estimated lifetime value of $8.7 billion. The package was the result of a special three-day session Inslee called in order to entice Boeing to build its 777X plane in the state. Boeing didn’t just score big that day. The aerospace giant has received more state and local subsidy dollars than any other corporation in America, according to newly released data compiled by Good Jobs First, a policy resource center on subsidy data..."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/go ... 524f577f27

washingtonflyer wrote:

Amiga500 wrote:

washingtonflyer wrote:

What would the UK and Canada slap a tariff on?

Folks here need to realize that under international law

Boeing and the US DOC aren't operating under international law, they are operating under US law.

They are absolutely operating under international law as the subsidies are illegal pursuant to the WTO agreements on subsidies and countervailing measures.

N47 wrote:

Out of curiosity, if Boeing had not made the complain would the DOC have accused BBD of the price dumping?

surfdog75 wrote:

washingtonflyer wrote:

IADCA wrote:

Yes, but isn't there a domestic industry requirement? Meaning that with no competing Boeing product, any harm to domestic industry becomes much more speculative?

Yes, that is a question for the USITC. If there is no injury, there is no illegal dumping. Dumping is not illegal if it does not cause harm.

How does it cause harm to a company that offers no competing product? A real competing product. Not some Trumped up definition of a competing product designed to make the complaint seem valid. Does anyone have the names and emails of the members of the board that made this decision?

northstardc4m wrote:

PPVRA wrote:

northstardc4m wrote:

I never said it was a smart idea or likely... but it is a Nuclear option. And it would actually be Quebec that would be most affected... the Electricity exports to the US are massive and run greatly reduced because of the negotiated rates in NAFTA. Alberta oil can just as easily to Asia via Vancouver just not as cost effectively.

This is likely to just be a major issue with the renegotiation of NAFTA, and like i said it wouldn't surprise me one bit if that was the idea... this whole thing smells of political wrangling and not a valid trade tariff process.

Why does this smell of politics to you? The only politicians I see making a really loud fuss about this are Canadian and British.

Because Trump wants to renegotiate NAFTA on better terms for the US (Which neither Canada or Mexico are likely to accept) and has been dragging his feet actually presenting anything. He's been looking for fuel to feed his demands when he makes them. Reigniting Softwood lumber, Dairy Threats and now ridiculously high tariffs against a Canadian built plane. How does it NOT smell of politics. Pulling the UK in i think was a miscalculation or an "I Don't care really" issue.

multimark wrote:

tjh8402 wrote:

People criticize Boeing for it's not offering a more competitive airframe against the CS. However, this is part of what makes the government funding of the BBD plane unfair. If Washington state or the Us government offered to give Boeing billions in optionally paid back loans to develop a 737 replacement that could compete with the CS, they'd probably look at it. I'm sure they'd love to get that sort of help with the 797/MoM. Instead, they have to pay for its development out of pocket or raise the cash through loans and investors, limiting what they can bring to market and how competitive that entry can be.

I have to dispute Boeing's military contracts qualifying as "subsidies". The US military isn't paying them for things they don't need just to give Boeing money. These contracts are for necessary equipment. People have mentioned the Air Force helping fund development of the KC-135 and 707. They didn't do that because they wanted to help develop a new civilian airliner. They did it because they needed a jet tanker, and based on the plane's record, Boeing build them a damn good one, and were compensated appropriately. Boeing was savvy enough to use that to help with the 707, although I would note that the C135/717 airframe did require substantial reengineering (specifically widening to accept an additional seat) to become the C137/707. It was not as simple as putting an airline cabin in the KC 135 and calling it a day. Besides, if the RCAF has a plane they need, want to pay BBD to design and build it for them, and BBD figures out how to sell that on the civilian market, I don't think anyone would object.

I would also note that the defense market has not been as big a part of Boeing's post Korean War history as people like to make it out. In the time between the first gen turbines (B-52, KC-135, CH-47) and the V-22 and KC-46, Boeing has probably been the smallest airframe builder among US aerospace companies. Most of the companies recent offerings (the F-15, FA 18, C-17, and AH 64) all come from their purchase of MD ( who btw are a great example of how DOD "subsidies" are not enough to keep an uncompetitive civil airframe manufacturer afloat). MD, Northrop Grumman, Sikorsky, Bell, and especially Lockheed Martin, have been the major players since probably 1960. Indeed, many analysts have called the upcoming T – X contract a "must win" for Boeing since they have lost every other recent tactical aircraft competition and most, if not all, of their legacy MDD programs are coming to a close soon.

As far as using other industries to target the US in a trade war, I don't pretend to have any particular insight into Canadian politics, but one thing I have been surprised to learn over the last couple days starting to study this issue is how divided the country is. The East West divide somewhat reminds me of the USs north south divide. It sounds like western Canadians will be less than enthusiastic to have their trade (which would seem to include oil) hurt in an effort to support eastern BBD (correct me if I'm wrong, but some articles and comments seem to indicate there already is a fight over oil shipments between East and West Canada). That, plus whatever support WS and AC can drum up thanks to their Boeing heavy order books makes me wonder how united the country actually is against Boeing and for BBD. I don't know what the polls actually say but I'm gonna have to start paying closer attention to Canadian media now.

Boeing sucks up huge amount of government subsidies.

"In late 2013, Washington state made history.

On a mid-November Monday, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D) signed into law the largest corporate tax break in any state’s history, with an estimated lifetime value of $8.7 billion. The package was the result of a special three-day session Inslee called in order to entice Boeing to build its 777X plane in the state. Boeing didn’t just score big that day. The aerospace giant has received more state and local subsidy dollars than any other corporation in America, according to newly released data compiled by Good Jobs First, a policy resource center on subsidy data..."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/go ... 524f577f27

washingtonflyer wrote:

northstardc4m wrote:

PPVRA wrote:

Why does this smell of politics to you? The only politicians I see making a really loud fuss about this are Canadian and British.

Because Trump wants to renegotiate NAFTA on better terms for the US (Which neither Canada or Mexico are likely to accept) and has been dragging his feet actually presenting anything. He's been looking for fuel to feed his demands when he makes them. Reigniting Softwood lumber, Dairy Threats and now ridiculously high tariffs against a Canadian built plane. How does it NOT smell of politics. Pulling the UK in i think was a miscalculation or an "I Don't care really" issue.

The Administration did not file a softwood case - the softwood producers did after an agreement to keep an existing price mechanism in place failed.

jeffrey0032j wrote:

Aesma wrote:

washingtonflyer wrote:

Not without justification. A unilateral change to the standard tariff rate affecting one country is discriminatory and would absolutely get challenged.

Yes it would. It doesn't prevent the US from slapping illegal tariffs regularly as a bullying tactic. For example against French cheeses.

CX747 wrote:

There in lies the rub. A private entity filed a complaint against another private entity. The US Government put forward a proposed action. Somehow the Canadian and U.K. Governments got upset. Why would that happen? They shouldn't be involved in this at all. It is a tarriff against a supposed private company.

The problem is the U.K. and Canadian governments have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar. How the governments figure out how to go forward will be interesting.

You aught to read again what you just wrote. You're seriously arguing a private US entity can attack a private Canadian entity with the help of the US government, but the Canadian government shouldn't get involved ?

It is then up to Bombardier to prove that the accusations are unfounded. I am sure the greater Canadian public (ie people outside Quebec) would also like to hear whether their tax monies have been worth it, there just seems to be a lot of Canadians who oppose of the bailout.

If Bombardier has a strong case, then they could present it to the government who should fight the case, unless both the Canadian government and Bombardier have things to hide from the public.

PPVRA wrote:

Sorry, but a tax benefit just isn't the same as a subsidy, no matter how many times people have attempted to argue otherwise. Never was and never will be, because it's in a completely separate category of incentive.

This might be semantics to some people, but there's a distinction.

northstardc4m wrote:

washingtonflyer wrote:

northstardc4m wrote:

Because Trump wants to renegotiate NAFTA on better terms for the US (Which neither Canada or Mexico are likely to accept) and has been dragging his feet actually presenting anything. He's been looking for fuel to feed his demands when he makes them. Reigniting Softwood lumber, Dairy Threats and now ridiculously high tariffs against a Canadian built plane. How does it NOT smell of politics. Pulling the UK in i think was a miscalculation or an "I Don't care really" issue.

The Administration did not file a softwood case - the softwood producers did after an agreement to keep an existing price mechanism in place failed.

Trump made campaign comments about it. His administration also refused to extend the agreement. He wanted to re-ignite that trade issue. No way you can argue he didn't want it to be an issue.

LAXintl wrote:

At today's American Airlines media event, AA said they see Boeing/Bombardier ruling a "good thing", in the sense that US gov't is looking hard at foreign competition.

https://twitter.com/e_russell/status/913449424956862465

iamlucky13 wrote:

jeffrey0032j wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Yes it would. It doesn't prevent the US from slapping illegal tariffs regularly as a bullying tactic. For example against French cheeses.



You aught to read again what you just wrote. You're seriously arguing a private US entity can attack a private Canadian entity with the help of the US government, but the Canadian government shouldn't get involved ?

It is then up to Bombardier to prove that the accusations are unfounded. I am sure the greater Canadian public (ie people outside Quebec) would also like to hear whether their tax monies have been worth it, there just seems to be a lot of Canadians who oppose of the bailout.

If Bombardier has a strong case, then they could present it to the government who should fight the case, unless both the Canadian government and Bombardier have things to hide from the public.

No. You've got things all mixed up.

Boeing proves it. There is no guilty until proven innocent. However, if Boeing establishes a credible case that a violation has taken place, which Commerce has accepted is the case, Bombardier does need to defend themselves or risk Boeing's claims being interpreted as being conceded.

The Canadian government is not directly involved at that point, but they certainly have the right to express their thoughts on the matter, or even to change other policies like military procurements if not restricted by trade rules. And the Canadian government does have a right to challenge whether or not actions the US takes internally that affect trade actually comply with the trade rules.

washingtonflyer wrote:

northstardc4m wrote:

washingtonflyer wrote:

The Administration did not file a softwood case - the softwood producers did after an agreement to keep an existing price mechanism in place failed.

Trump made campaign comments about it. His administration also refused to extend the agreement. He wanted to re-ignite that trade issue. No way you can argue he didn't want it to be an issue.

Let me say this, the issues on lumber are much deeper than you're giving credit to (i.e., blaming it only on Trump). The SLA expired in October 2015 (i.e., more than a year before Trump was elected).

I won't comment on the specifics on this one given that I have client interests on this, but suffice it to say, you're in left field on this point.

northstardc4m wrote:

washingtonflyer wrote:

northstardc4m wrote:

Trump made campaign comments about it. His administration also refused to extend the agreement. He wanted to re-ignite that trade issue. No way you can argue he didn't want it to be an issue.

Let me say this, the issues on lumber are much deeper than you're giving credit to (i.e., blaming it only on Trump). The SLA expired in October 2015 (i.e., more than a year before Trump was elected).

I won't comment on the specifics on this one given that I have client interests on this, but suffice it to say, you're in left field on this point.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/softwoo ... -1.3853770

https://globalnews.ca/news/3401242/dona ... er-report/

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles ... -shouldn-t

https://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/? ... .bing.com/>

I can post endless more from both Canadian and US sources... all have Trump and his administration involved... how is he NOT making this political? I don't care what the legal technicalities of the current dispute are, the preamble to it was pure politics and reeks of protectionism not fair trade.

washingtonflyer wrote:

iamlucky13 wrote:

jeffrey0032j wrote:

It is then up to Bombardier to prove that the accusations are unfounded. I am sure the greater Canadian public (ie people outside Quebec) would also like to hear whether their tax monies have been worth it, there just seems to be a lot of Canadians who oppose of the bailout.

If Bombardier has a strong case, then they could present it to the government who should fight the case, unless both the Canadian government and Bombardier have things to hide from the public.

No. You've got things all mixed up.

Boeing proves it. There is no guilty until proven innocent. However, if Boeing establishes a credible case that a violation has taken place, which Commerce has accepted is the case, Bombardier does need to defend themselves or risk Boeing's claims being interpreted as being conceded.

The Canadian government is not directly involved at that point, but they certainly have the right to express their thoughts on the matter, or even to change other policies like military procurements if not restricted by trade rules. And the Canadian government does have a right to challenge whether or not actions the US takes internally that affect trade actually comply with the trade rules.

Actually, the Canadian government is directly involved in the subsidy case. The provincial governments (Quebec and Ontario) and the National government were required to provide questionnaire responses. They have the option and right to appear at the Trade Commission's hearing this fall as well.

washingtonflyer wrote:

northstardc4m wrote:

washingtonflyer wrote:

Let me say this, the issues on lumber are much deeper than you're giving credit to (i.e., blaming it only on Trump). The SLA expired in October 2015 (i.e., more than a year before Trump was elected).

I won't comment on the specifics on this one given that I have client interests on this, but suffice it to say, you're in left field on this point.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/softwoo ... -1.3853770

https://globalnews.ca/news/3401242/dona ... er-report/

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles ... -shouldn-t

https://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/? ... .bing.com/>

I can post endless more from both Canadian and US sources... all have Trump and his administration involved... how is he NOT making this political? I don't care what the legal technicalities of the current dispute are, the preamble to it was pure politics and reeks of protectionism not fair trade.

http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/o ... wood-talks

sebring wrote:

Air Baltic's CEO said today they are in the process of ordering an additional 14 CS300s, and that it is the best plane in its class.

LMFNINJA wrote:

sebring wrote:

Air Baltic's CEO said today they are in the process of ordering an additional 14 CS300s, and that it is the best plane in its class.

Some good news at last for Bombardier.

northstardc4m wrote:

In Europe LH is apparently getting closer to a decision to a buy to replace it's larger RJ operations

washingtonflyer wrote:

PPVRA wrote:

Sorry, but a tax benefit just isn't the same as a subsidy, no matter how many times people have attempted to argue otherwise. Never was and never will be, because it's in a completely separate category of incentive.

This might be semantics to some people, but there's a distinction.

Its not an equity infusion or loan forgiveness or a buyout, but the WTO does typically define tax programs as actionable or prohibited depending on the nature of the tax program.

sebring wrote:

Air Baltic's CEO said today they are in the process of ordering an additional 14 CS300s, and that it is the best plane in its class.

Waterbomber wrote:

Custom tariffs are usually reciprocal. So any Boeing aircraft is likely to be slapped with the same tariffs for import into Canada.
If the Cseries is kept out of the U.S., any Boeing aircraft will be kept out of Canada..

Waterbomber wrote:

BBD can take this issue all the way to Brazil

surfdog75 wrote:

They forgot to mention they didn't want to have to compete with Delta having the CSeries. It opens up a lot of possible new routes.

WaywardMemphian wrote:

sebring wrote:

Air Baltic's CEO said today they are in the process of ordering an additional 14 CS300s, and that it is the best plane in its class.

Bravo.

Again, Boeing pony up and get yourself a already new narrowbody to phase out the 737 with.

Waterbomber wrote:

Custom tariffs are usually reciprocal. So any Boeing aircraft is likely to be slapped with the same tariffs for import into Canada.
If the Cseries is kept out of the U.S., any Boeing aircraft will be kept out of Canada.

LAXintl wrote:

surfdog75 wrote:

They forgot to mention they didn't want to have to compete with Delta having the CSeries. It opens up a lot of possible new routes.

I'm not sure DL is going to be doing anything unique with these airplanes. As they explained at investor event only last month, primary mission for the plane at DL will be as upgauge tool from current 70-seater RJ markets, or downgauge from thinner A320/737 markets.

Also they won't be doing much if any long-thin flying with the model since the purchase agreement specifies the model won't operate above network average of 1,000NM as otherwise DL would need to pay BBD additional money for their use.

QAnyhow - AA already has a 100-seater the E190, which its has not found much utility with and will shed the fleet in favor of not filling the seat gap.

mercure1 wrote:

Bravo.

The nationalization of the C-series program stunk to no end, but then to use that financial lifeline as a crutch to dump product in a foreign market was one step too far.