Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, hOMSaR

 
PPVRA
Posts: 8440
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

Re: Boeing targets Bombardier for “price dumping” CSeries

Thu Sep 28, 2017 4:10 pm

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.


The main reason politicians support companies has to do with keeping the factory in their backyard, not corporate stuff. Not to mention, the DOC's decision applies tarffis to the aircraft whole or in parts:


"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."

https://www.commerce.gov/news/press-rel ... rvailing-1

Click on the Fact Sheet link half way down the press release.
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
washingtonflyer
Posts: 1602
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:45 pm

Re: Boeing targets Bombardier for “price dumping” CSeries

Thu Sep 28, 2017 4:25 pm

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?

Obviously the language is designed to prevent circumvention of any orders.
 
mikesbucky
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 7:17 am

Re: Boeing targets Bombardier for “price dumping” CSeries

Thu Sep 28, 2017 4:26 pm

Is it possible that Delta could point out that Boeing doesn't manufacture any aircraft that can be paired with a GTF and since the GTF is more efficient, it was a requirement of the RFP? Since Boeing couldn't comply with the RFP they therefore could not compete.
 
michikawa
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2017 3:18 pm

Re: Boeing targets Bombardier for “price dumping” CSeries

Thu Sep 28, 2017 4:35 pm

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?


Is it an imported aircraft when +55% of components are already in the USA?

Is it dumping when cash injection from a government is used to pay for goods in services rendered in the US?

There are lots for fun questions to be asked. I certainly hope the right people are asking them.
 
N47
Posts: 78
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2017 7:38 pm

Re: Boeing targets Bombardier for “price dumping” CSeries

Thu Sep 28, 2017 4:38 pm

Out of curiosity, if Boeing had not made the complain would the DOC have accused BBD of the price dumping?
 
jeffrey0032j
Posts: 770
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:11 pm

Re: Boeing targets Bombardier for “price dumping” CSeries

Thu Sep 28, 2017 4:41 pm

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:
washingtonflyer wrote:

He can't; he's just venting.


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.
 
surfdog75
Posts: 270
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 5:39 am

Re: Boeing targets Bombardier for “price dumping” CSeries

Thu Sep 28, 2017 4:55 pm

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.


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?
 
User avatar
northstardc4m
Posts: 3364
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2000 11:23 am

Re: Boeing targets Bombardier for “price dumping” CSeries

Thu Sep 28, 2017 5:04 pm

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.
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
 
tjh8402
Posts: 957
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:20 am

Re: Boeing targets Bombardier for “price dumping” CSeries

Thu Sep 28, 2017 5:13 pm

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
Posts: 466
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2006 1:53 pm

Re: Boeing targets Bombardier for “price dumping” CSeries

Thu Sep 28, 2017 5:29 pm

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
 
PPVRA
Posts: 8440
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

Re: Boeing targets Bombardier for “price dumping” CSeries

Thu Sep 28, 2017 5:34 pm

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


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.
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
iamlucky13
Posts: 1160
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:35 pm

Re: Boeing targets Bombardier for “price dumping” CSeries

Thu Sep 28, 2017 5:43 pm

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.


This is sort of a nitpick, although it does have some relevance to potential extreme courses of action like withdrawing from trade agreements, and when terms like "absolutely" are used, we should be precise:

While it is convenient to refer to this as international law, that's not really what it is.

It is US law that implements and enforces the WTO agreements and other treaties within the US. There is no such thing as international law because there is no international authority to enact and impose those laws. There are agreements between countries that they each individually decide whether or not to accede to.

Canada is still committed to following the terms of those agreements, however, which are generally mutually beneficial.
 
washingtonflyer
Posts: 1602
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:45 pm

Re: Boeing targets Bombardier for “price dumping” CSeries

Thu Sep 28, 2017 5:48 pm

N47 wrote:
Out of curiosity, if Boeing had not made the complain would the DOC have accused BBD of the price dumping?


The U.S. government can "self initiate" a case and there have been rumblings about that happening, but I do not believe that this would have been the product that Commerce would have selected for self-initiation.
 
washingtonflyer
Posts: 1602
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:45 pm

Re: Boeing targets Bombardier for “price dumping” CSeries

Thu Sep 28, 2017 5:50 pm

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?


The issue is that Boeing has alleged that there is a competing product, and several importers have stated that they too believe that there is overlap amongst the products. Lets also remember that the scope covers the CS300 which has been ordered by Republic. This board is amazingly silent on the issue of the CS300.
 
washingtonflyer
Posts: 1602
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:45 pm

Re: Boeing targets Bombardier for “price dumping” CSeries

Thu Sep 28, 2017 5:51 pm

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.


The Administration did not file a softwood case - the softwood producers did after an agreement to keep an existing price mechanism in place failed.
 
tjh8402
Posts: 957
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:20 am

Re: Boeing targets Bombardier for “price dumping” CSeries

Thu Sep 28, 2017 5:51 pm

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


I have left tax subsidies out because honestly how they work is beyond my understanding of accounting. I will say I am not crazy about them. That being said, I think the arguable difference between tax subsidies and what the Bombardier has received is that the tax subsidies would not make or break the 77X. Boeing would likely build the plane with or without them, whereas the CS (and Bombardier as a company) would not even exist without the subsidies. The tax subsidies are just how Washington and South Carolina compete for a plane that was going to be built somewhere, the question being where.

I should add that for the record I am very conflicted on this issue. I don't like the tax breaks that Boeing gets and I don't like the idea of tariffs. I like the idea of free trade. That being said, The fact that this plane and indeed manufacturer is basically a government project that only exists due to their support kind of throws free markets and free trade out the window. I also thought that the US automakers and US banks should not have been bailed out either, so this is not just nationalism, although as noted, at least the US government supposedly made money on TARP, whereas Bombardier appears to be a perpetually losing proposition.
 
User avatar
northstardc4m
Posts: 3364
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2000 11:23 am

Re: Boeing targets Bombardier for “price dumping” CSeries

Thu Sep 28, 2017 5:54 pm

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.


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.
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
 
iamlucky13
Posts: 1160
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:35 pm

Re: Boeing targets Bombardier for “price dumping” CSeries

Thu Sep 28, 2017 5:55 pm

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.


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.
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Topic Author
Posts: 24294
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

Re: Boeing targets Bombardier for “price dumping” CSeries

Thu Sep 28, 2017 5:55 pm

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
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
washingtonflyer
Posts: 1602
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:45 pm

Re: Boeing targets Bombardier for “price dumping” CSeries

Thu Sep 28, 2017 5:58 pm

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.
 
washingtonflyer
Posts: 1602
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:45 pm

Re: Boeing targets Bombardier for “price dumping” CSeries

Thu Sep 28, 2017 6:11 pm

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.


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.
 
surfdog75
Posts: 270
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 5:39 am

Re: Boeing targets Bombardier for “price dumping” CSeries

Thu Sep 28, 2017 6:11 pm

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


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.
 
washingtonflyer
Posts: 1602
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:45 pm

Re: Boeing targets Bombardier for “price dumping” CSeries

Thu Sep 28, 2017 6:12 pm

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.


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.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 11341
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

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

Thu Sep 28, 2017 6:16 pm

That is quite shameful. The US government siding with Boeing which has done it and worse and does accept an enormous amount of money.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
northstardc4m
Posts: 3364
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2000 11:23 am

Re: Boeing targets Bombardier for “price dumping” CSeries

Thu Sep 28, 2017 6:26 pm

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.


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.
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
 
sebring
Posts: 1331
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 12:08 am

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

Thu Sep 28, 2017 6:26 pm

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.
 
washingtonflyer
Posts: 1602
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:45 pm

Re: Boeing targets Bombardier for “price dumping” CSeries

Thu Sep 28, 2017 6:32 pm

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.


http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/o ... wood-talks
 
iamlucky13
Posts: 1160
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:35 pm

Re: Boeing targets Bombardier for “price dumping” CSeries

Thu Sep 28, 2017 6:38 pm

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.


True, but their involvement is not part of the decision making process or subject themselves to the decisions, so I'm suggesting Jeffrey is correct that so far this isn't the Canadian government's fight, but that doesn't make them irrelevant. I guess your point adds a further level of relevance.
 
User avatar
northstardc4m
Posts: 3364
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2000 11:23 am

Re: Boeing targets Bombardier for “price dumping” CSeries

Thu Sep 28, 2017 6:45 pm

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


Changes nothing from what i posted, and the most important quote from the whole article:

President Obama has no incentive to sign a new softwood deal during his last days in office — he’d gain little but the ire of U.S. producers,”

Obama was already in the lame duck period, no administration is going to sign a trade deal in that period. Trump made no attempt at negotiating it at all and made several statements, even during his campaign made statements, blasting the existing deal and promising tariffs, not the DOC, not the producers, he did and his people BEFORE any rulings. Again, Politics... he WANTS THESE TRADE ISSUES. He wants NAFTA on his terms or no NAFTA. He needs fuel to keep US politicians on his side... where am i not getting it?

Also from the same article:

Those quotas wouldn’t likely impact Canada, according to a recent analysis from Christensen. Canada’s share has recently fallen to 27 per cent as a result of B.C.’s mountain pine beetle infestation and tougher Quebec conservation policies, she noted. Christensen projected that this figure will decline naturally to 25 per cent over the next decade due to supply issues, even in the absence of a deal.

So really... Canada is already backing down from the production high according to that.
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 3308
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

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

Thu Sep 28, 2017 6:56 pm

Wow, so emotional here. Sure, do not buy from Boeing, I am sure Air Canada and Delta will get Airbus's "best" price knowing they are the only vendor.
 
Skywatcher
Posts: 874
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2002 11:19 am

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

Thu Sep 28, 2017 7:04 pm

This ruling is a sub-set of larger, more complex issues for sure (what constitutes a subsidy/what is government's role in international trade and so on). The truth is that BBD did lowball the price at least partially with the benefit of government funding and that the U.S. is 10x larger than Canada. Boeing invented and refined the game over many decades and are now so much larger that it has become irrelevant at this point in time. Slick Boeing is in the driver's seat while Canada and BBD are definitely holding a weak hand right now. Having said that, in the larger scheme of things it appears that the U.S. is lashing out at weaker friends (ex-friends?) along their slow but sure path of global decline. I'm sure the Russians and Chinese are loving this. Why does the current U.S. administration continue to attack traditional allies (UK/Canada/Australia/Mexico etc.)?
 
LMFNINJA
Posts: 115
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 5:11 pm

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

Thu Sep 28, 2017 7:17 pm

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.
 
godsbeloved
Posts: 65
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2017 11:32 pm

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

Thu Sep 28, 2017 7:18 pm

This America first policy reminds me of my history lessons in high school... We should all know what this will bring in the long term... I'd sell my Boeing shares and buy Airbus, Embraër and Comac instead.
 
bennett123
Posts: 9438
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

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

Thu Sep 28, 2017 7:24 pm

The scary thing is that if the DUP dump the govt leading to another election, then Corbyn could be the next PM.
 
User avatar
northstardc4m
Posts: 3364
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2000 11:23 am

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

Thu Sep 28, 2017 7:29 pm

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.


Oh BBD and the CSeries isn't dead. This is trouble to be sure and it's going to hurt, but Europe and China are both good market prospects for the CSeries. In Europe LH is apparently getting closer to a decision to a buy to replace it's larger RJ operations and their group member Swiss seems very happy with the CS. Baltic is doing well with them. Several other airlines will be replacing CRJ, EJets, A319s and ARJ/146s coming up, there is market for a couple hundred each for CS and E2... though the SSJ is a bit of a spoiler contender. BBD has been in heavy talks with all 3 major Chinese Airline groups (China Eastern, China Southwest and Air China) and there is potential for a whole lot of 100-150 seaters for China, to fit in under the domestic COMAC offerings.

If push comes to shove BBD can sell assets off or even all of Transportation (aka Rail) to keep Aero running. Rumors have been running for years about selling all or part of rail, especially with the LRT fiasco for Metrolinx/TTC.
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
 
User avatar
EMBSPBR
Posts: 640
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 9:03 pm

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

Thu Sep 28, 2017 8:14 pm

northstardc4m wrote:
In Europe LH is apparently getting closer to a decision to a buy to replace it's larger RJ operations


Sources ???
 
jagraham
Posts: 1039
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: Boeing targets Bombardier for “price dumping” CSeries

Thu Sep 28, 2017 8:21 pm

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.


Boeing and Airbus have been going back and forth on tax benefits for 787 vs A350 for years
 
Skywatcher
Posts: 874
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2002 11:19 am

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

Thu Sep 28, 2017 8:36 pm

One more thought. As a Canadian taxpayer I was never comfortable with the big discount that Delta obtained on their C-series order. I felt that my tax dollars were being used to subsidize an American airline and American passengers. In a way, now that I think about this ruling a bit more maybe it's not so bad that this deal could be scuttled by the Boeing ruling. Maybe Boeing can now take a loss on the 75 planes to Delta and delay their future innovation even longer with less profits to finance it?
 
Waterbomber
Posts: 849
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 11:51 am

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

Thu Sep 28, 2017 8:39 pm

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.

BBD can take this issue all the way to Brazil.
How much in subsidies have Embraer received to develop their Ejets series and now the E2?

I think though that this ruling is a godsend for BBD. Building free jets for DL is not going to help them out.
What they need is to start their production ramp-up to generate cash flow and launch the CS500 as soon as possible.
 
WaywardMemphian
Posts: 1473
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2014 9:05 pm

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

Thu Sep 28, 2017 8:48 pm

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.
 
User avatar
mercure1
Posts: 4683
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 5:13 am

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

Thu Sep 28, 2017 8:49 pm

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..


I think you are totally confused. Such random and punitive tariff would be in violation of trade agreements like NAFTA. Dont mix different fruits and different situations.

Waterbomber wrote:
BBD can take this issue all the way to Brazil


Actually, Embraer is at the doors of WTO with its own case against BBD. In August they filed for the establishment of dispute settlement panel to review illegal CSeries funding.

Btw - there is nothing illegal about launch aid. This has been case law for decades. Key is aid must either be based commercial terms or very narrowly defined exceptions, not simply government freebie or takeover.
mercure f-wtcc
 
cuban8
Posts: 252
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 7:17 pm

Re: Boeing targets Bombardier for “price dumping” CSeries

Thu Sep 28, 2017 9:02 pm

[quote="chiawei"]Bombardier has over $5 billion in direct handout from Canadian government since 2000 and has paid $0 back.

Sounds like a Canadian way of program accounting to me.
When business goes to hell, you get rid of three things. Your private jet, your yacht and your mistress..........and most importantly in that order.
~ Russian Billionaire ~
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Topic Author
Posts: 24294
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

Re: Boeing targets Bombardier for “price dumping” CSeries

Thu Sep 28, 2017 9:12 pm

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.

Anyhow - 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.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
cumulushumilis
Posts: 230
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2016 8:49 pm

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

Thu Sep 28, 2017 9:17 pm

There are lot of people talking about Canadian government handouts, I am wondering though, a lot of aircraft financing is done through Ex-Im Bank in the US and if there has been an accounting of those transactions done with Boeing and foreign airlines? With Bombardier there is no questioning that there was benefit from direct subsidies, I remember hearing about about Boeing being involved in shady Ex-Im financing deals. Anybody remember those?
 
tjh8402
Posts: 957
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:20 am

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

Thu Sep 28, 2017 9:23 pm

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.


Just like BBD ponied up for theirs? Maybe if a government was willing to pay Boeing to do it they would.
 
Eyad89
Posts: 664
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 10:47 pm

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

Thu Sep 28, 2017 9:25 pm

This whole thing made me think of how the US government dealt with the US3 repetitive and persistent complaints over the ME3 subsidies. Could it be that the US goverment is always after what benefits Boeing?

In the ME3 complaints, Boeing would be better off with the government siding against the US3, and it seems the goverment chose to ignore those complaints. Now, we have this. Am I thinking too much into it? Or is Boeing just very influential?
 
washingtonflyer
Posts: 1602
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:45 pm

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

Thu Sep 28, 2017 9:27 pm

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.


Simply incorrect. The tariff that has been preliminary implemented in the USA is the result of a legally permissible investigation as to unfair international trade practices. Countries may not unilaterally enact a counter tariff merely because a product of that country has been found to be dumped in another market.
 
surfdog75
Posts: 270
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 5:39 am

Re: Boeing targets Bombardier for “price dumping” CSeries

Thu Sep 28, 2017 9:39 pm

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.


If you listen to DL network people they certainly think the CSeries is a game changer. Even better if AA mainline sheds its own 100 seater I would think. UA and SWA also have nothing to offer in that category.
 
danj555
Posts: 226
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 7:16 am

Re: Boeing targets Bombardier for “price dumping” CSeries

Thu Sep 28, 2017 10:13 pm

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.



Totally agree. But what happens to the delta order?

Do they still get it at the previously agreed upon price?
Does bombardier have to pay the difference?
Does Delta?
Or is it gunna be scrapped all together?
 
User avatar
chrisnh
Posts: 4135
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 1999 3:59 am

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

Thu Sep 28, 2017 10:21 pm

With all the caterwauling Delta did about the ME3 and government subsidies and here they are happily taking advantage of same. That’s so them.

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