wrongwayup
Posts: 392
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 6:23 pm

Re: Boeing targets Bombardier for “price dumping” CSeries

Thu Sep 28, 2017 10:22 pm

danj555 wrote:
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?


Technically, whoever imports the plane (the "Importer of Record") pays the duty. Under normal circumstances, Delta would take delivery of the aircraft in Mirabel, and import it to the United States. What will happen now remains to be seen.
 
User avatar
EMBSPBR
Posts: 573
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 9:03 pm

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

Thu Sep 28, 2017 10:47 pm

Waterbomber wrote:
How much in subsidies have Embraer received to develop their Ejets series and now the E2?


None, neither for the E1 nor for the E2.
In the case for E2, still worse if Embraer had to be backed financially by our broken brazilian government.

Embraer was contracted by the Brazilian government for the KC-390 project to be used by the Brazilian Air Force (FAB). The project follows the requirements and impositions made by FAB, which works to date with Embraer in the development and certification of the aircraft. In 2008, the Brazilian federal government granted Embraer US $ 270 million to the development and construction of two prototypes. Embraer sought venture partners for the development of the aircraft (Argentina, Colombia - which later withdrew from the project, Portugal and Czech Republic) as the federal government budget barely covered development costs, let alone the construction of two prototypes. In 2009, the Brazilian Senate approved an additional US $ 1.3 billion for the purchase of the two prototypes and for the beginning of the production of another 28 units ordered by FAB, which in the end would cost another US $ 2.4 billion, including logistics support, fleet maintenance and spare parts. This money should come from the PAC - Economic Acceleration Program and would be paid in installments gradually over the course of the program. The first production line units should be delivered as from the first quarter of 2017. However, due to the political and economic crisis experienced by Brazil in 2015, the Brazilian government delayed payments, causing Embraer to use its own funds so that at least aircraft development and testing costs would continue (the first prototype flew in February 2015 and the second prototype in April 2016). This has led to the rescheduling of the delivery of the first line aircraft to FAB, which is expected to happen from the second half of 2018.
Due to the project being intellectual property of the federal government, it is worth remembering that Embraer will pay the Brazilian government about 10% of royalties for each aircraft sold other than to the Brazilian Air Force.
 
Hamlet69
Posts: 2540
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 2:45 am

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

Fri Sep 29, 2017 12:45 am

As much as my heart wants to me side with BBD on this (who doesn't like rooting for the underdog?), my head just won't do it. And I think most people who have been replying to this thread are speaking (writing) from their hearts, not their heads. Which is why we see so many condemnations about how big, bad and evil Boeing is to pick on little BBD. While very, very few relies have even tried to defend what BBD has actually done.

So let's take a breath for a minute, and look at the situation just in the last couple years (we'll ignore previous government 'investment' in BBD): After years of struggling to find orders, BBD took a $3.2 billion writeoff due to losses on the CSeries. At the same time, they requested financial help from both the Quebec government and the federal government in order to continue operations. Without which, many expected BBD to collapse.

The Quebec government 'invested' $1 Billion into the CSeries (that's not counting the $1.5B the Quebec pension fund contributed). And what did BBD do with that money? They almost immediately lost a full 1/2 of it. By their own admission, they took a $500 million dollar charge due to 'onerous contracts' directly due to the Air Canada and Delta orders. That's a $4.2 million loss PER FRAME (minimum - they still have to build and deliver). And that's just what they are admitting to right now. For those who think the tax break Boeing got from WA state is bad, BBD's is 10x worse. Seriously, do the math.

We now also know that BBD asked the federal government for ANOTHER $1B (because, you know, they've spent the first Billion so well). In the end, they 'only' got $296 million. Interest free. For those following the decade-long (and counting) WTO case between Boeing and Airbus, you will know that the WTO found Airbus's loans illegal (though not prohibited) because they were below market rates. But even those were still not interest free.

So yes. The 219% tariff is ridiculous (the 79% Boeing was actually asking was ridiculous, but at least in the same ball park). But come on. Anyone looking at this objectively knows this is pure, baseless subsidy at its worst. And the fact it is happening after Airbus and Boeing have been through their massive WTO proceedings where the lines between what is allowed and what is not have been much more firmly established? No. This is BBD and Canada either: A) hoping nobody would notice, or B) just saying 'we don't give a f$%&'.

So no. I cannot support BBD in this. As much as that pains my heart.

Regards,

Hamlet69
All gave some. Some gave all.
 
D L X
Posts: 12515
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

Re: Boeing targets Bombardier for “price dumping” CSeries

Fri Sep 29, 2017 2:45 am

Amiga500 wrote:
D L X wrote:
Appealed to NAFTA?! What are you talking about?


I suggest you look through the routes this can take. Yes, initial appeal is within the US, but eventually the road leads up to NAFTA or WTO*.

*I believe the process can be an "either" at this point, but could be wrong - it could be NAFTA then WTO as the final port of call.



I am a lawyer that practices before the ITC. Perhaps I should listen to you tell me about how the ITC works, or perhaps you should listen to me tell you about how the ITC works. One or the other.

If you have a case citation for an ITC case getting overrules by NAFTA, I will gladly take a look. Please share it. In fairness, I don’t do a lot of tarriff cases there, but I’m rather familiar with the procedures.
 
D L X
Posts: 12515
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

Re: Boeing targets Bombardier for “price dumping” CSeries

Fri Sep 29, 2017 2:51 am

washingtonflyer wrote:
D L X wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:
Its a kangaroo court verdict.


No it’s not. This is the United States International Trade Commission, a very important court that takes its job extremely seriously.

And there are no verdicts there because there is no jury. It has an administrative law judge who presided over the case.


Incorrect, it was voted on by the members of the Commission - of which there were four at the time. ALJs play no role in Title VII cases.

D L X wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:
I suppose when it'd be appealed to NAFTA, it would be quashed, but there is plenty of water to pass under the bridge before we get to that point.


Appealed to NAFTA?! What are you talking about?

It will be appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, where it will be heard by a three judge panel.


You're both kind of right. Under NAFTA, BBD would have the right to seek that a NAFTA binational panel hear the case. If they don't opt for this, but still want to appeal, the route of appeal goes to the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York - heard by a single judge. An appeal of that verdict would go to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for a three-judge panel.

D L X wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:
Now, this being the ITC, I believe the president (as in Donald Trump) gets 90 Days to review the tariff during which time he may decide to cancel it. While the ITC must select a tariff based purely on law, presidential action is purely politics. So if you are bothered by this judgment, your audience lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20500.


Not reviewable by the President.[/quote]
Thanks. I do section 337 cases frequently. I’m sorta familiar with the title vii stuff, but you sound like you work those cases.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 3268
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

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

Fri Sep 29, 2017 3:50 am

And the Seattle Times report from Dominic Gates:

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... aller-jet/

Likely a large number of us Boeing fans and PNW citizens agree
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
luv2cattlecall
Posts: 810
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 6:25 am

Re: Boeing targets Bombardier for “price dumping” CSeries

Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:51 am

LAXintl wrote:
[
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.
.


I hadn't heard about the 1,000nm thing before.. Are any more details available? Is that a common agreement anywhere else in aviation? How would the average flight length impact BBD's costs to build the aircraft in any way? Feels almost like DL is licensing the aircraft, not buying it.
 
washingtonflyer
Posts: 1528
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:45 pm

Re: Boeing targets Bombardier for “price dumping” CSeries

Fri Sep 29, 2017 5:18 am

D L X wrote:
washingtonflyer wrote:
D L X wrote:

No it’s not. This is the United States International Trade Commission, a very important court that takes its job extremely seriously.

And there are no verdicts there because there is no jury. It has an administrative law judge who presided over the case.


Incorrect, it was voted on by the members of the Commission - of which there were four at the time. ALJs play no role in Title VII cases.

D L X wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:
I suppose when it'd be appealed to NAFTA, it would be quashed, but there is plenty of water to pass under the bridge before we get to that point.


Appealed to NAFTA?! What are you talking about?

It will be appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, where it will be heard by a three judge panel.


You're both kind of right. Under NAFTA, BBD would have the right to seek that a NAFTA binational panel hear the case. If they don't opt for this, but still want to appeal, the route of appeal goes to the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York - heard by a single judge. An appeal of that verdict would go to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for a three-judge panel.

D L X wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:
Now, this being the ITC, I believe the president (as in Donald Trump) gets 90 Days to review the tariff during which time he may decide to cancel it. While the ITC must select a tariff based purely on law, presidential action is purely politics. So if you are bothered by this judgment, your audience lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20500.


Not reviewable by the President.

Thanks. I do section 337 cases frequently. I’m sorta familiar with the title vii stuff, but you sound like you work those cases.[/quote]

Yeah, I've worked on about two or three 337s - my background is not tech so I leave those cases to the IP group. Our Title VII group is pretty busy as of right now. Its very humorous to read the press articles or message board articles trying to explain how the process supposedly works or what steps are next when it is clear that the articles are cobbling together snippets from uninformed sources or are basing statements off of partial reads of press releases.

Comments about ALJs in Title VII cases, juries, damages being awarded, Commerce making threat determinations, etc., are all amusing, but obviously incorrect. Its a very technical practice area (as is the 337 practice). I don't profess to have any 337 expertise and I'm glad that when I was doing the 337s that we had a former USITC OUII attorney leading the charge.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8949
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

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

Fri Sep 29, 2017 5:48 am

Skywatcher wrote:
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.)?


Yes, but that part is not considered in the current decision. The lowballing on price made possible by government aid is not part of this ruling, which focussed solely on "illegal" government help. All points listed against BBD are also listed by Boeing against Airbus. And I am sure they would be listed against COMAC too.
 
c933103
Posts: 3891
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

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

Fri Sep 29, 2017 6:18 am

Hamlet69 wrote:
As much as my heart wants to me side with BBD on this (who doesn't like rooting for the underdog?), my head just won't do it. And I think most people who have been replying to this thread are speaking (writing) from their hearts, not their heads. Which is why we see so many condemnations about how big, bad and evil Boeing is to pick on little BBD. While very, very few relies have even tried to defend what BBD has actually done.

So let's take a breath for a minute, and look at the situation just in the last couple years (we'll ignore previous government 'investment' in BBD): After years of struggling to find orders, BBD took a $3.2 billion writeoff due to losses on the CSeries. At the same time, they requested financial help from both the Quebec government and the federal government in order to continue operations. Without which, many expected BBD to collapse.

The Quebec government 'invested' $1 Billion into the CSeries (that's not counting the $1.5B the Quebec pension fund contributed). And what did BBD do with that money? They almost immediately lost a full 1/2 of it. By their own admission, they took a $500 million dollar charge due to 'onerous contracts' directly due to the Air Canada and Delta orders. That's a $4.2 million loss PER FRAME (minimum - they still have to build and deliver). And that's just what they are admitting to right now. For those who think the tax break Boeing got from WA state is bad, BBD's is 10x worse. Seriously, do the math.

We now also know that BBD asked the federal government for ANOTHER $1B (because, you know, they've spent the first Billion so well). In the end, they 'only' got $296 million. Interest free. For those following the decade-long (and counting) WTO case between Boeing and Airbus, you will know that the WTO found Airbus's loans illegal (though not prohibited) because they were below market rates. But even those were still not interest free.

So yes. The 219% tariff is ridiculous (the 79% Boeing was actually asking was ridiculous, but at least in the same ball park). But come on. Anyone looking at this objectively knows this is pure, baseless subsidy at its worst. And the fact it is happening after Airbus and Boeing have been through their massive WTO proceedings where the lines between what is allowed and what is not have been much more firmly established? No. This is BBD and Canada either: A) hoping nobody would notice, or B) just saying 'we don't give a f$%&'.

So no. I cannot support BBD in this. As much as that pains my heart.

Regards,

Hamlet69

So, after they have made a lost making product, they are not allowed to sell their aircraft at the value of what their aircraft would have worth to recover at least part of their lost?
Peace cannot counter violence when violence are being used by the powerful without mercy. #HongKong
But there is one possible exception. That is if the world could come together and make those who use violence lose their power. #China
 
Ugly51
Posts: 114
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2016 7:48 am

Re: Boeing targets Bombardier for “price dumping” CSeries

Fri Sep 29, 2017 8:03 am

planespotter20 wrote:
Boeing will end up paying the most in the end. Because what goes around comes around. As many have said, they’ve pissed off Canada and Delta, and that’s a start.

With the narrow body delta order coming soon, I wonder what will happen then...

But, If Boeing finds this as an effective tool, and they can lure the us government to tax anything that much, what’s stopping them from declaring price dumping on airbus/BBD orders in the future? I’m sure that the prices delta got were not super absurdly low compared to some of Boeing’s and airbus deals..

If the US government considers a 50% or more discount by a foreign aircraft manufacturer as “price dumping,” and boeing deciders to claim them as these, then I don’t see many airbus deals happening soon in the US.


You probably won't see many orders now outside the USA for the 778/77X. Just a question...When was the last time the USAF brought a foreign jet onto their service inventory?
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2496
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Boeing targets Bombardier for “price dumping” CSeries

Fri Sep 29, 2017 8:16 am

D L X wrote:
I am a lawyer that practices before the ITC.


https://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/Home/Te ... 8d531d0aba


edit: Has someone moved this thread and messed it all up?!?
Last edited by Amiga500 on Fri Sep 29, 2017 8:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
Waterbomber
Posts: 849
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 11:51 am

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

Fri Sep 29, 2017 8:21 am

mercure1 wrote:
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.


Any country can impose any tariffs they want at any time. What the U.S. is now doing to BBD, Canada can do to Boeing. The U.S. can blame launch aid, Canada can use the same arguments that Airbus brings before the WTO, ie subsidies in the form of R&D support from NASA, government contracts, etc...
The U.S. hasn't exactly slapped Canada on the hand here, they're trying to kill BBD, one of the top 10 largest direct employers in the country. You can bet that Canada won't sit by, there will be major retaliations.
 
Jomar777
Posts: 399
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 8:45 am

Re: Boeing targets Bombardier for “price dumping” CSeries

Fri Sep 29, 2017 9:03 am

sekant wrote:
Jomar777 wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:

Both of your qualifiers are irrelevant to the matter.

Subsidies are subsidies no matter how big or what form they take. Be it zero interest loans, tax breaks, grants etc.

Indeed, acquiring shares (as Quebec have done) would by and by large be considered an investment rather than subsidy!


You may be literally correct but not, let's say, commercially legally.

A subsidy which is granted to an entity on a loss making project and where that entity has not paid neither has no way to pay it back is simply an unfair trade advantage. The Quebec Government share acquisition on a entity like this would be simply questionable - if used to leverage this argument - on the grounds that an unfeasible investment with no chance of return was granted.

Now when a subsidy is granted on a project that yields profit, then you can classify that so called subsidy as investment since either it is repaid in cash or a economy injection through jobs and taxes. To my knowledge, one way or another Boeing is liable for taxes on their operations so, even if they do get away with it with other mechanisms (this would be another story...), you can always argue that the US Government is getting their money back.

BBD's investments in the UK and Canada so far amounts to a bottomless pit where no chance of recovery is due. It gets worse if they start selling planes on a absurd loss making deal where further losses on production are accumulated.


Your understanding or definition of acceptable subsidies is more than particular.

What you are saying is that predatory subsidies by state A that aims or has the effect of destroying an entire industry in state B is fine, provided that state A recoup its expenses.

This is not only contrary to all international rules related to subsidies, it is simply out there conceptually speaking. You are basically justifying the core objectionable element of any subsidy.


I am not justifying neither defending it.
This is just a clear example on how to get away with it in the courts and disputes. It is a mechanism that is probably similar to what A and B are using to justify their own cash injections.
It seems that not many people can argument/sue/dispute with them so it must be working. BBD tried and it did not work because, again, they did not sell C-Series elsewhere in a number to warrant a conception that this is a profitable project. Never mind the quality of the aircraft.
It is like for example you drive extremely fast on French Motorways using a foreign plated car. Cameras might flash but you will not get a fine unless you get stopped by a pursuit vehicle. It is not right, I do not condone but people do it with reasonable level of success due to the fact that EU countries do not share their drivers database between them...
 
gfly
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 5:51 pm

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

Fri Sep 29, 2017 9:04 am

Just because a company is entitled under various laws to file a complaint and seek relief through penalties, injunctions and tariffs, does not mean this is in its best long-term commercial interests. Evidently, the parishoners of the Made in Seattle church cannot begin to comprehend how the rest of the world perceives these Made in S relationships. Of course, why bother when you can stack the deck? The bean counters, lobbyists and PR guys for B may love all this, but like someone wrote here, what goes around comes around. And it will come around.
 
Jomar777
Posts: 399
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 8:45 am

Re: Boeing targets Bombardier for “price dumping” CSeries

Fri Sep 29, 2017 9:05 am

Jayafe wrote:
Jomar777 wrote:
Dalmd88 wrote:
Trudeau has stated the purchase of Boeing's F/A-18 Super Hornet is now in jeopardy. Sometimes winning isn't a great thing/.


Yep. He can always buy Sukhoi's aircraft They would be available (maybe... no wait!!! He may buy a fight when the SSJ100 starts to east into BBD worldwide interests...).

He might be able to get some Grippens also if SAAB can shift fast enough...


http://www.skynews.com.au/news/politics ... -jets.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Rafale
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_ ... ghtning_II


You can take out Lockheed Martin from the list, my friend, since if Trudeau goes full hog just as the UK Government is threatening (OK... it is an empty threat but...), they will not by anything from US.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3258
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: Boeing targets Bombardier for “price dumping” CSeries

Fri Sep 29, 2017 9:44 am

Jomar777 wrote:
Jayafe wrote:
Jomar777 wrote:

Yep. He can always buy Sukhoi's aircraft They would be available (maybe... no wait!!! He may buy a fight when the SSJ100 starts to east into BBD worldwide interests...).

He might be able to get some Grippens also if SAAB can shift fast enough...


http://www.skynews.com.au/news/politics ... -jets.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Rafale
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_ ... ghtning_II


You can take out Lockheed Martin from the list, my friend, since if Trudeau goes full hog just as the UK Government is threatening (OK... it is an empty threat but...), they will not by anything from US.

Not really, as the communication coming out from both the British and the Canadian governments indicate they are more upset with Boeing, than with the US in general, and thus want to punish Boeing more.
 
NZ321
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

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

Fri Sep 29, 2017 9:51 am

Delta could arrange to lease the aircraft at attractive rates from a foreign lessor, yes?
Plane mad!
 
washingtonflyer
Posts: 1528
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:45 pm

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

Fri Sep 29, 2017 11:07 am

Waterbomber wrote:
mercure1 wrote:
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.


Any country can impose any tariffs they want at any time. What the U.S. is now doing to BBD, Canada can do to Boeing. The U.S. can blame launch aid, Canada can use the same arguments that Airbus brings before the WTO, ie subsidies in the form of R&D support from NASA, government contracts, etc...
The U.S. hasn't exactly slapped Canada on the hand here, they're trying to kill BBD, one of the top 10 largest direct employers in the country. You can bet that Canada won't sit by, there will be major retaliations.


As I've stated earlier, you can only enact a trade tariff if an industry inside that produces the same or comparable good can demonstrate that it is injured and the injury is the result of imports. There is an investigative process and Canadian law requires that a party seek redress from the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (the equivalent of the USITC) and the Canadian Border Services Agency (which is a blend of USDOC and USCBP).

Could BBD file a case on 737s? Yes. Could BBD file a case on FA-18s or 777s? No.
 
washingtonflyer
Posts: 1528
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:45 pm

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

Fri Sep 29, 2017 11:08 am

NZ321 wrote:
Delta could arrange to lease the aircraft at attractive rates from a foreign lessor, yes?


Middleman dumping. No.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

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

Fri Sep 29, 2017 11:15 am

gfly wrote:
Just because a company is entitled under various laws to file a complaint and seek relief through penalties, injunctions and tariffs, does not mean this is in its best long-term commercial interests. Evidently, the parishoners of the Made in Seattle church cannot begin to comprehend how the rest of the world perceives these Made in S relationships. Of course, why bother when you can stack the deck? The bean counters, lobbyists and PR guys for B may love all this, but like someone wrote here, what goes around comes around. And it will come around.


Parishioners of the made in Seattle church? WTF? Airbus is benefitting from this just as much as Boeing is. Neither Airbus nor Boeing want Bombardier getting government funds amd selling airplanes at a loss.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8949
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

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

Fri Sep 29, 2017 11:18 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
gfly wrote:
Just because a company is entitled under various laws to file a complaint and seek relief through penalties, injunctions and tariffs, does not mean this is in its best long-term commercial interests. Evidently, the parishoners of the Made in Seattle church cannot begin to comprehend how the rest of the world perceives these Made in S relationships. Of course, why bother when you can stack the deck? The bean counters, lobbyists and PR guys for B may love all this, but like someone wrote here, what goes around comes around. And it will come around.


Parishioners of the made in Seattle church? WTF? Airbus is benefitting from this just as much as Boeing is.


And Airbus did receive similar help as BBD according to Boeing.
 
D L X
Posts: 12515
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

Re: Boeing targets Bombardier for “price dumping” CSeries

Fri Sep 29, 2017 12:25 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
D L X wrote:
I am a lawyer that practices before the ITC.


https://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/Home/Te ... 8d531d0aba


edit: Has someone moved this thread and messed it all up?!?

Yeah, you’re going to have to provide a better citation than that. What part of that broad page do you want me to focus on?
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2496
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Boeing targets Bombardier for “price dumping” CSeries

Fri Sep 29, 2017 1:09 pm

D L X wrote:
Yeah, you’re going to have to provide a better citation than that. What part of that broad page do you want me to focus on?


No, I'm not.

Numerous statements indicating that NAFTA is a resolution body for disputes over the imposition of import tariffs.

You now have to produce something official that says it isn't.
 
washingtonflyer
Posts: 1528
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:45 pm

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

Fri Sep 29, 2017 1:13 pm

Under NAFTA, parties to a title VII case in the USA (or whatever equivalent there is in Mexico or Canada), have the option of appealing a determination by a government authority to the proper federal court or to seek review by a NAFTA binational panel.

So, if Mexico is accused of dumping agave nectar in the United States and the USDOC and/or USITC rules in favor of the US industry, an interested Mexican party can appeal the determination to 1) the Court of International Trade in New York or 2) to the NAFTA bi-national panel which will convene a group of panelists to hear the case. Its the option of the plaintiff to pick the forum, and there have been debates as to which forum yields better results.

https://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/Home/Welcome
 
User avatar
EMBSPBR
Posts: 573
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 9:03 pm

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

Fri Sep 29, 2017 1:22 pm

It´s getting worse ...
"WTO to Probe Canadian Jet Subsidies in New Blow to Bombardier"

Source: www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09 ... bombardier

The World Trade Organization approved Brazil’s request to investigate Canada’s alleged use of more than $3 billion in government subsidies to produce Bombardier Inc. aircraft.

The South American nation began WTO consultations in February, saying Canada ran afoul of trade rules because its policies unfairly bolstered the domestic aerospace industry to the detriment of Brazilian planemaker Embraer SA. Canada offered billions of dollars in loans, equity infusions, grants, and tax credits to Bombardier, Brazil said.

The probe by the Geneva-based trade body adds to pressure on Montreal-based Bombardier just days after the U.S. Commerce Department slapped import duties of about 220 percent on the company’s C Series jets. That followed an investigation that began after a complaint by Boeing Co.

At the WTO, Brazil said Canada’s various aircraft subsidies violate WTO rules because they are contingent on export performance and require the use of domestic over imported goods.

The WTO will now appoint three dispute-settlement panelists to determine whether Canada’s various financing programs for Bombardier violated international trade rules. Though such investigations typically take less than a year, a ruling in this case may be extended to 2019 because of delays and staffing shortages at the WTO.
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 3204
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

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

Fri Sep 29, 2017 1:32 pm

EMBSPBR wrote:
It´s getting worse ...
"WTO to Probe Canadian Jet Subsidies in New Blow to Bombardier"

Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... bombardier

The World Trade Organization approved Brazil’s request to investigate Canada’s alleged use of more than $3 billion in government subsidies to produce Bombardier Inc. aircraft.

The South American nation began WTO consultations in February, saying Canada ran afoul of trade rules because its policies unfairly bolstered the domestic aerospace industry to the detriment of Brazilian planemaker Embraer SA. Canada offered billions of dollars in loans, equity infusions, grants, and tax credits to Bombardier, Brazil said.

The probe by the Geneva-based trade body adds to pressure on Montreal-based Bombardier just days after the U.S. Commerce Department slapped import duties of about 220 percent on the company’s C Series jets. That followed an investigation that began after a complaint by Boeing Co.

At the WTO, Brazil said Canada’s various aircraft subsidies violate WTO rules because they are contingent on export performance and require the use of domestic over imported goods.

The WTO will now appoint three dispute-settlement panelists to determine whether Canada’s various financing programs for Bombardier violated international trade rules. Though such investigations typically take less than a year, a ruling in this case may be extended to 2019 because of delays and staffing shortages at the WTO.


When it rains it pours.........Wow. I wander as a way out, if Boeing doesn't make BBD an offer on its aerospace program? The end game is somebody is buying BBD aerospace, Boeing or Airbus.
Last edited by william on Fri Sep 29, 2017 1:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 3204
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

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

Fri Sep 29, 2017 1:36 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
gfly wrote:
Just because a company is entitled under various laws to file a complaint and seek relief through penalties, injunctions and tariffs, does not mean this is in its best long-term commercial interests. Evidently, the parishoners of the Made in Seattle church cannot begin to comprehend how the rest of the world perceives these Made in S relationships. Of course, why bother when you can stack the deck? The bean counters, lobbyists and PR guys for B may love all this, but like someone wrote here, what goes around comes around. And it will come around.


Parishioners of the made in Seattle church? WTF? Airbus is benefitting from this just as much as Boeing is. Neither Airbus nor Boeing want Bombardier getting government funds amd selling airplanes at a loss.


Shhhhhh..............Thats the little secret that must not be stated here on Anet. That Airbus is trying hard not to smile publicly about this rulling. BBD was more of a competitor to Airbus than Boeing. Especially in turboprops...........Shhhhhhh..............Now, back to bashing Boeing.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

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

Fri Sep 29, 2017 1:42 pm

william wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
gfly wrote:
Just because a company is entitled under various laws to file a complaint and seek relief through penalties, injunctions and tariffs, does not mean this is in its best long-term commercial interests. Evidently, the parishoners of the Made in Seattle church cannot begin to comprehend how the rest of the world perceives these Made in S relationships. Of course, why bother when you can stack the deck? The bean counters, lobbyists and PR guys for B may love all this, but like someone wrote here, what goes around comes around. And it will come around.


Parishioners of the made in Seattle church? WTF? Airbus is benefitting from this just as much as Boeing is. Neither Airbus nor Boeing want Bombardier getting government funds amd selling airplanes at a loss.


Shhhhhh..............Thats the little secret that must not be stated here on Anet. That Airbus is trying hard not to smile publicly about this rulling. BBD was more of a competitor to Airbus than Boeing. Especially in turboprops...........Shhhhhhh..............Now, back to bashing Boeing.


Sorry for bringing up Airbus. I didn't realize that the intention of this thread was to bash Boeing. Should we bash Embraer too for bringing up subsidies to Bombardier up to the WTO?
 
sxf24
Posts: 882
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:22 pm

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

Fri Sep 29, 2017 1:49 pm

cumulushumilis wrote:
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?


The only US airline that’s received Ex-Im Bank financing is Delta. Setting that aside, I don’t think export credit financing can be reasonably brought in to this discussion. Airbus, Boeing, Bombardier and Embraer are each supported by 1 or more export credit agencies. They are supposed to operate on a level playing field under an agreement called the Aircraft Sector Understanding that insures the terms are the same between country.

Canada has historically allowed Export Development Canada (EDC) to take a lenient approach to following the Aircraft Sector Understanding. As a result, Bombardier has enjoyed much greater access and support to export credit than Boeing. Some of Delta’s CRJ-900s were financed by EDC and EDC reportedly told Delta it could finance C-Series if needed, something that Airbus and Boeing can’t do in the U.S.
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 1780
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

Re: Boeing targets Bombardier for “price dumping” CSeries

Fri Sep 29, 2017 2:08 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
Has someone moved this thread and messed it all up?!?


Yep - I just wasted at least ten minutes trying to found out what my real "last unread" was!
"As with most things related to aircraft design, it's all about the trade-offs and much more nuanced than A.net likes to make out."
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 1780
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

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

Fri Sep 29, 2017 2:13 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
gfly wrote:
Just because a company is entitled under various laws to file a complaint and seek relief through penalties, injunctions and tariffs, does not mean this is in its best long-term commercial interests. Evidently, the parishoners of the Made in Seattle church cannot begin to comprehend how the rest of the world perceives these Made in S relationships. Of course, why bother when you can stack the deck? The bean counters, lobbyists and PR guys for B may love all this, but like someone wrote here, what goes around comes around. And it will come around.


Parishioners of the made in Seattle church? WTF? Airbus is benefitting from this just as much as Boeing is. Neither Airbus nor Boeing want Bombardier getting government funds amd selling airplanes at a loss.


Actually, I don't think that's how it's perceived over here at all. This looks like Boeing and the US government being unbelievably selfish, hypocritical and - frankly - stupid. They're acting in absolutely no-one's interest... I was going to say "except their own" but I think even that is wrong.

Everyone knows that governments - including the US government - value the contribution of their aerospace sector and will assist the starting up of new programmes in various ways. It's the utter hypocrisy of Boeing and the US pretending they haven't or wouldn't have done the same kinds of thing for their own business... and then obviously creating this fictional drama whose only purpose can be to destroy another country's industry.
Last edited by SomebodyInTLS on Fri Sep 29, 2017 2:21 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"As with most things related to aircraft design, it's all about the trade-offs and much more nuanced than A.net likes to make out."
 
User avatar
EMBSPBR
Posts: 573
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 9:03 pm

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

Fri Sep 29, 2017 2:16 pm

Source: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ie-441644/

OPINION: Trade ruling poses big questions for CSeries

Despite enjoying the longest bull market run in ­aviation history, Bombardier’s commercial aircraft division was in a weak position when the day started on 26 September. A cash-critical production ramp-up for the CSeries was plagued by delays, while ­Bombardier’s sales staff still had not proved – nearly a decade after the programme’s launch – that the small narrowbody family can be sold for a profit.

And then it got worse – much worse. By the end of the day, the CSeries programme was facing the gravest crisis yet in its already difficult history.

Following Boeing’s call for a 226% mark-up in combined duties over allegations of illegal subsidies, the US administration’s Department of Commerce slapped a preliminary 220% tariff on the 75 CS100s due for ­delivery to Delta Air Lines. If the preliminary tariff decision is made final, the CSeries may be finished.

Bombardier can still appeal against the US government’s ruling in international forums, but uncertainty surrounding the outcome will cloud its future.

The airframer acknowledged in financial statements that it had sold the CSeries at a loss to Delta in April 2016, while it secured financial bail-outs from the Quebec provincial government and the federal ­treasury in Ottawa.

A year later, Boeing capitalised on the newly-elected US President Donald Trump’s protectionist agenda to bring a legal hammer down on Delta’s CSeries deal.

Boeing’s objections to Bombardier’s loss-making Delta sale – after racking up $30 billion in deferred production costs on the 787 while securing billions in state tax credits for the 777X – can be viewed as aggressive, hardball tactics or rank hypocrisy.

For the CSeries, however, it does not matter. Unless doubt surrounding the tariffs is removed completely and swiftly, Bombardier is likely to lose the Delta order and gain a gaping hole in the programme’s production schedule for the next two years.

Bombardier has delivered an excellent aircraft, but it did not engineer a product that can compete with the industrial scale and financial power of Airbus and Boeing, or against government policies that protect them.

In a few years, the Comac C919 will be ready for delivery. If Boeing is worried about the Canadian government’s willingness to back the CSeries, ­China’s resources for promoting its narrowbody pose a vastly greater threat. The CSeries maybe just the first victim caught in the crossfire.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

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

Fri Sep 29, 2017 2:27 pm

EMBSPBR wrote:
It´s getting worse ...
"WTO to Probe Canadian Jet Subsidies in New Blow to Bombardier"

Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... bombardier


This was expected, Embraer hinted at filling a complaint at the WTO in 2016.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
northstardc4m
Posts: 3286
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2000 11:23 am

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

Fri Sep 29, 2017 2:43 pm

Well it's not ALL bad news for BBD today at least.... they inked up to 50 Q400s for Spicejet

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-bombar ... C41TW?il=0

Is Boeing going to complain those cost it sales in India now? j/k :P

EDIT: Yes yes before i get jumped on this is just confirmation of the existing LOIs for the 90 seat Q400s announced this summer..
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
 
neromancer
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 11:23 pm

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

Fri Sep 29, 2017 2:59 pm

The way I see it the entire commercial aviation industry receives subsidies in some shape or another to launch aircraft programs.
Overall for the most part these subsidies were largely overlooked until the lengthy and ongoing Boeing - Airbus WTO battle.

Boeing's complaint against BBD has caused the ITC to evaluate these subsidies and set a precedent for how these subsidies should be valued.
Now this potentially opens the flood gates for other jurisdictions to use this precedent to also set tariffs against Boeing, Airbus or Embraer.

I think Boeing will come to regret this complaint. They shouldn't be throwing stones from a glass house. Especially considering their extensive use of the Export-Import bank of the United States which is internally known as the "Bank of Boeing".
 
pygmalion
Posts: 836
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 12:47 am

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

Fri Sep 29, 2017 3:48 pm

neromancer wrote:
The way I see it the entire commercial aviation industry receives subsidies in some shape or another to launch aircraft programs.
Overall for the most part these subsidies were largely overlooked until the lengthy and ongoing Boeing - Airbus WTO battle.

Boeing's complaint against BBD has caused the ITC to evaluate these subsidies and set a precedent for how these subsidies should be valued.
Now this potentially opens the flood gates for other jurisdictions to use this precedent to also set tariffs against Boeing, Airbus or Embraer.

I think Boeing will come to regret this complaint. They shouldn't be throwing stones from a glass house. Especially considering their extensive use of the Export-Import bank of the United States which is internally known as the "Bank of Boeing".


EX-IM bank is at commercial terms, Canada has the same thing. The Ex-Im bank actually makes a profit for the US government.

Boeing and Airbus and the federal, state and local governments already have to justify their support in the world trade courts, Bombardier and Embraer will now be doing the same.

All in all, this is a good thing as it will enure a mostly level playing field.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2496
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

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

Fri Sep 29, 2017 3:50 pm

EMBSPBR wrote:
It´s getting worse ...
"WTO to Probe Canadian Jet Subsidies in New Blow to Bombardier"

Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... bombardier

The World Trade Organization approved Brazil’s request to investigate Canada’s alleged use of more than $3 billion in government subsidies to produce Bombardier Inc. aircraft.


Was it ever going to say no?
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 3268
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

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

Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:25 pm

Bombardier just built the world's best small jet, and Boeing, Airbus and other are working to ensure it never gets produced. Losers - those flying. Bravo! Note - Free Market Misinterpreting Idiots! Conservative Nobel winning economists have repeatedly said that free markets say let subsidizers sell. Everyone benefits in the long run.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
D L X
Posts: 12515
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

Re: Boeing targets Bombardier for “price dumping” CSeries

Fri Sep 29, 2017 5:13 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
D L X wrote:
Yeah, you’re going to have to provide a better citation than that. What part of that broad page do you want me to focus on?


No, I'm not.

Numerous statements indicating that NAFTA is a resolution body for disputes over the imposition of import tariffs.

You now have to produce something official that says it isn't.

I would produce a relevant rebuttal if you had actually produced evidence. Dropping an entire statute without pointing to the relevant part not only fails to present evidence, but is intellectually lazy too. Is it your choice to be lazy?

I can concede if you are correct, but you just haven't done anything to show yourself correct yet. (Here's my source: www.wikipedia.org.)
 
User avatar
canadianpylon
Posts: 363
Joined: Thu May 01, 2003 10:18 pm

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

Fri Sep 29, 2017 7:09 pm

This is just my opinion here, but I don't think that this suit has legs and will not stand. It is built on two arguments that have problems:

1) The Delta order was effectively dumping. Boeing didn't compete because they didn't have a product to offer. Apparently, they offered second hand E190s. I thought some of these came from Air Canada. Boeing does not have a competing product, and isn't planning one.

2) '"In an interview with The Canadian Press, Marc Allen, president of Boeing’s international division, said: “We watched another competitor come up and enter the market in a very similar fashion.” That competitor was Airbus, in the 1970s.' (https://www.thestar.com/business/2017/0 ... eting.html)

Is there any evidence of that happening (dumping or predatory pricing?) If so, where and how? I'd like to read up on it.

In the end, I think that this will not get through because I think many other airlines in the world will buy the CSeries and American-based airlines won't because of the tariffs. They'll be at a competitive disadvantage because there is no American-made equivalent product from Boeing. Further to that, if they look at Embraer products to fill the void, Embraer now has leverage to to raise prices (or cut discounts) to airlines because they know their largest competitor has a huge tariff per plane to compensate for.

I fail to see how this hurts Boeing, but I do see a real problem coming to American-based airlines because of it.
Always looking for the longest route with the most transfers.
 
wrongwayup
Posts: 392
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 6:23 pm

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

Fri Sep 29, 2017 7:19 pm

canadianpylon wrote:

1) The Delta order was effectively dumping. Boeing didn't compete because they didn't have a product to offer. Apparently, they offered second hand E190s. I thought some of these came from Air Canada. Boeing does not have a competing product, and isn't planning one.


What gets missed in all this, is that Delta paid for and took delivery of every one of the ex-AC E190s Boeing offered. Delta cleaned Boeing out of the entirety of their 100-seat solution, and it still didn't meet Delta's needs.
 
PPVRA
Posts: 8258
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

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

Fri Sep 29, 2017 7:30 pm

wrongwayup wrote:
canadianpylon wrote:

1) The Delta order was effectively dumping. Boeing didn't compete because they didn't have a product to offer. Apparently, they offered second hand E190s. I thought some of these came from Air Canada. Boeing does not have a competing product, and isn't planning one.


What gets missed in all this, is that Delta paid for and took delivery of every one of the ex-AC E190s Boeing offered. Delta cleaned Boeing out of the entirety of their 100-seat solution, and it still didn't meet Delta's needs.


So you’re saying Delta is stupid? Stupid to drop millions of dollars only to then find out the airplane isn’t what they wanted?

Yeah, sure buddy. More than likely Delta isn’t stupid and cancelled the order after Canada decided to gift them a few airplanes.
Last edited by PPVRA on Fri Sep 29, 2017 7:33 pm, edited 3 times in total.
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
User avatar
aerolimani
Posts: 1293
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 5:46 pm

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

Fri Sep 29, 2017 7:30 pm

Skywatcher wrote:
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.)?

And this… THIS is the saddest part of it. The economies of Canada and the USA are very interlinked. Of course, given the size difference, Canada tends to be the more vulnerable partner. Why hurt the Canadians???

The way I see it, competition is coming. The aviation manufacturing industry in China is in its relative infancy, but it is growing in strength. As Boeing, would you rather your competition be in Canada, a country with whom you have had a long and happy relationship? Or, would you rather it be China?

I hope that some sort of deal is worked out, between Canada and the USA, so that the CSeries is not destroyed. Otherwise, there is the very real risk that it will either be killed off, or sold to one of Boeing's competitors. The CSeries is ready now, so it is in a position to take up a segment of the market which is currently underserved. If a Boeing competitor were to acquire it, that's bad news. If it were killed off, that segment of the market is then left open, and that is also bad news. It would re-open an opportunity for much less friendly competition to move in.

Boeing thinks it is being pro-active, fending off another potential Airbus. In reality, I think their fear has given them tunnel vision. Bombardier is an enemy that Boeing could handle. It would take 20 years of huge success before BBD would be even close to entering something like MOM territory.

As much as I've engaged in this myself, I'm beginning to feel that all this debate over whether BBD is guilty of a crime is virtually irrelevant. The question, IMHO, really ought to be whether pursuing tarrifs against BBD is actually a wise plan. To me, it feels like a bad idea. It's more like 3-month financial thinking, and not wise long-term strategy.
 
User avatar
aerolimani
Posts: 1293
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 5:46 pm

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

Fri Sep 29, 2017 7:49 pm

PPVRA wrote:
wrongwayup wrote:
canadianpylon wrote:

1) The Delta order was effectively dumping. Boeing didn't compete because they didn't have a product to offer. Apparently, they offered second hand E190s. I thought some of these came from Air Canada. Boeing does not have a competing product, and isn't planning one.


What gets missed in all this, is that Delta paid for and took delivery of every one of the ex-AC E190s Boeing offered. Delta cleaned Boeing out of the entirety of their 100-seat solution, and it still didn't meet Delta's needs.


So you’re saying Delta is stupid? Stupid to drop millions of dollars only to then find out the airplane isn’t what they wanted?

Yeah, sure buddy. More than likely Delta isn’t stupid and cancelled the order after Canada decided to gift them a few airplanes.

Chill out. What he's saying is that the E190s, which Boeing sold to DL, were not sufficient quantity to fill Delta's needs for a 100-seat plane.
 
User avatar
gatibosgru
Posts: 1627
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:48 pm

Re: Boeing targets Bombardier for “price dumping” CSeries

Fri Sep 29, 2017 7:52 pm

MSPNWA wrote:
trex8 wrote:
130 739Er orders over last few years is not chicken feed

micstatic wrote:
What???? Have you not seen the huge 737-900 order by delta that has already statersd being delivered?


Both of you are making the same mistake. The initial order for 100 aircraft was 6 years ago. 6 years! Let's stop pretending like it was yesterday. There was also a small top-off order for 20, but that may have been influenced by the 787 cancellation. That money went somewhere. The final 10 was a put option by Boeing and not a true order from DL.

Since the last significant Boeing order from DL:

-DL has publicly tried to financially harm Boeing with the used 777 price dispute
-public EX-IM bank battle
-787 order cancelled
-DL has made multiple new large orders with Airbus so far totaling 122 narrowbodies and 60 widebodies
-Made another new large order with Bombardier for 75 firm and 50 options

And I might have missed some other incidents. Friends don't act that way to each other. If you think they do, then your definition of a friend doesn't match the dictionary.


Boy you really do hate Delta, huh?
Last edited by gatibosgru on Fri Sep 29, 2017 7:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
@DadCelo
 
User avatar
gatibosgru
Posts: 1627
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:48 pm

Re: Boeing targets Bombardier for “price dumping” CSeries

Fri Sep 29, 2017 7:58 pm

chiawei wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
I feel sorry for Bombardier.

Its pretty standard practice for any new manufacturer to offer extreme discounts to break into a new market. Once you build up a customer base and a good reputation then you can increase prices and make a profit.

I'm Australian and our government would not do something like this to a New Zealand conpany. Your bloody neighbours and half the supply lines are shared between the countries.

This is going to be devastating to Bombardier. This will hang over them like a bad smell until the final ruling in 2018.


Wrong.

Canadian government did not play fair. They provided $2.2 billion cash infusion to a company that was insolvent.

In a free market, bombardier would have already been dead.


In a free market AA/DL/UA would also be dead....
@DadCelo
 
YYZLGA
Posts: 392
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2016 4:28 am

Re: Boeing targets Bombardier for “price dumping” CSeries

Fri Sep 29, 2017 8:04 pm

D L X wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:
No, I'm not.

Numerous statements indicating that NAFTA is a resolution body for disputes over the imposition of import tariffs.

You now have to produce something official that says it isn't.

I would produce a relevant rebuttal if you had actually produced evidence. Dropping an entire statute without pointing to the relevant part not only fails to present evidence, but is intellectually lazy too. Is it your choice to be lazy?

I can concede if you are correct, but you just haven't done anything to show yourself correct yet. (Here's my source: http://www.wikipedia.org.)


It's Chapter 19. Here's a summary: https://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/Home/Dispute-Settlement/Overview-of-the-Dispute-Settlement-Provisions#chap19
 
iamlucky13
Posts: 1119
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:35 pm

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

Fri Sep 29, 2017 8:38 pm

Washingtonflyer or D L X

How does duration work on countervailing duty for subsidies?

Would it continue for the average useful life that the subsidy is treated as having (10 years in this case), or until a certain value compared to amount of the subside (eg - 150% NPV), or some other means?

What about for dumping? If the exporter adjusts the price so it no longer amounts to dumping, does the duty end, phase out, have a fixed duration regardless?
 
wrongwayup
Posts: 392
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 6:23 pm

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

Fri Sep 29, 2017 9:53 pm

PPVRA wrote:
wrongwayup wrote:
canadianpylon wrote:

1) The Delta order was effectively dumping. Boeing didn't compete because they didn't have a product to offer. Apparently, they offered second hand E190s. I thought some of these came from Air Canada. Boeing does not have a competing product, and isn't planning one.


What gets missed in all this, is that Delta paid for and took delivery of every one of the ex-AC E190s Boeing offered. Delta cleaned Boeing out of the entirety of their 100-seat solution, and it still didn't meet Delta's needs.


So you’re saying Delta is stupid? Stupid to drop millions of dollars only to then find out the airplane isn’t what they wanted?

Yeah, sure buddy. More than likely Delta isn’t stupid and cancelled the order after Canada decided to gift them a few airplanes.


Wow, chill out my man. That's not at all what I said, not even something I implied.

Let me correct you on your comment about cancelling the order - Delta did not cancel the E190 agreement with Boeing "after Canada decided to gift them a few airplanes" - in fact they signed up for the Canadian airplanes, and still continued to honour their obligation to Boeing by taking delivery of 19 E190s, paid in full, in cash. (The 20th was sold by Boeing for part-out before it ever made it to Delta.)

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