Hamlet69 wrote:https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/report ... dmail.com&
Also an interesting tidbit that I found is that P&W Canada has received more direct government subsidies than BBD has.
"Pratt & Whitney Canada to repay $1-billion debt to Canada, Quebec early"
Hartford, Connecticut.-based United Technologies Corp. (UTC), Pratt's parent, disclosed in a regulatory filing Wednesday that Pratt & Whitney Canada (PWC) signed amendments to existing loans agreements with the governments on Dec. 30.
[...] PWC will also spend about $8-million a year over 14 years to support innovation and research and development through existing partnerships with postsecondary schools and key industry associations.
Good find, thank you! I did not look for PWC articles specifically. I just read several references to their receipt of government funds and incentives when reading BBD-specific articles.
Bombaqrdier is a new market participant to the market and thus it would not be able to sell its aircrafts if they aren't selling them attractively.
And again, I am not against loss-leader sales per se. As long as the company that does so can afford it. I am against it when the company is struggling to survive, and "needs" a bailout just to pay its bills. When they get that bailout, and turn around and give half of it away for a fire-sale price on their brand-new product, that is the definition of a subsidy. And when it is done in a foreign country, that is the definition of dumping.
Think of it this way - imagine one of your best friends tells you he/she is struggling to make ends meet, and needs money just for groceries. So you give him/her $100 to get by. You run into them the following week and they tell you they were at the casino last night and lost $50. How are you gonna feel? Was that $100 money well invested because they had a chance
of walking out of the casino with more? Or did you just subsidize their gambling habit?
And Bombardier is not Tupolev/Sukhoi (who never sold successfully outside Russia and the former Soviet bloc until the SSJ) or the companies who have never done this before. Just counting the CRJ and Dash 8, BBD have sold and delivered 3,000+ aircraft to operators all over the world.
As for the comparison with Fokker 70/100, the Dutch eventually allowed Fokker to fail. Canada didn't do so for BBD, and did the opposite by stuffing money into BBD, and had done so quite blatantly. This is the whole point of the case against BBD/Canada. The trade officials are not going to focus on how nice the other planes are, they are primarily concerned about how the products were financed. If BBD did indeed receive subsidies that are contrary to trade regulations, then they should be prepared to face the consequences. If they didn't, they should bring their evidence to the Canadian government who should defend BBD. Simple as that. The tricky part here is, that the Canadian and Quebec governments may not be willing to provide such evidences (if there was any in the first place), as they are as much involved in this as BBD. Not forgetting that there is currently a WTO case against BBD by Brazil.
As I have said before, Airbus and Boeing have been found to be receiving illegal subsidies before by WTO. Why should the Canadian government or BBD think they are above this?
But see the question is had Boeing not undercut BBD at United so badly would the situation be the same? Odds are split there.
Seeing as how UA turned right around and cancelled the order everyone seems to be complaining about, I don't think it changes anything at all. But for S's & G's, let us say Boeing does not offer UA the deal they did, and BBD gets it. Then what? One can only assume that the same business review that took place after the 73G order will come to the same conclusion. So UA turns around and cancels their (hypothetical) C-Series order. And now we are back to where we started.
I've said it before. This action only protects the interest of one US company, at the expense of every US airline, every US supplier to BBD, and every American BBD employee.
You can certainly say it as many times as you like. It does not change U.S. law. Nor does it change simple math - that that "one US company"
has more US suppliers and more American employees than BBD will ever have. So if we are just doing a 'math = jobs' calculation, BBD still loses.
Basically, the big picture is that a U.S. airline is acquiring a product manufactured more than half in the U.S. at less than cost, the Canadians are paying for those U.S. jobs partially out of their pocket, and the U.S. administration is punishing Canada for it... Hahahaha.
Well, when you put it that way. . .
All gave some. Some gave all.