Wild thought/question........ if BBD cancels the Delta order, is this whole ordeal over?

Fresh start?

PPVRA wrote:

Wild thought/question........ if BBD cancels the Delta order, is this whole ordeal over?

Fresh start?

No. BBD is still the underdog fledgling manufacturer sales to the US are important. The question is why is there a thread in regards to this in the first place

Fledgling manufacturer lol

BBD is a multi billion dollar conglomerate with decades of experience designing and manufacturing complex products. They don’t need to be coddled.

My question still is, if Boeing can sell 73N's to United at less than BBD is selling a much smaller aircraft to Delta, how can there be a problem? Competition evidently is not allowed when you're offering a smaller aircraft and aren't allowed to get close to the price being offered by a competitor on a bigger product.

PPVRA wrote:

Fledgling manufacturer lol

BBD is a multi billion dollar conglomerate with decades of experience designing and manufacturing complex products. They don’t need to be coddled.

This is only happening because of the possibility of a stretch that MIGHT cause harm to Boeing. The E2 does not have the ability to make the stretch. That is the only reason why the E2 is not being challenged

Embraer should be happy the duopoly is being threatened. I am sure that going main line might be profitable for them as well

thumper76 wrote:

PPVRA wrote:

Fledgling manufacturer lol

BBD is a multi billion dollar conglomerate with decades of experience designing and manufacturing complex products. They don’t need to be coddled.

This is only happening because of the possibility of a stretch that MIGHT cause harm to Boeing. The E2 does not have the ability to make the stretch. That is the only reason why the E2 is not being challenged

Wrong. The Cseries has received an absurd amount of subsidies because of BBD’s incompetence. The evidence of this is plentiful even within the Canadian press, who has derided BBD for several years.

aerolimani wrote:

bigjku wrote:

aerolimani wrote:

I bet you they do reveal their accounting. To prospective buyers. Under NDA’s.

This doesn’t really answer the question and I am not sure the buyers care. They might have before Quebec stepped in on grounds that BBD might fold up prior to delivery but once that happened it doesn’t strike me as being high on a buyers list.

The question was is there any downside at all to public disclosure? Hell in a true publicly traded and shareholder voting company the shareholders would likely demand such information. After all we know great detail about 787 program accounts. Same deal for A380 really.

Again the question is simple. Is there any downside to disclosing when the program will turn a profit on a produced unit basis?

No company wants to reveal more than it has to. Information is valuable. Accounting information, especially so. If it wasn’t, corporate espionage wouldn’t be such a big deal. Why should BBD reveal any more than they are legally required?

Just because they aren’t revealing their accounting, that is not a valid indicator of the existence of any over-arching problem with the program. You can bet they had to reveal that information to the governments of Quebec and Canada. While I realize that government has other interests, such as having happily employed constituents, I very much doubt they would invest in a program that has no merit. In particular, the federal government has a history of making fairly good investments. Just look at how well they did from the sale of Petro Canada.

Companies reveal positive financial information all the time. In fact they go to great lengths to do so. Gonna have to try again as there is no point for a publicly traded company to not put out positive information.

And I have all the indicators I need that the program was a huge overarching problem. Read the news on it and the financials provided. Commercial aircraft has been burning money for BBD for years to the point they almost ran out of it and had to get a big pile of it from Quebec and Canada to stay open.

I suspect the issue is that with 737 and a320 being built at four plus times the rate of the C-series that they are simply cheaper to build by a decent margin and they basically cap the price for the C-series. This notion is supported by articles detailing the actions of both Boeing and Airbus when they competed with it. They could of course raise production rates but this would require more investment which means they need cash....

The single most important issue for BBD is when the C series will stop being a drag on their cash. They burned through 35% of their cash in a year since June of 2016. Their stock price is down 75% from the year they launched this program. Unless their rate of cash burn stops they have 12-18 months of cash left even after getting the bailout. That information is hugely material and if it were good news would have allowed BBD to raise money on open markets by issuing equity that way. The fact that the government was the buyer of shares should tell you something.

The fundamental question remains, why would a publicly traded company not disclose such good information that would do a ton to restore its stock price? Both Boeing and Airbus disclose versions of this information. We know when breakeven is projected to be and when programs are cash flow positive on a per frame produced basis. Why not with this program?

surfdog75 wrote:

My question still is, if Boeing can sell 73N's to United at less than BBD is selling a much smaller aircraft to Delta, how can there be a problem? Competition evidently is not allowed when you're offering a smaller aircraft and aren't allowed to get close to the price being offered by a competitor on a bigger product.

Because Boeing and Airbus can produce their product more cheaply due to the much greater production volume and lower cost materials.

thumper76 wrote:

Embraer should be happy the duopoly is being threatened. I am sure that going main line might be profitable for them as well

There is ZERO chance for a new entrant in the 100-150 seater market with the shenanigans BBD is pulling.

This is why I’ve said before that BBD is ultimately hurting innovation in the industry.

aerolimani wrote:

bigjku wrote:

I would ask again, if it is going to make money on a per frame basis why wouldn’t BBD tell everyone when and how much? There is zero downside to disclosing some level of program accounting that makes this clear. The only reason I can see to not do this is that they can’t reaonably project their cost of production will go below the price they can get. Otherwise giving out the information is a huge positive for them.

I bet you they do reveal their accounting. To prospective buyers. Under NDA’s.

But not to a government authority which has the ability and sanction (i.e., criminal prosecution and disbarment) which has the authority to assess whether a company is selling at less than fair value?

I'm sorry, but had to register to comment here. Nobody discuss the technical advances from CSeries. It is a great aicraft. But the program economics are bad. If you spend more than 5 billion dollar on a program, and you know that the profit margin of this market is around 5% and less, just do the math to see how many units you would need to sell to return it and at which price. The projected market size for the CSeries does not support a 5 billion+ dollar program. Period. Boeing attacked the program when the Canadian government stepped in to pay for part of those development costs. That it is unfair game. Because it means that BBD could sell the aircraft at any price. And could hurt the whole narrowbody market as a result, reducing the profit margins for the whole chain. That is the real cause of this attack. If your company has the resources and cash flow to allow some frames to be sold bellow cost, that's one thing. By doing that with government support is another thing.

thumper76 wrote:

I believe another poster proved you wrong on that not to long ago. Just a question, are you in on all the hearings? You do talk as to be knowledgeable in the DOC but am wondering if you are present at the hearings. If you are not present (I most certainly am not) then you don't know exactly what is going on and to what extent questions must be answered. In real life it is supposed to be innocent pefore proven guilty! But I am not seeing that in your posts. That being said you are good with words and I have learned a thing or to by reading your posts. For that I thank you.

Not sure who that is directed at. There are no hearings at Commerce - yet. There is one hearing for the DOC investigations (one hearing on the AD record and one record on the CVD record).

The questions posed are very straight forward and can be reviewed by anyone who has an IA Access password. Obviously we can't read the confidential pleadings, but you can easily tell where DOC was headed given that BBD was not willing to cough up questionnaire data.

There is no "innocent before proven guilty" standard. This is administrative law.

SteelChair wrote:

washingtonflyer wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

So you agree that all the things i listed are fails?

Nope, that's your subjective viewpoint of what constitutes a "fail".

So, again, can you provide some guidance on the profitability of BBD versus Boeing in CY 2016?

Mr Lawyer

Please tell me, is it subjective that the 747-8 is a commercial failure, or that the 787 has never paid development costs (ironic given Boeings position against BBD), or that 75% of 777x orders are by state supported ME3 carriers, or that the KC767 is behind schedule and over budget?

Yes, it is subjective.

PPVRA wrote:

thumper76 wrote:

Embraer should be happy the duopoly is being threatened. I am sure that going main line might be profitable for them as well

There is ZERO chance for a new entrant in the 100-150 seater market with the shenanigans BBD is pulling.

Shenanigans? 0 chances for a new entrant? Sorry we couldn't help you you more

washingtonflyer wrote:

aerolimani wrote:

bigjku wrote:

I would ask again, if it is going to make money on a per frame basis why wouldn’t BBD tell everyone when and how much? There is zero downside to disclosing some level of program accounting that makes this clear. The only reason I can see to not do this is that they can’t reaonably project their cost of production will go below the price they can get. Otherwise giving out the information is a huge positive for them.

I bet you they do reveal their accounting. To prospective buyers. Under NDA’s.

But not to a government authority which has the ability and sanction (i.e., criminal prosecution and disbarment) which has the authority to assess whether a company is selling at less than fair value?

If a company leaks your NDA-protected information, you can sue the pants off them, and probably win. When a federal agency leaks information, the best you can hope for is an apology. And, please don't try and tell me that leaks don't happen in government.

As to BBD not revealing supposedly beneficial information publicly, ask yourselves this. Why did they not share information with the DOC? BBD's position is that the case is bogus, because 1) the sale hasn't taken place yet, and 2) Boeing didn't have a dog in the fight. As that is BBD's position, why would they then provide information to the DOC, helping them to determine a tariff? A tariff which BBD feels is bogus in the first place. Providing the DOC with that information is basically an admission of guilt. It would be the international trade version of pleading guilty, even if you feel you're not, so that you can get a reduced sentence.

So… why would BBD want to reveal information publicly, if they don't have to, when it would be detrimental to their ongoing case?

PPVRA wrote:

Fledgling manufacturer lol

BBD is a multi billion dollar conglomerate with decades of experience designing and manufacturing complex products. They don’t need to be coddled.

I suspect you may support embraer? Would a chance at the main line not be profitable for embraer? If it is BBD is doing the dirty work for you

aerolimani wrote:

washingtonflyer wrote:

aerolimani wrote:

I bet you they do reveal their accounting. To prospective buyers. Under NDA’s.

But not to a government authority which has the ability and sanction (i.e., criminal prosecution and disbarment) which has the authority to assess whether a company is selling at less than fair value?

If a company leaks your NDA-protected information, you can sue the pants off them, and probably win. When a federal agency leaks information, the best you can hope for is an apology. And, please don't try and tell me that leaks don't happen in government.

As to BBD not revealing supposedly beneficial information publicly, ask yourselves this. Why did they not share information with the DOC? BBD's position is that the case is bogus, because 1) the sale hasn't taken place yet, and 2) Boeing didn't have a dog in the fight. As that is BBD's position, why would they then provide information to the DOC, helping them to determine a tariff? A tariff which BBD feels is bogus in the first place. Providing the DOC with that information is basically an admission of guilt. It would be the international trade version of pleading guilty, even if you feel you're not, so that you can get a reduced sentence.

So… why would BBD want to reveal information publicly, if they don't have to, when it would be detrimental to their ongoing case?

It’s a theory. I would bet you a cold pack of beer that the more likely answer is it’s not revealed because it’s not good. I think it’s more likely than not that BBD either is forced to sell off the C-Series, get another bailout or fail as a company on he next 24-36 months than it is they turn a positive cash flow on any C series they produce.

aerolimani wrote:

Both A and B are very busy with other expensive programs, and they don’t want to direct resources towards developing a new narrowbody. They are perfectly comfortable milking their current designs as absolutely long as possible. They’re essentially saying to each other, “I won’t, if you won’t.”

You can’t use a lack of action by A or B as evidence that the CSeries is a bad business case. I just made a completely viable argument, removed from any discussion of business case, for why A and B haven’t started a new NB program. Personally, I think a lack of desire is a far more likely explanation why A and B haven’t moved on a new NB. Further to that, I think their aggressive actions against BBD are further evidence that they don’t want to be pushed into developing something new. It’s a cozy duopoly. Of course they don’t want to have it challenged.

A lack of competition stifles innovation. That’s capitalist economics 101.

So does massively unequal competition, such as the case with BBD.

The fierce competition between A and B has been more than adequate to advance innovation. So much so in fact that other entities have little to no meat left on the bone to exploit. The business case for the small narrowbody market is simply weak, and BBD is now proving that fact.

bigjku wrote:

There is no question the C series has a market at a certain price. The question is does it have a market at a price that makes the program commercially viable? The 18-months of no orders primarily due to being undercut by Airbus and Boeing suggest it very well may not. That is actually the whole discussion which people keep missing.

That's not really answering the question though- why does Boeing think that Bombardier could become "another Airbus"? Surely the only way that would be a risk is if the program WAS commercially viable in the long run.

If the project has no hope of success as a whole (as you and many others seem to think), then why not just wait for it to die, and with luck take the whole of Bombardier with it?

washingtonflyer wrote:

thumper76 wrote:

I believe another poster proved you wrong on that not to long ago. Just a question, are you in on all the hearings? You do talk as to be knowledgeable in the DOC but am wondering if you are present at the hearings. If you are not present (I most certainly am not) then you don't know exactly what is going on and to what extent questions must be answered. In real life it is supposed to be innocent pefore proven guilty! But I am not seeing that in your posts. That being said you are good with words and I have learned a thing or to by reading your posts. For that I thank you.

Not sure who that is directed at. There are no hearings at Commerce - yet. There is one hearing for the DOC investigations (one hearing on the AD record and one record on the CVD record).

The questions posed are very straight forward and can be reviewed by anyone who has an IA Access password. Obviously we can't read the confidential pleadings, but you can easily tell where DOC was headed given that BBD was not willing to cough up questionnaire data.

There is no "innocent before proven guilty" standard. This is administrative law.

Guilty before proven innocent? I did not realize the USA stood behind such practice! My bad! Wow. Sorry I thought the USA stood for what is right. So I can expect all members of the DOC to feel the same way! No wonder the findings are so severe

zckls04 wrote:

bigjku wrote:

There is no question the C series has a market at a certain price. The question is does it have a market at a price that makes the program commercially viable? The 18-months of no orders primarily due to being undercut by Airbus and Boeing suggest it very well may not. That is actually the whole discussion which people keep missing.

That's not really answering the question though- why does Boeing think that Bombardier could become "another Airbus"? Surely the only way that would be a risk is if the program WAS commercially viable in the long run.

If the project has no hope of success as a whole (as you and many others seem to think), then why not just wait for it to die, and with luck take the whole of Bombardier with it?

It depends on how much Canada is willing to throw at the issue. Toss enough into it on favorable enough terms and it can become viable eventually.

But Boeing specifically has a duty to its shareholders to protect its profit margins by whatever legal means it can. Losing sales and dropping prices to compete with a product that they believe is in violation of laws is lost profit and is all the reason they need to raise a complaint.

Anyone at Boeing that decided not to should be fired frankly. As a share holder I expect you to make every penny you can.

thumper76 wrote:

washingtonflyer wrote:

thumper76 wrote:

I believe another poster proved you wrong on that not to long ago. Just a question, are you in on all the hearings? You do talk as to be knowledgeable in the DOC but am wondering if you are present at the hearings. If you are not present (I most certainly am not) then you don't know exactly what is going on and to what extent questions must be answered. In real life it is supposed to be innocent pefore proven guilty! But I am not seeing that in your posts. That being said you are good with words and I have learned a thing or to by reading your posts. For that I thank you.

Not sure who that is directed at. There are no hearings at Commerce - yet. There is one hearing for the DOC investigations (one hearing on the AD record and one record on the CVD record).

The questions posed are very straight forward and can be reviewed by anyone who has an IA Access password. Obviously we can't read the confidential pleadings, but you can easily tell where DOC was headed given that BBD was not willing to cough up questionnaire data.

There is no "innocent before proven guilty" standard. This is administrative law.

Guilty before proven innocent? I did not realize the USA stood behind such practice! My bad! Wow. Sorry I thought the USA stood for what is right. So I can expect all members of the DOC to feel the same way! No wonder the findings are so severe

Good grief...stop clutching your pearls, you look silly.

Administrative law is a well recognized branch of law in both common law and also in many civil law nations. It is not guilty until proven innocent.

bigjku wrote:

zckls04 wrote:

bigjku wrote:

There is no question the C series has a market at a certain price. The question is does it have a market at a price that makes the program commercially viable? The 18-months of no orders primarily due to being undercut by Airbus and Boeing suggest it very well may not. That is actually the whole discussion which people keep missing.

That's not really answering the question though- why does Boeing think that Bombardier could become "another Airbus"? Surely the only way that would be a risk is if the program WAS commercially viable in the long run.

If the project has no hope of success as a whole (as you and many others seem to think), then why not just wait for it to die, and with luck take the whole of Bombardier with it?

It depends on how much Canada is willing to throw at the issue. Toss enough into it on favorable enough terms and it can become viable eventually.

But Boeing specifically has a duty to its shareholders to protect its profit margins by whatever legal means it can. Losing sales and dropping prices to compete with a product that they believe is in violation of laws is lost profit and is all the reason they need to raise a complaint.

Anyone at Boeing that decided not to should be fired frankly. As a share holder I expect you to make every penny you can.

Does anyone commenting on this site know the cost of the cseries program? IE have access to the program? I am thinking Boeing may have made an attempt at that info. If you do not have this information what you say is NOT fact. If you believe military might will fix your trade issues you have no clue as to free trade.... As a matter of fact using military might against free trade is 100% not a form of free trade. Bullying is obvious in this situation

bigjku wrote:

surfdog75 wrote:

My question still is, if Boeing can sell 73N's to United at less than BBD is selling a much smaller aircraft to Delta, how can there be a problem? Competition evidently is not allowed when you're offering a smaller aircraft and aren't allowed to get close to the price being offered by a competitor on a bigger product.

Because Boeing and Airbus can produce their product more cheaply due to the much greater production volume and lower cost materials.

Common sense says you spread that cost to build over the first big batch of aircraft. What is the projected average cost of each of the first 1000 Cseries. Not how much did the first 100 cost to build. How much did it cost Boeing to build the first 100 787s and how much were each sold for? Which is why this entire case is a political sham. If Boeing had focused more on engineering (instead of laying over 100 engineers off) and less on squeezing more blood out of a very tired 737 design, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

bigjku wrote:

zckls04 wrote:

bigjku wrote:

There is no question the C series has a market at a certain price. The question is does it have a market at a price that makes the program commercially viable? The 18-months of no orders primarily due to being undercut by Airbus and Boeing suggest it very well may not. That is actually the whole discussion which people keep missing.

That's not really answering the question though- why does Boeing think that Bombardier could become "another Airbus"? Surely the only way that would be a risk is if the program WAS commercially viable in the long run.

If the project has no hope of success as a whole (as you and many others seem to think), then why not just wait for it to die, and with luck take the whole of Bombardier with it?

It depends on how much Canada is willing to throw at the issue. Toss enough into it on favorable enough terms and it can become viable eventually.

But Boeing specifically has a duty to its shareholders to protect its profit margins by whatever legal means it can. Losing sales and dropping prices to compete with a product that they believe is in violation of laws is lost profit and is all the reason they need to raise a complaint.

Anyone at Boeing that decided not to should be fired frankly. As a share holder I expect you to make every penny you can.

Interesting because Boeing seemed to have been thinking that there was a potential market for 2000 CSeries aircraft when this first surfaced. Whether it’s being sold for cheap or not, if it doesn’t fit anywhere not many will come close to being interested. Boeing sells mostly 737-8 as their narrowbody, no body in their mind would order a CSeries in its place because it comes at a better price, in that case it wouldn’t be able to harm Boeing regardless of how realistically cheap it is. Then in that case Boeing must be scared of it for some reason. That must mean it does have potential. It’s much more complicated than pricing according to supply and demand, lowering the price won’t necessarily increase demand.

thumper76 wrote:

bigjku wrote:

zckls04 wrote:

That's not really answering the question though- why does Boeing think that Bombardier could become "another Airbus"? Surely the only way that would be a risk is if the program WAS commercially viable in the long run.

If the project has no hope of success as a whole (as you and many others seem to think), then why not just wait for it to die, and with luck take the whole of Bombardier with it?

It depends on how much Canada is willing to throw at the issue. Toss enough into it on favorable enough terms and it can become viable eventually.

But Boeing specifically has a duty to its shareholders to protect its profit margins by whatever legal means it can. Losing sales and dropping prices to compete with a product that they believe is in violation of laws is lost profit and is all the reason they need to raise a complaint.

Anyone at Boeing that decided not to should be fired frankly. As a share holder I expect you to make every penny you can.

Does anyone commenting on this site know the cost of the cseries program? IE have access to the program? I am thinking Boeing may have made an attempt at that info. If you do not have this information what you say is NOT fact. If you believe military might will fix your trade issues you have no clue as to free trade.... As a matter of fact using military might against free trade is 100% not a form of free trade. Bullying is obvious in this situation

Military might? What on earth are you talking about?

The C-Series cost at least $5.4 billion in development and I believe $3 billion or so of that has been written off as unrecoverable. We don’t know the exact cost of each frame but we know that in the first 6 months they lost $141 million on $1.1 billion in revenue on all commercial planes. Presumably commercial airplanes also is responsible for some of the corporate overhead loss as well but no way to know what portion of that is theirs.

They delivered planes with a book value today of around $1.67 billion so the average discount was around 35% or so to get that revenue number. It seems like the CRJ and the Q400 should be profitable as they have been around for a while. They were 65% of the book value and presumably should return around 10% margin.

So by my rough math BBD made a profit of $71 million or so in 6 months on CRJ and Q400 sales. They made a loss then of roughly $210 million on 7 C-series planes. I would estimate revenue was about $55 million per plane in the C-Series and their loss on each was around $30 million.

I feel if anything I am being nice to BBD with those guesses as I suspect they didn’t need to do as much discounting on CRJ and Q400 sales and the margins may be even a bit better there.

Now, before you scream it...no this is not established fact. But it’s an educated guess. What is fact is BBD is burning though cash because of losses in its commercial airplane division. That is indisputable. It also claims poor margins on C series as being the culprit for that in its financial statements. Now if you have another culprit within that division or a better theory please let us hear it.

zckls04 wrote:

That's not really answering the question though- why does Boeing think that Bombardier could become "another Airbus"? Surely the only way that would be a risk is if the program WAS commercially viable in the long run.

If the project has no hope of success as a whole (as you and many others seem to think), then why not just wait for it to die, and with luck take the whole of Bombardier with it?

All kinds of programs become commercially viable if someone else pays for a large part of R&D and manufacturing startup costs. That's how Airbus became Airbus.

Cseries won't die as long as Canada and Quebec keep underwriting it.

thumper76 wrote:

washingtonflyer wrote:

thumper76 wrote:

I believe another poster proved you wrong on that not to long ago. Just a question, are you in on all the hearings? You do talk as to be knowledgeable in the DOC but am wondering if you are present at the hearings. If you are not present (I most certainly am not) then you don't know exactly what is going on and to what extent questions must be answered. In real life it is supposed to be innocent pefore proven guilty! But I am not seeing that in your posts. That being said you are good with words and I have learned a thing or to by reading your posts. For that I thank you.

Not sure who that is directed at. There are no hearings at Commerce - yet. There is one hearing for the DOC investigations (one hearing on the AD record and one record on the CVD record).

The questions posed are very straight forward and can be reviewed by anyone who has an IA Access password. Obviously we can't read the confidential pleadings, but you can easily tell where DOC was headed given that BBD was not willing to cough up questionnaire data.

There is no "innocent before proven guilty" standard. This is administrative law.

Guilty before proven innocent? I did not realize the USA stood behind such practice! My bad! Wow. Sorry I thought the USA stood for what is right. So I can expect all members of the DOC to feel the same way! No wonder the findings are so severe

You're confusing standards of law and type of law. Again, this is administrative law.

Here's an excerpt from a CIT decision on the standard of review:

The court sustains Commerce’s “determinations, findings, or conclusions” unless
they are “unsupported by substantial evidence on the record, or otherwise not in
accordance with law.” 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i). More specifically, when reviewing
agency determinations, findings, or conclusions for substantial evidence, the court
assesses whether the agency action is reasonable given the record as a whole.
Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1345, 1350-51 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Substantial
evidence has been described as “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” DuPont Teijin Films USA v. United States,
407 F.3d 1211, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S.
197, 229 (1938)). Substantial evidence has also been described as “something less than
the weight of the evidence, and the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions
from the evidence does not prevent an administrative agency’s finding from being
supported by substantial evidence.” Consolo v. Fed. Mar. Comm’n, 383 U.S. 607, 620
(1966). Fundamentally, though, “substantial evidence” is best understood as a word
formula connoting reasonableness review. 3 Charles H. Koch, Jr., Administrative Law and
Practice § 9.24[1] (3d ed. 2017). Therefore, when addressing a substantial evidence issue
raised by a party, the court analyzes whether the challenged agency action
“was reasonable given the circumstances presented by the whole record.” 8A West’s Fed.
Forms, National Courts § 3.6 (5th ed. 2017).

surfdog75 wrote:

bigjku wrote:

surfdog75 wrote:

My question still is, if Boeing can sell 73N's to United at less than BBD is selling a much smaller aircraft to Delta, how can there be a problem? Competition evidently is not allowed when you're offering a smaller aircraft and aren't allowed to get close to the price being offered by a competitor on a bigger product.

Because Boeing and Airbus can produce their product more cheaply due to the much greater production volume and lower cost materials.

Common sense says you spread that cost to build over the first big batch of aircraft. What is the projected average cost of each of the first 1000 Cseries. Not how much did the first 100 cost to build. How much did it cost Boeing to build the first 100 787s and how much were each sold for? Which is why this entire case is a political sham. If Boeing had focused more on engineering (instead of laying over 100 engineers off) and less on squeezing more blood out of a very tired 737 design, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Then why doesn’t BBD spread it over 400 frames (the order book plus some more) and disclose? Boeing does that for every program. Airbus discloses program breakevens and when a program is cash flow positive on a per frame basis. We hear about it all the time. It’s endlessly debated on the 787 and A380 in particular.

The 787 hit cash flow positive on 4th quarter of 2015 I believe sonbefore the 363rd delivery. That was 32% of the order book. Is the C series going to be profitable on a per plane basis when the 128th rolls off the line?

Boeing builds more 787 than BBD plans to build c series per year. But based on their losses so far I would guess they have just as far if not further to go to get to cash flow positive than Boeing did. I stand by my contention that to make money on the program it needs to scale to significantly larger production. But BBD doesn’t have the cash to do it.

So terrible. Very upset at Boeing and the US government.

PPVRA wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

"Obviously" "I doubt"

Thanks for your opinions, thats a lot different than facts, such as Ed Bastian saying just a few days ago, "We bought Cseries for the innovation, not the price. "

Is that why they bought MD90s and 717s, too?

How naive are you?

So is that why the bought the A350 because its old & cheap like the MD-90/717. Look at the hole picture before you insult another poster. Otherwise the insult you tossed at him hits you back in the face.

surfdog75 wrote:

My question still is, if Boeing can sell 73N's to United at less than BBD is selling a much smaller aircraft to Delta, how can there be a problem? Competition evidently is not allowed when you're offering a smaller aircraft and aren't allowed to get close to the price being offered by a competitor on a bigger product.

Yes this & all the local government tax reductions and incentives they take shows Boeing's Hypocrisy.

thumper76 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

"Obviously" "I doubt"

Thanks for your opinions, thats a lot different than facts, such as Ed Bastian saying just a few days ago, "We bought Cseries for the innovation, not the price. "

As was famously said in a very different context, “he would say that, wouldn’t he?”

GF

Please don't be bias. He said what he said because there are grounds to it! If what he said does not meet your agenda please find an alternative route to attack. By purchasing the cseries delta was doing what was best for their company.

Obviously, humor is not understood here. I’m actually pro-BBD for rather personal reasons, but that doesn’t mean I check my brain at the door. I’d rather the stupid law didn’t exist-if an entity wants to subsidize its product, fine with me. It isn’t good business, but it shouldn’t be illegal and subject to ridiculous fines.

That said, the C-Series is innovative only in that it brings lots of technology to a class that barely exists-the 110-130 seat airliner. It does what BBD promised and a bit more, but there is no business case for it. The entire production run of this size plane (717, 737-500/600, EMB-190, A318) isn’t much more than a 1,000 frames. It’s too big as a regional jet, too small as a mainline plane. A profitable business model is not possible; it’s the ultimate vanity project.

GF

rbavfan wrote:

PPVRA wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

"Obviously" "I doubt"

Thanks for your opinions, thats a lot different than facts, such as Ed Bastian saying just a few days ago, "We bought Cseries for the innovation, not the price. "

Is that why they bought MD90s and 717s, too?

How naive are you?

So is that why the bought the A350 because its old & cheap like the MD-90/717. Look at the hole picture before you insult another poster. Otherwise the insult you tossed at him hits you back in the face.

I never said delta doesn’t buy new and/or innovative airplanes. NEVER.

But that’s not why they purchased the Cseries. They looked at it and decided against it, purchased the competition instead, only to turn around later when they got a huge deal.

washingtonflyer wrote:

thumper76 wrote:

washingtonflyer wrote:

Not sure who that is directed at. There are no hearings at Commerce - yet. There is one hearing for the DOC investigations (one hearing on the AD record and one record on the CVD record).

The questions posed are very straight forward and can be reviewed by anyone who has an IA Access password. Obviously we can't read the confidential pleadings, but you can easily tell where DOC was headed given that BBD was not willing to cough up questionnaire data.

There is no "innocent before proven guilty" standard. This is administrative law.

Guilty before proven innocent? I did not realize the USA stood behind such practice! My bad! Wow. Sorry I thought the USA stood for what is right. So I can expect all members of the DOC to feel the same way! No wonder the findings are so severe

You're confusing standards of law and type of law. Again, this is administrative law.

Here's an excerpt from a CIT decision on the standard of review:

The court sustains Commerce’s “determinations, findings, or conclusions” unless
they are “unsupported by substantial evidence on the record, or otherwise not in
accordance with law.” 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i). More specifically, when reviewing
agency determinations, findings, or conclusions for substantial evidence, the court
assesses whether the agency action is reasonable given the record as a whole.
Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1345, 1350-51 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Substantial
evidence has been described as “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” DuPont Teijin Films USA v. United States,
407 F.3d 1211, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S.
197, 229 (1938)). Substantial evidence has also been described as “something less than
the weight of the evidence, and the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions
from the evidence does not prevent an administrative agency’s finding from being
supported by substantial evidence.” Consolo v. Fed. Mar. Comm’n, 383 U.S. 607, 620
(1966). Fundamentally, though, “substantial evidence” is best understood as a word
formula connoting reasonableness review. 3 Charles H. Koch, Jr., Administrative Law and
Practice § 9.24[1] (3d ed. 2017). Therefore, when addressing a substantial evidence issue
raised by a party, the court analyzes whether the challenged agency action
“was reasonable given the circumstances presented by the whole record.” 8A West’s Fed.
Forms, National Courts § 3.6 (5th ed. 2017).

Okay so you choose not to answer my question.. My assumption at this point is that you are part of the hearings going on in regards to this dispute and are giving information to the public about said hearing. Or the member's that officiate are bias. If you were really looking for the truth with your knowledge in the precedings you should see something other than what you are printing. Instead you have tried to change the subject in a way that has nothing to do with the current issue... All lawyers are paid

This is so fitting.......



Not for me personally, I’m not an expert in anything related to this case.

PPVRA wrote:

This is so fitting.......



Not for me personally, I’m not an expert in anything related to this case.

I am also not am expert in this case! That being said I am am permitted to speak my mind. I have much hope that embraer will do well with the E 2.. But Boeing is not worried about the E2 because it is not able to be stretched. I do in all seriousness hope that the E2 sells well. I am not disappointed with embraer they make a great product! But I do not like the Negative attention the cseries has gotten by having a aircraft line that might in the future compete with the 737.

PPVRA wrote:

This is so fitting.......



Not for me personally, I’m not an expert in anything related to this case.

please note I am also hoping that the E2 does well

thumper76 wrote:

washingtonflyer wrote:

thumper76 wrote:

Guilty before proven innocent? I did not realize the USA stood behind such practice! My bad! Wow. Sorry I thought the USA stood for what is right. So I can expect all members of the DOC to feel the same way! No wonder the findings are so severe

You're confusing standards of law and type of law. Again, this is administrative law.

Here's an excerpt from a CIT decision on the standard of review:

The court sustains Commerce’s “determinations, findings, or conclusions” unless
they are “unsupported by substantial evidence on the record, or otherwise not in
accordance with law.” 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i). More specifically, when reviewing
agency determinations, findings, or conclusions for substantial evidence, the court
assesses whether the agency action is reasonable given the record as a whole.
Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1345, 1350-51 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Substantial
evidence has been described as “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” DuPont Teijin Films USA v. United States,
407 F.3d 1211, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S.
197, 229 (1938)). Substantial evidence has also been described as “something less than
the weight of the evidence, and the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions
from the evidence does not prevent an administrative agency’s finding from being
supported by substantial evidence.” Consolo v. Fed. Mar. Comm’n, 383 U.S. 607, 620
(1966). Fundamentally, though, “substantial evidence” is best understood as a word
formula connoting reasonableness review. 3 Charles H. Koch, Jr., Administrative Law and
Practice § 9.24[1] (3d ed. 2017). Therefore, when addressing a substantial evidence issue
raised by a party, the court analyzes whether the challenged agency action
“was reasonable given the circumstances presented by the whole record.” 8A West’s Fed.
Forms, National Courts § 3.6 (5th ed. 2017).

Okay so you choose not to answer my question.. My assumption at this point is that you are part of the hearings going on in regards to this dispute and are giving information to the public about said hearing. Or the member's that officiate are bias. If you were really looking for the truth with your knowledge in the precedings you should see something other than what you are printing. Instead you have tried to change the subject in a way that has nothing to do with the current issue... All lawyers are paid

Your question seemed rather rhetorical. In any event, at least two posters noted in response to your "innocent until proven guilty" question that the standard you mentioned is not relevant in this section of administrative law. The agency makes a determination based on the factual information on the record. As long as the decision is based on factual information and is reasonable, that is how the agency is going to find.

As to my being part of the hearings - no. I have no part in it. As to changing the subject, you were the one who raised the incorrect legal standard - which required correction.

So you are saying that the airline industry is different than standard industry? Then why are you so bias in this case? Does everyone in the DOC act and think the same as you? I understand that you can't speak for the people involved. But would hope that they did not base their findings on bias views.. That you seem to have.

washingtonflyer wrote:

thumper76 wrote:

washingtonflyer wrote:

You're confusing standards of law and type of law. Again, this is administrative law.

Here's an excerpt from a CIT decision on the standard of review:

The court sustains Commerce’s “determinations, findings, or conclusions” unless
they are “unsupported by substantial evidence on the record, or otherwise not in
accordance with law.” 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i). More specifically, when reviewing
agency determinations, findings, or conclusions for substantial evidence, the court
assesses whether the agency action is reasonable given the record as a whole.
Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1345, 1350-51 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Substantial
evidence has been described as “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” DuPont Teijin Films USA v. United States,
407 F.3d 1211, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S.
197, 229 (1938)). Substantial evidence has also been described as “something less than
the weight of the evidence, and the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions
from the evidence does not prevent an administrative agency’s finding from being
supported by substantial evidence.” Consolo v. Fed. Mar. Comm’n, 383 U.S. 607, 620
(1966). Fundamentally, though, “substantial evidence” is best understood as a word
formula connoting reasonableness review. 3 Charles H. Koch, Jr., Administrative Law and
Practice § 9.24[1] (3d ed. 2017). Therefore, when addressing a substantial evidence issue
raised by a party, the court analyzes whether the challenged agency action
“was reasonable given the circumstances presented by the whole record.” 8A West’s Fed.
Forms, National Courts § 3.6 (5th ed. 2017).

Okay so you choose not to answer my question.. My assumption at this point is that you are part of the hearings going on in regards to this dispute and are giving information to the public about said hearing. Or the member's that officiate are bias. If you were really looking for the truth with your knowledge in the precedings you should see something other than what you are printing. Instead you have tried to change the subject in a way that has nothing to do with the current issue... All lawyers are paid

Your question seemed rather rhetorical. In any event, at least two posters noted in response to your "innocent until proven guilty" question that the standard you mentioned is not relevant in this section of administrative law. The agency makes a determination based on the factual information on the record. As long as the decision is based on factual information and is reasonable, that is how the agency is going to find.

As to my being part of the hearings - no. I have no part in it. As to changing the subject, you were the one who raised the incorrect legal standard - which required correction.

please note bias findings cannot fix or repair realities within the industry..if something is legal for one it should be legal for the others.

thumper76 wrote:

So you are saying that the airline industry is different than standard industry? Then why are you so bias in this case? Does everyone in the DOC act and think the same as you? I understand that you can't speak for the people involved. But would hope that they did not base their findings on bias views.. That you seem to have.

I'm not sure what bias you're speaking of. Commerce found that Bombarier availed itself of subsidies through it not being equityworthy or creditworty. That was its factual determination. Most folks on here agreed that the government bailout was effectively a cash infusion and instead of recognizing it as such, repeatedly say "Boing got subsidies too"! Commerce also found that Bombardier refused to answer the agency's questions in the dumping case. That was either a tactical decision or a very stupid thing to do. As I wrote upthread, thumbing your nose at the agency gets you -nowhere-. I cannot tell you how many cases there are where an interested party told Commerce that they were refusing to provide information for whatever reason (excessive burden, no resources, supposedly don't have the records, can't provide it in the form Commerce wants, etc., etc.). The result is always the same - a determination using facts that are otherwise available. And the CIT and the CAFC upholds those determinations.

I made an AFA (adverse facts available) prediction probably 6 or 7 weeks ago. All of my colleagues who were following this case (inside my firm and outside my firm) agreed.

I figure some are searching hard for cases that would seem to correlate to their point of view.. But in this instance BBD is acting no differently than Boeing! Boeing is only hoping that this dispute will slow down sales for the cseries. I have no doubt that it has already had an impact since the dispute was started. Using there dispute to "prove" that the cseries is a unmarketable aircraft is contemptible. I don't know how many sales have been delayed or cancelled because of this dispute

washingtonflyer wrote:

thumper76 wrote:

So you are saying that the airline industry is different than standard industry? Then why are you so bias in this case? Does everyone in the DOC act and think the same as you? I understand that you can't speak for the people involved. But would hope that they did not base their findings on bias views.. That you seem to have.

I'm not sure what bias you're speaking of. Commerce found that Bombarier availed itself of subsidies through it not being equityworthy or creditworty. That was its factual determination. Most folks on here agreed that the government bailout was effectively a cash infusion and instead of recognizing it as such, repeatedly say "Boing got subsidies too"! Commerce also found that Bombardier refused to answer the agency's questions in the dumping case. That was either a tactical decision or a very stupid thing to do. As I wrote upthread, thumbing your nose at the agency gets you -nowhere-. I cannot tell you how many cases there are where an interested party told Commerce that they were refusing to provide information for whatever reason (excessive burden, no resources, supposedly don't have the records, can't provide it in the form Commerce wants, etc., etc.). The result is always the same - a determination using facts that are otherwise available. And the CIT and the CAFC upholds those determinations.

I made an AFA (adverse facts available) prediction probably 6 or 7 weeks ago. All of my colleagues who were following this case (inside my firm and outside my firm) agreed.

subsidies are subsedies whether they go into boeings pockets or bombardier. This industry is subsidized! Your attempt at saying Boeing can receive subsidies because they don't need them does not add up. Boeing became what they are today because of subsidies! It does not take much effort to figure out what I am talking about. I hope that the people working this case are more level headed than you. In the end no one benefits from a trade war! And just so you know, you can not speak fact unless you were present during the precedings!
I don't care how many Lawyers you have backing your thoughts. In the end it will take some real courage to fix this mess. Just because one is a lawyer doesn't mean they are right! Just means that they can spin a good yarn.

thumper76 wrote:

I figure some are searching hard for cases that would seem to correlate to their point of view.. But in this instance BBD is acting no differently than Boeing! Boeing is only hoping that this dispute will slow down sales for the cseries. I have no doubt that it has already had an impact since the dispute was started. Using there dispute to "prove" that the cseries is a unmarketable aircraft is contemptible. I don't know how many sales have been delayed or cancelled because of this dispute

This dispute wasn’t necessary to prove it was commercially uncompetitive. Literally everything that happened from program launch through to the bailout told one this.

BBD had a good leverage and disruptive product when they had the only GTF equipped aircraft. BBD hoped that this disruption would justify a high price for the CSeries. The higher price was the only way to pay off the high R&D costs. When Boeing, Airbus and Embraer did their re engines as well, BBD leverage was gone. And if you want to be part of a free market, you need to play by the rules, and government money is not allowed on this game.

washingtonflyer wrote:

thumper76 wrote:

So you are saying that the airline industry is different than standard industry? Then why are you so bias in this case? Does everyone in the DOC act and think the same as you? I understand that you can't speak for the people involved. But would hope that they did not base their findings on bias views.. That you seem to have.

I'm not sure what bias you're speaking of. Commerce found that Bombarier availed itself of subsidies through it not being equityworthy or creditworty. That was its factual determination. Most folks on here agreed that the government bailout was effectively a cash infusion and instead of recognizing it as such, repeatedly say "Boing got subsidies too"! Commerce also found that Bombardier refused to answer the agency's questions in the dumping case. That was either a tactical decision or a very stupid thing to do. As I wrote upthread, thumbing your nose at the agency gets you -nowhere-. I cannot tell you how many cases there are where an interested party told Commerce that they were refusing to provide information for whatever reason (excessive burden, no resources, supposedly don't have the records, can't provide it in the form Commerce wants, etc., etc.). The result is always the same - a determination using facts that are otherwise available. And the CIT and the CAFC upholds those determinations.

I made an AFA (adverse facts available) prediction probably 6 or 7 weeks ago. All of my colleagues who were following this case (inside my firm and outside my firm) agreed.

You keep factual out of your description. The simple point that Boeing does not produce a competing frame to the CS100 should have blown this case. The arbitrary definition of a 100 to 150 passenger size range, therefore putting a CS100 and 737 in the same size range, shows that this decision was prearranged.

GmvAfcs wrote:

BBD had a good leverage and disruptive product when they had the only GTF equipped aircraft. BBD hoped that this disruption would justify a high price for the CSeries. The higher price was the only way to pay off the high R&D costs. When Boeing, Airbus and Embraer did their re engines as well, BBD leverage was gone. And if you want to be part of a free market, you need to play by the rules, and government money is not allowed on this game.

Who's rules? Boeings I guess. They have been busy using predatory pricing against the cseries.... But that's okay right? Not illegal and what not... But ethically wrong. To bad law has nothing to do with ethics in this industry

thumper76 wrote:

GmvAfcs wrote:

BBD had a good leverage and disruptive product when they had the only GTF equipped aircraft. BBD hoped that this disruption would justify a high price for the CSeries. The higher price was the only way to pay off the high R&D costs. When Boeing, Airbus and Embraer did their re engines as well, BBD leverage was gone. And if you want to be part of a free market, you need to play by the rules, and government money is not allowed on this game.

Who's rules? Boeings I guess. They have been busy using predatory pricing against the cseries.... But that's okay right? Not illegal and what not... But ethically wrong. To bad law has nothing to do with ethics in this industry

Please, just because it will be fun, describe predatory pricing and explain how it is morally wrong. This should be entertaining.