Actually, they were 14,000 dollar toilet seats. And everyone forgets that on 9/10/2001 Rumsfeld said there was 2.3 trillion dollars unaccounted for in the department of defense. It was conveniently "forgotten" the next day. DOD and US military contractors make the mafia look like second-rate amateurs.

bigjku wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

bigjku wrote:

I don’t particularly care if Boeing makes it or not. If they went down there is talent, capital and industrial base for someone else to pickup and move forward. That’s how it is supposed to work and I am fine with it.

The only bailout I have ever been marginally in favor of was the financial sector (and contrary to what some have said that occurred worldwide on many levels for many reasons) simply because it would have destroyed societal trust when no one could get any money out. It should have come with draconian penalties and a massive shrinking of banks globally in terms of asset size at individual institutions. I would have let automakers go.

While I would normally tend to agree with you, I must add that Boeing military contracts are unending bailouts. Exhibit one: the long sad saga of the KC-46.

It's all "aid." It's just in what form it appears.

Agree to disagree. I think the KC-46 contract is actually done right (aside from the original lease debacle then the rebid issue which is for another thread). Boeing eats their overrun for what should be a simple issue. The other military stuff is actually buying useful things mostly. No military on planet earth buys things cheap anymore. It’s not how I would buy things but I am not in charge. But Boeing has to deliver things and the margins aren’t that great in the end.

All the major airframe companies have tons of military work so it kind of is what it is. Except for BBD but Canadian military procurement makes the rest of the worlds look sane.

The aid in this case is allowing Boeing to deliver late, without added penalties or loss of contract. Same case of course with the A400M at Airbus.

SteelChair wrote:

And then there were the $500 toilet seats on the C5, and the $300 coffeemakes.

Don't tell Trump about the toilet seats. He'll want those on AF1. Of course, they'd have to be gold-plated before he'd sign off on the deal.

aerolimani wrote:

Here's a question… the DOC process is supposed to take into consideration the price paid for the same aircraft in its home market. Yes? So, the only sale in Canada was to AC for 45 x CS300, and the Delta is for 75 x CS100. Therefore, what basis is there for comparison, when both airlines have exclusively ordered different models?

This gets technical but DOC has a test call the "difmer" - differences in merchandise test. If the costs between the two models exceeds a certain percentage, the DOC will find that the two are not comparable and will instead go to constructed value.

The USITC is starting to push out its questionnaires in the final phase:

https://www.usitc.gov/investigations/70 ... /final.htm

What a wake up call for Canada. A true "so-much-for-love" moment in terms of how much of a friend their southern neighbor really is - trying to destroy the entire industry and leaving thousands unemployed over a few million of orders. They are now enemies with Mexico. Their South American relations are in the sewer. Middle East and Africa... won't even go there. The "f*ck the EU" affair which nobody in Europe has forgotten. Spying on Germany's Chancelor and refusing to sign the no-spying agreement. Obama putting UK "at the back of the line" over Brexit. Canada was their last friend. Now that's also gone. At this rate, they will be the Very Lonely and Barely United States of America.

aerolimani wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

And then there were the $500 toilet seats on the C5, and the $300 coffeemakes.

Don't tell Trump about the toilet seats. He'll want those on AF1. Of course, they'd have to be gold-plated before he'd sign off on the deal.

Plated? Please. Solid gold or GTFO.

Just a quick update.

Last Friday, Bombardier filed a 60 some pages plea document.

The document illustrates many "irregularities" in the way the US Dept of Commerce ran its investigation. Half of those were however already discussed here. If proven true, those additional irregularities are quite amazing if you ask me. The word gigantic "kangaroo" process comes to mind...

Can someone find the original, English language, document somewhere?

In the mean time, here's an article (in French) commenting on this new document.

http://affaires.lapresse.ca/dossiers/li ... arites.php

I can't find an english version anywhere... And i hold the lapresse version with a grain of salt honestly, previous reporting has been heavily BBD slanted.

They speak of DoC adding facts to the decision process after the closing of the discovery period and not being allowed to respond, and that they claim their responses to the questionnaire were not reviewed or accepted despite being submitted in time... we will see if more information comes out.

northstardc4m wrote:

I can't find an english version anywhere... And i hold the lapresse version with a grain of salt honestly, previous reporting has been heavily BBD slanted.

The level of details (describing the irregularities) is such that I would believe it properly reflects the BBD document.

Another source reporting those same irregularities (in French again, sorry):

http://www.tvanouvelles.ca/2017/11/07/p ... ularites-1


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some quotes:

"Bombardier affirme par exemple que le Département du commerce n’a pas répondu à certaines de ses questions concernant des renseignements que devait fournir l’entreprise que 13 minutes avant l’échéancier, après des semaines d’attente."


My translation: The Dept of Commerce provided answers (to some questions from Bombardier - asking for clarifications) only 13 minutes before the final deadline...


"La compagnie affirme aussi qu’elle n’a pas été en mesure d’apporter certaines précisions dans le dossier des droits antidumping, alors que Boeing avait pu, elle, faire de même dans le dossier des droits compensatoires."

My translation: Bombardier could not bring some new precisions in the antidumping case while Boeing was allowed to do so in the countervailing duties case.

The Journal de Montreal published about the same article as well. Sorry, no link.

BREECH wrote:

What a wake up call for Canada. A true "so-much-for-love" moment in terms of how much of a friend their southern neighbor really is - trying to destroy the entire industry and leaving thousands unemployed over a few million of orders. They are now enemies with Mexico. Their South American relations are in the sewer. Middle East and Africa... won't even go there. The "f*ck the EU" affair which nobody in Europe has forgotten. Spying on Germany's Chancelor and refusing to sign the no-spying agreement. Obama putting UK "at the back of the line" over Brexit. Canada was their last friend. Now that's also gone. At this rate, they will be the Very Lonely and Barely United States of America.

The USA could probably stand to leave that emergency-hotline phone off the hook for about a century too.

KFLLCFII wrote:

The USA could probably stand to leave that emergency-hotline phone off the hook for about a century too.

That's a metaphor so far-fetched that I'm afraid I don't understand.

BREECH wrote:

KFLLCFII wrote:

The USA could probably stand to leave that emergency-hotline phone off the hook for about a century too.

That's a metaphor so far-fetched that I'm afraid I don't understand.

Case in point.

Noticed this there and thought it relevant.

http://www.planebusiness.com/buzz/airbus2.pdf

Table footer on page 14.

Clear admission from Boeing that they got funding from the TRB to fix the shambles that was *production* on the 787. By then, it was very far from a research program.

Amiga500 wrote:

Noticed this there and thought it relevant.

http://www.planebusiness.com/buzz/airbus2.pdf

Table footer on page 14.

Clear admission from Boeing that they got funding from the TRB to fix the shambles that was *production* on the 787. By then, it was very far from a research program.

So, I see that you are using an Airbus document as the source of Boeing's "clear admission." Do you have an unbiased source?

Unbelievable. I guess Canadians will continue to see more BOEING VALUES CANADIANS commercials on TV until this is finally settled. The commercial kindly reminds viewers that BOEING employs 2000 Canadians and contributes substantially to the Canadian economy.

bob75013 wrote:

Amiga500 wrote:

Noticed this there and thought it relevant.

http://www.planebusiness.com/buzz/airbus2.pdf

Table footer on page 14.

Clear admission from Boeing that they got funding from the TRB to fix the shambles that was *production* on the 787. By then, it was very far from a research program.

So, I see that you are using an Airbus document as the source of Boeing's "clear admission." Do you have an unbiased source?

I have to admit I don't see any "clear admission" of anything... that table has to do with milling weight and some vague footnote about funding without specifics but seems to be talking about parts milling and not program funding?

bob75013 wrote:

Amiga500 wrote:

Noticed this there and thought it relevant.

http://www.planebusiness.com/buzz/airbus2.pdf

Table footer on page 14.

Clear admission from Boeing that they got funding from the TRB to fix the shambles that was *production* on the 787. By then, it was very far from a research program.

So, I see that you are using an Airbus document as the source of Boeing's "clear admission." Do you have an unbiased source?

I'm just an interested spectator here, so can you explain why on the left hand side it says © Airbus Deutschland GmbH
and in the centre at the bottom of the table it says BOEING PROPRIETARY © 2005 The Boeing Company

It's ok, I think I know the answer already; it's an Airbus document quoting from a Boeing document. Is that the "unbiased source" you wanted ?

northstardc4m wrote:

I have to admit I don't see any "clear admission" of anything... that table has to do with milling weight and some vague footnote about funding without specifics but seems to be talking about parts milling and not program funding?

Milling weight? I didn't know you could mill out a CFRP rib.

Do you think airframers decide some mornings that "this aircraft is too heavy, I'll stick a few parts in a mill and take some weight out... sure what could go wrong?"


For the blind the table footer is:

"Includes Items Committed thru CCB or other, Approved by TRB or Approved for Funding by TRB"
"Boeing Proprietary Copyright 206 The Boeing Company"

bob75013 wrote:

So, I see that you are using an Airbus document as the source of Boeing's "clear admission." Do you have an unbiased source?

Look again. it is a B document presented in an A power point presentation.
Notice the "Boeing proprietary" tag?

Amiga500 wrote:

northstardc4m wrote:

I have to admit I don't see any "clear admission" of anything... that table has to do with milling weight and some vague footnote about funding without specifics but seems to be talking about parts milling and not program funding?

Milling weight? I didn't know you could mill out a CFRP rib.

Do you think airframers decide some mornings that "this aircraft is too heavy, I'll stick a few parts in a mill and take some weight out... sure what could go wrong?"


For the blind the table footer is:

"Includes Items Committed thru CCB or other, Approved by TRB or Approved for Funding by TRB"
"Boeing Proprietary Copyright 206 The Boeing Company"

Ok i don't know why "milling" got in there, that's not what i thought i typed but whatever... it SHOULD say managing and management irespectively where it says milling... i blame spellcheck.

And in the case of the 787 yes Boeing certainly did find way of cutting weight which is exactly what that slide was talking about. The point remains that there is 0 on that slide about program funding.

northstardc4m wrote:

Amiga500 wrote:

For the blind the table footer is:

"Includes Items Committed thru CCB or other, Approved by TRB or Approved for Funding by TRB"
"Boeing Proprietary Copyright 206 The Boeing Company"

The point remains that there is 0 on that slide about program funding.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

[i][/i]

Amiga500 wrote:

Noticed this there and thought it relevant.

http://www.planebusiness.com/buzz/airbus2.pdf

Table footer on page 14.

Clear admission from Boeing that they got funding from the TRB to fix the shambles that was *production* on the 787. By then, it was very far from a research program.

TRB's Mission and Services
The Transportation Research Board (TRB) provides innovative, research-based solutions to improve transportation. TRB is a unit of the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, a non-profit organization that provides independent, objective, and interdisciplinary solutions. TRB manages transportation research by producing publications and online resources. It convenes experts that help to develop solutions to problems and issues facing transportation professionals. TRB also provides advice through its policy studies that tackle complex and often controversial issues of national significance. TRB is powered by volunteers, learn how to connect with TRB to find out about new research and volunteer opportunities.

Amiga500 wrote:

northstardc4m wrote:

I have to admit I don't see any "clear admission" of anything... that table has to do with milling weight and some vague footnote about funding without specifics but seems to be talking about parts milling and not program funding?

Milling weight? I didn't know you could mill out a CFRP rib.

Do you think airframers decide some mornings that "this aircraft is too heavy, I'll stick a few parts in a mill and take some weight out... sure what could go wrong?"


For the blind the table footer is:

"Includes Items Committed thru CCB or other, Approved by TRB or Approved for Funding by TRB"
"Boeing Proprietary Copyright 206 The Boeing Company"

I still think the onus would be on you to show what funding and how much the TRB provided since it could well have just been something approved by the TRB. Also one might want to look at the TRB budgets before getting up in arms because once you see what the TRB does you may feel a bit silly. But I leave that to you as the accuser.

bigjku wrote:

I still think the onus would be on you to show what funding and how much the TRB provided since it could well have just been something approved by the TRB. Also one might want to look at the TRB budgets before getting up in arms because once you see what the TRB does you may feel a bit silly. But I leave that to you as the accuser.

If you think I'm going to bother myself producing further proof of Boeing's shenanigans for blind/biased fools to move the goalposts on you are out of your mind.

How do you creatively interpret "Approved for Funding by TRB" to mean anything but (at least part) funded by TRB and thus (partly paid) from public finances?


Why would the TRB approve anything for Boeing otherwise? They aren't a certification authority. They have no dog in the hunt aside from research grants.

Amiga500 wrote:

bigjku wrote:

I still think the onus would be on you to show what funding and how much the TRB provided since it could well have just been something approved by the TRB. Also one might want to look at the TRB budgets before getting up in arms because once you see what the TRB does you may feel a bit silly. But I leave that to you as the accuser.

If you think I'm going to bother myself producing further proof of Boeing's shenanigans for blind/biased fools to move the goalposts on you are out of your mind.

How do you creatively interpret "Approved for Funding by TRB" to mean anything but (at least part) funded by TRB and thus (partly paid) from public finances?


Why would the TRB approve anything for Boeing otherwise? They aren't a certification authority. They have no dog in the hunt aside from research grants.

Amiga500 wrote:

northstardc4m wrote:

I have to admit I don't see any "clear admission" of anything... that table has to do with milling weight and some vague footnote about funding without specifics but seems to be talking about parts milling and not program funding?

Milling weight? I didn't know you could mill out a CFRP rib.

Do you think airframers decide some mornings that "this aircraft is too heavy, I'll stick a few parts in a mill and take some weight out... sure what could go wrong?"


For the blind the table footer is:

"Includes Items Committed thru CCB or other, Approved by TRB or Approved for Funding by TRB"
"Boeing Proprietary Copyright 206 The Boeing Company"

The whole place has an annual budget of around $50-$60 million or so and if that $12 million goes to administration. Of the whole $58 million budget in 2005 $52 million was spent on State or Federal programs leaving only $6 million for other. If we go more recent to 2016 they projected to spend around $52 million in cooperative research programs. Of this $34 million was on highways with the state DOTs. $13 million was on airports with the FAA. There is another $4 million for railroads.

From what I can tell the majority of the funding goes to provide consultant contracts to produce research publications for use by the transportation industry with a focus on governmental stuff. Once we take out the funds spent on highway stuff which is the vast majority of what they do you could transfer the rest of the funds entirely to Boeing and it would amount to a few million at most.

Keep in mind if Boeing got every dollar that passed through the TRB it would take around 20 years to match just the equity investment made by Quebec. In more realistic terms if you look at the TRB budget the most they could have gotten would have been around $5 million as most is spent on highway and airport projects (it’s probably well less than that as I am sure some goes for autos and trains as well)so that would take around 200 years.

The typical TRB project is from $200-$600,000. It’s right on their website.

bigjku wrote:

Keep in mind if Boeing got every dollar that passed through the TRB it would take around 20 years to match just the equity investment made by Quebec.

Whoever said that Boeing's sole source of public funding was the TRB? Who even implied as much?

It highlights yet another avenue used for funneling funds to Boeing. No more, no less.

The TRB’s mission is to advance and promote transportation through new tech and innovation. While most of its funding is public money it is an independent organization, it is not part of the US government. Grants are available to anyone who feels their research qualifies and wishes to submit a proposal. Whether that be Boeing (who uses the TRB), BBD (who uses the TRB), or Airbus (who uses the TRB), or others. In fact these types of organizations love it when international groups/organizations submit proposals because they love collaboration (I’ve dealt with the National Academy for Science a few times).

USITC schedule:

Key Dates
10/13/2017: Start
11/13/2017, 11/17/2017: Return Questionnaires
12/06/2017: Prehearing Report
12/12/2017: Prehearing Briefs
12/18/2017 9:30 am: Hearing
12/27/2017: Posthearing Briefs
01/12/2018: Report to the Commission
01/19/2018: Record Closing
01/23/2018: Final Comments
01/25/2018: Proposed Vote
02/09/2018: Determination(s) Issued
02/09/2018: View(s) Issued
02/09/2018: End

http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/untern ... 82053.html

The competition authority seem to have no problem with Airbus buying C-series as they determine no overlap between the product ranges of Bombardier and Airbus. Bombardier are under 150seats and Airbus are over 150 or that is what I read from the report.

leghorn wrote:

The (European) competition authority (...) determined no overlap between the product ranges of Bombardier and Airbus. Bombardier are under 150seats and Airbus are over 150 or that is what I read from the report.

I just wish the US ITC takes some cues here on how in hell the Bombardier product range (well, more precisely the CS100) can overlap with Boeing’s...

ExMilitaryEng wrote:

leghorn wrote:

The (European) competition authority (...) determined no overlap between the product ranges of Bombardier and Airbus. Bombardier are under 150seats and Airbus are over 150 or that is what I read from the report.

I just wish the US ITC takes some cues here on how in hell the Bombardier product range (well, more precisely the CS100) can overlap with Boeing’s...

There's nothing to analyze here. This is one of the oldest tricks in an economic playbook, which increases domestic producer surplus. Take a page out of the smoot-hawley act and disguise protectionist measure as unfair trade, when Boeing was never even involved in the DL deal. It's a very short term win for the U.S government, and Boeing once more screws over the retail customer. In the long run, consumer surplus will decrease in the U.S. Economy which will reflect higher ticket prices.

Look at the US-EU steel dispute in the early 200s. Despite protecting 20k jobs in the steel industry, nearly 200k jobs were lost as higher input costs affected industry such as the auto sector. Manipulation of policy to win votes in Pennsylvania and Ohio.

Protectionism never works long term...

Politics isn't long term...

People have short memories...

And that's why i hate politics.

northstardc4m wrote:

Protectionism never works long term...

Politics isn't long term...

People have short memories...

And that's why i hate politics.

That’s why I hate people...

Anthony L Velocci, Jr. former editor in-chief at Aviation week gives his opinion in Boeing action. http://aviationweek.com/new-civil-aircr ... isy-boeing

The Commission's hearing is happening today...

@washingtonflyer, can you give an update of the outcome, if you are able to that is.

Thanks

Here's an update today from the Boeing cheerleaders at Aviation Week. At least AvWeek let Anthony Velocci give Boeing the scorching they deserve, but now they're back to writing what Boeing PR wants.

http://aviationweek.com/commercial-avia ... 6ca290e012

Fair use quote: "Boeing is beyond the point of no return in its price-dumping trade dispute against Bombardier, company representatives told reporters Dec. 15, and the results are expected to be finalized by Washington officials the week of Dec. 18."

Jim

DCA-ROCguy wrote:

Here's an update today from the Boeing cheerleaders at Aviation Week. At least AvWeek let Anthony Velocci give Boeing the scorching they deserve, but now they're back to writing what Boeing PR wants.

http://aviationweek.com/commercial-avia ... 6ca290e012

Fair use quote: "Boeing is beyond the point of no return in its price-dumping trade dispute against Bombardier, company representatives told reporters Dec. 15, and the results are expected to be finalized by Washington officials the week of Dec. 18."

Jim

Wow, the comments section of that article makes a.net look like it's scholarly and enlightened!

Source: https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/politics/ ... -1.3726073

He also argued that Delta was poised to buy used planes in a package being assembled by Boeing -- before Bombardier swooped in with an unbeatable offer, its unrealistically priced planes backed by government subsidies.

"Essentially Bombardier offered new airplanes at used airplane prices. And it worked," McAllister said.

He also cast this fight as something bigger. The Boeing executive explained how he grew up in Bethlehem, Pa., and saw the iconic Bethlehem Steel company shut down a generation ago, killed slowly by a variety of factors including dumped foreign steel.

In his closing remarks, he said he now keeps a painting of the old plant in his office.

"This left an impression on me."

LockheedBBD wrote:

Source: https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/politics/ ... -1.3726073

He also argued that Delta was poised to buy used planes in a package being assembled by Boeing -- before Bombardier swooped in with an unbeatable offer, its unrealistically priced planes backed by government subsidies.

Delta bought every single used aircraft Boeing offered them. 19 of the 20 E190s Boeing took in trade from Air Canada were purchased by Delta (the 20th being parted out before Delta could get ahold of it). McAllister seems to have conveniently forgotten this.

The sad and shortsighted view by the US on this issue is that if these duties are imposed, even if Bombardier tries to manufacture the jets at the US Airbus plant, there is no incentive for Bombardier to subcontract any of the CSeries assemblies/parts to any manufacturers based in the US, resulting in net job losses in the States. The sensible thing to do is to allow Bombardier to build the jets in the US, which would actually create US jobs, not eliminate them.

DCA-ROCguy wrote:

Fair use quote: "Boeing is beyond the point of no return in its price-dumping trade dispute against Bombardier, company representatives told reporters Dec. 15, and the results are expected to be finalized by Washington officials the week of Dec. 18."

"Point of no return"

That probably is correct. Avalanche set in motion.

We'll see what gets razed and what not.

Boeing has made a calculated decision. Now we shall see what happens. They lost the Canadian F/A-18 interim replacement contract for 18 jets......and won an order for 80+ from the USN. So far, so good.

As for Bombardier/Airbus creating US jobs, I disagree. I'm pretty sure Cessna, Lockheed and Northrop Grumman don't see it that way. If given the opportunity, they too would love to build lucrative large aircraft. They don't have a government support system in place to allow it. Therefore, the financial jump is too great. Having government backed competitors get unfair boosts isn't a fair and level playing field.

CX747 wrote:

Boeing has made a calculated decision. Now we shall see what happens. They lost the Canadian F/A-18 interim replacement contract for 18 jets......and won an order for 80+ from the USN. So far, so good.

I confess I didn't realise the USN had an interest in the Bombardier dispute too.
So I guess you're saying this order is their way of saying "thank you" to Boeing?

If not, please explain your logic here, whilst I google phrases involving the words "clutching" and "straws".

CX747 wrote:

They lost the Canadian F/A-18 interim replacement contract for 18 jets......and won an order for 80+ from the USN. So far, so good.

The USN part is irrelevant since they would have 'won' that order regardless of what happened with Canada. So, more accurate to simply say "They lost a multi-billion dollar order from Canada."

CX747 wrote:

Boeing has made a calculated decision. Now we shall see what happens. They lost the Canadian F/A-18 interim replacement contract for 18 jets......and won an order for 80+ from the USN. So far, so good.

As for Bombardier/Airbus creating US jobs, I disagree. I'm pretty sure Cessna, Lockheed and Northrop Grumman don't see it that way. If given the opportunity, they too would love to build lucrative large aircraft. They don't have a government support system in place to allow it. Therefore, the financial jump is too great. Having government backed competitors get unfair boosts isn't a fair and level playing field.

Stop with the disengenous attempt to link a USN order to any of the BBD dispute. Zero relationship.

Stop pretending American industry doesn’t get any “unfair boosts”. Your “freedom of opinion” is willful ignorance to proven fact at this point in the debate. Astounding and a discredit to the forum.

In this thread all the Euro's and Canadians are sour that their domestic market sucks and time and time again must sell into the U.S. market to make things work.

If Delta didn't order the C-series it would be dead.