Super80Fan wrote:

Good, hope Canada and the WTO stick it to the government and Boeing.

Unfortunately Bombardier has stuck it to the citizens of Canada for $3.7Billion at this point according to the National Register.

********
I am not going to get into the ABCE war here or the US, Canadian, EU subsidy war.
Just pointing out that even if 300 planes were sold that still $12.3M per plane debt service much less the cost of the overhead, materials and labor to build an airframe.

********

Okie

Kilopond wrote:

There should be absolutely no way for them to get away with this kind of an arbitrary, hostile trade war.

Not much of concern. There won't be much trading once the US pulls out of NAFTA in the coming months.

YuriMG2 wrote:

The talk in Brazil is that this negotiation between Boeing and Embraer goes back to 2013 when the F18 was the favorite to win the FX-2 bid. That embraer wasnt that happy when the Defense chose the Gripen (big thanks to Snowden).

While Boeing didn't really compete with Bombardier in the Delta deal (Boeing offered used Ejets to Delta, which Delta did purchase BTW); after Boeing figured out that Bombardier is probably selling below cost, they took proactive action in order to protect their future market share after they acquire Embraer. The 737 MAX-7 vs CSeries argument is just a ruse to accomplish their actual goal before it's too late.

Boeing hedged their bets and won in a masterful stroke. While they lost a few pennies in their bucket (Canadian government sales), they will ultimately gain more in the long term via greater regional market share. The UK won't do anything retaliatory, it's just lip service so that the current government can stay in power and appear to be doing something.

Perhaps Boeing would have preferred Bombardier go bankrupt, but Boeing still has a chance to compete against an Airbus CSeries via Embraer.

mercure1 wrote:

Certainly slow WTO process creates ongoing black cloud for BBD not only endangering orders but the companies finances.

It's not like they have any other option besides the WTO. Bombardier could go back to only making business jets, perhaps they can make some pocket change by trying to sell what's left of the Q400 and CRJ programs to China, but it is unlikely anyone would pay much for them. Although, Bombardier could help China by utilizing their current western world support network for Chinese and Russian aircraft. After Airbus takes over the support network for the CSeries, you'll have a whole bunch of people doing a whole lot of nothing. I suspect that Airbus will eventually take over the entire CSeries program for themselves to continue competing with Boeing/Embraer. Bombardier doesn't really offer anything else useful for Airbus, and Airbus will most likely keep future projects an entirely European affair. I don't think the French or Germans will want to give their jobs away to those "pesky North Americans" if they don't have to.

janders wrote:

WTO process likely take atleast 3-years to play out


[i]The real purpose of a challenge at the WTO would likely be to gain some leverage in order to come to a negotiated settlement with the United States, said Ian Lee, professor of business at Carleton University.

So if they can either accept an the US decision or appeal to the WTO to win time, because of course the initial decision of the US is fair and legal. Nice and subtle game there....

KarelXWB wrote:

Canada fires back and filled a complaint at the WTO over Boeing.

This complaint is only a small drop in the bucket. NAFTA negotiations are in the toilet so the Canadians launched a whole bunch of WTO complaints against the U.S. today:

Source: http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/canada- ... -1.4480738

Canada has launched a wide-ranging trade dispute against the United States, challenging Washington's use of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy duties, according to a World Trade Organization filing dated Dec. 20 and published Wednesday. Canada appeared to be mounting a case on behalf of the rest of the world, since it cited almost 200 examples of alleged U.S. wrongdoing, almost all of them concerning other trading partners, such as China, India, Brazil and the European Union.

The 32-page complaint homed in on technical details of the U.S. trade rulebook, ranging from the U.S. treatment of export controls to the use of retroactive duties and split decisions by the six-member U.S. International Trade Commission.

U.S. trade representative Robert Lighthizer issued a rebuttal calling Canada's case an "ill-advised attack on the U.S. trade remedies system."

"Canada's claims are unfounded and could only lower U.S. confidence that Canada is committed to mutually beneficial trade," Lighthizer said in a statement. "Canada is acting against its own workers' and businesses' interests. Even if Canada succeeded on these groundless claims, other countries would primarily benefit, not Canada," he said.

Under WTO rules, the United States has 60 days to try to settle the complaint, or Canada, which sends 75 per cent of its exports to the United States, could ask the WTO to adjudicate.

I'm not sure what the Canadians are up to but I will be grabbing some popcorn and watching the show unfold from afar.

Andre3K wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

Good, hope Canada and the WTO stick it to the government and Boeing.

Maybe Boeing, but sticking it to the government would also be sticking it to the millions of innocent citizens that have nothing to do with all this.

The government is elected by the people. Therefore the people are responsible for it's actions. So the millions of citizens are not innocent.

LockheedBBD wrote:

KarelXWB wrote:

Canada fires back and filled a complaint at the WTO over Boeing.

This complaint is only a small drop in the bucket. NAFTA negotiations are in the toilet so the Canadians launched a whole bunch of WTO complaints against the U.S. today:

Source: http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/canada- ... -1.4480738

Canada has launched a wide-ranging trade dispute against the United States, challenging Washington's use of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy duties, according to a World Trade Organization filing dated Dec. 20 and published Wednesday. Canada appeared to be mounting a case on behalf of the rest of the world, since it cited almost 200 examples of alleged U.S. wrongdoing, almost all of them concerning other trading partners, such as China, India, Brazil and the European Union.

The 32-page complaint homed in on technical details of the U.S. trade rulebook, ranging from the U.S. treatment of export controls to the use of retroactive duties and split decisions by the six-member U.S. International Trade Commission.

U.S. trade representative Robert Lighthizer issued a rebuttal calling Canada's case an "ill-advised attack on the U.S. trade remedies system."

"Canada's claims are unfounded and could only lower U.S. confidence that Canada is committed to mutually beneficial trade," Lighthizer said in a statement. "Canada is acting against its own workers' and businesses' interests. Even if Canada succeeded on these groundless claims, other countries would primarily benefit, not Canada," he said.

Under WTO rules, the United States has 60 days to try to settle the complaint, or Canada, which sends 75 per cent of its exports to the United States, could ask the WTO to adjudicate.

I'm not sure what the Canadians are up to but I will be grabbing some popcorn and watching the show unfold from afar.

While certainly everything you have posted here is true it does not nearly paint the full picture. Canada mostly exports raw materials and goods to the US in which the US then turns around as value added finished goods. So while ending trade with Canada on the surface sounds good in the end it will only serve to increase the cost of doing business for many Americans. And with Canada recently implementing new trade agreements (CETA and CKFTA for example) it will have plenty of new customers for these goods. Certainly Canada will take a sizeable short term hit. Long term it will only force Canada to diversify and strengthen it's economy. I honestly don't see a short or long term benefit to the US in any way here.

As for the WTO. Canada has a long history of successfully fighting the US at the WTO. Softwood lumber is a great example where the we have fought and won against the US several times now costing the US tax payer billions of dollars in legal fees and damages to the Canadian lumber industry. Which has only served to make our lumber industry stronger and more efficient. Which makes the US lumber industry cry more as they fall further behind due to their short term stupidity thinking. What's even more funny. Many of the US lumber mills are more and more becoming Canadian owned.

So if the US really want's to shoot themselves in the foot while kicking us well we will simply have to deal with it. And we will. And this is us simply taking the first steps in dealing with it and getting ready to move on.

A previously but now deleted post mentioned that Canadian oil should be blocked from the U.S., and he seems to be right. Canada is practically dumping oil into the U.S: http://business.financialpost.com/commo ... oser-to-20

"Never mind $35 a barrel, Canada's oil is selling for closer to $20. As oil crashes through $35 in New York today, Alberta, which produces the world's cheapest oil at the highest cost, is already living with the reality of much lower prices"

The U.S. should be supporting fair competition by purchasing oil at fair market prices from their comrades in Saudi Arabia, or by producing more oil inside the United States itself. I suspect a tariff against Canadian oil if the POTUS catches a whiff of this during his breaks from Twitter.

You understand there are different varieties of oil, some of which are more valuable than others?
Alberta oil is heavier, thus worth less, than that from Texas.

You article is also from 2015.

I just take from this an incentive for Airbus to take over the project completely. Develop a CS500 sold at to a small launch Customer in the home market(where ever that is now) at an obscenely low price so as to get around one of the accusations of dumping in a foreign market, let Airbus push all current A320 orders up to A321 and then Boeing are going to be left with an antiquated 737 which no Customer wants to buy and no cash stream to develop a replacement..
Airbus will then make sure that which ever engine partner they have will engineer engines which suit both the CS500 and A321 and ensure they have a market competitive product range for the next two decades or more.

I think Airbus (& CSALP) will keep offering both the CSeries (CS100, CS300 & CS500) and A320 family (A319, A320, A321 &?). They complement each other.
The CSeries has bulk cargo hold handeling only, the A320 family can accommodate containers in it's cargo hold. I think working conditions with container handeling is much beter than with bulk cargo handeling. And cargo handeling with containers is faster than with bulk cargo. So the CSeries (and 737) have aerodynamic (plane volume & weight) operational advantages and the A320 has beter ground handeling. A airline (with it's labor union) have to decide what they prefer.
The ultimate backfire for Boeing and the US, would be if: Canada (BBD), the UK, France, Germany and Spain (Airbus) would accuse Boeing of dumping the 787 on the world market, harming the A330, A350 and A380. That would really create a WTO airplane manufactures mess.

leghorn wrote:

I just take from this an incentive for Airbus to take over the project completely. Develop a CS500 sold at to a small launch Customer in the home market(where ever that is now) at an obscenely low price so as to get around one of the accusations of dumping in a foreign market, let Airbus push all current A320 orders up to A321 and then Boeing are going to be left with an antiquated 737 which no Customer wants to buy and no cash stream to develop a replacement..
Airbus will then make sure that which ever engine partner they have will engineer engines which suit both the CS500 and A321 and ensure they have a market competitive product range for the next two decades or more.

Won't help, BBD had the chance to justify the sales price in the dispute, but chose not to. What they needed to do was slap some numbers together to show that Delta's order caused them to lose less money than they would have without it.

Which if you can't do, *WHY* did you make the sale in the first place?

Also don't forget that they sold aircraft to AC well below cost, and it didn't help this case.

Andre3K wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

Good, hope Canada and the WTO stick it to the government and Boeing.

Maybe Boeing, but sticking it to the government would also be sticking it to the millions of innocent citizens that have nothing to do with all this.

Just as signing a bad deal would als be sticking it to millions of Canadians.

If NAFTA were to fail, I expect we would quickly see retaliatory duties placed against US aerospace products. It would be bad for everybody in Canada. Air Canada would not be happy, with its order for 737MAX. And, BBD would still be in the same place it is now.

Boeing would probably be okay. I think it’s a little late for AC to change its mind.

It makes me sad that trade relations have become so sour between Canada and the USA

Going to the WTO is probably a nice gift to Trump as he will be able to spin again that the world trade system is broken, and the US should not be part of agreements like it.
Gives more impetus to his push of one on one bilateral trade deals instead.

CFRPwingALbody wrote:

The ultimate backfire for Boeing and the US, would be if: Canada (BBD), the UK, France, Germany and Spain (Airbus) would accuse Boeing of dumping the 787 on the world market, harming the A330, A350 and A380. That would really create a WTO airplane manufactures mess.

I don't think you understand what dumping is.

Dumping is selling a product outside your home market at lower pricing than that is available in your home market. Plenty of US airlines - NW, CO, UA and AA ordered the 787 in the US and certainly did not pay more for the plane than overseas customers. If anything these US airlines probably enjoyed some of the best pricing ever available on the model.

janders wrote:

Going to the WTO is probably a nice gift to Trump as he will be able to spin again that the world trade system is broken, and the US should not be part of agreements like it.
Gives more impetus to his push of one on one bilateral trade deals instead.

That is a really good point. This WTO complaint would allow the US to exit WTO agreements without much friction. Trump already hates the WTO.


Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnbrinkl ... e-the-wto/
November 27, 2017
"Trump Is Quietly Trying To Vandalize The WTO"

“The World Trade Organization was set up for the benefit of everybody but us,” Trump said in an interview with his biggest fan, Lou Dobbs of the Fox Business channel. “They have taken advantage of this country like you wouldn’t believe.”

His main gripe is that “we lose the lawsuits, almost all of the lawsuits in the WTO.” The Trump administration has blocked the nominations of jurists to fill vacant seats in the WTO’s Appellate Body. This is no small thing. The Dispute Settlement Body, and the Appellate Body, are where governments go when they think their trading partners are violating WTO rules.

I used to very much admire the U.S (tough to be # 1 and all that) and would often defend them when friends/associates dumped on them . No more.

janders wrote:

Going to the WTO is probably a nice gift to Trump as he will be able to spin again that the world trade system is broken, and the US should not be part of agreements like it.
Gives more impetus to his push of one on one bilateral trade deals instead.

CFRPwingALbody wrote:

The ultimate backfire for Boeing and the US, would be if: Canada (BBD), the UK, France, Germany and Spain (Airbus) would accuse Boeing of dumping the 787 on the world market, harming the A330, A350 and A380. That would really create a WTO airplane manufactures mess.

I don't think you understand what dumping is.

Dumping is selling a product outside your home market at lower pricing than that is available in your home market. Plenty of US airlines - NW, CO, UA and AA ordered the 787 in the US and certainly did not pay more for the plane than overseas customers. If anything these US airlines probably enjoyed some of the best pricing ever available on the model.

I don't think that's how the US Government applies its dumping rules. I don't remember Commerce/ITC ever asking how much Bombardier had sold planes to Air Canada for. Rather, what they were doing was trying to estimate how much it would cost to build a CSeries - before adopting a number helpfully provided by Boeing. If the comparison is between sale price and cost of production, rather than international sale price versus domestic sale price, then Boeing is certainly guilty of dumping the 787 all over the world.

Dumping isn't necessarily illegal unless it causes harm. You can't cause harm in Mexico because there is no production of an equivalent product in Mexico.

washingtonflyer wrote:

Dumping isn't necessarily illegal unless it causes harm. You can't cause harm in Mexico because there is no production of an equivalent product in Mexico.

Neither there is in the US, and here we are anyway...

Jayafe wrote:

washingtonflyer wrote:

Dumping isn't necessarily illegal unless it causes harm. You can't cause harm in Mexico because there is no production of an equivalent product in Mexico.

Neither there is in the US, and here we are anyway...

Well, if you read the ITC prehearing report, airlines would disagree with you.

washingtonflyer wrote:

Jayafe wrote:

washingtonflyer wrote:

Dumping isn't necessarily illegal unless it causes harm. You can't cause harm in Mexico because there is no production of an equivalent product in Mexico.

Neither there is in the US, and here we are anyway...

Well, if you read the ITC prehearing report, airlines would disagree with you.

Other airlines? I thought this was about the Delta order, and Delta said Boeing had no equivalent product. So did the Boeing chairman for that matter.

SteelChair wrote:

washingtonflyer wrote:

Jayafe wrote:

Neither there is in the US, and here we are anyway...

Well, if you read the ITC prehearing report, airlines would disagree with you.

Other airlines? I thought this was about the Delta order, and Delta said Boeing had no equivalent product. So did the Boeing chairman for that matter.

Questionnaires go out to all purchasers and importers in the US market. They responded and reported overlap in products.

washingtonflyer wrote:

Questionnaires go out to all purchasers and importers in the US market. They responded and reported overlap in products.

Thanks, that's very helpful. And a reminder that the "ITC" is actually a federal agency of the USA. Hence they were only interested in a response from the US market, and not the opinions of European or Asian airlines.

In fact it would be a huge help to me (and I suspect some others) if the organisation's proper title was used a little more often in this thread, i.e. USITC. There is a unfortunate misdirection thrown at many of us when only "ITC" is used, as it suggests both international and impartial. To be fair, the USITC's own website and documentation almost never omits the U.S. parentage (https://www.usitc.gov/).

the Commission found that there was overlap, and several importers agreed that there was overlap

Several?
That is most intriguing. Whilst it doesn't contradict your statement above, it imparts a slightly different flavor.
Do you have a breakdown of exactly how many is "several".
To me it sounds like a weak response.

Also, is there the slightest possibility that Boeing coached a few selected witnesses?
I'm not suggesting anything illegal at all, but a carefully timed campaign to emphasize the similarities/overlap between C-series and the 737, pitched at a carefully selected audience?

If I knew that my customers were going to get an official questionnaire about one particular aspect of my business (say technical support), you can bet your house I'm going to make sure we contact them first and remind them how wonderful we are, particularly regarding tech support. That's just business....

@washingtonflyer: So you imply and I infer that competitor airlines in a short-sighted attempt to spite or cause harm to Delta give the Department of Commerce the answer they were looking for and in so doing close off any opportunity of those competitor airlines ever receiving the next generation of 100 to 150 seat aircraft from Bombardier.

If it were me I'd file all Questionaires from the Department of Commerce in the waste paper basket for fear that answering them would impact my operational freedom weeks, months, years down the line.

Funny how the government weighs the opinion of competitor airlines more than the actual customer and the supplier.

This entire episode is shameful.

leghorn wrote:

@washingtonflyer: So you imply and I infer that competitor airlines in a short-sighted attempt to spite or cause harm to Delta give the Department of Commerce the answer they were looking for and in so doing close off any opportunity of those competitor airlines ever receiving the next generation of 100 to 150 seat aircraft from Bombardier.

If it were me I'd file all Questionaires from the Department of Commerce in the waste paper basket for fear that answering them would impact my operational freedom weeks, months, years down the line.

The questionnaires come from the International Trade Commission - not from Commerce. Commerce is addressing the level of dumping and subsidies - if any.

Its always possible that competitor airlines could be tweaking their responses so as to put Delta at a disadvantage. But they'd also be doing that to themselves. If Bombardier is shut out of the market, airlines like JetBlue, Republic, Alaska, United, and American would not be able to use Bombardier product as a leverage point for purposes of negotiating with Airbus and with Boeing.

Is there an obligation to respond?

KarelXWB wrote:

Canada fires back and filled a complaint at the WTO over Boeing.

Canada upped the ante in the Boeing-Bombardier C Series trade complaint today by filing one of its own against the US with the World Trade Organization.

This filing comes on the eve of the US International Trade Commission (ITC) staff report, due Friday, on whether Boeing was “harmed” by Bombardier’s near-miss in selling the CS100 to United Airlines and an order in 2016 by Delta Air Lines for 75+50 CS100s, with an option to covert some of the orders to the larger CS300.

Leeham
https://leehamnews.com/2018/01/10/canad ... complaint/ 
Document
https://leehamnews.com/wp-content/uploa ... 011018.pdf

The complaint has as much to do with the Bombardier case as it does the Lumber case.The GOC is challenging a number of practices - only some of which are relevant to the Bombardier case and some are more relevant to the lumber case (especially critical circumstances and the LTAR allegations).

I have to chuckle at Leeham's go to candidate for legal expertise - Bill Perry. Bill's a nice guy, but not the top tier trade guy. A colleague of mine in the trade bar always loved Bill; he never lost when going against Bill.

leghorn wrote:

Is there an obligation to respond?

 The information requested in the questionnaire is requested under the authority of
the Tariff Act of 1930, title VII.  This report is mandatory and failure to reply as directed can result in a subpoena or other
order to compel the submission of records or information in your firm’s possession (19 U.S.C. § 1333(a))

-source: USITC standard questionnaire from Title VII investigation.

that's a license to go fishing.

leghorn wrote:

that's a license to go fishing.

I don't know if the Commission has ever had to use its subpoena power. I know years ago there was a case on table wine and one of the big U.S. producers refused to cough up questionnaire data. The Commission voted against the U.S. industry in that proceeding.

I know I mentioned this before, but when a Federal agency asks for information, it is to your best interest in answering them. The consequences often are rather dire - as Bombardier found out when they gave the finger to the Commerce Department.

According to Stephen Trimble (an aviation reporter for FlightGlobal), the US ITC has requested information on Boeing's takeover talks with Embraer: https://twitter.com/FG_STrim/status/951902511350341634

janders wrote:

Going to the WTO is probably a nice gift to Trump as he will be able to spin again that the world trade system is broken, and the US should not be part of agreements like it.
Gives more impetus to his push of one on one bilateral trade deals instead.

CFRPwingALbody wrote:

The ultimate backfire for Boeing and the US, would be if: Canada (BBD), the UK, France, Germany and Spain (Airbus) would accuse Boeing of dumping the 787 on the world market, harming the A330, A350 and A380. That would really create a WTO airplane manufactures mess.

I don't think you understand what dumping is.

Dumping is selling a product outside your home market at lower pricing than that is available in your home market. Plenty of US airlines - NW, CO, UA and AA ordered the 787 in the US and certainly did not pay more for the plane than overseas customers. If anything these US airlines probably enjoyed some of the best pricing ever available on the model.

And watch as American goods suddenly all get slapped with heavy tariffs as withdrawing from the WTO means loosing Most Favoured Nation status with other trade partners, if they haven't signed any trade agreements.

And I'm not sure other countries will be willing to negotiate and sign trade deals with the US, judging from American actions, besides the fact that trade deals can take years, if not decades to negotiate and come into force due to the extremely high legal complexities involved (have you ever read a free trade agreement?), which can result in an agreement being tens of thousands of pages long.

I'm sure American companies are not going to like it when they suddenly loose export markets for years because their goods are all slapped with at least 30-200% duties. I'm sure Boeing is going to be pissed if that happens.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... er-444986/

staff report is out. no idea where you'd get a copy of it. not on itc website.

leghorn wrote:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-trade-staff-issue-final-report-before-bombardier-444986/

staff report is out. no idea where you'd get a copy of it. not on itc website.

Looks like it's game over for Bombardier. Here's the giveaway from the document/article:

"Based on available data, staff believes that there is moderate-to-high degree of substitutability between domestically produced 100- to 150-seat [aircraft] and Canadian-produced 100- to 150-seat [aircraft]," says the report.

Whether or not the reasoning is legitimate, 300% is criminal and I’ll cast some of the shame on the USITC for that.

LockheedBBD wrote:

leghorn wrote:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-trade-staff-issue-final-report-before-bombardier-444986/

staff report is out. no idea where you'd get a copy of it. not on itc website.

Looks like it's game over for Bombardier. Here's the giveaway from the document/article:

"Based on available data, staff believes that there is moderate-to-high degree of substitutability between domestically produced 100- to 150-seat [aircraft] and Canadian-produced 100- to 150-seat [aircraft]," says the report.

"A high degree of substitutability..." What a joke. The 737 is not in the same class as the C Series and the numbers show that. The Delta C series order shows that and Delta confirms that themselves.

danman132x wrote:

Been reading and following most of this thread, but just wanna throw my opinion on it. I can't believe that they are imposing these tarrifs, at least in this first round of debate. It will spell disaster for the C-series. Really hoping we don't see the delta order fail because of it. Boeing is just using their power and size to bully out the competition. How many tax breaks does Boeing get.. And sell their planes below list prices all the time. All companies do. They are just scared because they know the C-series is a great plane, and even though it's not direct competition right now, a future model could be, so of course they are going to try anything they can to stop Bombardier.
We Need this competition. If Bombardier got subsidies to get started, let it be. Airbus got help also in the past also.

My question is how much did Boeing slip to these politicians behind the table to make sure they win this battle.

So you're saying there weren't subsidies?? Boeing made all of this up?? And BBD didn't try and dump airplanes with Delta??
So what actually IS the truth?? Lay it all on the table as you see it so we can all "peep" the Hole Card I seeall this conjecture and I 'd like to know the truth as you understand it because it looking a little "rough" to me I think I understand Boeing's side of things but I don't see BBD's side of the story. So just what is it that makes BBD's side of the story flow?? Because it looks like there's something missing As Part of this narrative. And ?? It's integral to the truth of whats going on..

CarlosSi wrote:

Whether or not the reasoning is legitimate, 300% is criminal and I’ll cast some of the shame on the USITC for that.

Does it honestly matter? The plane won’t sell with a 50% tariff would it? Any punishment that is more than a slap on the wrist makes it a no go commercially. There isn’t a fair number that still lets people order the thing is there?

ThePointblank wrote:

janders wrote:

Going to the WTO is probably a nice gift to Trump as he will be able to spin again that the world trade system is broken, and the US should not be part of agreements like it.
Gives more impetus to his push of one on one bilateral trade deals instead.

CFRPwingALbody wrote:

The ultimate backfire for Boeing and the US, would be if: Canada (BBD), the UK, France, Germany and Spain (Airbus) would accuse Boeing of dumping the 787 on the world market, harming the A330, A350 and A380. That would really create a WTO airplane manufactures mess.

I don't think you understand what dumping is.

Dumping is selling a product outside your home market at lower pricing than that is available in your home market. Plenty of US airlines - NW, CO, UA and AA ordered the 787 in the US and certainly did not pay more for the plane than overseas customers. If anything these US airlines probably enjoyed some of the best pricing ever available on the model.

And watch as American goods suddenly all get slapped with heavy tariffs as withdrawing from the WTO means loosing Most Favoured Nation status with other trade partners, if they haven't signed any trade agreements.

And I'm not sure other countries will be willing to negotiate and sign trade deals with the US, judging from American actions, besides the fact that trade deals can take years, if not decades to negotiate and come into force due to the extremely high legal complexities involved (have you ever read a free trade agreement?), which can result in an agreement being tens of thousands of pages long.

I'm sure American companies are not going to like it when they suddenly loose export markets for years because their goods are all slapped with at least 30-200% duties. I'm sure Boeing is going to be pissed if that happens.

None of tht is going to happen. Canada has oil pipelines going through US lands, canada can't really afford to do a lot of complaining while exercising Imminent domain over lands they don't OWN.

ACYYZA345 wrote:

LockheedBBD wrote:

leghorn wrote:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-trade-staff-issue-final-report-before-bombardier-444986/

staff report is out. no idea where you'd get a copy of it. not on itc website.

Looks like it's game over for Bombardier. Here's the giveaway from the document/article:

"Based on available data, staff believes that there is moderate-to-high degree of substitutability between domestically produced 100- to 150-seat [aircraft] and Canadian-produced 100- to 150-seat [aircraft]," says the report.

"A high degree of substitutability..." What a joke. The 737 is not in the same class as the C Series and the numbers show that. The Delta C series order shows that and Delta confirms that themselves.

The data was gathered from questionnaires filled out by airlines. It seems that most US airlines besides Delta claimed that the CS100 and 737 overlap significantly.

strfyr51 wrote:

None of tht is going to happen. Canada has oil pipelines going through US lands, canada can't really afford to do a lot of complaining while exercising Imminent domain over lands they don't OWN.

neromancer wrote:

LockheedBBD wrote:

KarelXWB wrote:

Canada fires back and filled a complaint at the WTO over Boeing.

This complaint is only a small drop in the bucket. NAFTA negotiations are in the toilet so the Canadians launched a whole bunch of WTO complaints against the U.S. today:

Source: http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/canada- ... -1.4480738

Canada has launched a wide-ranging trade dispute against the United States, challenging Washington's use of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy duties, according to a World Trade Organization filing dated Dec. 20 and published Wednesday. Canada appeared to be mounting a case on behalf of the rest of the world, since it cited almost 200 examples of alleged U.S. wrongdoing, almost all of them concerning other trading partners, such as China, India, Brazil and the European Union.

The 32-page complaint homed in on technical details of the U.S. trade rulebook, ranging from the U.S. treatment of export controls to the use of retroactive duties and split decisions by the six-member U.S. International Trade Commission.

U.S. trade representative Robert Lighthizer issued a rebuttal calling Canada's case an "ill-advised attack on the U.S. trade remedies system."

"Canada's claims are unfounded and could only lower U.S. confidence that Canada is committed to mutually beneficial trade," Lighthizer said in a statement. "Canada is acting against its own workers' and businesses' interests. Even if Canada succeeded on these groundless claims, other countries would primarily benefit, not Canada," he said.

Under WTO rules, the United States has 60 days to try to settle the complaint, or Canada, which sends 75 per cent of its exports to the United States, could ask the WTO to adjudicate.

I'm not sure what the Canadians are up to but I will be grabbing some popcorn and watching the show unfold from afar.

While certainly everything you have posted here is true it does not nearly paint the full picture. Canada mostly exports raw materials and goods to the US in which the US then turns around as value added finished goods. So while ending trade with Canada on the surface sounds good in the end it will only serve to increase the cost of doing business for many Americans. And with Canada recently implementing new trade agreements (CETA and CKFTA for example) it will have plenty of new customers for these goods. Certainly Canada will take a sizeable short term hit. Long term it will only force Canada to diversify and strengthen it's economy. I honestly don't see a short or long term benefit to the US in any way here.

As for the WTO. Canada has a long history of successfully fighting the US at the WTO. Softwood lumber is a great example where the we have fought and won against the US several times now costing the US tax payer billions of dollars in legal fees and damages to the Canadian lumber industry. Which has only served to make our lumber industry stronger and more efficient. Which makes the US lumber industry cry more as they fall further behind due to their short term stupidity thinking. What's even more funny. Many of the US lumber mills are more and more becoming Canadian owned.

So if the US really want's to shoot themselves in the foot while kicking us well we will simply have to deal with it. And we will. And this is us simply taking the first steps in dealing with it and getting ready to move on.

Until Alberta joins the USA that is. As for trade with the rest of Canada? No one can fool themselves and think the intrinsic strengths of the USA can be over come by anyone, even the WTO combined.

ThePointblank wrote:

And watch as American goods suddenly all get slapped with heavy tariffs as withdrawing from the WTO means loosing Most Favoured Nation status with other trade partners, if they haven't signed any trade agreements.

And I'm not sure other countries will be willing to negotiate and sign trade deals with the US, judging from American actions, besides the fact that trade deals can take years, if not decades to negotiate and come into force due to the extremely high legal complexities involved (have you ever read a free trade agreement?), which can result in an agreement being tens of thousands of pages long.

I'm sure American companies are not going to like it when they suddenly loose export markets for years because their goods are all slapped with at least 30-200% duties. I'm sure Boeing is going to be pissed if that happens.

America is a country of 324 million. Canada has 35 million. America will have the upper hand, for better or worse. If the news is any indication, most Americans seem to be against foreign goods these days, not to mention products that are competing with their domestic industries. Americans might not purchase Canadian goods in the future, but that means that American businesses will be able to sell more of it locally within the US, which will soften the blow due to potential losses in exports to Canada.

strfyr51 wrote:

None of tht is going to happen. Canada has oil pipelines going through US lands, canada can't really afford to do a lot of complaining while exercising Imminent domain over lands they don't OWN.

Doesn't US have oil pipelines going through Canada lands (think Alaska). That could even things out?
BTW don't know, honest question.

LockheedBBD wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

And watch as American goods suddenly all get slapped with heavy tariffs as withdrawing from the WTO means loosing Most Favoured Nation status with other trade partners, if they haven't signed any trade agreements.

And I'm not sure other countries will be willing to negotiate and sign trade deals with the US, judging from American actions, besides the fact that trade deals can take years, if not decades to negotiate and come into force due to the extremely high legal complexities involved (have you ever read a free trade agreement?), which can result in an agreement being tens of thousands of pages long.

I'm sure American companies are not going to like it when they suddenly loose export markets for years because their goods are all slapped with at least 30-200% duties. I'm sure Boeing is going to be pissed if that happens.

America is a country of 324 million. Canada has 35 million. America will have the upper hand, for better or worse. If the news is any indication, most Americans seem to be against foreign goods these days, not to mention products that are competing with their domestic industries. Americans might not purchase Canadian goods in the future, but that means that American businesses will be able to sell more of it locally within the US, which will soften the blow due to potential losses in exports to Canada.

I live in States and my then 5 year old remarked after going shopping "Everything I saw is made in other countries". He was looking at toys, clothing iphones etc. I explained to him America makes more esoteric stuff that people use to make things they use.

Given the complexity of world we live in, your ford was probably made in mexico and your VW was made in Tenessee.

if we dont buy something from Canada, we are more likely to end up buying it from Europe or South America or Russia

And most average americans dont know as to things they they bought may or may not be local.

As I recall from my years flying in southwest, the fellow frequent traveller thought we were flying in a Jumbo.

Subu

LockheedBBD wrote:

America is a country of 324 million. Canada has 35 million. America will have the upper hand, for better or worse. If the news is any indication, most Americans seem to be against foreign goods these days, not to mention products that are competing with their domestic industries. Americans might not purchase Canadian goods in the future, but that means that American businesses will be able to sell more of it locally within the US, which will soften the blow due to potential losses in exports to Canada.

Not sure anyone in the States or Canada cares where we get our "stuff" manufactured. Everyone manufactures in China, and as much as people , including Trump, want to say America first, the reality is it is very very difficult to find anything at your local Walmart or Canadian Tire that is not made in china, probably including everything Trumps name is on. I personally think consumers could change that by seeking products that are made locally, it just makes so much sense. I do, and it saves me so much money by not buying a bunch or crap.

I agree, America will always have the upper hand in this....sad. But that is the reality, there is very little that Canada can do, even if , and I say if, there were never any "subsidies". But I think we all know, even if we don't say it, all Corporations, yes evern American ones, receive subsidies. They could be direct, or in direct, but they all receive subsidies. BBD is no exception, nor is any American , or European airplane manufacturer.

Pretty funny how the up to 135-seat CS100 can compete with the 737-7MAX but the up to 146-seat E195-E2 somehow does not.