So did Bombardier not just "invest" in Delta or are the rules different for non Boeing aircraft acquisition ?
Wow, the lack of understanding of trade law here is just overwhelming.
Boeing has big financial transactions with dozens of carriers routinely. It may sell aircraft outright. It may lease aircraft. It may make loans. It's a firm with nearly $100 Billion in annual revenue. $160 million isn't much on that scale. Other carriers have their own transactions with Boeing, Airbus, lease companies, and others. They have little reason to care what Boeing did with Monarch. Do you really think sustaining Monarch did material harm
The trade case with a preliminary finding against Bombardier is over dumping - selling goods below cost. U.S. anti-dumping law isn't new, and it isn't confined to NAFTA - it goes back to 1930, in fact. Aircraft have a big (and deferred) R&D cost so there's room for debate over what 'below cost' can mean. There have been lots of anti-dumping cases filed, found with merit, and have countervailing duties imposed. There's a process. There are appeals under WTO rules. The whole thing is far from done. Here's a list of commodities where countervailing duties have been imposed on goods from Canada specifically:
Brass Sheet & Strip (A-122-601)
Carbon And Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod (A-122-840)
Citric Acid And Citrate Salt (A-122-853)
Iron Construction Castings (A-122-503)
Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin (A-122-855)
Pure Magnesium (C-122-815)
Supercalendered Paper (C-122-854)
Here's a link to all countervailing duties from the U.S. Dept of Commerce. http://web.ita.doc.gov/ia/CaseM.nsf/136 ... 2?OpenView
Arguing about Bombardier's dumping case in the same context as Boeing's investment in Monarch makes absolutely no sense at all.