On a good day, most of us here recognise you have a sensible take on things.
On a bad day, you & I can scrap like a pair of alley cats.
Let's start out as if today is a good day!
Yup, I agree with your analysis.
And Boeing are of course going to pursue this line of attack. No surprises there.
Just as CSALP will defend their position by pointing out that with Airbus on-board, they are anticipating a change in fortune, with many new orders. That alone is justification for opening a second FAL.
Whether it should be located at Mirabel, or Mobile, is another matter. It's not as if Mobile is a green field site for Airbus, or that this is the first time Airbus has established multiple FALs at differing locations.
So Boeing are simply doing the obvious thing. My own opinion is that their argument is weak. And indeed, I strongly suspect that even they do not believe in this line of argument in itself, just that it serves as a useful stalling tactic.
Besides, the lawyers have their own agenda in terms of keeping the legal battle alive.
I think it boils down to the feeling that what Boeing is doing is unjust, and most of us feel that way.
What I think many people here are not factoring in to this is that the US legal system doesn't necessarily deliver justice.
Think of the whole KC-330 tanker saga. Many feel KC-330 was a good product at a good price. Boeing appealed saying that the decision criteria were not applied correctly, and that was upheld. A second (actually third, but who's counting?) set of proposals were issued that simplified the decision criteria (many say to favor Boeing's product, but still...) and KC-46A is now in production.
We certainly could see the DoC decide use of the Mobile FAL is a circumvention and DL is still liable for the duties. Many would say that's an unjust outcome of the legal system, but Boeing would say we're just playing by the rules.
Jayafe wrote:Funny how much effort, money and PR Boeing is putting in despising and trying to drop the CSeries off, when they say at the same time that:
1) the project was not worth it for them to buy it
2) the numbers of orders make it unprofitable
3) the construction of a FAL is burning money
And even so they sued to make their US BigBrother applying 300% tariffs and will continue to bull them all around WTO, even when the production will math their “national” demands....
The dilemma comes when Boeing has to argue that this weak product is causing them harm so tariffs have to be applied to it.
SheikhDjibouti wrote:SomebodyInTLS wrote:Jayafe wrote:Funny seeing a cow upside down in the mud
Haven't heard that one before - guess it's a translation of a local phrase. I like it though
I'm guessing the local phrase is based on the much more pithy "it's all gone tits up"
(I do hope those words do not offend the censors here; we are talking about a cow's udders, but resorting to that level of detail kinda destroys the humour angle)
Actually the forum rules do allow for occasional swear words if they are not gratuitous. I think this is an applicable use.
Urban Dictionary ( https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tits+up ) gives us the origin:
Origin: when any mammal has died and is on its back, it is "tits up". Things have gone titsup, meaning, the animal/situation has fallen down/gone wrong.