astuteman wrote:

Personally I think hell will freeze over first before Boeing even get a sniff of a deal with BBD. It's just not going to happen

So true! Especially when considering BBD deliberately withhold sensitive information during the US Commerce Dept hearings, to ensure that nothing gets to Boeing...

astuteman wrote:

Personally I think hell will freeze over first before Boeing even get a sniff of a deal with BBD. It's just not going to happen

Rgds

Why not? The value of the C-Series Program just increased dramatically. If Boeing ups the Airbus deal by putting several billion USD on the table, it is in BBD's best interest to take it.

incitatus wrote:

astuteman wrote:

Personally I think hell will freeze over first before Boeing even get a sniff of a deal with BBD. It's just not going to happen

Rgds

Why not? The value of the C-Series Program just increased dramatically. If Boeing ups the Airbus deal by putting several billion USD on the table, it is in BBD's best interest to take it.

It's too late at this point. Since it has been publicly announced, there will be contracts in place already.

cjpark wrote:

Or…… Airbus just found the perfect way to kill the program.

32andBelow wrote:

It's also an airbus competitor. Why are you guys so sure AB isn't just going to shelve it.

The salt and sour grapes from you guys is hilarious. Read the comments of Airbus execs. Look at the promises they had to make to get the Quebec, Canadian and UK governments to approve the deal. There is no way they are killing the CSeries. Heck, they've openly admitted they are going to nuke the 319NEO.

diverdave wrote:

Canada moving production to the Airbus plant in Alabama is ironic to the extreme.

Canada is not happy about the US having right to work states.

https://slate.com/business/2017/09/cana ... -laws.html

And a bunch of Canadian work just got moved to a non-union factory in a right to work state.

Read the original source. Airbus has provided job guarantees till 2041 in Quebec. Growth may go elsewhere. But not one job today is being lost. In fact, those jobs are more secure today than they were yesterday morning. Only production for the US market is going to Mobile. This is a win-win for Montreal and Mobile.

Some people seem to really have issues with analysis that isn't zero sum.

dashdrvr wrote:

AB buys majority share in a failing company with well underperforming sales of their flagship aircraft. AB either bought to continue the line or shut it down. Time will tell. Rest assured the US government won't sit idly buy as Bombardier or AB try an end run on dumping underpriced aircraft in the US market through the front door or back door.

Like I said above. The salt and sour grapes is proving quite entertaining. Explain how they plan on stopping an american factory from making an airplane out of mostly American parts. Over 50% of the CSeries content was American when it was in Montreal. That number is going to go much higher in Mobile. Easily 80%. What regulation will let them stop this?

incitatus wrote:

This deal is far from sealed. There are multiple regulatory hurdles that will have to be cleared, but it will very likely get through it. If Airbus is getting an awesome deal, it is because BBD is not getting one. BBD was pressed against the wall and settled for it could get out of Airbus.

I expect Boeing to come out and offer BBD a much better deal.

There's no real regulatory hurdles. It's a program from a number 3 planemaker. Not the whole company. So arguing anti-trust would really be laughable. The Quebec government, Airbus and Bombardier boards have already approved the deal. The Industry Minister has said he will review. But other Canadian and British ministers are already saying they are onboard. So, what regulatory barrier do you foresee beyond just hoping for some hail mary to stop the deal from the US Government (which has no real standing for a deal between a Canadian and an European company).

There's no counter offer coming from Boeing. Keep wishing. They should have put in an offer 6 months ago.

incitatus wrote:

astuteman wrote:

Personally I think hell will freeze over first before Boeing even get a sniff of a deal with BBD. It's just not going to happen

Rgds

Why not? The value of the C-Series Program just increased dramatically. If Boeing ups the Airbus deal by putting several billion USD on the table, it is in BBD's best interest to take it.

What's the likelihood that Airbus didn't put in a hefty breakup clause before announcing? Do you think lawyers with multi-billion dollar deals are stupid?

Noshow wrote:

Why would Boeing have attacked Bombardier the way Boeing did? A small competitor without money.
But Boeing used the big artillery against them. They must have known something.

Boeing said so themselves: 30 years ago yhey underestimated Airbus and 'allowed' them into the US market when, in their world view, they could have run them not only out of the US, but completely out of business. They didn't want to repeat that 'mistake' again and so, in a fantastically clumsy and ill-thought out manner, played the big bully card.

The Trumpesque tirade of the Boeing SVP Comms currently running on twitter is, if anything, an even bigger embarrassment.

Aesma wrote:

I'm liking the CSeries more already ah ah !

Airbus stock went up 4.83% today.

Bombardier stock up 20%.

BlueSky1976 wrote:

People! Look at the BIG picture. Airbus isn't killing any CS500. If anything, they've just got CS500 handed over on a silver platter!


Circa 2020, Airbus will have to either put a new wing on A32x or design all-new, own "MoM" aircraft, to be able to offer it's own 4000nm product. My money is on all-new wing for A32x due to its fuselage's unmatched, superior efficiency vs. 737 and to keep development cost down. With CS500 being nothing more than a simple stretch - enough for 2500nm+ range - we'll have the following:.

What you wrote is silly.

They have really given no indication they want to redo the A320. It's selling wonderfully, it's highly profitable, and their is no new competitor coming soon.

In 2020 they will still be building A320neos. The backlog goes to about 2023 or so.

cumulushumilis wrote:

The demands being made on Canada by the US in NAFTA negotiation such as the dismantling of supply management in the dairy industry, auto parts and car manufacturing to support protectionist trade policies are considered non starters in trade negotiations. There is no tolerance for unrealistic demands, unfair and irrational tariffs on Canadian products and the Canada has the ability to partner with other countries, not just the big bully down south. This Bombardier debacle is not lost on Canadian trade negotiators, if the US imposes unreasonable demands Canada, will take its products somewhere else. CETA, Asia Pan Pacific.

So well explained.

I'm still at loss of US demands on Canada.

The current trade balance of manufactured goods and services is considerably in favor of the US. Only when we add Canadian exports of petroleum/natural resources, then the US / Canada trade is somewhat balanced / or slightly in Canada's favor.

Obviously, the US has the best of both worlds here; it sells its manufactured goods & services to Canada, while having total access to Canada's natural resources.

Any countries has to figure out what's better: accept being bullied into total submission for the rest of its life, or look for fairer alternatives (FWIW, BBD&Quebec made its pick yesterday)

As mentioned above, "This Bombardier debacle is not lost on Canadian trade negotiators". The level of trust has taken a hit.

incitatus wrote:

There no "issues". There are approvals, and they do not have them. This is not a done deal until it has regulatory approval and is signed. Of course there is contract in place, but it is one of intent, not the transaction itself.

Approvals that have not yet been obtained are issues that need to be resolved. And the contract that is in place most definitely will be more than a letter of intent. There is no way Airbus would have announced this until there was a firm contract in place, subject to all of the necessary regulatory and other hurdles being crossed.

The contract that is in place will definitely exclude BBD entertaining any counter offers until and unless this deal falls through - Airbus are nowhere near stupid enough for that not to be the case.

incitatus wrote:

astuteman wrote:

Personally I think hell will freeze over first before Boeing even get a sniff of a deal with BBD. It's just not going to happen

Rgds

Why not? The value of the C-Series Program just increased dramatically. If Boeing ups the Airbus deal by putting several billion USD on the table, it is in BBD's best interest to take it.

Only if their best interest extended no further than the standard Wall Street next quarterly. Boeing does not have a history of nursing products they've bought; they have a history of sending them off to the annals of history, lest they negatively impact sales of their own prodigy. Sure, BBD could have taken the billions and used them to, at least partially, cover the very deep hole that is C-series cost so far. And then in a few years, BBD would no longer exist and thousands of jobs would be lost. That would be highly undesirable for a major shareholder, namely the province of Quebec. So, no, it would most certainly not be in their best interest to sell to Boeing - it would be a death sentence for the C-series and BBD aircraft.

ACCS300 wrote:

I'll bet AC is wishing they'd never gone with the MAX now. I see both major Canadian carriers hugely supporting this partnership especially in the wake of Boeing's tanking image here.

Why would Air Canada care? The matter has nothing to do with them and the Air Canada order for 737s has not gotten caught up in the discussion on the cross border tiff -- at least not publicly. So it's not like there was an open threat of retaliation against Boeing beyond the federal government's halt of a plan to buy Super Hornets.

kitplane01 wrote:

The backlog goes to about 2023 or so.

About the time that Boeing launches the MOM or NSA if they start today. And about the time that Airbus takes full ownership of the CSeries.

WaywardMemphian wrote:

Here's a simple fact. The C Series program was worth about 2 to 2.5 Billion in US dollars. ....For crying out loud, Airbus basically got it for free.

The first sentence is wrong. The second sentence is correct.

PanAm788 wrote:

Lots of smart people have given their opinion but nonetheless here's mine.


Loser: Embraer
- Embraer must be super pissed that not only did the production costs of their biggest competitor get totally slashed overnight

No. The plane is being built by the same people using the same processes with the same suppliers.

There is a theoretical hope that Airbus can improve the process/supply-chain with their knowledge, but no one knows for sure and it will very likely take years.

Just a reminder of some known facts of the deal:

https://in.reuters.com/article/bombardi ... NKBN1CM2FD

cumulushumilis wrote:

PanAm788 wrote:

cumulushumilis wrote:

Regardless Boeing, and the US government just got schooled in the concept of globalization, and how little power protectionist trade policies actually have in today's global economy.

How did the US government get schooled here?

Basically their complaint was "Hey BBD used a direct government injection in order to offer a product that competes with a US-made product at a price below cost. That's illegal and hurts US manufacturing."

The solution was to manufacture the products in the US that were originally going to be imported.

Boeing may have gotten schooled (though I think less severely than people on here think) but the US government more or less got an acceptable outcome.

Maybe the aircraft may have dumped and even then there is some question as to how much. Even so, it does it support a 300 percent tariff?

Imposing unseasonable and irrational tariffs, companies and countries can and have the ability of circumvent those duties and tariffs. The 300 percent tariff was unrealistic, BBD found a partner (a non US company) willing to work with it to ensure survival of the program and to ensure that taxpayers investment in the program will yield a return,. Yes a few jobs will end up in the states to support production of US aircraft, however in the end Boeing (and by logical extension the US government) loses market share and potentially access to billion dollars of defense contracts.

The demands being made on Canada by the US in NAFTA negotiation such as the dismantling of supply management in the dairy industry, auto parts and car manufacturing to support protectionist trade policies are considered non starters in trade negotiations. There is no tolerance for unrealistic demands, unfair and irrational tariffs on Canadian products and the Canada has the ability to partner with other countries, not just the big bully down south. This Bombardier debacle is not lost on Canadian trade negotiators, if the US imposes unreasonable demands Canada, will take its products somewhere else. CETA, Asia Pan Pacific.

The 300% tariff may seem unreasonable but it clearly was designed as a punishment to BBD not as something to get the CSeries price to something "fair".

I don't think you can accurately equate Boeing to the US government here. Boeing clearly took a calculated risk in pursuing this, knowing that they would lose the Super Hornet contract and risked alienating the Canadian government and some Canadian companies. All the future loss of market share, contracts, etc. that may or may not occur falls squarely on Boeing's shoulders. The US government simply heard their case and agreed with them that BBD's pricing was illegal. Since the end result was producing US bound Cseries in the US, I maintain that the US government got a decent outcome here.

Lastly, it's a little off topic but on US-Canada trade issues, I think it's a very complex topic and both sides have valid grievances. For the ones you listed I think I could point to lumber as an area where Canada has perhaps taken advantage of the US. Hopefully these all get worked out in NAFTA re-negotiations, which I think are needed. Both US and Canada mutually benefit from free and fair trade and our economies are so aligned it would be dumb to have it any other way.

So, as I wrote (too) late yesterday (this morning, in fact), fundamentally, BBD is paying for AIB to take the CSeries, BBD and the Quebec government save faces because the nominal headquarter and the current jobs stay where they are (meaning; no job losses before the next provincial and federal elections), the risk has been taken, is taken and will be taken mostly by BBD (and the governments here), the decisions will be taken by AIB, who gets handled a complete program performing better than expected but only once in the air, with all the associated IP, fundamentally for free. That program may replace in their showroom their own smaller product that has not sold for a few years now. AIB has had to bring to the banquet a fair amount of goodwill (safekeeping the jobs and saving the faces), knowhow and contacts.

Will they try to sell and save the CSeries? Some say that no because it would cannibalize their own A32X sales. Well, first, since the A319 does not really sell anymore, there is no risk here. Second, to have some sales in that sector of the market, they would have to invest a few billions. So, what is best: 100% of potential profits after investing a lot, or 50% (short-term) of potential profits after investing about nothing?

And, if it fails, they will find the way to get a nice write-off for their upcoming taxes.

kitplane01 wrote:

PanAm788 wrote:

Lots of smart people have given their opinion but nonetheless here's mine.


Loser: Embraer
- Embraer must be super pissed that not only did the production costs of their biggest competitor get totally slashed overnight

No. The plane is being built by the same people using the same processes with the same suppliers.

There is a theoretical hope that Airbus can improve the process/supply-chain with their knowledge, but no one knows for sure and it will very likely take years.

I was being a bit facetious but yes you are right nothing has actually changed overnight. What I was getting at was 1) Airbus should be able to get costs down over time and will provide production stability and 2) a $5 cost is much more severe to someone that has $10 (BBD) than to someone who has $1,000 (Airbus), which I think is a decent analogy for the situation.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Boeing778X wrote:

And THAT is a huge kick in the head for Boeing! Terrific news for the C-Series!

You know what would be a mind blowing lineup?

CS100
CS300
CS500
A321neo
A321LR
A322

Unstoppable! Boeing has to do an NSA now!

I think this:

CS100
CS300
A320neo
A321neo
A322neo

Does the job nicely. I've long thought that the CS100/CS300/A320neo/A321neo would be a killer lineup for an airline. And frankly, an E175/E190/MAX 8/MAX 10 wouldn't be all that bad either. You can throw in the E195 and MAX 9 but they are somewhat superfluous in the big picture.

I disagree slightly. The C-Series, particularly the CS100, is over engineered, for lack of a better term. Overlooking the CS500 in favor of the A320neo is a gross oversight.

Making the A320neo and CS500 side by side wouldn't be bad, but to not develop the 500 would be robbing the aircraft of its full potential.

What happens to this deal if USITC rules against USDOC?

I think we'll be able to tell if this has blown up in Boeings face if a number of executives suddenly retire or get reassigned.

incitatus wrote:

astuteman wrote:

Personally I think hell will freeze over first before Boeing even get a sniff of a deal with BBD. It's just not going to happen

Rgds

Why not? The value of the C-Series Program just increased dramatically. If Boeing ups the Airbus deal by putting several billion USD on the table, it is in BBD's best interest to take it.

They had their chance at a great, new 100 to 150 seater plane line where the development costs had already been baked into the cake by someone else. It would have allowed the them to cover the the lower end of the the dinosaur 737 line with a great product as they hammered out a MOM. Instead, they wanted to kill off any additional competition so they could cheaply milk the oldest cow in the narrowbody pasture. Looking back, throwing 2to 3 billion to Bombardier for the C Series will seem like a steal compared to what a complete NSA will cost. It would have mended fences with Delta, offered a revisit with United since they upgaged those cheap ass 700s you baited and switched on them to stop Bombardier. If it wasn't Bombardier, it would have been the Chinese, this plane is too good to toss away.

dtw2hyd wrote:

What happens to this deal if USITC rules against USDOC?

Nothing. At this point all the players have made their bed. Bombardier and Airbus aren't going to revoke the deal. The only change that happens is whether the Mobile FAL gets built. But even that could be insulated from the ruling.

Bombardier's ramp was anemic. Aiming for 30 airplanes in 2017. Boeing and Airbus do that in weeks. And after this deal, it's pretty clear that prospects for the CSeries have improved substantially. So there's probably a decent case to be made for a second FAL in Mobile.

Canuck600 wrote:

I think we'll be able to tell if this has blown up in Boeings face if a number of executives suddenly retire or get reassigned.

Were I a Boeing shareholder, I'd want heads to roll. The Canadian and British governments have said that Boeing is still not off the hook for their defence contracts. And All Boeing succeeded in doing is making the deal better for Airbus.

Look at where Boeing is strategically today. Doesn't look good. The day they announce the NSA is the day that Airbus announces the CS500. And they day they announce the MOM is the day they announce the 320.5 and the 322. And Airbus will spend less and bring those to market faster than Boeing.

ytz wrote:

Canuck600 wrote:

I think we'll be able to tell if this has blown up in Boeings face if a number of executives suddenly retire or get reassigned.

Were I a Boeing shareholder, I'd want heads to roll. The Canadian and British governments have said that Boeing is still not off the hook for their defence contracts. And All Boeing succeeded in doing is making the deal better for Airbus.

Look at where Boeing is strategically today. Doesn't look good. The day they announce the NSA is the day that Airbus announces the CS500. And they day they announce the MOM is the day they announce the 320.5 and the 322. And Airbus will spend less and bring those to market faster than Boeing.

I don't think Boeing executives did anything wrong here. They were looking after Boeing's interests, which is their job. They were acting in good faith and there is nothing yet to suggest they don't have a case against BBD.

Aircellist wrote:

So, as I wrote (too) late yesterday (this morning, in fact), fundamentally, BBD is paying for AIB to take the CSeries, BBD and the Quebec government save faces because the nominal headquarter and the current jobs stay where they are (meaning; no job losses before the next provincial and federal elections), the risk has been taken, is taken and will be taken mostly by BBD (and the governments here), the decisions will be taken by AIB, who gets handled a complete program performing better than expected but only once in the air, with all the associated IP, fundamentally for free. That program may replace in their showroom their own smaller product that has not sold for a few years now. AIB has had to bring to the banquet a fair amount of goodwill (safekeeping the jobs and saving the faces), knowhow and contacts.

Will they try to sell and save the CSeries? Some say that no because it would cannibalize their own A32X sales. Well, first, since the A319 does not really sell anymore, there is no risk here. Second, to have some sales in that sector of the market, they would have to invest a few billions. So, what is best: 100% of potential profits after investing a lot, or 50% (short-term) of potential profits after investing about nothing?

And, if it fails, they will find the way to get a nice write-off for their upcoming taxes.

From the stuff I've read from the AB folks, the 319 is dead because it hasn't sold but the C-Series has sold some inspite of the doubts of BBD as a going concern. They get three years to drive down costs and pitch it themselves to airlines before they put real skin the game when they can choose to buyout Quebec's piece of the pie. If it is a failure, they pull the plug with much pain or they get 70 percent of a success going forward. From there, they can decide to push forward with a CS500 with Bombardier helping pay for it.

ytz wrote:

Nothing. At this point all the players have made their bed. Bombardier and Airbus aren't going to revoke the deal. The only change that happens is whether the Mobile FAL gets built. But even that could be insulated from the ruling.

Bombardier's ramp was anemic. Aiming for 30 airplanes in 2017. Boeing and Airbus do that in weeks. And after this deal, it's pretty clear that prospects for the CSeries have improved substantially. So there's probably a decent case to be made for a second FAL in Mobile.

Thanks. I think Airbus may have even blunted EU's investigation with this move. It now has two more countries to subsidize and give export guarantees. Now the UK, France, and Germany have to be nice to Airbus.

incitatus wrote:

dodoma wrote:

This is what capitalism is about. Under normal circumstances anyone can choose their business partners.

Absolutely not true. Hostile takeovers.

Nope. The opposite actually, it proofs the point. A hostile takeover happens only because a company can not tell their shareholders who they can or can't do business with. Like for example selling them to the company doing the hostile take over.

And what would be the reason for BBD to reject a Boeing counter-offer besides bad blood? There is none.

That they have much more reason to believe that Airbus will try to push the program forward? They are major subcontractor after all.

This is oil barons picking an oil lamp distrubutor, not an oil lamp sale.

Best regard
Thomas

Hahahaha! Boeing lawyers and paralegals probably look for a case on point about trade agreements at the moment. Dang! Airbus did that!

A brilliant move by AIrbus. Boeing have really lost this battle big time.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

ytz wrote:

incitatus wrote:

What is the chance Boeing can assemble a counter offer? Airbus is for sure getting a sweet deal. BBD has an obligation to sell to the highest bidder.

Fairly sure this announcement was a closed deal.

And Boeing has poor chances of buying up business in Canada after what they did with De Havilland. Boeing would face substantially more scrutiny than Airbus.

This is the second time Boeing has stabbed Canada in the back, as far as Canadians are concerned.

Is this really such a big deal that all Canadians are up in arms? Reading your posts, you'd think Boeing filing a complaint had created an international crisis. If something this minor affects people that much, then I'm happy for them. They must have nothing worse to worry about.

Like many Americans, you seem to be blissfully unaware of what happens in your neighbouring countries. Canadians have lost faith in the USA as a trading partner since the election of Trump. There has always been some bullying of a smaller neighbour by the USA in trade, but independent tribunals more of then than not ruled in Canada's favour. Now there is an occupant of the White House who is trying to get rid of such tribunals, and to impose conditions on Canada and Mexico that won't apply to itself. Canada just inked a free trade deal with the EU, the AB-BBD arrangement is a nice underscore of that. I would not be surprised to see Canada choose one of the European fighters over the US offering once NAFTA negotiations have collapsed (inevitable, thank to outrageous US demands).

So while you and other remain blissfully ignorant of what goes on on the other side of your borders, the countries that should be your closest allies are turning to Europe and to China. Congratulations.

goosebayguy wrote:

A brilliant move by AIrbus. Boeing have really lost this battle big time.

Not according to Boeing they haven't... https://twitter.com/Boeing/status/920373843142864896

VS11 wrote:

I don't think Boeing executives did anything wrong here. They were looking after Boeing's interests, which is their job. They were acting in good faith and there is nothing yet to suggest they don't have a case against BBD.

I am sorry, but there is not one single word in your whole sentence that is not wrong, hypocrite, false and/or immoral. Unbelievable.

ZB052 wrote:

goosebayguy wrote:

A brilliant move by AIrbus. Boeing have really lost this battle big time.

Not according to Boeing they haven't... https://twitter.com/Boeing/status/920373843142864896

Ok, the twitter war started looking shamming fro Boeing. It is embarrassing now

Jayafe wrote:

VS11 wrote:

I don't think Boeing executives did anything wrong here. They were looking after Boeing's interests, which is their job. They were acting in good faith and there is nothing yet to suggest they don't have a case against BBD.

I am sorry, but there is not one single word in your whole sentence that is not wrong, hypocrite, false and/or immoral. Unbelievable.

What court judgment stipulates that the government money given to BBD is not a subsidy and does not violate the applicable trade agreements?

ytz wrote:

Aesma wrote:

I'm liking the CSeries more already ah ah !

Airbus stock went up 4.83% today.

Bombardier stock up 20%.

Wait till the new orders come in, and they will. I'm making a limited killing off of this like the time I bought Six Flags for 6 bucks when they exited bankruptcy after the 2008 crash.

Revelation wrote:

rheinwaldner wrote:

I mean, I ask you what objectives Boeing was able to materialize in their fight against BBD..

- Put C-Series out of business? Failed

Not sure that was ever a realistic objective. Everything would have had to go perfectly for Boeing at an eventual WTO action, and as we've all seen, WTO's actions rarely have an impact.

- Suppress a CS500? Failed (many narrowbody aircraft designs did grow 50% to 100% in capacity over their lifespan, here we are talking about a ~15% increase)

CS500 is now more likely than before, but still has a lot of obstacles in its path. Let us know when an announcement is immanent.

- I think damaging BBD to the point of bankruptcy was a realistic outcome until yesterday. That would have put the C-Series out of business.
- Agreed about the obstacles for the CS500

Revelation wrote:

Driving the program into the hands of Airbus means that it didn't end up in the hands of China, which would really have destabilized the duopoly, whereas with this deal the duopoly keeps rolling. China has shown via COMAC that they're willing to spend the time and money, and getting BBD's technology would have been like pouring gasoline on a fire. I can imagine Airbus, BBD, Boeing, Europe, Canada and the US are all glad that the program didn't go to China.

The duopoly in itself has no value. From Boeings perspective a market split of 30%/70% B(Boeing)/A(Airbus) is not better than a market split of 30%/55%/15% B/A/C (Comac). I would say, packaging deals with CSeries/A320 will steal more sales from Boeing than a China marketed CSeries. Much more even.

VS11 wrote:

I don't think Boeing executives did anything wrong here. They were looking after Boeing's interests, which is their job. They were acting in good faith and there is nothing yet to suggest they don't have a case against BBD.

Boeings interests could not be more devastatingly damaged by any other outcome IMHO. Or, can you tell me what objectives Boeing actually achieved by opening a case against BBD? For what exactly can they clap each other on the shoulder right now? As a Boeing shareholder one maybe even could sue the Boeing executives for damaging Boeings interests so badly.

PanAm788 wrote:

[
Basically their complaint was "Hey BBD used a direct government injection in order to offer a product that competes with a US-made product at a price below cost. That's illegal and hurts US manufacturing."

Which is one of two reasons that I doubt that the tariff would have stood at all... Please tell me which US made product the CS-100 and CS-300 competes against.

2nd issue, was the amount of tariff. 10-15% would have been reasonable... 300% is not and would not have stood up under international review.

Playing the "protectionist" card HARD when you don't have much of a case and applying truly exorbitant tariffs for the situation ... does not put you in good light for future international trade. The USA, and many other countries depend on international trade.

The problem BBD faced was that it would likely have taken 3-5 years to work its way through the international system and get it all cleared up.

Problem now solved. They face a 30-60 day regulatory review in Canada; with a highly likely pre-known outcome. That is all...

Have a great day,

ZB052 wrote:

goosebayguy wrote:

A brilliant move by AIrbus. Boeing have really lost this battle big time.

Not according to Boeing they haven't... https://twitter.com/Boeing/status/920373843142864896

So, there will be a 300% tariff on perhaps 20% of the plane. So, 140% of the normal price. BBD will now write of half of R&D and tolling costs, they gave that away for free after all, Airbus got R&D and tooling for free, those costs per unit just halfed. Add in a few percentage points from ABs longer leverage on suppliers and they may still be able to sell cheaper despite 300% tariff on those few non-US parts.

Best regards
Thomas

As I see it, Boeing - with governmental support - tried to blackmail Bombardier into bankruptcy. They failed dramatically and they have lost their face.

A317-100, A317-300, A317-500...it looks proper!

VS11 wrote:

What court judgment stipulates that the government money given to BBD is not a subsidy and does not violate the applicable trade agreements?

Which one has? The one bullied by Boeing, the one that previously injected tons of dollars to smash any competition around for major grace of the US despising anything around. Your argument is lost by far is too many threads, please try not to lecture after being the sinner.

ZB052 wrote:

goosebayguy wrote:

A brilliant move by AIrbus. Boeing have really lost this battle big time.

Not according to Boeing they haven't... https://twitter.com/Boeing/status/920373843142864896

Seems Boeing is bound and determined to NEVER sell another airplane to DL!!!

PanAm788 wrote:

cumulushumilis wrote:

PanAm788 wrote:

How did the US government get schooled here?

Basically their complaint was "Hey BBD used a direct government injection in order to offer a product that competes with a US-made product at a price below cost. That's illegal and hurts US manufacturing."

The solution was to manufacture the products in the US that were originally going to be imported.

Boeing may have gotten schooled (though I think less severely than people on here think) but the US government more or less got an acceptable outcome.

Maybe the aircraft may have dumped and even then there is some question as to how much. Even so, it does it support a 300 percent tariff?

Imposing unseasonable and irrational tariffs, companies and countries can and have the ability of circumvent those duties and tariffs. The 300 percent tariff was unrealistic, BBD found a partner (a non US company) willing to work with it to ensure survival of the program and to ensure that taxpayers investment in the program will yield a return,. Yes a few jobs will end up in the states to support production of US aircraft, however in the end Boeing (and by logical extension the US government) loses market share and potentially access to billion dollars of defense contracts.

The demands being made on Canada by the US in NAFTA negotiation such as the dismantling of supply management in the dairy industry, auto parts and car manufacturing to support protectionist trade policies are considered non starters in trade negotiations. There is no tolerance for unrealistic demands, unfair and irrational tariffs on Canadian products and the Canada has the ability to partner with other countries, not just the big bully down south. This Bombardier debacle is not lost on Canadian trade negotiators, if the US imposes unreasonable demands Canada, will take its products somewhere else. CETA, Asia Pan Pacific.

The 300% tariff may seem unreasonable but it clearly was designed as a punishment to BBD not as something to get the CSeries price to something "fair".

I don't think you can accurately equate Boeing to the US government here. Boeing clearly took a calculated risk in pursuing this, knowing that they would lose the Super Hornet contract and risked alienating the Canadian government and some Canadian companies. All the future loss of market share, contracts, etc. that may or may not occur falls squarely on Boeing's shoulders. The US government simply heard their case and agreed with them that BBD's pricing was illegal. Since the end result was producing US bound Cseries in the US, I maintain that the US government got a decent outcome here.

Lastly, it's a little off topic but on US-Canada trade issues, I think it's a very complex topic and both sides have valid grievances. For the ones you listed I think I could point to lumber as an area where Canada has perhaps taken advantage of the US. Hopefully these all get worked out in NAFTA re-negotiations, which I think are needed. Both US and Canada mutually benefit from free and fair trade and our economies are so aligned it would be dumb to have it any other way.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/freeland-calls-bombardier-ruling-a-clear-case-of-protectionism-1.3609256

Fair enough, but the Canadian Government has been unequivocal in its assertions that the tariffs are a clear case of protectionism as per the interview with Minister Freeland.. US - Canada trade issues are extremely complex in nature, however there has been a lot of blow back in Canada from the actions of Boeing and the ensuing tariffs from the US Government. What it does highlight is the dispute/resolution process between the two countries in particular chapter 19 of NAFTA does not work. My point is simply while a few jets will be "assembled" in Mobile, the majority stakeholder is from a CETA nation. Boeing and and ensuing US government dumping tariffs were designed to take out a competitor. If anything the net result for the US government is increased trade tensions with their two closet allies Great Britain and Canada and a clear signal that business will be done elsewhere.

I respect your protectionist position that the US may have gotten a decent short term outcome; for few short term secure jobs in the US from a FAL? At the expense of a super hornet deal, P-8, and tanker deal? Granted they are Boeing products, however it is more likely that Canada ditches the super hornets, purchases the A-330 for tankers and buys somethings else for a maritime platform. That money does not go to the US in the form of trade period. Also most likely is that other US airlines will order the C series, resulting in the further flow of money offshore into Airbus, Quebec Government and Bombardier accounts.

Canada has made it known that it will pursue independent free trade agreements with other nations reducing its reliance on US trade. From a trade relations perspective the US has strained relations and have pissed off their two biggest allies for minimal gain.

kitplane01 wrote:

BlueSky1976 wrote:

People! Look at the BIG picture. Airbus isn't killing any CS500. If anything, they've just got CS500 handed over on a silver platter!


Circa 2020, Airbus will have to either put a new wing on A32x or design all-new, own "MoM" aircraft, to be able to offer it's own 4000nm product. My money is on all-new wing for A32x due to its fuselage's unmatched, superior efficiency vs. 737 and to keep development cost down. With CS500 being nothing more than a simple stretch - enough for 2500nm+ range - we'll have the following:.

What you wrote is silly.

They have really given no indication they want to redo the A320. It's selling wonderfully, it's highly profitable, and their is no new competitor coming soon.

In 2020 they will still be building A320neos. The backlog goes to about 2023 or so.

The A320s wing hasn't been changed for 30 years. It is outdated, and will need to be replaced sooner or later. It is only a matter of time before the MC-21 and C919 start becoming serious competitors, and Boeing may even launch a clean-sheet 737 replacement at some point. If Airbus is to avoid suffering the same way Boeing did in the 1990s when they insisted that the 737 Classics were "good enough", then they need to move preemptively. The A340 Blade demonstrator is proof that they are already busy with the process.

kitplane01 wrote:

My money is on all-new wing for A32x due to its fuselage's unmatched, superior efficiency vs. 737 and to keep development cost down.

I would have said the same, but with half the A320 family replacement out of the picture now, I think they could go all-in with a clean-sheet replacement now.

ZB052 wrote:

goosebayguy wrote:

A brilliant move by AIrbus. Boeing have really lost this battle big time.

Not according to Boeing they haven't... https://twitter.com/Boeing/status/920373843142864896

What Boeing says is irrelevant. If the aircraft is assembled in the US, they can only tariff the parts like any other parts imports.

They are just putting out a statement for the sake of it. I'm sure, Boeing, more than anybody else knows what little recourse they have.

One additional drawback is that it creates a problem here on Anet where we have the Airbus/Boeing order thread.... Should any CS order count towards Airbus (and thus listed in the thead) or not. I can't wait until this discussion starts.

IMHO, I don’t understand why this deal didn’t happen sooner unless it’s has taken many months of talks. My guess is the 300% tariff sealed the deal. It became do or die.

dashdrvr wrote:

ytz wrote:

EMBSPBR wrote:

Love that.
So superior that Airbus had come to help to sell it ...

Too much salt is bad for your health. And grapes are best enjoyed when they aren't sour. Good life advice.....

AB buys majority share in a failing company with well underperforming sales of their flagship aircraft. AB either bought to continue the line or shut it down. Time will tell. Rest assured the US government won't sit idly buy as Bombardier or AB try an end run on dumping underpriced aircraft in the US market through the front door or back door.

If the C series will be manufactured in the USA, dumping does not apply, as it has been laid out clearly when the question came up and what about dumping when Boeing offers under priced 737-700 to UA to keep out the CS300.

And what is about the 500 787 that were sold for less than it cost to manufacture them. Boeing is the company that has pilled up 27 billion USD loss on the 787, a number never ever heard about before in connection to a civil aircraft program.