I read all of the comments on Dominic Gate's article in the Seattle Times. I assume most of those (little less than 100) were locals. The general tenor is that Boeing should not have pursued sanctions against Bombardier. Boeing, despite all of the Washington State tax abatements, has not treated the state all that well. It is the 'home team', but few of us are fan boys.
That's reassuring. I hope this doesn't sound patronising, because it's not meant that way - I've seen Airbus get loads of sh*t from the home media and populace, and while a fair amount of criticism was justified, a fair amount also wasn't - and yet, on the whole, it's made Airbus a better and more competitive company. Any company I worked with didn't get better because of flattering comments from fanboys, but because of (constructive and well-founded) criticism.
Generally, I'm somewhat astounded (and reassured - as I've learned to no longer take common sense for granted) by how much flak Boeing are getting for their approach in this case because to me it seems like such a clear-cut case of anti-innovative corporate bullying. And that's coming from somebody who used to be such a Boeing fanboy, I wrote them the first fan letter when I was about 8 or 9. (Pre-internet, , it was surprisingly tricky to find out Boeing's postal address - I think I went with "Boeing Seattle" or something and eventually actually got a reply with a nice letter and a bunch of brochures, which for some stupid reason I lost when I moved house once.)
There’s no assurance BBD or Canada or Airbus will fund a similar deal to any other airline. This could well piss off Delta’s domestic competitors.
I'm really astounded at how much is made of the deal DL (allegedly) got and how that is supposed to piss off others that might follow.
As if BBD were the first to offer deep discounts to win a launch customer, break into a key market, unseat the incumbent supplier, etc.
No matter how good your product is, sometimes you need to take losses on the first few produced and sold so you can get some traction and reputation in the marketplace.
Boeing did it with the 787, Airbus did it with their Eastern A300 deal, and I'm sure there are plenty of other examples that we don't even know about.
And yet, Airbus did end up making money with the A300 at Eastern and others, Boeing did hike up prices for the 787 (and will eventually make money on the programme as well), and so on.
Because everybody's aware that such early-customer incentivising prices aren't available for ever, nor for everyone.
The above being a general rule that surely applies to the CSeries as well.
Now, with regard to DL in particular, whatever the agreed price actually was, DL had to go through an awful lot of hassle and uncertainty thanks to Boeing's complaint. I'm sure prospective future customers are happy to pay more than Dl simply in exchange for not having to deal with all that stupid crap.
By the way - something that one or two people said here was that "hey, they couldn't have found harm because no CSeries has been delivered yet, but wait for the first to be delivered, or wait for the first CS300 order/delivery, and things could change". Or something along those lines, anyway.
It's maybe worth noting that the USITC in what little it has so far released about their finding/reasoning explicitly said
The United States International Trade Commission (USITC) today determined that a U.S. industry is not materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports of 100- to 150-seat large civil aircraft from Canada
I.e. not only do they not recognise any harm done so far, they also don't recognise any harm likely to be done in the future. The delivery of planes already ordered was surely factored into that assessment.
Last edited by anfromme
on Sat Jan 27, 2018 10:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.