• 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 3239
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Re: Bombardier Wins C-Series Case at ITC

Sat Jan 27, 2018 7:04 pm

PPVRA wrote:
william wrote:
anfromme wrote:
You are conveniently ignoring that not a single credible analyst or airline exec is on record saying the CS is a bad airplane.
Most of the analysis of "why isn't the CS selling better" revolves around BBDs supply chain management issues and not-so-stellar support framework, as well as missing sales/marketing clout. All things that Boeing, like Airbus now, would have been able to address without breaking a sweat.


Who said it was a bad plane? The five across seating and 18 inch wide seats will make it comfortable to fly on and most efficient with GTF powerplants. The CS fits Airbus's array of products ( cockpit for instance) more so than Boeing's. For Boeing it would have been the 717 all over again. There is a reason Boeing, again for the umpteenth time passed on the deal Airbus accepted. Is Boeing happy Airbus got the CS, most assuredly not, but that would not change their decision to take the program.

And UA,and AA, not so much JB will wait out BBD for deal like Delta's. The ITC decision assured that.


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.


True, but Airbus/BBD et al need orders to fill the proposed two production facilities. And the ITC ruling removed at least one excuse for not offering it. That's why I stated AA and UA, because JB or Spirit is not getting the "Delta" deal.
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 3239
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Re: Bombardier Wins C-Series Case at ITC

Sat Jan 27, 2018 7:06 pm

LockheedBBD wrote:
william wrote:
LockheedBBD wrote:

At the very least, Embraer should be proud that they know how to design great aircraft, and they deliver them on time and on budget. There's probably a reason why Boeing skipped over a chnace to buy the CSeries, and chose to deal with Embraer instead. Embraer has more to offer than just an aircraft.


What was Boeing going to do with the CS? The CS cockpit is nothing like the 787, and Boeing was not going to pump money into a struggling program to bring it in line with its standards. There is a reason, again, why Boeing passed on the deal Airbus took.


Where did I say that Boeing should have bought Embraer? Re-read my post, I said that Embraer makes more sense for Boeing. Boeing doesn't want just a single aircraft (CSeries). They want the employees, and the capability that the employees would provide. The Bombardier family would never give up their company for any reasonable amount. Employment is also cheaper in Brazil, the their engineers are very capable at getting the job done, and most importantly, getting the job done on-time.


I think you were replying to Yuri, I agree what you posted.
 
WPvsMW
Posts: 2252
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Bombardier Wins C-Series Case at ITC

Sat Jan 27, 2018 8:13 pm

washingtonflyer wrote:
WPvsMW wrote:
QuarkFly wrote:
Wow !! That is a surprise. I don't know if there is an appeals process. Maybe B will come to its senses and realize that it may have more to lose on the defense side with Canada...and steps back from the war on C-Series.

But I hope Delta does not wait for some US assembly facility... and takes the C-Series as soon as possible.


Appeal from an ITC decision is to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which sits in DC. CAFC's main activity is hearing patent appeals, so the judges are some of the best in the entire federal judiciary. Appeal from CAFC is to the US Supreme Court.


Bzzzzt. On Title VII cases, the appeal is to the Court of International Trade in New York, and then an appeal from the CIT would go to the CAFC.


Correct... I forgot about Tariff Act Title VII appeals going to CIT before CAFC.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 3530
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Bombardier Wins C-Series Case at ITC

Sat Jan 27, 2018 9:10 pm

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.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
User avatar
anfromme
Posts: 883
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 5:58 pm

Re: Bombardier Wins C-Series Case at ITC

Sat Jan 27, 2018 10:30 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:
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.)

PPVRA wrote:
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.
42
 
Aptivaboy
Posts: 844
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2016 3:32 pm

Re: Bombardier Wins C-Series Case at ITC

Sat Jan 27, 2018 10:32 pm

MSPNWA wrote:

Aptivaboy wrote:
Sagas such as the Bombardier CS program are detrimental for innovation and competition and a negative for consumers in the long-run. There's just no doubt about it. If you're wondering why Boeing or Airbus isn't just "getting out there and competing" more, the CSeries is exhibit A.


Um, I'm not sure why that's coming up like that since I didn't write that. I'm guessing someone did a poor cut and paste for some odd reason? So, MSPNWA if you could edit your post with a correct quote from me or from whomever you're actually intending to quote that would be awesome, and anfromme since I'm not the guy who missed that "saga' if you could clarify whom your addressing that would be awesome, too.

Thank you all.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18242
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Bombardier Wins C-Series Case at ITC

Sat Jan 27, 2018 10:55 pm

SteelChair wrote:
In about 18 months Delta will place a top off CS300 order and become the launch customer for the CS500.


Where does this nonsense come from? There is no such thing as a CS500. It's a fantasy that, IMHO, is even less likely to become reality now Airbus owns CSeries.

PW100 wrote:
At that point, wouldn't Boeing need to demonstrate that for each C-series order each was sold below manufacturing cost?


I don't believe so. The fact the CSeries has been subsidised has been proven, what was thrown out was that it has caused Boeing material harm. Given not a single example has been imported into USA yet, doesn't mean Boeing can't revisit the issue at a later point in time. IMHO, this becomes even more relevant when the first CS300 is imported.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
PixelPilot
Posts: 319
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 1:19 am

Re: Bombardier Wins C-Series Case at ITC

Sat Jan 27, 2018 11:43 pm

I’m a Boeing fan but super happy with this ruling.
Had a chance the fly on the Swiss operated C series and it was a fantastic ride.
 
User avatar
aerolimani
Posts: 1298
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 5:46 pm

Re: Bombardier Wins C-Series Case at ITC

Sun Jan 28, 2018 12:28 am

scbriml wrote:
PW100 wrote:
At that point, wouldn't Boeing need to demonstrate that for each C-series order each was sold below manufacturing cost?


I don't believe so. The fact the CSeries has been subsidised has been proven, what was thrown out was that it has caused Boeing material harm. Given not a single example has been imported into USA yet, doesn't mean Boeing can't revisit the issue at a later point in time. IMHO, this becomes even more relevant when the first CS300 is imported.

As I understand it, the USITC decided that Boeing isn't harmed because it doesn't have a competing product to the CS100. Of course, Boeing can still appeal that decision. They haven't yet said what they plan to do. If the USITC ruling stands, then any purchase of CS100's is safe from an anti-dumping claim until such time as Boeing produces a new aircraft which the USITC agrees competes. So, essentially, the Delta CS100 deal is safe, unless Boeing appeals and wins.

As to the CS300, once again Boeing would have to prove price-dumping. I daresay that BBD won't make that mistake again. It's hard to say what that will mean for CS300 sales in the USA. Will BBD (or the CSALP) be able to sell at a price low enough to attract buyers, but high enough to avoid accusations of price-dumping? Only time will tell.

From the USITC:
The United States International Trade Commission 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… As a result of the (commission's) negative determinations, no anti-dumping or countervailing duty orders will be issued.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18799
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Bombardier Wins C-Series Case at ITC

Sun Jan 28, 2018 12:42 am

SteelChair wrote:
I'm guessing Sept/Oct delivery for first CS100 to Delta. They already had a simulator and multidisciplinary training programs underway. Ops Specs submittals and various other necessary programs were well advanced. Delta should pounce....one could expect aggressive efforts will be re-launched Monday at 0800, they probably already have been relaunched.

Delta deliveries were going to be delayed anyway due to Bombardier completion issues and PW issues generally. Delta won't be phased by the PW problems because they think they can manage engine issues competently. The delay caused by this Boeing induced fiasco is somewhat analogous to the Apollo 1 fire (without the tragic loss of life obviously). This fiasco has given Bombardier, PW, and Delta more time to refine their programs and ensures a better final product and better service entry.

In about 18 months Delta will place a top off CS300 order and become the launch customer for the CS500. Possible ETOPS/Hawaii in the 2021 timeframe.

The 737 series and A320 series are moving "up" the product line in terms of capacity and range due to low fuel consumption of GTF and LEAP, leaving a nice gap for the CSeries that nothing else can match due to the unique 5 abreast fuselage width. E2 is not an economic competitor in this size class. Boeng is left with no product in this size class while Airbus can leverage the CSeries. I expect Airbus to let Bombardier continue to live, they are sensitive to politics between Europe and Quebec.

The 91 Delta 717s will be flown to end of their economic life, about 10-12 more years. It'll take 3-5 years to get the CS program up to 100 or so Delta deliveries anyway. Remember, Delta has a RR engine deal also and the airframe leases are VERY cheap.

Every since the Richard Anderson days, Delta has had its eyes on the 787-10. They may throw Boeing a bone to soften the impact of this crushing defeat.

The forms of subsidy vary by country and manufacturer. What isn't debatable is the product.....Boeing refuses to innovate, their product is both larger and older. They desperately need new leadership and more pliable unions. Boeing in its current form is floundering imo.

I agree with so much in your post!
1. Yes, DL will order more C-series.
2. Yes there we production issues, but this dragged on too long, so net negative for Pratt) Bombardier.
3. Oh DL will order the CS500, but 18 months is too soon. They'll wait for C-checks.
4. DL will wait on 717 replacement, but partially as because they are in low utilization duty. If the C-series meets promise, I expect s RFQ in 4 years, replacement starting in six.

I disagree on the E2-195 not being an economic competitor. It's issue is range. It is also only competing against the CS100.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
User avatar
LockheedBBD
Posts: 577
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 6:59 pm

Re: Bombardier Wins C-Series Case at ITC

Sun Jan 28, 2018 12:58 am

scbriml wrote:
I don't believe so. The fact the CSeries has been subsidised has been proven, what was thrown out was that it has caused Boeing material harm. Given not a single example has been imported into USA yet, doesn't mean Boeing can't revisit the issue at a later point in time. IMHO, this becomes even more relevant when the first CS300 is imported.


So at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter if Bombardier won or lost. They have to manufacture the CSeries in the U.S. unless they only sell the CS100 to American customers.
 
Dominion301
Posts: 2518
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2016 1:48 pm

Re: Bombardier Wins C-Series Case at ITC

Sun Jan 28, 2018 1:02 am

All I can say is suck it Boeing.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 4617
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Bombardier Wins C-Series Case at ITC

Sun Jan 28, 2018 1:37 am

The limitation of the 190, with or without the GTF, is that it has been stretched to its limits for 2-2 seating. It’s inherently a regional jet. I’m not so sure of the CS500 being launched. The 100/300 are niche planes, too small for many routes and too big for operation at regionals due scope. I’d think 1200 units is still the ceiling.

GF
 
SteelChair
Posts: 1381
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

Re: Bombardier Wins C-Series Case at ITC

Sun Jan 28, 2018 4:24 am

scbriml wrote:
SteelChair wrote:
In about 18 months Delta will place a top off CS300 order and become the launch customer for the CS500.


Where does this nonsense come from? There is no such thing as a CS500. It's a fantasy that, IMHO, is even less likely to become reality now Airbus owns CSeries.


Total speculation on my part. No evidence other than MHO. Hey, we're enthusiasts aren't we?

IMO the CS5 was the end game all along. It was the reason for the vociferous Boeing response. And it has enormous promise imo.

Why would Airbus support the CS5? Because the A319 (and the 737-7 for that matter) are DOA. Too heavy, too wide. The 5 abreast seating appears perfect for the 110-150 seat market. The 6 abreast frames are moving up the capacity scale because of the fuel efficiency of the new engines. All just mho
 
SteelChair
Posts: 1381
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

Re: Bombardier Wins C-Series Case at ITC

Sun Jan 28, 2018 5:35 am

lightsaber wrote:
SteelChair wrote:
I'm guessing Sept/Oct delivery for first CS100 to Delta. They already had a simulator and multidisciplinary training programs underway. Ops Specs submittals and various other necessary programs were well advanced. Delta should pounce....one could expect aggressive efforts will be re-launched Monday at 0800, they probably already have been relaunched.

Delta deliveries were going to be delayed anyway due to Bombardier completion issues and PW issues generally. Delta won't be phased by the PW problems because they think they can manage engine issues competently. The delay caused by this Boeing induced fiasco is somewhat analogous to the Apollo 1 fire (without the tragic loss of life obviously). This fiasco has given Bombardier, PW, and Delta more time to refine their programs and ensures a better final product and better service entry.

In about 18 months Delta will place a top off CS300 order and become the launch customer for the CS500. Possible ETOPS/Hawaii in the 2021 timeframe.

The 737 series and A320 series are moving "up" the product line in terms of capacity and range due to low fuel consumption of GTF and LEAP, leaving a nice gap for the CSeries that nothing else can match due to the unique 5 abreast fuselage width. E2 is not an economic competitor in this size class. Boeng is left with no product in this size class while Airbus can leverage the CSeries. I expect Airbus to let Bombardier continue to live, they are sensitive to politics between Europe and Quebec.

The 91 Delta 717s will be flown to end of their economic life, about 10-12 more years. It'll take 3-5 years to get the CS program up to 100 or so Delta deliveries anyway. Remember, Delta has a RR engine deal also and the airframe leases are VERY cheap.

Every since the Richard Anderson days, Delta has had its eyes on the 787-10. They may throw Boeing a bone to soften the impact of this crushing defeat.

The forms of subsidy vary by country and manufacturer. What isn't debatable is the product.....Boeing refuses to innovate, their product is both larger and older. They desperately need new leadership and more pliable unions. Boeing in its current form is floundering imo.

I agree with so much in your post!
1. Yes, DL will order more C-series.
2. Yes there we production issues, but this dragged on too long, so net negative for Pratt) Bombardier.
3. Oh DL will order the CS500, but 18 months is too soon. They'll wait for C-checks.
4. DL will wait on 717 replacement, but partially as because they are in low utilization duty. If the C-series meets promise, I expect s RFQ in 4 years, replacement starting in six.

I disagree on the E2-195 not being an economic competitor. It's issue is range. It is also only competing against the CS100.

Lightsaber


Imho 4 abreast doesn't compete effectively against 5 abreast. 6 doesn't compete against 5 abreast either. Cseries has a niche that only needs exploitation. The test is now program execution, can Bombardier and PW get the production rate up soon amd maintain quality?

Also, not sure I agree that the 717 utilization is low, but i dont have the stats in front of me...
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18242
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Bombardier Wins C-Series Case at ITC

Sun Jan 28, 2018 9:32 am

LockheedBBD wrote:
So at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter if Bombardier won or lost. They have to manufacture the CSeries in the U.S. unless they only sell the CS100 to American customers.


I don't honestly know, just speculation on my part based on Boeing's public claim of capturing 50% of the 100-150 seat market with the MAX7.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
speedbored
Posts: 2230
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:14 am

Re: Bombardier Wins C-Series Case at ITC

Sun Jan 28, 2018 10:00 am

scbriml wrote:
based on Boeing's public claim of capturing 50% of the 100-150 seat market with the MAX7.

I personally think that one reason that the ITC found against Boeing is that Boeing are claiming a market segment that doesn't really exist. It seems to me that the "100-150" segment has been created purely for the purpose of this complaint. Just looking at current and past models, and related sales, it seems to me that the segments, in typical seating numbers, are more like <80 (though multiple <80 segments), 80-120, 120-160 and 160+, after which the widebodies start to come into play.

I really don't think many, if any, airlines actually see the CS100 and MAX7 as serving the same market segment. Boeing used to have an aircraft in the same segment, the 717, but they discontinued it - that probably did not help them with their "harm" case, either.
 
finnishway
Posts: 562
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 5:17 pm

Re: Bombardier Wins C-Series Case at ITC

Sun Jan 28, 2018 10:07 am

Nobody answered me, so I ask again.

Does this apply also to CS300?
 
Turnhouse1
Posts: 175
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: Bombardier Wins C-Series Case at ITC

Sun Jan 28, 2018 10:11 am

Boeing are now running adverts which link to this http://www.boeing.co.uk/prosperity website showing how they invest in the UK on the Times website.
 
wjcandee
Topic Author
Posts: 8309
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

Re: Bombardier Wins C-Series Case at ITC

Sun Jan 28, 2018 10:16 am

Turnhouse1 wrote:
Boeing are now running adverts which link to this http://www.boeing.co.uk/prosperity website showing how they invest in the UK on the Times website.


Crisis PR. After trying to put a bunch of Northern Ireland residents out of work, with the Brits and Canadians furious, time to try to win back the goodwill.

Sad to say, they will probably succeed to some extent. Now that this is over, politicians will move on to the next "what's in it for me" issue. If Boeing makes a good bid on something, it will be considered.
 
clam285
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2013 2:12 pm

Re: Bombardier Wins C-Series Case at ITC

Sun Jan 28, 2018 10:31 am

Boeing Statement on International Trade Commission Vote
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2018-01-26- ... ssion-Vote
 
sharktail
Posts: 136
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 6:41 pm

Re: Bombardier Wins C-Series Case at ITC

Sun Jan 28, 2018 1:57 pm

aerolimani wrote:
scbriml wrote:
PW100 wrote:
At that point, wouldn't Boeing need to demonstrate that for each C-series order each was sold below manufacturing cost?


I don't believe so. The fact the CSeries has been subsidised has been proven, what was thrown out was that it has caused Boeing material harm. Given not a single example has been imported into USA yet, doesn't mean Boeing can't revisit the issue at a later point in time. IMHO, this becomes even more relevant when the first CS300 is imported.

As I understand it, the USITC decided that Boeing isn't harmed because it doesn't have a competing product to the CS100. Of course, Boeing can still appeal that decision. They haven't yet said what they plan to do. If the USITC ruling stands, then any purchase of CS100's is safe from an anti-dumping claim until such time as Boeing produces a new aircraft which the USITC agrees competes. So, essentially, the Delta CS100 deal is safe, unless Boeing appeals and wins.

As to the CS300, once again Boeing would have to prove price-dumping. I daresay that BBD won't make that mistake again. It's hard to say what that will mean for CS300 sales in the USA. Will BBD (or the CSALP) be able to sell at a price low enough to attract buyers, but high enough to avoid accusations of price-dumping? Only time will tell.

From the USITC:
The United States International Trade Commission 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… As a result of the (commission's) negative determinations, no anti-dumping or countervailing duty orders will be issued.


I think you can expect Airbus and BBD to structure any CS300 deal as a new order between a US company, making airplanes in Mobile, AL and a US airline. At that point, price dumping rules can't apply since there is no import of airplanes. So 2 domestic manufacturers of goods competing to get an order. Nowhere for Boeing to file a claim, even if they would want to.
 
okie73
Posts: 357
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2006 11:09 pm

Re: Bombardier Wins C-Series Case at ITC

Sun Jan 28, 2018 2:03 pm

finnishway wrote:
Nobody answered me, so I ask again.

Does this apply also to CS300?


I don’t know. I’m not sure that was specifically addressed. That said, if Delta eventually switches over to the CS300, I expect Boeing will file another complaint.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 12261
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Bombardier Wins C-Series Case at ITC

Sun Jan 28, 2018 2:45 pm

scbriml wrote:
PW100 wrote:
At that point, wouldn't Boeing need to demonstrate that for each C-series order each was sold below manufacturing cost?


I don't believe so. The fact the CSeries has been subsidised has been proven, what was thrown out was that it has caused Boeing material harm. Given not a single example has been imported into USA yet, doesn't mean Boeing can't revisit the issue at a later point in time. IMHO, this becomes even more relevant when the first CS300 is imported.


All current aircraft have been subsidized, so I don't see how the CSeries is special in that case. As for price dumping, it has only been proven in the eyes of some people. With the same logic, Boeing itself has done plenty of dumping, so I'm not sure an impartial court would rule in favor of Boeing.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
nine4nine
Posts: 558
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2017 3:44 pm

Re: Bombardier Wins C-Series Case at ITC

Sun Jan 28, 2018 4:00 pm

Boeing’s statement is so stale and hypocritical. They have been subsidized heavily by the state, by military contracts. Let’s notnforget the tanker deal was done with an Airbus product initially. But Boeing stomped their feet and threw they’re weight around and now the tanker is a 767. Let’s not forget the huge deal they gave UA on that big -700 series. Or how about the 787. I do believe they practically gave away the first 12 overweight ones for penny’s on the dollar. They’ve become nothing but a huge corporation instead of an engineering company and we know what suits do. They count beans and cheat their way to the top all the while calling out the competition for using the same practices they do to get ahead.

Boeing got caught with they’re pants down. Someone came up with a new innovative very comfortable and technologically advanced product that puts the old stale 737 to shame. The 737 should have been killed off after the NG series and Boeing should have engineered a new state of the art replacement. Instead we have 737 version 4.0 and now the Max10 as the newest offering. What a joke. With Airbus taking on the C-Series program and selling the heck out of the A321 because Boeing dropped the ball bug time on the MOM as well and still has NO plan,lthey are going to get trounced in the next couple years sales wise and execs in Chicago are going to be scratching their heads wondering how it alll happened.

By the way having been in a few C Series, in my personal opinion they blow the 737 out of the water!
717, 727-100, 727-200, 732, 733, 734, 735, 73G, 738, 739, 742, 748, 752, 753, 762, 763, 772, 77W, 787-10, DC9, MD80/88/90, DC10, 319, 220-300, 320, 321, 321n, 332, 333, CS100, CRJ200, Q400, E175, E190, ERJ145, EMB120
 
User avatar
Classa64
Posts: 310
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 5:40 pm

Re: Bombardier Wins C-Series Case at ITC

Sun Jan 28, 2018 5:14 pm

I am just your average guy that reads the news, don't understand the entire story completely. I cant understand why Boeing was suing Bombardier when not one C series has been handed over and they have nothing to compete with it?

Is there a simple way to put it?
Are they mad because they did not build something there customer wanted and someone else did with help?

Is there a difference between getting money from your government to build a plane and build infrastructure vs getting money during testing and developing to keep the overall cost of the plane down to stay competitive? Pretty sure the 787 when it first came out was not sold at full price, neither the A380, don't know for sure, but if they were is that not "Dumping" as well.

C
"Freedom is the miles i'm rolling on"
 
User avatar
aerolimani
Posts: 1298
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 5:46 pm

Re: Bombardier Wins C-Series Case at ITC

Sun Jan 28, 2018 5:23 pm

sharktail wrote:
aerolimani wrote:
scbriml wrote:

I don't believe so. The fact the CSeries has been subsidised has been proven, what was thrown out was that it has caused Boeing material harm. Given not a single example has been imported into USA yet, doesn't mean Boeing can't revisit the issue at a later point in time. IMHO, this becomes even more relevant when the first CS300 is imported.

As I understand it, the USITC decided that Boeing isn't harmed because it doesn't have a competing product to the CS100. Of course, Boeing can still appeal that decision. They haven't yet said what they plan to do. If the USITC ruling stands, then any purchase of CS100's is safe from an anti-dumping claim until such time as Boeing produces a new aircraft which the USITC agrees competes. So, essentially, the Delta CS100 deal is safe, unless Boeing appeals and wins.

As to the CS300, once again Boeing would have to prove price-dumping. I daresay that BBD won't make that mistake again. It's hard to say what that will mean for CS300 sales in the USA. Will BBD (or the CSALP) be able to sell at a price low enough to attract buyers, but high enough to avoid accusations of price-dumping? Only time will tell.

From the USITC:
The United States International Trade Commission 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… As a result of the (commission's) negative determinations, no anti-dumping or countervailing duty orders will be issued.


I think you can expect Airbus and BBD to structure any CS300 deal as a new order between a US company, making airplanes in Mobile, AL and a US airline. At that point, price dumping rules can't apply since there is no import of airplanes. So 2 domestic manufacturers of goods competing to get an order. Nowhere for Boeing to file a claim, even if they would want to.

That would seem likely, as it has been stated that the Mobile FAL is still a go-ahead.

I always figure the bigger picture with anti-dumping legislation is not so much to protect domestic industry as it is to create an environment which encourages growth of industry inside the USA. I feel that Boeing's case, made in pursuit of destroying a potential future competitor, was a misuse of the legislation. As such, it is such a beautiful irony that the legislation has thus far prevailed and thrown out Boeing's case. And yet, it has achieved a net gain for the USA, in the form of a US CSeries FAL. A loss for Boeing, but a win for the USA.
 
User avatar
Slug71
Posts: 1428
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:08 am

Re: Bombardier Wins C-Series Case at ITC

Sun Jan 28, 2018 5:43 pm

finnishway wrote:
Nobody answered me, so I ask again.

Does this apply also to CS300?


It should as to avoid this all again it is part of the C-series.
 
mat66
Posts: 307
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 1:12 am

Re: Bombardier Wins C-Series Case at ITC

Sun Jan 28, 2018 5:55 pm

aerolimani wrote:
sharktail wrote:
aerolimani wrote:
As I understand it, the USITC decided that Boeing isn't harmed because it doesn't have a competing product to the CS100. Of course, Boeing can still appeal that decision. They haven't yet said what they plan to do. If the USITC ruling stands, then any purchase of CS100's is safe from an anti-dumping claim until such time as Boeing produces a new aircraft which the USITC agrees competes. So, essentially, the Delta CS100 deal is safe, unless Boeing appeals and wins.

As to the CS300, once again Boeing would have to prove price-dumping. I daresay that BBD won't make that mistake again. It's hard to say what that will mean for CS300 sales in the USA. Will BBD (or the CSALP) be able to sell at a price low enough to attract buyers, but high enough to avoid accusations of price-dumping? Only time will tell.

From the USITC:


I think you can expect Airbus and BBD to structure any CS300 deal as a new order between a US company, making airplanes in Mobile, AL and a US airline. At that point, price dumping rules can't apply since there is no import of airplanes. So 2 domestic manufacturers of goods competing to get an order. Nowhere for Boeing to file a claim, even if they would want to.

That would seem likely, as it has been stated that the Mobile FAL is still a go-ahead.

I always figure the bigger picture with anti-dumping legislation is not so much to protect domestic industry as it is to create an environment which encourages growth of industry inside the USA. I feel that Boeing's case, made in pursuit of destroying a potential future competitor, was a misuse of the legislation. As such, it is such a beautiful irony that the legislation has thus far prevailed and thrown out Boeing's case. And yet, it has achieved a net gain for the USA, in the form of a US CSeries FAL. A loss for Boeing, but a win for the USA.


Very well said. Interesting as the commission determined that there is no harm to "a US industry". It is not their job to protect Boeing or any one company, but a industry. All those US suppliers to the C-series and the future FAL in Mobile are also part of the US airplane industry.
I'm no lawyer. So this might be a stupid thought. Just my 2c.
 
User avatar
anfromme
Posts: 883
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 5:58 pm

Re: Bombardier Wins C-Series Case at ITC

Sun Jan 28, 2018 6:21 pm

reltney wrote:
WRONG........ Boeing has the 737-600. Yet we forget...... It is of the NG series and can easily become part of the new engined MAX brand if they start production again. Something like 70 of them in airline colors. Production halted in 2006ish. Their mistake just like stopping 757 production. What is going on over there....

Yeah, what a great 737 variant that stopped selling years before the CSeries even launched, sold fewer than the 717 in its lifetime, and doesn't really see a second hand market, with most retired planes getting stored and/or scrapped for parts instead.
In this, it has a sibling in the A318, of course.

With the 737-7(00) and A319ceo/neo being, delicately put, under some pressure thanks to the much more optimised A320/737-8(00) at the upper and CS at the lower end, the even smaller (and, relatively to their size, heavier) A318 and 737-600 certainly aren't the way forward.
42
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Bombardier Wins C-Series Case at ITC

Sun Jan 28, 2018 8:50 pm

I know this gets brushed aside, but:

https://leehamnews.com/2016/01/21/unite ... ombardier/

Not competitors? I guess it depends on how you define “competitors”. For UA, the larger 73G won out over the CS100. In competition, price does play a part.

Don’t take this as an endorsement of Boeing’s complaint. I really am ambivalent about it other than having to endure the moaning in these threads.
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
777Mech
Posts: 870
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 10:54 pm

Re: Bombardier Wins C-Series Case at ITC

Sun Jan 28, 2018 8:54 pm

PlanesNTrains wrote:
I know this gets brushed aside, but:

https://leehamnews.com/2016/01/21/unite ... ombardier/

Not competitors? I guess it depends on how you define “competitors”. For UA, the larger 73G won out over the CS100. In competition, price does play a part.

Don’t take this as an endorsement of Boeing’s complaint. I really am ambivalent about it other than having to endure the moaning in these threads.


I think with this order UA got a screaming deal and has fleet commonality. It'd be stupid of them not to buy a 737 at 22m a piece.

I still firmly believe DL's order came down to MRO and engine capability.
 
sebring
Posts: 1331
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 12:08 am

Re: Bombardier Wins C-Series Case at ITC

Sun Jan 28, 2018 8:58 pm

cumulushumilis wrote:
What is known for sure is the loss of a 6.3 Billion CAD contract for 18 Super Hornets. Boeing spun the wheel and lost on double zero: ensured the survival of a competitor and pissed off a defence customer.


Those were for interim planes. Canada will take as many as 88 fighters in the next decade, so the order will be considerably larger. Right now, Boeing is out, having not intended a recent meeting in Ottawa for potential suppliers of those fighters to brief them on program details. Now that doesn't mean the US won't win with the F-35 - interoperability with the USAF is an important consideration for Canada - but it does show that Boeing is probably a long-shot unless it shelves the idea of an appeal - at least against the Delta order. Nothing would preclude Boeing from filing a new case against an order for another US carrier.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Bombardier Wins C-Series Case at ITC

Sun Jan 28, 2018 9:10 pm

777Mech wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
I know this gets brushed aside, but:

https://leehamnews.com/2016/01/21/unite ... ombardier/

Not competitors? I guess it depends on how you define “competitors”. For UA, the larger 73G won out over the CS100. In competition, price does play a part.

Don’t take this as an endorsement of Boeing’s complaint. I really am ambivalent about it other than having to endure the moaning in these threads.


I think with this order UA got a screaming deal and has fleet commonality. It'd be stupid of them not to buy a 737 at 22m a piece.

I still firmly believe DL's order came down to MRO and engine capability.


I agree. However, they competed for an order nonetheless. Moving forward, it “proves” that Boeing has a product to compete, firesale as it were.
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
User avatar
QuarkFly
Posts: 369
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 4:20 pm

Re: Bombardier Wins C-Series Case at ITC

Sun Jan 28, 2018 9:22 pm

Slug71 wrote:
finnishway wrote:
Nobody answered me, so I ask again.

Does this apply also to CS300?


It should as to avoid this all again it is part of the C-series.


The answer likely is...For now it also applies to the CS300...simply because there are no outstanding cases or complaints now, brought by Boeing or anybody else against either the CS100 or CS300 (barring a Boeing appeal of this CS100 case).

However, it is plausible that in a future competition involving the 737 vs. CS300 - that Boeing could make a case that the CS300 is closer in size to the 737...such that the ITC should take another look. But it is likely B would have to seriously consider this approach...As we have already seen, there are consequences such as loss of defense business with Canada, involvement of Airbus with the C-Series and potential counter-actions in other countries where Boeing sells products.

...And if the C-Series backlog is large enough -- Bombardier/Airbus may decide against low-bid pricing for the C-Series which would affect any complaint.
Always take the Red Eye if possible
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2608
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Bombardier Wins C-Series Case at ITC

Sun Jan 28, 2018 10:53 pm

All BBD have to do is ensure that any CS3 order is no cheaper than the Air Canada prices.

No dumping = no case.
 
reltney
Posts: 528
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 1:34 am

Re: Bombardier Wins C-Series Case at ITC

Sun Jan 28, 2018 11:00 pm

SteelChair wrote:
reltney wrote:
burnsie28 wrote:


You do realize boeing does the same thing. They got $8.7 billion alone from the state of Washington. Secondly, Boeing complained when they didn't even offer the same product group. They claimed that it was hurting the much larger 737 MAX 7 when they didn't even offer that up, rather they offered used Embraer's. So wouldn't that have hurt the max the same way since they were not attempting to sell the 737 MAX 7 to DL?

Finally I'm pretty sure that the C Series has more US components than the 787 does. Either way, a large part of the C Series is made by US Companies. They claim it hurt US Aerospace companies but that's not true given the amount of companies that build parts for the C Series in the US. Secondly it hurts the US economy. Keeping a plane out that can allow expansion, new routes, etc offering business more choices to get business done. Boeing hurt themselves more by doing this trade case by losing high dollar government contracts. Even the first planes of each model Boeing sells are "at a loss" but since you basically spread the cost of production out over the lifespan it changes.

Boeing didn't develop an aircraft in this seat class, and now they are in talks with Embraer, funny how that works.




WRONG........ Boeing has the 737-600. Yet we forget...... It is of the NG series and can easily become part of the new engined MAX brand if they start production again. Something like 70 of them in airline colors. Production halted in 2006ish. Their mistake just like stopping 757 production. What is going on over there....


Shrunken variants are not economical. Very high weight per customer. There is a reason only 70 sold. 737-7 is already dying, there is no hope at all for a 737-6. Boeing ahould not be able to dictate what plane their customers buy.

The only reason Boeing whacked 757 production is because there were no more customers. The 757 was a casualty of the lost decade.

The benefits of fleet standardization are overstated. Delta, for one, favors operating economics over fleet standardization, especially if the subfleet is at leat 100 airplanes.




100% true. Shrunken types rarely make it. SP, 318, L1011-500, 777-100( never produced as the 767-400 took the slack) Now more 757 customers than ever looking for similar type plane and Boeing missed getting it back in production with new engines and mods. Stock 757 beat the 321 with all the wiffle dust to make par by bounds. Again, they missed it.
Knives don't kill people. People with knives kill people.
OUTLAW KNIVES.

I am a pilot, therefore I envy no one...
 
yyztpa
Posts: 188
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 7:10 am

Re: Bombardier Wins C-Series Case at ITC

Sun Jan 28, 2018 11:07 pm

okie73 wrote:
finnishway wrote:
Nobody answered me, so I ask again.

Does this apply also to CS300?


I don’t know. I’m not sure that was specifically addressed. That said, if Delta eventually switches over to the CS300, I expect Boeing will file another complaint.


My understanding is that the action was against imports of new aircraft manufactured in Canada with 100-150 seats and with a minimum range of 2900nm. The tariffs were not specific to CSeries or Bombardier. As such, in addition to the tariffs being applied to both variants, they would have applied to any other new aircraft if manufactured in Canada meeting this size and range.Theoretically, if Airbus/Boeing/Embraer had decided to manufacture competitive planes in this segment in Canada, the tariffs would have applied. Used aircraft resold out of Canada were excluded.
 
1900Driver
Posts: 137
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 3:17 pm

Re: Bombardier Wins C-Series Case at ITC

Mon Jan 29, 2018 4:22 am

YuriMG2 wrote:
1900Driver wrote:
YuriMG2 wrote:

Keep telling urself that.


Spare yourself Yuri. The very existence of Embraer is nothing but a subsidy. Embraer didin’t get so far ahead based on it’s technologically expertise.


It was a state owned company for 30 years, so yeah, if you wanna embare urself and call that subisidy, go ahead.


No embarrassment (if that’s what you’re eluding), just simply facts. Review past WTO cases against embraer and the ERJ aircraft program. State sponsored interest free loans harmed Canadian workers & aircraft industry for decades. Without it, they would have never gained such market share in the face of superior products. Ejet program would have never existed.
 
Jomar777
Posts: 443
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 8:45 am

Re: Bombardier Wins C-Series Case at ITC

Mon Jan 29, 2018 10:58 am

I know I may get hammered but I find this an unfortunate decision. The prospective tariff burden leveraged was already off the scale and unfair but to reduce it to nothing is shambolic.
BBD should pay tariffs to have their aircrafts sold in US or at least be obliged to align them to a competitive level. It is being laden with subsidies from the government to continue to exist, both Canadian and the UK.
Some might argue that Boeing and Airbus are the same (Airbus is actually partially government owned) and they have a point. But BBD stretches the use of dumping and benefits to an extraordinary level.

Having said that, commercially, I do not think this will affect Embraer much since the C-Series is moving much more towards a competitor for the 737-7 and A319s which Embraer does not have positioning apart for the forthcoming E2-195 which will still sell.

As for Boeing, expect a much more aggressive instance form them commercially which might certainly hamper BBD to a point in which more subsidies and dumping will occur by them (BBD).

From the C-Series perspective, it is a great aircraft - but similarly as great as a Concorde - may be ground breaking but very expensive. Only when BBD starts to shift this aircraft at REAL prices, we will be able to really evaluate their performance.
 
User avatar
BlueSky1976
Posts: 1885
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:18 am

Re: Bombardier Wins C-Series Case at ITC

Mon Jan 29, 2018 11:04 am

PlanesNTrains wrote:
For UA, the larger 73G won out over the CS100. In competition, price does play a part.

Don’t take this as an endorsement of Boeing’s complaint. I really am ambivalent about it other than having to endure the moaning in these threads.


73G didn't "win" at United. Boeing dumped it and even admitted to doing so during ITC proceedings, so the airline couldn't buy the better product instead, the CSeries.
The queen of the skies is dead.
 
Jomar777
Posts: 443
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 8:45 am

Re: Bombardier Wins C-Series Case at ITC

Mon Jan 29, 2018 11:06 am

[*]
Amiga500 wrote:
All BBD have to do is ensure that any CS3 order is no cheaper than the Air Canada prices.

No dumping = no case.


Agree 100% - If they manage to shift the CS300 by a reasonable price, they would have proven to all (Included me...) that the project is viable and competitive.

But if they do not, then it does not matter how good the product actually is. It would have to be dumped like the DL Order to succeed.
 
r2rho
Posts: 3096
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:13 pm

Re: Bombardier Wins C-Series Case at ITC

Mon Jan 29, 2018 11:14 am

Without having had time to read the whole thread, my take is this:

Either Bombardier sold its soul to Airbus for nothing, or it was planned to do so all along, regardless of Delta or the ITC, which simply provided the perfect excuse.
IMO this also puts any "plans" of a Mobile FAL on ice. I considered it always a bluff, but it has worked very well. Airbus should keep the bluff/threat alive to maintain pressure on US authorities, but I don't think Mobile will happen.
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 1925
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: Bombardier Wins C-Series Case at ITC

Mon Jan 29, 2018 11:32 am

r2rho wrote:
Without having had time to read the whole thread, my take is this:

Either Bombardier sold its soul to Airbus for nothing, or it was planned to do so all along, regardless of Delta or the ITC, which simply provided the perfect excuse.
IMO this also puts any "plans" of a Mobile FAL on ice. I considered it always a bluff, but it has worked very well. Airbus should keep the bluff/threat alive to maintain pressure on US authorities, but I don't think Mobile will happen.

I appreciate your opinion, and now I will share mine.

I believe the Mobile FAL will proceed because much as I adore the C-series, I'm not convinced that the workforce at Mirabel is the most efficient. Competition from a "friendly rival" team down in Alabama will keep both workforces at the top of their game. Win-win.

Besides, if the C-series is going to be half the success most people hope for, they need more capacity somewhere. Airbus has already proved that multiple plants at different locations does work.
Creating a line within the US will help them sell to US airlines, which is the reasoning behind the existing Airbus plant. Unfortunately it is almost impossible to put a $price on that benefit, so every amateur accountant here on a.net will only point to the $negatives.

The fact that a US line undermines any potential import tariff is merely a bonus.

Just my 2 cents..... time will prove one of us right.
Nothing to see here; move along please.
 
WaywardMemphian
Posts: 1401
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2014 9:05 pm

Re: Bombardier Wins C-Series Case at ITC

Mon Jan 29, 2018 12:36 pm

777Mech wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
I know this gets brushed aside, but:

https://leehamnews.com/2016/01/21/unite ... ombardier/

Not competitors? I guess it depends on how you define “competitors”. For UA, the larger 73G won out over the CS100. In competition, price does play a part.

Don’t take this as an endorsement of Boeing’s complaint. I really am ambivalent about it other than having to endure the moaning in these threads.


I think with this order UA got a screaming deal and has fleet commonality. It'd be stupid of them not to buy a 737 at 22m a piece.
O


I still firmly believe DL's order came down to MRO and engine capability.


The irony is that soon after the United order was basically a bait and switch. If I remember right at has changed to a different model. Maybe I'm wrong and United is sticking with the fire sale 737 model. I'm sure I'll be set straight. Maybe it was Boeing's intention all along to never build those dirt cheap 737s and prod and poke United into something that had a profit margin.

I would have loved to see a United CS100 on MEM/SFO and/or LAX. Seems perfect for it. MEM is still too small in it's O&D development for a 737. And with AC adding a second flight to support Asian connections, seems there's one/two market for the Bay area to be had.
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

Re: Bombardier Wins C-Series Case at ITC

Mon Jan 29, 2018 1:23 pm

nine4nine wrote:
Boeing’s statement is so stale and hypocritical. They have been subsidized heavily by the state, by military contracts. Let’s notnforget the tanker deal was done with an Airbus product initially. But Boeing stomped their feet and threw they’re weight around and now the tanker is a 767. Let’s not forget the huge deal they gave UA on that big -700 series. Or how about the 787. I do believe they practically gave away the first 12 overweight ones for penny’s on the dollar. They’ve become nothing but a huge corporation instead of an engineering company and we know what suits do. They count beans and cheat their way to the top all the while calling out the competition for using the same practices they do to get ahead.

Boeing got caught with they’re pants down. Someone came up with a new innovative very comfortable and technologically advanced product that puts the old stale 737 to shame. The 737 should have been killed off after the NG series and Boeing should have engineered a new state of the art replacement. Instead we have 737 version 4.0 and now the Max10 as the newest offering. What a joke. With Airbus taking on the C-Series program and selling the heck out of the A321 because Boeing dropped the ball bug time on the MOM as well and still has NO plan,lthey are going to get trounced in the next couple years sales wise and execs in Chicago are going to be scratching their heads wondering how it alll happened.

By the way having been in a few C Series, in my personal opinion they blow the 737 out of the water!


I think this sums up Boeings behaviour quite nicely. That statement of theirs is indeed ludicrous, especially in light of the many, by itself massive subsidies Boeing receives.

With another FAL coming to Mobile I expect the take-over of the C-series by Airbus will be very profitable for all parties involved, and it will sell well all over the world. I think it is a very good aircraft which will only get better to operate with the backing of the massive Airbus organisation behind it. :)
 
User avatar
Ab345
Posts: 1048
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2013 2:44 pm

Re: Bombardier Wins C-Series Case at ITC

Mon Jan 29, 2018 1:26 pm

WaywardMemphian wrote:
777Mech wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
I know this gets brushed aside, but:

https://leehamnews.com/2016/01/21/unite ... ombardier/

Not competitors? I guess it depends on how you define “competitors”. For UA, the larger 73G won out over the CS100. In competition, price does play a part.

Don’t take this as an endorsement of Boeing’s complaint. I really am ambivalent about it other than having to endure the moaning in these threads.


I think with this order UA got a screaming deal and has fleet commonality. It'd be stupid of them not to buy a 737 at 22m a piece.
O


I still firmly believe DL's order came down to MRO and engine capability.


The irony is that soon after the United order was basically a bait and switch. If I remember right at has changed to a different model. Maybe I'm wrong and United is sticking with the fire sale 737 model. I'm sure I'll be set straight. Maybe it was Boeing's intention all along to never build those dirt cheap 737s and prod and poke United into something that had a profit margin.

I would have loved to see a United CS100 on MEM/SFO and/or LAX. Seems perfect for it. MEM is still too small in it's O&D development for a 737. And with AC adding a second flight to support Asian connections, seems there's one/two market for the Bay area to be had.


Boeing sold 737-700s to UA specifically to block the CSeries and sold them at fire sale prices. As soon as they blocked the CSeries ("Never Again...as Boeing officials were rumored to be saying, never again to let another Airbus come along), they changed the order from 65 B73G to 4 B738 and 61 B7M8s. So the order was there just for a few months

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... js-421065/
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... cr-440455/
 
BrianDromey
Posts: 2551
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 2:23 am

Re: Bombardier Wins C-Series Case at ITC

Mon Jan 29, 2018 2:07 pm

BlueSky1976 wrote:
73G didn't "win" at United. Boeing dumped it and even admitted to doing so during ITC proceedings, so the airline couldn't buy the better product instead, the CSeries.


Ultimately, I think the C will be seen in UAs fleet, if they saw a use in their fleet for the C it’s still there. UA has a huge fleet of -700s, they must know the actual numbers backwards. That they swopped for MAX less than a year after ordering suggests they never intended to take the -700, but were keen on some cheap 737s. Who wouldn’t be? There’s hasn’t been a change of management, or direction at UA, unless they are wildly incompetent or utterly brilliant and blindsided Boeing. If UA end up with the C Series and 65 cheap 737s, that seems like having their cake and eating it.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Bombardier Wins C-Series Case at ITC

Mon Jan 29, 2018 2:08 pm

BlueSky1976 wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
For UA, the larger 73G won out over the CS100. In competition, price does play a part.

Don’t take this as an endorsement of Boeing’s complaint. I really am ambivalent about it other than having to endure the moaning in these threads.


73G didn't "win" at United. Boeing dumped it and even admitted to doing so during ITC proceedings, so the airline couldn't buy the better product instead, the CSeries.


So? UA wanted a small mainline narrow body and chose the 73G over the CSeries. Price is a core component of competing, so for UA there was indeed a competition and the 73G took it. Whether it was through firesale pricing or features or financing is irrelevant to that simple fact.

I’m not saying the 737 was the better product. I’m just saying it was chosen in a competition with the CSeries.
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Bombardier Wins C-Series Case at ITC

Mon Jan 29, 2018 2:11 pm

BrianDromey wrote:
BlueSky1976 wrote:
73G didn't "win" at United. Boeing dumped it and even admitted to doing so during ITC proceedings, so the airline couldn't buy the better product instead, the CSeries.


Ultimately, I think the C will be seen in UAs fleet, if they saw a use in their fleet for the C it’s still there. UA has a huge fleet of -700s, they must know the actual numbers backwards. That they swopped for MAX less than a year after ordering suggests they never intended to take the -700, but were keen on some cheap 737s. Who wouldn’t be? There’s hasn’t been a change of management, or direction at UA, unless they are wildly incompetent or utterly brilliant and blindsided Boeing. If UA end up with the C Series and 65 cheap 737s, that seems like having their cake and eating it.



I thought that there was a leadership change at UA during that time but I might be mistaken.
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos