This is great news! So glad to hear this

TWA772LR wrote:

So what does this exactly mean; Are the tariffs removed? Does Boeing get any reprimand beyond public humiation?

The ITC can say what it eants, but it can't force the DoC to remove the tariff, but it should he removed as it violates NAFTA.

No not removing it would violate international legal agreements, not NAFTA.

ExMilitaryEng wrote:

YuriMG2 wrote:

I hope Embraer sells the E2 jets for 5mi each in US and Canada after Brazilian government subsidies. Some opinions here would change very fast.

Actually, original E190s were sold to Air Canada not too far from those prices. "longhauler" here actually saw the $ transaction when he took delivery of one in Sao Paulo (he had to authorise the payment if I recall). The actual amount is confidential. Should we have lodged a complaint then? No, then the CRJ-1000 was not a competing product I suppose.

That is correct.

Also, Embraer was able, through international financial institutions, to offer financing not available had they purchased the CRJ-1000. I don't recall the Brasilians complaining then.

MSPNWA wrote:

berari wrote:

Tell us with full confidence that Boeing has not/does not receive any sort of subsidy, tax break or preferential treatment from any level of governments and we shall support your statement.

Show us where Boeing gets unusual and extraordinary federal government assistance a la DL's ME3 allegations, state-owned Chinese airlines, or Bombardier's bailouts, and then I'll respond. And while you're at, make sure DL hasn't received any tax breaks, subsidies, or bankruptcy recovery tools either, because it would again be hypocritical to harp on Boeing if DL is guilty too.

You're contradicting yourself. You're also admitting that Boeing also gets support. I'll leave it at that.

Bully-boy Boeing has had its handed to it on a silver platter.

YuriMG2 wrote:

Aparentely u can do whatever u want and get away with it.

Yes, of course. Read it and weep, Yuri. Boeing has been hoisted with their own petard.

YuriMG2 wrote:

I hope Embraer sells the E2 jets for 5mi each in US and Canada after Brazilian government subsidies.

Some opinions here would change very fast.

Dream on, Yuri. Scope clause, anyone? No US sales of E2 for a long time, I think.

Dutchy wrote:

Armodeen wrote:

Wow so all Boeing achieved was to push Bombardier into the hands of Airbus?

So whoever came up with this strategy will be fired at Boeing?

Now Boeing, just build better planes then the competition and win like this, not by builiing.

At first I thought that Bombardier sold a solid program to Airbus because of this threat, and maybe shouldn't have and should have stuck to its guns. Then again, we know that Bombardier struggled all along to sell a good product because it lacked the sales might/capabilities/network that Boeing and Airbus have. The partial sale of the CSeries is still good for Bombardier once all the dust settles.

berari wrote:

You're contradicting yourself. You're also admitting that Boeing also gets support. I'll leave it at that.

If you won't acknowledge the clear, legal difference between forms of aid, or acknowledge the logical box I put your argument in, then there is no point to debating it. Your mind is set, and no facts can say otherwise.

MSPNWA wrote:

berari wrote:

Tell us with full confidence that Boeing has not/does not receive any sort of subsidy, tax break or preferential treatment from any level of governments and we shall support your statement.

Show us where Boeing gets unusual and extraordinary federal government assistance a la DL's ME3 allegations, state-owned Chinese airlines, or Bombardier's bailouts, and then I'll respond. And while you're at, make sure DL hasn't received any tax breaks, subsidies, or bankruptcy recovery tools either, because it would again be hypocritical to harp on Boeing if DL is guilty too.

Besides the huge tax breaks from Washington State. How about all that NASA research the Boeing has been paid to do & used exclusively for years. It was NASA ideas, boeing just did the developments on it with large sums f government cash going to them. 737NG/Max, 767, 747-400/800, 777 & 787 all benefitted from NASA "Government Paid" research.

TWA772LR wrote:

So what does this exactly mean; Are the tariffs removed? Does Boeing get any reprimand beyond public humiation?

The ITC can say what it eants, but it can't force the DoC to remove the tariff, but it should he removed as it violates NAFTA.

It is not enforcable

YuriMG2 wrote:

Embraer is in trouble.

You cant do anything when a 80mi airplane is legally sold for 20mi.

You realize Boeing 73NG list for 85.8m and they sold them to United for est. 20-25m price range. So lets see your 80 million CS100 for 20 million or Boeings 85.8 million list model for 20 million.Boeing cut a bigger discount. So you argument collapses if you using those prices to defend it.

SumChristianus wrote:

Will this end the tariffs though? International decisions may not necessarily be followed, or have to be, by a sovereign. I wish the President would stand up to an all too powerful Boeing, and ignore their manipiulations, but Boeing seems very good at pressing a case domestically. The A330MRTT/767 debacle, for example, where Boeing broke an agreed upon Air Force Contract, to be produced in AL (A330 tankers) in favor of Boeing for some reason.
B6 would be a great CS100 operator if they are able to reasonably acquire them, though.

With the A320s going to 162 seats...I think the CS300 might have a place in the fleet as well. As for this decision...it was made by a US appeals board, composed of two Obama appointees and two Bush 43 appointees. Trump will obviously be upset, but he can't do a thing about it. The Canadian case now becomes moot.

As for B6, I could see a Y+-Y 100 configuration for the CS100 and a Y+-Y 130 seat configuration for the CS300 (basically an A319 sized aircraft). Another potential customer is now Avianca (most Avianca planes are registered in the USA)...provided the CS300 can handle the hot and high conditions of El Dorado Airport without a significant payload hit, as a replacement for the A318s and A319neo (it would definitely work for Avianca Brasil and possibly Avianca Mexico).

In earlier report, Boeong say they predicted the 100-150seats market is sized at about 3500-4500 aircrafts and they expect 737 7 to capture half of it?

YuriMG2 wrote:

SteinarN wrote:

Wow! Absolutely fantastic news. My faith in fair competition based on products and performance is greatly restored when reading this.

Subsidy, selling the planes for a fraction of the price, selling ur soul because of incompetence.

Are you really serious about the fair competition or ur just anti-Boeing?

Boeing sells plane below cost. Boeing receives billions of dollars of subsidies through tax reforms, both state and federal level. Why don't you jump the ship and blame Boeing?

Back to topic congratulations on the win for Bombardier. I still do think it's a good idea to cooperate with Airbus, as the latter is now seriously considering dropping A319neo since the last mission that needs it - flights to/from world's highest altitude airports - can be done by A320neo with minimal penalty.

Michael

rbavfan wrote:

YuriMG2 wrote:

Embraer is in trouble.

You cant do anything when a 80mi airplane is legally sold for 20mi.

You realize Boeing 73NG list for 85.8m and they sold them to United for est. 20-25m price range. So lets see your 80 million CS100 for 20 million or Boeings 85.8 million list model for 20 million.Boeing cut a bigger discount. So you argument collapses if you using those prices to defend it.

Im not defending Boeing (eventho I understand them on this), I am attacking BBD.

Every argument here to defend BBD is to attack Boeing.

c933103 wrote:

In earlier report, Boeong say they predicted the 100-150seats market is sized at about 3500-4500 aircrafts and they expect 737 7 to capture half of it?

Pretty disingenuous to call 100-150 seats "a" market, not to mention expecting the 73G to get half.

This decision was the right one IMO. Boeing tried to play the refs instead of playing the game, and I have no sympathy for that sort of nonsense.

gatibosgru wrote:

I wonder what Embraer thinks of all this?

Now they can dump in markets where Bombardier sells

jalarner wrote:

YuriMG2 wrote:

Embraer is in trouble.

You cant do anything when a 80mi airplane is legally sold for 20mi.

Do you honestly not understand anything about the sales process or anything to do with this situation? Have you read the thousands of posts about this? You should really do some more research or your 2 weeks here and 65 posts will loose you a lot of respect and credibility very quickly.

He has already lost his credibility right here.

YuriMG2, how about let's make a case against Boeing for sells a $400 million Boeing 777 for $80 million? Or selling a $350 million Boeing 787 for $90 million? OR selling a $100 million Boeing 737 for $20 million? You honestly have no idea on how the industry operates at all and you should just READ the thread and LEARN instead of putting out BS.

Michael

didn't see this one coming but good for BBD and Delta.

SumChristianus wrote:

Will this end the tariffs though? International decisions may not necessarily be followed, or have to be, by a sovereign. I wish the President would stand up to an all too powerful Boeing, and ignore their manipiulations, but Boeing seems very good at pressing a case domestically. The A330MRTT/767 debacle, for example, where Boeing broke an agreed upon Air Force Contract, to be produced in AL (A330 tankers) in favor of Boeing for some reason.
B6 would be a great CS100 operator if they are able to reasonably acquire them, though.

lol what?

That is not at all how any of that happened. Boeing appealed the second tanker contract decision based on the USAF setting up the rules so the larger A330 would win because the USAF wanted a bigger toy to play with. The GOA is the one technically "broke the agreed upon contract" because they ruled the USAF didn't play a fair game. I get some of you guys aren't the best with basic management 101 and are mad at Boeing for doing what was best for Boeing and its owners but lets not start just completely making things up.

and FWIW the tanker contract was the first time EVER Boeing appealed a USAF decision.

scbriml wrote:

Bully-boy Boeing has had its handed to it on a silver platter.

Indeed they have. I always thought the complaint to be exaggerated and this ruling has confirmed it. If only the WTO-cases went as smooth as this one......

Anyway, great news for Bombardier and Airbus and the US customer(s) of this fine aircraft.

So when do we think Delta will get their first C series now?

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.

Amiga500 wrote:

airfrnt wrote:

False Equivalence. Local government incentives and government contracts (which actually result in separate products being delivered) do not equal programs that would otherwise be bankrupt and failed, and far below market value plane sales.

How do you think the 787 program would have went if Boeing had not got their "local government incentives" up front?

Boeing may have chosen not to do it, or not done the same risk sharing model. Same thing goes for the A380. Would Airbus have lauched the A380 without market-distorting RLA? Probably not.

It would not have bankrupt the company, and forced a 1970s style bailout of the company, then combined with a plane sold for pennies on the dollar to gain marketshare at others expenses.

All I am saying is, let's have everyone play by the same rules. Perhaps Boeing should ask the US government for $20 billion for the MOM plane.

Speedalive wrote:

Well that’s unexpected.

Not quite. There were several of us on the forum who didn't expect the proposed tariffs to survive the process. Bombardier dodged a bullet, although I imagine they will be careful with their pricing in the future.

PITingres wrote:

c933103 wrote:

In earlier report, Boeong say they predicted the 100-150seats market is sized at about 3500-4500 aircrafts and they expect 737 7 to capture half of it?

Pretty disingenuous to call 100-150 seats "a" market, not to mention expecting the 73G to get half.

This decision was the right one IMO. Boeing tried to play the refs instead of playing the game, and I have no sympathy for that sort of nonsense.

Here is the link to that story,

Boeing aims for half of 100-150 seat sector with 737-7

Boeing sees the 100-150 market sector as 10%-15% of the 20-year single-aisle market demand, or about 3,000-4,500 aircraft.

Capturing half the 3,000-4,500 unit demand is an aggressive forecast for the 7 MAX.

Bombardier claims it will capture half the 100-150 sector. Embraer has strong entries in the sector in the form of the E190/195 E1 and E2.

Airbus is proving to be a non-competitor with the A319neo. There are fewer than 40 orders following the conversion of 19 to the larger A321neo by Frontier Airlines.

The 7 MAX to date has about 60 identified orders, but Southwest Airlines just deferred 23 of them to 2023-24, fueling questions whether it will up-gauge some or all of these to the larger 8 MAX.

Seems that Boeing still has hundreds of orders for the 737-7MAX to come in their own estimation.

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.

Two pissed off defence customers.

BaconButty wrote:

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.

Two pissed off defence customers.

I kind of wonder if the UK Apache and Canadian Hornet orders will quietly be moved forwarded again - maybe in a couple years. Once elected officials rotate in/out, this kerfuffle fades from memory, and defense procurement notes the lack of competitive products. I'd put $5 for each of those orders being on again in 5 years. Don't ask me to bet more, though.

Good for Bombardier. Hope DL puts some CS in STL so I can fly one. LOVE 5 abreast planes.

eamondzhang wrote:

That's how aerospace industry operates worldwide. Everyone gets subsidies over subsidies, Boeing and Airbus included. If you don't like it, leave. And everyone has the right to sell below cost, all industries included. Tell me which law requires you to sell above cost?

This is economics 101, called "you can recap your early losses later by later sales". Your posts show that you really don't know anything about this at all, and you don't give a crap on what others have told you.

Indeed that is how it works. Subsidies, tax-cuts, RLI, all instruments (the one more fair than the other) which are playing a part in this Industry. And also in other industries such elements exist.

For me justice is done to BBD/Airbus and the US-customers of the C-series aircraft with this ruling. Mobile will be happy too I guess.

YuriMG2 wrote:

eamondzhang wrote:

YuriMG2 wrote:

Subsidy, selling the planes for a fraction of the price, selling ur soul because of incompetence.

Are you really serious about the fair competition or ur just anti-Boeing?

Boeing sells plane below cost. Boeing receives billions of dollars of subsidies through tax reforms, both state and federal level. Why don't you jump the ship and blame Boeing?

Back to topic congratulations on the win for Bombardier. I still do think it's a good idea to cooperate with Airbus, as the latter is now seriously considering dropping A319neo since the last mission that needs it - flights to/from world's highest altitude airports - can be done by A320neo with minimal penalty.

Michael

This is about BBD acts, which in my opinion are unfair and ilegal, regardless of whatever Boeing has done, it dosnt make BDD right.

The ITC disagrees. And clearly it ISN'T "illegal". Boeing didn't even have a product to compete with to begin.

I expect Delta to take 35 cs100 as soon as possible from Mirabel and immediately convert balance of order and options to at least 100 cs300 all from Mobile and start returning 717s to Boeing as soon as first 717 leases (which are pretty much all from Boeing) start expiring in 2020-2021

smithbs wrote:

BaconButty wrote:

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.

Two pissed off defence customers.

I kind of wonder if the UK Apache and Canadian Hornet orders will quietly be moved forwarded again - maybe in a couple years. Once elected officials rotate in/out, this kerfuffle fades from memory, and defense procurement notes the lack of competitive products. I'd put $5 for each of those orders being on again in 5 years. Don't ask me to bet more, though.

The Super Hornet deal has already sailed on the Canadian side. It was a pretty shoddy deal to begin and looked bad on the government trying to back door the Super Hornet in. Now that they've pledged to have a competition, going back on it will look awful for them. Hey, Boeing can always try to bid the Super Hornet against the F-35. They'll just have to bid a fantastically low price.

Should have taken the deal on the table. They would have made a lot more.

EPA001 wrote:

For me justice is done to BBD/Airbus and the US-customers of the C-series aircraft with this ruling. Mobile will be happy too I guess.

I am excited to see what a large mainline carrier like DL can do with this airplane. So many possibilities. And from a mostly Y flying pax perspective DL is standardizing on very comfortable Airbus and BBD aircraft. 18" wide seats everywhere.

Slug71 wrote:

YuriMG2 wrote:

eamondzhang wrote:

Boeing sells plane below cost. Boeing receives billions of dollars of subsidies through tax reforms, both state and federal level. Why don't you jump the ship and blame Boeing?

Back to topic congratulations on the win for Bombardier. I still do think it's a good idea to cooperate with Airbus, as the latter is now seriously considering dropping A319neo since the last mission that needs it - flights to/from world's highest altitude airports - can be done by A320neo with minimal penalty.

Michael

This is about BBD acts, which in my opinion are unfair and ilegal, regardless of whatever Boeing has done, it dosnt make BDD right.

The ITC disagrees. And clearly it ISN'T "illegal". Boeing didn't even have a product to compete with to begin.

We'll have to wait for the opinion. The ITC may have very well found that the products competed but that the BBD product wasn't causing injury or threat of injury to Boeing.

I'd be careful for those who think that all's done and well. If I had to bet money, i'd bet that the ITC found that the Canadian product wasn't causing injury because there were no imports of BBD product during the POI and that there was no causal link. Boeing could go to bat in 24 or 36 months and plead their case again - once we have entries.

coronado wrote:

I expect Delta to take 35 cs100 as soon as possible from Mirabel and immediately convert balance of order and options to at least 100 cs300 all from Mobile and start returning 717s to Boeing as soon as first 717 leases (which are pretty much all from Boeing) start expiring in 2020-2021

I get why DL will do that. But I do wish more airlines would take up the CS100. It's incredible to see a solid 100 seater in mainline service. Also more smaller towns and cities getting mainline service.

coronado wrote:

I expect Delta to take 35 cs100 as soon as possible from Mirabel and immediately convert balance of order and options to at least 100 cs300 all from Mobile and start returning 717s to Boeing as soon as first 717 leases (which are pretty much all from Boeing) start expiring in 2020-2021

I don't expect the 717s to go anywhere. DL uses them on a lot of short-haul routes to replace RJs, and they're relatively young. I expect the CS100s to be used to replace RJs on longer routes like LGA-DFW, and to open up new long and thin domestic routes.

YuriMG2 wrote:

I hope Embraer sells the E2 jets for 5mi each in US and Canada after Brazilian government subsidies.

Some opinions here would change very fast.

It wont happen, so no need to fantasize ... and no need to get so heated up with BBD, either stop trolling or take your chill pills.

lightsaber wrote:

Good new for Mobile. Great news for Bombardier.
If Boeing was held to the same standard, the 787 would have tariffs.

Lightsaber

True...

airfrnt wrote:

Perhaps Boeing should ask the US government for $20 billion for the MOM plane.

They have and they will.... but heck history is only for fools...

If Boeing had gone all the way some years ago with Embraer or even with Sukhoi and launched a sub 737 twin, and moved on with a TRUE 737 replacement, todays reality would be almost the reverse. But time and time again we see industry moguls, think they can get away with anything and be slapped with reality down the line.

I really hope Boeing stops being complacent and starts making new models of their bread ond butter aircraft.

Bets regards
TRB

Why exactly was Boeing pursuing this in the first place when they don't have a comparable product to compete with? I always thought the CS100 was more of a glorified large-end regional jet that was outside of the range of what Boeing built. Was this more of the fact that they were afraid the larger CSeries planes (CS300?) could go head to head with the 737's in the future?

I am a Boeing fan in general, but I disagree with them 100,000% on this. Boeing needs to stop this nonsense, do what they can to mend fences (which will be difficult), fire the people involved in this decision to pursue this case and improve their products so they can compete better. Admittingly, other than the 787 Dreamliner, all of their products have been subpar to Airbus over the last decade. The 737 MAX is ok, but not nearly as good as the A320neo series. They are steadily losing ground, particularly in the narrowbody market. Boeing needs to focus on developing the MOM and try to win back customers.

smithbs wrote:

I kind of wonder if the UK Apache and Canadian Hornet orders will quietly be moved forwarded again - maybe in a couple years. Once elected officials rotate in/out, this kerfuffle fades from memory, and defense procurement notes the lack of competitive products. I'd put $5 for each of those orders being on again in 5 years. Don't ask me to bet more, though.

The Apache (tranche 1) and P8 orders are safe. Any British response will come in future orders. I bet the second tranche of Apaches doesn't happen. Either more Wildcats or more likely, nowt. The next Chinook order will be interesting too, though signing could be delayed - they're looking at post 2022 delivery IIRC. Then there's Munitions and small UAV's. It's one to watch, definitely. As long as the Confidence and Supply arrangement with the DUP remains in place it's going to be politically difficult to place an order with them.

Congrats to DL! They will be getting a fine aircraft. I disagree with some however, I think the operating costs of these new jets - and their bigger brothers - will cause DL to return the 717s as soon as the leases start coming up. That will be even more egg on Boeing's face since they will end up with the planes.

All that effort from Boeing for nothing. They lost, costing them a lot of money, including the F18 deal with Canada. I'm sure the folks at Delta, Bombardier and Airbus are having a good laugh. Frankly, good for them. What Boeing tried was an overreach to put it mildly...

Good news! Congrats to Bombardier.

A couple of musings.

I think the Mobile C-Series FAL will still happen. It's a useful defensive move anyway, but I think it's in line with Bombardiers vision, oddly enough. I think they have realised that outside of the private aviation sector, the business has become so commoditised that economies of scale are mandatory, and they simply cannot achieve that.So it looks to me that they are looking to move to being a tier one supplier like Spirit, GKN etc - designing and producing large sub-assemblies. Bombardier Belfast already supplies both Boeing and Airbus surprisingly, and I think that was the win for them in the Airbus deal - Guaranteed work through 2037. That gives them enough time to compete on the next generation of narrowbodies, and much like the British aviation sector is arguably more healthy than when we produced whole aircraft, it could be better for Canada and Northern Ireland in the long run. Obviously their Learjet, challenger and global ranges are going nowhere, but there will be synergies anyway. So maybe by 2025 we could see them producing fuselage sections for the A320's assembled in Mobile, who knows, or I'm reading the tea leaves all wrong.

The other thing I was thinking is the the unilateral exiting of the WTO subsidy agreement by the US in 2004 was a bit of a disaster all round. In the short term it allowed Boeing to cram in a level of subsidy into the 787 program not seen since Concorde, but in the long term the absence of a framework could be beneficial to China, and work against Boeings interests. It would be be in the current players best interest that a similar agreement is reached.

FINALLY!! A huge win for consumers, and the Karma Boeing deserved! Boeing will regret this is so many ways. I can't wait for all the beautiful C Series to start taking to the US skies with DL, and many more carriers. I definitely see B6 ordering.

neomax wrote:

YESSSS!!!!! Thank you ITC, finally some sense prevails. As for Boeing, somebody's getting fired today.

and somebody at Boeing will find religion and start getting serious about new narrow body plane launches. launching this whole thing to protect the 7MAX, which is not going to get many sales anyway (despite the enthusiasm some of us have for a good, comfortable 32" pitch, 3 flight attendant, 150pax, 3600nmi plane) was probably a really bad idea.

I think that I must beg to differ with some opinions above.

I think that at this stage, Boeing wanted this and probably even lobbied for it. The reason they wanted this is that the tariffs are no longer a factor given that Airbus is involved and Mobile assembly lines will circumvent the earlier ruling.
The ITC decision could do no futher harm to Boeing.

Instead, this decision is good for Boeing. They can now go to Embraer and dictate terms.
If Embraer doesn't take Boeing's deal, Boeing will be happy to keep offering B737's against the CSeries and win some, lose some, but Embraer will be driven out of the market.

"Only when the tide goes out, do you discover who's been swimming naked".

The Canadians have given up their ego, but they've kept their jobs and further down the line, they can polish up their pride when the Cseries flies all around the world.
Will the Brazilians give up their ego's? I doubt it, based on what we've seen coming from the Embraer die-hards on airlines.net
Without a deal, Embraer is on the way out.

From a Devil's Advocate point of view, what would the reaction have been if Boeing hadn't taken a stab at this issue? Is it really wrong to try to protect your business, or should they have just sat back and done nothing? (I know, they don't have an equivalent in the market at present, but that's not the point.)

I do feel the reaction to the A-Neo in having to come out with the Max on short order did sideline the forward progress so many in here are talking about, with the new narrow body development. This decision might actually inspire them to reenter the small craft market, although I would be more inclined to believe they'd market an Embraer under a cooperative agreement if not a corporate joining.

---
Anyway .... what is in the tea leaves for future CS sales? Will all potential buyers insist on a price match with the Delta purchase, or will they willingly pay significantly more? Is this victory for BBD/CS really just temporary? Can they make money at the Delta prices?

Well, BBD can’t make money at the price offered DL, but that’s besides the point. BBD is “buying” into the market to prove the plane. With Airbus now behind it, they can offer at higher prices leveraging DL’s reputation and experience, presumably, backing the plane to other buyers. I suspect, AA, UA or JB might buy, but the market for this size is still a niche-maybe 1200 sales thru 2027.

GF

YuriMG2 wrote:

SteinarN wrote:

Wow! Absolutely fantastic news. My faith in fair competition based on products and performance is greatly restored when reading this.

Subsidy, selling the planes for a fraction of the price, selling ur soul because of incompetence.

Are you really serious about the fair competition or ur just anti-Boeing?

Nothing stops Boeing from competing except the lack of a competing product. A 737-700 doesn’t do the same job as a c series, and it doesn’t do that job even half as well. It’s a shitty plane.

wjcandee wrote:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/26/boeing-loses-trade-case-over-bombardier-passenger-jets.html

AND FAST! I remember someone here saying it'd take years. In light of this decision, any ideas on whether Bombardier won or lost. Would they be better off on their own if they didn't panic (I'm speculating) and sell half the program to Airbus? If this case wasn't filed against them, would they be able to pull CSeries on their own?

PS Bonus question. Am I the only one who senses Airbus's involvement in this whole Boeing vs. Bombardier "case"? It was WAY out of line. It was WAY obvious to be a loser. And it ended WAY too well for Airbus.
PPS Anyone has Boeing's procurement phone number? I have some VERY soft cushions for their sore bottoms.

BaconButty wrote:

The other thing I was thinking is the the unilateral exiting of the WTO subsidy agreement by the US in 2004 was a bit of a disaster all round. In the short term it allowed Boeing to cram in a level of subsidy into the 787 program not seen since Concorde, but in the long term the absence of a framework could be beneficial to China, and work against Boeings interests. It would be be in the current players best interest that a similar agreement is reached.

??? USA is a signatory to the SCM and regularly submits its reports and participation to the SCM Committee.