US slaps huge duty on C Series
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Dog house
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once again... look at the actual operating economics of the cs100 vs Embraer190/195E2..... THEY ARE THE SAME! Not the original 190/195... I'm talking about the 190/195E2.... just look it up.
It doesn't matter if the c series is a new design... 'cool' factor has nothing to do with economics... basically a re-engining came out to the same efficiency as a brand new bombardier design. But at a cheaper design and production cost.
Do you deny this? I realize the c series is an all new design but that's not the point.
The public may think a 'cool' design is superior to a more economic design but that's not how airline management think. They think in dollars.
If you want to talk about companies betting on their product... embraer only has to recoup $1.7 billion to win their bet... pretty much certain. On the other hand Bombardier needs to recoup over $6 billion with only 33% of what will likely be small profit margins... everybody knows that will not happen, Bombardier's goal is now to minimize losses.... Bombardier already LOST their bet.
Why do you keep talking about scope? The 190/195e2 isn't being marketed as a regional aircraft in North America. It's the same size segment as the cs100... it directly competes with the cs100... Once again the cs100 only beat out the 190/195e2 at delta because of the supposed $19 million price tag, unfortunately for Embraer they are out to make money and won't sell jets below the cost of production.
You said it yourself both Boeing and Airbus abandoned the segment in the 80's. They determined the market was too small to justify their involvement... believe me, the people running Boeing and Airbus know a hell of a lot more than the clowns running Bombardier who can't manage any segment of their corporation properly.
Airbus is only getting back into the segment because they were handed a program for free with up to $700 million of costs covered going forward... who wouldn't take that deal. But don't think airbus will push the cs300 very hard... they will ALWAYS push upgauging with the 320neo over the cs300... why send half your profits to those clowns at Bombardier when you could keep 100% with your mainstay product?
Don't get me wrong the AIRBUS c series will sell as a nice... should be able to break 500 orders, but not much more than 600 or 700. And this is only possible because it's a free program with no development costs for Airbus... they can sell it at cost plus say 5% and still make a couple million per plane, no big deal it's free money. Bombardier won't survive off 1 or 2 million per plane though... Airbus has no incentive to sell it at the premium needed for Bombardier to survive.
The Bombardier c series is a disaster... the Airbus c series will be a moderate success(as in it will be impossible for Airbus to loose money off a $0 investment with $700 million covered for cost overages)
And yes I'm a pilot... I actually fly a Bombardier made jet, doesn't mean I drink the Bombardier coolaid though.
I'm not saying the c series is a bad plane... I'm just saying the program was a huge mistake for Bombardier.
Ps Bombardier is looking at unloading the q400/CRJ series because they neglected those product lines and let the competition over take their leading positions in those segments.. because they were obsessed with their loosing c series bet.
It doesn't matter if the c series is a new design... 'cool' factor has nothing to do with economics... basically a re-engining came out to the same efficiency as a brand new bombardier design. But at a cheaper design and production cost.
Do you deny this? I realize the c series is an all new design but that's not the point.
The public may think a 'cool' design is superior to a more economic design but that's not how airline management think. They think in dollars.
If you want to talk about companies betting on their product... embraer only has to recoup $1.7 billion to win their bet... pretty much certain. On the other hand Bombardier needs to recoup over $6 billion with only 33% of what will likely be small profit margins... everybody knows that will not happen, Bombardier's goal is now to minimize losses.... Bombardier already LOST their bet.
Why do you keep talking about scope? The 190/195e2 isn't being marketed as a regional aircraft in North America. It's the same size segment as the cs100... it directly competes with the cs100... Once again the cs100 only beat out the 190/195e2 at delta because of the supposed $19 million price tag, unfortunately for Embraer they are out to make money and won't sell jets below the cost of production.
You said it yourself both Boeing and Airbus abandoned the segment in the 80's. They determined the market was too small to justify their involvement... believe me, the people running Boeing and Airbus know a hell of a lot more than the clowns running Bombardier who can't manage any segment of their corporation properly.
Airbus is only getting back into the segment because they were handed a program for free with up to $700 million of costs covered going forward... who wouldn't take that deal. But don't think airbus will push the cs300 very hard... they will ALWAYS push upgauging with the 320neo over the cs300... why send half your profits to those clowns at Bombardier when you could keep 100% with your mainstay product?
Don't get me wrong the AIRBUS c series will sell as a nice... should be able to break 500 orders, but not much more than 600 or 700. And this is only possible because it's a free program with no development costs for Airbus... they can sell it at cost plus say 5% and still make a couple million per plane, no big deal it's free money. Bombardier won't survive off 1 or 2 million per plane though... Airbus has no incentive to sell it at the premium needed for Bombardier to survive.
The Bombardier c series is a disaster... the Airbus c series will be a moderate success(as in it will be impossible for Airbus to loose money off a $0 investment with $700 million covered for cost overages)
And yes I'm a pilot... I actually fly a Bombardier made jet, doesn't mean I drink the Bombardier coolaid though.
I'm not saying the c series is a bad plane... I'm just saying the program was a huge mistake for Bombardier.
Ps Bombardier is looking at unloading the q400/CRJ series because they neglected those product lines and let the competition over take their leading positions in those segments.. because they were obsessed with their loosing c series bet.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Prox
Thanks for not taking offence at my genuine question regarding your experience. I wasn’t trying to be smug.
C series and E2 aren’t even in the same conversation, because they aren’t in direct competition with one another. Only in people’s imagination. C series has a much more appealing cabin anyway for the airlines. I don’t have much more to contribute than that except to say they have the same engine, I think.
C series, A320Neo, and the B737Max aren’t in the same conversation either, for the same reason.
C series however, essentially finished off the B737-700, A318 and probably the A319 as well. That’s from Boeing and Airbus, I didn’t make that up.
Simply stated, you’ve made the same mistake as thousands of others out there. Comparing C series with aircraft it isn’t even in direct competition with.
It’s easy to say aircraft built for the airline market all compete with each other. It’s the big two who actually try to dictate to the airlines what aircraft they want, not need.
I don’t understand this deal between Airbus and Bombardier so I only have sh*t to say about it. How does it even work.
You provide great advertising for Embraer though. They should send a few bucks your way.
Thanks for not taking offence at my genuine question regarding your experience. I wasn’t trying to be smug.
C series and E2 aren’t even in the same conversation, because they aren’t in direct competition with one another. Only in people’s imagination. C series has a much more appealing cabin anyway for the airlines. I don’t have much more to contribute than that except to say they have the same engine, I think.
C series, A320Neo, and the B737Max aren’t in the same conversation either, for the same reason.
C series however, essentially finished off the B737-700, A318 and probably the A319 as well. That’s from Boeing and Airbus, I didn’t make that up.
Simply stated, you’ve made the same mistake as thousands of others out there. Comparing C series with aircraft it isn’t even in direct competition with.
It’s easy to say aircraft built for the airline market all compete with each other. It’s the big two who actually try to dictate to the airlines what aircraft they want, not need.
I don’t understand this deal between Airbus and Bombardier so I only have sh*t to say about it. How does it even work.
You provide great advertising for Embraer though. They should send a few bucks your way.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Canada needs to make a serious effort to move away from trade reliance on America and towards trade partners who are more trustworthy.
Boeing says Canada relationship will survive despite C Series trade action
Boeing says Canada relationship will survive despite C Series trade action
PC,
Try flight planning LCY-KHPN with 48 Y class passengers in a 195-E2. It’s been done in the CS100, that is, with equivalent weights.
BTW, I’d mostly agree with your comment on BBD mgt, except they did design, certify and deliver on the original contract performance guarantees.
Try flight planning LCY-KHPN with 48 Y class passengers in a 195-E2. It’s been done in the CS100, that is, with equivalent weights.
BTW, I’d mostly agree with your comment on BBD mgt, except they did design, certify and deliver on the original contract performance guarantees.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,852
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bombardier is peeved off at Moody's rating: Bombardier strongly disagrees with Moody?s rating action - Bombardier
Resident insomniac
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
Age: 79
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The US has ruled that Canada's Bombardier received government subsidies and sold C-Series jets below cost in the US.
The US is staunchly against anyone receiving welfare. Unless it's a business, in which case there is no limit to the amount that can be used to keep zombie companies alive. That is a social contradiction I have never understood.
Just look at NAFTA. Trump has stated that he wants it renegotiated so that America always wins. That's not free trade. If you are losing it's probably because you are not competitive.
Just look at NAFTA. Trump has stated that he wants it renegotiated so that America always wins. That's not free trade. If you are losing it's probably because you are not competitive.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It’s been a good day for Boeing.
27$ Billion 737 sale to Fly Dubai.
An 18$ Billion contract with USAF to upgrade the weapon systems on B52s.
Certification of the 767 Air Force tanker.
OMG!!!!
That should help diminish the Bombardier threat to Boeing’s survival.
Willie
27$ Billion 737 sale to Fly Dubai.
An 18$ Billion contract with USAF to upgrade the weapon systems on B52s.
Certification of the 767 Air Force tanker.
OMG!!!!
That should help diminish the Bombardier threat to Boeing’s survival.
Willie
Excellent news! Can't believe they won but I was hoping the ITC decision would be more fair once they looked at all the pertinent information in this case.
I'm glad they saw through the bogus claims made by Boeing and that really the C Series does not compete against anything Boeing makes.
Now I hope Delta Airlines can go ahead and buy the C Series asap.
I'm glad they saw through the bogus claims made by Boeing and that really the C Series does not compete against anything Boeing makes.
Now I hope Delta Airlines can go ahead and buy the C Series asap.
Boeing screwed up badly when they decided to produce a warmed-over aircraft with 50 year old technology
Just ask the AA flight attendant who publicly questioned the lack of space in their new Max 8's!! It turned out the AA CEO had not even been inside one of their new a/c! Talk about living in a 'bubble'!
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are 4 commissioners on the USITC, a non-political panel, unlike the US Department of Commerce. They know trade agreements and all 4 commissioners voted against Boeing. This is the first victory in a long long while for any Canadian company. It's also why the prospect of a negative outcome for Bombardier was shared by so many. One interesting fact to come out of this is that in the event of a tie, the ruling goes in favour of the complainant (in this case Boeing).
Here in Montreal, the NAFTA negotiators are trying to hammer out a 'revised' NAFTA agreement. Things aren't going so smoothly for the Americans as Mexico and Canada have turned their attention and focus toward the TPP and other trade agreements. The Donald may want to, or eventually could decide to tear up NAFTA, if he does, it looks like Canada and Mexico are moving on because a three way agreement isn't going to suddenly become a one way agreement. Let's remember, there are things in NAFTA that Canada isn't going to give up simply because Donald J thinks America got a bad deal. There are a few things in NAFTA that suck for Canada.
Embraer and the Brazilian government have taken Bombardier once again to the WTO to settle yet another Embraer complaint. Bombardier, whether or not it's understood by some, play within the WTO rules. How many times before Embraer gets it?
Too many throw around the word 'subsidies' like they understand its' meaning and application. There are profound differences between capital investment, subsidies, and loans. Some would be wise to look up those differences and figure out how to apply which to A,B, Emb, or Bbd, rather than use the word 'subsidy' in every instance like they know what they're talking about. I'm sure the WTO know the differences.
The Airbus deal with Bombardier is grossly misunderstood by a few posters in this thread. Airbus gets the C series program now for zero Euros, Dollars, or Canadian Dollarettes. They have a year to integrate and come to full agreement with all parties to hammer out their purchase agreement. In five years, Airbus, having effectively test driven the product under their Airbus banner commit to the C Series or they don't. If they're happy and choose to buy the C Series program, then they take out their wallet and pay fair market value for it. To say they bought it for nothing is as idiotic as it sounds and I'll leave it at that.
In the end, Boeing would be well advised to forget about any appeal on this decision and move on to mending fences. I'd say they've a few unhappy customers to pacify. Meanwhile, the Delta aeroplanes can be now delivered as scheduled.
Willie Everlearn
Here in Montreal, the NAFTA negotiators are trying to hammer out a 'revised' NAFTA agreement. Things aren't going so smoothly for the Americans as Mexico and Canada have turned their attention and focus toward the TPP and other trade agreements. The Donald may want to, or eventually could decide to tear up NAFTA, if he does, it looks like Canada and Mexico are moving on because a three way agreement isn't going to suddenly become a one way agreement. Let's remember, there are things in NAFTA that Canada isn't going to give up simply because Donald J thinks America got a bad deal. There are a few things in NAFTA that suck for Canada.
Embraer and the Brazilian government have taken Bombardier once again to the WTO to settle yet another Embraer complaint. Bombardier, whether or not it's understood by some, play within the WTO rules. How many times before Embraer gets it?
Too many throw around the word 'subsidies' like they understand its' meaning and application. There are profound differences between capital investment, subsidies, and loans. Some would be wise to look up those differences and figure out how to apply which to A,B, Emb, or Bbd, rather than use the word 'subsidy' in every instance like they know what they're talking about. I'm sure the WTO know the differences.
The Airbus deal with Bombardier is grossly misunderstood by a few posters in this thread. Airbus gets the C series program now for zero Euros, Dollars, or Canadian Dollarettes. They have a year to integrate and come to full agreement with all parties to hammer out their purchase agreement. In five years, Airbus, having effectively test driven the product under their Airbus banner commit to the C Series or they don't. If they're happy and choose to buy the C Series program, then they take out their wallet and pay fair market value for it. To say they bought it for nothing is as idiotic as it sounds and I'll leave it at that.
In the end, Boeing would be well advised to forget about any appeal on this decision and move on to mending fences. I'd say they've a few unhappy customers to pacify. Meanwhile, the Delta aeroplanes can be now delivered as scheduled.
Willie Everlearn
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: wherever
Age: 55
Posts: 1,616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are 4 commissioners on the USITC, a non-political panel, unlike the US Department of Commerce. They know trade agreements and all 4 commissioners voted against Boeing. This is the first victory in a long long while for any Canadian company. It's also why the prospect of a negative outcome for Bombardier was shared by so many. One interesting fact to come out of this is that in the event of a tie, the ruling goes in favour of the complainant (in this case Boeing).
Here in Montreal, the NAFTA negotiators are trying to hammer out a 'revised' NAFTA agreement. Things aren't going so smoothly for the Americans as Mexico and Canada have turned their attention and focus toward the TPP and other trade agreements. The Donald may want to, or eventually could decide to tear up NAFTA, if he does, it looks like Canada and Mexico are moving on because a three way agreement isn't going to suddenly become a one way agreement. Let's remember, there are things in NAFTA that Canada isn't going to give up simply because Donald J thinks America got a bad deal. There are a few things in NAFTA that suck for Canada.
Embraer and the Brazilian government have taken Bombardier once again to the WTO to settle yet another Embraer complaint. Bombardier, whether or not it's understood by some, play within the WTO rules. How many times before Embraer gets it?
Too many throw around the word 'subsidies' like they understand its' meaning and application. There are profound differences between capital investment, subsidies, and loans. Some would be wise to look up those differences and figure out how to apply which to A,B, Emb, or Bbd, rather than use the word 'subsidy' in every instance like they know what they're talking about. I'm sure the WTO know the differences.
The Airbus deal with Bombardier is grossly misunderstood by a few posters in this thread. Airbus gets the C series program now for zero Euros, Dollars, or Canadian Dollarettes. They have a year to integrate and come to full agreement with all parties to hammer out their purchase agreement. In five years, Airbus, having effectively test driven the product under their Airbus banner commit to the C Series or they don't. If they're happy and choose to buy the C Series program, then they take out their wallet and pay fair market value for it. To say they bought it for nothing is as idiotic as it sounds and I'll leave it at that.
In the end, Boeing would be well advised to forget about any appeal on this decision and move on to mending fences. I'd say they've a few unhappy customers to pacify. Meanwhile, the Delta aeroplanes can be now delivered as scheduled.
Willie Everlearn
Here in Montreal, the NAFTA negotiators are trying to hammer out a 'revised' NAFTA agreement. Things aren't going so smoothly for the Americans as Mexico and Canada have turned their attention and focus toward the TPP and other trade agreements. The Donald may want to, or eventually could decide to tear up NAFTA, if he does, it looks like Canada and Mexico are moving on because a three way agreement isn't going to suddenly become a one way agreement. Let's remember, there are things in NAFTA that Canada isn't going to give up simply because Donald J thinks America got a bad deal. There are a few things in NAFTA that suck for Canada.
Embraer and the Brazilian government have taken Bombardier once again to the WTO to settle yet another Embraer complaint. Bombardier, whether or not it's understood by some, play within the WTO rules. How many times before Embraer gets it?
Too many throw around the word 'subsidies' like they understand its' meaning and application. There are profound differences between capital investment, subsidies, and loans. Some would be wise to look up those differences and figure out how to apply which to A,B, Emb, or Bbd, rather than use the word 'subsidy' in every instance like they know what they're talking about. I'm sure the WTO know the differences.
The Airbus deal with Bombardier is grossly misunderstood by a few posters in this thread. Airbus gets the C series program now for zero Euros, Dollars, or Canadian Dollarettes. They have a year to integrate and come to full agreement with all parties to hammer out their purchase agreement. In five years, Airbus, having effectively test driven the product under their Airbus banner commit to the C Series or they don't. If they're happy and choose to buy the C Series program, then they take out their wallet and pay fair market value for it. To say they bought it for nothing is as idiotic as it sounds and I'll leave it at that.
In the end, Boeing would be well advised to forget about any appeal on this decision and move on to mending fences. I'd say they've a few unhappy customers to pacify. Meanwhile, the Delta aeroplanes can be now delivered as scheduled.
Willie Everlearn
Unless the schedule is one every blue moon.
Would be nice if they fixed a few of the many problems we accepted with the entry into service too!
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Would be nice if they fixed a few of the many problems we accepted with the entry into service too!"
Interesting comment FE Hoppy.
Can you give us an example of another clean sheet designed aircraft delivered to any customer that saw flawless entry into service without customer pressure, teething problems, complaints, or delays?
Let's start with the B787.
We can talk NEO and the Geared Turbo Fan issues, if you like.
I believe QR has had some issues with a few of their new aircraft and further believe QR cancelled a few aircraft orders because of "issues" with a particular OEM, but I don't see any Bombardier built aeroplanes in their fleet.
I'm curious about your remark and what the takeaway should be.
cheers,
Willie
Interesting comment FE Hoppy.
Can you give us an example of another clean sheet designed aircraft delivered to any customer that saw flawless entry into service without customer pressure, teething problems, complaints, or delays?
Let's start with the B787.
We can talk NEO and the Geared Turbo Fan issues, if you like.
I believe QR has had some issues with a few of their new aircraft and further believe QR cancelled a few aircraft orders because of "issues" with a particular OEM, but I don't see any Bombardier built aeroplanes in their fleet.
I'm curious about your remark and what the takeaway should be.
cheers,
Willie
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Dubai
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Courtesy of AvWeb
Boeing Sticks Its Foot In It
RUSS NILES
Consolidation of the commercial airliner business has been happening since the first passenger-carrying biplanes rattled across the landscape. In the middle of the last century, there were dozens of viable manufacturers innovating and doing their best to cater to a rapidly evolving industry.
But being the best has never been a guarantee of business success and Douglas Aircraft was a classic example. The DC-3 was hands down the most successful design of its time but Douglas was unable to leverage that into a dominating position in the jet era. The DC-8 was a rushed response to the Boeing 707 and while it had its fans as a “pilot’s airplane” it never seriously challenged the 707.
On the other hand, the DC-9 was a tremendously successful design that didn’t end commercial service in the U.S. until 2014 when Delta finally retired the steam-gauge workhorses after 50 years of service.
So it’s more than a little ironic that Delta’s choice for replacing the DC-9, whose derivatives ended up being built by Boeing until the middle of the last decade, is the Bombardier CSeries. It ordered 75 with an option for 50 more and nobody is denying it got a smoking deal on what current operators of the type say is a really good airplane.
That choice turned into one of the biggest shifts in dynamics in the aerospace industry in decades. It also sets the stage for a major battle of giants.
Boeing started the spat by trying to keep Bombardier’s little jets out of the U.S. It’s quickly turned into full-scale warfare with arch-enemy Airbus and the battleground will be the U.S. It also really annoyed Canada, which may not sound like a big deal but it has a role to play in all this.
Boeing convinced the Department of Commerce to slap an unprecedented 292 percent tariff on the CSeries that Delta ordered in a transparent appeal to economic nationalism.
Bombardier responded by turning the CSeries program over to Airbus with the idea of building Delta’s planes at Airbus’s Mobile, Alabama, facilities. They would be late, but Delta would eventually get them.
Then, in a decision that surprised every aviation pundit, the U.S. International Trade Commission unanimously rejected the Department of Commerce tariffs, saying since Boeing doesn’t make 100- to 150-seat airliners (since it stopped making the DC-9-derived 717), Boeing couldn’t be harmed by the CSeries sale to Delta.
The whole thing changed.
Delta can now get its aircraft on time and Bombardier has wisely committed to continuing the arrangement with Airbus because that will blunt any further challenges on U.S. deals that Boeing might mount. Cash will be flowing and the CSeries will be in service in the U.S. sooner rather than later. Airbus can be ready to crank out CSeries in Mobile as Delta's U.S. competitors, comforted by the big safety net the association with Airbus offers in the future support of the type, watch the efficient new jets start playing in their sandbox.
Boeing hasn’t commented on the trade commission decision and says it’s waiting for the full reasoning before it decides on a response. It might appeal but the decision was unanimous and the odds of success don't look good. At best it would be a delaying tactic but Airbus and Bombardier seem to have that covered.
In the meantime, Boeing is talking to Embraer about taking over its airliner business in a Hail Mary rearguard action. While Embraer has a solid track record in the small airliner business, any deal with the Brazilian company will not include any defense work because the government of Brazil, which holds a veto vote on the Embraer board of directors, is not about to give up those capabilities to a foreign power.
There are no such constraints on the Bombardier/Airbus deal and that may be a factor in Canada’s long-overdue purchase of $20 billion worth of fighters.
Until the CSeries fracas, Boeing was considered the odds-on favorite to win that contract with the last production run of its Super Hornet but the trade dispute has all but ruled that out according to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
So, in its attempt to swat a fly, Boeing has inadvertently stuck its hand down the throat of a lion. Time will tell how many fingers it loses.
I wonder what Donald Douglas would think.
RUSS NILES
Consolidation of the commercial airliner business has been happening since the first passenger-carrying biplanes rattled across the landscape. In the middle of the last century, there were dozens of viable manufacturers innovating and doing their best to cater to a rapidly evolving industry.
But being the best has never been a guarantee of business success and Douglas Aircraft was a classic example. The DC-3 was hands down the most successful design of its time but Douglas was unable to leverage that into a dominating position in the jet era. The DC-8 was a rushed response to the Boeing 707 and while it had its fans as a “pilot’s airplane” it never seriously challenged the 707.
On the other hand, the DC-9 was a tremendously successful design that didn’t end commercial service in the U.S. until 2014 when Delta finally retired the steam-gauge workhorses after 50 years of service.
So it’s more than a little ironic that Delta’s choice for replacing the DC-9, whose derivatives ended up being built by Boeing until the middle of the last decade, is the Bombardier CSeries. It ordered 75 with an option for 50 more and nobody is denying it got a smoking deal on what current operators of the type say is a really good airplane.
That choice turned into one of the biggest shifts in dynamics in the aerospace industry in decades. It also sets the stage for a major battle of giants.
Boeing started the spat by trying to keep Bombardier’s little jets out of the U.S. It’s quickly turned into full-scale warfare with arch-enemy Airbus and the battleground will be the U.S. It also really annoyed Canada, which may not sound like a big deal but it has a role to play in all this.
Boeing convinced the Department of Commerce to slap an unprecedented 292 percent tariff on the CSeries that Delta ordered in a transparent appeal to economic nationalism.
Bombardier responded by turning the CSeries program over to Airbus with the idea of building Delta’s planes at Airbus’s Mobile, Alabama, facilities. They would be late, but Delta would eventually get them.
Then, in a decision that surprised every aviation pundit, the U.S. International Trade Commission unanimously rejected the Department of Commerce tariffs, saying since Boeing doesn’t make 100- to 150-seat airliners (since it stopped making the DC-9-derived 717), Boeing couldn’t be harmed by the CSeries sale to Delta.
The whole thing changed.
Delta can now get its aircraft on time and Bombardier has wisely committed to continuing the arrangement with Airbus because that will blunt any further challenges on U.S. deals that Boeing might mount. Cash will be flowing and the CSeries will be in service in the U.S. sooner rather than later. Airbus can be ready to crank out CSeries in Mobile as Delta's U.S. competitors, comforted by the big safety net the association with Airbus offers in the future support of the type, watch the efficient new jets start playing in their sandbox.
Boeing hasn’t commented on the trade commission decision and says it’s waiting for the full reasoning before it decides on a response. It might appeal but the decision was unanimous and the odds of success don't look good. At best it would be a delaying tactic but Airbus and Bombardier seem to have that covered.
In the meantime, Boeing is talking to Embraer about taking over its airliner business in a Hail Mary rearguard action. While Embraer has a solid track record in the small airliner business, any deal with the Brazilian company will not include any defense work because the government of Brazil, which holds a veto vote on the Embraer board of directors, is not about to give up those capabilities to a foreign power.
There are no such constraints on the Bombardier/Airbus deal and that may be a factor in Canada’s long-overdue purchase of $20 billion worth of fighters.
Until the CSeries fracas, Boeing was considered the odds-on favorite to win that contract with the last production run of its Super Hornet but the trade dispute has all but ruled that out according to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
So, in its attempt to swat a fly, Boeing has inadvertently stuck its hand down the throat of a lion. Time will tell how many fingers it loses.
I wonder what Donald Douglas would think.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: HK-CRoC
Posts: 749
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow
First we should wait to see what the other verdict on this issue will be sometime in early October before taking action.
If again it goes against Bombardier then I'm all for the cancellation of the propose new F18 fighters and the possible purchase of the F35 fighters.
But the best way to retaliate would be an immediate 220% tax on all already ordered and signed deals for Boeing products coming into Canada including orders from WestJet and Air Canada on all 737s.
If AC is still in line to receive new 787s, then they too should be taxed.
If again it goes against Bombardier then I'm all for the cancellation of the propose new F18 fighters and the possible purchase of the F35 fighters.
But the best way to retaliate would be an immediate 220% tax on all already ordered and signed deals for Boeing products coming into Canada including orders from WestJet and Air Canada on all 737s.
If AC is still in line to receive new 787s, then they too should be taxed.
Plus they now build CRJ's (all or partially) in Mexico and even Morocco...
A massive money loosing (ex-crown corporation) corporation from the get go and government sponsored boondoggle - Mssrs Trudeau must be very proud.
Last edited by Flex88; 14th Feb 2018 at 02:26.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flex88
The only CRJs in production today are in Mirabel (that’s in Quebec, Canada about 55 minutes west of downtown Montreal which is nowhere near Mexico or Morocco). Being an international entity they do have facilities in other countries outside Canada. Are you suggesting they ignore part of their business because of any loans, subsidies, hand outs, or corporate welfare they may receive to keep afloat?
Your fact finding and commentary are very suspect. In fact, your comments sound very much like they’re repeats of other misinformed neophytes. You might consider doing your own research on Bombardier.
Willie
P.S. Turdo’s an idiot. Don’t drag him into this.
The only CRJs in production today are in Mirabel (that’s in Quebec, Canada about 55 minutes west of downtown Montreal which is nowhere near Mexico or Morocco). Being an international entity they do have facilities in other countries outside Canada. Are you suggesting they ignore part of their business because of any loans, subsidies, hand outs, or corporate welfare they may receive to keep afloat?
Your fact finding and commentary are very suspect. In fact, your comments sound very much like they’re repeats of other misinformed neophytes. You might consider doing your own research on Bombardier.
Willie
P.S. Turdo’s an idiot. Don’t drag him into this.
Last edited by Willie Everlearn; 18th Feb 2018 at 20:37.
