US Dept of Commerce slaps 220% tax on Bombardier c series
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 68
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You might be interested to know that EASA and most of the other non-US regulatory authorities bill Boeing for their costs associated with certifying. In fact I believe the FAA is the only authority that doesn't bill foreign airframers for their services...
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The point is, Boeing invested heavily in 2009 to position themselves for cash flow generation for the future years."
The point is they HAD to spend zillions as the 787 was a monstrous turkey at the time and they shoved the necessary (and very painful) costs into the R&D column so they can work accounting magic over future years
The point is they HAD to spend zillions as the 787 was a monstrous turkey at the time and they shoved the necessary (and very painful) costs into the R&D column so they can work accounting magic over future years
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: WA STATE
Age: 78
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Few understand how in simple terms the ' launch aid ' game under GATT92-WTO works - or is supposed to work and how Airbus has played the game380 and other models. Here is my cliff note version- having been long ago a bit involved in analysis.
1_ launch aid can take othe form of low cost commerical/governt loans with me unique terms.
2 - company bases loan on a ' calculation ' that in effect says- we can design, build, sell and deliver xxx airplanes by yy years and need zzzzzzz$$$$ loan or other goodies.
3-_ We will pay a low interest rate on loan starting in tt years or after the first rr deliveries
4 - BUT - if we can not or do not pay off KK% of such loan by xxx deliveries and or yy years, then the government loan is forgiven.
5- SO if one games the system such that above dates- $$ are not met . . .
.
1_ launch aid can take othe form of low cost commerical/governt loans with me unique terms.
2 - company bases loan on a ' calculation ' that in effect says- we can design, build, sell and deliver xxx airplanes by yy years and need zzzzzzz$$$$ loan or other goodies.
3-_ We will pay a low interest rate on loan starting in tt years or after the first rr deliveries
4 - BUT - if we can not or do not pay off KK% of such loan by xxx deliveries and or yy years, then the government loan is forgiven.
5- SO if one games the system such that above dates- $$ are not met . . .
.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In fact I believe the FAA is the only authority that doesn't bill foreign airframers for their services...
While the FAA doesnt charge a fee for cert, they are paid an hourly rate for time and travel to review the results of the cert process. The manufacturer has to pay for the techincal expertise that the FAA requires for cert review. So while not paying the FAA directly, they are paying the expert. It is cheap to say the least.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Turbine "Wonder how Airbus handled the A-380 monstrous turkey on their books and quickly moved on the A-350? Is Airbus really a profitable company"
To be fair the A 380 didn't have a lot of technical issues whereas the 787 was a disaster in development and introduction
Airbus's problem is selling the damn thing in large enough numbers - so their upfront costs are probably close to budget but their income is way down on projections (pretty much the opposite of Boeing's problem). Can't stick that into R&D so I assume they'll play games with depreciation, interest rates and exchange rates
To be fair the A 380 didn't have a lot of technical issues whereas the 787 was a disaster in development and introduction
Airbus's problem is selling the damn thing in large enough numbers - so their upfront costs are probably close to budget but their income is way down on projections (pretty much the opposite of Boeing's problem). Can't stick that into R&D so I assume they'll play games with depreciation, interest rates and exchange rates
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking back at this, how is this a bail out by the Canadian government when it acquired 49.5% ownership of the C Series in the deal?
About 2 years ago, wasnt there rumours that Boeing would buy the C Series?
Looking back, Boeing bought McDonald Douglas to kill the competition, no?
About 2 years ago, wasnt there rumours that Boeing would buy the C Series?
Looking back, Boeing bought McDonald Douglas to kill the competition, no?
To be fair the A 380 didn't have a lot of technical issues
Convenient memory? Because I remember lots of technical issues (landing gear issues which drove a major redesign of the gear and wire bundles too short, to name just two), initial deliveries years late, and billions in cost overruns. The 787 was a disaster, but the A380 wasn't much better. Further, the 787 has a fighting chance to sell sufficient numbers to pay back the investment - something that'll never happen on the A380.
Looking back, Boeing bought McDonald Douglas to kill the competition, no?
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HH,
As we age, our memories become shorter as to what documented history says:
Still want to discuss turkeys?
To be fair the A 380 didn't have a lot of technical issues whereas the 787 was a disaster in development and introduction
In 2014, the aircraft was estimated to have cost $25bn (£16bn – €18.9bn) to develop. In 2015, Airbus said development costs were €15bn (£11.4bn – $16.95 Bn), though analysts believe the figure is likely to be at least €5bn ($5.65 Bn) more for a €20 Bn ($22.6 Bn) total. In 2016, The A380 development costs were estimated at $25 billion for 15 years, $25–30 billion, or 25 billion euros ($28 billion).
On 14 February 2006, during the destructive wing strength certification test on MSN5000, the test wing of the A380 failed at 145% of the limit load, short of the required 150% level. Airbus announced modifications adding 30 kg (66 lb) to the wing to provide the required strength.
Initial production of the A380 was troubled by delays attributed to the 530 km (330 mi) of wiring in each aircraft. Airbus cited as underlying causes the complexity of the cabin wiring (98,000 wires and 40,000 connectors), its concurrent design and production, the high degree of customisation for each airline, and failures of configuration management and change control. The German and Spanish Airbus facilities continued to use CATIA version 4, while British and French sites migrated to version 5. This caused overall configuration management problems, at least in part because wire harnesses manufactured using aluminum rather than copper conductors necessitated special design rules including non-standard dimensions and bend radii; these were not easily transferred between versions of the software.
Airbus announced the first delay in June 2005 and notified airlines that deliveries would be delayed by six months. This reduced the total number of planned deliveries by the end of 2009 from about 120 to 90–100. On 13 June 2006, Airbus announced a second delay, with the delivery schedule slipping an additional six to seven months. Although the first delivery was still planned before the end of 2006, deliveries in 2007 would drop to only 9 aircraft, and deliveries by the end of 2009 would be cut to 70–80 aircraft. The announcement caused a 26% drop in the share price of Airbus' parent, EAD.
As Airbus prioritised the work on the A380-800 over the A380F, freighter orders were cancelled by FedEx and United Parcel Service, or converted to A380-800 by Emirates and ILFC. Airbus suspended work on the freighter version, but said it remained on offer, albeit without a service entry date. For the passenger version Airbus negotiated a revised delivery schedule and compensation with the 13 customers, all of which retained their orders with some placing subsequent orders, including Emirates, Singapore Airlines, Qantas, Air France, Qatar Airways, and Korean Air.
On 14 February 2006, during the destructive wing strength certification test on MSN5000, the test wing of the A380 failed at 145% of the limit load, short of the required 150% level. Airbus announced modifications adding 30 kg (66 lb) to the wing to provide the required strength.
Initial production of the A380 was troubled by delays attributed to the 530 km (330 mi) of wiring in each aircraft. Airbus cited as underlying causes the complexity of the cabin wiring (98,000 wires and 40,000 connectors), its concurrent design and production, the high degree of customisation for each airline, and failures of configuration management and change control. The German and Spanish Airbus facilities continued to use CATIA version 4, while British and French sites migrated to version 5. This caused overall configuration management problems, at least in part because wire harnesses manufactured using aluminum rather than copper conductors necessitated special design rules including non-standard dimensions and bend radii; these were not easily transferred between versions of the software.
Airbus announced the first delay in June 2005 and notified airlines that deliveries would be delayed by six months. This reduced the total number of planned deliveries by the end of 2009 from about 120 to 90–100. On 13 June 2006, Airbus announced a second delay, with the delivery schedule slipping an additional six to seven months. Although the first delivery was still planned before the end of 2006, deliveries in 2007 would drop to only 9 aircraft, and deliveries by the end of 2009 would be cut to 70–80 aircraft. The announcement caused a 26% drop in the share price of Airbus' parent, EAD.
As Airbus prioritised the work on the A380-800 over the A380F, freighter orders were cancelled by FedEx and United Parcel Service, or converted to A380-800 by Emirates and ILFC. Airbus suspended work on the freighter version, but said it remained on offer, albeit without a service entry date. For the passenger version Airbus negotiated a revised delivery schedule and compensation with the 13 customers, all of which retained their orders with some placing subsequent orders, including Emirates, Singapore Airlines, Qantas, Air France, Qatar Airways, and Korean Air.
Last edited by Turbine D; 23rd Oct 2017 at 23:20. Reason: Content correction
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: WA STATE
Age: 78
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And BTW- in 2004 I was one of not too many people/ employees/ex employees who got a hug from Alan M. for sending him a significant email about a very good friend.
The MDC miss- managemen style and turkeys are still running things into the ground.
Bombardier made a fatal error in the Boeing/US trade dispute that almost certainly precludes a negotiated settlement and which the Airbus-CSeries joint venture is highly unlikely to cure, an expert trade lawyer says.
https://leehamnews.com/2017/10/30/bo...trade-dispute/
https://leehamnews.com/2017/10/30/bo...trade-dispute/
From DirtyProp's link ...
Emphasis mine.
Perry says flatly, Bombardier will lose at ITC. Why?
Because Bombardier refused to answer Commerce’s questions in the anti-dumping case.
This, he says, was a fatal error that not only will cause BBD to lose at ITC but also on any appeal. US law is clear on the penalties when a respondent refuses to answer Commerce’s questions.
And, Perry says, Canada and the United Kingdom have identical laws that would hammer a respondent refusing to answer questions from their governments in an anti-dumping case.
Because Bombardier refused to answer Commerce’s questions in the anti-dumping case.
This, he says, was a fatal error that not only will cause BBD to lose at ITC but also on any appeal. US law is clear on the penalties when a respondent refuses to answer Commerce’s questions.
And, Perry says, Canada and the United Kingdom have identical laws that would hammer a respondent refusing to answer questions from their governments in an anti-dumping case.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And you think they'll apply those laws?
Rightly or wrongly Bombadier is a National Champion in Canada
In the UK the Govt are dependent on their survivial on the votes of N Irireland MP's whose voters work for Bombadier...
go figure.
Rightly or wrongly Bombadier is a National Champion in Canada
In the UK the Govt are dependent on their survivial on the votes of N Irireland MP's whose voters work for Bombadier...
go figure.
The whole dumping issue is economically and on its face stupid. If Boeing GAVE its 737s to Delta it would legally fine. If BBD sells at a rather difficult to accurately determine price less than it sold to AC it’s illegal and subject to a 300% fine. As a consumer, I could not less who wants to make the price of my fare cheaper.
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Stratosphere
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting Airbus vs Boeing documentary, hope you don't mind German language 
https://youtu.be/LG3vwLzqkEY
Subsidization is the root of all evil. Once it starts it never stops, but without the subsidies we wouldn't have Airbus or Bombardier with their fancy jets
https://youtu.be/LG3vwLzqkEY
Subsidization is the root of all evil. Once it starts it never stops, but without the subsidies we wouldn't have Airbus or Bombardier with their fancy jets
And you think they'll apply those laws?
I hope BBD fired the legal team responsible for this glaring mistake and finds a way out of this bad predicament. I wouldn't be happy to see them go.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry - I was talking about the UK and Canada - the US will of course - until Airbus spreads the contracts around enough Congressional Districts and Delta leans on a few people