In another thread, I had
written that (as far as I knew) the $1.5 Billion investment
Caisse made into Bombardier Transportation was made under commercial terms and therefore is not an example of ""corporate welfare" (or subsidy).
However, as part of the latest anti-dumping complaint, Boeing alleges some interesting details about the transaction -- based on Bombardier's own financial reports. E.g., as part of the deal Caisse received warrants convertible to 100 million Bombardier Class B shares, but those warrants were actually commercially worthless because the exercise price was far above market value at the time.
And allegedly the Caisse deal included provisions to severely limit Caisse's potential profit while fully taking on the risks -- provisions a normal commercial investor would never agree to. I had previously written about this type of provision in relation to the Quebec government investment, but I didn't know the Caisse deal was structured in a similar way.
Having looked through the (redacted) formal complaint, I think overall Boeing makes a fairly strong case, and obviously to a receptive administration. Bombardier's biggest issue might be the alleged price difference between the Air Canada deal (CS300) and the Delta deal (CS100).
The CS100 and CS300 have 99% parts commonality. According to Boeing's calculations, the CSeries cost around $33 million to manufacture. Air Canada paid about $30 million per CS300 but Delta was offered the CS100 for just $19.6 million. These numbers are roughly in line with analysis I've seen in the press (Leeham News, etc.)
Hence the complaint is not just about "subsidy" but about "dumping", i.e., selling to foreign markets at "predatory" prices far lower than normal home market prices.