US slaps huge duty on C Series

[rotornut]

U.S. slaps 220 per cent duty on Bombardier's C Series jets | CP24.com (http://www.cp24.com/world/u-s-slaps-220-per-cent-duty-on-bombardier-s-c-series-jets-1.3607564)

[oleary]

But Boeing ain't subsidized by the US gummint a tall.

Nope, doesn't happen. :rolleyes:

[Jet Jockey A4]

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.

[Grizzz]

Subsidies, a hot potato which no one in the LPC saw coming?

[Proxima_Centauri]

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.

So you are all for the Canadian government compromising national security in order to extort a private company? Using the men and women in our armed forces as a bargaining chip is pretty distasteful.

Even these threats from politicians just prove Boeings point that Bombardier is receiving unfair government backing.
It is very obvious they received subsidies.... they took that billion dollars to subsidize a deal with Delta(and to a lesser extent Air Canada) that resulted in a massive financial loss to the company.

Almost a billion dollars of Canadian taxpayer money got funnelled to an American company that posted a $4 billion profit last year.

The U.S. Department of Commerce used fact based research to determine a tariff based on how much below cost the C series were sold at, which had been in violation of trade rules..... To the people who say Canada should respond with tariffs against Boeing, what is that based on? Boeing isn't selling its products in Canada below cost with US government funds.

And no, military contracts are NOT subsidies.. the US government receives high end hardware for the billions it spends on defence contractors. It's not a hand out.

And it's not Boeings fault that tax is higher for a Quebec based company.

[ICT_SLB]

How can Boeing claim they have been hurt in the marketplace when they (a) don't build an equivalent aircraft (there may be a 150 seater 737 but it's not on offer at the moment) and (b) they couldn't sell any 737s to a new customer for about five years even with their insane firing order (Boeing speak for production rate).
Plus there's the potential loss of American jobs in Pratt & Whitney, Rockwell Collins & Honeywell.

[Biggles78]

the US government receives high end hardware for the billions it spends on defence contractors.
I really wouldn't consider the F-35 turkey low end hardware but even that is being subsidised by the US taxpayer via the Congress critter and their pork barrels.

If Canada had any sense then it should cancel the F-18s and go to the European option. It would give the orange idiot something else to squeal about how unfair NAFTA is to the poor USA. Guess the 220% applied duty doesn't count in this transaction. :ugh:

[Jet Jockey A4]

So you are all for the Canadian government compromising national security in order to extort a private company? Using the men and women in our armed forces as a bargaining chip is pretty distasteful.

Even these threats from politicians just prove Boeings point that Bombardier is receiving unfair government backing.
It is very obvious they received subsidies.... they took that billion dollars to subsidize a deal with Delta(and to a lesser extent Air Canada) that resulted in a massive financial loss to the company.

Almost a billion dollars of Canadian taxpayer money got funnelled to an American company that posted a $4 billion profit last year.

The U.S. Department of Commerce used fact based research to determine a tariff based on how much below cost the C series were sold at, which had been in violation of trade rules..... To the people who say Canada should respond with tariffs against Boeing, what is that based on? Boeing isn't selling its products in Canada below cost with US government funds.

And no, military contracts are NOT subsidies.. the US government receives high end hardware for the billions it spends on defence contractors. It's not a hand out.

And it's not Boeings fault that tax is higher for a Quebec based company.


LMAO... There are plenty of other countries with excellent military equipment we can buy from... The USA is not God's gift to this world!

If we can send them a clear and loud message so be it.

[Jet Jockey A4]

I really wouldn't consider the F-35 turkey low end hardware but even that is being subsidised by the US taxpayer via the Congress critter and their pork barrels.

If Canada had any sense then it should cancel the F-18s and go to the European option. It would give the orange idiot something else to squeal about how unfair NAFTA is to the poor USA. Guess the 220% applied duty doesn't count in this transaction. :ugh:

Totally agree.

[idleopdes]

LMAO... There are plenty of other countries with excellent military equipment we can buy from... The USA is not God's gift to this world!

If we can send them a clear and loud message so be it.

Agree. Shove this tax right back at them.

[rigpiggy]

Nice first post ya shill

Boeing sold united 80 737's last year at 23M apiece to keep BBD out"what is list price on those". Maybe we need to send Boeing a message. Personally I would prefer the Rafale, and Dassault was willing to set up a production line in Canada.

How do you like them applesSo you are all for the Canadian government compromising national security in order to extort a private company? Using the men and women in our armed forces as a bargaining chip is pretty distasteful.

Even these threats from politicians just prove Boeings point that Bombardier is receiving unfair government backing.
It is very obvious they received subsidies.... they took that billion dollars to subsidize a deal with Delta(and to a lesser extent Air Canada) that resulted in a massive financial loss to the company.

Almost a billion dollars of Canadian taxpayer money got funnelled to an American company that posted a $4 billion profit last year.

The U.S. Department of Commerce used fact based research to determine a tariff based on how much below cost the C series were sold at, which had been in violation of trade rules..... To the people who say Canada should respond with tariffs against Boeing, what is that based on? Boeing isn't selling its products in Canada below cost with US government funds.

And no, military contracts are NOT subsidies.. the US government receives high end hardware for the billions it spends on defence contractors. It's not a hand out.

And it's not Boeings fault that tax is higher for a Quebec based company.

[fitliker]

How long did the Government think the tax payer funded media could keep insulting the leader of one of the worlds most powerful nations before a response would be made ?


The soft wood timber was the first counter punch , the 220 tariff is just the beginning .
You can expect more counter punching from the Donald . The BBC mouthpieces that have been insulting the Donald will find themselves getting their funding cut, just like the NPR lost HUGE funding in the USA .
Most left wing MSM never said a disparaging word against bathhouse in eight years .They gave him a free ride for eight years. They thought they could finally unleash their pent up bile against the new guy just because nobody could accuse them of being racist, are in for a big nasty shock when they reap what they sow.
Which came first the Chicken or the egg ? The insults came first and then the tariffs ! Maybe if the CBC , BBC and the lefties play nice they might get treated nice in return :)

[pilot1234567]

How long did the Government think the tax payer funded media could keep insulting the leader of one of the worlds most powerful nations before a response would be made ?


The soft wood timber was the first counter punch , the 220 tariff is just the beginning .
You can expect more counter punching from the Donald . The BBC mouthpieces that have been insulting the Donald will find themselves getting their funding cut, just like the NPR lost HUGE funding in the USA .
Most left wing MSM never said a disparaging word against bathhouse in eight years .They gave him a free ride for eight years. They thought they could finally unleash their pent up bile against the new guy just because nobody could accuse them of being racist, are in for a big nasty shock when they reap what they sow.
Which came first the Chicken or the egg ? The insults came first and then the tariffs ! Maybe if the CBC , BBC and the lefties play nice they might get treated nice in return :)

You are delusional.

[fitliker]

Did you stay up all night to think of that witty retort ?
Or are kindergarten insults the limit of your ability to debate ?

Pay attention, there will be more counter punches coming.

[J.O.]

It's silly to think that the man across the border gives one tinker's damn about what's written or said about him in the CBC.

[oleary]

Another Albertan heard from :ugh:

How long did the Government think the tax payer funded media could keep insulting the leader of one of the worlds most powerful nations before a response would be made ?


The soft wood timber was the first counter punch , the 220 tariff is just the beginning .
You can expect more counter punching from the Donald . The BBC mouthpieces that have been insulting the Donald will find themselves getting their funding cut, just like the NPR lost HUGE funding in the USA .
Most left wing MSM never said a disparaging word against bathhouse in eight years .They gave him a free ride for eight years. They thought they could finally unleash their pent up bile against the new guy just because nobody could accuse them of being racist, are in for a big nasty shock when they reap what they sow.
Which came first the Chicken or the egg ? The insults came first and then the tariffs ! Maybe if the CBC , BBC and the lefties play nice they might get treated nice in return :)

[roybert]

How long did the Government think the tax payer funded media could keep insulting the leader of one of the worlds most powerful nations before a response would be made ?


The soft wood timber was the first counter punch , the 220 tariff is just the beginning .
You can expect more counter punching from the Donald . The BBC mouthpieces that have been insulting the Donald will find themselves getting their funding cut, just like the NPR lost HUGE funding in the USA .
Most left wing MSM never said a disparaging word against bathhouse in eight years .They gave him a free ride for eight years. They thought they could finally unleash their pent up bile against the new guy just because nobody could accuse them of being racist, are in for a big nasty shock when they reap what they sow.
Which came first the Chicken or the egg ? The insults came first and then the tariffs ! Maybe if the CBC , BBC and the lefties play nice they might get treated nice in return :)

Fitliker You need to go back into the history books and read some of the trade history between Canada and the US. Lumber tariffs have been an ongoing battle well before Trump became dictator of the US and in his mind the world. Also BBC in the British Broadcasting Corp not Canadian.

[er340790]

I've just been audited by the CRA on my 2016 Tax Return.

One of the Questions was 'Do you have any dependents?' YES/NO. (If YES please give details.)

I put: 2.1 million illegal immigrants, 1.1 million drug addicts, 4.4 million unemployable scroungers, 50,000 criminals, hundreds of idiots in Parliament and 66,000 employees at Bombardier.

The CRA now say my response was 'Unacceptable'.

Can anyone please tell me who I left out?????

[roybert]

I've just been audited by the CRA on my 2016 Tax Return.

One of the Questions was 'Do you have any dependents?' YES/NO. (If YES please give details.)

I put: 2.1 million illegal immigrants, 1.1 million drug addicts, 4.4 million unemployable scroungers, 50,000 criminals, hundreds of idiots in Parliament and 66,000 employees at Bombardier.

The CRA now say my response was 'Unacceptable'.

Can anyone please tell me who I left out?????

You forgot the good old United States as the 220% duty will be handed to Boeing to heal the broken heart if the Bombardier deal manages to go ahead.:ugh:

[+TSRA]

The CRA now say my response was 'Unacceptable'.

Can anyone please tell me who I left out?????


Well er340790, I believe the answer lies in the fact that neither humour, truth, nor fiction gets through the walls of the Connaught Building. Like many buildings in the Capital Region, it is an impenetrable fortress to critical thinking and appropriate action.


It is where common sense goes to die.

[J.O.]

I've just been audited by the CRA on my 2016 Tax Return.

One of the Questions was 'Do you have any dependents?' YES/NO. (If YES please give details.)

I put: 2.1 million illegal immigrants, 1.1 million drug addicts, 4.4 million unemployable scroungers, 50,000 criminals, hundreds of idiots in Parliament and 66,000 employees at Bombardier.

The CRA now say my response was 'Unacceptable'.

Can anyone please tell me who I left out?????

"I'm all right Jack, keep your hands off of my stack."

Roger Waters

[rigpiggy]

Yet Boeing sold United about 80 737's at 23M apiece according to their CEO. Canada has around 130 orders for 737/787, counter duties anyone. Who exactly can launch a WTO grievance?

[Mostly Harmless]

Who do you guy's think pay those duties?

[Willie Everlearn]

Boeing’s claim of “below cost” is an imaginary number at best. They’re going to have to stretch their imaginations to make it fit their accusations.

Bombardier and Delta reached an agreed to sales figure for the purchase of 75 aircraft. The “actual cost” of each aircraft won’t be known until they are “actually” built and delivered. Until then it’s an “assumption” on Boeing’s part.
Not much for Boeing to go on, I’d say.

They’re just doing what they need to do. Based on their past realities with Airbus cracking the US market in the 80s, there’s danger in allowing Bombardier, Sukhoi, Embraer, and the MRJ into the US market. You’d expect Boeing to have a wobble.
Wouldn’t you?

Willie :ok:

[Spooky 2]

Maybe this has been asked before but what is to prevent these aircraft from being sold to a leasing company in Canada and then delivered to Delta? Would that not circumvent this tariff?

[galaxy flyer]

No, it wouldn’t as the leasing company would have to import the planes to the US register to be operated by DL.

GF

[Willie Everlearn]

We’ll see how much or how little political clout Delta has.
And whether or not the ITC is in Donald's Pocket.
Surely, there are a few intelligent Americans left who can see through this.

Willie :ok:

[Musician]

Trump's been on record as disliking free trade agreements, wanting to renegotionate or pull out of NAFTA. This duty is in line with his proposed policies. The dumb thing about it is that Trump is opposed to free trade agreements because they're seen as causing the USA's negative trade balance, but the aerospace industry is actually the greatest generator of trade surplus for the US (source (https://www.selectusa.gov/aerospace-industry-united-states)), so putting trade restrictions in place for that sector (which other countries will certainly levy in kind on US products) is shooting himself in the foot.

Delta partnering up with Air France-KLM may perhaps have something to do with it as well.

[oleary]

Exclusive: WTO rules Boeing's state subsidies illegal - BBC News (http://www.bbc.com/news/business-38131611?utm_content=buffered0be&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer)

[Willie Everlearn]

Clearly, this is the fall of the United States as we knew it, happening right before our eyes. This action by Boeing is but one example of how the United States is in a downward spiral. Isolationist policies of Donald Trump totally ignore the fact that they have to deal with the real world around them (whether he likes it or not).

Trump behaves like a high school freshman leading the school pep rally. Nothing more. Quite juvenile. Hasn't worked much since he took office, but hits the links every weekend. How many have been fired or resigned under his brilliant leadership?

His notion that NAFTA is a bad deal for the U.S. is complete fantasy. Re-negotiating it could cost them more than they think. It might leave little to be re-negotiated as evidenced by the American delegation in Canada not having many concerns or proposals for Mexico and Canada. Stay tuned.

Companies other than Boeing make suitable quality fighters that Canada could easily turn to as a solution to Boeing's hypocracy.

Why hold our military hostage in all this? Because, we aren't at war with anyone and aren't about to get into one in the near future. No pressing issue for the RCAF at present. Perfect timing, I'd say with lots of options for the government of Canada.

I'm more concerned for the Boeing employees in Manitoba who have more to lose if things go up in smoke at the ITC.

This is David and Goliath. David has a few stones. It remains to be seen whether one or some of those stones can have an impact, let alone kill the idea of tariffs on Bombardier.

We could start with Hydro Quebec. They could charge the U.S. 300% more for their imported electricity.
Uranium could cost more for the U.S. medical institutions to import.
Water. California might have to pay 300% more for imported fresh Canadian water.
Oil. We're their biggest supplier and the oil patch is hurting. Time to increase the price??
Aluminum. (would that help Boeing build more airplanes?) We should charge more for our natural resources.

David isn't without stones in this fight.

Willie :ok:

[Mostly Harmless]

It is the business model of the 21st century. Why innovate when you can litigate.

[pax britanica]

trump and Brexit are the two most evident examples in a decline of common sense and educational standards amongst electorates.

Dont bother to think just vote the way the print media (UK) or Faux news (US ) tells you and you get an incompetent administration doing untold damage to the economy and social fabric of our countries.

In your case in the USA you have a President who doenst understand that beign the most powerful country doesn t mean you always get your own way, you have to trade with others and that means on terms that are general fair to both sides.

In our case UK we used to be the most powerful country in the world but that was 150 years ago and now we have to play the game like everyone else with cooperation and compromise. But our government feels we are above all of that and can be 'Great' again but of course we can't because the world has caught up and we are a pretty small place in the general scheme of things .

A tragedy for both the worlds great 'English speaking countries'

[ICT_SLB]

Another view of the “Bombardier versus the Duopoly”. Interestingly one of the reasons for the complaint may be that over 50% of the CSeries is US made!
Opinion: Why Boeing vs. Bombardier Is Really About China | Commercial Aviation content from Aviation Week (http://m.aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/opinion-why-boeing-vs-bombardier-really-about-china?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20171010_AW-05_310&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_1&utm_rid=CPEN1000000998394&utm_campaign=12050&utm_medium=email&elq2=9824006de09c447e8233cf10bad0cfad)

[oleary]

'We are not going to pay any tariff,' Delta CEO says of CSeries planes - Business - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/delta-ceo-comments-1.4349404)

[Willie Everlearn]

Even the Motley Fool has made a 180 on Bombardier.

Why the C Series’s success is what Boeing Co. is really afraid of
Demetris Afxentiou, the Motley Fool

Over the course of the past few weeks, the aerospace sector has been quietly watching the ongoing battle escalate between Bombardier, Inc. (TSX:BBD.B) and Boeing Co. (NYSE:BA).
At the core of the dispute between the two companies lies the CSeries, the revolutionary new jet that Bombardier built and brought to market after an extended period of development and testing that went billions over budget and nearly bankrupted the company.
Bombardier relied on a number of investments and loans to build the CSeries, and those government subsidies form part of the dispute with Boeing. Ironically, Boeing itself has received a greater amount of funding from various levels of government on more than one occasion for its own projects.
In terms of orders, the CSeries struggled to gain the 300 orders by launch that Bombardier had been hoping for, at least until both Air Canada and Delta Air Lines Inc. both offered Bombardier sizeable contracts for the new aircraft that pushed total production to well over 300.

What is Boeing’s complaint?
Boeing’s primary complaint is that Bombardier was dumping the planes into the U.S. market at significantly reduced rates, which caused harm to Boeing’s own sales.
That’s going to be a really tough claim to substantiate, as the CSeries is firmly slated in the 100-120 passenger segment, which Boeing cannot currently compete in. The smallest modern plane that Boeing makes to rival the CSeries is the 737, and even the newest generation of that aircraft, in the smallest configuration, is still larger than the CSeries both in terms of passengers and overall size.
The CSeries is widely respected for being more fuel efficient and introducing new technologies that improve the experience for both flight crews and passengers. The smaller size of the jet also allows it to fly to smaller secondary towns and routes where larger jets, such as the 737, would be cost prohibitive, if not too large to land.
In a series of rulings as recently as last week, U.S. duties of nearly 300% were imposed on CSeries jets, which cast doubt on the future of the Delta deal. Prior to the announcement, several U.S. airlines had sent strongly worded letters of concern to the Department of Commerce on the issue, urging the body to rule against the tariffs and encouraging a free market.
Delta threw its weight behind Bombardier further this week, commenting that it will move forward with the CSeries deal, with CEO Ed Bastian informing analysts during the earnings call this week that we will take the planes, and that the decision from Commerce is not just disappointing. It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.
If that wasn’t direct enough, Mr. Bastian went further: “We think that the aircraft needs to come to market. We believe it will come to market and we believe that Delta will get it at the agreed contractual price. We’re not going to be forced to pay tariffs or do anything of the ilk so there should not be any concerns on our investors minds in that regard.”
Delta’s first CSeries delivery is currently scheduled next April, by which time a final decision from the International Trade Commission is likely to weigh in on the matter.

Is Bombardier a good investment?
Bombardier’s CSeries is an advanced jet that is disrupting the status quo. This has the bigger players like Boeing worried for obvious reasons. Just looking at that aspect, Bombardier as an investment option may raise some eyebrows.
Looking deeper, however, Bombardier has a string of issues that need to be resolved, including this recent spat with Boeing. If the CSeries were to be taxed significantly (if not prohibitively) from entering the U.S. market, that would be a severe blow, but not the death knell, for the CSeries.
Bombardier is already actively pursuing other markets for the CSeries, and Europe and Asia in particular may fit with the smaller commuter-style role the jet can play.
In my opinion, Bombardier may be too risky an investment for most, but the company has made a significant improvement over just a year ago. If Bombardier can weather the current storm and stick to the CSeries delivery schedule, the company may emerge as an intriguing investment opportunity.

[roybert]

Interested to know if Transport Canada could deem the Boeing Line of Aircraft persona non grata in Canada?

[J.O.]

Interested to know if Transport Canada could deem the Boeing Line of Aircraft persona non grata in Canada?

Based on what? Millions of hours of safe and effective operations by several Canadian operators? :rolleyes:

I think this Boeing thing is the height of hypocrisy but let's be real. The only ones who'd be damaged by such actions are Canadian operators, their employees and customers.

[Willie Everlearn]

Hopefully, when Boeing's complaint is heard by the USITC, who deal in International trade agreements, this will all go away much to Boeing's disappointment.
(But, the big guy always wins. Unless the law determines otherwise)

I'm pretty sure Bombardier's lawyers are just as conversant as Boeing's when it comes to international law relevant to the sale or purchase of aircraft across borders.
I suspect the USITC are as well, and Boeing are going to have a hard time proving big, bad, ol' Bomb-a-deer caused them harm.

Willie :ok:

[oleary]

Interested to know if Transport Canada could deem the Boeing Line of Aircraft persona non grata in Canada?

On what grounds?

[roybert]

On what grounds?



Trump and his yes men and woman have used fake reasons to come up with the 300% duties and penalty so as they say Tit for Tat work for the US so good enough for Canada. :ugh:

[oleary]

Trump and his yes men and woman have used fake reasons to come up with the 300% duties and penalty so as they say Tit for Tat work for the US so good enough for Canada. :ugh:

Transport Canada has NOTHING to do with commercial trade disputes because it is not part of their mandate. By law they couldn't do anything even if they wanted to. Read the Aeronatics Act to learn more about what TC is authorized to do, ..... and NOT DO.

[roybert]

Transport Canada has NOTHING to do with commercial trade disputes because it is not part of their mandate. By law they couldn't do anything even if they wanted to. Read the Aeronatics Act to learn more about what TC is authorized to do, ..... and NOT DO.

And the US Department of Commerce is suppose to use fact to make a ruling but that didn't stop them so why would it Stop Transport Canada???

[oleary]

And the US Department of Commerce is suppose to use fact to make a ruling but that didn't stop them so why would it Stop Transport Canada???

Sir, with respect, .... you don't seem to understand. Transport Canada HAS NO AUTHORITY to get involved in trade disputes.

I cannot speak to why the US Department of Commerce did, or did not, use facts in coming to their decision. In Canada we generally use Rule of Law.

[ExDubai]

Airbus and Bombardier Announce C Series Partnership (http://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-releases/en/2017/10/airbus-bombardier-cseries-agreement.html)

· Airbus to acquire majority stake in the C Series Aircraft Limited Partnership

· Partnership brings together two complementary product lines, with 100-150 seat market segment expected to represent more than 6,000 new aircraft over the next 20 years

· Combination of Airbus’ global reach and scale with Bombardier’s newest aircraft family to create significant value for customers, suppliers, employees and shareholders

· Significant C Series production costs savings anticipated by leveraging Airbus’ supply chain expertise

· Commitment to Québec: C Series Aircraft Limited Partnership headquarters and primary assembly to remain in Québec, with the support of both companies’ global supply chains

· Airbus’ global industrial footprint expands with the C Series Final Assembly Line in Canada, resulting in a positive impact on operations in Québec and across the country

· Growing market for C Series results in second Final Assembly Line in Mobile, Alabama, serving U.S. customers
I'd love to have a webcam in the next Boeing exec. meeting

[er340790]

I'd love to have a webcam in the next Boeing exec. meeting

Indeed. 'Be careful what you wish for....' :eek:

[Willie Everlearn]

Well, this pissing contest just got a little more interesting.
Airbus buying 50.01% of the C Series program. Smart move.
And to think Boeing once had DeHavilland right in the palm of their hand. They could have Soooooo...had Bombardier for a song back in the early 90s.
This should prove to be an interesting move for Boeing execs to chew on.

[galaxy flyer]

Boeing couldn’t wait to get rid of DHC and, certainly, would want no part of BBD.

[twochai]

What a great slapdown of those arrogant SOB's in Seattle and Chicago.

[J.O.]

Sometimes when you play your highest trump card, your opponent can still beat you with a smarter play.

[Proxima_Centauri]

There is no reason to think this is a reason for bombardier to celebrate.... they gave away control of a $6 billion program for FREE! There is no way they will ever come close to recouping their investment on 30% of profits of a plane no body wants.

You can blame Boeing all you want but nobody was buying it... they only had two significant orders... air Canada did it to get the laws changed so they could pull heavy maintenance out of Montreal... delta only bought it because the Canadian government gave Bombardier $1 billion to absorb the loss of selling them for $19 million each!

And to top it off, if the c series program is so amazing why couldn't they get more than $0 for a controlling stake!

Don't forget Airbus won't push the cs300 too hard as it indirectly competes with their product line.... Both Boeing and airbus push the upgauging idea. It's why the 100-130 seat market is dead, just use a 320neo or Max8.

Maybe airbus will push the cs100 but it is at a disadvantage against the Embraer seeing as the 190e2 is just as efficient at a much lower cost.


And the biggest loser.... Canada... we have now subsidized an American company, one of the most profitable airlines in the world, as well as a multi-billion dollar European manufacturer..... that will employee workers in the US.

[Foxdeux]

I think the move from Airbus is very strategic. Boeing today isn't the same Boeing that brought us the 707 and 747. But like all things Canadian, we always seem to bend to our 'neighborly' brother down south (Avro Arrow) and forget of our European heritage.

[Willie Everlearn]

Proxima

Seriously?
E Jet (motor cycle handlebars, really) over the C series.
Then you mustn't know squat about the C series with a statement like that.

Not in this scoped out environment will the E jet ever get much traction with the regional airlines. Not until the scope clauses are relaxed, Embraers own words. When will that happen? I'd guess the 12th of Never, you?

C Series is superior to the E190, simple as that. Just ask Swiss, Air Baltic, Delta or Korean. C series is not a regional jet like the E jet and therein lies Airbus interest, they have their A318 replacement.

A plane nobody wants? You think no one is interested in the C series? Stay tuned bucko.

Airbus's stated goal is 100% ownership of the CSeries over the next few years. It is going to take 6-12 months for this deal to be approved by all parties. No one is taking money out of their pocket today, but if Airbus intend to buy out the remaining investors, it will involve currency, not Cheesies.

At 100% ownership Airbus will have bought out the Caisse investment, the Gouv de Quebec, and the Bombardier investment. Meaning the Quebec government taxpayer will be repaid and the Caisse will see a ROI. The loser in all of this is likely the Canadian taxpayer who invested in an amazing aeroplane, a highly skilled work force that will surely be reduced in number and a quality, high tech, state-of-the-art aeroplane will be handed over to foreign interests. Which is marginally a better deal for all Canadian taxpayers than compared to what we got with the Arrow.
We're giving up the baby instead of raising it ourselves.

Maybe Andrew Coyne is right, why is Canada in aerospace in the first place?

[BluSdUp]

I think all considering this is a great day for Canada and Canadian aviation.

Boeings irrational act was clearly to kill off the C-Series and possibly Bombardier in the process.

Not fair.

Now the aircraft has a bright future.
Remember You also have UK and the whole of EU behind You.
You are on the offensive, now run with it.
Score one for the new team, Eh.

[a330pilotcanada]

Good Afternoon J.O.

Jeff I hope that was not a "Freudian slip" on your part regarding "Trump Card" as I LMAO when I read that one...

Will be interesting when the orange cowbell tweets about that one...........

[twochai]

Maybe airbus will push the cs100 but it is at a disadvantage against the Embraer seeing as the 190e2 is just as efficient at a much lower cost.

What total BS.

Point 1: The E190 is a nice airplane, but with 2X2 seating configuration compared with the 2X3 seating of the C Series it cannot be stretched to mirror the maximum seating potential of the C Series

Point 2: The E-Jets fall within pilot scope clause limitations and is therefore constrained to operation by the regional airlines of the legacy carriers. Conversely, the C Series is a 'proper' mainliner, from the narrow perspective of scope clauses and will only be operated as a mainline aircraft.

Boeing screwed up badly when they decided to produce a warmed-over aircraft with 50 year old technology and now they're wondering why they're losing share to Airbus with a 40/60 split of the market.

[J.O.]

Good Afternoon J.O.

Jeff I hope that was not a "Freudian slip" on your part regarding "Trump Card" as I LMAO when I read that one...

Will be interesting when the orange cowbell tweets about that one...........

Orange cowbell! Good one. :p

[Proxima_Centauri]

Willie and twochai

I clearly said the E2 line.... look it up. It has pretty much the same operating cost as the cs100 but at a much cheaper acquisition cost... this is fact not just the Bombardier propaganda saying it's the greatest plane out there.
Both the 190E2 and 195E2 offer an option that is cheaper and just as efficient as the Cs100. The 190e2 offering slightly less capacity but at a cheaper operating cost or the 195e2 carrying more despite having basically the same weight. The only advantage of the cs100 is the range. Embraer intentionally left out gains in range to keep costs down since very few cases would require the added range.

Embraer could have over designed their E2 line and made something even superior to the cs100 but it would have come at an increased cost.... real companies take development and production cost into the equation.

Don't forget before Bombardier illegally subsidized the cs100 to delta for $19 million using government funds Delta was looking to buying the old Air Canada 190s from Boeing as a transition for a likely 190/195E2 purchase from embraer.. the more economic choice.. but hey if you get th chance to buy a plane for $19 million hell yeah take it.... but functional companies like Embraer, Airbus and Boeing won't sell below production cost because most companies business plan is to actually make money.



I don't understand this obsession with Bombardier, what is exactly so innovative about the c series?
That it uses composites? Sorry it's been done before.
That it uses PW1000G engines? Sorry that's Pratt & Whitney not Bombardier.

There has not been anything truley innovative in commercial aircraft design since the 707/dc8/comet.... metal/composite tube with jet/turbofan engines..
Boeing and Airbus were originally planning on waiting until the next decade to develop a new design when technology would allow a true revolution in design.. that was until the clowns at Bombardier came along building a same old narrow body design.
You're kidding yourself if you think that Boeing and Airbus got out engineered by Bombardier.

It's easy to design a jet if you don't take cost into the equation. It's capitalism, if you build a product it has to be economical to produce and sale. Sure you can develop something for $6 billion but can you sale it at a price to recoup the development costs.... the answer for the c series is a resounding NO!
For Airbus however they got a plane for free that they could sell at production cost if they want... no skin off their back, just bankrupt Bombardier in the process.

[galaxy flyer]

There has not been anything truley innovative in commercial aircraft design since the 707/dc8/comet.... metal/composite tube with jet/turbofan engines..

Yes, there has...fly-by-wire and modern avionics (glass cockpit) including EGPWS and TCAS have been the revolution. Admittedly, not airframe/engine related.

[Willie Everlearn]

Prox

Like the Max, E2 has nothing to offer but a new engine. Here's the thing, both Boeing and Embraer decided on minor adjustments to good products rather than invest in the present, never mind the future. Totally cosmetic and told the airline industry that's all that's needed. Plus, the E2 is scoped out. Embraer is gambling on scope clauses being relaxed. Would you make that gamble?

There's a reason Bombardier are considering the sale of the Q400 and CRJ product divisions.

Scoffing at C series shows more product ignorance than product knowledge. Bombardier used a clean sheet design to come up with a singular, specific market segment aircraft both Airbus and Boeing abandoned in the 80s that is a legitimate trans Atlantic capable and much, much more capable aircraft that the airlines actually want. With Airbus backing we should expect more sales of this aircraft.
Why? Because Regional Airlines are likely living on borrowed time if United signs for C series now that they won't necessarily have to take cheap B737-700s out of desert storage as Boeing's USITC ruling will now likely die of natural causes. C series feedback from Delta should steer them in the right direction if they want to seriously compete.

The EMB 170/190 and the E2 are nice jets, but if you want to call the C series a nice jet by comparison and nothing more, I'd suggest you do more research.

C series is way more modern and advanced than you're implying.

P.S. Just curious. Are you a professional pilot and do you or have you ever operated a civilian passenger aeroplane and which ones?

[oleary]

Will be interesting when the orange cowbell tweets about that one...........

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_MWeOs8Ffg

[Proxima_Centauri]

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.

[Willie Everlearn]

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.

[IcePaq]

Wow.....that's pretty ridiculous when Boeing doesn't even sell a plane in that class anymore.

[oleary]

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 (http://ipolitics.ca/2017/10/25/boeing-says-canada-relationship-will-survive-despite-c-series-trade-action/)

[galaxy flyer]

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.

[rotornut]

Bombardier is peeved off at Moody's rating: Bombardier strongly disagrees with Moody?s rating action - Bombardier (http://www.bombardier.com/en/media/newsList/details.binc-20171025-bombardier-strongly-disagrees-with-moodys-rating-a.bombardiercom.html?)

[oleary]

I sure am glad I sold all my BBD.B - the ones I bought at $14.00 - INSIDE my RRSP. :ugh:

[Willie Everlearn]

$14.00!

Wow! That must have been a long time ago.
I remember BBD stock splitting at least 3 times and going as high as $33.00 per share after the splits around 1999-2000.
:ugh:

[G-CPTN]

The US has ruled that Canada's Bombardier received government subsidies and sold C-Series jets below cost in the US.
From (and more at):- US finds against Bombardier in Boeing dispute (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42434537).

[Mostly Harmless]

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.

[Willie Everlearn]

It’s been a good day for Boeing.
27$ Billion 737 sale to Fly Dubai.:D:D:D
An 18$ Billion contract with USAF to upgrade the weapon systems on B52s.:D:D:D
Certification of the 767 Air Force tanker.:D:D:D
OMG!!!!

That should help diminish the Bombardier threat to Boeing’s survival.

Willie :ok:

[scr1]

Bombardier wins trade dispute in US - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-42825916)

[Jet Jockey A4]

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.

[twochai]

Boeing screwed up badly when they decided to produce a warmed-over aircraft with 50 year old technology

Well, Boeing will have to rethink their entry level product strategy. The Max7 will just not cut it against lighter, more modern and more comfortable offerings in the 100-150 seat market space. This will be a 5-6 year project competing for investment with the 797 - the NMA.

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'!

[Willie Everlearn]

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 :ok:

[FE Hoppy]

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 :ok:

hahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahaha

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!

[Willie Everlearn]

"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 :ok:

[Townie]

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.

[Flex88]

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.

Big difference between subsidies and "bail outs" of which Bombardier has received from the federal and PQ governments basically every year since 1986.
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.
:yuk:

[Willie Everlearn]

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 :ok:
P.S. Turdo’s an idiot. Don’t drag him into this.