US Dept of Commerce slaps 220% tax on Bombardier c series
To my knowledge the governments which provided launch aid have made not just a little, but very considerate amounts of money on Airbus on every single program except the original A300 and the A380, and that those profits vastly outstrip the 'losses' on the A300 and A380. I've put losses in brackets, as it doesn't really apply to the A300, without which there'd be no Airbus. So whilst that program may have been at a loss, it launched a company where the cumulative profits are far, far higher than that loss.
But, please, do go ahead and elaborate.
Back to the topic at hand, I find it interesting that Delta believes they have a route structure that this C class aircraft will fit into for their business model, and apparently other airlines do not, as of yet?
Any ideas on what's behind that?
Any ideas on what's behind that?
Maybe Delta simply want to differentiate themselves from the other US airlines. If it flies far enough and carries the right number of passengers, the comfort, quietness and fuel efficiency has got to count as pluses.
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Stratosphere
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Delta Air Lines Inc. is eyeing New York and Los Angeles as the main bases for Bombardier Inc.’s new jetliner next year, offering a glimpse of how carriers can add service economically with the midsize plane. Dallas is also likely to get a lot of C Series flights, Delta said in an internal memo to pilots, a copy of which was reviewed by Bloomberg News. That sets up a test of the carrier’s ability to use the single-aisle aircraft to attract customers in the backyard of American Airlines Group Inc. and Southwest Airlines Co."
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...n-l-a-new-york
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...w-york-439306/
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...n-l-a-new-york
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...w-york-439306/
At a guess, few airlines have wished to bank on the viability of the programme. It's been fraught with difficulties almost since inception, making it a bit of gamble. Since most airlines are extremely cautious of risk, that's probably the main reason it hasn't sold more than the 300 odd copies it has.
Why Delta sprung for it is probably a simple question of arithmetic, opportunity and need; Delta perceived a need for something around 100 seats, the C-series is just about the only game in town and BBD offered some very intriguing numbers, backed by their desperation to break into the US market with a major.
Why Delta sprung for it is probably a simple question of arithmetic, opportunity and need; Delta perceived a need for something around 100 seats, the C-series is just about the only game in town and BBD offered some very intriguing numbers, backed by their desperation to break into the US market with a major.
"US-built CSeries still subject to import tax: Boeing"
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...boeing-442258/
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...boeing-442258/
Well, they would say that wouldn't they? I can't think what else Boeing can say about the matter. It's also largely irrelevant. Airbus clearly have global ambitions for the C Series, the US market would simply be a nice extra. If Boeing ends up being restricted to just the US market (that being the only place they may find themselves able to sell a 60 year old design), that's a big win for AirBardier.
Given that the formal process of deciding whether or not the tariff will actually be applied has not been completed, it's still too early to say. The US has concluded that there was state aid. Now they have to decide whether or not Boeing were "damaged" by that state aid. Given that Boeing has nothing in the same class in its airplane catalogue, it's still entirety possible that the tariff won't be applied at all. That'd be bad news for Boeing.
Given that the formal process of deciding whether or not the tariff will actually be applied has not been completed, it's still too early to say. The US has concluded that there was state aid. Now they have to decide whether or not Boeing were "damaged" by that state aid. Given that Boeing has nothing in the same class in its airplane catalogue, it's still entirety possible that the tariff won't be applied at all. That'd be bad news for Boeing.
Thread Starter
Differing corporate cultures. I wonder if this pleasant tribute from Airbus to Boeing just went completely over their heads. Is it a European thing ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTmri6E8Xzk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTmri6E8Xzk
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In its complaint, Boeing claims that Bombardier sold the CS100 for just $19.6 million. That's far less than the $33.2 million the Chicago-based aviation giant says it cost Bombardier to make the plane and a mere fraction of the CS100's $79.5 million sticker price. As a result, Boeing claims the Montreal-based company is dumping its product on the US market to the detriment of US aviation workers.
That is the foundation of the complaint, (and the 300% levy) not the $1 Billion bailout from the govt.
In addition:
Looking for a blockbuster sale to help build traction for the plane in the US, Bombardier went all in on a pitch to United Airlines. Sensing the new competition, Boeing gave United a whopping 70% discount on the 40 737-700s. While large airlines like United never pay list price, 70% off is the aviation equivalent of a Black Friday sale price.
Dumping? Paying 30% of list vs paying 25% of list...
What it all really means: Instead of keeping the Canadian jet grounded, Boeing pushed C Series into the arms of its greatest rival.
That is the foundation of the complaint, (and the 300% levy) not the $1 Billion bailout from the govt.
In addition:
Looking for a blockbuster sale to help build traction for the plane in the US, Bombardier went all in on a pitch to United Airlines. Sensing the new competition, Boeing gave United a whopping 70% discount on the 40 737-700s. While large airlines like United never pay list price, 70% off is the aviation equivalent of a Black Friday sale price.
Dumping? Paying 30% of list vs paying 25% of list...
What it all really means: Instead of keeping the Canadian jet grounded, Boeing pushed C Series into the arms of its greatest rival.
Last edited by underfire; 18th Oct 2017 at 13:24.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Nanaimo, B.C.
Age: 66
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing have started advertising to Canadians both in the MSM and on-line to try to repair the PR damage they have done to themselves.
It isn't going to work. Canadians are well aware of what Boeing has done here because it has been widely reported on all media. It will be politically difficult now for the government to purchase products from Boeing, and the major carriers might think twice about their next purchase.
It isn't going to work. Canadians are well aware of what Boeing has done here because it has been widely reported on all media. It will be politically difficult now for the government to purchase products from Boeing, and the major carriers might think twice about their next purchase.
Also both WestJet and Air Canada are going to be delivered new 737s and some 787s and I think if this government had any balls they would slap a 300% import tax on those imports too.
Thread Starter
Boeing Launches Outreach Campaign in Canada
From what Trudeau has said, though, it's the end though for further consideration of the Boeing military fighters.
"We have obviously been looking at the Super Hornet aircraft from Boeing as a potential significant procurement of our new fighter jets," Trudeau said on Parliament Hill last month.
"But we won't do business with a company that's busy trying to sue us and trying to put our aerospace workers out of business."
"But we won't do business with a company that's busy trying to sue us and trying to put our aerospace workers out of business."
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As much fun as that would be, Canada does not produce anything in those classes so we could not prove "economic harm".
I assume the poster meant it like this; The point being that if that US DOC 300% will stand, it should be no problem to raise the same kind of tariff against those 737/787 orders, baseless or not.
Here's the essence of the supreme arrogance in US 'dumping' law:
If a foreign company sells below cost, it's dumping and liable to tariffs.
If a US company sells below cost, that's fine - move along, nothing to see here.
I'm sure there's logic in there somewhere, but one would probably need to be a particularly vulturous lawyer to see it.
If a foreign company sells below cost, it's dumping and liable to tariffs.
If a US company sells below cost, that's fine - move along, nothing to see here.
I'm sure there's logic in there somewhere, but one would probably need to be a particularly vulturous lawyer to see it.