US Dept of Commerce slaps 220% tax on Bombardier c series
A few weeks ago the head of the DUP sent a letter for the attention of Pence. It set out the case that Northern Ireland has a fragile economy and suggested US Department of Commerce tactics could jeopardize the Peace Process. Explaining that to Trumps running mate is like explaining cows small & far away to Father Dougal, but this could be an opportunity for Mrs May to deflect criticism of the £1.5 billion cash for votes scandal and pre-allocate a small fraction of that payment by announcing her intention to place an order for CS-100’s to replace the 146's on 32Sqn. It would be revealing if the DUP did not give such a generous proposal their unconditional support.
Thread Starter
I think almost everyone here would wish any aircraft selection, civil or military, to be on the basis of competent technical studies, adequate budgeting and justification, and allied points. Having politicians make statements with them in response to lobbying is surely what all the posters above are railing against in the first place.
I think this whole saga might just end in nothing. Before these swingeing taxes are actually imposed, the US International Trade Commission (a separate organisation from the Department of Commerce) has to rule that
http://enforcement.trade.gov/downloa...lim-092617.pdf
Since Boeing chose not to offer Delta a viable, Boeing-built alternative to the C-Series C100 aircraft, I fail to see how any "material injury" has been suffered.
imports of aircraft from Canada threaten material injury to the domestic industry
Since Boeing chose not to offer Delta a viable, Boeing-built alternative to the C-Series C100 aircraft, I fail to see how any "material injury" has been suffered.
Last edited by airsound; 27th Sep 2017 at 19:26.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Stable
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's all talk and no show: we have a system of corporate welfare where the CEO's of Boeing, Airbus etc will preach about how high taxes are killing the 0,001 % and at the same time hold their hand out for the taxpayer money.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Age: 76
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is continuation of American bullying of Canadian imports in response to pressure from US interests. In this case, it's Boeing. In softwood lumber, we are in the 4th round of punitive duties dating back to 1982. The current rate is 24%. To me, this is consistent, bullying American practices as identified here by others. With the current US politics, like many other Canadians, I am doing my best to limit my travel to the US and the buying of US goods & services. I just declined long-haul travel through the US at the lowest price to pay more to travel through Europe. It's called "Miss America"!
Cow horse,
And exactly how does any of that relate to the issue. Are there death squads in Canada? The slightly related issue was the S&L bailout which was a result of S&L "deregulation" signed into law by Carter. Then, the S&Ls being given way too rope to hang themselves while insured by the Feds.
And exactly how does any of that relate to the issue. Are there death squads in Canada? The slightly related issue was the S&L bailout which was a result of S&L "deregulation" signed into law by Carter. Then, the S&Ls being given way too rope to hang themselves while insured by the Feds.
I think almost everyone here would wish any aircraft selection, civil or military, to be on the basis of competent technical studies, adequate budgeting and justification, and allied points. Having politicians make statements with them in response to lobbying is surely what all the posters above are railing against in the first place.
That's the spirit. Problem is the original USAF tanker selection was not based on those principles, but successful lobbying on behalf of Boeing inside the beltway.
Psychophysiological entity
This brings a whole new meaning to my jolly observation of some years ago. While buzzing in and out of City airport I watched as the Shorts sign was taken down and a HUGE B put in it's place.
By the end of Friday, they'd got as far as BOMB and then went home for the weekend. You'd have thought . . . no, perhaps not.
By the end of Friday, they'd got as far as BOMB and then went home for the weekend. You'd have thought . . . no, perhaps not.
The basic claim is that not only were the C-series sold to Delta sold below cost, they were sold at a lower price than those sold to (domestic) Air Canada (and there is considerable evidence of that). Hence the dumping charge.
As Lone Wolf notes, this is far from final - there are still several more gates in the process. My bet is that there is already behind the scenes negotiation going on and some sort of deal will be struck before any money actually changes hands.
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Near St Lawrence River
Age: 53
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I’m wondering how Washington arrived to 219.63% figure or it is just another locker talk. However, that’s fine, the ridiculous number is only a free advertising for C-Series. Why Bombardier's C-Series is so harmful for Boeing? Suddenly, is it in direct completion with B737s? How about A319/320/321 massive orders, some of them manufactured on American soil? What is so special about this C-Series?
Well, this aircraft has the perfect combination of short field capability, steep approaches, as well as long range. These characteristics open new interesting markets. Flight from city airport to multiple Caribbean islands, flight to Aspen ski resort operated direct from New York with a full load. C-Series could perform trans-Atlantic trips in a multiclass configuration and would be best-suited for linking secondary terminals, swapping one flight for as many as many as three via the major hubs. There’s also important interest in low-cost, single-class American operators, asking Bombardier to study potential routes
It also happens to be a more economical and passenger-friendly option than any other aircraft mentioned here.
Well, this aircraft has the perfect combination of short field capability, steep approaches, as well as long range. These characteristics open new interesting markets. Flight from city airport to multiple Caribbean islands, flight to Aspen ski resort operated direct from New York with a full load. C-Series could perform trans-Atlantic trips in a multiclass configuration and would be best-suited for linking secondary terminals, swapping one flight for as many as many as three via the major hubs. There’s also important interest in low-cost, single-class American operators, asking Bombardier to study potential routes
It also happens to be a more economical and passenger-friendly option than any other aircraft mentioned here.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Stable
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cow horse,
And exactly how does any of that relate to the issue. Are there death squads in Canada? The slightly related issue was the S&L bailout which was a result of S&L "deregulation" signed into law by Carter. Then, the S&Ls being given way too rope to hang themselves while insured by the Feds.
And exactly how does any of that relate to the issue. Are there death squads in Canada? The slightly related issue was the S&L bailout which was a result of S&L "deregulation" signed into law by Carter. Then, the S&Ls being given way too rope to hang themselves while insured by the Feds.
Trade tariffs are antithesis of the free market so it's kind of funny listening to American politicans who tend to hail Ayn Rand, Friedman etc at every given chance while every single major coorporate conglomerate depeneds on the state intervention in one way or another.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear airline executives. Boeing is attempting to prevent a new airliner option(one that happens to be quite a good product) from entering the market. The long term consequence for you is less options and higher prices. My suggestion for all executives starting today is to buy Airbus. Lets start first with the 747 line being killed off. Please order the A350 instead of 777(QANTAS would be a good first airline to do so). Please let it be known that billions of dollars are being lost by Boeing in orders lost.
The alternative is......being stuck with the duopoly forever.
Only the people paying the big bucks can have influence. Ryanair might be a good one to go the EasyJet fleet route. Airbusses seem to do well for EZ. Southwest might just be another one.
The alternative is......being stuck with the duopoly forever.
Only the people paying the big bucks can have influence. Ryanair might be a good one to go the EasyJet fleet route. Airbusses seem to do well for EZ. Southwest might just be another one.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Stockport MAN/EGCC
Age: 70
Posts: 991
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Why don't we put a 208.139657% tax on all Boeing products ( seems like a nice round random figure) and add it to the savings made by brexit and start building Bristol and Vickers airliners our selves?