Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

US Dept of Commerce slaps 220% tax on Bombardier c series

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

US Dept of Commerce slaps 220% tax on Bombardier c series

Old 30th Sep 2017, 14:52
  #101 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: mids
Age: 54
Posts: 0
"negative pressure zones" is meaningless nonsense. They are ventilated along with the ebays into the underfloor area by the outflow valve exactly like the Ejets 15 years earlier.
Its not meaningless its pretty standard environmental engineering in buildings. And it works.

Proof of the puddings is if someone takes a dump in the forward bog the flight deck doesn't know about it. Ejets you get the full flavour and sound effects in the cockpit.
tescoapp is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2017, 14:59
  #102 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: wherever
Age: 50
Posts: 1,609
Originally Posted by tescoapp View Post
Its not meaningless its pretty standard environmental engineering in buildings. And it works.

Proof of the puddings is if someone takes a dump in the forward bog the flight deck doesn't know about it. Ejets you get the full flavour and sound effects in the cockpit.
They are both engineered the same way. The only difference is the number of fans used. The Ejet has 3 per bay/bog. The CSeries has one for both bays with a backup.

I know both types intimately.
FE Hoppy is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2017, 15:05
  #103 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: mids
Age: 54
Posts: 0
Well why do you smell shite in the Ejet cockpit and you don't on the C series?

There must be some other structural difference either sealing or something else that stops the smell and noise going forward.
tescoapp is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2017, 15:12
  #104 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: wherever
Age: 50
Posts: 1,609
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK View Post
True.

But we're talking about what the CSeries competes with today, not 5 years and 8-10 billion dollars down the line.



You don't think engine technology and economics matters as much to the market as the airframes that they hang off ?
I think it matters much more which is why I made the point.
The statement was that the CSeries was way ahead of anything Boeing could produce. It's simply not true. The same suppliers offer the same tech to everyone. The aerodynamics and final production are about the only thing BBD could call their own. There is nothing novel, new or innovative in the airframe other than the size.
That BBD have been bailed out and have had to rely on dumping and a subsidised Air Canada order to make their books look anything other than dismal is why AB/Boeing don't offer a similar product.
If you told them both they could take a tax payer funded Billion dollar loss on the first couple of hundred orders I'm sure they would jump at it.
FE Hoppy is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2017, 16:35
  #105 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: North Up
Posts: 489
There must be some other structural difference either sealing or something else that stops the smell and noise going forward.
Yes, but how are they going to stop the whining sound going aft?
Cazalet33 is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2017, 16:44
  #106 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,085
"If you told them both they could take a tax payer funded Billion dollar loss on the first couple of hundred orders I'm sure they would jump at it."

looked at the books on the 787 recently? Mr B is allowed to defer charges and losses to infinity
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2017, 17:06
  #107 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: NV USA
Posts: 234
If Boeing went on the rocks and the government bought 49% of the 787 program then subsequently offered that jet to EU airlines at half price what do you think AB would do?
cappt is online now  
Old 30th Sep 2017, 17:24
  #108 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Europe
Age: 41
Posts: 571
False equivalency; Airbus has a product in direct competition with the 787; Boeing has nothing on offer in the CS-size. Another analogy which hold more water, would be if the Canadian government bought 49% of the Dash-8 program, then offered Q400s at dumping price in competition with ATR-72s.

The result would, I suppose, be along the lines of lodging a complaint against Canada in the WTO, let the lawyers collect millions for a couple of years, before being allowed to slap a toll on e.g. Maple syrup, timber or tar sand oil. But it is highly unlikely to be in the +200% bracket, maybe a quarter of that, probably even less.
SMT Member is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2017, 18:50
  #109 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: NV USA
Posts: 234
True if you comparing the much smaller 787 vs the 300+ seat 350. Sound familiar?
I hope the C series success as it is a truly innovative and fresh airliner but such an obvious dump is going to raise a lot of hackles.
Look for the Chinese to buy into the program and save it. Then they can dump it into the Asian market.
cappt is online now  
Old 30th Sep 2017, 21:21
  #110 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Europe
Age: 41
Posts: 571
Would sound even more familiar if you compare, as they do, the 787 with the A330neo.
SMT Member is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2017, 00:01
  #111 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
Age: 67
Posts: 3,332
cappt,

If the Canadian taxpayer wants to underwrite the program, thus subsidizing the American passengers' ticket in this instance, why stand in the way? What if they gave the planes to DL on a zero initial cost lease like Airbus did with Eastern?
galaxy flyer is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2017, 01:22
  #112 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: NV USA
Posts: 234
I'm pretty sure the Canadian citizen would not like that at all but they're all knowing leaders might think it's a good idea.
The end user PAX wouldn't see a dime of that subsidy.
cappt is online now  
Old 1st Oct 2017, 01:33
  #113 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: On the lake
Age: 78
Posts: 663
Hey, we dumped $10 billion into GM and Chrysler when they were 'too big to fail', for what: a few assembly jobs, no IP and very little engineering input! With the auto industry, the long suffering Canadian taxpayer is so far $3 billion in the hole for not much benefit!
twochai is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2017, 02:22
  #114 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
Age: 67
Posts: 3,332
Cappt,

Anything that reduces DL's cost of business which will, in an industry as competitive as the airlines, be passed on in lower fares.
galaxy flyer is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2017, 05:21
  #115 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 23
Originally Posted by megan View Post
Agree GF. The two aircraft looked similar to each other, and that was the extent of their similarity. Each built of entirely different spec metals in the airframe, along with what you mention.
Ah, what exactly do you mean in respect of "....Each built of entirely different spec metals........' ?

We can start with skins/frames/stringers at aluminium alloy right ? Very likely to be based upon the QQ-A-XXX (or its predecessor) family of aluminium alloys, yes ? While manufacturers often put their own specification over the top of these generic specifications (Federal Specification in this case), what is so 'entirely different' between the material specs between these two aircraft types?

A30_737_AEWC is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2017, 12:02
  #116 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Toronto
Posts: 27
Originally Posted by cappt View Post
Look for the Chinese to buy into the program and save it. Then they can dump it into the Asian market.
More likely is that when Bombardier needs to bail out, Boeing will buy it at a fire sale price. Boeing briefly owned De Havilland Canada in the 1980's before Bombardier took it over. Boeing didn't know what to do with the Dash-8 and how to handle Canadian unions, but it certainly would know what to do with the C-Series. I strongly suspect that all Boeing is doing with its trade actions (opposed even by "Aviation Week") is to hobble Bombardier at a crucial point of the CS program by creating FUD (recalling IBM and Microsoft in their most monopolistic phases).
czarnajama is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2017, 12:28
  #117 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: mids
Age: 54
Posts: 0
but it certainly would know what to do with the C-Series
yep kill it as quickly as possible.
tescoapp is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2017, 12:49
  #118 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Toronto
Posts: 27
Nope. Far too valuable to kill. Like the 787, the CS has parts built in many places, including the US. All talk of trade sanctions would disappear if Boeing took it over. It would add an important element to Boeing's line-up. This might even be a bargaining chip in the NAFTA talks... "give us CS, we'll give you back NAFTA".
czarnajama is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2017, 22:19
  #119 (permalink)  
THUNDERTAILED
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: L200
Posts: 313
This is the same Delta that makes documentaries crying about how Middle East Airlines are threatening their American jobs? After ordering Canadian aircraft instead of US aircraft? Roflmao
AfricanSkies is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2017, 23:34
  #120 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 64
Posts: 2,596
Originally Posted by A30_737_AEWC View Post
Ah, what exactly do you mean in respect of "....Each built of entirely different spec metals........' ?

We can start with skins/frames/stringers at aluminium alloy right ? Very likely to be based upon the QQ-A-XXX (or its predecessor) family of aluminium alloys, yes ? While manufacturers often put their own specification over the top of these generic specifications (Federal Specification in this case), what is so 'entirely different' between the material specs between these two aircraft types?

For starters, the fuselage is completely different - the 707 fuselage is a different diameter relative to the KC-135, and while there was structural similarity between the KC-135 and early 707 wings, they were far from common - by the time they got to the 707-320 there was little in common with the KC-135.


czarnajama, after the Boeing experience with De Havilland, it would be a really cold day in hell before Boeing made that mistake again...
tdracer is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.