US Dept of Commerce slaps 220% tax on Bombardier c series
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: mids
Age: 58
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: wherever
Age: 55
Posts: 1,616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know both types intimately.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: mids
Age: 58
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well why do you smell ****e 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.
There must be some other structural difference either sealing or something else that stops the smell and noise going forward.
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: wherever
Age: 55
Posts: 1,616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: North Up
Posts: 489
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There must be some other structural difference either sealing or something else that stops the smell and noise going forward.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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
looked at the books on the 787 recently? Mr B is allowed to defer charges and losses to infinity
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: NV USA
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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,
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?
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?
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: NV USA
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
The end user PAX wouldn't see a dime of that subsidy.
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!
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Toronto
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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).
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Toronto
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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".
THUNDERTAILED
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: L200
Posts: 325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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?
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?
czarnajama, after the Boeing experience with De Havilland, it would be a really cold day in hell before Boeing made that mistake again...