US Dept of Commerce slaps 220% tax on Bombardier c series
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Stump Towers
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 68
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has the ruling been overturned? Has the WTO ruled that the subsidies are in fact OK under its rules?
Of course two wrongs don’t make a right.
Oh, can someone remind me why Boeing moved their HQ to Chicago? Oh, that is different isn’t it.
Of course two wrongs don’t make a right.
Oh, can someone remind me why Boeing moved their HQ to Chicago? Oh, that is different isn’t it.
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Further West
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From Telegraph article: Monarch owner's losses could be less severe than thought on back of Boeing deal. (sorry - can't hyperlink as I'm new here)
Quote:
'Monarch Airlines’ private equity owner slashed its exposure to the airline through a complex deal with aviation giant Boeing just a year before it collapsed...'
'Keen to get the upper hand in its battle for orders with rival Airbus, Boeing injected the money through Petro Jersey Ltd, Monarch’s offshore holding company, after Greybull stuck a bargain deal with the US giant to pay far below the market value for an eventual total of 45 new planes, according to The Sunday Times.'
Pots and Kettles?
Quote:
'Monarch Airlines’ private equity owner slashed its exposure to the airline through a complex deal with aviation giant Boeing just a year before it collapsed...'
'Keen to get the upper hand in its battle for orders with rival Airbus, Boeing injected the money through Petro Jersey Ltd, Monarch’s offshore holding company, after Greybull stuck a bargain deal with the US giant to pay far below the market value for an eventual total of 45 new planes, according to The Sunday Times.'
Pots and Kettles?
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Sussex UK
Posts: 369
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Further to above post another report in the Times yesterday (Monday - can't link - firewalled) that Boeing subbed Monarch's finance provider a very hefty bung when Monarch were planning to buy 30 No. 737 Maxs. Makes their hounding of Bombardier even nastier. Isn't airline finance a seriously dirty business
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: North by Northwest
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting opinion piece in aviation week.
Opinion: Why Boeing vs. Bombardier Is Really About China | Commercial Aviation content from Aviation Week
Opinion: Why Boeing vs. Bombardier Is Really About China | Commercial Aviation content from Aviation Week
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it's a little bit different than being handed 5 billion cash to develop a new airplane...and yes the ruling was overturned..
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 68
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IB57 could you provide a link to the WTO decision being overturned? Thank you.
From Reuters report at the time:
From Reuters report at the time:
The WTO said the subsidy came in the form of a renewed cut in Washington state’s main business tax for aerospace agreed in 2013, when Boeing was considering where to base assembly of the latest member of its long-haul jet family.
It is the third swathe of taxpayer support for Boeing or its European rival Airbus (AIR.PA) faulted by the WTO in a record transatlantic trade spat dating back 12 years, and involving mutual accusations of tens of billions of dollars of aid.
The WTO did not give a value for the banned aid in its latest ruling, but the EU estimated it at $5.7 billion out of an $8.7 billion tax package in Washington, where most Boeing factories are based.
Airbus said the measures had cost it $50 billion in sales.
It is the third swathe of taxpayer support for Boeing or its European rival Airbus (AIR.PA) faulted by the WTO in a record transatlantic trade spat dating back 12 years, and involving mutual accusations of tens of billions of dollars of aid.
The WTO did not give a value for the banned aid in its latest ruling, but the EU estimated it at $5.7 billion out of an $8.7 billion tax package in Washington, where most Boeing factories are based.
Airbus said the measures had cost it $50 billion in sales.
Airbus said the measures had cost it $50 billion in sales
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to a report from Reuters, a Bombardier spokesman said the manufacturer was confident that the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), which must affirm the duties for them to take effect, will "reach the right conclusion given that Boeing did not compete for the Delta order."
Boeing is the “king of corporate welfare” or Boeing has never received subsidies
Good Evening All:
A very interesting article from October 11th in the Ottawa Citizen.
Boeing is the ?king of corporate welfare? or Boeing has never received subsidies ? you decide | Ottawa Citizen
David Pugliese, Ottawa Citizen
More from David Pugliese, Ottawa Citizen
Published on: October 11, 2017 | Last Updated: October 11, 2017 8:37 PM EDT
Another day and another article about Boeing’s dispute with Bombardier and the Canadian government.
As readers are well aware, Boeing complained earlier this year to the U.S. about what it has labelled as subsidies provided to Bombardier by Canadian governments. As a result, the Trump administration has hit the Canadian company with a penalty of almost 300 per cent in duties on its C-Series civilian passenger aircraft.
In an article today about the ongoing dispute I had this line near the end of the story: “Boeing’s critics point out it receives billions of dollars of subsidies from the U.S. government.”
That has prompted a rebuke from Boeing spokesman Scott Day, who accused me of “spreading false information.”
According to Boeing it hasn’t received any subsidies. Day noted that, “U.S. Export-Import Bank financing does not go to Boeing. Boeing doesn’t receive a single penny in funds or financing from the Export-Import Bank.”
He also added that “the World Trade Organization has dismissed the vast majority of subsidy claims against Boeing.”
For starters, reporting accurately what Boeing’s critics are saying isn’t “spreading false information.”
Boeing’s critics, both in Canada and around the world, have indeed repeatedly pointed out that the company receives billions of dollars of subsidies from U.S. governments at the federal, municipal and state levels.
The U.S. watchdog group Good Jobs First has continually reported on the billions of dollars that it says Boeing receives in government subsidies. In 2015, the St. Louis Business Journal, citing a Good Jobs First study, noted that Boeing is the nation’s largest winner of state and local tax incentives, receiving in excess of $13 billion U.S.. Most of that was related to Boeing’s commercial aircraft manufacturing, the newspaper noted.
In the article, I also quoted Marc Allen, Boeing’s president of international business, who stated the company took its action against Bombardier to ensure a level playing field in the aerospace industry and Boeing believes that global trade only works if everyone plays by the same rules.
Boeing’s critics say that isn’t true and Boeing is really out to destroy it competitor Bombardier and significantly hurt Canada’s aerospace industry. They too could accuse me of “spreading false information” by reporting on Boeing’s view, although they haven’t yet. Maybe that email is to come.
Interestingly, Day’s email arrived just as Bloomberg TV was reporting that the United Kingdom’s Labour Party has now labelled Boeing the “king of corporate welfare.”
Labour’s trade spokesman Barry Gardiner accused the U.S. aerospace giant of “egregious hypocrisy” in pursuing the illegal-subsidies claim against Bombardier Inc.
Boeing has been denounced by many in the UK government and opposition MPs for putting thousands of UK jobs at risk with its action (the wings for C-Series aircraft are built in Northern Ireland).
Gardiner told Bloomberg that “no aircraft these days comes to market without support from government,” including those produced by Boeing.
“Boeing has absolutely been sucking at the milk of corporate welfare in America for far too long,” Gardiner said on Bloomberg TV. “They need to understand that the way in which they are playing this does not sit well with U.K. parliamentarians.”
But according to Boeing executives the 300 per cent duty now tacked on to Bombardier aircraft being sold in the U.S. is about all about “following trade rules” and not about punishing its competitors. “This trade case is about fairness,” Day noted. “Taking government subsidies and using them to offer below-production-cost pricing on aircraft is a violation in the U.S., and the laws are well-known.”
Both sides have their view.
A very interesting article from October 11th in the Ottawa Citizen.
Boeing is the ?king of corporate welfare? or Boeing has never received subsidies ? you decide | Ottawa Citizen
David Pugliese, Ottawa Citizen
More from David Pugliese, Ottawa Citizen
Published on: October 11, 2017 | Last Updated: October 11, 2017 8:37 PM EDT
Another day and another article about Boeing’s dispute with Bombardier and the Canadian government.
As readers are well aware, Boeing complained earlier this year to the U.S. about what it has labelled as subsidies provided to Bombardier by Canadian governments. As a result, the Trump administration has hit the Canadian company with a penalty of almost 300 per cent in duties on its C-Series civilian passenger aircraft.
In an article today about the ongoing dispute I had this line near the end of the story: “Boeing’s critics point out it receives billions of dollars of subsidies from the U.S. government.”
That has prompted a rebuke from Boeing spokesman Scott Day, who accused me of “spreading false information.”
According to Boeing it hasn’t received any subsidies. Day noted that, “U.S. Export-Import Bank financing does not go to Boeing. Boeing doesn’t receive a single penny in funds or financing from the Export-Import Bank.”
He also added that “the World Trade Organization has dismissed the vast majority of subsidy claims against Boeing.”
For starters, reporting accurately what Boeing’s critics are saying isn’t “spreading false information.”
Boeing’s critics, both in Canada and around the world, have indeed repeatedly pointed out that the company receives billions of dollars of subsidies from U.S. governments at the federal, municipal and state levels.
The U.S. watchdog group Good Jobs First has continually reported on the billions of dollars that it says Boeing receives in government subsidies. In 2015, the St. Louis Business Journal, citing a Good Jobs First study, noted that Boeing is the nation’s largest winner of state and local tax incentives, receiving in excess of $13 billion U.S.. Most of that was related to Boeing’s commercial aircraft manufacturing, the newspaper noted.
In the article, I also quoted Marc Allen, Boeing’s president of international business, who stated the company took its action against Bombardier to ensure a level playing field in the aerospace industry and Boeing believes that global trade only works if everyone plays by the same rules.
Boeing’s critics say that isn’t true and Boeing is really out to destroy it competitor Bombardier and significantly hurt Canada’s aerospace industry. They too could accuse me of “spreading false information” by reporting on Boeing’s view, although they haven’t yet. Maybe that email is to come.
Interestingly, Day’s email arrived just as Bloomberg TV was reporting that the United Kingdom’s Labour Party has now labelled Boeing the “king of corporate welfare.”
Labour’s trade spokesman Barry Gardiner accused the U.S. aerospace giant of “egregious hypocrisy” in pursuing the illegal-subsidies claim against Bombardier Inc.
Boeing has been denounced by many in the UK government and opposition MPs for putting thousands of UK jobs at risk with its action (the wings for C-Series aircraft are built in Northern Ireland).
Gardiner told Bloomberg that “no aircraft these days comes to market without support from government,” including those produced by Boeing.
“Boeing has absolutely been sucking at the milk of corporate welfare in America for far too long,” Gardiner said on Bloomberg TV. “They need to understand that the way in which they are playing this does not sit well with U.K. parliamentarians.”
But according to Boeing executives the 300 per cent duty now tacked on to Bombardier aircraft being sold in the U.S. is about all about “following trade rules” and not about punishing its competitors. “This trade case is about fairness,” Day noted. “Taking government subsidies and using them to offer below-production-cost pricing on aircraft is a violation in the U.S., and the laws are well-known.”
Both sides have their view.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 68
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The United States of subsidies. aka Pot calling the kettle black.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...=.897f932d10a8
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...=.897f932d10a8
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Canadian Shield
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This just in....
MONTREAL — Bombardier Inc. has announced it will partner with Netherlands-based aerospace giant Airbus on its CSeries program. The Canadian Press 0
about an hour ago by: Canadian Press
MONTREAL — Bombardier Inc. has announced it will partner with Netherlands-based aerospace giant Airbus on its CSeries program.
about an hour ago by: Canadian Press
MONTREAL — Bombardier Inc. has announced it will partner with Netherlands-based aerospace giant Airbus on its CSeries program.
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Near St Lawrence River
Age: 53
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbus opens second assembly line of C-Series in USA