The Bombardier VS Boeing thing

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: ahramin, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog

Message
Author
Gino Under
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 557
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:06 pm

Re: The Bombardier VS Boeing thing

#51 Post by Gino Under » Thu Sep 28, 2017 1:10 pm

It was very eloquently stated by the Quebec Trade Commissioner in New York yesterday regarding 'subsidies' and Bombardier.
A subsidy is a handout. Free and gratis, no strings attached.
In fact, Webster defines a subsidy as "a grant by a government to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public."

Bombardier received NO such grant from the Government of Canada or the Government of Quebec for the C series.

The Quebec Government DID lend BBD (the company) $1 Billion (repayable). The Caisse de Depot invested $1.6 Billion in the C series program specifically and the Feds loaned them some $365 Million. Not a single GRANT among the three so-called handouts everyone seems to think Bombardier received.
So with respect to Boeing's 'subsidy accusation', I think their lawyers need to pull out a dictionary and get their heads around the difference between a loan and a subsidy.

Two years ago Bombardier approached several respected industry aircraft manufacturers about a risk-equity investment in C series, including Boeing, but there were no takers. Airbus and Embraer included. Why wouldn't or shouldn't any manufacturer or business for that matter seek investment capital to strengthen their business??? Which is exactly what BBD did as the spectators laughed and pointed fingers. Who better to understand the cost of a clean sheet design than fellow competitors? Is there something ugly about an investor stepping forward, like the Caisse, to share in the risk? And isn't that what many pension funds do with their money, invest? This is another prime example of WHY governments protect their aerospace industry.

Boeing has had two opportunities to exterminate Bombardier and blew both. DeHavilland and now C series. Now they cry fowl because they did nothing in the 80s when Airbus sold the A300 to Eastern Airlines and look where Airbus is today and how much of a threat they are to Boeing. They simply don't want to let Bombardier, COMAC, or Sukhoi enter the U.S. market by offering aircraft meeting a specific market segment Boeing doesn't presently offer.

Boeing is simply doing what it has to do. I get that. Wanting to protect its home market while they have an idiot in the White House. I get that too.

The hypocrisy of this action by Boeing is only going to bite them in the ass.

Gino
---------- ADS -----------
Last edited by Gino Under on Thu Sep 28, 2017 1:25 pm, edited 4 times in total.

teacher
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2360
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 3:25 pm

Re: The Bombardier VS Boeing thing

#52 Post by teacher » Thu Sep 28, 2017 1:17 pm

Extremely well said :smt038
Gino Under wrote:It was very eloquently stated by the Quebec Trade Commissioner in New York yesterday regarding 'subsidies' and Bombardier.

A subsidy is a handout. Free and gratis, no strings attached.
In fact, Webster defines a subsidy as "a grant by a government to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public."

Bombardier received NO such grant from the Government of Canada or the Government of Quebec for the C series.

The Quebec Government DID lend BBD (the company) $1 Billion (repayable). The Caisse de Depot invested $1.6 Billion in the C series program specifically and the Feds loaned them some $365 Million. Not a single GRANT among the three so-called handouts everyone seems to think Bombardier received.
So with respect to Boeing's 'subsidy accusation', I think their lawyers need to pull out a dictionary and get their heads around the difference between a loan and a subsidy.

Two years ago Bombardier approached several respected industry aircraft manufacturers about a risk-equity investment in C series, including Boeing, but there were no takers. Airbus and Embraer included. Why wouldn't or shouldn't any manufacturer or business for that matter seek investment capital to strengthen their business??? Which is exactly what BBD did as the spectators laughed and pointed fingers. Who better to understand the cost of a clean sheet design than fellow competitors?

Boeing has had two opportunities to exterminate Bombardier and blew both. DeHavilland and now C series. Now they cry fowl because they did nothing in the 80s when Airbus sold the A300 to Eastern Airlines and look where Airbus is now. They simply don't want to let Bombardier, COMAC, or Sukhoi enter the U.S. market by offering aircraft meeting a specific market segment Boeing doesn't presently offer.

Boeing is simply doing what it has to do. And that is protect its home market while they have an idiot in the White House.

The hypocrisy of this action by Boeing is only going to bite them in the ass.

Gino
---------- ADS -----------
http://www.collegeofpilots.ca/

tsgas
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 342
Joined: Sun Feb 29, 2004 12:53 pm

Re: The Bombardier VS Boeing thing

#53 Post by tsgas » Thu Sep 28, 2017 2:10 pm

it's not like the Federal and Ontario governments wouldn't bail out the auto industry like GM & Chrysler.
Surely the government wouldn't want to help the soft wood lumber industry because of US protectionism.
---------- ADS -----------

User avatar
confusedalot
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 493
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 9:08 pm
Location: location, location, is what matters

Re: The Bombardier VS Boeing thing

#54 Post by confusedalot » Thu Sep 28, 2017 5:54 pm

Some may want to read this from this morning.

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/andrew- ... -aerospace
---------- ADS -----------
Attempting to understand the world. I have not succeeded.

veni, vidi,...... vici non fecit.

:?

teacher
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2360
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 3:25 pm

Re: The Bombardier VS Boeing thing

#55 Post by teacher » Thu Sep 28, 2017 6:57 pm

confusedalot wrote:Some may want to read this from this morning.

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/andrew- ... -aerospace
Canada does not have to build pipelines
Canada does not have to be in the mining industry
Canada does not have to mine the oil sands
Canada does not have to have a military
Canada does not have to have a space agency

....................etc

According to the experts we don't need anything. So than what? Who's gonna pay the bills? How are we to live? Why are we a country that can't build and accomplish anything anymore?
---------- ADS -----------
http://www.collegeofpilots.ca/

User avatar
confusedalot
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 493
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 9:08 pm
Location: location, location, is what matters

Re: The Bombardier VS Boeing thing

#56 Post by confusedalot » Thu Sep 28, 2017 7:27 pm

Somehow I knew someone would want to shoot the messenger. Don't shoot, it is an internet link. I did not make this up.

Pipelines, oil sands,and mining make money on their own.
A military is a necessary expense in this sad world.
Space agency, not required, it is a nice to have.
---------- ADS -----------
Attempting to understand the world. I have not succeeded.

veni, vidi,...... vici non fecit.

:?

FAD3C
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 48
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 11:33 pm

Re: The Bombardier VS Boeing thing

#57 Post by FAD3C » Thu Sep 28, 2017 9:29 pm

Gino Under wrote:
The hypocrisy of this action by Boeing is only going to bite them in the ass.

Gino
I can't wait for this to happen. 8)
It will be quite pleasant when it does.
---------- ADS -----------

B208
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 504
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2014 11:00 pm

Re: The Bombardier VS Boeing thing

#58 Post by B208 » Fri Sep 29, 2017 5:00 am

Transonic wrote: Digging something out of the ground for the sole reason to burn it is very different than building a jet aircraft.
Yes it is; it results in a more reliable and consistent profit that brings with it a taxbase.
---------- ADS -----------

teacher
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2360
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 3:25 pm

Re: The Bombardier VS Boeing thing

#59 Post by teacher » Fri Sep 29, 2017 6:40 am

confusedalot wrote:Somehow I knew someone would want to shoot the messenger. Don't shoot, it is an internet link. I did not make this up.

Pipelines, oil sands,and mining make money on their own.
A military is a necessary expense in this sad world.
Space agency, not required, it is a nice to have.
Sorry buddy!! Not directed at you :smt008

I too read this article today and I am tired of the "can NOT do" attitude in this country. Our loser PM perpetuates this do nothing philosophy and it drives me crazy. Sunny words but no action except for marching in a few parades and taking pictures.

WHY CAN'T WE BUILD ANYTHING ANYMORE!!

https://www.pressreader.com/canada/calg ... 2226256889
---------- ADS -----------
http://www.collegeofpilots.ca/

Gino Under
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 557
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:06 pm

Re: The Bombardier VS Boeing thing

#60 Post by Gino Under » Fri Sep 29, 2017 8:41 am

It's unfortunate that a usually intelligent writer like Andrew Coyne would stick his neck out like this but I guess that's how you generate readership. As preposterous as his thoughts on the subject may seem.
It's pointless to debate with any member of the public the tariff issue over C Series.
Jane and Joe public may recognize an airplane when they see one. But that's where their knowledge about aviation, airlines, and aerospace ends. Including Mr. Coyne's.

For the general tax paying public to offer an opinion or analysis of this complicated an issue is laughable and beyond description.

Gino
---------- ADS -----------

User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 471
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: The Bombardier VS Boeing thing

#61 Post by rookiepilot » Fri Sep 29, 2017 10:46 am

DonutHole wrote:
rookiepilot wrote:
sanjet wrote:
That being said, Bombardier needs a better PR department (executive pay raises, late trains for Toronto, etc....)
They don't need a better PR dept. Gosh it seems some Canadian companies have quite enough PR departments. It's the rest of the company that needs attention.

I don't understand why it isn't obvious how incompetent this company is, to everyone. They are currently sueing their major train customer (Metrolinx) for not rewarding them with new business, due to their own incompetence on the bungled train contract! :roll: :roll: :roll:

Just DO YOUR JOB. Bizzare how saying this is SO hysterically offensive to the snowflakes!

This company deserves to die. I'm tired of supporting them, and their rich pay packages, with my money.

We all know of course, if this was an Alberta company, it would be long, long gone. No federal money for the west, but we must mollycoddle Quebec.
Aren't you the guy who was wrong about bombardier lasting six more months before they tanked?
Just look at the stock price. It's a dead corpse. Then look at Boeing's. Without Federal Aid -- This latest Loan :lol: Will never be fully paid back. Ever. This is a bailout.

Don't you guys' ever wonder why no private equity funds, no deep pocketed investment funds, in a raging bull market where money is being thrown at anything with a pulse, money losing Uber and Tesla, among others, are valued at billions of dollars, would touch this rotting company with a ten foot pole? Hint. They distrust the management, I suspect. Duh.

This isn't the financial crisis where there was no money and governments had to step in. Bombardier is so dysfunctional they have to be the only major corporate bailout happening in North America right now, if not the world. It's stupid policy to buy votes.

The Caisse are idiots too, if they are risking their members money on this.

If you guys believe so much, put your own retirement $$$$ in. Good luck with that. :rolleyes:

It's one thing to fly the Canadian flag. Quite another to risk money foolishly.
---------- ADS -----------

User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 471
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: The Bombardier VS Boeing thing

#62 Post by rookiepilot » Fri Sep 29, 2017 10:49 am

Gino Under wrote:It was very eloquently stated by the Quebec Trade Commissioner in New York yesterday regarding 'subsidies' and Bombardier.
A subsidy is a handout. Free and gratis, no strings attached.
In fact, Webster defines a subsidy as "a grant by a government to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public."

Bombardier received NO such grant from the Government of Canada or the Government of Quebec for the C series.

The Quebec Government DID lend BBD (the company) $1 Billion (repayable). The Caisse de Depot invested $1.6 Billion in the C series program specifically and the Feds loaned them some $365 Million. Not a single GRANT among the three so-called handouts everyone seems to think Bombardier received.
So with respect to Boeing's 'subsidy accusation', I think their lawyers need to pull out a dictionary and get their heads around the difference between a loan and a subsidy.

Two years ago Bombardier approached several respected industry aircraft manufacturers about a risk-equity investment in C series, including Boeing, but there were no takers. Airbus and Embraer included. Why wouldn't or shouldn't any manufacturer or business for that matter seek investment capital to strengthen their business??? Which is exactly what BBD did as the spectators laughed and pointed fingers. Who better to understand the cost of a clean sheet design than fellow competitors? Is there something ugly about an investor stepping forward, like the Caisse, to share in the risk? And isn't that what many pension funds do with their money, invest? This is another prime example of WHY governments protect their aerospace industry.

Boeing has had two opportunities to exterminate Bombardier and blew both. DeHavilland and now C series. Now they cry fowl because they did nothing in the 80s when Airbus sold the A300 to Eastern Airlines and look where Airbus is today and how much of a threat they are to Boeing. They simply don't want to let Bombardier, COMAC, or Sukhoi enter the U.S. market by offering aircraft meeting a specific market segment Boeing doesn't presently offer.

Boeing is simply doing what it has to do. I get that. Wanting to protect its home market while they have an idiot in the White House. I get that too.

The hypocrisy of this action by Boeing is only going to bite them in the ass.

Gino
See my post. Stupid is as Stupid does, and the taxpayer is the sucker, again.

It isn't the role of government to be in business, nor pick winners and losers. Frankly, they suck when they attempt either course.

Just take one look as well, at the message the Liberal government is sending small business with both the tax changes, and their portrayal as small business owners as crooks. Extremely offensive, the government is telling doctors and western farmers they are tax cheats, while they live on gold plated pensions and shell out billions to favoured Quebec pet projects.
---------- ADS -----------
Last edited by rookiepilot on Fri Sep 29, 2017 11:33 am, edited 2 times in total.

Gino Under
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 557
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:06 pm

Re: The Bombardier VS Boeing thing

#63 Post by Gino Under » Fri Sep 29, 2017 11:05 am

rookiepilot

I respect your opinion. Unbalanced, jaded and as unreasonable as it sounds to me, you're entitled to it. I just don't share your opinion along with many others. It's what makes for good dialogue.

:drinkers:
cheers, Gino
---------- ADS -----------
I have an existential map. It has 'You are here' written all over it.
Steven Wright

User avatar
Old fella
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1659
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 7:04 am

Re: The Bombardier VS Boeing thing

#64 Post by Old fella » Fri Sep 29, 2017 11:15 am

Gino Under wrote:It's unfortunate that a usually intelligent writer like Andrew Coyne would stick his neck out like this but I guess that's how you generate readership. As preposterous as his thoughts on the subject may seem.
It's pointless to debate with any member of the public the tariff issue over C Series.
Jane and Joe public may recognize an airplane when they see one. But that's where their knowledge about aviation, airlines, and aerospace ends. Including Mr. Coyne's.

For the general tax paying public to offer an opinion or analysis of this complicated an issue is laughable and beyond description.

Gino
Correct me if wrong but there has been success stories in Canadian Aerospace. DHC-2/3/6 come to my mind
---------- ADS -----------

User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 471
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: The Bombardier VS Boeing thing

#65 Post by rookiepilot » Fri Sep 29, 2017 11:16 am

Gino Under wrote:rookiepilot

I respect your opinion. Unbalanced, jaded and as unreasonable as it sounds to me, you're entitled to it. I just don't share your opinion along with many others. It's what makes for good dialogue.

:drinkers:
cheers, Gino
https://www.google.ca/search?q=bbd,b+ch ... jwPq9aK4BA

Here's the collective opinion of millions of investors: (choose 10 year chart)

I have lots of company in my view.

Look this is NOTHING to do with whether the C-Series is a great plane or not. I'm sure it is, and BBD has some great engineers.

The fact is the Management is completely incompetent, not only in my view, but in the view of anyone deep pocketed who might have invested in them. (Sorry the Caisse doesn't count). And they can't be removed due to the share structure.

The big boys couldn't give a crap about the C series, or Z series. Its only the management if they like it, and voting control if they don't.

There you go. I'd rather it were different, and it was a great success story for Canada, but it is what it is.

Cheers
---------- ADS -----------

Gino Under
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 557
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:06 pm

Re: The Bombardier VS Boeing thing

#66 Post by Gino Under » Fri Sep 29, 2017 11:38 am

"Just look at the stock price. It's a dead corpse. Then look at Boeing's. Without Federal Aid -- This latest Loan Will never be fully paid back. Ever. This is a bailout."
Actually the stock price is up today. The comparative age, size, and book value of Boeing compared to Bombardier? Really? Godzilla versus Bambi. Good example.

BTW, Bombardier sold 50 Q400s today. 14 more C series to Air Baltic yesterday. Tally up those sales and let us know what number you come up with. Then we'll talk about corpses and accurate financial statements.

"Don't you guys' ever wonder why no private equity funds, no deep pocketed investment funds, in a raging bull market where money is being thrown at anything with a pulse, money losing Uber and Tesla, among others, are valued at billions of dollars, would touch this rotting company with a ten foot pole? Hint. They distrust the management, I suspect. Duh."
They might have mistrusted the previous management but they certainly trust the present one who've turned this company around, so far.

"This isn't the financial crisis where there was no money and governments had to step in. Bombardier is so dysfunctional they have to be the only major corporate bailout happening in North America right now, if not the world. It's stupid policy to buy votes."
That's a pretty safe non-statement. But, buying votes in Quebec isn't the issue here as the present Provincial and Federal Liberals are not looking good for re-election. In fact, many Quebeckers will place part of the blame for any 'bailout' or 'ridiculous executive salary' squarely on the present government. Try and buy votes? Maybe. But I don't think that would work. Besides, if Mr. Couillard decides to raise the price of Hydro Quebec power sold to the U.S. by 200%, what do you think it would do the them?

"The Caisse are idiots too, if they are risking their members money on this."
So, you really don't keep track of Bombardier sales and the potential Caisse ROI, do you?

"If you guys believe so much, put your own retirement $$$$ in. Good luck with that."
I do.

"It's one thing to fly the Canadian flag. Quite another to risk money foolishly."
I couldn't agree more.

I've been an investor for the better part of my adult life. Based on my experience, most Financial Advisers and Industry Experts rarely get it right. Wanna start with Bre-X? Be very careful when they give you advise or tell you where the industry or particular company (BBD) is headed. This time last year they were saying BBD wouldn't last six more months.
Yeah, right. Thanks for the investment advise.

If you're a competitor, you file complaints wherever you can. Especially if your product was aimed at a market segment that has been seriously scoped out while yours wasn't.
http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/wt ... spartandhp

Gino Under
---------- ADS -----------

User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 471
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: The Bombardier VS Boeing thing

#67 Post by rookiepilot » Fri Sep 29, 2017 11:56 am

[quote="Gino Under]They might have mistrusted the previous management but they certainly trust the present one who've turned this company around, so far.

Gino Under[/quote]

Excuse me, but...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHH!!!!!

Friday LOL!

And respectfully, I think I know a wee bit more about this stuff than you do.

Carry on ---
---------- ADS -----------

Gino Under
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 557
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:06 pm

Re: The Bombardier VS Boeing thing

#68 Post by Gino Under » Fri Sep 29, 2017 12:06 pm

And, I know what I know.

Bombardier revenue.
2016 Revenues
$16.3 Billion USD
2017 1st Qtr Revenues
3.6 Billion USD
2017 2nd Qtr Revenues
$3.6 Billion USD
This weeks Revenues
50 DHC8 Q400s sold, worth
$1.7 Billion USD
14 CS300s sold, worth
$1.2 Billion USD

Gino
---------- ADS -----------

User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 471
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: The Bombardier VS Boeing thing

#69 Post by rookiepilot » Fri Sep 29, 2017 12:24 pm

Gino Under wrote:And, I know what I know.

Bombardier revenue.
2016 Revenues
$16.3 Billion USD
2017 1st Qtr Revenues
3.6 Billion USD
2017 2nd Qtr Revenues
$3.6 Billion USD
This weeks Revenues
50 DHC8 Q400s sold, worth
$1.7 Billion USD
14 CS300s sold, worth
$1.2 Billion USD

Gino
"We're bleeding money. Let's simply increase our volume".

How's that working out again? So successful, and so much profitable business lined up, they had to turn down all kinds of private investors.

No; wait.....

This is such an amusing conversation.

Tell me, Gino. How long have you held this stock? It was $25 in 2000. Today, its a Tooney, plus tax.

Boeing in 2000 was 40 bucks. Now, BA is 250.

Are you telling me Bombardier is better managed than Boeing?
---------- ADS -----------

Gino Under
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 557
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:06 pm

Re: The Bombardier VS Boeing thing

#70 Post by Gino Under » Fri Sep 29, 2017 2:34 pm

rookiepilot, slow down.
I'm still laughing at your previous posts because I can't make any sense of what it is you're trying to say? Other than naw, naw, na naw, naw.

I bought BBD at around 3.75. In 2000 it was somewhere around 32 bucks having split three times during the rise of the Regional Jet. So, foolish investor I am, I'm buying while its' low and planning to watch it rise to around 5 to 10 bucks over the next (say) 3 to 10 years. Imagine if it goes to 15????

I really don't think you understand the folks running this company. For the first time in a long while they have aviation industry people in charge. Not someone from the railway or automotive industry or the federal government.

You really should do more research instead of repeating what others say that you seem to like to repeat here.

:rolleyes:
---------- ADS -----------

fish4life
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1383
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 6:32 am

Re: The Bombardier VS Boeing thing

#71 Post by fish4life » Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:17 pm

The biggest problem with BBD is the way the voting structure is based, if I remember right each family member share is worth something like 10 votes so they never give up a controlling interest... that shouldn't be allowed if you want support from the government. Also does no one know about the big Boeing plant in winnipeg? What about standard aero etc
---------- ADS -----------

User avatar
confusedalot
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 493
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 9:08 pm
Location: location, location, is what matters

Re: The Bombardier VS Boeing thing

#72 Post by confusedalot » Fri Sep 29, 2017 6:29 pm

You are correct in the share structure; the family never loses overall control.

If the C series were a tad smaller, none of this would be happening, but of course Embraer would have their noses out of joint, which would be a different kind of altercation.

I suppose the BBD strategists figured they would squeeze in between Boeing/Airbus and Embraer, and the whole thing blew up in their face. I am curious whether Airbus is considering the erection of their own roadblocks.

Not sure that BBD would fare all that well in the midst of the age old Boeing-Airbus dogfight.

I can actually see more money thrown at BBD's way, it remains to be seen if placing good money after bad will have any material effect on a price war.
---------- ADS -----------
Attempting to understand the world. I have not succeeded.

veni, vidi,...... vici non fecit.

:?

User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 471
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: The Bombardier VS Boeing thing

#73 Post by rookiepilot » Fri Sep 29, 2017 9:10 pm

Gino Under wrote:rookiepilot, slow down.
I'm still laughing at your previous posts because I can't make any sense of what it is you're trying to say? Other than naw, naw, na naw, naw.

I bought BBD at around 3.75. In 2000 it was somewhere around 32 bucks having split three times during the rise of the Regional Jet. So, foolish investor I am, I'm buying while its' low and planning to watch it rise to around 5 to 10 bucks over the next (say) 3 to 10 years. Imagine if it goes to 15????

I really don't think you understand the folks running this company. For the first time in a long while they have aviation industry people in charge. Not someone from the railway or automotive industry or the federal government.

You really should do more research instead of repeating what others say that you seem to like to repeat here.

:rolleyes:
Good luck with your investments Gino.
---------- ADS -----------

Gino Under
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 557
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:06 pm

Re: The Bombardier VS Boeing thing

#74 Post by Gino Under » Sat Sep 30, 2017 2:56 pm

thanks.
---------- ADS -----------

User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 471
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: The Bombardier VS Boeing thing

#75 Post by rookiepilot » Sat Sep 30, 2017 3:49 pm

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/np-view ... -must-stop

100% Accurate.

And thinking our fair haired PM will win any pissing contest with the big dogs is lunacy.
---------- ADS -----------

Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”