The Bombardier VS Boeing thing

[Rockie]

Classic strategy. Even if Bombardier appeals and and eventually wins said appeal, the intervening time and uncertainty could do tremendous damage to the sales prospects of the C series, at least in the US. Either way Boeing's goal is realized.

I hate what it will do to the workers - not to mention what seems to be an excellent aircraft - but I won't shed any tears for the Beaudoin family cabal. Hard to tell which side of the argument is more corrupt.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Gilles Hudicourt]

If Canada does not get F18s, what is the alternative? The F35s he fought against?
Or maybe we could provide our military with rainbow coloured c172s, flown only by women, alphabet genders or visable minorities. Diversity is so important

There was a time when Canada purchased non-US military aircraft. That can easily happen again......

There are not just the fighters in future contracts. The Military wants to replace the air tankers as well for which Boeing is a contender, against Airbus.

The Canadian military signed for billions worth of contracts spanning decades with Boeing for the C-17s, the Chinooks and other stuff. They are stuck with these...

However,

Air Canada/Rouge have about 90 Boeings and have 61 737 Max on order.

Westjet has 119 Boeing and many on order.

All these aircraft have an Airbus alternative.....if Canada was to apply a tariff on Boeing products....

Canada is not alone. The British whose Shorts plant in Northern Ireland, manufactures the wings of the C-Series are also pissed

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... e-war.html

[Gino Under]

... not to forget some of the awesome Russian fighters out there. Maybe we could re-purpose and lease Shearwater to the Russian Air Force or Navy for 20 years or something crazy like that and really make a few bucks in the process? Trump likes crazy.
... a C series ASW platform instead of the Poseidon to replace our Souped up Electras, oops, Auroras.
That would get Donald's attention!
Stepping away from the Super Hornet might just put an end to that production line. Thanks St. Louis. It's been fun.

You laugh ...
(I hope so )
Gino Under

[TheStig]

Just for discussions sake, to look at things from a different angle, and forget about Boeing for a minute, does anyone think that Bombardier hasn't been subsidized? It's hard to argue these aircraft weren't dumped onto the market.

As a Canadian pilot working for a Canadian carrier I don't like the fact that my own taxes are being used to subsidize the sale of aircraft (below cost) to a massive and profitable foreign competitor.

The saga continues.

[helicopterray]

Boeing subsidies.

https://globalnews.ca/news/3773916/bomb ... subsidies/

[tired of the ground]

Bombardier, Boeing, Airbus, Embraer....... the list continues. Every single one of them has benefited from subsidies from their respective government. Each will take the form of a slightly different scheme.

Bombardier gets money straight from the gov't as a loan.
Boeing gets ridiculous military and civilian contracts that are so bloated it's laughable.
Airbus gets Launch Aid, similar to Bombardier but for specific projects.
Embraer gets Export subsidies and preferential gov't loans.
COMAC is a state owned.

Everyone should stop suing everyone and giving all the money to the lawyers. Acknowledge it is common practice, which everyone already knows. Sit down and come up with a single set of rules and start selling aircraft on merit again.

[spruceair]

Sit down and come up with a single set of rules and start selling aircraft on merit again.

Absolutely. Well said.

[Old fella]

Following the news and various political newscasts aka CBC Power and Politics, CTV Power Play with the many interviewed international trade experts, negotiators, think tanks a common theme is Boeing has shown unheard aggressiveness on this issue Delta vs BBD C Series since they didn’t complete on this contract because they(Boeing) do not produce an aircraft in the same category. This has raised concerns from an international trade prospective so experts say and there are other avenues to go through to that end as well that BBD can go through(WTO) Start with the British who are a little troubled with this and said so quite forcefully. China is taking an interest as well should trouble force BBD to look elsewhere for investment/sale.

[DonutHole]

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!

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?

[Gilles Hudicourt]

Just for discussions sake, to look at things from a different angle, and forget about Boeing for a minute, does anyone think that Bombardier hasn't been subsidized? It's hard to argue these aircraft weren't dumped onto the market.

As a Canadian pilot working for a Canadian carrier I don't like the fact that my own taxes are being used to subsidize the sale of aircraft (below cost) to a massive and profitable foreign competitor.

The saga continues.

It has. 100% certain it has. But so have all the others, in every country. Boeing is number 1.

The US Air Force just ordered 179 KC-46 aerial tankers based on the Boeing 767 airframe, an aircraft designed in the seventies, and that is being phased out by most airlines..... Airbus had won the contract hands down with its 330, but Boeing had it overturned after a court action and a second contest found Boeing the winner based on lower price.

The Boeing 707 was based on the Boeing 387-80, which was the prototype for the KC-135. The US Air Force ordered almost as many military variants of the Boeing Dash-80 prototype (803 KC-135, 68 E-3, 17 E-8) vs all civilian version built and delivered to all airlines of the World (865 B707 and 154 B-720) but the first orders that got the production going were military.

Did the Dash-80 prototype not inherit technology from the 2000 B47s and the the 744 B-52s ?

Looks at a B-52 and compare it to a B-707, or a B-737 or a B-727....

Boeing's previous civilian airliner, the 377 Stratocruiser, which sold under 100 units, was a civilian derivative of the KC-97 and the C-97, two miltary aircraft of which the US Air Force bought close to 900 units, and those aircraft were variants of the B-50, which itself was a variant of the B-29.....

Boeing invented the concept......

[Gino Under]

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

[teacher]

Extremely well said

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

[tsgas]

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.

[confusedalot]

Some may want to read this from this morning.

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/andrew- ... -aerospace

[teacher]

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?

[confusedalot]

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.

[FAD3C]

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.
It will be quite pleasant when it does.

[B208]

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.

[teacher]

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

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

[Gino Under]

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