washingtonflyer wrote:Based on the Commission's standard and precedent, reasonable.
Sure...and considering that in thier petition and testimony, Boeing admitted that they didn't have any models competing with BBD, and what they did have was used and/or not available AND not even manufactured by them, and that this whole thing was to prevent BBD from producing a product that does not now, and may never, exist, and that they absurdly, laughingly, testified that the CSeries could, literally, destroy the company when the are outselling the nearest BBD offering by a rate of at least 10 to 1, and produce in 3 months the same number single aisle aircraft it will take BBD a year to make...and that's in 3 more years when BBD finally makes peak production, and the American customer in question, Delta, testified that Boeing was never in consideration for the order.
Sure...Boeing is harmed.
Based on that, it's painfully obvious the commission is criminally biased, incompetent, corrupt or a combination of the three.
And considering how the US has been dealing with trading partners...I'd say all three.
washingtonflyer wrote:INFINITI329 wrote:If duties are imposed on the CSeries could we expect a retaliatory response from Canada and impose duties on the 737?
Sure, Bombardier could certainly petition the CITT and CBSA to impose duties on Boeing product. This of course would be essentially an admission that the products compete against against other.
Remember, you can only petition you government if you have the requisite standing to do so. Bombardier in all reality would not be able to seek out duties against the 777 or the 737-900 because they do not (nor have they ever) produced an aircraft that is comparable. There can be no injury or threat if there is no domestic production of the like product.
Bombardier could file against Boeing and Embraer and Airbus on aircraft like the E195, A319, A320, 737-700 and -800.
Bombardier is certainly losing money - but is Boeing a cause for that? That would be for Canadian counsel to argue.
Again...great system. Let me see...Boeing wins a claim that BBD is competing...but BBD can't file a counter claim because if they do, they admit they are competing and they pretty much automatically lose...even though they've lost already.
Or CITT and CBSA could rule that BBD was harmed by the patently idiotic actions of Boeing, the US trade court and Commerce.
As usual...absurd, but not surprising. Boeing is not losing money, and in fact is making billions with their closest competing product, yet they somehow are victims...and BBD and Delta are set up to get screwed.
But hey...American alternative facts, first.
LAXintl wrote:Full decision will be published next week.
With this vote, now the International Trade Commission will launch a full review and will issue its preliminary anti-subsidy duty decision by around July 22, with a deadline for preliminary anti-dumping duties being applied around Oct. 3.
golfradio wrote:The new defence policy is allocating $64.4 billion over the next 20 years on a cash basis for the RCAF. I hope BA doesn't see a penny of it.
I am not sure why there should be any anger at Boeing for calling out actions of Bombardier and Canadian governmental parties.
Sour grapes to Canada for having essentially nationalized the C-series program and providing company the backstop to offer to export the product at price levels it not offered in its home market, a classic definition of dumping!
Indeed...and Boeing gets nothing from any level of government, right? Boeing even has the President of the country flying their execs around on AF1, basically strong arming sales for them overseas.
The new free enterprise; free for me, too bad for you.
Amiga500 wrote:washingtonflyer wrote:Based on the Commission's standard and precedent, reasonable.
I'll take that as inept then.
Not inept...corrupt.