Boeing targets Bombardier for “price dumping” CSeries

Nicoeddf · Sun Jun 04, 2017 5:01 pm

sanjet wrote:
I wonder if Delta will actually be upset or be happy if they can get a better deal from Boeing if the C-series order is cancelled.

Yes, you are obviously right. Actually everybody is basically craving to get Boeing products on property. They only take the inferior crap from other manufacturers if Mother Boeing isn't willing to sell...

...seriously...

washingtonflyer · Mon Jun 05, 2017 2:50 pm

Flyglobal wrote:
767333ER wrote:
LockheedBBD wrote:

From what I understand, Boeing has also been arguing about a potential stretch of the CS300 (CS500).

Source: Leeham (https://leehamnews.com/2017/05/29/bomba ... ys-boeing/)

A quote from Boeing:

“If Bombardier’s practices are left unaddressed, it will continue to use highly distortive pricing to eliminate the 737 MAX 7 from the 100- to 150-seat market. Bombardier will then use the resulting profits and momentum to wield the forthcoming CS500 in the medium single-aisle market against the Boeing 737-800 and MAX 8. The cycle will repeat itself…,”

Two things wrong with the statement there. First of all, the 737-7 is a niche plane, not a competitive one and it's sort of destroying itself with how efficient it is compared to the various smaller narrow bodies around today. Boeing must very well know that there isn't much to eliminate there. And the other issue with their claim is that if the will continue to constantly sell below cost, how are they going to make profit as a result of that as they claim it would be?

If this is Boeing quote: How can this be Dumping price and gain a profit at the same time to launch a CS500
So either it is a sale at a loss, then it shouldn't make profits, or it is a big win and cash cow, but then it is not dumping.

Flyglobal

Distortive pricing would be a result of the subsidization (in addition to the dumping).

767333ER · Mon Jun 05, 2017 7:18 pm

washingtonflyer wrote:
Flyglobal wrote:
767333ER wrote:

Two things wrong with the statement there. First of all, the 737-7 is a niche plane, not a competitive one and it's sort of destroying itself with how efficient it is compared to the various smaller narrow bodies around today. Boeing must very well know that there isn't much to eliminate there. And the other issue with their claim is that if the will continue to constantly sell below cost, how are they going to make profit as a result of that as they claim it would be?

If this is Boeing quote: How can this be Dumping price and gain a profit at the same time to launch a CS500
So either it is a sale at a loss, then it shouldn't make profits, or it is a big win and cash cow, but then it is not dumping.

Flyglobal

Distortive pricing would be a result of the subsidization (in addition to the dumping).

Well in that case they would be making money as a result of subsides and not as a result of sales, but Boeing explicitly said their profit as a result of sales so they are in a way contradicting their original claim.

washingtonflyer · Tue Jun 06, 2017 2:16 pm

Kind of a distinction without a difference in my mind. Anyhow, the Commission staff report came out yesterday and the vote by the Commission is Friday at 11:00 am in the main hearing room.

Amiga500 · Tue Jun 06, 2017 5:21 pm

LockheedBBD wrote:
“If Bombardier’s practices are left unaddressed, it will continue to use highly distortive pricing to eliminate the 737 MAX 7 from the 100- to 150-seat market. Bombardier will then use the resulting profits and momentum to wield the forthcoming CS500 in the medium single-aisle market against the Boeing 737-800 and MAX 8. The cycle will repeat itself…,”

Ironically, Boeing's recent move that makes the 737-7 a straight shrink of the 737-8 may screw them here.

In order for BBD to eliminate the 737-7 from the market, they would also have to eliminate the 737-8. Otherwise Boeing can continue to offer the -7 shrink at no additional overhead to themselves. Can anyone see BBD eliminating the 737-8 without having a CS500? (That distinction is important here - Boeing argue that BBD could only develop the CS500 based on profits from them eliminating market competition then price gouging.) Of course not.

The 737-7 is no longer in any way a stand alone entity. Its a 737-8 minus a few fuselage frames.

As with much of the rest of Boeing's protest - it doesn't even stand up to the most rudimentary of scrutiny. Unfortunately, what is clear as day to a subject matter expert can be very opaque to judges and lawyers.

StTim · Tue Jun 06, 2017 5:41 pm

How can Bombardier price gouge with other viable competitors around? Yes they can make healthy profits but Price Gouge?

washingtonflyer · Fri Jun 09, 2017 3:43 pm

FYI..the USITC voted affirmatively about 30 minutes ago.

The action now switches to the Commerce side.

JoeCanuck · Fri Jun 09, 2017 4:14 pm

washingtonflyer wrote:
FYI..the USITC voted affirmatively about 30 minutes ago.

The action now switches to the Commerce side.

Wow...what a shocka...! Poor Boeing...so tragically abused by Bombardier. Their entire company is at stake by BBD doing no more than, at worst, following their lead on financing aircraft.

Actually...as I've mentioned, you use every tool in the arsenal...and since there are so many tools to choose from, Boeing is spoiled for choice.

washingtonflyer · Fri Jun 09, 2017 4:53 pm

Unanimous vote - 5-0.

Amiga500 · Fri Jun 09, 2017 5:58 pm

washingtonflyer wrote:
Unanimous vote - 5-0.

Biased, inept or both.

Take your pick.

washingtonflyer · Fri Jun 09, 2017 6:31 pm

Based on the Commission's standard and precedent, reasonable.

INFINITI329 · Fri Jun 09, 2017 6:50 pm

If duties are imposed on the CSeries could we expect a retaliatory response from Canada and impose duties on the 737?

many321 · Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:08 pm

INFINITI329 wrote:
If duties are imposed on the CSeries could we expect a retaliatory response from Canada and impose duties on the 737?

Love to see what Delta does to Boeing regarding this if it goes south for BBD.

washingtonflyer · Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:13 pm

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.

flyby519 · Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:17 pm

many321 wrote:
INFINITI329 wrote:
If duties are imposed on the CSeries could we expect a retaliatory response from Canada and impose duties on the 737?

Love to see what Delta does to Boeing regarding this if it goes south for BBD.

I don't think it will be anything that bad. Boeing knows DL is an incredibly valuable customer, so I'm sure whatever the possible tariff is then Boeing will discount any future airframes by that amount.

golfradio · Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:22 pm

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.

LAXintl · Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:46 pm

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!

mercure1 · Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:49 pm

Good, hopefully, strentghtens the Embraer WTO case against BBD which alleged similar benefit of Canadian government funding.

Amiga500 · Fri Jun 09, 2017 8:21 pm

washingtonflyer wrote:
Based on the Commission's standard and precedent, reasonable.

I'll take that as inept then.

Amiga500 · Fri Jun 09, 2017 8:24 pm

LAXintl wrote:
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!

I can only assume you have not checked just what the State tax breaks would mean for Boeing in terms of development funds for say the 777X.

If you had even the most rudimentary grasp of the State aid going Boeing's direction, you would not have made such a comment.

Furthermore, in answer to the specific point - BBD have yet to sell CS100 into Canada - therefore there is no basis for saying its not offered at that price in its home market. The nearest would be the provisional Porter Order - which we don't know the details of.

washingtonflyer · Fri Jun 09, 2017 8:31 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
washingtonflyer wrote:
Based on the Commission's standard and precedent, reasonable.

I'll take that as inept then.

I'm sure you've had plenty of time arguing cases before the Commission. Perhaps you could relay to us your impression of the American Lamb standard or whether a Bratsk analysis would lead to a different conclusion than what the Commission reached.

washingtonflyer · Fri Jun 09, 2017 8:37 pm

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.

Need to make several corrections here.

First, the Commission will not launch a full review. The Commission will not do anything until the Department of Commerce makes a preliminary affirmative finding of subsidies and/or then dumping.

Second, the Commission does not issue subsidy or dumping determinations. That is the responsibility of the Commerce Department.

The July 22 date is Commerce's first deadline for a preliminary determination in the subsidy investigation. Unless the Government of Canada no-shows or Bombardier no-shows, I can guarantee you that Commerce will fully extend the preliminary determination by 65 days (as they are allowed to do) and will issue its subsidy preliminary on or about September 26. Similarly, Commerce will likely extend its deadline for its dumping preliminary determination and the date will not arrive until November 24.

washingtonflyer · Fri Jun 09, 2017 8:38 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
Furthermore, in answer to the specific point - BBD have yet to sell CS100 into Canada - therefore there is no basis for saying its not offered at that price in its home market. The nearest would be the provisional Porter Order - which we don't know the details of.

[/quote]

We're getting technical here. But under the Tariff Act, if Bombardier has not made a sale into Canada, Commerce will then assess sales to third country markets as the basis for the comparison price.

rikkus67 · Fri Jun 09, 2017 8:52 pm

Bombardier is clipping at Boeing's heels with the CSeries at the low end, and Airbus has killed off the high end. Who was the easier target? I don't profess to know anything on pricing and sales standards, but what I do know is this: 14,000 compared to under 400. It will take decades for Bombardier to come even close. After dominating the single aisle for as long as it has, and at this point having a nearly 40 to 1 ratio of units sold, this stinks of sour grapes.

Amiga500 · Fri Jun 09, 2017 9:04 pm

washingtonflyer wrote:
I'm sure you've had plenty of time arguing cases before the Commission. Perhaps you could relay to us your impression of the American Lamb standard or whether a Bratsk analysis would lead to a different conclusion than what the Commission reached.

I don't give two fiddler's f**ks about prior decisions of the commission or their "means" of arriving at their decisions.

Historical ineptness does not excuse present day ineptness.

BCA are unaffected by BBD selling 100 seat aircraft to Delta as they do not offer an equivalent. That is the start, middle and end of the argument.

Amiga500 · Fri Jun 09, 2017 9:07 pm

washingtonflyer wrote:
We're getting technical here.

No, we are not. But its probably far beyond the small brains of lawyers and judges to grasp even this basic fact.

No Canadian sale = no means of evaluating their dumping.

Unless Boeing would be happy for the commission to apply the same yardstick to the 787?

washingtonflyer wrote:
But under the Tariff Act, if Bombardier has not made a sale into Canada, Commerce will then assess sales to third country markets as the basis for the comparison price.

Which does not meet the supposed definition of dumping.

But do carry on regardless. Hypocrisy and double-standards are the norm for the good 'ol US of A.

LAXintl · Fri Jun 09, 2017 9:25 pm

washingtonflyer wrote:
Need to make several corrections here.

Kindly contact Bloomberg and let them know...

JoeCanuck · Fri Jun 09, 2017 9:46 pm

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.

washingtonflyer · Fri Jun 09, 2017 9:50 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
washingtonflyer wrote:
I'm sure you've had plenty of time arguing cases before the Commission. Perhaps you could relay to us your impression of the American Lamb standard or whether a Bratsk analysis would lead to a different conclusion than what the Commission reached.

I don't give two fiddler's f**ks about prior decisions of the commission or their "means" of arriving at their decisions.

Historical ineptness does not excuse present day ineptness.

BCA are unaffected by BBD selling 100 seat aircraft to Delta as they do not offer an equivalent. That is the start, middle and end of the argument.

If you don't give two fidder's f**ks about how the Commission reaches its decision, then you are in no position to criticize its decisions.

A preliminary injury (actually threat in this case) is akin to a "reasonable cause" standard. The threshold is very low and courtesy of American Lamb, if there are questions that cannot be easily answered in the first 45 days of a preliminary phase, the Commission is obligated to vote in the affirmative. A number of questions were raised by respondents - sufficient to trigger Lamb. Delta and Bombardier could not agree on the like product being one example.

washingtonflyer · Fri Jun 09, 2017 9:55 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
washingtonflyer wrote:
We're getting technical here.

No, we are not. But its probably far beyond the small brains of lawyers and judges to grasp even this basic fact.

No Canadian sale = no means of evaluating their dumping.

Unless Boeing would be happy for the commission to apply the same yardstick to the 787?

[/quote]

See, this is just where you are showing that you have absolutely no clue whatsoever what you are talking about.

Under US law, there are three ways to assess dumping.

#1 sales of the merchandise in the home market (Canada)
#2 sales of the merchandise in a third country market (Latvia, Switzerland)
#3 constructed value based on the cost of production for the good.

That is the hierarchy that Commerce follows. Additionally, and this is really technical, is that Commerce has latitude in how it defines a "sale". A sale may be an entry of goods. A sale may be a contract to purchase goods. Its the discretion of Commerce to determine the proper "date of sale". So, indeed based on the agreement terms that Delta may have made with Bombardier, there may indeed have been a sale.

Amiga500 wrote:
washingtonflyer wrote:
But under the Tariff Act, if Bombardier has not made a sale into Canada, Commerce will then assess sales to third country markets as the basis for the comparison price.

Which does not meet the supposed definition of dumping.

But do carry on regardless. Hypocrisy and double-standards are the norm for the good 'ol US of A.

Actually it does meet the definition. Both US law and the WTO agree,

washingtonflyer · Fri Jun 09, 2017 9:56 pm

LAXintl wrote:
washingtonflyer wrote:
Need to make several corrections here.

Kindly contact Bloomberg and let them know...

I'll let Boeing's counsel or Bombardier's counsel or the GOC/GOQ's counsel take care of that.

washingtonflyer · Fri Jun 09, 2017 10:17 pm

JoeCanuck wrote:
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.

You're entitled to your opinion, but in talking to several other trade practitioners over the past couple of weeks, every one of us agreed that a path to a prelim affirmative was available. The Commission took that path. Feel free to disagree, but there is a final phase that will likely go through the issues in depth.

As to the question of CBSA or CITT, again, feel free to file the petition.

LockheedBBD · Fri Jun 09, 2017 10:37 pm

I wonder when will we hear about Bombardier Aerospace selling out to COMAC, considering that it is likely that the CSeries will be effectively blocked from the US market?

The Canadian taxpayers can't keep Bombardier alive if Bombardier is unable to sell planes to large markets like the US and China (China doesn't seem very interested in Bombardier planes).

Interesting times.

Skywatcher · Sat Jun 10, 2017 12:14 am

Just one more reason for Canadians to be po'd with the U.S.
With friends like this who needs enemies?

downdata · Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:11 am

I guess this means the probability of any other US airlines ordering cseries in the near future is exactly zero.

many321 · Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:23 am

downdata wrote:
I guess this means the probability of any other US airlines ordering cseries in the near future is exactly zero.

Let's see if Delta cuts Boeing out of any possible orders with this stunt.

LockheedBBD · Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:44 am

If Bombardier opened a CSeries assembly plant in Wichita (for Delta orders), would tariffs still be applicable?

longhauler · Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:52 am

The latest rumour now is that Air Canada will pick up Alaska's (through Virgin America's) A320neo series orders and send the Boeing crap ordered back to Alaska and Seattle where it belongs.

I understand Boeing's actions though. Their narrow body product is an embarassment for a company that 40 years ago was leading edge. If they can't win by building a competitive product ... then use politics.

Slow clap.

longhauler · Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:56 am

many321 wrote:
Let's see if Delta cuts Boeing out of any possible orders with this stunt.

Didn't Delta just order a bunch of A321s .... choosing not to order the 737?

JoeCanuck · Sat Jun 10, 2017 4:25 am

washingtonflyer wrote:
JoeCanuck wrote:
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:

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.

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:

I'll take that as inept then.

Not inept...corrupt.

You're entitled to your opinion, but in talking to several other trade practitioners over the past couple of weeks, every one of us agreed that a path to a prelim affirmative was available. The Commission took that path. Feel free to disagree, but there is a final phase that will likely go through the issues in depth.

As to the question of CBSA or CITT, again, feel free to file the petition.

Of course trade practitioners found room for affirmative votes. Their business depends on it. Idiotic milk and years of unfounded and reversed softwood lumber duties, laid with little more than, "we said so", alleged evidence, has set the stage for a toxic and corrupt trade environment.

So yah...nobody is surprised. There was very little chance that sense would be allowed to prevail...especially with the tweeter in chief wreaking havoc around the globe.

JoeCanuck · Sat Jun 10, 2017 4:27 am

JoeCanuck wrote:
washingtonflyer wrote:
JoeCanuck wrote:

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.

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.

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.

Not inept...corrupt.

You're entitled to your opinion, but in talking to several other trade practitioners over the past couple of weeks, every one of us agreed that a path to a prelim affirmative was available. The Commission took that path. Feel free to disagree, but there is a final phase that will likely go through the issues in depth.

As to the question of CBSA or CITT, again, feel free to file the petition.

Of course trade practitioners found room for affirmative votes. Their business depends on it. Idiotic milk and years of unfounded and reversed softwood lumber duties, laid with little more than, "we said so", alleged evidence, has set the stage for a toxic and corrupt trade environment.

So yah...nobody is surprised. There was very little chance that sense would be allowed to prevail...especially with the tweeter in chief wreaking havoc around the globe.

Like the orange one so often says...the system is rigged.

767333ER · Sat Jun 10, 2017 4:52 am

longhauler wrote:
The latest rumour now is that Air Canada will pick up Alaska's (through Virgin America's) A320neo series orders and send the Boeing crap ordered back to Alaska and Seattle where it belongs.

Oh how I wish this was for sure the case, that is if you are being serious in the first place, it just sounds to crazy or too good to be true. They would have to find 20 extra planes over the 30 A320neos and 10 A321neos, but that would solve the problem of me really not wanting to ever step foot on a 737 max after this. If Iar Canada was still a crown corporation, I bet they would have already done something like that.

longhauler wrote:
I understand Boeing's actions though. Their narrow body product is an embarassment for a company that 40 years ago was leading edge. If they can't win by building a competitive product ... then use politics.

Slow clap.

Well they like to say "why reinvent the wheel?" and then they wonder why their product line is only really selling in 1 size out of 4. They love to say how their are the world's leading airframer so they needed to put their money where their mouth is and make something better than another 737, in this case of this argument the 737-7, but they took the cheap, lazy way as usual and if they couldn't sell, accuse others of cheating so that they can rig the market in favour of their product. Like the thing still lacks many pieces of essential technology that was invented in the 80s! The 737-7 a dud for the most part just like the A319neo. It can do special missions that the larger ones can't, but otherwise it has no advantage and only disadvantages and what will be poor resale value. It supposedly had 50 orders, but thanks to WestJet that has dwindled apparently to 45. They may as well call the thing the 737SP because otherwise the CS300 makes far more sense to the point where they don't compete.

longhauler · Sat Jun 10, 2017 12:31 pm

767333ER wrote:
Oh how I wish this was for sure the case, that is if you are being serious in the first place, it just sounds to crazy or too good to be true. They would have to find 20 extra planes over the 30 A320neos and 10 A321neos, but that would solve the problem of me really not wanting to ever step foot on a 737 max after this. If Air Canada was still a crown corporation, I bet they would have already done something like that.

It's just a rumour, not bound in any fact at all ... just what everyone is saying (hoping).

And I agree, it is not feasible and probably just (very) wishful thinking.

JetBuddy · Sat Jun 10, 2017 1:11 pm

This makes me lose respect for Boeing. Their 50 year old design can't keep up with the latest technology, and they choose to use all kinds of dirty tricks to stop the competition. Accusing them of things they're themselves guilty of.

golfradio · Sat Jun 10, 2017 2:21 pm

LAXintl wrote:
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!

The irony of this is remarkable. Boeing has received State and Federal subsidies totaling over $23 billion (actually more, precise number but not known due to open-record laws differing in various states). The monies Boeing has received are real subsidies. They are given cash (tax breaks) for absolutely no fiduciary obligations in return. No sharing of profits, no board representation from the States of Washington, Kansas, Illinois or the Federal Government (including agencies like NASA, DoD or hear this the Department of Commerce which invested in Boeing via the Advance Technology Program). The fact that DoC gets to judge a case against an entity that it itself invested in is a serious case of conflict of interests.

Contrast that to the investment by the Government of Quebec in BBD where they are now a stakeholder. BBD has a fiduciary responsibility toward and has to share the profits including being answerable for their actions to board representatives from the GoQ.

So it's perfectly justified if the Government of Canada asks Boeing to go shove it up.

Skywatcher · Sat Jun 10, 2017 10:01 pm

This is all part of the new American trade mentality. I wonder how the American based C-series parts suppliers feel about this? I wonder how the American based military parts suppliers to Boeing feel about this (regarding the recent "no Boeing" $62 billion Canadian military procurement budget announcement)?. This should actually help Canadian suppliers when partnering with Airbus in the long run/coming years. I truly believe that Airbus is a better partner anyway.
I suppose with less volume due to the Canadian military boycott that Boeing will need ever more U.S. government subsidies than ever?

yyztpa · Sun Jun 11, 2017 2:15 pm

downdata wrote:
I guess this means the probability of any other US airlines ordering cseries in the near future is exactly zero.

It is a possibility that this maneuver was to block a potential US sale, likely in a segment that Boeing does not compete. If so, it could be Boeing likely has no issue if the e2 or MRJ (or even CRJ) wins the business instead. Their goal may be to block a foothold for a potential CS500.

BBDB85 · Sun Jun 11, 2017 3:22 pm

yyztpa wrote:
downdata wrote:
I guess this means the probability of any other US airlines ordering cseries in the near future is exactly zero.

It is a possibility that this maneuver was to block a potential US sale, likely in a segment that Boeing does not compete. If so, it could be Boeing likely has no issue if the e2 or MRJ (or even CRJ) wins the business instead. Their goal may be to block a foothold for a potential CS500.

I had the same feeling, especially given the fact that Boeing later on admitted that their claim had to do with the threat of the introduction of a CS500. In an effort to negotiate between manufacturers, airlines 'drop' what a favourable deal they had from manufacturer 'X' (BBD) to the sales guy(s)/girl(s) from manufacturer 'Y' (BA). With BBD very likely pitching the CS500 to airlines (they indicated to make a decision on the next new airframe program within approx. 6 months), such news (especially if very concrete or in advanced negotiations) may have moved up the ladder within manufacturer 'Y' (BA). I know this is speculation (and perhaps a bit wishful thinking), but could be an explanation... The future will tell.

aerolimani · Sun Jun 11, 2017 6:22 pm

LAXintl wrote:
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!

Many others on here have already expressed how it is very much a case of the pot calling the kettle black, to accuse Canada of "essentially nationalizing" BBD. I won't further belabour the point.

However, as an aviation fan, I find this truly disheartening. I should think that if one is a fan, one ought to bemoan any action which potentially reduces the number of aircraft types out there. Aviation interest ought to trump any partisan feelings toward any particular aircraft manufacturer.

I hope that Boeing fails utterly in its efforts to damage BBD, because if they succeed, it will be a sad day for all of us who love this business. And then, I will be angry for all the money Boeing and BBD will have wasted on lawyers, instead of building planes. :mad:

Amiga500 · Mon Jun 12, 2017 9:30 am

washingtonflyer wrote:
See, this is just where you are showing that you have absolutely no clue whatsoever what you are talking about.

Under US law, there are three ways to assess dumping.

I know what I'll do. I'll stick an incorrect and irrational decision in italics, that will make it legally watertight. Oh, even better, I'll underline it. Beyond dispute then.

For any counter arguments, I'll dismiss them with some bold text.

Wrong is wrong is wrong. Dress it up whatever way you want.

There isn't really much point going into specifics, because on pretty much every specific point, the decision is incorrect.

The 737-700 or 737-7 does not compete with the CS100.

No airline would consider the two aircraft for the same role.

There is no single aircraft family that properly serves the 100-150 seat market - the only one that can arguably serve it is the CSeries, even then, at 100 seats its a bit a of a stretch.

The 737-7 and the 737-8 are the same aircraft minus a few frames. Viability of the 737-7 is coupled directly to the viability of the 737-8. The CS300 does not compete with the 737-8. Boeing cannot cut it both ways and claim the CS300 competes with the 737-7, while DL have ordered CS100 and the 737-8 will always backstop the 737-7.

Boeing receive subsidies. BBD have received investments/loans for which the investor/lender will expect returns.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net