Amiga500 wrote:

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.

The sad thing is that anyone short of being an idiot could deduce that these to products don't compete and that Bombardier is not hurting Boeing, it I think that tells great volumes about the people involved in coming to that concolusing in the US.

Boeing only ever had products that would compete with the CS100 years before the CS100 existed. These were the 737-600 and 717. One was discontinued because no one wanted it and the other because Boeing didn't want to make it. Since that they have had no competitor in that market. The CS300 does compete with the outgoing 737-700, but United is proof that not many want those anymore when they converted theirs. The 737-7 originally would have better competed with the CS300, but would have failed miserably as it would have been too inefficient. When they changed it to a simple shrink, they made no longer much of a competitor with the CS300 and made it so that it would be ok if it doesn't sell because it's a just hacked up 737-8. It reminds me of the A350-800. Not many want the 737-7 and unless Boeing uses "Bombardier tactics" not many will be built.

Of course it again doesn't take a genius to see what they're really trying to do here and that is remove a competitor before they make a product that competes, the CS500. Again though, they are essentially blaming the Easter bunny for putting chocolatiers out of business.

Someone here said that they are sour because the CSeries has become a national program, well that's not exactly true, but Boeing on the other hand may as well be considered a nationalized company. They get pretty much anything the want from their government, whether that be subsidies, having the president be a salesman, or having the government block competitors for no good reason.

Boeing CEO’s $50 Billion Target


http://aviationweek.com/commercial-avia ... 1e5667ccad

I used to respect Aviation Week as a news organization but they have obviously stooped to tabloid, fake news. I mean, this can't possibly be true....can it...?

After all, the CS100 sale to Delta was going to destroy the entire company...they said so in government hearings. But now....the CEO, is supposedly bragging about how much loot they are scoring, and getting the US government to help with sales.

Come on Aviation Week....we expect better from you.

JoeCanuck wrote:

Boeing CEO’s $50 Billion Target


http://aviationweek.com/commercial-avia ... 1e5667ccad

I used to respect Aviation Week as a news organization but they have obviously stooped to tabloid, fake news. I mean, this can't possibly be true....can it...?

After all, the CS100 sale to Delta was going to destroy the entire company...they said so in government hearings. But now....the CEO, is supposedly bragging about how much loot they are scoring, and getting the US government to help with sales.

Come on Aviation Week....we expect better from you.

From the article,

And the fact that this airplane is being sold to customers in Canada at a much higher price than it’s being sold to [Delta Air Lines] should also provide pause. It’s clearly a classic dumping case. We stand on the principle of a fair and level playing field for trade


Lovely, seems the man forgot about his company undercutting BBD with the United sale last year. Talk about eye rolling and surprising that Aviation Week didn't push back.

many321 wrote:

JoeCanuck wrote:

Boeing CEO’s $50 Billion Target


http://aviationweek.com/commercial-avia ... 1e5667ccad

I used to respect Aviation Week as a news organization but they have obviously stooped to tabloid, fake news. I mean, this can't possibly be true....can it...?

After all, the CS100 sale to Delta was going to destroy the entire company...they said so in government hearings. But now....the CEO, is supposedly bragging about how much loot they are scoring, and getting the US government to help with sales.

Come on Aviation Week....we expect better from you.

From the article,

And the fact that this airplane is being sold to customers in Canada at a much higher price than it’s being sold to [Delta Air Lines] should also provide pause. It’s clearly a classic dumping case. We stand on the principle of a fair and level playing field for trade


Lovely, seems the man forgot about his company undercutting BBD with the United sale last year. Talk about eye rolling and surprising that Aviation Week didn't push back.

It seems like they either don't know the difference between the CS100 and CS300 or don't remember how the pricing of aircraft works. Air Canada is paying more per plane because they are buying a more expensive plane...

The "fair and level playing field for trade", gets me every time. A couple of weeks ago, he was on AF1 in Saudi where the great orange one was personally pushing Boeing products on the Saudis. But I guess having the president of the USA as a salesman isn't really government help, right...?

It's a good thing they took BBD down a notch. I mean...50 billion dollars is almost bankrupt in Boeing terms.

Couldn't Delta setup a leasing arm in Canada, the Bahamas, whatever, provide it with Capital then have it procure the CSeries? Then it could lease the aircraft from its subsidiary and technically there wouldn't be any export of CSeries to the USA as no USA-based corporation would own said aircraft. Would that work?

many321 wrote:

JoeCanuck wrote:

Boeing CEO’s $50 Billion Target


http://aviationweek.com/commercial-avia ... 1e5667ccad

I used to respect Aviation Week as a news organization but they have obviously stooped to tabloid, fake news. I mean, this can't possibly be true....can it...?

After all, the CS100 sale to Delta was going to destroy the entire company...they said so in government hearings. But now....the CEO, is supposedly bragging about how much loot they are scoring, and getting the US government to help with sales.

Come on Aviation Week....we expect better from you.

From the article,

And the fact that this airplane is being sold to customers in Canada at a much higher price than it’s being sold to [Delta Air Lines] should also provide pause. It’s clearly a classic dumping case. We stand on the principle of a fair and level playing field for trade


Lovely, seems the man forgot about his company undercutting BBD with the United sale last year. Talk about eye rolling and surprising that Aviation Week didn't push back.

Wasn't there also a big fiasco over the air tankers? I could swear Boeing threw a huge fit, and ended up winning in the end? US Taxpayer money right there. Boeing has turned into a modern day mafia bully.

Amiga500 wrote:

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.

Italics is the method that legal practitioners use to identify a case. Not to emphasize and not to draw attention to. Its part of being in the field of law.

Amiga500 wrote:

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.

Have you read the decision? I'm not sure how you've reached the conclusion that the the decision is incorrect when the Commission's opinion hasn't even been issued yet.

Amiga500 wrote:

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

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

Delta didn't, but United kind of did....

Amiga500 wrote:

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

The press releases out there basically show the GOQ as having financed the C-series on a speculative basis. "MONTREAL — Bombardier says it has received the final instalment of Quebec’s US$1-billion investment in the company’s CSeries commercial jet program."

Dash9 wrote:

Couldn't Delta setup a leasing arm in Canada, the Bahamas, whatever, provide it with Capital then have it procure the CSeries? Then it could lease the aircraft from its subsidiary and technically there wouldn't be any export of CSeries to the USA as no USA-based corporation would own said aircraft. Would that work?

Not sure the FAA or Delta would permit a foreign owned or registered aircraft to fly Delta colors. That would also effectively be a fraudulent attempt to avoid duties and USCBP is very attuned to those games.

I looked into this a bit further and an entry of an aircraft into the United States is going to require the payment of duties on the aircraft if the aircraft is going to remain in the USA.

washingtonflyer wrote:

Amiga500 wrote:

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.

Italics is the method that legal practitioners use to identify a case. Not to emphasize and not to draw attention to. Its part of being in the field of law.

Amiga500 wrote:

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.

Have you read the decision? I'm not sure how you've reached the conclusion that the the decision is incorrect when the Commission's opinion hasn't even been issued yet.

Amiga500 wrote:

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

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

Delta didn't, but United kind of did....

Amiga500 wrote:

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

The press releases out there basically show the GOQ as having financed the C-series on a speculative basis. "MONTREAL — Bombardier says it has received the final instalment of Quebec’s US$1-billion investment in the company’s CSeries commercial jet program."

Actually...United didn't. United was rumoured to be interested in the CS300...not the CS100...and the cut rate deal for previous model 737-700's was basically scrapped because United ended up deferring them.

Nice spin. You call it speculative financing...and the press release that you quote, actually calls it an 'investment'. Not quite the same thing.

Financing implies loans that one expects to get paid back. An investment implies a risk taking ownership percentage of the company...which is what they've been saying all along.

JoeCanuck wrote:

washingtonflyer wrote:

Amiga500 wrote:

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.

Italics is the method that legal practitioners use to identify a case. Not to emphasize and not to draw attention to. Its part of being in the field of law.

Amiga500 wrote:

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.

Have you read the decision? I'm not sure how you've reached the conclusion that the the decision is incorrect when the Commission's opinion hasn't even been issued yet.

Amiga500 wrote:

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

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

Delta didn't, but United kind of did....

Amiga500 wrote:

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

The press releases out there basically show the GOQ as having financed the C-series on a speculative basis. "MONTREAL — Bombardier says it has received the final instalment of Quebec’s US$1-billion investment in the company’s CSeries commercial jet program."

Actually...United didn't. United was rumoured to be interested in the CS300...not the CS100...and the cut rate deal for previous model 737-700's was basically scrapped because United ended up deferring them.

Regardless of if its the CS100 or CS300, they're both items that are subject to the investigation. The ironic thing is that Bombardier and Delta could not get their story straight (or consistent) on what the proper product is. Bombardier was arguing that the like product was basically any single aisle aircraft of the 737 type family - 737-700s, 737-800s, CS-100s, CS-300s, A-319s,s and the E-jets. Delta argued that every little aircraft was totally different. That conflict between the parties did not help matters.

JoeCanuck wrote:

Nice spin. You call it speculative financing...and the press release that you quote, actually calls it an 'investment'. Not quite the same thing.

So, taking an ownership stake in an entity and giving that entity money (GOQ --> Bombardier) is not a subsidy (especially when the production line is speculative and could not have taken off without that investment), but US military's purchasing of aircraft from Boeing is a subsidy. Nice consistency there.

JoeCanuck wrote:

Financing implies loans that one expects to get paid back. An investment implies a risk taking ownership percentage of the company...which is what they've been saying all along.

Actually, you can provide financing so as to keep something solvent - that is what Commerce looks at. Whether a commercial bank would have made the investment in the target company or of a government did it on terms that a commercial bank would not have chosen to agree upon. That is the hallmark of a subsidy under the SCM.

washingtonflyer wrote:

Regardless of if its the CS100 or CS300, they're both items that are subject to the investigation. The ironic thing is that Bombardier and Delta could not get their story straight (or consistent) on what the proper product is. Bombardier was arguing that the like product was basically any single aisle aircraft of the 737 type family - 737-700s, 737-800s, CS-100s, CS-300s, A-319s,s and the E-jets. Delta argued that every little aircraft was totally different. That conflict between the parties did not help matters.

Of course they are both subject to investigation...that fits perfectly with the protectionist narrative. It doesn't matter that neither are a direct competitor to any Boeing product...but close enough gets Boeing the home field win. What a shock.

BBD argued the opposite to what you are alleging...that while they share single aisle similarities, they are very different aircraft. They both made the same points...and the major ones were that, unless one is an idiot, one can easily see that the CS100 has little more in common with any Boeing product than it's shape...much like comparing a bus with a minivan.

A bit subtle for the committee, I know...but facts often are.

Boeing doesn't have a competing product...and they were never in the running for the Delta contract...period. They weren't invited to the party.

[quote="washingtonflyer"][So, taking an ownership stake in an entity and giving that entity money (GOQ --> Bombardier) is not a subsidy (especially when the production line is speculative and could not have taken off without that investment), but US military's purchasing of aircraft from Boeing is a subsidy. Nice consistency there.


You made my point exactly. They are the same, (as I've said all along), so why should Boeing benefit then deny BBD the same?

I know...because that's how the 'land of the free' trade racket works. Dairy, Softwood lumber, aircraft...what next, I wonder? I guess whomever complains about those damned Canadians next. Seems to be all that's required.

You probably also believe the complete nonsense that the fate of the entire Boeing company is at stake with the Delta sale too...(regardless of how many billions of sales Boeing is STILL getting for its products), but that's your job, and I have to admire your loyalty to the home team.

I see too many alternative facts and emotions on both sides of this argument. Please provide sources when possible!

washingtonflyer wrote:

The ironic thing is that Bombardier and Delta could not get their story straight (or consistent) on what the proper product is. Bombardier was arguing that the like product was basically any single aisle aircraft of the 737 type family - 737-700s, 737-800s, CS-100s, CS-300s, A-319s,s and the E-jets. Delta argued that every little aircraft was totally different. That conflict between the parties did not help matters.

Source please. It would be pretty idiotic if Bombardier shot themselves in the foot right off the bat by saying that the CS100 competes with Boeing (which is what this whole argument is about). Here is my source: https://leehamnews.com/2017/05/30/boein ... more-23573

Bombardier wrote that not only does Boeing not compete in the 100-125 seat sector, it “further [distanced] itself from the target segment of the CSeries” by up gauging the 7 MAX, making it larger than the CS300. Bombardier quotes a Boeing official as saying the revised MAX 7 and the new MAX 8 “bracket our competition,” referring to the Airbus A320.

JoeCanuck wrote:

Actually...United didn't. United was rumoured to be interested in the CS300...not the CS100...and the cut rate deal for previous model 737-700's was basically scrapped because United ended up deferring them.

Please provide your source. Everything I have read has stated that Bombardier was offering the CS100 to United but United said that even the CS100 is too big an aircraft for what they needed, hence Bombardier offered a CS100 "lite". Here is my source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ited-talks

The proposed “CS100 Lite” model was meant to cater to United’s wish for a shorter plane, Ross Mitchell, vice president of commercial operations at the Canadian planemaker, said in a statement Thursday.
[...]
“In the early stages of our discussions, United told us the CS100 was too big for its needs,” Mitchell said in his prepared remarks. “In response, we offered a smaller version, the CS100 Lite. Our competition throughout was the even smaller Embraer 190."

LockheedBBD wrote:

I see too many alternative facts and emotions on both sides of this argument. Please provide sources when possible!

washingtonflyer wrote:

The ironic thing is that Bombardier and Delta could not get their story straight (or consistent) on what the proper product is. Bombardier was arguing that the like product was basically any single aisle aircraft of the 737 type family - 737-700s, 737-800s, CS-100s, CS-300s, A-319s,s and the E-jets. Delta argued that every little aircraft was totally different. That conflict between the parties did not help matters.

Source please. It would be pretty idiotic if Bombardier shot themselves in the foot right off the bat by saying that the CS100 competes with Boeing (which is what this whole argument is about). Here is my source: https://leehamnews.com/2017/05/30/boein ... more-23573

"Second, by focusing only on its smallest and least successful 737 models, Boeing has created an artificially narrow like product. The like product should be the 737 family of aircraft, which represent a continuum of sizes, ranges, operating costs, and other features. There is no clear dividing line at 150 seats or elsewhere."

Oral statement of Peter Lichtenbaum, Covington & Burling LLP

When you make a statement like that - expanding the like product - you're virtually guaranteeing a Lamb situation.

washingtonflyer wrote:

LockheedBBD wrote:

I see too many alternative facts and emotions on both sides of this argument. Please provide sources when possible!

washingtonflyer wrote:

The ironic thing is that Bombardier and Delta could not get their story straight (or consistent) on what the proper product is. Bombardier was arguing that the like product was basically any single aisle aircraft of the 737 type family - 737-700s, 737-800s, CS-100s, CS-300s, A-319s,s and the E-jets. Delta argued that every little aircraft was totally different. That conflict between the parties did not help matters.

Source please. It would be pretty idiotic if Bombardier shot themselves in the foot right off the bat by saying that the CS100 competes with Boeing (which is what this whole argument is about). Here is my source: https://leehamnews.com/2017/05/30/boein ... more-23573

"Second, by focusing only on its smallest and least successful 737 models, Boeing has created an artificially narrow like product. The like product should be the 737 family of aircraft, which represent a continuum of sizes, ranges, operating costs, and other features. There is no clear dividing line at 150 seats or elsewhere."

Oral statement of Peter Lichtenbaum, Covington & Burling LLP

"

Interesting indeed. Thank you!
It seems like Bombardier shot themselves in the foot based on that quote.

LockheedBBD wrote:

washingtonflyer wrote:

LockheedBBD wrote:

I see too many alternative facts and emotions on both sides of this argument. Please provide sources when possible!



Source please. It would be pretty idiotic if Bombardier shot themselves in the foot right off the bat by saying that the CS100 competes with Boeing (which is what this whole argument is about). Here is my source: https://leehamnews.com/2017/05/30/boein ... more-23573

"Second, by focusing only on its smallest and least successful 737 models, Boeing has created an artificially narrow like product. The like product should be the 737 family of aircraft, which represent a continuum of sizes, ranges, operating costs, and other features. There is no clear dividing line at 150 seats or elsewhere."

Oral statement of Peter Lichtenbaum, Covington & Burling LLP

"

Interesting indeed. Thank you!
It seems like Bombardier shot themselves in the foot based on that quote.

You're welcome. And just so we're clear. I don't have a dog in this race. I fly on Bombardier products and I fly on Boeing products. I like both of them. My assessment of this case is purely from the perspective of a practitioner in the very field of law in which this case is grounded. There is no flag waiving going on; there is merely my insight of having litigated about 30 of these cases.

JoeCanuck wrote:

washingtonflyer wrote:

[So, taking an ownership stake in an entity and giving that entity money (GOQ --> Bombardier) is not a subsidy (especially when the production line is speculative and could not have taken off without that investment), but US military's purchasing of aircraft from Boeing is a subsidy. Nice consistency there.


You made my point exactly. They are the same, (as I've said all along), so why should Boeing benefit then deny BBD the same?

I know...because that's how the 'land of the free' trade racket works. Dairy, Softwood lumber, aircraft...what next, I wonder? I guess whomever complains about those damned Canadians next. Seems to be all that's required.

As I said, Bombardier is free to file its own trade case...

Do keep in mind the case that has actually been filed is related to Bombardier's business practices, not Boeing's. In any legal proceeding, it is not a defense of your own behavior that the guy accusing you of something did a similar thing on a different occasion. You need to address the actual accusations made against you head-on.

Also keep in mind, as Washingtonflyer pointed out earlier, that the standard for proceeding to the stage this case is at is extremely low. That the case is moving forward is not yet an indictment against Bombardier. It's basically a recognition the case can't simply be thrown out without being given more serious consideration. In general, if in doubt, cases proceed to more the more involved hearings.

From here:
posting.php?mode=quote&f=3&p=19564909

washingtonflyer wrote:

The reason to believe or suspect standard is extremely low and any major issues that are unresolved at the preliminary vote must result in a preliminary affirmative determination

Boy ... this just says it all.

http://www.fliegerfaust.com/boeing-defe ... 62698.html

Not only are Boeing building sub-standard narrow body aircraft, but now they are looking like fools worldwide.

longhauler wrote:

Boy ... this just says it all.

http://www.fliegerfaust.com/boeing-defe ... 62698.html

Not only are Boeing building sub-standard narrow body aircraft, but now they are looking like fools worldwide.

Speculative though crossing my fingers that this occurs.

longhauler wrote:

Boy ... this just says it all.

http://www.fliegerfaust.com/boeing-defe ... 62698.html

Not only are Boeing building sub-standard narrow body aircraft, but now they are looking like fools worldwide.

But it also reinforces the view that the C-series is effectively a government-run program by a government co-owned company.They are starting to look more like a Comac or UAC than like a Western private-run enterprise.

Clearly an article that is extremely biased but I also hope Boeing suffers continued blowback for their actions. Unfortunately, I suspect that the 1%ers and their lawyers that are running Boeing view Canada as an expendable market. Why not when you can use the president of the country to rack up $100's of billions of American taxpayer subsidized defense sales in places like Qatar/Saudi/UAE etc.? What's a lousy $5 billion or so in Canada?
Another funny thing in all of this is that Trump continually threatened China with punishment citing "unfair trade" during the election campaign but now the Americans attack Canada first of all places. Is it a co-incidence that China is such a massive market for Boeing? Does the Boeing lobby have enormous lobbying/back room influence in DC? It's so hard for me to see Boeing as a victim in this trade dispute.

Would really be something if Delta (and even Air Canada) threatened to cancel all outstanding Boeing orders over this.

washingtonflyer wrote:

Italics is the method that legal practitioners use to identify a case. Not to emphasize and not to draw attention to. Its part of being in the field of law.

No. Really? You don't say.

Well sarcasm is a method that many use to deride gormless idiots for being gormless idiots.

washingtonflyer wrote:

Have you read the decision? I'm not sure how you've reached the conclusion that the the decision is incorrect when the Commission's opinion hasn't even been issued yet.

Unless their opinion is that "it has two wings and a fuselage, therefore competes" (which I suppose, isn't beyond this particular breed of idiot), then there is no rational way (as far as anyone with decent understanding of the commercial aerospace market would interpret it) that they can arrive at a decision where any CS100 sale has been a sale lost as far as Boeing is concerned.

In short, it doesn't matter how they've reached the incorrect conclusion, it only matters that it is incorrect.

As an American I strongly dislike Boeing's business practices. They have actively lobbied against the US3 airlines on multiple occasions.

Letting McD die and merge into them was a grave mistake.

flyby519 wrote:

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.

I doubt it, Boeing and Delta do not have a cozy relationship.

Wayfarer515 wrote:

longhauler wrote:

Boy ... this just says it all.

http://www.fliegerfaust.com/boeing-defe ... 62698.html

Not only are Boeing building sub-standard narrow body aircraft, but now they are looking like fools worldwide.

But it also reinforces the view that the C-series is effectively a government-run program by a government co-owned company.They are starting to look more like a Comac or UAC than like a Western private-run enterprise.

Well not really they just got some investment from the Quebec government. Boeing in comparison gets military orders even when they aren't supposed to (see KC-46), they got r president to be a salesmen, they don't pay tax, they recieve billions in subsidies, and they get their government to enforce their false claims like this one.

longhauler wrote:

Boy ... this just says it all.

http://www.fliegerfaust.com/boeing-defe ... 62698.html

Not only are Boeing building sub-standard narrow body aircraft, but now they are looking like fools worldwide.

Well they are just matching the rest of their country right now, aren't they?

Varsity1 wrote:

Letting McD die and merge into them was a grave mistake.

^ This!!!!!

Wow such hate for Boeing because its trying to defend it self. The question raised here is if Bombardier was trying to sale plane bellow cost? It appears they were. All the other stuff is just noise and fury signifying nothing.

Siddar wrote:

Wow such hate for Boeing because its trying to defend it self. The question raised here is if Bombardier was trying to sale plane bellow cost? It appears they were. All the other stuff is just noise and fury signifying nothing.

The point is that Boeing has nothing to defend themselves from here. They have nothing currently in production that competes with the CS100 which is what is ordered in the Delta order Boeing is complaining about. Even the CS300 only competes with one Boeing product and a dying one at that.

People are mad because they can see through this. The CSeires hardly competes with anything Boeing has to offer, but they are trying to unfairly eliminate a competitor before it can get strong because they seem to have trouble with having competition and rather than making better planes they do this.

Were in a age where 787 are replacing 747. So I don't buy your argument that Boeing doesn't compete with Bombardier.

In fact Boeing beat Bombardier on recent order that is back drop for this despute and Boeings charge that Bombardier is trying to sale at bellow cost.

Siddar wrote:

Wow such hate for Boeing because its trying to defend it self. The question raised here is if Bombardier was trying to sale plane bellow cost? It appears they were. All the other stuff is just noise and fury signifying nothing.

No. Boeing is trying to kill Bombardier sales... This is not defense this is an attack. They don't want another "Airbus" to play in their field so they're trying to extinguish the flame and it's incredibly transparent in this law-suit. The CS100 does not compete with anything they offer, so the Delta order shouldn't have mattered. What they are worried about is a CS500.

Siddar wrote:

Were in a age where 787 are replacing 747. So I don't buy your argument that Boeing doesn't compete with Bombardier.

In fact Boeing beat Bombardier on recent order that is back drop for this despute and Boeings charge that Bombardier is trying to sale at bellow cost.

Apples to oranges. All four-hollers are being replaced with twins mostly due to economical advantages in fuel and better frequencies and has no relation to a CS100 replacing a 737. Furthermore the 737-700/7 has an equivalent competitor in the Bombardier catalogue and it's the CS300. No one's replacing their 737-700 with CS100s, UA was looking between 737-700s, A319s, and CS300s.

Canada sounds like a scorned 16-year-old pouting and stomping its feet.

Sure they free to avoid doing business with Boeing, however at the end of the day they likely will shoot themselves in the foot being stuck with less than ideal equipment from other vendors at a price point that might be costlier.

Frankly, the Ottowa government should be more upset with the mess Quebec and Bombardier have created for them, than for Boeing pointing out the violation and the unfair government aid in basically nationalizing the C-series program.

Bombardier can sale it plane in the US at cost are above. Just like any foreign company that meets the requirements for doing so.

That seem overly fair but some seem to think the inability to sell planes bellow cost is need to compete.

Siddar wrote:

Bombardier can sale it plane in the US at cost are above. Just like any foreign company that meets the requirements for doing so.

That seem overly fair but some seem to think the inability to sell planes bellow cost is need to compete.

Boeing sells 787 and 747-8 below cost anywhere in the world since the beginning.

Siddar wrote:

Wow such hate for Boeing because its trying to defend it self. The question raised here is if Bombardier was trying to sale plane bellow cost? It appears they were.

It appears they were? How does that appear? Do you know how much it costs to build a CS100 right now and how much it will when Delta get theirs? I will bet that neither you, nor Boeing does.

Siddar wrote:

Were in a age where 787 are replacing 747. So I don't buy your argument that Boeing doesn't compete with Bombardier.

This is not only a ridiculous argument, it shows that you know little about the aviation industry. The trend in the last decade or so is to replace smaller narrowbodies with larger ones.

lostsound wrote:

UA was looking between 737-700s, A319s, and CS300s.

Actually, UA were looking for a hundred seater with CS100 and E-Jets competing for the order. Boeing came in with the now infamous lowball, circa $20m, 73G offer and stole the order. And as it became obvious that the 73G would never fit, or be able to compete with the smaller jets in the markets UA needed to operate them, UA cancelled the order a few months later...

Didn't Boeing and Bombardier work together on this? I thought I read in one of the airliner magazines that they did. Don't help someone if you know that they are going to target one of your business lines unless you are ok with it. Anyways, I think with the competition at this level, CS100, Superjet, ERJ, MRJ, AR21, it's probably best for Boeing and Airbus to exit quietly to stage left. That part of the market is going to get saturated. Should be some good deals coming down the line though!

Siddar wrote:

Wow such hate for Boeing because its trying to defend it self. The question raised here is if Bombardier was trying to sale plane bellow cost? It appears they were. All the other stuff is just noise and fury signifying nothing.

According to Delta, the price Delta is paying for the CS100 is for a 100 seat, 1,000nmi range aircraft; if Delta was to ever use their CS100's on longer range missions, they would pay additional money to Bombardier to get their aircraft paper certified to the required level of performance. The payment structure is definitely unique as it depends on how Delta uses the CS100's, but having paper-derated aircraft sold for a lot cheaper is a common practice in the industry; both Boeing and Airbus do this as well.

mercure1 wrote:

Canada sounds like a scorned 16-year-old pouting and stomping its feet.

Sure they free to avoid doing business with Boeing, however at the end of the day they likely will shoot themselves in the foot being stuck with less than ideal equipment from other vendors at a price point that might be costlier.

Frankly, the Ottowa government should be more upset with the mess Quebec and Bombardier have created for them, than for Boeing pointing out the violation and the unfair government aid in basically nationalizing the C-series program.

I'm not sure what the Ottawa City Council would have to do with any of this, but why should the Government of Canada be upset at what Quebec has done? They simply made an investment in the program. Airbus receives help from governments, Embraer does, and Boeing certainly does. What they should be mad about is that the moment they try to help a program such as this Boeing tries kill off the product that doesn't compete with anything they have while themselves are receiving $5.7 billion of illegal subsidy in the form of tax breaks and merely a slap in the wrist for it. It is a pointless attack on Canadian industry based in what is essentially lies which will also hurt American industry. Its one thing if Embraer were to be the ones doing this as they have a product that directly competes and I would certainly admit they would have a case and probably not hold it against them, but Boeing has none of that. Airbus has handled it right, partly because they can survive with the A321 and possible A322 if the CSeries happens to steal A320 sales with a CS500, but they aren't playing dirty politics before they even get close to making a plane that is imaginary at this point. Boeing is scared that their only 737 that sells well might have another competitor and they just can't handle that.

Siddar wrote:

Were in a age where 787 are replacing 747. So I don't buy your argument that Boeing doesn't compete with Bombardier.

In fact Boeing beat Bombardier on recent order that is back drop for this despute and Boeings charge that Bombardier is trying to sale at bellow cost.

Nice try, but typically the 787 hasn't been replacing the 747, the 777 has been and so will the A350-1000 all which are similar size and can basically do the same thing. The dispute is not about United, but about Delta in which Boeing didn't lose or win, but was closer to loss than win. The United deal was entirely different and I wouldn't call it recent. They were looking at 100 seat aircraft to satisfy some agreement to expand their connector carriers, but Boeing offered them dirt cheap 737-700s obviously below cost. They committed to those instead to gets their foot further in the door with the 737 production line and then they converted them to 737 max as they most likely were planning to do from the start. Their 100 seat aircraft was never ordered and new management that has taken over since then is not interested.

I understand a lot of this is opinion, but people here aren't bringing any elements of fact or critical thinking here and are spouting off baseless claims and unfounded opinion instead. I guess this is what people mean when this place is going down hill. If you are trying to argue that the CSeries competes with any RELEVANT variant of the 737 or any Boeing product in production, you're fighting an uphill battle, I'm sorry but that's the truth.

hz747300 wrote:

Didn't Boeing and Bombardier work together on this? I thought I read in one of the airliner magazines that they did. Don't help someone if you know that they are going to target one of your business lines unless you are ok with it.

Boeing and Bombardier have never worked together. I think you're thinking about either Embraer or Mitsubishi, Boeing works with them both.

LockheedBBD wrote:

Boeing and Bombardier have never worked together. I think you're thinking about either Embraer or Mitsubishi, Boeing works with them both.

I think they've worked together on a couple of defence projects, but otherwise, yeah.

This topic went down an unreasonable path and why not say it acquired an almost hysterical tone. If we simplify:
A) Investigation of dumping of imported products is an old practice in the USA for a large number of products, ranging from a legitimate defense of their industry to a poorly disguised non-tariff barrier;
B) The insistence on denying the potential competition between the CS-100 and the smaller jets of the 737 line is a totally useless effort. BBD's own website speaks of this jets in the 100-150 passenger segment, highlighting the commonality between the CS-100 and the CS-300. The BBD position denying the obvious gives the impression that there is a real question as to item (c).
C) Dumping: This is an anticompetitive practice with the potential to eliminate legitimate competitors, but without the same financial strength.
E) Retaliation: Canada has several legal, albeit controversial, means of adversely affecting Boeing's interests. It seems to me that Boeing weighed heavily and finally decided that it would be the case to give an expensive lesson to competition (as Thatcher made with Argentina in the matter of the Falklands Islands).

Nean1 wrote:

B) The insistence on denying the potential competition between the CS-100 and the smaller jets of the 737 line is a totally useless effort. BBD's own website speaks of this jets in the 100-150 passenger segment, highlighting the commonality between the CS-100 and the CS-300. The BBD position denying the obvious gives the impression that there is a real question as to item (c).

There's no doubting the CS300 does somewhat compete with the 737-7/700, the smallest 737 variant available, but there haven't been any orders for the CS300 in the US for years and the order under dispute is for the CS100. They may be a common type and use basically all the same parts and equipment, but that doesn't mean they compete with the same planes or searve the same mission. For example, the 737-10 can replace a 757 in terms of capacity while a 737-7 cannot even come close. Different sizes, different missions, different competitors.

Nean1 wrote:

C) Dumping: This is an anticompetitive practice with the potential to eliminate legitimate competitors, but without the same financial strength.

Well the financial strength of Boeing is greater than that of Bombardier. The problem is Boeing said something that should have loosed up their case when as they claimed that CSeries aircraft are being sold below cost but that Bombardier will use the resulting profit to create a bigger threat, but that's not how the alleged subsides even work. Both are recieveing government help, infact basically all manufactures are, with much of Boeing's having just been proven to be illegal. The way this industry works, it seems as though any manufacture could accuse another of dumping, such as the way Boeing has sold 787s or many other examples regardless of manufacture, which is what makes this one puzzling and makes it reek of Boeing trying to pick on a competitor they perceive as weak. They use the Delta order as their case, but analysis shows they didn't actually lose the deal so to speak. They were offering I believe it was 19 E190s and some 717s, Both planes that are relatively close how they would utilize the CS100, and the accepted the E190s, but rejected the 717s due to avaliblity. They also ordered "paper derated" CS100s for a derated price. One would think that if the 717s were available at a time that would have matched what Delta wanted, they would have found a place for them as well. Then they decided to sell off the E190s, but I don't see how that would bother Boeing as they aren't their problem anymore. The problem is that Boeing is crying over a race that they barely had a horse in and one they didn't exactly lose anyway. Boeing can't be afraid of what the CS300 might do to the 737-7 because the 737-7 isn't supposed to sell in volume and the current customers of it are not interested in the and one of them went so far as to say that Bombarider needs for realize that nobody really wants their plane just shortly before Delta ordered it. It's relatively clear that they are afraid of the possible CS500 and what it might do to the 737-8 considering it really is what is keeping the 737 alive. The problem for Boeing is that as technology progresses and planes become more efficient and capable, a certain type once old enough starts to look overbuilt for its original and/or most common mission as something lighter and less substantial can then do it which is how the A321 is replacing the 757. If the 737-8 gets hurt by the CS500 if it even becomes reality, it leaves them with the 737-10 which is a step behind the A321. Airbus expects the A321 to be their main seller in the coming years so they feel they have less to lose if the CS500 is made or they can implement the upgrades they have planned. I think it boils down to Boeing not wanting to yet again be caught with their pants down with no response to someone's product, but it seems strange they would get away with going after it before the threat even exists, unless they know it won't get anywhere but serve as a very strong warning. I guess we will see in time.

I should have been clearer. When I refer to financial strength, the bottom line is the government subsidies, which in the specific case of the C series may be allowing the selling price to be well below the cost value.

Nean1 wrote:

I should have been clearer. When I refer to financial strength, the bottom line is the government subsidies, which in the specific case of the C series may be allowing the selling price to be well below the cost value.

Do you think Boeing could have sold the 787 at the prices it did for the first, oh, I dunno, 500 or so off the line, if it weren't for the 3 billion or so in tax breaks from Washington state in 2003? Or the billion or so from South Carolina in a similar timeframe?

Not to mention the billions that came later!

When I was a kid, Boeing won orders by hiring the best engineers and turning out the best airliners. Now they intend to win business by hiring the best lawyers and turning out the best court cases. If they happen to fail, it will not be BBD's doing but their own.

Amiga500 wrote:

Nean1 wrote:

I should have been clearer. When I refer to financial strength, the bottom line is the government subsidies, which in the specific case of the C series may be allowing the selling price to be well below the cost value.

Do you think Boeing could have sold the 787 at the prices it did for the first, oh, I dunno, 500 or so off the line, if it weren't for the 3 billion or so in tax breaks from Washington state in 2003? Or the billion or so from South Carolina in a similar timeframe?

Not to mention the billions that came later!

As has been pointed out already, that is not germane. Nothing Boeing did can justify anything Bombardier allegedly did, much less get a case summarily dismissed. Bombardier simply has to go through the process of defending their actual sales, pricing, and position that they did not materially harm Boeing.

From what I've seen of the dumping rules, they seem to be intended to accommodate early higher cost of production if there is credible reason to believe the pricing is appropriate in the long term. They most certainly are not a catch-22 intended to prevent any new aircraft designs from ever entering service, which the interpretation you suggest would effectively entail.

Amiga500 wrote:

Do you think Boeing could have sold the 787 at the prices it did for the first, oh, I dunno, 500 or so off the line, if it weren't for the 3 billion or so in tax breaks from Washington state in 2003? Or the billion or so from South Carolina in a similar timeframe?

You totally miss key matter in the dumping case.

Boeing is not out dumping 787 aircraft on the global market place at prices not available to all customers and in its home market. Certainly US orders for the 787, NW, UA and AA negotiated as nice discounts as overseas orders for the model.

I'm trying to break it down for my non-AVGeek friends who are asking me about it. Is the following substantially correct?

Boeing: I'm suing you for doing a thing.

Bombardier: Why? You've done the exact same thing!

Boeing: Yes, but this isn't about that. This is about YOU doing the exact same thing.

Bombardier: So you're going to call us out on this because you can afford to get away with it, but we might not?

Boeing: Yup. See you in court.

Mark

mercure1 wrote:

Boeing is not out dumping 787 aircraft on the global market place at prices not available to all customers and in its home market. Certainly US orders for the 787, NW, UA and AA negotiated as nice discounts as overseas orders for the model.

Well correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me as though Air Canada ordered the more expensive CS300 for below cost prices as opposed to the inherently cheaper CS100 and paper derated version that Delta ordered.

impromark wrote:

I'm trying to break it down for my non-AVGeek friends who are asking me about it. Is the following substantially correct?

Boeing: I'm suing you for doing a thing.

Bombardier: Why? You've done the exact same thing!

Boeing: Yes, but this isn't about that. This is about YOU doing the exact same thing.

Bombardier: So you're going to call us out on this because you can afford to get away with it, but we might not?

Boeing: Yup. See you in court.

Mark

Very likely.

Or perhaps it goes like this:

Boeing: I'm suing you for doing a thing that hurts us.

Bombardier: Why, you know we can't actually hurt you with what we've got! You have no case here!

Boeing: Exactly, but one day you might have something that might hurt us.

Bomardier: Oh so this is a threat is it.

Boeing: Yup, you step any closer to being able to hurt us and we see you in court.

If their complaint really get nowhere as many think it should, then one must wonder if Boeing would have known that all along and would have used it as a way scare Bombardier to back down especially if they dare make a CS500. Prehaps they want to show Bomardier that if they make a CS500 Boeing will truly stop at nothing to crush them. I don't think this is the case at this point, but it is a possibility.