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.