Polot wrote:

Amiga500 wrote:

Polot wrote:

An entity based in Canada cannot fly US domestic.

Is it the lessor that is considered to fly the aircraft?

Or is it the lessee?

Or does it depend on a shade of grey between fully dry and fully wet leasing?

Ah, I see what they are saying now.

Anyways Russian airlines do that to circumvent taxes on registering foreign aircraft (taxes that I believe have been relaxed so it is less common now). DL leasing the C Series "extremely" cheap from a Canadian lessor will just shift the target of price dumping from BBD to the Canadian lessor, and in that case you might also have some American leasing companies join Boeing in being upset.

But if BBD sells the aircraft to the leasing company for cheap, couldn't the leasing company then lease to DL for cheap and still be profitable? And on a new aircraft type, I'm sure some creative math can be used for the residual values.

LAXintl wrote:

Amiga500 wrote:

Playing clean won't win.

If BBD had played clean it would not be facing these charges.

The entire C-series program financial structure and ownership have become quite dubious and rightfully opens BBD up to questions.

Playing clean actually doesn't help. There have been plenty of US softwood lumber disputes against Canada where the US laid down punitive tariffs before any hearings and have refused to pay refunds when the hearings went against them.

The US plays by its own rules when it comes to international trade and changes those rules on a whim.

In this case, Boeing doesn't have a competing product, were never in the race for the Delta sales, yet, somehow, BBD is, (according to Boeing), putting not just the entire Boeing companies future, but the entire aerospace sector in jeopardy, by selling aircraft to Delta.

It's a completely rigged system and the home team always wins. Ironically, Delta and much of the CSeries, are also American made.

LAXintl wrote:

Amiga500 wrote:

Playing clean won't win.

If BBD had played clean it would not be facing these charges.

The entire C-series program financial structure and ownership have become quite dubious and rightfully opens BBD up to questions.

If Boeing and Airbus don't play "clean", why should Bombardier? And by them not playing "clean" according to you, what damage do you suggest they are doing to Boeing with their plane Boeing doesn't compete with?

StTim wrote:

I cannot see them taking on Comac or Sukhoi in a similar manner.

Russia and China are untouchable, it's not worth trying. Bombardier on the other hand is a rather easy target.

That is my point - typical bully boy tactics.

StTim wrote:

It strikes me as big country big company trying to ensure a small competitor in a small country is quashed.

I cannot see them taking on Comac or Sukhoi in a similar manner.

Pretty sure canada is bigger than the US. Just saying

bigjku wrote:

I am interested in your legal background.

I'm an engineer, I do objective facts, not legal fiction.

bigjku wrote:

How exactly is it legal BS?

As regards what you've quoted, the legal BS would be BBD and DL restructuring the purchase in such a way that it avoids any US DOC embargoes. The essence of the deal wouldn't change, but a few brushstrokes with a pen would adjust terms enough to bring it out of juristiction.

bigjku wrote:

The law itself seems fairly clear and BBD admits we are going to lose. Seems perhaps they should have followed the law?

Given that "the law" has *allowed* Boeing to get more tax breaks for building the factory for the 777X than BBD have received for the whole CSeries program, and the way Boeing circumvented "the law" when it came to 787 tax breaks and subsequent movement of jobs, its hard to see how "the law" can be clear.

downdata wrote:

StTim wrote:

It strikes me as big country big company trying to ensure a small competitor in a small country is quashed.

I cannot see them taking on Comac or Sukhoi in a similar manner.

Pretty sure canada is bigger than the US. Just saying

You know I wasn't referring to land area - right

Amiga500 wrote:

bigjku wrote:

I am interested in your legal background.

I'm an engineer, I do objective facts, not legal fiction.

bigjku wrote:

How exactly is it legal BS?

As regards what you've quoted, the legal BS would be BBD and DL restructuring the purchase in such a way that it avoids any US DOC embargoes. The essence of the deal wouldn't change, but a few brushstrokes with a pen would adjust terms enough to bring it out of juristiction.

bigjku wrote:

The law itself seems fairly clear and BBD admits we are going to lose. Seems perhaps they should have followed the law?

Given that "the law" has *allowed* Boeing to get more tax breaks for building the factory for the 777X than BBD have received for the whole CSeries program, and the way Boeing circumvented "the law" when it came to 787 tax breaks and subsequent movement of jobs, its hard to see how "the law" can be clear.

Actually it seems as if tax breaks are allowed and direct subsidy of an entity isn't but that isn't really what matters here in regard to this law.

The facts seem to be as follows...

1. Bombardier took a risk on the C series.

2. That risk almost sank the combined company to to point they sought a bailout from multiple sources and I believe tried to sell the intellectual property to Airbus. The company has posted large negative earnings and cash flows that may well have been sufficient to put it out of business. They had at the end of 2nd quarter $9.2 billion in debt against $23 billion in assets. Boeing by contrast has around $10 billion against $90 billion in assets. Boeings free cash flow is enough that if it wanted to it could pay off all of its debt in a year if they made that a priority. Bombardier can't pay off anything as they are operating in a huge hole each year.

3. Absent the government intervention I am not sure Bombardier as a commercial aircraft producer would even exist today. Their debt rating is just a tick above junk and is probably based on expectations of the bailout they got.

4. There is also little dispute that they are selling planes for some sort of loss and that this is a loss that absent government intervention it couldn't sustain. Indeed as I said above I am not sure anyone can say for sure the plane would have gotten to market at all absent government intervention.

Boeing and Airbus both make enough money that they can, if they choose, sell planes at a loss. It doesn't threaten their viability as an entity. Bombardier is a company that maybe should have already gone under and is operating at an ongoing operational loss that it can't really tell you will ever end.

So it appears to me we have a company selling a product for a loss and which is very possibly only viable as a going concern because of government subsidy. One can make a good case that absent the subsidy not only could bombardier not sell the plane at its current price but in fact couldn't sell it at all because it seems unlikely anyone would have provided financing without demanding they write off the whole program and focus on their areas that are profitable. I don't see how it isn't pretty clear cut.

Now if we want to argue the fairness of various trade laws we can do so. But that's a different discussion.

bigjku wrote:

Amiga500 wrote:

bigjku wrote:

I am interested in your legal background.

I'm an engineer, I do objective facts, not legal fiction.

bigjku wrote:

How exactly is it legal BS?

As regards what you've quoted, the legal BS would be BBD and DL restructuring the purchase in such a way that it avoids any US DOC embargoes. The essence of the deal wouldn't change, but a few brushstrokes with a pen would adjust terms enough to bring it out of juristiction.

bigjku wrote:

The law itself seems fairly clear and BBD admits we are going to lose. Seems perhaps they should have followed the law?

Given that "the law" has *allowed* Boeing to get more tax breaks for building the factory for the 777X than BBD have received for the whole CSeries program, and the way Boeing circumvented "the law" when it came to 787 tax breaks and subsequent movement of jobs, its hard to see how "the law" can be clear.

Actually it seems as if tax breaks are allowed and direct subsidy of an entity isn't but that isn't really what matters here in regard to this law.

The facts seem to be as follows...

1. Bombardier took a risk on the C series.

2. That risk almost sank the combined company to to point they sought a bailout from multiple sources and I believe tried to sell the intellectual property to Airbus. The company has posted large negative earnings and cash flows that may well have been sufficient to put it out of business. They had at the end of 2nd quarter $9.2 billion in debt against $23 billion in assets. Boeing by contrast has around $10 billion against $90 billion in assets. Boeings free cash flow is enough that if it wanted to it could pay off all of its debt in a year if they made that a priority. Bombardier can't pay off anything as they are operating in a huge hole each year.

3. Absent the government intervention I am not sure Bombardier as a commercial aircraft producer would even exist today. Their debt rating is just a tick above junk and is probably based on expectations of the bailout they got.

4. There is also little dispute that they are selling planes for some sort of loss and that this is a loss that absent government intervention it couldn't sustain. Indeed as I said above I am not sure anyone can say for sure the plane would have gotten to market at all absent government intervention.

Boeing and Airbus both make enough money that they can, if they choose, sell planes at a loss. It doesn't threaten their viability as an entity. Bombardier is a company that maybe should have already gone under and is operating at an ongoing operational loss that it can't really tell you will ever end.

Yet Boeing says CSeries subsidies threaten the future of, not only , the Boeing company, but American aerospace industry in general. This argument was being presented at a time when the president of Boeing was flown to Saudi Arabia on AF1, so the President of the United States, could act as salesman to pitch the Saudis more billions of dollars worth of Boeing commercial and military products....but no government help there...nope.

Any fine points of interpretation are blown out the water by that level of absurd, hyperbolic drivel...especially when they don't even have a competing product and their closest product to the CSeries, is selling out in record numbers. Yet, that very 'future harm' will be taken into consideration when it comes to the Commerce department making their decision.

It's a system as corrupt as any third world dictatorship and any relationship to real free market capitalism is an illusion, at best.

BBD managed to use benefits of government money as a crutch while turning around selling the product at pricing that is clearly a loss.

In frankness, BBD aerospace business or even entire company should be bankrupt at this point if not for the sweetheart government deal.

I am trying to piece together your argument as it relates to this case...it seems to boil down to it really isn't hurting them too much so they should just accept it and move on. Is that accurate?

As for the rest of your points they seem like emotional and unrelated ranting. The Saudis can either buy or not buy according to their laws and interest. Just as the US can either allow or not allow the sale of the C series according to its laws and interest. Just as Canada can demand offsets on military programs in accordance with its laws and interest.

I never made the argument for pure free market free trade capitalism. If you would like to discuss that subject please name an app private forum for doing so and we can. It's certainly interesting.

Again the points here seem clear.

1. There are anti-dumping laws on the books that all parties knew of prior to all decisions that were made.

2. The facts would seem to indicate that Bombardier and Canada are in violation of these laws. You have offered nothing to dispute this but have instead thrown dust in the air and ranted about other tangentially but not directly related subjects.

Do you have any direct points on the subject of it hey are engaged in government subsidized dumping? It would seem that would be more productive than slandering other nations as being equivalents of third world dictatorships. That makes it look like you have no point at all on this particular issue and isn't really effective.

Just a theory, I believe this is part of an action to drive Bombardier from the marketplace of passenger airlines. In the process, the end game would be the selling off of the different divisions where Boeing would love to buy the C-Series as a means to gain a new NSA program on the cheap due to their wanting to launch a MOM product . The C- series would grow from the bottom to a CS500 and CS700 to replace the 737 on the small end and the MOM would shrink down to cover the top end of the 737 line. They would keep the 100 and 300 production lines in Canada and the 500 and 700 would be built elsewhere. Bombarier's prop business would vanish or boeing could provide their own competition to ATR with a newer, smaller 7J7 program, the private jet business sold off to someone else and the train and recreational products spun off.

It would be an easy sell to shareholders as the plane already shows it's promise in the real world.

It could all backfire and AB could end up poaching the C-Series and killing off the turbo props to benefit ATR. This leaves Embraer an opening to re-enter the turbo prop business.

It's really not costing Boeing anything to drive the potential price of Bombardier down compared to a clean sheet NSA program. The only issue is if Trudeau will continue to prop up Bombardier long enough for the C-Series to continue to prove itself a very capable bird and airlines see the value of owning it and start ordering more. I still think in the hands of Spirit or Frontier, it could serve midsized leasure markets that require less than daily service like a champ. From my perspective, it has airports like TUL, XNA, MEM, LIT, to places like FFL, SAN, OAK, IAD (when the metro is connected), CUN and VPS at 1x, 2x and 3x weekly written all over it.

mercure1 wrote:

BBD managed to use benefits of government money as a crutch while turning around selling the product at pricing that is clearly a loss.

In frankness, BBD aerospace business or even entire company should be bankrupt at this point if not for the sweetheart government deal.

As long as it doesn't dump then that is the Government's prerogative.
It isn't dumping since no manufacturer has a realistic competing product.

leghorn wrote:

mercure1 wrote:

BBD managed to use benefits of government money as a crutch while turning around selling the product at pricing that is clearly a loss.

In frankness, BBD aerospace business or even entire company should be bankrupt at this point if not for the sweetheart government deal.

As long as it doesn't dump then that is the Government's prerogative.
It isn't dumping since no manufacturer has a realistic competing product.

It depends greatly on how one defines a competing product. If one defines the product as an airplane then they certainly do.

I don't dispute that the C series is more economical for certain routes at the price they are selling it at. What we don't know is if those calculations hold up if it is sold for a realistic profit margin absent government intervention. Indeed the answer may be that the routes Delta is looking at are simply not economical at all if the planes are not dumped at he present price and the remaining route structure would be more adequately served by 737/A320 offered at low prices due to already established production lines.

It all comes down to how you define competing product.

bigjku wrote:

leghorn wrote:

As long as it doesn't dump then that is the Government's prerogative.
It isn't dumping since no manufacturer has a realistic competing product.

It depends greatly on how one defines a competing product. If one defines the product as an airplane then they certainly do.

I don't dispute that the C series is more economical for certain routes at the price they are selling it at. What we don't know is if those calculations hold up if it is sold for a realistic profit margin absent government intervention. Indeed the answer may be that the routes Delta is looking at are simply not economical at all if the planes are not dumped at he present price and the remaining route structure would be more adequately served by 737/A320 offered at low prices due to already established production lines.

It all comes down to how you define competing product.

This is true however there is right and wrong when it comes to defining a competitive product. In the eyes of those who are the direct customers, the airlines, lessors, and anyone else that is concerned with the product, the CSeries and any Boeing product offered are not competitors. Ask Delta or ask anyone with a basic level of knowledge in the industry and they usually will tell you the same thing. To say they do is the same as saying minivans compete with pickup trucks, they don't unless you are someone with no knowledge of the products which unfortunately in this case is what the people deciding on this ruling will most likely be, falling perfectly in to Boeing's hands.

mercure1 wrote:

BBD managed to use benefits of government money as a crutch while turning around selling the product at pricing that is clearly a loss.

In frankness, BBD aerospace business or even entire company should be bankrupt at this point if not for the sweetheart government deal.

A lot of things should've gone bankrupt by now, but haven't. Whether it be bailouts or chapter 11, these corporations often find a way out. If they couldn't he US auto industry would be gone, and the major airlines in the US would've gone. Governments don't allow this to happen when it comes to these larger companies because the impact it would have on the economy allying them to go bankrupt would be far too devastating to allow.

767333ER wrote:

bigjku wrote:

leghorn wrote:

As long as it doesn't dump then that is the Government's prerogative.
It isn't dumping since no manufacturer has a realistic competing product.

It depends greatly on how one defines a competing product. If one defines the product as an airplane then they certainly do.

I don't dispute that the C series is more economical for certain routes at the price they are selling it at. What we don't know is if those calculations hold up if it is sold for a realistic profit margin absent government intervention. Indeed the answer may be that the routes Delta is looking at are simply not economical at all if the planes are not dumped at he present price and the remaining route structure would be more adequately served by 737/A320 offered at low prices due to already established production lines.

It all comes down to how you define competing product.

This is true however there is right and wrong when it comes to defining a competitive product. In the eyes of those who are the direct customers, the airlines, lessors, and anyone else that is concerned with the product, the CSeries and any Boeing product offered are not competitors. Ask Delta or ask anyone with a basic level of knowledge in the industry and they usually will tell you the same thing. To say they do is the same as saying minivans compete with pickup trucks, they don't unless you are someone with no knowledge of the products which unfortunately in this case is what the people deciding on this ruling will most likely be, falling perfectly in to Boeing's hands.

A truck and a minivan are too dissimilar. A more accurate analogy would be to use a bus.

In this case one builder has a bus that carries 20-23 people in two models. The other bus carries 25. Are they not competing products? I would argue they are. Particularly if the company making the 25 seat bus has sunken cost and can produce its bus significantly cheaper than the smaller bus.

What people mean when I hear them say there is no competing product is that there is no direct comparison. But the 777x competes with the A380 despite the seat difference after all.

And this all sets aside the fundamental issue which is that the C series likely doesn't even exist as an option if not for the intervention by the Canadian government. If it does any commercial financing entity would demand adequate returns and the business case could well drastically change.

leghorn wrote:

It isn't dumping since no manufacturer has a realistic competing product.

Dumping has nothing to do with existence of a competitor product.

Definition of dumping from NAFTA --

"Dumping is the sale of goods in foreign markets at prices below those charged for comparable sales in the home market or that are below the cost of producing the goods."

https://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/Home/Re ... -Questions

WaywardMemphian wrote:

Just a theory, I believe this is part of an action to drive Bombardier from the marketplace of passenger airlines. In the process, the end game would be the selling off of the different divisions where Boeing would love to buy the C-Series as a means to gain a new NSA program on the cheap due to their wanting to launch a MOM product .

I said this ages ago, and still agree.

Question...if this is a repayable loan as opposed to "gift money", why is there a problem?
http://business.financialpost.com/trans ... inc-source

I know this is a basic question, but the discussion make is seem like gift money, as opposed to essentiall a bank loan from the government.

Another quick question....does the price in question by Boeing include engines? Or would that be a separate contract?

Here's the big problem with Boeing's complaint as I see it.

- Did BBD dump the C-Series at below market rate? Did it received improper subsidies? The answer to both of these questions is very likely in the affirmative!

- Was Boeing harmed? HECK NO! Because Boeing doesn't have a comparable apples to apples product, even if BBD is guilty of dumping it really wouldn't matter because said dumping didn't harm Boeing. I don't see the 737-800 competing head to head with the C-Series, for example, let alone any of the MAX models. They're different planes optimized for somewhat different missions.

- Since they're different planes optimized for somewhat different missions and therefore not really competing head to head, unless Boeing can actually demonstrate harm, can actually show that Delta, for example, chose the C-Series over a comparable Boeing plane, I just don't see how they can make a solid case and win.

As I said earlier in the thread, I'm a Boeing shareholder, but I'm pulling for BBD on this one. They took a huge risk. They should be rewarded for that risk in the marketplace, not penalized in the courts.

Aptivaboy wrote:

Here's the big problem with Boeing's complaint as I see it.

- Did BBD dump the C-Series at below market rate? Did it received improper subsidies? The answer to both of these questions is very likely in the affirmative!

- Was Boeing harmed? HECK NO! Because Boeing doesn't have a comparable apples to apples product, even if BBD is guilty of dumping it really wouldn't matter because said dumping didn't harm Boeing. I don't see the 737-800 competing head to head with the C-Series, for example, let alone any of the MAX models. They're different planes optimized for somewhat different missions.

- Since they're different planes optimized for somewhat different missions and therefore not really competing head to head, unless Boeing can actually demonstrate harm, can actually show that Delta, for example, chose the C-Series over a comparable Boeing plane, I just don't see how they can make a solid case and win.

As I said earlier in the thread, I'm a Boeing shareholder, but I'm pulling for BBD on this one. They took a huge risk. They should be rewarded for that risk in the marketplace, not penalized in the courts.

They took a huge risk and lost. Then got bailed out. That is a huge difference.

And again I ask, if a 777X competes with an A380 how does the C series not compete with A320/737?

But, does the 777x really compete with the 380? The 380 has very different operational costs, gate requirements (for efficient operation), crew costs (due to many more seats), etc. It's closest competition was the 748, which it substantially beat into being taken off the market. The 380 competes with the 777x like a Greyhound over the road bus competes with a large airport shuttle sized bus. Both are buses, both can carry a lot of people, but the Greyhound can carry a whole lot more people for a lot more cost.

Compare that to the C-series and the 737. The two closest entrants are the CS-300 and the 737-max7. The Max 7 is designed for 20% more passengers, is wider, much heavier, and has higher operating costs. It is designed for a different market segment, just as the 380 (A true VLA) is designed for a different segment than the 777x (a stretched twin aisle large widebody). The only aircraft that Boeing has had in recent history that would have been a competitor for the C series was the 717, and they actively killed it off in favor of the 737 program LONG before the C series was even offered to the market. You can claim that the 737-max7 can be configred for the same number of seats as the CS-300, but it will need to serve a different market as the seating will be substantially more premium to match that in a space efficient manner.

As for the C-series selling at a loss, is it really? Do we know the actual production costs (not including amortized development costs) of each CS-100 and 300? Do we know the actual dollar amount that they were sold to Delta for? IF they are selling it for even a penny more, than it isn't dumping. After all, if Boeing can continue to grow the expected order block for the 787 every few years to spread out their vastly over budget development costs for it to keep it from being a loss making program, why can't BBD quote a very high order block based on historic sales numbers for the 737/320 and Embraer E series planes per year? If that isn't allowed, then how is Boeing not also in the process of dumping the 787 until the day that it earns that last penny to cover all of it's development costs? It's no secret that Boeing has received billions of dollars in tax incentives over the years from the federal and state government over the years.

This is so much the pot calling the kettle...

All airline manufacturers get legally questionable support from their government, whether launch aid, tax breaks or pork filled military contracts, the law seems to be followed about as far as expedient in all cases. Does the USA think this deal does that much damage to Boeing that it's worth having a fight with Canada (and now the UK), they're not over-run with allies right now? Trump strikes me as a man who wants to be liked, hence all the rallies with the chanting etc. This is nothing a nice state visit couldn't fix, as the reference to the Saudi visit before showed.

The C series is a great plane in terms of engineering, the 747 nearly bankrupted Boeing. A quote re the TSR-2 comes to mind, "All modern aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and politics. TSR-2 simply got the first three right."

To say Boeing and Airbus don't offer anything like the Cseries, is to stick your head in the sand.

Edit: just found this link. Just take a look how much overlap there is with the CSeries and, in particular, the A319:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombard ... rcraft.png

Again, it absolutely competes with the smaller products in the Airbus and Boeing line. Even the E2 line reaches the bottom of the A and B offerings.

[quote="LightningZ71"]But, does the 777x really compete with the 380? The 380 has very different operational costs, gate requirements (for efficient operation), crew costs (due to many more seats), etc. It's closest competition was the 748, which it substantially beat into being taken off the market. The 380 competes with the 777x like a Greyhound over the road bus competes with a large airport shuttle sized bus. Both are buses, both can carry a lot of people, but the Greyhound can carry a whole lot more people for a lot more cost.

Compare that to the C-series and the 737. The two closest entrants are the CS-300 and the 737-max7. The Max 7 is designed for 20% more passengers, is wider, much heavier, and has higher operating costs. It is designed for a different market segment, just as the 380 (A true VLA) is designed for a different segment than the 777x (a stretched twin aisle large widebody). The only aircraft that Boeing has had in recent history that would have been a competitor for the C series was the 717, and they actively killed it off in favor of the 737 program LONG before the C series was even offered to the market. You can claim that the 737-max7 can be configred for the same number of seats as the CS-300, but it will need to serve a different market as the seating will be substantially more premium to match that in a space efficient manner.

As for the C-series selling at a loss, is it really? Do we know the actual production costs (not including amortized development costs) of each CS-100 and 300? Do we know the actual dollar amount that they were sold to Delta for? IF they are selling it for even a penny more, than it isn't dumping. After all, if Boeing can continue to grow the expected order block for the 787 every few years to spread out their vastly over budget development costs for it to keep it from being a loss making program, why can't BBD quote a very high order block based on historic sales numbers for the 737/320 and Embraer E series planes per year? If that isn't allowed, then how is Boeing not also in the process of dumping the 787 until the day that it earns that last penny to cover all of it's development costs? It's no secret that Boeing has received billions of dollars in tax incentives over the years from the federal and state government over the years.

This is so much the pot calling the kettle...[/quote]

I don't make any claims as to matching the seating. I said it is not accurate to use an analogy of a truck and a minivan which are designed for distinctly different purposes. My position would be that both carry passengers between airports and thus it is unfair to say they do not compete at all. They may not compete in the exact same way but aircraft all compete to some degree. The 757 didn't have a direct competitor after all but the margins around it got peeled off sufficiently to end he program. People are far to caught up in the minutia of how aircraft compete here.

Think it through. If the C series either doesn't exist because it sank the company or is priced to make a profit and thus all things considered isn't more economical to Delta than cheap A320's or 737's do they not buy those products? We all know they do. Now some routes may not get served. Or Delta's profit might not be as great. But we don't know what the true outcome would be if dumping wasn't occurring.

As for program accounting let's address the issue. Do you have numbers for the program in question? I have no issue with program accounting and never have. Provided the numbers are given they are pretty easy to analyze and determine if the assumptions are reasonable. Bombardier provides no numbers publicly so we can't make such an analysis. They likely did provide them to the investigation and could further pursue the issue in court as many entities have if they can support their case.

We can make some guesses though and estimate our own program accounting.

Everyone bitches about the 787 block so lets use it as a generous measure. It's 9-10% more than sales. So we can set our accounting block reasonably at 400 for the C series right now. Agreed?

Development cost are $5.4 billion. Of this $3.2 billion was written off with Quebec putting in a billion basically to cushion that blow. I think a fair R&D cost that hasn't been expensed would be $3.2 billion, or the original cost less the write down plus the handout from Quebec. We won't mess about the interest free loan right now.

So I come up with an R&D cost per frame of $8 million or so. To that we have to add all the cost to build the thing. Boeing famously offered 737NG to United at around $22 million per and that program has no R&D left to absorb. To do things properly we would need to estimate the average unit cost of the Cseries over the 400 frames we can reasonably project now.

So the question is can Bombardier turn an average production cost of $20 million a frame through 400 airframes? I don't see it. If they could the. I fully suspect they would provide the projections and accounting publicly. If they projected to even come close to breaking even in a reasonable accounting block then they would present it.

If Boeing succeeds, I hope the Canadian government pursues sanction which permanently exclude all Boeing aircraft. Commercial and military from further consideration in Canada. Air Canada and Westjet should both face extreme pressure to drop their 737 Max orders. Or pay more for them.

It's ridiculous that Boeing gets more subsidies from Washington State alone than Bombardier has gotten in its lifetime. There's also production in "right-to-work" states and subsidies from other countries like Japan. Boeing also gets to quietly develop a lot of knowledge and expertise on the military side of the house that they slowly transfer to the civilian side. Oh there's rules against all that. But somehow, they never get enforced against Boeing.

And we all know Boeing would never try this against Comac or Sukhoi because those markets are important. That tells me that the Canadian government needs to step up and make sure Boeing feels incredible pain if Bombardier loses this dispute.

If the Trudeau government doesn't defend Bombardier aggressively, they've lost my vote and donations.

ytz wrote:

If Boeing succeeds, I hope the Canadian government pursues sanction which permanently exclude all Boeing aircraft. Commercial and military from further consideration in Canada. Air Canada and Westjet should both face extreme pressure to drop their 737 Max orders. Or pay more for them.

It's ridiculous that Boeing gets more subsidies from Washington State alone than all Bombardier has gotten in its lifetime. Boeing also gets to quietly develop a lot of knowledge and expertise on the military side of the house that they slowly transfer to the civilian side. Oh there's rules against all that. But somehow, they never get enforced against Boeing.

And we all Boeing would never try this against Comac or Sukhoi because those markets are important. That tells me that the Canadian government needs to step up and make sure Boeing feels incredible pain if Bombardier loses this dispute.

Screaching nonsense. Canada trades $550 billion with the US annually and has a surplus of $11 billion. Canada gets a very fair shake with the US overall. Do you disagree?

Many seem unwilling to discuss the substance of the complaint. Canada is free to bring any complaint it wants against Boeing under domestic laws or international agreements. No one has denied them this remedy. Canada can flat pass a law saying Boeing can't sell there if they want. That's what being a sovereign nation means.

But if one wants to be logical about it I would look at the whole history here. No one said squat about CRJ sales after all of which I think the majority were in the US (if not the vast majority at that). This is something different. If Boeing were just being nasty after all why not try to block those sales? They either aren't doing this just to be pricks or they didn't have a case and now they do.

Rather than demand retaliation why not discuss the merits of the claim itself? Would seem to be more productive.

PPVRA wrote:

To say Boeing and Airbus don't offer anything like the Cseries, is to stick your head in the sand.

Edit: just found this link. Just take a look how much overlap there is with the CSeries and, in particular, the A319:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombard ... rcraft.png

Again, it absolutely competes with the smaller products in the Airbus and Boeing line. Even the E2 line reaches the bottom of the A and B offerings.

I would caution anyone against making such bold statements, in either direction, regarding this issue. "Like" is a very subjective term. Apples are like oranges in that they are both fruits that grow on trees.

Competitive is also a subjective term. It all depends on a given airline's specific needs as to whether Boeing's (or any other manufacturer's) products will be competitive with the CSeries or not. In this scenario, the specific airline in question is Delta. Delta has unequivocally stated that Boeing did not offer a competitive aircraft. I expect that Delta is fully capable of making convincing arguments to support this statement. You're welcome to disagree with them, after you've heard them.

Leghorn posted this article earlier. It's an opinion piece, but it brings up some interesting points. My biggest takeaway is the quote below. Indeed, if Boeing hurts sales of the CSeries, it harms all the smaller US aerospace corporations who are important suppliers to the CSeries program. IMHO, Boeing is abusing a law designed to protect US businesses, and in doing so, is actually harming US businesses, whether intentionally or not. https://www.forbes.com/sites/danikenson ... a7e40010a5

Contrary to the myth that antidumping is about leveling the playing field and protecting U.S. companies and workers from predatory foreign firms, the law has become a commercial weapon used by U.S. companies against other U.S. companies. Antidumping has become a convenient channel through which domestic firms can saddle their competition (both foreign and domestic) with higher costs and their customers with fewer alternative sources, while giving themselves room to raise their own prices, reap higher profits, and—in the case of Boeing—reinforce their market power.

I think this article may have been overlooked due to the manner in which user leghorn posted it. No matter what your feelings regarding this dispute, I think it is well worth the read for anyone who cares enough to read this thread.

aerolimani wrote:

PPVRA wrote:

To say Boeing and Airbus don't offer anything like the Cseries, is to stick your head in the sand.

Edit: just found this link. Just take a look how much overlap there is with the CSeries and, in particular, the A319:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombard ... rcraft.png

Again, it absolutely competes with the smaller products in the Airbus and Boeing line. Even the E2 line reaches the bottom of the A and B offerings.

I would caution anyone against making such bold statements, in either direction, regarding this issue. "Like" is a very subjective term. Apples are like oranges in that they are both fruits that grow on trees.

Competitive is also a subjective term. It all depends on a given airline's specific needs as to whether Boeing's (or any other manufacturer's) products will be competitive with the CSeries or not. In this scenario, the specific airline in question is Delta. Delta has unequivocally stated that Boeing did not offer a competitive aircraft. I expect that Delta is fully capable of making convincing arguments to support this statement. You're welcome to disagree with them, after you've heard them.

Leghorn posted this article earlier. It's an opinion piece, but it brings up some interesting points. My biggest takeaway is the quote below. Indeed, if Boeing hurts sales of the CSeries, it harms all the smaller US aerospace corporations who are important suppliers to the CSeries program. IMHO, Boeing is abusing a law designed to protect US businesses, and in doing so, is actually harming US businesses, whether intentionally or not. https://www.forbes.com/sites/danikenson ... a7e40010a5

Contrary to the myth that antidumping is about leveling the playing field and protecting U.S. companies and workers from predatory foreign firms, the law has become a commercial weapon used by U.S. companies against other U.S. companies. Antidumping has become a convenient channel through which domestic firms can saddle their competition (both foreign and domestic) with higher costs and their customers with fewer alternative sources, while giving themselves room to raise their own prices, reap higher profits, and—in the case of Boeing—reinforce their market power.

I think this article may have been overlooked due to the manner in which user leghorn posted it. No matter what your feelings regarding this dispute, I think it is well worth the read for anyone who cares enough to read this thread.

With regard to Delta the question is if the C series is competitive at the non-dumping price, whatever that is. As presented it is clearly the better option and no one would dispute it.

I read the linked article and am familiar with the author. He is a free trade absolutist in my view and almost every article he has written is in support of no barriers on anything and things like the trans Pacific trade pact which was hated across both sides of the recent US election.

I find his argument weak in this case. Yes this is a move to protect Boeing's market power. But it's market power they earned by refining the 737 production process over thousands of airframes. Bombardier in this case is sustaining a company killing loss with $1.3 billion in government injection on a highly leveraged balance sheet producing negative cash flow and that isn't projected to produce positive cash flow in any substantial amount for several years. Their market power isn't in that sense earned and is exactly what anti-dumping laws are for.

Imagine if all the U.S. automotive sub-assembly companies could only sell their product through Ford or GM due to Ford and GM still having a dominant market position.
There'd be an awful lot more Robert Kearns in the world.

100% overlap with the A319 isn't subjective!

bigjku wrote:

I find his argument weak in this case. Yes this is a move to protect Boeing's market power. But it's market power they earned by refining the 737 production process over thousands of airframes. Bombardier in this case is sustaining a company killing loss with $1.3 billion in government injection on a highly leveraged balance sheet producing negative cash flow and that isn't projected to produce positive cash flow in any substantial amount for several years. Their market power isn't in that sense earned and is exactly what anti-dumping laws are for.

You're putting lipstick on a pig. Given the massive amount of tax breaks Boeing benefits from, I would hardly say that their market share is honestly earned. At least with BBD, they are expected to pay most of that money pack to the governments.

JoeCanuck wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

Amiga500 wrote:

Playing clean won't win.

If BBD had played clean it would not be facing these charges.

The entire C-series program financial structure and ownership have become quite dubious and rightfully opens BBD up to questions.

Playing clean actually doesn't help. There have been plenty of US softwood lumber disputes against Canada where the US laid down punitive tariffs before any hearings and have refused to pay refunds when the hearings went against them.

The US plays by its own rules when it comes to international trade and changes those rules on a whim.

In this case, Boeing doesn't have a competing product, were never in the race for the Delta sales, yet, somehow, BBD is, (according to Boeing), putting not just the entire Boeing companies future, but the entire aerospace sector in jeopardy, by selling aircraft to Delta.

It's a completely rigged system and the home team always wins. Ironically, Delta and much of the CSeries, are also American made.

Seriously why do y'all keep saying this?

The CS competes with the lower end 737. The CS300 is basically a 73G/319 sized aircraft.

As we saw with United, when the RFP is fair, Boeing and BBD are in fact competing.

The system isn't rigged. BBD bit off more than they could chew and then started selling airplanes of a questionable at best program at a nice sized loss payed for by Canadian tax dollars.
If Boeing or Airbus had done the same and run BBD out of town y'all would be screaming from the roof tops.

aerolimani wrote:

bigjku wrote:

I find his argument weak in this case. Yes this is a move to protect Boeing's market power. But it's market power they earned by refining the 737 production process over thousands of airframes. Bombardier in this case is sustaining a company killing loss with $1.3 billion in government injection on a highly leveraged balance sheet producing negative cash flow and that isn't projected to produce positive cash flow in any substantial amount for several years. Their market power isn't in that sense earned and is exactly what anti-dumping laws are for.

You're putting lipstick on a pig. Given the massive amount of tax breaks Boeing benefits from, I would hardly say that their market share is honestly earned. At least with BBD, they are expected to pay most of that money pack to the governments.

Tax breaks aren't really analogous to direct subsidy and risk sharing by a government. You can keep shouting about it if you want but it has no bearing on this complaint.

If someone believes the tax breaks were illegal and disadvantaged them then they can enact laws domestically and or seek redress through the WTO. Airbus has done so as part of that drama and appears to have had very limited success along that line of attack.

This isn't a WTO case but an anti-dumping claim. Though if someone else, say Embrear, files a WTO claim I am quite convinced they would win in as much as one can win with the WTO.

Everyone keeps bringing up other issues but no one has really tried to make a case that this particular case doesn't constitute state supported dumping. Probably because the facts are fairly public and well documented. IMHO no case against Airbus or Boeing has ever been as clear as this.

I am sorry if that offends people but Bombardier appears to be clearly in violation of the law. And it's a law they should know and had time to know in what has been by far their biggest market for passenger planes. They never got in trouble with the CRJ. They messed this one up, got bailed out and then dumped below cost. It seems pretty clear cut.

bigjku wrote:

767333ER wrote:

bigjku wrote:

It depends greatly on how one defines a competing product. If one defines the product as an airplane then they certainly do.

I don't dispute that the C series is more economical for certain routes at the price they are selling it at. What we don't know is if those calculations hold up if it is sold for a realistic profit margin absent government intervention. Indeed the answer may be that the routes Delta is looking at are simply not economical at all if the planes are not dumped at he present price and the remaining route structure would be more adequately served by 737/A320 offered at low prices due to already established production lines.

It all comes down to how you define competing product.

This is true however there is right and wrong when it comes to defining a competitive product. In the eyes of those who are the direct customers, the airlines, lessors, and anyone else that is concerned with the product, the CSeries and any Boeing product offered are not competitors. Ask Delta or ask anyone with a basic level of knowledge in the industry and they usually will tell you the same thing. To say they do is the same as saying minivans compete with pickup trucks, they don't unless you are someone with no knowledge of the products which unfortunately in this case is what the people deciding on this ruling will most likely be, falling perfectly in to Boeing's hands.

A truck and a minivan are too dissimilar. A more accurate analogy would be to use a bus.

In this case one builder has a bus that carries 20-23 people in two models. The other bus carries 25. Are they not competing products? I would argue they are. Particularly if the company making the 25 seat bus has sunken cost and can produce its bus significantly cheaper than the smaller bus.

What people mean when I hear them say there is no competing product is that there is no direct comparison. But the 777x competes with the A380 despite the seat difference after all.

And this all sets aside the fundamental issue which is that the C series likely doesn't even exist as an option if not for the intervention by the Canadian government. If it does any commercial financing entity would demand adequate returns and the business case could well drastically change.

But the CSeries and the 737 are too dissimilar. The CSeries doesn't only hold 5 less people than the 737, it holds significantly less, but unlike busses, the major difference is in payload. You can configure a pickup truck to hold a few more passengers than a minivan, that's what the Ford E series vans were, but the truck based one will be on a different level and would be used by different people for different things than a minivan. The 737 has larger wings by area, larger engines, larger cabin, higher payload, more fuel capacity, more cargo capacity, more passenger capacity, and burns more fuel and weighs more. It serves a completely different mission profile than the CSeries. The only 737s that did compete with the CSeries based on capacity and loosely by mission are no longer in production. The point is Delta didn't buy the CSeries instead of the 737 just as the average family does not buy a minivan instead of a pickup truck based van, the larger offering want considered an option in the first plane and was not a part of the competiton for Delta's business.

The 777X vs A380 is a very different matter and isn't much of a relevant example in this discussion as the competition between the two is unusual. The A380 is too large for most airlines to fill, even those that have it realistically can't fully make use of its size, but how much they do fill it up would fit in the smaller 777-9 so they do compete even though they don't. The extra seats the A380 can take aren't getting filled anyway so the plane is over capable for the real world. This is not what is happening with the CSeries at all as they are currently filling the market that was voluntarily vacated by Airbus and Boeing long before it ever flew. The only entity here that should be mad is Embraer as they do compete with the CSeries, but they aren't exactly innocent themselves as they alleged have bribed potential customers to get their business and gave Air Canada their E175/190s at similar dumping pricing.

Dumping or not Boeing has no business raising this issue as is not anti competitive towards them in any way, but they have behaved this way since they merged with McDonnell Douglas. They saw what happened when they didn't get anticompetitive enough with Airbus and didn't try hard enough to kill them before they became strong, they fear Bombardier is becoming stronger in the future despite their current products that don't compete with Boeing. Boeing's complaint here is garbage and they know it, they are just trying to stop Bombardier before they actually do compete with them with their the so called CS500 that would most likely be far more efficient than the 737, which may never happen, but they seemingly don't want to take that risk. It really is a pathetic move that they feel they have to take because they lack the willingness to spend money to future proof their products or replace them all together which is why they should not get their way.

bigjku wrote:

Tax breaks aren't really analogous to direct subsidy and risk sharing by a government. You can keep shouting about it if you want but it has no bearing on this complaint.

Tax breaks are subsides (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/subsidy.asp)and the difference between direct and indirect is just how easy it is to spot and complain about. The end result is much the same. Rather than paying tax and then getting repaid by the government in the form of direct subsidies or risk sharing they just simply save all the time and effort and just pay less tax in the first place which conveniently also makes the whole thing less obvious. In the end they still have more money than they should and they can afford to sell some planes at higher discounts. They all do it, but because Bombardier is the weak one, Boeing wants to keep them that way so that they can continue to do buybacks rather than doing risky innovation.

bigjku wrote:

aerolimani wrote:

bigjku wrote:

I find his argument weak in this case. Yes this is a move to protect Boeing's market power. But it's market power they earned by refining the 737 production process over thousands of airframes. Bombardier in this case is sustaining a company killing loss with $1.3 billion in government injection on a highly leveraged balance sheet producing negative cash flow and that isn't projected to produce positive cash flow in any substantial amount for several years. Their market power isn't in that sense earned and is exactly what anti-dumping laws are for.

You're putting lipstick on a pig. Given the massive amount of tax breaks Boeing benefits from, I would hardly say that their market share is honestly earned. At least with BBD, they are expected to pay most of that money pack to the governments.

Tax breaks aren't really analogous to direct subsidy and risk sharing by a government. You can keep shouting about it if you want but it has no bearing on this complaint.

If someone believes the tax breaks were illegal and disadvantaged them then they can enact laws domestically and or seek redress through the WTO. Airbus has done so as part of that drama and appears to have had very limited success along that line of attack.

This isn't a WTO case but an anti-dumping claim. Though if someone else, say Embrear, files a WTO claim I am quite convinced they would win in as much as one can win with the WTO.

Everyone keeps bringing up other issues but no one has really tried to make a case that this particular case doesn't constitute state supported dumping. Probably because the facts are fairly public and well documented. IMHO no case against Airbus or Boeing has ever been as clear as this.

I am sorry if that offends people but Bombardier appears to be clearly in violation of the law. And it's a law they should know and had time to know in what has been by far their biggest market for passenger planes. They never got in trouble with the CRJ. They messed this one up, got bailed out and then dumped below cost. It seems pretty clear cut.

No offence taken. Frustration, for sure, but not offence.

In truth, I don't expect any corporation to behave in any sort of "fair" manner. The whole business of incorporation removes individual human responsibility and morality.

Is BBD guilty of breaking the law? Quite possibly. Is the law fairly protecting Boeing from harmful and dangerous action by BBD? I think perhaps not. I think the law is poorly written, and thus easily abused in situations where it is not warranted. And that is what frustrates me.

From a legal standpoint, tax breaks are not analogous to gov't loans and investments, but from a moral standpoint, one can make the argument (albeit subjective) that they are the same. One is money going from the public purse into a corporation. The other is money simply not flowing into the public purse in the first place. In either case, the public doesn't get its money. At least in the case of loans/investments, there's a chance that the public stands to benefit in the end. For example, Canada benefitted greatly when the government sold off their investment that was Petro-Canada. Anyhow… I digress.

Do I expect Boeing do behave differently? No. I expect them to use whatever tools they have available to increase their success as a company. My beef is with the law. I feel that it is flawed and too easily used for a purpose beyond its indicated intent.

Anyhow… if they do find against BBD, I think we can expect an appeal to be filed post-haste.

bigjku wrote:

Everyone keeps bringing up other issues but no one has really tried to make a case that this particular case doesn't constitute state supported dumping. Probably because the facts are fairly public and well documented. IMHO no case against Airbus or Boeing has ever been as clear as this.

I think for many people, particularly aviation enthusiasts, it's hard to look at this from a purely legal standpoint. Boeing is using the anti-dumping laws to attempt to stamp out the competition- that's bad for lovers of aircraft and bad for the consumer as well. It may be perfectly legal but it smacks of cronyism and corruption.

I don't blame Boeing one bit of course- its only responsibility is to do what's best for the shareholders. I do worry though, as have others, that they're choosing to litigate rather than innovate their way out of the problem.

I am sorry if that offends people but Bombardier appears to be clearly in violation of the law.

There's nothing clear about it- at least not yet. We don't know the substance of the deal Bombardier did with Delta, nor can anybody conclusively show that Boeing were injured by the C-Series being sold at below fair market value. My guess is that the deal probably will be shown to be dumping, but Delta and Bombardier both have a strong interest in refuting Boeing's claims, so it's hard to be sure.

The injury portion is much more nebulous and is going to depend very much on the ITC's interpretation of "material damage".

Add to that the inevitable politicization of the both investigations, and nothing is clear in the slightest.

Let me see if I am understanding some of the points brought up. If the C-Series that were sold to Air Canada were sold for US$20 million each an the ones sold to Delta were sold for US$21 million each (just picking random figures), then dumping did not take place? If the prices were reversed then dumping did take place? As an outsider I don't know what prices the aircraft were sold for or indeed how the contract was drawn up between Bombardier and Delta, so it is difficult to ascertain if dumping is taking place.

Some people will blindly support the industry of/and their country and ignore common sense. This thread is a great example of it.

bx737 wrote:

Let me see if I am understanding some of the points brought up. If the C-Series that were sold to Air Canada were sold for US$20 million each an the ones sold to Delta were sold for US$21 million each (just picking random figures), then dumping did not take place? If the prices were reversed then dumping did take place? As an outsider I don't know what prices the aircraft were sold for or indeed how the contract was drawn up between Bombardier and Delta, so it is difficult to ascertain if dumping is taking place.

As I understand it it depends if they use Normal Value or Constructed Value for their comparison.

Normal value is based mostly on the price the product is sold elsewhere (including the Air Canada sales), but Constructed Value is based on the actual cost of production of the units concerned (i.e. specifically the Delta ones). This would include production costs, marketing etc, plus a profit margin. I think the preference is to use Normal Value unless there is no available comparison, which would not apply in this case.

In terms of the values you specify above, if the Delta planes were sold at less than market value, then the Commerce Department can claim they are dumped. However the ITC has to determine material damage to Boeing before any actual tariffs can be imposed. If Boeing only manage to show the dumping was in the order of $1m per plane, the tariffs aren't going to amount to much.

But this is arbitrary, since Boeing is claiming a price differential much higher than $1m.

ytz wrote:

If Boeing succeeds, I hope the Canadian government pursues sanction which permanently exclude all Boeing aircraft. Commercial and military from further consideration in Canada. Air Canada and Westjet should both face extreme pressure to drop their 737 Max orders. Or pay more for them.

It's ridiculous that Boeing gets more subsidies from Washington State alone than Bombardier has gotten in its lifetime. There's also production in "right-to-work" states and subsidies from other countries like Japan. Boeing also gets to quietly develop a lot of knowledge and expertise on the military side of the house that they slowly transfer to the civilian side. Oh there's rules against all that. But somehow, they never get enforced against Boeing.

And we all know Boeing would never try this against Comac or Sukhoi because those markets are important. That tells me that the Canadian government needs to step up and make sure Boeing feels incredible pain if Bombardier loses this dispute.

If the Trudeau government doesn't defend Bombardier aggressively, they've lost my vote and donations.

Tone down the nationalism buddy. What you are essentially saying is to have Boeing blocked from RFPs. Airbus would laugh all the way to the bank as there wouldn't be a commercial competitor. Just because Boeing is the larger competitor doesn't make it a "bully".

bigjku wrote:

I am sorry if that offends people but Bombardier appears to be clearly in violation of the law. ... It seems pretty clear cut.

You are the only one around who seem to have it so clear, but hey, why to doubt!

Jayafe wrote:

bigjku wrote:

I am sorry if that offends people but Bombardier appears to be clearly in violation of the law. ... It seems pretty clear cut.

You are the only one around who seem to have it so clear, but hey, why to doubt!

No one seems to want to dispute the chain of events or offer an actual logical defense to dumping claims.

1. Company crippling expenses.
2. Government bailout.
3. Sale that is being said to be dumping happens.

We know the first two happened. The only real defense for Bombardier would be an accurate accounting of the cost of making the plane. We took some guesses at program accounting and I don't think they can make the numbers work. But it seems apparent they made no such defense of the program in their legal response or have they done so publicly.

Moreover the behavior of the Canadian government hasn't really denied that any of this occurred. It has been a mixture of bluster and threats from the moment it was filed. I can't see at any point where someone flat said we didn't break the rules.

bigjku wrote:

...We took some guesses at program accounting and I don't think they can make the numbers work...

...Moreover the behavior of the Canadian government hasn't really denied that any of this occurred. It has been a mixture of bluster and threats from the moment it was filed...

That's what I call solid evidences, indeed

zckls04 wrote:

bigjku wrote:

Everyone keeps bringing up other issues but no one has really tried to make a case that this particular case doesn't constitute state supported dumping. Probably because the facts are fairly public and well documented. IMHO no case against Airbus or Boeing has ever been as clear as this.

I think for many people, particularly aviation enthusiasts, it's hard to look at this from a purely legal standpoint. Boeing is using the anti-dumping laws to attempt to stamp out the competition- that's bad for lovers of aircraft and bad for the consumer as well. It may be perfectly legal but it smacks of cronyism and corruption.

I don't blame Boeing one bit of course- its only responsibility is to do what's best for the shareholders. I do worry though, as have others, that they're choosing to litigate rather than innovate their way out of the problem.

More like BBD is paying the price for their corruption and cronyism. Granted it was likely done out of desperation on their part, but nonetheless it's unacceptable behavior because it harms innovation and competition on an industry-wide scale. There's a reason there are laws against excessive state support, after all.

PPVRA wrote:

zckls04 wrote:

bigjku wrote:

Everyone keeps bringing up other issues but no one has really tried to make a case that this particular case doesn't constitute state supported dumping. Probably because the facts are fairly public and well documented. IMHO no case against Airbus or Boeing has ever been as clear as this.

I think for many people, particularly aviation enthusiasts, it's hard to look at this from a purely legal standpoint. Boeing is using the anti-dumping laws to attempt to stamp out the competition- that's bad for lovers of aircraft and bad for the consumer as well. It may be perfectly legal but it smacks of cronyism and corruption.

I don't blame Boeing one bit of course- its only responsibility is to do what's best for the shareholders. I do worry though, as have others, that they're choosing to litigate rather than innovate their way out of the problem.

More like BBD is paying the price for their corruption and cronyism. Granted it was likely done out of desperation on their part, but nonetheless it's unacceptable behavior because it harms innovation and competition on an industry-wide scale. There's a reason there are laws against excessive state support, after all.

How ironic that the revolutionary clean sheet narrowbody design being sold at discount to one US customer is being heralded as harming innovation. You do know the 737s Boeing attempted to flood UA with last year had 1990's engines and an innovative 1950's nose and cross section, right?

Jamie514 wrote:

PPVRA wrote:

zckls04 wrote:

I think for many people, particularly aviation enthusiasts, it's hard to look at this from a purely legal standpoint. Boeing is using the anti-dumping laws to attempt to stamp out the competition- that's bad for lovers of aircraft and bad for the consumer as well. It may be perfectly legal but it smacks of cronyism and corruption.

I don't blame Boeing one bit of course- its only responsibility is to do what's best for the shareholders. I do worry though, as have others, that they're choosing to litigate rather than innovate their way out of the problem.

More like BBD is paying the price for their corruption and cronyism. Granted it was likely done out of desperation on their part, but nonetheless it's unacceptable behavior because it harms innovation and competition on an industry-wide scale. There's a reason there are laws against excessive state support, after all.

How ironic that the revolutionary clean sheet narrowbody design being sold at discount to one US customer is being heralded as harming innovation. You do know the 737s Boeing attempted to flood UA with last year had 1990's engines and an innovative 1950's nose and cross section, right?

That's because you're being short-sighted. You harm competition, you harm innovation in the long run. You dump your mismanaged program on the market with taxpayer assistance, you ruin the market for everybody else. That doesn't bode well for the future of the industry.

PPVRA wrote:

Jamie514 wrote:

PPVRA wrote:

More like BBD is paying the price for their corruption and cronyism. Granted it was likely done out of desperation on their part, but nonetheless it's unacceptable behavior because it harms innovation and competition on an industry-wide scale. There's a reason there are laws against excessive state support, after all.

How ironic that the revolutionary clean sheet narrowbody design being sold at discount to one US customer is being heralded as harming innovation. You do know the 737s Boeing attempted to flood UA with last year had 1990's engines and an innovative 1950's nose and cross section, right?

That's because you're being short-sighted. You harm competition, you harm innovation in the long run. You dump your mismanaged program on the market with taxpayer assistance, you ruin the market for everybody else. That doesn't bode well for the future of the industry.

Maybe in your perspective innovation is different if its funded with public money in a photo-op. Innovation is innovation. Dumping 20 year old revisions of 55 year old models at well below value because "the money was sunk" to prevent a sale of the brand new much more effecient plane is good for the future of the industry though, and the planet. Got it! Thanks for your input!

LAXintl wrote:

Amiga500 wrote:

Playing clean won't win.

If BBD had played clean it would not be facing these charges.

The entire C-series program financial structure and ownership have become quite dubious and rightfully opens BBD up to questions.

Hmm, is this some "Quod licet Iovi, ..." thing you bring up here?