User avatar
hOMSaR
Posts: 1731
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 4:47 am

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Fri Oct 06, 2017 2:32 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
hOMSaR wrote:
No, that's incorrect (and ridiculous to suggest that a plane could have >100% any content).


What is important to the US in this argument?

Whether the Canadians are dumping raw materials from other countries into the US (how dare they pollute the land of the free), or whether the Canadians are taking jobs/wages/income out of the US? 'Cos if its the latter, and the US suppliers are getting paid more by BBD than DL are paying BBD for the airframe...


Saying that more value gets exported than imported is not the same as saying a plane has 100% US content.
The plural of Airbus is Airbuses. Airbii is not a word.
There is no 787-800, nor 787-900 or 747-800. It's 787-8, 787-9, and 747-8.
A321neoLR is also unnecessary. It's simply A321LR.
Airplanes don't have isles, they have aisles.
 
AirbusCanada
Posts: 615
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 5:14 am

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Fri Oct 06, 2017 2:34 pm

bigjku wrote:
prestwick wrote:
This will make the third attempt by the US to destroy the Canadian aircraft industry. The Avro jetliner, years in advance of the first US passenger turbine powered aircraft. Trueman coerced the Cdn govt to halt it supposedly so that Cda would devote all its resources to the CF 100. Really to protect Boeing and Douglas. Then there was the Arrow --- the most advanced figbter interceptor in the world by probably 10 years. US convinced Diefenbaker to cancel it and buy missiles saying fighter aircraft were no longer useful. Then they pressured the Cdn govt to buy obsolete Voodoos and Starfighters.

In both these cases, the aviation industry here was set back years and thousands of high tech jobs went to the US.


The Arrow story is always my favorite. I am sure it’s failure was 100% because of outside interference and had nothing to do with the fact that the F-4 was around and cheaper and more versatile while beating nearly as good of an interceptor. Nor would it have anything to do with interceptors being cancelled all over the western world such as the F-108 and YF-12 in the US and the F.155 program in the UK.

No the Arrow was the best fighter on earth. No one bought it because of US sabotage. Seems pretty clear to me.


I do agree with you on the point the blame for cancelling the Arrow program rests with Canadian Industrial and Defense policy makers at that time.

However, Thanks to massive pentagon budget, The U.S. Defense contractors get "free" R&D money and dump finished products at a marginal cost on rest of the world, decimating Aerospace industries in NATO and most of the OECD countries.

This caused dozens of Aerospace projects to die in their infancy in the 50's and 60's across NATO countries as you pointed out.
Only way any OECD country can enter the Aerospace business is by pumping govt money to develop civil products and hope to recoup the investment via exports. Most of the G-20 countries have been pumping government money into their civil aerospace industry for decades.

Conveniently for the U.S, any Govt money pumped directly into civil aerospace projects are "illegal", while its’ completely “kosher” to siphon money to civil aerospace projects form "Defense R&D" grants awarded by the governments.[707(predecessor to 737) ,747 & 787 was developed with govt grants siphon from defense projects]

I wonder how the U.S. policy makers or public would react, if Europe/Japan/Korea/China and other major auto producing nations put anti-dumping Measure on U.S Banking and/or Auto Industry right after the Bailout money was released to them during the last recession, with the aim of buying/killing major U.S. based Auto/Banking companies.

If that were to happen, I am sure the U.S Public/Govt will never blame the fall of their Auto/Banking industry to Foreign govt, and everything will be blamed on the senior executives.
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 470
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Fri Oct 06, 2017 4:23 pm

hOMSaR wrote:
Saying that more value gets exported than imported is not the same as saying a plane has 100% US content.


Yep, you have hit the nail on the head their buddy. Your statement is 100% correct. Unfortunately your comments are only vaguely related to what Amiga500 & I actually said. :lol:

I think I can see where you went wrong. Let's go back to what Amiga500 actually said.
Amiga500 wrote:
Theoretically, it'd be possible for the first CS100 sold to Delta to have >100% US content based on what was paid to suppliers and what was paid by Delta!!

Some of your other statements are reasonably accurate.
hOMSaR wrote:
Percentage of components from different origin has nothing to do with sales price.
I'd presume "55%" is based on the cost of the individual components relative to the cost of the whole airframe.

:checkmark:

But Amiga500 isn't talking about the cost of the whole airframe; he stated specifically it was the value of US components (at full list price) versus "what was paid by Delta", i.e. a heavily discounted price, a price that some people claim was below cost. What part of this equation do you fail to understand? :banghead:

Amiga500 is right. Theoretically every heavily discounted CS100 imported from Canada, could simultaneously represent an even larger export value (in hard $$$) in terms of raw components. And it would be correct to describe the US component content as being 110% or more of the discounted sale price. It's just a supposition; I don't have the numbers to know how close that could be to the truth.
There are two things that happen when you get old.
1. You start to lose your memory.
2. What was I saying again?
 
LightningZ71
Posts: 334
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2016 10:59 pm

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Fri Oct 06, 2017 4:24 pm

(it appears that the post that this one replies to has been deleted or changed, I'm leaving this here just for the sake of recording what was here)

LOL, Europe, Japan, Korea and China would actually have to IMPORT a significant amount of US manufactured products for them to put anti-dumping measures on US produced autos. BY FAR, the autos imported from the US to those countries are made mostly by the very companies that they are trying to protect. Ford produces almost all of their foreign sold vehicles in the regions that they are sold into, save for a small number of Mustangs and SUVs. GM has largely pulled out of Europe and produces products for other regions mainly in those regions. The same goes for a lot of the foreign owned manufacturers, they manufacture much of what they sell in the US, in the US. What they don't, they import. If they had slapped huge tariffs/anti-dumping fines on US products, it would have been a drop in the bucket for what the majors in the US make, and if they would have included ALL AUTOS in the US in them, it would have harmed their own companies more. In point of fact, the incentives that were made available to the domestic auto industry (aside from the US loans and equity purchases) were also available to imported vehicles, which companies like BMW took full advantage of. Also, on a market segmentation basis, competing US products were also sold at roughly equivalent prices to what imported products were sold at, so there was no huge loss leading dumping going on in the first place, except where there were rebates, and that is a vehicle that was also available to the imported autos as well.

The crux of this case is that Bombardier is selling the C-series to Delta at below the marginal cost of production, and only able to do so because of "massive" government financial backing. This isn't just not paying for R&D, they are accused of selling below the cost of the labor and materials that go into each plane. The price that Boeing is said to have sold the 737 to United at is quite low, but, it likely at least covers the labor and materials. It may not make Boeing any money, but it also likely isn't actively costing them extra money to move each frame on a materials and labor basis. That being said, it could be that, through their accounting, they aren't charging those frames with any fixed costs to cover either (think construction hangar maintenance, electricity, transportation of parts, etc. That's accounting sleight of hand that doesn't always come up in these sorts of disputes. I'll grant that I have no way of knowing if that is the case or not, just that it is a possibility. They can claim that they already amortized those costs on previously scheduled frames and have no need to charge those frames with that overhead as well.
 
washingtonflyer
Posts: 1160
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:45 pm

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Fri Oct 06, 2017 4:57 pm

79.82% just announced.
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 470
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Fri Oct 06, 2017 5:16 pm

washingtonflyer wrote:
79.82% just announced.


Fantastic news! Let's have a party. That is just so much better than the awful 220%. I bet BBD and the whole of Canada is whooping it up right now. :bouncy:

Oh, hang on, that's exactly what Boeing were hoping for; relief at a lower figure that is still TOTALLY OUTRAGEOUS.
There are two things that happen when you get old.
1. You start to lose your memory.
2. What was I saying again?
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 25817
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Fri Oct 06, 2017 5:17 pm

ROUND 2: U.S. Department of Commerce announces another 79.82% tariff on Bombardier C Series imports.


https://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/ ... 0146404352
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
LockheedBBD
Posts: 207
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 6:59 pm

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Fri Oct 06, 2017 5:18 pm

washingtonflyer wrote:
79.82% just announced.


Looks like they went with Boeing's initial number. It doesn't really make a difference at the end of the day. They could have made it 1000%, but no airline in the US would buy the CSeries anyways because the 200% subsidy tariff already kills it.
 
User avatar
LockheedBBD
Posts: 207
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 6:59 pm

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Fri Oct 06, 2017 5:19 pm

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
washingtonflyer wrote:
79.82% just announced.


Fantastic news! Let's have a party. That is just so much better than the awful 220%. I bet BBD and the whole of Canada is whooping it up right now. :bouncy:

Oh, hang on, that's exactly what Boeing were hoping for; relief at a lower figure that is still TOTALLY OUTRAGEOUS.


This is an 80% tariff on top of the 200% tariff announced last week. So 300% in tariffs for CSeries imports into the U.S.
Last edited by LockheedBBD on Fri Oct 06, 2017 5:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
yyztpa
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 7:10 am

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Fri Oct 06, 2017 5:23 pm

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
washingtonflyer wrote:
79.82% just announced.


Fantastic news! Let's have a party. That is just so much better than the awful 220%. I bet BBD and the whole of Canada is whooping it up right now. :bouncy:

Oh, hang on, that's exactly what Boeing were hoping for; relief at a lower figure that is still TOTALLY OUTRAGEOUS.

I thought this is in addition to the 220? This would cover the damage to Boeing. If so and collected, does this go to Boeing in response to their inability to compete?
 
User avatar
LockheedBBD
Posts: 207
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 6:59 pm

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Fri Oct 06, 2017 5:29 pm

yyztpa wrote:
I thought this is in addition to the 220?


It is in addition to the 220% tariff, for a total of 300% on the CSeries.
Last edited by LockheedBBD on Fri Oct 06, 2017 5:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 25817
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Fri Oct 06, 2017 5:31 pm

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
washingtonflyer wrote:
79.82% just announced.


Fantastic news! Let's have a party. That is just so much better than the awful 220%. I bet BBD and the whole of Canada is whooping it up right now. :bouncy:

Oh, hang on, that's exactly what Boeing were hoping for; relief at a lower figure that is still TOTALLY OUTRAGEOUS.


To be clear, that's another 80% on top of the previous announced tariff. So basically a 300% tariff on CSeries import.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Topic Author
Posts: 22018
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Fri Oct 06, 2017 5:32 pm

The ~300% percent combined tariff is fully enforceable and remains in place until final ITC ruling expected in February.


U.S. Hits Bombardier With Anti-Dumping Duty
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2017/10 ... merce.html

US slaps additional tariff on Bombardier’s jet
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... complaint/

=
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
yyztpa
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 7:10 am

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Fri Oct 06, 2017 5:33 pm

yyztpa wrote:
SheikhDjibouti wrote:
washingtonflyer wrote:
79.82% just announced.


Fantastic news! Let's have a party. That is just so much better than the awful 220%. I bet BBD and the whole of Canada is whooping it up right now. :bouncy:

Oh, hang on, that's exactly what Boeing were hoping for; relief at a lower figure that is still TOTALLY OUTRAGEOUS.

I thought this is in addition to the 220? This would cover the damage to Boeing. If so and collected, does this go to Boeing in response to their inability to compete?

I think Boeing should just stop designing, developing and building new airlinerand just litigate. Seems to be a lot more profitable.
 
washingtonflyer
Posts: 1160
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:45 pm

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Fri Oct 06, 2017 5:34 pm

Duties go to the U.S. government, not to the petitioner. Its been that way since the Byrd Amendment was repealed.
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Topic Author
Posts: 22018
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Fri Oct 06, 2017 5:38 pm

As posted in one of my linked articles above, once ITC issues its final ruling, Canada is left with limited recourse.

Bombardier would have the right appeal the decision to higher courts, such as the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York or to an international forum like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) or the World Trade Organization (WTO), but such appeals typically are lengthy processes taking years, meantime, the tariffs will remain in place.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
washingtonflyer
Posts: 1160
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:45 pm

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Fri Oct 06, 2017 5:39 pm

Duties go to the U.S. government, not to the petitioner. Its been that way since the Byrd Amendment was repealed.
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 470
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Fri Oct 06, 2017 5:47 pm

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
79.82% just announced.

Fantastic news! Let's have a party. That is just so much better than the awful 220%. I bet BBD and the whole of Canada is whooping it up right now. :bouncy:

Oh, hang on, that's exactly what Boeing were hoping for; relief at a lower figure that is still TOTALLY OUTRAGEOUS.

KarelXWB wrote:
To be clear, that's another 80% on top of the previous announced tariff. So basically a 300% tariff on CSeries import.


Yes, I can see where my earlier post could be misinterpreted - my bad - I was just so excited with the news I didn't scan my own words.
If it still isn't clear, I am commenting on the fact that in comparison to the original 220%, and additional 80% is a relief.

As to who is getting the money; the announcement came from the US Dept of Commerce, so it will be collected in Washington.
Whether it eventually finds it way to Seattle (Washington) is another matter. :lol:
There are two things that happen when you get old.
1. You start to lose your memory.
2. What was I saying again?
 
User avatar
mercure1
Posts: 3664
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 5:13 am

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Fri Oct 06, 2017 5:51 pm

Good.

Long established trade rules make it clear dumping in foreign markets is a no-no. Should not matter is its apples or airplanes.
 
many321
Posts: 68
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2017 6:15 am

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Fri Oct 06, 2017 5:58 pm

What do you expect when you have mental cases running the American government at the moment.
 
User avatar
LockheedBBD
Posts: 207
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 6:59 pm

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Fri Oct 06, 2017 6:14 pm

many321 wrote:
What do you expect when you have mental cases running the American government at the moment.


Can you blame them for protecting their own interests?
 
CS500
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2017 4:31 pm

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Fri Oct 06, 2017 6:15 pm

The logic in this part of the ruling makes it impossible to sell any new aircraft into the US market.
 
User avatar
LockheedBBD
Posts: 207
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 6:59 pm

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Fri Oct 06, 2017 6:20 pm

CS500 wrote:
The logic in this part of the ruling makes it impossible to sell any new aircraft into the US market.


Embraer will have no problems selling their new E2 in the US. With no obvious subsidies or competition with Boeing, no American company will complain about Embraer.
 
CS500
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2017 4:31 pm

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Fri Oct 06, 2017 6:30 pm

LockheedBBD wrote:
CS500 wrote:
The logic in this part of the ruling makes it impossible to sell any new aircraft into the US market.


Embraer will have no problems selling their new E2 in the US. With no obvious subsidies or competition with Boeing, no American company will complain about Embraer.


This part of the ruling has nothing to do with subsidies, and the E2 is firmly in the 100-150 seat market.

This same ruling can likely be applied vs the A350 (we will see if Boeing gets adventurous, as all new planes cost much more to make than the sales price for the early frames.
 
jmt18325
Posts: 123
Joined: Sat May 07, 2016 6:08 pm

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Fri Oct 06, 2017 6:36 pm

LockheedBBD wrote:
yyztpa wrote:
I thought this is in addition to the 220?


It is in addition to the 220% tariff, for a total of 300% on the CSeries.


It might as well be infinity billion percent.
 
washingtonflyer
Posts: 1160
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:45 pm

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Fri Oct 06, 2017 6:42 pm

CS500 wrote:
LockheedBBD wrote:
CS500 wrote:
The logic in this part of the ruling makes it impossible to sell any new aircraft into the US market.


Embraer will have no problems selling their new E2 in the US. With no obvious subsidies or competition with Boeing, no American company will complain about Embraer.


This part of the ruling has nothing to do with subsidies, and the E2 is firmly in the 100-150 seat market.

This same ruling can likely be applied vs the A350 (we will see if Boeing gets adventurous, as all new planes cost much more to make than the sales price for the early frames.


I wouldn't read too much Into the margin on this one. Bombardier refused to cooperate so they got hit with the petition rate.
 
User avatar
hOMSaR
Posts: 1731
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 4:47 am

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Fri Oct 06, 2017 6:45 pm

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
hOMSaR wrote:
Saying that more value gets exported than imported is not the same as saying a plane has 100% US content.


Yep, you have hit the nail on the head their buddy. Your statement is 100% correct. Unfortunately your comments are only vaguely related to what Amiga500 & I actually said. :lol:

I think I can see where you went wrong. Let's go back to what Amiga500 actually said.
Amiga500 wrote:
Theoretically, it'd be possible for the first CS100 sold to Delta to have >100% US content based on what was paid to suppliers and what was paid by Delta!!

Some of your other statements are reasonably accurate.
hOMSaR wrote:
Percentage of components from different origin has nothing to do with sales price.
I'd presume "55%" is based on the cost of the individual components relative to the cost of the whole airframe.

:checkmark:

But Amiga500 isn't talking about the cost of the whole airframe; he stated specifically it was the value of US components (at full list price) versus "what was paid by Delta", i.e. a heavily discounted price, a price that some people claim was below cost. What part of this equation do you fail to understand? :banghead:

Amiga500 is right. Theoretically every heavily discounted CS100 imported from Canada, could simultaneously represent an even larger export value (in hard $$$) in terms of raw components. And it would be correct to describe the US component content as being 110% or more of the discounted sale price. It's just a supposition; I don't have the numbers to know how close that could be to the truth.


Bang your head against the wall all you want. Amiga responded to a comment that the CSeries had 55% US content by claiming that it could have 100% US content based on sales price. He mixed apples and oranges. The percentage content of the CSeries must add up to 100%.
The plural of Airbus is Airbuses. Airbii is not a word.
There is no 787-800, nor 787-900 or 747-800. It's 787-8, 787-9, and 747-8.
A321neoLR is also unnecessary. It's simply A321LR.
Airplanes don't have isles, they have aisles.
 
iamlucky13
Posts: 846
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:35 pm

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Fri Oct 06, 2017 6:47 pm

Utterly absurd. I'm not sure I can defend Bombardier's aid or pricing, but the scale of duties is completely unsupportable.
 
surfdog75
Posts: 266
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 5:39 am

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Fri Oct 06, 2017 6:51 pm

washingtonflyer wrote:
Duties go to the U.S. government, not to the petitioner. Its been that way since the Byrd Amendment was repealed.


Wonder if the ridiculous tariffs will be tax deductible for Delta?
 
many321
Posts: 68
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2017 6:15 am

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Fri Oct 06, 2017 6:53 pm

LockheedBBD wrote:
many321 wrote:
What do you expect when you have mental cases running the American government at the moment.


Can you blame them for protecting their own interests?


hahahha If you say so.
 
washingtonflyer
Posts: 1160
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:45 pm

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Fri Oct 06, 2017 6:54 pm

We're swinging back into the realm of customs value and now country of origin. If you take Chinese poplar wood, Korean nails, Indian velvet, and ship them to Canada and assemble them into a nice gift box (with Canadian glue), you've got a Canadian product even though 90% of the value of the goods came from outside Canada. You have a "substantial transformation".

When you take components of American engines, UK wings, US radio sets, Korean seats, and assemble them into a finished aircraft in Canada, you have a Canadian product. You can claim an offset for -some- of the American components but basically only if they were not further advanced in any way, shape or form in Canada. Someone brought up the engines from Pratt & Whitney in Connecticut. It turns out that those engines undergo final assembly in Canada. So, you're not going to be able to claim an offset for the engines.

What CBP is going to do to assess the dutiability of the product on is the invoice value of the merchandise with some adjustments if the importer of record wants to claim american goods reimported status for those goods.
 
washingtonflyer
Posts: 1160
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:45 pm

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Fri Oct 06, 2017 6:55 pm

iamlucky13 wrote:
Utterly absurd. I'm not sure I can defend Bombardier's aid or pricing, but the scale of duties is completely unsupportable.


Again, the dumping deposit rate is based on the petition rate. Bombardier refused to answer Commerce's questions. So, Commerce found that the only margin on record is the margin that the Petitioner proposed.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4266
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Fri Oct 06, 2017 6:58 pm

So American workers and companies get harmed...but one of them isn't Boeing. Delta, Pratt and many other US entities would have benefited from the sale, but now will lose business because of Boeing...which was never harmed in any way, and won't win any more sales because of the decision.

Not a single person, nor Boeing itself, has been able to show how Boeing, or the US aerospace industry, was actually harmed in any way by the sale of CS100's to Delta.

But...it's a trumpian world, after all.
What the...?
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4266
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Fri Oct 06, 2017 7:03 pm

washingtonflyer wrote:
iamlucky13 wrote:
Utterly absurd. I'm not sure I can defend Bombardier's aid or pricing, but the scale of duties is completely unsupportable.


Again, the dumping deposit rate is based on the petition rate. Bombardier refused to answer Commerce's questions. So, Commerce found that the only margin on record is the margin that the Petitioner proposed.


Really? BBD and others gave more than enough testimony at various hearings in this laughably absurd process, and you claim that reality would somehow have reared its, so far completely silent, head to fend off the latest of the twisted rulings from Commerce?

You said you were a lawyer, right? I believe you.
What the...?
 
User avatar
LockheedBBD
Posts: 207
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 6:59 pm

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Fri Oct 06, 2017 7:05 pm

JoeCanuck wrote:
Not a single person, nor Boeing itself, has been able to show how Boeing, or the US aerospace industry, was actually harmed in any way by the sale of CS100's to Delta.

But...it's a trumpian world, after all.



https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boei ... SKBN1CB29X
U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said the decision would help protect U.S. jobs, in line with President Donald Trump’s “America First” policy.

We will ... do everything in our power [...]” Ross said in a statement.



I've highlighted the important parts :spit:
 
User avatar
FoxtrotSierra
Posts: 368
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2017 7:06 am

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Fri Oct 06, 2017 7:09 pm

At this point, it literally does not make any difference if this is 300% or 3000%. I cannot take anything that comes from the DOC seriously after this. An additional 80% tariff on top of Bombardier basically eliminates any remaining hesitation within Canada and the UK over slapping a reciprocal ban/tariff against the US/Boeing. After a second tariff, Canada and the UK have now almost certainly realized that the only way to control the insanity of the US and Boeing is to give them a taste of their own medicine.
 
washingtonflyer
Posts: 1160
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:45 pm

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Fri Oct 06, 2017 7:14 pm

JoeCanuck wrote:
washingtonflyer wrote:
iamlucky13 wrote:
Utterly absurd. I'm not sure I can defend Bombardier's aid or pricing, but the scale of duties is completely unsupportable.


Again, the dumping deposit rate is based on the petition rate. Bombardier refused to answer Commerce's questions. So, Commerce found that the only margin on record is the margin that the Petitioner proposed.


Really? BBD and others gave more than enough testimony at various hearings in this laughably absurd process, and you claim that reality would somehow have reared its, so far completely silent, head to fend off the latest of the twisted rulings from Commerce?

You said you were a lawyer, right? I believe you.


Its obvious you have no idea what you are talking about.

BBD gave testimony at the USITC hearing. That is completely different than the process at the USDOC. What happens at the USITC is directed towards assessing the question as to whether imports of a product are causing harm or threatening to cause harm to a U.S. industry that produces that product. The records are separate and one agency does not review the record from the other agency except for the official determinations (unless one party transfers public information to the other record or proffers their own confidential information to the other record).

The USDOC was asked to look at two things.

- USDOC was asked to examine if BBD benefited from subsidies that are illegal and distortive. USDOC answered (preliminarily) - yes.

- USDOC was asked to examine if BBD was selling goods in the United States at less than fair value.

On this second task, BBD refused to answer USDOC's questions. USDOC gave BBD two if not three opportunities to respond to its questionnaire. BBD's response was that it wasn't going to because BBD claimed that there was nothing to examine (i.e., there were no sales).

If the IRS calls you in for an audit and you tell the IRS, "I think your questions are stupid and irrelevant and I'm not going to give you any records", don't be surprised when the IRS tags you with a nice penalty. No different than what happened here with the USDOC.
Last edited by washingtonflyer on Fri Oct 06, 2017 7:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
bigjku
Posts: 1135
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Fri Oct 06, 2017 7:14 pm

FoxtrotSierra wrote:
At this point, it literally does not make any difference if this is 300% or 3000%. I cannot take anything that comes from the DOC seriously after this. An additional 80% tariff on top of Bombardier basically eliminates any remaining hesitation within Canada and the UK over slapping a reciprocal ban/tariff against the US/Boeing. After a second tariff, Canada and the UK have now almost certainly realized that the only way to control the insanity of the US and Boeing is to give them a taste of their own medicine.


Would bet a great deal of money they don’t because like it or not Western and especially Anglo nations are nations of laws. The laws say specific things and the parties that are involved know this. Hell the UK all but admitted it thinks Canada went way too far by leaking what it did to the press.
 
Nean1
Posts: 118
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 11:08 pm

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Fri Oct 06, 2017 7:47 pm

washingtonflyer wrote:
JoeCanuck wrote:
washingtonflyer wrote:

Again, the dumping deposit rate is based on the petition rate. Bombardier refused to answer Commerce's questions. So, Commerce found that the only margin on record is the margin that the Petitioner proposed.


Really? BBD and others gave more than enough testimony at various hearings in this laughably absurd process, and you claim that reality would somehow have reared its, so far completely silent, head to fend off the latest of the twisted rulings from Commerce?

You said you were a lawyer, right? I believe you.


Its obvious you have no idea what you are talking about.

BBD gave testimony at the USITC hearing. That is completely different than the process at the USDOC. What happens at the USITC is directed towards assessing the question as to whether imports of a product are causing harm or threatening to cause harm to a U.S. industry that produces that product. The records are separate and one agency does not review the record from the other agency except for the official determinations (unless one party transfers public information to the other record or proffers their own confidential information to the other record).

The USDOC was asked to look at two things.

- USDOC was asked to examine if BBD benefited from subsidies that are illegal and distortive. USDOC answered (preliminarily) - yes.

- USDOC was asked to examine if BBD was selling goods in the United States at less than fair value.

On this second task, BBD refused to answer USDOC's questions. USDOC gave BBD two if not three opportunities to respond to its questionnaire. BBD's response was that it wasn't going to because BBD claimed that there was nothing to examine (i.e., there were no sales).

If the IRS calls you in for an audit and you tell the IRS, "I think your questions are stupid and irrelevant and I'm not going to give you any records", don't be surprised when the IRS tags you with a nice penalty. No different than what happened here with the USDOC.



I totally agree. The extremely high penalty gives a hint that the BBD must have conducted this issue quite inappropriately, possibly in total disrespect to the commission.
 
leghorn
Posts: 268
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2017 9:13 am

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Fri Oct 06, 2017 7:59 pm

washingtonflyer wrote:
If the IRS calls you in for an audit and you tell the IRS, "I think your questions are stupid and irrelevant and I'm not going to give you any records", don't be surprised when the IRS tags you with a nice penalty. No different than what happened here with the USDOC.

That is a false analogy. The taxman can't penalise you for income you haven't earned yet.
 
washingtonflyer
Posts: 1160
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:45 pm

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Fri Oct 06, 2017 8:01 pm

The point is that a Federal administrative agency has the right to ask questions that it believes are relevant to its investigation.
 
leghorn
Posts: 268
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2017 9:13 am

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Fri Oct 06, 2017 8:07 pm

and then when it throws a strop and levies punitive duties it only escalates a trade war.
 
washingtonflyer
Posts: 1160
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:45 pm

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Fri Oct 06, 2017 8:09 pm

Let me say this, if you think thumbing your nose at a Federal agency is going to get you the result you want (i.e., a low dumping margin), then you're living in a universe that is far, far away.
 
leghorn
Posts: 268
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2017 9:13 am

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Fri Oct 06, 2017 8:14 pm

and let me say this, a trade war and an isolated U.S is the logical conclusion of the unreasonable actions of the Department of Commerce. The U.S. are the aggressors here and I will have no sympathy for them when their "acting out" blows up in their faces.
The DOC may imagine themselves righteous based on the rules they have constructed for themselves but they are being observed by others who frame policy and decide terms of trade abroad.
 
User avatar
FoxtrotSierra
Posts: 368
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2017 7:06 am

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Fri Oct 06, 2017 8:15 pm

bigjku wrote:
Would bet a great deal of money they don’t because like it or not Western and especially Anglo nations are nations of laws. The laws say specific things and the parties that are involved know this.


You might be right about the UK and Canada, but the US is definitely not among them these days...

The biggest problem here is that BBD's situation is not some black and white decision that can be decided based just on the laws. If you follow that view, then Boeing is just as guilty as BBD of price dumping. Frankly speaking, the most logical way, and most likely the approach taken by the ITC/WTO is to look at it in context. Subsidies are one of those things that nobody wants to do but everyone has to in order to survive. It is the lesser of two evils; both companies heavily use subsidies, but which case has more merit? Technically, Boeing is right, but BBD could easily turn around and accuse Boeing of doing the same to prevent others from buying the CSeries. The courts will likely recognize the fact that while BBD is using subsidies, it is ultimately just trying to stay in business by attracting an important customer while Boeing is trying to damage and basically destroy BBD to smithereens. It doesn't take a genius to realize who has the malicious intent here. Additionally, by far the biggest problem for Boeing is trying to prove how exactly BBD harmed Boeing's sales when Boeing does't offer a competing plane.

TLDR: Both sides have done wrong, but BBD's situation is dictated by its need to survive, while Boeing has a malicious intent to take out a competitor- a fact that the courts will likely have to base their decision on as both are guilty of subsidies. Also, Boeing will have a tough time proving any lost sales as they don't offer a competitor.
Last edited by FoxtrotSierra on Fri Oct 06, 2017 8:29 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 
washingtonflyer
Posts: 1160
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:45 pm

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Fri Oct 06, 2017 8:20 pm

leghorn wrote:
and let me say this, a trade war and an isolated U.S is the logical conclusion of the unreasonable actions of the Department of Commerce. The U.S. are the aggressors here and I will have no sympathy for them when their "acting out" blows up in their faces.
The DOC may imagine themselves righteous based on the rules they have constructed for themselves but they are being observed by others who frame policy and decide terms of trade abroad.


There isn't a single investigative authority out there that oversees AD/CVD cases that permits a company to decide for itself what information its going to submit and what information its not going to submit. Emasculation of the investigative agency isn't something the various authorities stand for. Not CBSA in Canada, not SAT in Mexico, not the DGTR in India.
Last edited by washingtonflyer on Fri Oct 06, 2017 8:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
bigjku
Posts: 1135
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Fri Oct 06, 2017 8:20 pm

FoxtrotSierra wrote:
bigjku wrote:
Would bet a great deal of money they don’t because like it or not Western and especially Anglo nations are nations of laws. The laws say specific things and the parties that are involved know this.


You might be right about the UK and Canada, but the US is definitely not among them these days...


It isn’t worth arguing about. If you think there aren’t US companies who feel they run afoul of very arbitrary trade laws in other nations and blocks meant to protect domestics you are kidding yourself.

In this case even one of the partners in the project in the UK has admitted Canada went too far. They don’t like the penalty but it’s clear they know they are asking for forgiveness for something clearly over the line rather than being in position to really scream that it is wrong from a legal standpoint. The public arguments advanced make that pretty clear.

But yes, the US is evil and the law doesn’t matter here. You have me there.
 
Sooner787
Posts: 2021
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 1:44 am

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Fri Oct 06, 2017 8:21 pm

Let's see how Boeing reacts when Canada dumps tariffs on all the Boeing airliners Air Canada and
WestJet have ordered, as well as the Super Hornets the Canadian Air Force were considering.

The Canadians could also ratchet things by requiring visas for American passport holders.

Congrats Boeing, you may have won this battle but will end up losing the war :(
 
texl1649
Posts: 503
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Fri Oct 06, 2017 8:25 pm

washingtonflyer wrote:
JoeCanuck wrote:
washingtonflyer wrote:

Again, the dumping deposit rate is based on the petition rate. Bombardier refused to answer Commerce's questions. So, Commerce found that the only margin on record is the margin that the Petitioner proposed.


Really? BBD and others gave more than enough testimony at various hearings in this laughably absurd process, and you claim that reality would somehow have reared its, so far completely silent, head to fend off the latest of the twisted rulings from Commerce?

You said you were a lawyer, right? I believe you.


Its obvious you have no idea what you are talking about.

BBD gave testimony at the USITC hearing. That is completely different than the process at the USDOC. What happens at the USITC is directed towards assessing the question as to whether imports of a product are causing harm or threatening to cause harm to a U.S. industry that produces that product. The records are separate and one agency does not review the record from the other agency except for the official determinations (unless one party transfers public information to the other record or proffers their own confidential information to the other record).

The USDOC was asked to look at two things.

- USDOC was asked to examine if BBD benefited from subsidies that are illegal and distortive. USDOC answered (preliminarily) - yes.

- USDOC was asked to examine if BBD was selling goods in the United States at less than fair value.

On this second task, BBD refused to answer USDOC's questions. USDOC gave BBD two if not three opportunities to respond to its questionnaire. BBD's response was that it wasn't going to because BBD claimed that there was nothing to examine (i.e., there were no sales).

If the IRS calls you in for an audit and you tell the IRS, "I think your questions are stupid and irrelevant and I'm not going to give you any records", don't be surprised when the IRS tags you with a nice penalty. No different than what happened here with the USDOC.


Well put. There are a vast number of hurt feelings in the aviation/media on this, but it's really not too complicated. Tread lightly vs. bureaucrats no matter what country you are in. Bombardier (which, as we all know, is actually massively subsidized) decided to flip the proverbial bird at USDOC. Now they can deal with the consequences; the main one is that the CS500 won't be launched, if ever, for another 10 years.
 
User avatar
11725Flyer
Posts: 1032
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 4:51 pm

Re: U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Fri Oct 06, 2017 8:26 pm

Sooner787 wrote:
Let's see how Boeing reacts when Canada dumps tariffs on all the Boeing airliners Air Canada and
WestJet have ordered, as well as the Super Hornets the Canadian Air Force were considering.

The Canadians could also ratchet things by requiring visas for American passport holders.

Congrats Boeing, you may have won this battle but will end up losing the war :(


Popcorn ready. Let the retaliatory tariffs on both sides begin.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos