SteelChair wrote:

"Obviously" "I doubt"

Thanks for your opinions, thats a lot different than facts, such as Ed Bastian saying just a few days ago, "We bought Cseries for the innovation, not the price. "

Is that why they bought MD90s and 717s, too?

How naive are you?

SteelChair wrote:

CX747 wrote:

So Canada won't buy 18 Super Hornets? Boeing has already calculated what their loss would be and went forward. 18 Super Hornets and a few deals are not anywhere worth a 30 year CSeries program consistently dumping product in the US.

With all due respect , the US-Canada relationship is a lot more involved than just 18 Super Hornets. Do we really want bad relations with what has historicallly been a great ally, just to favor one company, which frankly is kind of floundering because of its own mistakes and doesn't have a comparable product in any event?

But thanks for pointing out that Boeing has a vested interest in tryimg to limit competition in the marketplace.

With all due respect , the US-Canada relationship is a lot more involved than just 75 C-Series. Do we really want bad relations with what has historicallly been a great ally, just to favor one company, which frankly was bankrupt because of its own mistakes and couldn’t sell an aircraft for 18-months on the open market prior to a huge bailout in any event?

bigjku wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

CX747 wrote:

So Canada won't buy 18 Super Hornets? Boeing has already calculated what their loss would be and went forward. 18 Super Hornets and a few deals are not anywhere worth a 30 year CSeries program consistently dumping product in the US.

With all due respect , the US-Canada relationship is a lot more involved than just 18 Super Hornets. Do we really want bad relations with what has historicallly been a great ally, just to favor one company, which frankly is kind of floundering because of its own mistakes and doesn't have a comparable product in any event?

But thanks for pointing out that Boeing has a vested interest in tryimg to limit competition in the marketplace.

With all due respect , the US-Canada relationship is a lot more involved than just 75 C-Series. Do we really want bad relations with what has historicallly been a great ally, just to favor one company, which frankly was bankrupt because of its own mistakes and couldn’t sell an aircraft for 18-months on the open market prior to a huge bailout in any event?

Imho we should favor open trade and encourage innovation and competition across the board. Our companies wont get any stronger if they are insulated against competition.

Why would BBD not provide all requested information? Well it all depends on what information was requested. If information in regards to exactly what rivets were used in what portion of the aircraft (let's add up the price of all the rivets) might make sense right? Only problem is by giving such information they are actually giving Boeing full R and D info. And if you think Boeing won't see it you are wrong. I don't know exactly what information was requested but I find it likely no one else on this thread does either

PPVRA wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

"Obviously" "I doubt"

Thanks for your opinions, thats a lot different than facts, such as Ed Bastian saying just a few days ago, "We bought Cseries for the innovation, not the price. "

Is that why they bought MD90s and 717s, too?

How naive are you?

Ah yes, resorting to personal insults. Always the end game of a losing argument.

Those deals were each different, and were both made by a prior chief executive who faced severe economic constraints. Times change....... I guess Boeing can't change with them and they need governmnet help to keep selling that 1968 airplane forever. Woo hoo.....more hearing aids for more deaf pilots!

SteelChair wrote:

CX747 wrote:

So Canada won't buy 18 Super Hornets? Boeing has already calculated what their loss would be and went forward. 18 Super Hornets and a few deals are not anywhere worth a 30 year CSeries program consistently dumping product in the US.

With all due respect , the US-Canada relationship is a lot more involved than just 18 Super Hornets. Do we really want bad relations with what has historicallly been a great ally, just to favor one company, which frankly is kind of floundering because of its own mistakes and doesn't have a comparable product in any event?

But thanks for pointing out that Boeing has a vested interest in tryimg to limit competition in the marketplace.

Not quite sure where to begin. I guess we can start with Boeing is not floundering. Not sure where that notion comes from. I've seen it a couple times on this site now and all that statement does is make the site and its users look foolish. Boeing is the largest aerospace company in the world and have production lines humming in both commercial and military applications. The reason both Boeing AND Airbus do not have a brand new jet to compete against the CSeries is the fact that the market WON'T SUPPORT IT. Hence the Canadian government bailout of BBD and dumping of the product to get the sale.

As for Canada being a close ally, they most certainly are. One in which we would hope would treat our market fairly. Boeing isn't going to sit idly by and watch BBD become another Airbus with gov support. Either make it on your own or go belly up in the market like MD or Lockheed.

I hope that this can be worked out between the two countries. The President's silence on the issue is interesting as he normally is not quiet. This could indeed mean he had nothing to say on the issue as the US Gov has ruled on its opinion.

thumper76 wrote:

Why would BBD not provide all requested information? Well it all depends on what information was requested. If information in regards to exactly what rivets were used in what portion of the aircraft (let's add up the price of all the rivets) might make sense right? Only problem is by giving such information they are actually giving Boeing full R and D info. And if you think Boeing won't see it you are wrong. I don't know exactly what information was requested but I find it likely no one else on this thread does either

Why would the DOC request r&d info?

More than likely it was incriminating evidence. And if this became public, depending on what it is it could further complicate their WTO case.

Can one give a proper cost to build without including R and D? R and D is where most of the money is in a new aircraft

thumper76 wrote:

Why would BBD not provide all requested information? Well it all depends on what information was requested. If information in regards to exactly what rivets were used in what portion of the aircraft (let's add up the price of all the rivets) might make sense right? Only problem is by giving such information they are actually giving Boeing full R and D info. And if you think Boeing won't see it you are wrong. I don't know exactly what information was requested but I find it likely no one else on this thread does either

Yep, it's back door spying. they want to know the cost of every widget that Bombardier puts into that plane and whether they can cutdown those cost if they actually decide to purchase the C-Series. It sure would save lots of R&D. As Boeing is concentrated on that MOM project, they need a cheaper way to cover their flank. As 737s have gotten bigger and bigger there a huge hole on the bottom end of the line up. The C-Ceres would cover it up

All of this is to drive the price down to boot.

I still think this is a hostile takeover of Bombardier or forced fire sale of the product that threatens Boeings rear .

I still gunk that if this was a Boeing bird, it would have hundreds more orders.

SteelChair wrote:

PPVRA wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

"Obviously" "I doubt"

Thanks for your opinions, thats a lot different than facts, such as Ed Bastian saying just a few days ago, "We bought Cseries for the innovation, not the price. "

Is that why they bought MD90s and 717s, too?

How naive are you?

Ah yes, resorting to personal insults. Always the end game of a losing argument.

Those deals were each different, and were both made by a prior chief executive who faced severe economic constraints. Times change....... I guess Boeing can't change with them and they need governmnet help to keep selling that 1968 airplane forever. Woo hoo.....more hearing aids for more deaf pilots!

The interesting part here is that Canadian operators love the 737. So much that it will soon dominate the narrowbody fleet of almost every Canadian airline. So much for being outdated. It actually seems to be cutting edge and in style.

SteelChair wrote:

PPVRA wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

"Obviously" "I doubt"

Thanks for your opinions, thats a lot different than facts, such as Ed Bastian saying just a few days ago, "We bought Cseries for the innovation, not the price. "

Is that why they bought MD90s and 717s, too?

How naive are you?

Ah yes, resorting to personal insults. Always the end game of a losing argument.

Those deals were each different, and were both made by a prior chief executive who faced severe economic constraints. Times change....... I guess Boeing can't change with them and they need governmnet help to keep selling that 1968 airplane forever. Woo hoo.....more hearing aids for more deaf pilots!

I’ve countered every one of your arguments so far with evidence, and you’ve ignored just about all of it and instead chosen to scramble to put together another argument.

FYI Delta got the 717s in 2012, a year they did very well financially. Some of the MD90s were purchased in 2011.

Delta didn’t buy those airplanes because they were broke.

SteelChair wrote:

Again, there is no "dumping." There is program accounting earning early customers through discounts for a revolutionary, game changing, all-new jet. Just like Boeing did with the 787. Delta said they didn't buy it because of the price, but because of the innovation.

If there was no dumping, then Bombardier would have had no problem telling that to Commerce, right? Instead they refused to provide a questionnaire response....

Self inflicted wound.

Skywatcher wrote:

I totally agree with Billyjet. Why does nobody else want to buy an aircraft that is discounted by 300% and sells for far less than cost (less than $20 million according to Boeing)?

Because they weren’t discounted by 300% and they weren’t being sold below 20 million per plane. If Boeing claims that which I don’t recall them really doing, they are most likely wrong. The reason it had a hard time selling at least back then is because it was still a few months away from entering service.

767333ER wrote:

Skywatcher wrote:

I totally agree with Billyjet. Why does nobody else want to buy an aircraft that is discounted by 300% and sells for far less than cost (less than $20 million according to Boeing)?

Because they weren’t discounted by 300% and they weren’t being sold below 20 million per plane. If Boeing claims that which I don’t recall them really doing, they are most likely wrong. The reason it had a hard time selling at least back then is because it was still a few months away from entering service.

They couldn’t sell because they kept getting beat on price by both Airbus and Boeing. There are numerous articles to this effect. Then they worked out a deal with the government and were able to sell some to Delta at a price they wouldn’t do business at before. That all seems pretty obvious.

The dumping is around 80% IIRC. The rest is the countervailing subsidies.

I want to ask agian as no one will pickup the question. If it isn’t dumping that means at some point it will be profitable at expected sales prices. If that is the case why no disclose something that looks like program accounting? Good for this dispute, good for stock price, good for orders. Why not do it? The only reason I can see is they don’t project to make much of any money after running through every order they have on the books today plus a reasonable additional amount. Otherwise I see zero reason not to disclose.

CX747 wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

CX747 wrote:

So Canada won't buy 18 Super Hornets? Boeing has already calculated what their loss would be and went forward. 18 Super Hornets and a few deals are not anywhere worth a 30 year CSeries program consistently dumping product in the US.

With all due respect , the US-Canada relationship is a lot more involved than just 18 Super Hornets. Do we really want bad relations with what has historicallly been a great ally, just to favor one company, which frankly is kind of floundering because of its own mistakes and doesn't have a comparable product in any event?

But thanks for pointing out that Boeing has a vested interest in tryimg to limit competition in the marketplace.

Not quite sure where to begin. I guess we can start with Boeing is not floundering. Not sure where that notion comes from. I've seen it a couple times on this site now and all that statement does is make the site and its users look foolish. Boeing is the largest aerospace company in the world and have production lines humming in both commercial and military applications. The reason both Boeing AND Airbus do not have a brand new jet to compete against the CSeries is the fact that the market WON'T SUPPORT IT. Hence the Canadian government bailout of BBD and dumping of the product to get the sale.

As for Canada being a close ally, they most certainly are. One in which we would hope would treat our market fairly. Boeing isn't going to sit idly by and watch BBD become another Airbus with gov support. Either make it on your own or go belly up in the market like MD or Lockheed.

I hope that this can be worked out between the two countries. The President's silence on the issue is interesting as he normally is not quiet. This could indeed mean he had nothing to say on the issue as the US Gov has ruled on its opinion.

Why do I say that Boeing is floundering?

-747-8 = failure
-787 program = 13 years in and has still not paid development costs, probably never will, failure
-737MAX program = compromised 1968 double-rehash = failure
-No small airplane to compete in 110 seat category =failure
-777x, 75% of orders are from state supported ME3, =failure (ironic given their complaints against state supported BBD, double failure)
-Workforce=highly unionized in high cost SEA (kudos for doing CHS though), failure
-KC767, way behind schedule and over budget = huge failure

There 2 or 3 more epic fails that I cant even remember right now.

thumper76 wrote:

Why would BBD not provide all requested information? Well it all depends on what information was requested. If information in regards to exactly what rivets were used in what portion of the aircraft (let's add up the price of all the rivets) might make sense right? Only problem is by giving such information they are actually giving Boeing full R and D info. And if you think Boeing won't see it you are wrong. I don't know exactly what information was requested but I find it likely no one else on this thread does either

I can say with very high certainty that Boeing won't see it. Having worked on these cases for a long time, attorneys do not give info to their clients that they are not permitted to have access to. And I've worked on cases where the level of corporate sensitivity was MUCH higher than a known sale of aircraft to one customer.

SteelChair wrote:

CX747 wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

With all due respect , the US-Canada relationship is a lot more involved than just 18 Super Hornets. Do we really want bad relations with what has historicallly been a great ally, just to favor one company, which frankly is kind of floundering because of its own mistakes and doesn't have a comparable product in any event?

But thanks for pointing out that Boeing has a vested interest in tryimg to limit competition in the marketplace.

Not quite sure where to begin. I guess we can start with Boeing is not floundering. Not sure where that notion comes from. I've seen it a couple times on this site now and all that statement does is make the site and its users look foolish. Boeing is the largest aerospace company in the world and have production lines humming in both commercial and military applications. The reason both Boeing AND Airbus do not have a brand new jet to compete against the CSeries is the fact that the market WON'T SUPPORT IT. Hence the Canadian government bailout of BBD and dumping of the product to get the sale.

As for Canada being a close ally, they most certainly are. One in which we would hope would treat our market fairly. Boeing isn't going to sit idly by and watch BBD become another Airbus with gov support. Either make it on your own or go belly up in the market like MD or Lockheed.

I hope that this can be worked out between the two countries. The President's silence on the issue is interesting as he normally is not quiet. This could indeed mean he had nothing to say on the issue as the US Gov has ruled on its opinion.

Why do I say that Boeing is floundering?

-747-8 = failure
-787 program = 13 years in and has still not paid development costs, probably never will, failure
-737MAX program = compromised 1968 double-rehash = failure
-No small airplane to compete in 110 seat category =failure
-777x, 75% of orders are from state supported ME3, =failure (ironic given their complaints against state supported BBD, double failure)
-Workforce=highly unionized in high cost SEA (kudos for doing CHS though), failure
-KC767, way behind schedule and over budget = huge failure

There 2 or 3 more epic fails that I cant even remember right now.

So how would you compare Boeing's profitability in CY 2016 versus Bombardier?

washingtonflyer wrote:

thumper76 wrote:

Why would BBD not provide all requested information? Well it all depends on what information was requested. If information in regards to exactly what rivets were used in what portion of the aircraft (let's ad9d up the price of all the rivets) might make sense right? Only problem is by giving such information they are actually giving Boeing full R and D info. And if you think Boeing won't see it you are wrong. I don't know exactly what information was requested but I find it higher than a known sale of aircraft to one customer.

The lawyers might not, but what about the para-legals, the secretaries, the interns, the Congressional aides, the understudies, and all the other pieces of the food chain?

The fact is that once the data is released it cannot be controlled. No one can guarantee it will remain confidential.

I remember one ime the frozen orange juice concentrate report was stolen.....haha

washingtonflyer wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

CX747 wrote:

Not quite sure where to begin. I guess we can start with Boeing is not floundering. Not sure where that notion comes from. I've seen it a couple times on this site now and all that statement does is make the site and its users look foolish. Boeing is the largest aerospace company in the world and have production lines humming in both commercial and military applications. The reason both Boeing AND Airbus do not have a brand new jet to compete against the CSeries is the fact that the market WON'T SUPPORT IT. Hence the Canadian government bailout of BBD and dumping of the product to get the sale.

As for Canada being a close ally, they most certainly are. One in which we would hope would treat our market fairly. Boeing isn't going to sit idly by and watch BBD become another Airbus with gov support. Either make it on your own or go belly up in the market like MD or Lockheed.

I hope that this can be worked out between the two countries. The President's silence on the issue is interesting as he normally is not quiet. This could indeed mean he had nothing to say on the issue as the US Gov has ruled on its opinion.

Why do I say that Boeing is floundering?

-747-8 = failure
-787 program = 13 years in and has still not paid development costs, probably never will, failure
-737MAX program = compromised 1968 double-rehash = failure
-No small airplane to compete in 110 seat category =failure
-777x, 75% of orders are from state supported ME3, =failure (ironic given their complaints against state supported BBD, double failure)
-Workforce=highly unionized in high cost SEA (kudos for doing CHS though), failure
-KC767, way behind schedule and over budget = huge failure

There 2 or 3 more epic fails that I cant even remember right now.

So how would you compare Boeing's profitability in CY 2016 versus Bombardier?

So you agree that all the things i listed are fails?

SteelChair wrote:

washingtonflyer wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

Why do I say that Boeing is floundering?

-747-8 = failure
-787 program = 13 years in and has still not paid development costs, probably never will, failure
-737MAX program = compromised 1968 double-rehash = failure
-No small airplane to compete in 110 seat category =failure
-777x, 75% of orders are from state supported ME3, =failure (ironic given their complaints against state supported BBD, double failure)
-Workforce=highly unionized in high cost SEA (kudos for doing CHS though), failure
-KC767, way behind schedule and over budget = huge failure

There 2 or 3 more epic fails that I cant even remember right now.

So how would you compare Boeing's profitability in CY 2016 versus Bombardier?

So you agree that all the things i listed are fails?

Nope, that's your subjective viewpoint of what constitutes a "fail".

So, again, can you provide some guidance on the profitability of BBD versus Boeing in CY 2016?

PPVRA wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

PPVRA wrote:

Is that why they bought MD90s and 717s, too?

How naive are you?

Ah yes, resorting to personal insults. Always the end game of a losing argument.

Those deals were each different, and were both made by a prior chief executive who faced severe economic constraints. Times change....... I guess Boeing can't change with them and they need governmnet help to keep selling that 1968 airplane forever. Woo hoo.....more hearing aids for more deaf pilots!

I’ve countered every one of your arguments so far with evidence, and you’ve ignored just about all of it and instead chosen to scramble to put together another argument.

FYI Delta got the 717s in 2012, a year they did very well financially. Some of the MD90s were purchased in 2011.

Delta didn’t buy those airplanes because they were broke.

I missed your apology for calling me naive.

I believe another poster proved you wrong on that not to long ago. Just a question, are you in on all the hearings? You do talk as to be knowledgeable in the DOC but am wondering if you are present at the hearings. If you are not present (I most certainly am not) then you don't know exactly what is going on and to what extent questions must be answered. In real life it is supposed to be innocent pefore proven guilty! But I am not seeing that in your posts. That being said you are good with words and I have learned a thing or to by reading your posts. For that I thank you.

washingtonflyer wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

washingtonflyer wrote:

So how would you compare Boeing's profitability in CY 2016 versus Bombardier?

So you agree that all the things i listed are fails?

Nope, that's your subjective viewpoint of what constitutes a "fail".

So, again, can you provide some guidance on the profitability of BBD versus Boeing in CY 2016?

Nope, a one year snapshot of a potential 30 year program is not very meaningful.

I will grant that Boeing is far larger and more profitable than Bombardier. So much so in fact that they SHOULD have little to fear. Yet they are afraid. Why? Why arent they concerned about government support of ME3 airlines?

thumper76 wrote:

I believe another poster proved you wrong on that not to long ago. Just a question, are you in on all the hearings? You do talk as to be knowledgeable in the DOC but am wondering if you are present at the hearings. If you are not present (I most certainly am not) then you don't know exactly what is going on and to what extent questions must be answered. In real life it is supposed to be innocent pefore proven guilty! But I am not seeing that in your posts. That being said you are good with words and I have learned a thing or to by reading your posts. For that I thank you.

To whom is this post directed?

SteelChair wrote:

thumper76 wrote:

I believe another poster proved you wrong on that not to long ago. Just a question, are you in on all the hearings? You do talk as to be knowledgeable in the DOC but am wondering if you are present at the hearings. If you are not present (I most certainly am not) then you don't know exactly what is going on and to what extent questions must be answered. In real life it is supposed to be innocent pefore proven guilty! But I am not seeing that in your posts. That being said you are good with words and I have learned a thing or to by reading your posts. For that I thank you.

To whom is this post directed?

Sorry I am new to posting on this site. But have just figured it out. This was directed towards Washingtonflyer

washingtonflyer wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

washingtonflyer wrote:

So how would you compare Boeing's profitability in CY 2016 versus Bombardier?

So you agree that all the things i listed are fails?

Nope, that's your subjective viewpoint of what constitutes a "fail".

So, again, can you provide some guidance on the profitability of BBD versus Boeing in CY 2016?

Mr Lawyer

Please tell me, is it subjective that the 747-8 is a commercial failure, or that the 787 has never paid development costs (ironic given Boeings position against BBD), or that 75% of 777x orders are by state supported ME3 carriers, or that the KC767 is behind schedule and over budget?

SteelChair wrote:

CX747 wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

With all due respect , the US-Canada relationship is a lot more involved than just 18 Super Hornets. Do we really want bad relations with what has historicallly been a great ally, just to favor one company, which frankly is kind of floundering because of its own mistakes and doesn't have a comparable product in any event?

But thanks for pointing out that Boeing has a vested interest in tryimg to limit competition in the marketplace.

Not quite sure where to begin. I guess we can start with Boeing is not floundering. Not sure where that notion comes from. I've seen it a couple times on this site now and all that statement does is make the site and its users look foolish. Boeing is the largest aerospace company in the world and have production lines humming in both commercial and military applications. The reason both Boeing AND Airbus do not have a brand new jet to compete against the CSeries is the fact that the market WON'T SUPPORT IT. Hence the Canadian government bailout of BBD and dumping of the product to get the sale.

As for Canada being a close ally, they most certainly are. One in which we would hope would treat our market fairly. Boeing isn't going to sit idly by and watch BBD become another Airbus with gov support. Either make it on your own or go belly up in the market like MD or Lockheed.

I hope that this can be worked out between the two countries. The President's silence on the issue is interesting as he normally is not quiet. This could indeed mean he had nothing to say on the issue as the US Gov has ruled on its opinion.

Why do I say that Boeing is floundering?

-747-8 = failure
-787 program = 13 years in and has still not paid development costs, probably never will, failure
-737MAX program = compromised 1968 double-rehash = failure
-No small airplane to compete in 110 seat category =failure
-777x, 75% of orders are from state supported ME3, =failure (ironic given their complaints against state supported BBD, double failure)
-Workforce=highly unionized in high cost SEA (kudos for doing CHS though), failure
-KC767, way behind schedule and over budget = huge failure

There 2 or 3 more epic fails that I cant even remember right now.

737=Overwhelming success, sells like hot cakes and the newest MAX birds are bringing in $$$ and have so far entered service seamlessly.
747 Program=Major success for over 40+ years. Cargo market on the rebound. If not, will bow out after a legendary time on the market and producer of massive profits.
767 Program=Major success, current tanker behind but will make plenty of $$$ over the life of the program. Second hand market is tight which means parts sales continue or have increased.
777 Program=Major success. The story for the -8/9 hasn't been written yet. Note the 737 was launched on a small order by Lufthansa.
787 Program=Success after many years learning from cutting edge technology findings and naively attempting to outsource work. Boeing says it is making $$$ and the market continues to snap them up.
797 Program=Time will tell!
Defense programs=F-15, F/A-18, C-17, AH-64, CH-47, B-52, KC-135, KC-10 just to name a few. Both fighter programs received new orders. The Chinook rolls on. Could potentially win USAF jet trainer competition and upcoming USA helicopter replacement programs.

I could go on but Boeing is rock solid with profitable programs and has overcome the snafu that was the 787's birth.

CX747 wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

CX747 wrote:

Not quite sure where to begin. I guess we can start with Boeing is not floundering. Not sure where that notion comes from. I've seen it a couple times on this site now and all that statement does is make the site and its users look foolish. Boeing is the largest aerospace company in the world and have production lines humming in both commercial and military applications. The reason both Boeing AND Airbus do not have a brand new jet to compete against the CSeries is the fact that the market WON'T SUPPORT IT. Hence the Canadian government bailout of BBD and dumping of the product to get the sale.

As for Canada being a close ally, they most certainly are. One in which we would hope would treat our market fairly. Boeing isn't going to sit idly by and watch BBD become another Airbus with gov support. Either make it on your own or go belly up in the market like MD or Lockheed.

I hope that this can be worked out between the two countries. The President's silence on the issue is interesting as he normally is not quiet. This could indeed mean he had nothing to say on the issue as the US Gov has ruled on its opinion.

Why do I say that Boeing is floundering?

-747-8 = failure
-787 program = 13 years in and has still not paid development costs, probably never will, failure
-737MAX program = compromised 1968 double-rehash = failure
-No small airplane to compete in 110 seat category =failure
-777x, 75% of orders are from state supported ME3, =failure (ironic given their complaints against state supported BBD, double failure)
-Workforce=highly unionized in high cost SEA (kudos for doing CHS though), failure
-KC767, way behind schedule and over budget = huge failure

There 2 or 3 more epic fails that I cant even remember right now.

737=Overwhelming success, sells like hot cakes and the newest MAX birds are bringing in $$$ and have so far entered service seamlessly.
747 Program=Major success for over 40+ years. Cargo market on the rebound. If not, will bow out after a legendary time on the market and producer of massive profits.
767 Program=Major success, current tanker behind but will make plenty of $$$ over the life of the program. Second hand market is tight which means parts sales continue or have increased.
777 Program=Major success. The story for the -8/9 hasn't been written yet. Note the 737 was launched on a small order by Lufthansa.
787 Program=Success after many years learning from cutting edge technology findings and naively attempting to outsource work. Boeing says it is making $$$ and the market continues to snap them up.
797 Program=Time will tell!
Defense programs=F-15, F/A-18, C-17, AH-64, CH-47, B-52, KC-135, KC-10 just to name a few. Both fighter programs received new orders. The Chinook rolls on. Could potentially win USAF jet trainer competition and upcoming USA helicopter replacement programs.

I could go on but Boeing is rock solid with profitable programs and has overcome the snafu that was the 787's birth.

Last kc135 delivery was 1957.....hahaha. F15? Really? Youre hilarious.

747-8 is unprofitable.

787 is billions in the hole.

KC767 years behind schedule and over budget.

777x 75% orders to state run ME3 carriers, when Boeing is supposedly worried about state subsidies in aviation.

These facts are indisputable

bigjku wrote:

Both Airbus and Boeing very well could build a 5 wide or 6 wide composite airliner. Both have the knowledge and both have resources that dwarf BBD. They didn’t because the business case for doing so sucks. BBD just happens to have proved the accountants correct by doing something both the big builders figured out was a losing proposition.

Both A and B are very busy with other expensive programs, and they don’t want to direct resources towards developing a new narrowbody. They are perfectly comfortable milking their current designs as absolutely long as possible. They’re essentially saying to each other, “I won’t, if you won’t.”

You can’t use a lack of action by A or B as evidence that the CSeries is a bad business case. I just made a completely viable argument, removed from any discussion of business case, for why A and B haven’t started a new NB program. Personally, I think a lack of desire is a far more likely explanation why A and B haven’t moved on a new NB. Further to that, I think their aggressive actions against BBD are further evidence that they don’t want to be pushed into developing something new. It’s a cozy duopoly. Of course they don’t want to have it challenged.

A lack of competition stifles innovation. That’s capitalist economics 101.

SteelChair wrote:

that the 787 has never paid development costs (ironic given Boeings position against BBD?

What on earth makes you think Boeing never paid development costs?

aerolimani wrote:

bigjku wrote:

Both Airbus and Boeing very well could build a 5 wide or 6 wide composite airliner. Both have the knowledge and both have resources that dwarf BBD. They didn’t because the business case for doing so sucks. BBD just happens to have proved the accountants correct by doing something both the big builders figured out was a losing proposition.

Both A and B are very busy with other expensive programs, and they don’t want to direct resources towards developing a new narrowbody. They are perfectly comfortable milking their current designs as absolutely long as possible. They’re essentially saying to each other, “I won’t, if you won’t.”

You can’t use a lack of action by A or B as evidence that the CSeries is a bad business case. I just made a completely viable argument for why A and B haven’t started a new NB program. Personally, I think a lack of desire is a far more likely explanation why A and B haven’t moved on a new NB. Further to that, I think their aggressive actions against BBD are further evidence that they don’t want to be pushed into developing something new. It’s a cozy duopoly. Of course they don’t want to have it challenged.

A lack of competition stifles innovation. That’s capitalist economics 101.

If BBD has managed to build a plane that has a construction cost that allows it to be sold at a competitive price in a commercial manner I reiterate my question from above.

Why not disclose program accounting on it either in response to the dumping claim or just in general? The result of doing so can be nothing but positive. If they are going to make money on a per plane basis for prices they can get why not let everyone know? Again this would be a near absolute defense against dumping charges and it would drive up the stock price and it would spur further orders because it would make the program appear more stable.

If BBD really has managed to build a plane it can sell for a profit why not say so?

PPVRA wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

that the 787 has never paid development costs (ironic given Boeings position against BBD?

What on earth makes you think Boeing never paid development costs?

Semantics, poor wording on my part.

The 787 program has never recouped the development costs for Boeing.....the program is still many billions in the hole.

Does that make sense? I think you know what I meant....

PPVRA wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

Thanks for your opinions, thats a lot different than facts, such as Ed Bastian saying just a few days ago, "We bought Cseries for the innovation, not the price. "

Is that why they bought MD90s and 717s, too?

Although not directed at me I have to ask, why can't both be correct given the different situations DL was evaluating at the time? Why can't innovation be a substantial factor in this competition, when it was not a few years ago?

When the 717s were acquired DL was presented with the opportunity to cheaply acquire a fleet that would immediately have economies of scale with 88 frames. Also, the new technology of the CSeries was still at least a few years from getting to market, and Delta wanted aircraft as soon as possible to start removing regional jets. So good price, good timing, and the innovation wasn't available in the near term.

DL stated that in this latest competition they looked at acquiring more 717s but there simply wasn't availability for the number of frames they needed. So they compared the CS and the E190. The E190 won out at extremely low purchase prices, but when DL looked to build the fleet up to the size they desired, they could not do so at that extremely low purchase price. That is when the relatively more expensive CS100 won out. Although more expensive up front than used E190s, the innovations in efficiency and maintenance costs allowed the CS to come out on top. So how would it be wrong to say that the CSeries won based on innovation?

aerolimani wrote:

bigjku wrote:

Both Airbus and Boeing very well could build a 5 wide or 6 wide composite airliner. Both have the knowledge and both have resources that dwarf BBD. They didn’t because the business case for doing so sucks. BBD just happens to have proved the accountants correct by doing something both the big builders figured out was a losing proposition.

Both A and B are very busy with other expensive programs, and they don’t want to direct resources towards developing a new narrowbody. They are perfectly comfortable milking their current designs as absolutely long as possible. They’re essentially saying to each other, “I won’t, if you won’t.”

You can’t use a lack of action by A or B as evidence that the CSeries is a bad business case. I just made a completely viable argument, removed from any discussion of business case, for why A and B haven’t started a new NB program. Personally, I think a lack of desire is a far more likely explanation why A and B haven’t moved on a new NB. Further to that, I think their aggressive actions against BBD are further evidence that they don’t want to be pushed into developing something new. It’s a cozy duopoly. Of course they don’t want to have it challenged.

A lack of competition stifles innovation. That’s capitalist economics 101.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

Agree completely. Why cant everyone see it?

Alias1024 wrote:

PPVRA wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

Thanks for your opinions, thats a lot different than facts, such as Ed Bastian saying just a few days ago, "We bought Cseries for the innovation, not the price. "

Is that why they bought MD90s and 717s, too?

Although not directed at me I have to ask, why can't both be correct given the different situations DL was evaluating at the time? Why can't innovation be a substantial factor in this competition, when it was not a few years ago?

When the 717s were acquired DL was presented with the opportunity to cheaply acquire a fleet that would immediately have economies of scale with 88 frames. Also, the new technology of the CSeries was still at least a few years from getting to market, and Delta wanted aircraft as soon as possible to start removing regional jets. So good price, good timing, and the innovation wasn't available in the near term.

DL stated that in this latest competition they looked at acquiring more 717s but there simply wasn't availability for the number of frames they needed. So they compared the CS and the E190. The E190 won out at extremely low purchase prices, but when DL looked to build the fleet up to the size they desired, they could not do so at that extremely low purchase price. That is when the relatively more expensive CS100 won out. Although more expensive up front than used E190s, the innovations in efficiency and maintenance costs allowed the CS to come out on top. So how would it be wrong to say that the CSeries won based on innovation?

You said it better than I could have.

SteelChair wrote:

aerolimani wrote:

bigjku wrote:

Both Airbus and Boeing very well could build a 5 wide or 6 wide composite airliner. Both have the knowledge and both have resources that dwarf BBD. They didn’t because the business case for doing so sucks. BBD just happens to have proved the accountants correct by doing something both the big builders figured out was a losing proposition.

Both A and B are very busy with other expensive programs, and they don’t want to direct resources towards developing a new narrowbody. They are perfectly comfortable milking their current designs as absolutely long as possible. They’re essentially saying to each other, “I won’t, if you won’t.”

You can’t use a lack of action by A or B as evidence that the CSeries is a bad business case. I just made a completely viable argument, removed from any discussion of business case, for why A and B haven’t started a new NB program. Personally, I think a lack of desire is a far more likely explanation why A and B haven’t moved on a new NB. Further to that, I think their aggressive actions against BBD are further evidence that they don’t want to be pushed into developing something new. It’s a cozy duopoly. Of course they don’t want to have it challenged.

A lack of competition stifles innovation. That’s capitalist economics 101.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

Agree completely. Why cant everyone see it?

I agree! Hence the nearly 300%

SteelChair wrote:

-737MAX program = compromised 1968 double-rehash = failure

The 737MAX is one of the best selling aircraft in history, and is raking in enormous amounts of money. Nobody could possibly describe it as a failure.

You may disagree with Boeing's strategy for what comes next, but the 737MAX program is *objectively* an enormous success. Saying otherwise completely undermines your arguments.

CX747 wrote:

The reason both Boeing AND Airbus do not have a brand new jet to compete against the CSeries is the fact that the market WON'T SUPPORT IT.

If the C-Series is so terrible and lacks a market, why are Boeing so keen to squash it? I seem to remember somebody at Boeing being quoted as saying that this action is intended to avoid another "Airbus" situation. That suggests Boeing don't agree with your assessment; after all, if there is no market, what's there to be worried about?

SteelChair wrote:

"Obviously" "I doubt"

Thanks for your opinions, thats a lot different than facts, such as Ed Bastian saying just a few days ago, "We bought Cseries for the innovation, not the price. "

As was famously said in a very different context, “he would say that, wouldn’t he?”

GF

zckls04 wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

-737MAX program = compromised 1968 double-rehash = failure

The 737MAX is one of the best selling aircraft in history, and is raking in enormous amounts of money. Nobody could possibly describe it as a failure.

You may disagree with Boeing's strategy for what comes next, but the 737MAX program is *objectively* an enormous success. Saying otherwise completely undermines your arguments.

CX747 wrote:

The reason both Boeing AND Airbus do not have a brand new jet to compete against the CSeries is the fact that the market WON'T SUPPORT IT.

If the C-Series is so terrible and lacks a market, why are Boeing so keen to squash it? I seem to remember somebody at Boeing being quoted as saying that this action is intended to avoid another "Airbus" situation. That suggests Boeing don't agree with your assessment; after all, if there is no market, what's there to be worried about?

There is no question the C series has a market at a certain price. The question is does it have a market at a price that makes the program commercially viable? The 18-months of no orders primarily due to being undercut by Airbus and Boeing suggest it very well may not. That is actually the whole discussion which people keep missing.

I would ask again, if it is going to make money on a per frame basis why wouldn’t BBD tell everyone when and how much? There is zero downside to disclosing some level of program accounting that makes this clear. The only reason I can see to not do this is that they can’t reaonably project their cost of production will go below the price they can get. Otherwise giving out the information is a huge positive for them.

Alias1024 wrote:

PPVRA wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

Thanks for your opinions, thats a lot different than facts, such as Ed Bastian saying just a few days ago, "We bought Cseries for the innovation, not the price. "

Is that why they bought MD90s and 717s, too?

Although not directed at me I have to ask, why can't both be correct given the different situations DL was evaluating at the time? Why can't innovation be a substantial factor in this competition, when it was not a few years ago?

When the 717s were acquired DL was presented with the opportunity to cheaply acquire a fleet that would immediately have economies of scale with 88 frames. Also, the new technology of the CSeries was still at least a few years from getting to market, and Delta wanted aircraft as soon as possible to start removing regional jets. So good price, good timing, and the innovation wasn't available in the near term.

DL stated that in this latest competition they looked at acquiring more 717s but there simply wasn't availability for the number of frames they needed. So they compared the CS and the E190. The E190 won out at extremely low purchase prices, but when DL looked to build the fleet up to the size they desired, they could not do so at that extremely low purchase price. That is when the relatively more expensive CS100 won out. Although more expensive up front than used E190s, the innovations in efficiency and maintenance costs allowed the CS to come out on top. So how would it be wrong to say that the CSeries won based on innovation?

Delta is a competent enough organization to know to look beyond the 20 airframes they purchased before actually spending millions upon millions of dollars on such a deal.

bigjku wrote:

I would ask again, if it is going to make money on a per frame basis why wouldn’t BBD tell everyone when and how much? There is zero downside to disclosing some level of program accounting that makes this clear. The only reason I can see to not do this is that they can’t reaonably project their cost of production will go below the price they can get. Otherwise giving out the information is a huge positive for them.

I bet you they do reveal their accounting. To prospective buyers. Under NDA’s.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

"Obviously" "I doubt"

Thanks for your opinions, thats a lot different than facts, such as Ed Bastian saying just a few days ago, "We bought Cseries for the innovation, not the price. "

As was famously said in a very different context, “he would say that, wouldn’t he?”

GF

Please don't be bias. He said what he said because there are grounds to it! If what he said does not meet your agenda please find an alternative route to attack. By purchasing the cseries delta was doing what was best for their company.

aerolimani wrote:

bigjku wrote:

I would ask again, if it is going to make money on a per frame basis why wouldn’t BBD tell everyone when and how much? There is zero downside to disclosing some level of program accounting that makes this clear. The only reason I can see to not do this is that they can’t reaonably project their cost of production will go below the price they can get. Otherwise giving out the information is a huge positive for them.

I bet you they do reveal their accounting. To prospective buyers. Under NDA’s.

This doesn’t really answer the question and I am not sure the buyers care. They might have before Quebec stepped in on grounds that BBD might fold up prior to delivery but once that happened it doesn’t strike me as being high on a buyers list.

The question was is there any downside at all to public disclosure? Hell in a true publicly traded and shareholder voting company the shareholders would likely demand such information. After all we know great detail about 787 program accounts. Same deal for A380 really.

Again the question is simple. Is there any downside to disclosing when the program will turn a profit on a produced unit basis?

SteelChair wrote:

CX747 wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

Why do I say that Boeing is floundering?

-747-8 = failure
-787 program = 13 years in and has still not paid development costs, probably never will, failure
-737MAX program = compromised 1968 double-rehash = failure
-No small airplane to compete in 110 seat category =failure
-777x, 75% of orders are from state supported ME3, =failure (ironic given their complaints against state supported BBD, double failure)
-Workforce=highly unionized in high cost SEA (kudos for doing CHS though), failure
-KC767, way behind schedule and over budget = huge failure

There 2 or 3 more epic fails that I cant even remember right now.

737=Overwhelming success, sells like hot cakes and the newest MAX birds are bringing in $$$ and have so far entered service seamlessly.
747 Program=Major success for over 40+ years. Cargo market on the rebound. If not, will bow out after a legendary time on the market and producer of massive profits.
767 Program=Major success, current tanker behind but will make plenty of $$$ over the life of the program. Second hand market is tight which means parts sales continue or have increased.
777 Program=Major success. The story for the -8/9 hasn't been written yet. Note the 737 was launched on a small order by Lufthansa.
787 Program=Success after many years learning from cutting edge technology findings and naively attempting to outsource work. Boeing says it is making $$$ and the market continues to snap them up.
797 Program=Time will tell!
Defense programs=F-15, F/A-18, C-17, AH-64, CH-47, B-52, KC-135, KC-10 just to name a few. Both fighter programs received new orders. The Chinook rolls on. Could potentially win USAF jet trainer competition and upcoming USA helicopter replacement programs.

I could go on but Boeing is rock solid with profitable programs and has overcome the snafu that was the 787's birth.

Last kc135 delivery was 1957.....hahaha. F15? Really? Youre hilarious.

747-8 is unprofitable.

787 is billions in the hole.

KC767 years behind schedule and over budget.

777x 75% orders to state run ME3 carriers, when Boeing is supposedly worried about state subsidies in aviation.

These facts are indisputable

Yes, the facts supporting Boeing being incredibly solid as a company are indisputable.

Case in point, the KC-135. Last delivered in the 1950s. Still a Program of Record with its end users and a generator of profit through Boeing's continued support of the platform. Boeing also oversees the KC-10 program for the USAF. Same type of profit generator. Yes, the KC-46 is behind and over budget. Issues that will be overcome. The aircraft itself will make Boeing millions and millions when it is still operating in 2067.

When we discuss the 787 one should take a step back. It was late to market and had several issues. It was a black eye for Boeing to say the least. The company pushed through the problems, did not need a US Gov bailout and now has a program that is making a profit for each airframe sold. That is a strong company who can overcome mistakes and see a product to market despite of itself at times. In addition, multiple things learned on the 787 will be passed on to future platforms. All part of the steep learning curve.

The 777-8/9 is a story that has yet to be written. We have no idea who will order it in the future. At this time, several BLUE CHIP carriers stand ready to buy the product. That is a great start. Where it goes from there will depend upon how the bird actually performs, the market and additional factors we have yet to see. Imagine IF Emirates decided to go all 777-8/9 and let their A380s go. No one can see into the future.

Being upset the BBD got caught cheating is one thing. Being mad that there are repercussions is understandable to a degree. Spouting short blurb fallacies about Boeing only degrades this website and the educational value it has.

CX747 wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

CX747 wrote:

So Canada won't buy 18 Super Hornets? Boeing has already calculated what their loss would be and went forward. 18 Super Hornets and a few deals are not anywhere worth a 30 year CSeries program consistently dumping product in the US.

With all due respect , the US-Canada relationship is a lot more involved than just 18 Super Hornets. Do we really want bad relations with what has historicallly been a great ally, just to favor one company, which frankly is kind of floundering because of its own mistakes and doesn't have a comparable product in any event?

But thanks for pointing out that Boeing has a vested interest in tryimg to limit competition in the marketplace.

Not quite sure where to begin. I guess we can start with Boeing is not floundering. Not sure where that notion comes from. I've seen it a couple times on this site now and all that statement does is make the site and its users look foolish. Boeing is the largest aerospace company in the world and have production lines humming in both commercial and military applications. The reason both Boeing AND Airbus do not have a brand new jet to compete against the CSeries is the fact that the market WON'T SUPPORT IT. Hence the Canadian government bailout of BBD and dumping of the product to get the sale.

As for Canada being a close ally, they most certainly are. One in which we would hope would treat our market fairly. Boeing isn't going to sit idly by and watch BBD become another Airbus with gov support. Either make it on your own or go belly up in the market like MD or Lockheed..[/quote

You contradict your own argument. If the C-Series is not wanted then why are Boeing trying so hard to stop it. It should logically fail on its own and be no problem to Boeing. Apparently Boeing do not share your assessment.

Apparently Boeing have been selling 737s at around 20mil per. Still less than the alleged cost to Delta of the C-Series. If the C-Series is not wanted why would LH, AC, DL, et al buy it. 360 orders so far seems to contradict your argument that no-one wants it

Has anyone up here in Canada seen the Boeing PR commercials that recently started airing? Talking about how important Canada is to Boeing and how important Boeing is to Canada... Canadians jobs etc.?

I don't have the answers for you. But the aggression towards the cseries at this time are causing major disruption in sales that may be intentional

bigjku wrote:

aerolimani wrote:

bigjku wrote:

I would ask again, if it is going to make money on a per frame basis why wouldn’t BBD tell everyone when and how much? There is zero downside to disclosing some level of program accounting that makes this clear. The only reason I can see to not do this is that they can’t reaonably project their cost of production will go below the price they can get. Otherwise giving out the information is a huge positive for them.

I bet you they do reveal their accounting. To prospective buyers. Under NDA’s.

This doesn’t really answer the question and I am not sure the buyers care. They might have before Quebec stepped in on grounds that BBD might fold up prior to delivery but once that happened it doesn’t strike me as being high on a buyers list.

The question was is there any downside at all to public disclosure? Hell in a true publicly traded and shareholder voting company the shareholders would likely demand such information. After all we know great detail about 787 program accounts. Same deal for A380 really.

Again the question is simple. Is there any downside to disclosing when the program will turn a profit on a produced unit basis?

No company wants to reveal more than it has to. Information is valuable. Accounting information, especially so. If it wasn’t, corporate espionage wouldn’t be such a big deal. Why should BBD reveal any more than they are legally required?

Just because they aren’t revealing their accounting, that is not a valid indicator of the existence of any over-arching problem with the program. You can bet they had to reveal that information to the governments of Quebec and Canada. While I realize that government has other interests, such as having happily employed constituents, I very much doubt they would invest in a program that has no merit. In particular, the federal government has a history of making fairly good investments. Just look at how well they did from the sale of Petro Canada.

To attempt to receive R and D data That will end up in the wrong hands is not very ethical

Any country can use this technique to help its airlines cancel orders without penalties. Imagine Dubai Department of Commerce levies 300% on Emirates B777X orders claiming it is subsidized.