Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
racercoup wrote:Moet folks here are so busy bashing Boeing they forget one thing. - Bombardier's dumping hurts fair competition between airlines. The Canadian governments essentially helped Delta buy jets at a ridiculously low cost thereby giving Delta an unfair cost advantage that will be used against their competitors.
racercoup wrote:Statement from Boeing legal just claimed the tariffs have to be satisfied whether the jet are assembled in the US or not.
Revelation wrote:racercoup wrote:Statement from Boeing legal just claimed the tariffs have to be satisfied whether the jet are assembled in the US or not.
Yes, that's an interesting claim, but that's all it is.
They are suggesting that parts imported for C Series assembled in the US will be subject to the tariff, from what I gather.
Seems dubious to me.
Twenty years ago, this entire comment section would have been filled up with comments AGAINST Airbus and Bombardier.
Now, the entire comments section is filled with comments AGAINST BOEING!
Here's what happened:
* Boeing decided that workers in the Seattle area weren't good enough, and started to move production out of Washington state, and at the same time lay off thousands of Seattle area workers.
* For new business, Boeing decided to start making parts of its planes in China and other places, where quality control is not as good.
* Boeing management is taken over by people who weren't vested in Boeing's traditional culture, and MOVED the headquarters out of the Seattle area to Chicago.
* Boeing stopped hiring the best and brightest engineers from local colleges.....these grads now go to work for Amazon or Microsoft or a host of other tech companies....anyone but Boeing.
* Boeing stopped innovating, and instead relied on the government for subsidies to remain competitive.
* Now Boeing is taking the Trumpian stances of tariffs and protectionism to prevent Bombardier from selling it's more competitive aircraft to Delta and others. As you can see, this isn't making Delta happy.....instead of buying Boeing, they are willing to wait several years to buy the new jet.
Thank you Boeing, for turning Washington state residents, once your biggest supporters, AGAINST YOU!
Revelation wrote:racercoup wrote:Statement from Boeing legal just claimed the tariffs have to be satisfied whether the jet are assembled in the US or not.
Yes, that's an interesting claim, but that's all it is.
They are suggesting that parts imported for C Series assembled in the US will be subject to the tariff, from what I gather.
Seems dubious to me.
racercoup wrote:Statement from Boeing legal just claimed the tariffs have to be satisfied whether the jet are assembled in the US or not.
Revelation wrote:racercoup wrote:Statement from Boeing legal just claimed the tariffs have to be satisfied whether the jet are assembled in the US or not.
Yes, that's an interesting claim, but that's all it is.
They are suggesting that parts imported for C Series assembled in the US will be subject to the tariff, from what I gather.
Seems dubious to me.
PanAm788 wrote:Jetport wrote:PanAm788 wrote:Lots of smart people have given their opinion but nonetheless here's mine. .....................................
Loser: Embraer
- Embraer must be super pissed that not only did the production costs of their biggest competitor get totally slashed overnight, but it also got taken over by one of the two largest aircraft manufacturers in the world and all the marketing and manufacturing expertise that comes with it. All of Embraer's advantages are now gone since the CSeries is likely a superior small mainline jet than the E2 and the smaller E2 jets can't be sold to US regionals due to scope issues. The two possible saving graces for Embraer is that Boeing will now likely be a more willing partner going forward and scope clauses changes are now more likely to be implemented now that the CRJneo possibility is dead: big for the E2-175.
Overall fascinating development. Cheers.
Why is an upgraded CRJ dead? (CRJneo). I would think dumping the C series increases the likelihood of a CRJneo.
BBD has huge cash flow issues and is still busy working out kinks in its bizjet programs. In my mind, the only chance for a "CRJneo" was if they received a bunch of cash from the sale of the Cseries that they could divert to CRJneo development. They didn't get that cash so I think the prudent thing for them to do would be to exit the commercial aircraft business altogether and focus on bizjets. If scope clauses let up they will get pummeled by Embraer which means that a CRJneo is a massive risk. After this whole Cseries debacle that nearly sunk the company multiple times, I don't think that risk appetite is there.
TheOldDude wrote:I'm mystified by those who continue to confuse current law with the current administration. Boeing prevailed under current law, law that predated the current administration. Although I and others may disagree with some current laws, I'm glad the administration follows the laws. The proper way to address the policy issues is to change current law, not to lobby for the administration to act against the law.
AirbusCanada wrote:PlanesNTrains wrote:ytz wrote:
Fairly sure this announcement was a closed deal.
And Boeing has poor chances of buying up business in Canada after what they did with De Havilland. Boeing would face substantially more scrutiny than Airbus.
This is the second time Boeing has stabbed Canada in the back, as far as Canadians are concerned.
Is this really such a big deal that all Canadians are up in arms? Reading your posts, you'd think Boeing filing a complaint had created an international crisis. If something this minor affects people that much, then I'm happy for them. They must have nothing worse to worry about.
Well, i am sure Americans would be up in arms if China or Europe put anti dumping duty on 787 for selling below cost.
ytz wrote:It's not like Bombardier is universally loved in Canada. Hardly. But Boeing played the arrogant American stereotype so well here.
.
ytz wrote:EMBSPBR wrote:PanAm788 wrote:Loser: Embraer
- All of Embraer's advantages are now gone since the CSeries is likely a superior small mainline jet than the E2 .
Love that.
So superior that Airbus had come to help to sell it ...
Too much salt is bad for your health. And grapes are best enjoyed when they aren't sour. Good life advice.....
KrustyTheKlown wrote:PlanesNTrains wrote:KrustyTheKlown wrote:Boeing guys should cherish that now they'll get to build their New Small Airplane instead of keep putting lipstick on a 1960's design.
I think that with Airbus now having 2 families of modern narrow body aircraft Boeing will not launch a further 737 refresh (MAXX?) but instead will be forced to develop a new aircraft (that combined with the simultaneous MOM program could stretch a little their engineering and/or financial assets).
When was it ever stated by anyone that Boeing was going to do a MAX refresh? I think some here are so giddy that they are creating an alternate reality or something.
Having said that, it'll be an amazing lineup with the CS100/CS300/A320/A321.
Boeing has not announced their plans for the 737 beyond the MAX because of a little something known as the Osborne effect. If you read carefully I never claimed that they had announced a MAX refresh, my point was that a further 737 refresh is now unlikely.
Boeing778X wrote:PlanesNTrains wrote:Boeing778X wrote:And THAT is a huge kick in the head for Boeing! Terrific news for the C-Series!
You know what would be a mind blowing lineup?
CS100
CS300
CS500
A321neo
A321LR
A322
Unstoppable! Boeing has to do an NSA now!
I think this:
CS100
CS300
A320neo
A321neo
A322neo
Does the job nicely. I've long thought that the CS100/CS300/A320neo/A321neo would be a killer lineup for an airline. And frankly, an E175/E190/MAX 8/MAX 10 wouldn't be all that bad either. You can throw in the E195 and MAX 9 but they are somewhat superfluous in the big picture.
I disagree slightly. The C-Series, particularly the CS100, is over engineered, for lack of a better term. Overlooking the CS500 in favor of the A320neo is a gross oversight.
Making the A320neo and CS500 side by side wouldn't be bad, but to not develop the 500 would be robbing the aircraft of its full potential.
multimark wrote:PlanesNTrains wrote:ytz wrote:
Fairly sure this announcement was a closed deal.
And Boeing has poor chances of buying up business in Canada after what they did with De Havilland. Boeing would face substantially more scrutiny than Airbus.
This is the second time Boeing has stabbed Canada in the back, as far as Canadians are concerned.
Is this really such a big deal that all Canadians are up in arms? Reading your posts, you'd think Boeing filing a complaint had created an international crisis. If something this minor affects people that much, then I'm happy for them. They must have nothing worse to worry about.
Like many Americans, you seem to be blissfully unaware of what happens in your neighbouring countries. Canadians have lost faith in the USA as a trading partner since the election of Trump. There has always been some bullying of a smaller neighbour by the USA in trade, but independent tribunals more of then than not ruled in Canada's favour. Now there is an occupant of the White House who is trying to get rid of such tribunals, and to impose conditions on Canada and Mexico that won't apply to itself. Canada just inked a free trade deal with the EU, the AB-BBD arrangement is a nice underscore of that. I would not be surprised to see Canada choose one of the European fighters over the US offering once NAFTA negotiations have collapsed (inevitable, thank to outrageous US demands).
So while you and other remain blissfully ignorant of what goes on on the other side of your borders, the countries that should be your closest allies are turning to Europe and to China. Congratulations.
LockheedBBD wrote:Even residents of Boeing's original hometown (Seattle) don't seem too enthused with Boeing these days (commenters from the Seattle Times): https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... as-fought/Thank you Boeing, for turning Washington state residents, once your biggest supporters, AGAINST YOU!
2175301 wrote:Which is one of two reasons that I doubt that the tariff would have stood at all... Please tell me which US made product the CS-100 and CS-300 competes against.
Cruiser wrote:Anyone else laughing at the official Boeing statements that are being tweeted? They are ridiculous...
ThePointblank wrote:TheOldDude wrote:I'm mystified by those who continue to confuse current law with the current administration. Boeing prevailed under current law, law that predated the current administration. Although I and others may disagree with some current laws, I'm glad the administration follows the laws. The proper way to address the policy issues is to change current law, not to lobby for the administration to act against the law.
The issue is the interpretation of the laws, which always has been an issue; see the ongoing saga of the Canada-US softwood lumber dispute, which Canada has in the past, won many WTO and NAFTA tribunal cases against the US when the US imposed anti-dumping duties on Canadian softwood lumber. I imagine this is part of the reason why in the current NAFTA renegotiation talks, the US has been demanding that the NAFTA tribunal be stripped of its powers.
RJMAZ wrote:2175301 wrote:Which is one of two reasons that I doubt that the tariff would have stood at all... Please tell me which US made product the CS-100 and CS-300 competes against.
Damn this annoyed me. I've heard this like 10 times from various posters as an argument. You are 100% wrong. Airlines don't purchase based on the number of seats.
Boeing DOES have a product that competes directly against the CS100 and CS300.
Airlines purchase aircraft based on a combination of fuel burn per seat and to achieve a desired frequency of flights.
An airline may need to move 1000 passengers per day between two nearby airports. They could operate 3 A330 flights, 5 737 flights, 7 CS300 or 9 CS100 flights. The C series is directly competing against the 737 when the airlines do this calculation.
Customers like flexibility on many domestic flights per day but only up to a certain point.
Larger aircraft with everything else being equal will have a lower fuel burn per seat. The C series breaks this trend by using new technology to match the fuel burn of the 737 which is slightly larger.
On destination pairs where there is less than 1000 passengers moved per day the airlines will choose the C series for increased frequency at the same fuel cost.
On destination pairs with a huge 5000 passengers per day the C series will not get purchased.
But it all options it is still competing directly with the 737.
Slug71 wrote:Cruiser wrote:Anyone else laughing at the official Boeing statements that are being tweeted? They are ridiculous...
The replies are pretty funny. Lol
RJMAZ wrote:2175301 wrote:Which is one of two reasons that I doubt that the tariff would have stood at all... Please tell me which US made product the CS-100 and CS-300 competes against.
Damn this annoyed me. I've heard this like 10 times from various posters as an argument. You are 100% wrong. Airlines don't purchase based on the number of seats.
Boeing DOES have a product that competes directly against the CS100 and CS300.
Airlines purchase aircraft based on a combination of fuel burn per seat and to achieve a desired frequency of flights.
An airline may need to move 1000 passengers per day between two nearby airports. They could operate 3 A330 flights, 5 737 flights, 7 CS300 or 9 CS100 flights. The C series is directly competing against the 737 when the airlines do this calculation.
Customers like flexibility on many domestic flights per day but only up to a certain point.
Larger aircraft with everything else being equal will have a lower fuel burn per seat. The C series breaks this trend by using new technology to match the fuel burn of the 737 which is slightly larger.
On destination pairs where there is less than 1000 passengers moved per day the airlines will choose the C series for increased frequency at the same fuel cost.
On destination pairs with a huge 5000 passengers per day the C series will not get purchased.
But it all options it is still competing directly with the 737.
ytz wrote:alyusuph wrote:What happens to the Q400 following Bombardier's deal with Airbus?
Nothing. Airbus got a chunk of the CSeries. Not Bombardier.
Love your tagline. I feel the same way. I want to see the CSeries succeed, not because I'm Canadian or an aerospace engineer. I want to see it flourish because it's our only chance at a half decent pax ex in economy for the next 20 years. I don't care about profits or corporate politics. I want to see good airplanes do well in the market.
alyusuph wrote:ytz wrote:alyusuph wrote:What happens to the Q400 following Bombardier's deal with Airbus?
Nothing. Airbus got a chunk of the CSeries. Not Bombardier.
Love your tagline. I feel the same way. I want to see the CSeries succeed, not because I'm Canadian or an aerospace engineer. I want to see it flourish because it's our only chance at a half decent pax ex in economy for the next 20 years. I don't care about profits or corporate politics. I want to see good airplanes do well in the market.
And it is always nice to board small AC, you don't have to worry about the check in queues if you are travelling economy, don't have to worry about boarding times and queues; you don't have to worry about having to pass through two or more pax to get to the aisle- the aisles are always a pax away!
PlanesNTrains wrote:Slug71 wrote:Cruiser wrote:Anyone else laughing at the official Boeing statements that are being tweeted? They are ridiculous...
The replies are pretty funny. Lol
Someone needs to do an auto-delete on the Twitter app. It's just too painful to witness these days.
Chemist wrote:As a US citizen, this is the sort of thing I expect when head-in-the-sand protectionists think they can tariff everybody to "keep US jobs". The market is efficient and all you do by being a protectionist is hurt yourself in the long run. This case is a perfect example of that.
While it might hurt the US economy (and Boeing particularly), I am in favor of this outcome, because the market should win and the artificialities are not going to work.
I still wonder why BBD dumping the CSeries =not ok when Boeing was totally dumping the 787. Somehow one is ok and the other is not.
You can expect similar dire outcomes when we get rid of NAFTA. This set of economic disasters for the US is all on the current administration and the voters who voted those clowns in.
PlanesNTrains wrote:ytz wrote:It's not like Bombardier is universally loved in Canada. Hardly. But Boeing played the arrogant American stereotype so well here.
.
Yes, I get the anti-American vitriol you have. This has been like hitting the lottery for you. #Congrats
PlanesNTrains wrote:ytz wrote:EMBSPBR wrote:
Love that.
So superior that Airbus had come to help to sell it ...
Too much salt is bad for your health. And grapes are best enjoyed when they aren't sour. Good life advice.....
You are sort of out of control. If you disagree with someone, it doesn't mean they have sour grapes. Wetting your pants out of sheer giddiness might actually be the more embarrassing outcome - no offense.
PlanesNTrains wrote:quote="ytz"]It's not like Bombardier is universally loved in Canada. Hardly. But Boeing played the arrogant American stereotype so well here.
.
But it all options it is still competing directly with the 737.
2175301 wrote:I respectfully disagree.... If airlines purchased based on your analysis the A380 would be the dominant airplane in the sky... thousands of them...
Revelation wrote:racercoup wrote:Statement from Boeing legal just claimed the tariffs have to be satisfied whether the jet are assembled in the US or not.
Yes, that's an interesting claim, but that's all it is.
They are suggesting that parts imported for C Series assembled in the US will be subject to the tariff, from what I gather.
Seems dubious to me.
ytz wrote:This runs entirely against Boeing's logic on the 787 with more point to point service. And against what DL and Air Canada were both saying about the CSeries. That it would let them open up long thin (regional) routes.
seahawk wrote:I am convinced Boeing will now try to get a similar tariff ruling for Airbus products as well.
ytz wrote:PlanesNTrains wrote:ytz wrote:It's not like Bombardier is universally loved in Canada. Hardly. But Boeing played the arrogant American stereotype so well here.
.
Yes, I get the anti-American vitriol you have. This has been like hitting the lottery for you. #Congrats
Read what I wrote very carefully. I am not accusing Americans of anything. I am merely stating the perception of Boeing's conduct, in Canada. Go to any forum with Canadians, you'll find far less charitable words.
Also, this is quite the snowflake reaction. Slight criticism and a statement of perception is now "anti-American vitriol"? Really?
I am on exchange with the USN at the moment. Thankfully, none of the guys I work with are this sensitive....PlanesNTrains wrote:ytz wrote:
Too much salt is bad for your health. And grapes are best enjoyed when they aren't sour. Good life advice.....
You are sort of out of control. If you disagree with someone, it doesn't mean they have sour grapes. Wetting your pants out of sheer giddiness might actually be the more embarrassing outcome - no offense.
I won't apologize at all for this. Schadenfreude is awesome. Especially against people who want to see a wonderful airplane destroyed for nothing. I'd react just as harshly if the shoe was on the foot and this beautiful bird was made by Boeing.
astuteman wrote:seahawk wrote:I am convinced Boeing will now try to get a similar tariff ruling for Airbus products as well.
I don't think it would be too hard for Airbus to prove that they sell above cost.
It is also perhaps worth remembering that Airbus Group inc. is a US incorporated company, just like Boeing.
The comparisons to the 787 are entirely relevant.
Maybe Boeing will try to bring tariffs against their own imported goods and components?
Based on current behaviour, who knows?
Rgds
Revelation wrote:FoxtrotSierra wrote:racercoup wrote:Moet folks here are so busy bashing Boeing they forget one thing. - Bombardier's dumping hurts fair competition between airlines. The Canadian governments essentially helped Delta buy jets at a ridiculously low cost thereby giving Delta an unfair cost advantage that will be used against their competitors. Boeing was right to go after Bombardier.
I hope you're joking.
Is Boeing guilt free? They deliberately trashed BBD's chances with UA by slashing prices by 70 percent on 737's and that's more shameful coming from a company that isn't struggling to get a foothold but is rather printing money and wants to kill a competitor to keep it that way. Fair competition means that BBD has a an actual chance at success in selling to airlines, unless you're referring to the beyond hypocritical US perspective that shuts out competition to keep it "fair" for US companies at the expense of anyone else.
Speaking of "fair competition" and "anyone else", Airbus launched the A320NEO in order to use its might to crush the C Series (as they already had the 737 on the run), and its reward is getting half of the program for 1 Canadian dollar! As an added bonus, they get to blame Boeing for it all!
racercoup wrote:Moet folks here are so busy bashing Boeing they forget one thing. - Bombardier's dumping hurts fair competition between airlines. The Canadian governments essentially helped Delta buy jets at a ridiculously low cost thereby giving Delta an unfair cost advantage that will be used against their competitors. Boeing was right to go after Bombardier.
par13del wrote:So who has bought a dumping case against Boeing in Europe, Canada, Russia, the ME, etc etc etc and lost?
Aither wrote:The core of the short haul market is 150-250 seats. I don't see what Airbus is trying to achieve here. They should focus their resources on the products they have.
RJMAZ wrote:2175301 wrote:I respectfully disagree.... If airlines purchased based on your analysis the A380 would be the dominant airplane in the sky... thousands of them...
That is about the worst example you can give for a counter argument.
I'm talking going from 12 daily narrowbody flights down to 8 flights using a larger narrowbody aircraft. That has no risk. If there is a drop in passengers you could cancel a flight and move passengers to earlier or later flights.
Going from 2 daily 787 flights to a single daily A380 flight for example is high risk. You are forced to fly the A380 70% full as you can't shift all the passengers to a previous day or next days flight.
So in the context of the C series the 737 is a direct competitor in every potential narrowbody purchase.
ytz wrote:douwd20 wrote:
I guess you haven't been following Boeing's stock.
You mean like being down on a day that markets hit a record high, while Bombardier close up 15% and Airbus stock u nearly 5%. The market clearly knows the implications of this deal. Remember, past results are not a guarantee of future performance.
Luckily for Boeing they are well diversified.
Revelation wrote:Speaking of "fair competition" and "anyone else", Airbus launched the A320NEO in order to use its might to crush the C Series (as they already had the 737 on the run), and its reward is getting half of the program for 1 Canadian dollar! As an added bonus, they get to blame Boeing for it all!
kitplane01 wrote:The MC-21 is not a competitor because it's very unlikely to sell a significant number of planes.
douwd20 wrote:More like... Boeing (NYSE:BA) is a company which - after chugging along for quite a few years pre-2017, has rocketed from $160 at the beginning of this year to $256.45 at the time of writing.
seahawk wrote:As unhinged as Boeing looks on twitter, I would not be surprised at all, if they go for a trade war with Europe.
uta999 wrote:If parts for the CS300 are imported and assembled at Airbus in Alabama, to me that will still be an import and make no difference to any tariff being imposed.
douwd20 wrote:More like... Boeing (NYSE:BA) is a company which - after chugging along for quite a few years pre-2017, has rocketed from $160 at the beginning of this year to $256.45 at the time of writing. One day trading you pluck out of the sky isn't investing and it's representative of anything.