Statement from Boeing legal just claimed the tariffs have to be satisfied whether the jet are assembled in the US or not.

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.

I don't think any other US airline was interested in the "cheap subsidized" CSeries planes, otherwise, we would have heard from them already saying that it is unfair. US airlines have been very quiet about the Delta-Bombardier deal, it is most likely that they were offered a similar deal. Don't think for a moment that Bombardier didn't try selling the planes to other US airlines for a similar price. Bombardier also offered UA a similar price, but Boeing was still able to sell the 737 for a lower price. The only company complaining was Boeing, and Delta was the only US airline willing to bite on Bombardier's cheap offer.

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.

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.

They cleverly used the term "IMPORTED". Nothing about US built or not.

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/

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!

I am sure the case could then be made for a countersuit by a domestic aircraft manufacturer Airbus Mobile, regarding the 787 family where IIRC over 1/2 the components come from countries other than the USA. especially when they use a RR power plant. The CS as is, right now is probably more than 50% USA content by value, and I can see assembly of their PW engine variant getting moved to the USA in relatively short order.

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.

In addition, a CS300 made in Alabama will probably have more US content than a 787...

racercoup wrote:

Statement from Boeing legal just claimed the tariffs have to be satisfied whether the jet are assembled in the US or not.

And Airbus and Bombardier say different. And they are equally as confident. It'll wash out in the regulatory process. One thing is for sure, with most of the value added coming from inside the US, the actual impact of the tariffs will not be significant. The ITC was doing foolishness like assessing levies on parts coming from the US above their sale value because it was value added on the finished airplane being exported back to the US. Now, all that activity is inside the US and cannot be tariffed. Boeing can say whatever it wants. I am sure Airbus has done their homework on this one.

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.

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.

What tariffs will Boeing pay on imported parts for their own 787 production?

I would guess that a CS100 or CS300 contains a higher percentage US produced parts than a 787 does. At least when the 787 is equipped with RR engines.

Wonder how they are going to make laws so Airbus/Bombardier in Mobile shall pay tariffs on imported stuff, when Boeing shall not when 747 Dreamlifters are landing in Charleston with 787 stuff from Japan, France, Italy, Korea, Sweden, India, UK.

(Well, the imported stuff for the 787 is just tiny bits and pieces such as screws and bolts, wings, fuselage barrels, tailplanes, landing gears, half of the engines and such. Plus software from India [sarcasm off] ).

What a win for Airbus and the C-Series. I still think it was wrong and quite hypocritical what Boeing did and am selfishly satisfied by this news. I saw the other thread about a potential Boeing/Embraer partnership but like the MAX to the NEO, I see that idea as simply reactionary. The A320NEO line is a stronger platform than the MAX and the C-Series is a stronger platform than the E-Jets. Win/Win for Airbus and Bombardier.

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.

Just as a side note- they tried to get rid of their rail division to SiemensAlstom (now merged). BBD as a whole company just won't last any longer.

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.

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.

I just think most people have bigger issues to ponder. Or, at least, assumed.

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

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.....

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.

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.

I read what you said. You basically created something out of thin air then shot it down. Nobody has ever suggested that there'd be a MAX refresh so suggesting that now Boeing can't do it because of this deal is quite gratuitous. The CSeries/A32Xneo combo will be killer. No need to make up more drama - it's not needed.

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.

The CS100 may be over-engineered, but it's garnered 1/3 of the orders so far. The CS500 doesn't yet exist, but I doubt it will be built to avoid robbing it of it's potential. It'll be built if it served Airbus' broader purposes. I'm just not convinced that that will happen anytime soon, if ever, but look forward to seeing it come to fruition It'd be a killer frame.

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.

For someone like yourself who's been a long-time A.net poster, I'm a bit surprised that you'd be so insulting, but this deal seems to have brought out the America-haters. So be it.

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!

As a life-long Seattle resident until this year, I would suggest not using the comment section of a local newspaper (or any newspaper) as a gauge of the broader populace's opinion. Suffice it to say, this is no different than if your favorite team embarrasses you at the Superbowl. You'll piss and moan, but they're still your team and you'll defend them gladly.

And those people don't buy planes. Now, when DL's CEO bashes Boeing, I take that at face value. They buy planes.

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.

Some people are making this deal about tariffs and production in Alabama.
Bombardier already has final assembly in the US (Wichita [Learjet]). I would think the C-Series could have been manufactured in Wichita for US customers if need be.

This Airbus deal I think has more to do with simply long term stability with cash strapped Bombardier. Also after Airbus got shuffled out of their deal with the USAF (KC-45). I would think Airbus has some room to fill in Alabama. So this is a huge win for Airbus.

Cruiser wrote:

Anyone else laughing at the official Boeing statements that are being tweeted? They are ridiculous...

The replies are pretty funny. Lol

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.

And that is exactly why Canada will not do a deal without that clause. This Boeing-Bombardier saga has proven how fickle the Americans are as trade partners. Would also add that US politics shows how unreliable American commitments are. So might as well get something in writing. Who knows what comes after Trump with this electorate.

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.

I respectfully disagree.... If airlines purchased based on your analysis the A380 would be the dominant airplane in the sky... thousands of them... Airbus would have to have built 3 times the factory to keep up. The 747 would also be in massive production as well...

They purchase size of aircraft to match market size... Now show me a US made product in this size range... to match the market size that the CS-100 and CS-300 fits...

Have a great day,

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.

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.

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.

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!

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!

That's why I love the E190. No middle seat, super comfy - and no crowds.

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.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but do not the US and EU have a treaty not to tariff each others aircraft? If Airbus is putting together a C-series, they will have to get a production certificate for Mobile. This makes it a different source than Mirabel... Thus not subject to the same tariff on two grounds: 1. Now made at a different location than the tariffed location and 2. Now an Airbus product.


I like Boeing aircraft, but oh, the tweets need to be taken down as they just make no sense.

Lightsaber

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.

I completely agree with your general point. However, in this case, didn't the threat of tariffs result in some new jobs on Mobile that wouldn't have been there?

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:

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.

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.

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.

.

Yes, I get the anti-American vitriol you have. This has been like hitting the lottery for you. #Congrats[/quote]

i am pretty sure he is calling that a stereotype, which means it is just that and not a fact.But i guess seeing Anti-US, another US stereotype would be "Americans" referring to the US as America, where there is none counts as a skill.

But it all options it is still competing directly with the 737.

You mean "indirectly", if it was direct competition there would not need to be 73% rebates to make an otherwise noncompetitive plane competitive.

best regards
Thomas

If Boeing wants back into the sub 150 seat market, maybe they can get a controlling share in Rekkof and keep those 60's era designs going.

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.

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.

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.

787 anyone?

Wings?
Fuselage sections?
tail?
RR engines?

I used to have to go to the theatre to watch a farce.....

Rgds

I am convinced Boeing will now try to get a similar tariff ruling for Airbus products as well.

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.

It runs entirely with Boeing's MOM logic. In the last 10 years there is now twice as many destination pairs that have over 10 daily narrowbody flights. This will double again in 10 years.

Airlines don't want over 10 daily flights between two points. In an ideal world a flight every hour in the morning and evening peak and a flight every 2 hours offpeak. Living in Melbourne Australia this topic comes up quite a bit as we have the multiple short thick routes in the world.

Right now they have no choice but to add more narrowbody flights. There are no widebody aircraft that are as efficient on short flights due them being built for long haul. This is what the MOM's main market we be, all the routes that have more than 10 daily flights.

The 787 for instance reduced the risk on long thin routes. Instead of operating a single daily 747-400 flight between two distant destinations they could operate two 787 flights on the busiest days.

Instead of cancelling a route that was struggle to fill up a daily 747-400 they can downsize it to a 787.

The same would apply for the C series. If a route was struggling to fill a single daily 737 then the C series would be a great choice. But if the distance is short they would just go with a prop.

The amount of long thin routes that can't fill a 737 but could fill a CS100 would be incredibly small.

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

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.

Hey, knock yourself out. Who am I to get in the way of the party...

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

Only part of the tariffs against BBD were based on selling under price, another part was for getting subsidies and the things listed in the decision can be applied to Airbus as well, especially under the current US administration. As unhinged as Boeing looks on twitter, I would not be surprised at all, if they go for a trade war with Europe.

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!

Launching a program isn't enough to kill a competitor, but slapping a 300% tariff is. Boeing and Airbus took different strategies and Airbus' was definitely the fairer of the two. BBD launched its program and Airbus competed with its own while Boeing opted to slap tariffs instead. Both price dump left and right, but at no point did Airbus try to slap tariffs on BBD as Boeing has done.

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.

If shooting in the own foot is the right thing to do. Doing just nothing would have kept the CSeries weaker than it will be now.

And - the low price DL was paying reflected the risk of buying from a small vendor. Backed by Airbus the CSeries will not need such discounts anymore to become a bigger pain for Boeing than it would have been with any other outcome.

par13del wrote:

So who has bought a dumping case against Boeing in Europe, Canada, Russia, the ME, etc etc etc and lost?

Nobody - because Boeings competitors seem simply to be less ill-minded towards "the other guy". E.g. Airbus instead of running to the courthouse to whine and fight against the 787 decided to bite the bullet and develop the A350. Well knowing that to a smaller degree they take profits from subsidies too.

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.

Depends. There are many regional airlines, that would enormously profit from a single aircraft family spanning 100 to 160 seats, while others are fine with the size range you quote. Toulouse will now be the address, where both needs can be met.

Looks like this farce has back-fired big time on Boeing, will they drop it and act honourably or do they fear loosing face BIG TIME and in these days of litigation where lawyers are paid mega dollars to argue black is white and vice-versa, continue with the farce. Boeing had forced Bombardier into a corner, now Boeing is being forced into a corner of their own doing, let the soap continue, this could lead anywhere and much of it bad.

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.

It sounds like to me that you do not have a clue where Delta Flies, and in what frequency; nor how flights to mid and small sized cities in the USA work.

In the US, replacing 12 daily flights with 8 larger flights will almost always lose you most of the passengers from at least 3 of the 4 flights you eliminated. They will fly with someone else as frequency is king. Thus, you will now be flying larger and more empty aircraft. That is not economical.

The second point is that a number of the markets the CS-100 and CS-300 are targeted at only get 2 to perhaps 6 flights a day anyway... Cutting frequency will not work well at all to go with a larger aircraft.

I restate my previous comment: Size of the market matters... and putting in a larger plane does not work (seat cost per mile advantage of a larger aircraft does not control here; and in reality almost never does) and the CS-100 and CS-300 are targeted to smaller markets; not markets where you run lots, lots, and lots of flights per day where you might consolidate a bit. You have a very high risk be putting a larger aircraft.. (your own argument back at you). Show me a US made product that is in the size range of the CS-100 and CS-300.

Have a great day,

Quick question: How is DL able to cancel the existing deal with Bombardier and then make an entire new deal with Airbus for the same but now localized airplane from the US Manufacturer Airbus Mobile. They can have 'Fair Trade Prices' in that contract as subject to prove and show case against other deals and somehow a potential lump sum differences to the precious contract with Bombardier are compensated elsewhere in another contract with Airbus, such as A321s, A330s and A350s, Pilot Training vouchers etc.
We would have the subject of complain disappear and another deal would Need to be complained from Boeing if something feels wrong.
Still American Jobs are created.

Flyglobal

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.

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.

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!

I don't think that the C-Series had much impact in the NEO decission.
The NEO was neccessary as a further step because they had the NG on the run as you put it.

Boeing reacted to the increasing marginalization of the NG
via starting to push this "super duper" NSA concept to customers.

Boeing omitted to tell that they had issues creating the announced features and had no idea
how to produce the new frame either ( for an acceptably near EIS horizont and acceptable cost.)
Whiffs of Microsoft fending off ( successfully ) competitors with feature fantasms "just around the corner
coming in the next release" .

The NEO was thus necessary because now Airbus
in a further step needed to call that bluff from Boeing.

Boeing retreated from the NSA and went for the nearer term available MAX upgrade to the NG.
For the time being the NSA is shelved.

If Airbus expects to deliver more than half of their NB production as A321 ( any subtype ) going forward
the C-Series doesn't really step into their backyard ( neither A318 nor A319 can compete against their bigger sibblings.)
Forcing your customers into buying a less than optimal frame for their task regularly retains a bitter taste.
On occasion it makes sense to "help them across the road".

Now Airbus covers the entire NB range...again great investment into the future. But those Boeing Twitter rants though...

kitplane01 wrote:

The MC-21 is not a competitor because it's very unlikely to sell a significant number of planes.

unclean thinking?

A competitor is someone with a similar enough product for the desired task.
It is a neutral term for a suitable product.

What you tag as (non) competitor is in reality success in competing or not.

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.

Mostly due to shareholder pundits not understanding "deferred cost" and
falling for those share buybacks as wag the dog indicator of success
in lieu of real performance.

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.

I hope this does not happen, such tactics would reflect even worse on Boeing.

Irrespective of how such a strategy would affect its own programs (where Boeing import much of the 787 frame for example), you would also have to question how this would affect current and potential Boeing customers, who through Boeing's actions could potentially have huge tariffs placed on the existing orders of their planes, and/or depending on where they are domiciled be effectively forced in future to buy from either A or B removing competitive pressures from the market place and increasing prices.

Hardly the way to impress the market. Boeing need to think on this one - no one likes a bully.

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.

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.

by that logic:

If parts for the 787 are imported and assembled at Boeing in Everett, to me that will still be an import and make no difference to any tariff being imposed.

how can you separate the two?

The C Series wings will likely come direct from the UK for example, never even touching Canada. Put a tariff on that and Boeing hinders its own programs with UK imports.

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.

One day trading shows the change in outlook, long term just means that shareholder are confident that the company will make the stock worthwhile by buying it back if need be, and taking up loans to pay out dividends, Boeing is fairly reliable with that. In the time frame you´ve indicated Boeing stated a 14 Billion US$ share buy back.

best regards
Thomas