Back to Squawk list
  • 30

In Bombardier fight, Boeing sees ghost of Airbus ascent. Risks of loss of selling military planes to Canada

Two words underpin Boeing's (BA.N) decision to launch a U.S. trade complaint against Bombardier (BBDb.TO), which plunged it into a row with Canada last week: "Never again". Still, Boeing faces a headache over what to do about lost fighter sales if Canada makes good on a threat to drop a deal for F/A-18 warplanes in retaliation for Boeing's trade claim. With Boeing's future fighter production in jeopardy as sales run dry, Boeing is anxious to keep its presence in that… ( 기타...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

Boeing needs to accept the fact that airlines can buy planes from other manufacturers if they want to.
canuck44 6
The authors try to explain the motives behind Boeing's litigation with Bombardier. It appears to be throwing lawyers against the wall to see if any of them stick. The paper does say the relatively small F/A 18 program is at risk and that is true, but if Canada really wants to retaliate, Boeing could be looking at countervailing tariffs on all Boeing aircraft sold in Canada. Air Canada has 70 on order and WestJet has 71. An 80% tariff on those products to match Boeing's demand on the C-100 would price those aircraft out of the market....which is exactly the goal of Boeing for the C-series.
The new boss wants C series, cancelled the Boeing order.
again, a COUNTERVAILING tariff is NOT a response to another allegation or charge. Actually, It is what Bombardier is already potentially facing along with the anti- dumping duty. The 2 duty's, or tariffs as you keep referring, serve different purposes but are both filed together, typically. Anti-dumping duty is a response to predatory pricing...countervailing is a response to subsidized products. You keep referring to it as a response. That is 100% wrong.

I am not a troll...I think most your squawks are great, but again, you are out of your lane here.
canuck44 1
"Countervailing duty" obviously does not mean what you think it does not necessarily mean a response to a tort in the exporting country but is intended to compensate an importing country for subsidies to a product by the producing nation. The countervail is against the subsidy not the tort in a national court. In this case Canada (not Bombardier) would argue that the Boeing jets are subsidized and given the pace of the courts on trade, Boeing would be tied up for years in the Canadian market. Simply the "countervail" is filed against an alleged subsidy not the Boeing allegation in an international forum rather than in a friendly national venue.
While you look into your trade manuals, I'll keep driving my "land" whatever that is supposed to mean.
Boeing doesn't like it when another A/C maker does exactly what Boeing's been doing themselves? They're 'Gas Lighting'! The C-Series is a game changer in the regional market and Boeing knows it.
The problem comes when the competitor received significant government subsidies to help compete. That is not fair trade when Boeing receives none.
8c8g8r8 2
1. boeing receives significant tax incentives in both washington state and south carolina.
2. boeing was also the beneficiary of 40% of the export-import bank's 2014 disbursals.

do these not represent government subsidies to help compete?
No, Tax breaks are not subsidies. Also, must big businesses see them, it is not just limited to the Airline industry. If a state wants to attract a business, it needs to offer something up.

Curious, how much in taxes does Emerites pay to the UAE every year?
8c8g8r8 2
While you're correct that strictly speaking these incentives are not subsidies, it's still a govt incentive to help Boeing. From a balance sheet perspective, reduced tax payments are an asset just like a subsidy.

Beyond that, I think you've missed the point. This isn't about what "most big businesses" see, nor what un/favorable tax environment Emirates has. My point is Boeings asset sheet is bolstered by a government just the same as Bombardier's. How much is the question?
Ramer 4
The big picture is that the USA suckered Diefenbaker into exiting the Military Aircraft industry and cancel the AVRO Arrow and the Iroquois jet engine. The USA sold Canada a bunch of useless Bormark missiles to add insult to industry. Bombardier will reenter the Military Aircraft industry again. Canada will use their budget to ignite the process. The chickens are coming home to roost. Why would Canada be once again suckered into buying overpriced obsolete technology to prop up Boeing?
What is Canada going to do... it doesn't want to pay for the F-35 (though it just dropped another $30m in), and it doesn't want to keep its order for the F/A-18 that it was going to use instead....


계정을 가지고 계십니까? 사용자 정의된 기능, 비행 경보 및 더 많은 정보를 위해 지금(무료) 등록하세요!
이 웹 사이트는 쿠키를 사용합니다. 이 웹 사이트를 사용하고 탐색함으로써 귀하는 이러한 쿠기 사용을 수락하는 것입니다.
FlightAware 항공편 추적이 광고로 지원된다는 것을 알고 계셨습니까?
FlightAware.com의 광고를 허용하면 FlightAware를 무료로 유지할 수 있습니다. Flightaware에서는 훌륭한 경험을 제공할 수 있도록 관련성있고 방해되지 않는 광고를 유지하기 위해 열심히 노력하고 있습니다. FlightAware에서 간단히 광고를 허용 하거나 프리미엄 계정을 고려해 보십시오..