이 웹 사이트는 쿠키를 사용합니다. 이 웹 사이트를 사용하고 탐색함으로써 귀하는 이러한 쿠기 사용을 수락하는 것입니다.
종료
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..
종료
Back to Squawk list
  • 18

Canada, U.K. Renew Demands on Boeing to Drop Bombardier Dispute

제출됨
 
Canada and the U.K. are continuing to press Boeing Co. to drop its trade challenge of Bombardier Inc., with one Canadian minister saying any resolution must also include the cancellation of U.S. punitive tariffs. (www.bloomberg.com) 기타...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


CandlerAssoc
You don't understand at all. When foreign manufacturers get huge subsidies from their government, they can undercut prices, which hurts the manufacturers in the countries that
they sell to. Cheaper aircraft, also allow reduced airfares, which hurts the competing airlines. There is absolutely nothing wrong with level playing fields for global trade. Think about it and assume you were laid off from an importing country manufacturer because sales dried up due to artifically lower prices from competitors from other countries (subsidies). Think like this and you will understand why and how it hurts importing countries, even if the product is inferior, as was the Embraer product in the early 1980s.Our govt. officials said they would not impose a 28% tariff (duty) then because Brazil was an underdeveloped country and owed more to Citibank than its net worth. This is politics at play--helping the less fortunate countries at a large cost to American workers. Not good!!! Trump ran on "setting a level playing field for trade" and this is one small component of that pledge--good for America and American workers.
CandlerAssoc
Understand, but there is a difference. American gov't (DOD etc.) should buy American when it is practical to keep jobs, technology, etc. advantages, However; the commercial airline industry is a completely different world. Canada, Brazil and some others foreign airframe companies "dump" their products at country subsidized prices and financing, which gives them a huge competitive advantage. Many of these countries (such as Brazil) believe the subsidies are a good substitute for welfare. I have visited their factories and they also employ many more people for specific jobs than our American airframers, as they want their people to work rather than be strictly on other government social and welfare programs. These subsidies disrupt and in many cases kill good paying U.S. aerospace jobs. One more factor that lowers our US wages and forces workers to take unemployment and lower paying service sector jobs. We need to look out for ourselves and all we ask for is a level playing field, which most of these other countries have agreed and signed up for.
The commercial airline business is a very competitive and low profit business, so cheaper aircraft and/or cheaper financing will be a major deciding factor when selecting new equipment. It does make a huge difference.
mbish01
So Boeing's nose is out of joint because Bombardier has produced a superb plane? and they don't have a plane in this size range to compete? Does the Trump gang not realise how absurd this is?? And what about Delta-last I heard they were a US company, so why doesn't this nationalist protectionism cover their business interests too?
Can't wait to see Air Canada Cseries put on the Seattle routes so they can waggle wings over Renton on approach!
RichardIsbell
The plane is average and in no was a revolution in Aviation. It is the engines that make that aircraft efficient.

speshulk99
Codswallop. Boeing has no a/c to compete with Ab and Bombardier.
Uruburey
The US government has ALWAYS lent a very helpful hand to such companies as Boeing, Lockheed, et al, especially the former 2. Without going very far back, just look at the Pegasus (KC-767) contract, that was handed over to Boeing after Airbus had won it with their A330 MRTT... every major defense or strategic player in the world has their backs covered by their respective Governments. There should be no surprise here. It's simply the way the game is played.
Moviela
You have to respect any government that works to provide meaningful work for its citizens, however, buy creating an unfair advantage for a Canadian company to the detriment of US workers and investors.

They now display the ultimate aggressive stance by demanding the case to punish them for their transgressions be dropped, and the punitive tariffs MUST be rescinded. It is about time America stop being a door mat for this type of attack on our economy. Then they threaten a boycott of American defense airplanes. I would say fine, buy Migs or Mirage's, but that would not be fair to the good people living in Canada and the UK that deserve the finest protection.

I would say that if the tariffs level the playing field the telephone at the 737 sales desk will start taking calls from Atlanta.
canuck44
canuck44 7
They should not hold their breaths at the 737 desk awaiting for orders from Atlanta. Boeing will be lucky to keep the 737-900 order it holds from Delta which is fast becoming an Airbus airline.

The concept that Boeing would provide the finest protection in Canada must come from a Boeing sales brochure. Canada does not need most of what Boeing has to offer (or Lockheed Martin either). Canada needs new ships, two AOR's and some ice breaking capacity along with some helicopter replacements. They need to quit screwing around with NATO until they take care of themselves (Canada first). They have a small population to fund protection and service for a huge geographic area. Everything they need is available at lower cost elsewhere including the ships.
Highflyer1950
The government does not provide work for it’s citizens! It cannot pay for anything unless it first takes from it’s citizens. One might say that governments don’t subsidise business, the taxpayers do that. If Boeing had a competitive product to the C Series, I would agree with you on tariffs but it would work on both sides of the border and until Boeing does, it becomes just plain idiotic to fine a company who produces a product the US doesn’t!
RichardIsbell
Dumping is dumping, Bombardier has dumped the Challeger 300 on the US market for years . (Bombardier gets $1,000,000.00 per airframe sold from the Canadian government) Add to that the generous social benefits give Bombardier workers by the government and it become a even greater imbalance. For Bombardier to give a 70% discount to Delta is in fact dumping.
Jeraboam
Jeraboam 1
Canada has been supporting the defence and economy of the United States for generations by buying fighter aircraft which are virtually useless for the defence of Canada with their limited numbers and inadequate flight durations for this huge country. They were purchased to please the Canadian and American military leaders and politicians who were pretending that Canada still had a meaningful air force. The current designs being offered, both American and European, are even more useless for any significant defence purposes. Like the existing fighter/bombers their only useful purpose will be attacking military targets in third world countries like Algeria and Iraq and providing spin-off manufacturing jobs.
RichardIsbell
Go ahead and build your own....or buy a European make...with even less performance and range. The fact is the USA builds the best fighters in the world.
CandlerAssoc
I have been the subject of predatory pricing by Embraer and in a resulting counter veiling duty suit, which we won, but the White House over-ruled. Their financing and pricing subsidies nearly killed our American business, even though we had a much better product.
With actual experience, I'm pleased to see the U.S. is finally supporting its businesses, by making aviation trade a level playing field. Govt subsidies are not only unfair trade, but against international agreements where countries have agreed not to provide them. Canada has long been known as well for its aviation subsidies. They should be punished to allow for a level playing field.
ericfwilson
You're not seeing the bigger picture if you don't think that some of the 25+ percent of your US tax dollars aren't going to subsidize Boeing's civil aviation division. Whether they're called subsidies or not, the US gov keeps defence contractors well fed and healthy. Canada has a very good track record of winning US trade disputes, unfortunately these judgements keep getting thrown back into the courts ... lining the pockets of lawyers, but ultimately hurting business and competitiveness on both sides of the border. Squabbling as Asia looks on.
RichardIsbell
Scarebus can compete for the same defense programs Boeing wins. Your argument that Boeing somehow gets a advantage by bidding and winning open bid contracts is spurious.
Jeraboam
Jeraboam 2
Boeing is the biggest beneficiary of any corporation in the USA with tax subsidies from the state of Washington and massive subsidies from the US government for its military production, the numerous benefits of which flow over to the commercial side. I understand that its much flawed B788 aircraft are selling well because they have been sold at less than cost prices. Apparently, this is a normal practice with new designs until design costs are recovered as production ramps up; a practice which Bombardier is now following with its initial sales. In the Cseries program subsidies have been minimal, most of the Canadian and Quebec government investment was in the purchase of shares, unlike the handouts Boeing has received for decades.

로그인

계정을 가지고 계십니까? 사용자 정의된 기능, 비행 경보 및 더 많은 정보를 위해 지금(무료) 등록하세요!