Reader comments are listed below. Comments are currently closed and new comments are no longer being accepted.
While all concerned are guilty of subsidizing their aerospace industries, our (cdn) governments have been particularly blatant in throwing money at Bombardier. Recently, the provincial government where they are headquartered, gave an UNREQUESTED $1.3B to fatten the executive wallets. The start up costs for C-series were running high with the company going through a rough patch financially. Even so, they were trying to tough it out when the premier leaped in with some unrequited love. I'm sure that stupid decision made it so much easier for the yanks justify their smack down on Canada. Forcing us to give away half of the company that they were trying to protect. The world desperately needs a separation of business and state. Politicians are too eager to game the markets in pursuit of selfish enrichment of their constituencies, all the while, ignoring the idiot subsidy wars that they trigger.
"Boeing's accusations against Bombardier smacked of hypocrisy, as the American company has itself received billions of dollars of state assistance, from generous military contracts placed by the federal government to $8.7bn in handouts from the Washington state government."
If you get a customer that just happens to be the government you're considered to be receiving "state assistance"? The US government doesn't own any part of Boeing unlike many other countries and their manufacturers (e.g. Airbus).
As for "handouts" from Washington state, all local governments give out goodies like tax breaks to attract large businesses to their areas. I don't see the so-called hypocrisy here. I'm just hearing the usual backhanded anti-American tripe from TE.
That’s already well under way. The technology has already been transferred, it is now being implemented. The ARJ21 was first, it’s off to a rocky start. This is a regional jet similar to the Bombardier C Series, which is the subject of this discussion. The C919, a narrow-body similar to the A320 and B737, is slowly getting airborne. Both aircraft use mainly Western equipment, but Chinese industry is acquiring those technologies too. Now the C929 is in the design phase, which is similar to the B767 / A330. These aircraft will probably not see much export, but Chinese domestic airlines will likely replace their current Boeings and Airbuses with these aircraft in the next couple of decades. I’m guessing that by 2050, the Chinese aviation industry will be a true competitor to A and B in the international marketplace.
My educated guess is that the order for the $8000 hammer could have included some one-off tooling cost or special testing to qualify a new supplier or a new design.
You missed the point. Boeing also gets massive subsidies. Everyone in the aerospace sector does, hence the charge of hypocrisy. Jesus, you’re thick.
Perhaps economic nationalism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
It's never a good idea for a multi-national company that strongly depends on sales outside the US to take on a nationalist and protectionist view. It gives its customer base the feeling that they may end up in the next dispute. When you look at the contents of a modern airliner, you see dozens of suppliers from dozens of countries contributing; taking a national view on such a business is guaranteed to backfire. And Airbus' move to take the C-Series into its fold is a perfect example of this backfiring. Rather than killing a potential competitor (for a segment that Boeing does not serve), Boeing has made this offer more attractive on the market, and created a negative reaction in its customer base. Nice move.
What is becoming clearer and clearer with every passing day: Trump is a destroyer, not a builder. If you don't see that, if you honestly think he's going to bolster American companies on the world economic stage...you are dreaming.
Scott, I'm curious.
Is that why Delta placed the order for a few hundred of them that triggered this tariff?
Thank you for filling us in on this.
"America’s Department of Commerce imposes a tariff of 292% on Bombardier’s C-Series jets"
I presume this was determined by a department's high ranking official still in a straight jacket. A company that charges American taxpayers (not really a subsidy!) $8000 for an ordinary hammer sold to the government. A country that lost its massive automobile industry, textile and durable goods to a more efficient foreign producers is now using dirty tricks and hypocrisy to survive in a competitive world marketplace.
Good morning, Mr Worthington.
I'm curious. You say the C Series is a competing product to the 737 and vice versa. Yet every other source I've read suggests that the 737 is roughly twice the size of the C series.
That would suggest that Boeing has plans to downsize the 737. How is my question. Take out half the seats? Narrow it by half? Shorten it commensurately? Lop one engine off? Take out the cockpit? Remove one wing?
As an engineer, I am interested in what adjustments they plan. I doubt I'm the only TE reader who is.
Can you share with us?
Such outrageous hypocrisy does not do well for the American brand.
Thank you very much for your kind reply.
For me, a flight every two days is not quite the same as a daily flight.
If I have an appointment tomorrow, a bus will get me there before a flight the next day. That being the case, your solution would seldom work for me. I cannot say I prefer riding a bus to flying in a plane. However, I must admit that riding a bus is indeed preferable to missing an important appointment.
That being the case, and a number of my neighbours sharing my viewpoint, I am not sure your 'flight every other day' solution works unless you have some sort of divine power over the scheduling of appointments by doctors, lawyers, law enforcement officers, insurance agents, and so forth.
I cannot help but think your solution is a plight upon air traffic and a blessing to bus lines. Perhaps that is indeed the future.
In any case, thank you for your solution to the question I raised. Perhaps we are indeed marching backwards into the future.
Kindest regards and a blessed Christmas to you and yours.
The American approach indicates that American corporate and political leadership does not fundamentally believe in free trade. They believe in trade domination. But where does the administration think all of this will lead? Not long ago China was pushing for a Canada-China free trade agreement. Canada decided to start that discussion partly as a response to all of these trade attacks from the U.S. The Chinese, who originally wanted this process instead rebuffed the Canadian delegation because, thanks to America they know we need them more than they need us. So the deal when it comes will include no Canadian scrutiny of any transactions with Chinese companies even in industries that are considered strategic and vital to Canada's security. America is about to drive it's most loyal ally and one of it's biggest trading partners into the arms of it's arch rival. How stupid is that?
... and the correct list (based on US DoC 2016 data) is China (approx 300B trade deficit), Germany (approx 70B), Mexico (60B), Japan (55B) and India (30B). This includes goods and services.
You should instruct your trusted President on the US/Canada trade facts. He (again) invented new numbers and facts on US/Canada trade in his Pensacola rally early December.
The US hasn't lost it's massive auto industry. Half of the cars sold into US market are still made by the big three US auto makers and just about everyone else in the market has US based manufacturing operations. US manufacturing industry as a whole certainly employs far fewer people that it did 40 years ago but its output is actually higher because of productivity gains.
I would much rather the USA balance our trade with China, Japan, South Korea, and the European Union than take out after Canada, which trades fairly with us.
Good morning, Langosta!
I agree that the US needs no economic protection from Canada.
I wonder why the Yanks insist upon doing it.
US citizens and companies overseas feel entitled because of their home advantage economy of scale. Well,that was until China arrived.The swagger is going but bullying smaller countries continues.