Airline Pilot Forums

Airline Pilot Forums was designed to be a community where working airline pilots can share ideas and information about the aviation field. In the forum you will find information about major and regional airline carriers, career training, interview and job seeker help, finance, and living the airline pilot lifestyle.




View Full Version : 219%


Packrat
09-28-2017, 09:14 AM
That's the tariff the Trump Administration is slapping on the C-series jet.

https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news/59924-us-slaps-219-tariff-on-deltas-bombardier-c-series-imports


Ouch.


Qotsaautopilot
09-28-2017, 11:37 AM
That's the tariff the Trump Administration is slapping on the C-series jet.

https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news/59924-us-slaps-219-tariff-on-deltas-bombardier-c-series-imports


Ouch.

I'm fine with that so long as he decides to protect us just like Boeing. Deny NAI NUK ME3 unmanned technology. If it's about the American worker then let it be universal

ShyGuy
09-28-2017, 02:24 PM
The decision came after Boeing lodged a formal complaint accusing the Canadian manufacturer of dumping. In its petition, Boeing contends that Bombardier sold seventy-five CS100 jets to US carrier Delta Air Lines (DL, Atlanta Hartsfield Jackson) for USD19.6 million per aircraft, far below their USD33.2 million manufacturing cost, and that the C Series could never have existed without subsidies from the governments of Canada, Quebec and the United Kingdom.

If true, that's kinda BS. Selling something under cost just to secure an order (and lets face it, without DL's order the C Series was in trouble) is wrong from a competitive standpoint. I can see why Boeing would would do this. And that's not to say Boeing doesn't make shady deals but this Bombardier deal is just embarrassing.


StrykerB21
09-28-2017, 04:05 PM
Good news.

CBreezy
09-28-2017, 05:29 PM
If true, that's kinda BS. Selling something under cost just to secure an order (and lets face it, without DL's order the C Series was in trouble) is wrong from a competitive standpoint. I can see why Boeing would would do this. And that's not to say Boeing doesn't make shady deals but this Bombardier deal is just embarrassing.

You mean like Boeing selling the 737 to United at a 73% discount so they wouldn't order the C-series? http://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-took-some-extraordinary-measures-to-crush-its-canadian-opposition-2016-3

Or what about Boeing selling heavily EXIM bank subsidized wide-bodies to countries to compete against US airlines.

And there is the fact that the $200M 787 is being sold at a 50% discount in order to justify the line even being open.

Saying the the Bombardier deal is embarrassing is completely ignoring the fact that Boeing is doing far worse to get rid of a technologically advanced aircraft in a market they aren't even competing in. But hey, they'll sell you used E-190s or a 1950s era -700 at a steep discount.

David Puddy
09-28-2017, 05:34 PM
If true, that's kinda BS. Selling something under cost just to secure an order (and lets face it, without DL's order the C Series was in trouble) is wrong from a competitive standpoint. I can see why Boeing would would do this. And that's not to say Boeing doesn't make shady deals but this Bombardier deal is just embarrassing.

This tariff is completely unfounded and it is entirely political. Boeing doesn't compete in the desired seat category - it no longer produces 100-120 seat aircraft like the 717 or the 737-600. And it's important to remember that Boeing offered to sell used Air Canada E190s to Delta for cheap to get them off their books (acquired through a swap deal with Air Canada for 737 MAX aircraft). Boeing offered E190s because it doesn't have an aircraft in Delta's desired seat category. And now it claims to be financially harmed! Say what? :eek::mad:

How can Boeing prove that it has been harmed financially when it no longer produces an airplane in that seat category?

Burton78
09-28-2017, 05:44 PM
I don't have a strong opinion either way about the C-Series. I will say however, that it I find it a little entertaining and somewhat ironic to watch the DL guys squirm about the situation. Screaming about unjust government subsidies of the ME3, but then are totally ok with it when it benefits them in the C-Series order.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CBreezy
09-28-2017, 05:51 PM
I don't have a strong opinion either way about the C-Series. I will say however, that it I find it a little entertaining and somewhat ironic to watch the DL guys squirm about the situation. Screaming about unjust government subsidies of the ME3, but then are totally ok with it when it benefits them in the C-Series order.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

50% of the airplane is built by US companies. And an airplane that size isn't even made by Boeing. What was Delta supposed to do, by antiquated 737s they didn't need or wait another 50 years until Boeing decided to make a new narrowbody type. ME3 and the C-series are apples to oranges.

Burton78
09-28-2017, 06:04 PM
50% of the airplane is built by US companies. And an airplane that size isn't even made by Boeing. What was Delta supposed to do, by antiquated 737s they didn't need or wait another 50 years until Boeing decided to make a new narrowbody type. ME3 and the C-series are apples to oranges.



I hear you man. Like I said, I don't have a strong opinion either way. I absolutely don't blame DL for jumping on an amazing deal. I just can see both sides of the argument a little. I truly feel that Boeing is spending way too much time making enemies riding a petered out wave opposed to innovating. It'll more than likely bite them in the end.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ShyGuy
09-28-2017, 06:34 PM
You mean like Boeing selling the 737 to United at a 73% discount so they wouldn't order the C-series? Boeing gave United a massive discount - Business Insider (http://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-took-some-extraordinary-measures-to-crush-its-canadian-opposition-2016-3)

Or what about Boeing selling heavily EXIM bank subsidized wide-bodies to countries to compete against US airlines.

And there is the fact that the $200M 787 is being sold at a 50% discount in order to justify the line even being open.

Saying the the Bombardier deal is embarrassing is completely ignoring the fact that Boeing is doing far worse to get rid of a technologically advanced aircraft in a market they aren't even competing in. But hey, they'll sell you used E-190s or a 1950s era -700 at a steep discount.

Meh. It's not like US airlines are ordering Boeing widebodies by the dozens. Besides, United is a long term customer and they've delivered many Boeing products to them: 727, 737, 75/767, 757, and 787. So it's understandable if they gave a good deal on the 737. That's quite a bit different than one struggling aircraft manufacturer (lets face it, they are) who was looking to underball pricing just to launch their new airplane be securing a large order.

I had a long SEA overnight so I took a Boeing Everett factory tour. Every single 777 I saw being built there was destined to foreign airlines. When was the last time a US airline ordered a 777? And how many? Can you really blame Boeing for wanting to find business overseas? It's their job to sell the planes. And if US airlines won't order them in droves, then Boeing will find airlines that will. Bombardier is just mimicking Boeing, Canadian based company that has the C-Series being pumped out in Northern Ireland with parts built all over the place. But the difference is unlike Boeing, Bombardier couldn't find anyone to buy their planes. So they took a pretty aggressive step and low-balled the planes to Delta for a massive order that would ensure a launch success of the airplane.

terminal
09-28-2017, 07:32 PM
They should apply the same tariff to NAI and ME3

The701Express
09-28-2017, 07:37 PM
I'm fine with that so long as he decides to protect us just like Boeing. Deny NAI NUK ME3 unmanned technology. If it's about the American worker then let it be universal

55% of the CSeries is produced in the United States. There are tens of thousands of US workers employed to supply the CSeries. The CSeries uses much more advanced technology than the 737. Those high tech jobs created by the plane are the exact kinds of jobs we want in this country.

As far as this administration protecting US airline jobs, you might want to check out the latest news about NUK:

https://centreforaviation.com/news/dot-gives-norwegian-uk-final-approval-for-transatlantic-operations-718747

galaxy flyer
09-28-2017, 07:52 PM
Riddle me this: if the ME3 were banned from the US, how would it change the US airline industry? Would loads of new routes be served by the US3? Would the US3 suddenly become a mega-carriers in international service? I doubt it, getting rid of JV and code sharing is way more conducive to better times.

GF

RogAir
09-29-2017, 12:14 AM
[ When was the last time a US airline ordered a 777? And how many? .[/QUOTE]

I realize this isn't germane, but Fedex has bought 30 777's in the last few years and has options on 15 more. I think. Don't quote me.

ShyGuy
09-29-2017, 04:04 AM
When was the last time a US airline ordered a 777? And how many? .

I realize this isn't germane, but Fedex has bought 30 777's in the last few years and has options on 15 more. I think. Don't quote me.

Yes, but I mean the pax carriers.

CBreezy
09-29-2017, 04:23 AM
Yes, but I mean the pax carriers.

I didn't realize Boeing didn't make money on cargo only 777.

RiddleEagle18
09-29-2017, 04:25 AM
United has ordered 18 777-3 in the past two years or so.

American ordered a few 777-3 a couple years ago.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Larry in TN
09-29-2017, 05:28 AM
Yes, but I mean the pax carriers.
United has been taking delivery of a steady stream of 777-300s all year.

A year, or so, ago, United order 65 737-700s to add to their existing 100 737-9 MAX order. This year they rearranged those 165 orders to 4 737-800s, delivered this year, 100 737-10 MAX and 61 737-9 MAX aircraft.

This year United also reshuffled and added to it's A350 order.

Qotsaautopilot
09-29-2017, 08:30 AM
55% of the CSeries is produced in the United States. There are tens of thousands of US workers employed to supply the CSeries. The CSeries uses much more advanced technology than the 737. Those high tech jobs created by the plane are the exact kinds of jobs we want in this country.

As far as this administration protecting US airline jobs, you might want to check out the latest news about NUK:

https://centreforaviation.com/news/dot-gives-norwegian-uk-final-approval-for-transatlantic-operations-718747

I understand what your saying and agree with you. It's all about political posturing with the appearance of putting an American company first. I'm saying if they are going to do that then let's do it and start banning the NAIs and NUKs, and standing up to the ME3 and their blantant violation of the open skies agreement they signed. If they keep cheating, nullify the agreement. They need us more than we need them.

Instead the administration likes to play favorites and they clearly have a hard on for Boeing. Again, I don't have a problem with that but let's start protecting the airline industry here not just the airliner manufacturer.

Dolphinflyer
09-29-2017, 08:33 AM
Every one of the turd RJ's designed and built since the original Bombardier CRJ-50 have been subsidized welfare programs.

None of these turds would have been built in the free market.

The701Express
09-29-2017, 08:52 AM
I understand what your saying and agree with you. It's all about political posturing with the appearance of putting an American company first. I'm saying if they are going to do that then let's do it and start banning the NAIs and NUKs, and standing up to the ME3 and their blantant violation of the open skies agreement they signed. If they keep cheating, nullify the agreement. They need us more than we need them.

Instead the administration likes to play favorites and they clearly have a hard on for Boeing. Again, I don't have a problem with that but let's start protecting the airline industry here not just the airliner manufacturer.

I hear ya.

This seems more like protecting an American corporation rather than American workers. Sadly only one of those groups seems to have much influence anymore.

deadseal
09-29-2017, 09:44 AM
Every one of the turd RJ's designed and built since the original Bombardier CRJ-50 have been subsidized welfare programs.

None of these turds would have been built in the free market.

Please do research on the c-series and how it compares to current market availability before you post.
This is a good jet with no comparable seat count available versus range. I understand the need to not allow subsidies, but Boeing is just as dirty and we all know it. Maybe they will consider building something new now

Lemons
09-29-2017, 11:13 PM
That's the tariff the Trump Administration is slapping on the C-series jet.

https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news/59924-us-slaps-219-tariff-on-deltas-bombardier-c-series-imports


Ouch.

Good. About time

CBreezy
09-30-2017, 04:50 AM
Good. About time

Except it is hurting a lot of American workers. But that's not important because it LOOKS like he is supporting the American economy.

C130driver
09-30-2017, 06:38 AM
Except it is hurting a lot of American workers. But that's not important because it LOOKS like he is supporting the American economy.

Politics is 99% optics, nothing new.

Dolphinflyer
09-30-2017, 07:05 AM
Please do research on the c-series and how it compares to current market availability before you post.
This is a good jet with no comparable seat count available versus range. I understand the need to not allow subsidies, but Boeing is just as dirty and we all know it. Maybe they will consider building something new now

They've gained a critical mass based on earlier models that never would have been built. And nearly 30 years later, they still can't fund the start up R&D without a welfare check.

Lemons
09-30-2017, 10:14 AM
Except it is hurting a lot of American workers. But that's not important because it LOOKS like he is supporting the American economy.

Not really they have sold so few of those planes I doubt the amount of employees needed to sustain that failing operation is really very significant.

It sends a message that is worth more than a few jobs.

Chakerik
09-30-2017, 11:56 AM
Not really they have sold so few of those planes I doubt the amount of employees needed to sustain that failing operation is really very significant.

It sends a message that is worth more than a few jobs.

What about the message Boeing is sending to the rest of US Airlines in accepting orders that consist of government subsides from middle Eastern and Asian carriers? ME3, NAI, etc. That's not really helpful to the hundreds of thousands of US Employees being affected.

I'm all for American made and American jobs. But look at this situation and the hypocrisy involved.

Xtreme87
09-30-2017, 01:55 PM
Good. About time

It hurts the airlines numbnuts. If an airline can’t get an efficient airplane, they either slow growth or buy more inefficient ones.

Lemons
09-30-2017, 04:22 PM
It hurts the airlines numbnuts. If an airline can’t get an efficient airplane, they either slow growth or buy more inefficient ones.

dumping a product on the market hurts them more and is illegal.

BeatNavy
09-30-2017, 04:26 PM
They've gained a critical mass based on earlier models that never would have been built. And nearly 30 years later, they still can't fund the start up R&D without a welfare check.

We couldn't build cars in America without a welfare check, and our auto makers would have gone buy buy if they weren't gettig bailed out...same with many banks. And oil companies. And solar companies. And defense companies that have sucked off the DoD teat and wouldn't be around otherwise. Boeing has received how much from the government in the last several decades, to include many tax breaks?

No other companies in the world will likely ever be able to enter the duopoly that Boeing and Airbus have because they have killed off competition and continue that tactic. BBD had a small chance to enter the mainline narrowbody market for a segment that had no competitors (100-150 seat) because they had revenue from trains and planes. And they bet the company on it. Just like many US corporations, delays and budget overruns caused a need for bailouts. That's to be expected for a project like this. And selling at a discount to gain traction that generates more orders is standard. Boeing has sold jets at a discount. How much a business discounts their product it is up to them.

When it comes to ME3, the difference is they are subsidized indefinitely by their government with oil money. There is no end. The lower cost of the planes BBD sold could effectively get them more orders, and eventually BBD will make money on the C series. It's a temporary price drop with a mid-long term recovery plan.

In a david and Goliath environment, how else can anyone innovate and make a new plane that competes? It's an unfair playing field, which is why Boeing is selling a brand new 1966 plane with many things unchanged since it first rolled off the production line 50+ years ago. What's sad is they have to cry to daddy because BBD has a product that is superior to anything they have that's even close to that size range. Sounds whiny to me. 219% won't stick.

CrimsonEclipse
09-30-2017, 04:31 PM
None of these turds would have been built in the free market.

Boeing, Airbus, Embraer, Bombardier, and Comac.

You think there is free market here?

BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!
(wipes tear)
oh my...

Dolphinflyer
09-30-2017, 08:41 PM
Boeing, Airbus, Embraer, Bombardier, and Comac.

You think there is free market here?

BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!
(wipes tear)
oh my...

Uhhhhh, no. Boeing come the closest though, especially with the 707 and 747 bets.

CrimsonEclipse
09-30-2017, 09:24 PM
Uhhhhh, no. Boeing come the closest though, especially with the 707 and 747 bets.

(*blinks*)

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Oh wait, you're serious!
Let me laugh even harder:

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

You're precious....

Dolphinflyer
09-30-2017, 10:34 PM
CE,
Yes they all have a long list of gimmees from their respective governments.
Boeing benefited from the Military side of things, but still made large bets on the 707 and 747 for civilian use of which both had some $$$ for R&D from the Tanker and Freighter side of things. That funding did have a purpose other than basic welfare.

Original point was that Boeing,McD and Lockheed weren't given the percentage of government handouts to specifically build a jet like the original RJ's and their follow on models received from Brazil and Canada and probably Japan with the MRJ.

tomgoodman
10-01-2017, 09:04 AM
Boeing appeared to lose their bet on the 747, because the USAF chose Lockheed’s C-5 instead. Juan Trippe was the only customer at first, but then foreign airlines started to order 747s, mainly for reasons of national pride. That gave Boeing enough time for the civilian marketplace to catch up with the airplane’s huge capacity.

freezingflyboy
10-01-2017, 09:48 AM
Does anyone else feel a bit of irony when they pull up next to a shiny, new 787 from Third World Airlines?

Chakerik
10-01-2017, 02:12 PM
Does anyone else feel a bit of irony when they pull up next to a shiny, new 787 from Third World Airlines?

Absolutely. Ironic, isn't it?

Dolphinflyer
10-01-2017, 06:19 PM
Does anyone else feel a bit of irony when they pull up next to a shiny, new 787 from Third World Airlines?

Yup.

At least 10 years ago we'd pull into the gate at CDG with our multiple MEL'd, beat up, speed tape covered 767 next to a shiny new 777 in Viet Nam colors.

Sounds like they've gone to the crapper and we've gotten shiny new jets. Things will change again.

deadseal
10-02-2017, 05:59 AM
Yup.

At least 10 years ago we'd pull into the gate at CDG with our multiple MEL'd, beat up, speed tape covered 767 next to a shiny new 777 in Viet Nam colors.

Sounds like they've gone to the crapper and we've gotten shiny new jets. Things will change again.

Lol, this summer I drove by a beautiful Vietnam airlines 787 at cdg in a scraped up 767 so not sure where you're going with this.

freezingflyboy
10-02-2017, 09:14 AM
Lol, this summer I drove by a beautiful Vietnam airlines 787 at cdg in a scraped up 767 so not sure where you're going with this.

Did the same except in a 25 year old 757 and inbound from a "second-tier" airport!

Marlin
10-02-2017, 12:38 PM
Maybe the Seattle types are just ****ed at bombardier. Had they not launched the RJ fad, and the ever larger version of same, maybe Boeing could have sold a butt load of 737-600??

ItnStln
10-02-2017, 01:17 PM
Maybe the Seattle types are just ****ed at bombardier. Had they not launched the RJ fad, and the ever larger version of same, maybe Boeing could have sold a butt load of 737-600??



That's one point of view I haven't considered.
I still like my line of thinking in that Boeing did this to drive the value of Bombardier down so that they can acquire them. It kind of makes sense considering Boeing just targeted Bombardier for receiving government subsidies and not Airbus as well.

BeatNavy
10-02-2017, 10:48 PM
Should Canada have been more discreet about subsidizing Bombardier? - Politics - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/bombardier-subsidies-canada-boeing-aerospace-1.4313739)

Some good info here about how subsidized Boeing is. Hypocrites.

Xtreme87
10-06-2017, 03:14 PM
http://news.sky.com/story/bombardier-hit-with-new-us-tariff-as-trade-row-rumbles-on-11069929

300% now.

Why stop there? Why not...1 Million Billion gazillion %? Murica first.

RiddleEagle18
10-06-2017, 04:17 PM
If the tariff holds, the only play here for bombardier is to sell the c series to Boeing or abandon the US market.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Hetman
10-07-2017, 02:09 PM
I hope this does not start a trade war. As everyone knows, the primary export from Canadia to the US is winter weather. From where will we get our sub zero temps and lake effect snow if trade breaks down.

If anyone needs me, I will be over here wringing my hands.

MantisToboggan
10-16-2017, 05:50 AM
Not really they have sold so few of those planes I doubt the amount of employees needed to sustain that failing operation is really very significant.

It sends a message that is worth more than a few jobs.

Nearly 7,000 employees across 17 states.
$3.0 billion in business for U.S. suppliers across 48 states (2015).
$3.3 billion in export sales from U.S. activities (2011-2015).
$2.0 billion invested in U.S. operations (2011-2015).
4 manufacturing sites (Wichita, KS; Plattsburgh, NY; Pittsburgh, PA – two sites).
28 service centers; 2 parts distribution centers; 2 component repair facilities; 1 equipment refurbishment center.

MantisToboggan
10-16-2017, 05:53 AM
I hate to say it, but it's gonna be a little funny when Westjet cancels their orders for 10 787s (option for 10 more) and 65 737 MAXs.....

'Murica

Lemons
10-16-2017, 08:20 AM
I hope this does not start a trade war. As everyone knows, the primary export from Canadia to the US is winter weather. From where will we get our sub zero temps and lake effect snow if trade breaks down.

If anyone needs me, I will be over here wringing my hands.

Thats a war Canada can't win.

at6d
10-16-2017, 09:09 AM
Nearly 7,000 employees across 17 states.
$3.0 billion in business for U.S. suppliers across 48 states (2015).
$3.3 billion in export sales from U.S. activities (2011-2015).
$2.0 billion invested in U.S. operations (2011-2015).
4 manufacturing sites (Wichita, KS; Plattsburgh, NY; Pittsburgh, PA – two sites).
28 service centers; 2 parts distribution centers; 2 component repair facilities; 1 equipment refurbishment center.

How much of what you listed is former Learjet or train manufacturing?

Lemons
10-16-2017, 02:37 PM
Nearly 7,000 employees across 17 states.
$3.0 billion in business for U.S. suppliers across 48 states (2015).
$3.3 billion in export sales from U.S. activities (2011-2015).
$2.0 billion invested in U.S. operations (2011-2015).
4 manufacturing sites (Wichita, KS; Plattsburgh, NY; Pittsburgh, PA – two sites).
28 service centers; 2 parts distribution centers; 2 component repair facilities; 1 equipment refurbishment center.

How much of that is for the c-series?

MantisToboggan
10-16-2017, 04:29 PM
How much of that is for the c-series?

If we're talking trade war (which we were, by the way) it's not going to be limited to the c-series.

Not saying that is or isn't going to happen, just saying that p*ssing in Canada's lemonade is worth more than pennies to the US.

Canadian orders of Boeing airplanes, military orders of the F-18.... We're talking a lot of coin out of Boeing's, and US workers, pockets



Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1