Tümü
← Back to Squawk list
Canada, U.K. Renew Demands on Boeing to Drop Bombardier Dispute
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) Daha Fazlası...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.