UK Joins Canada Against Boeing Over Bombardier Investigation File


#169

@tranquil_skyflyer @Levet MaxSez: I note flyer you have kept this politicaly slanted court case of no general interest alive by bumping it. You’ve amassed a peanut gallery of like minded lackeys who like you are pushing a slanted nationalistic diolog The majority of members less your Lackies are anti or non- political. Filling this space with EU propaganda serves no useful purpose. I suggest this Topic is politically slanted to one side, discrimitory and violates the Forum Charter. In my judgement it requires a review of content. I consider immediate closure appropriate in the sperit of fair play and collegiality.


#170

You never got an opinion from me for that matter. I could care less either way honestly Max. All of this is way above our pay grades. You got the wrong fella falsely accused of “bumping” said thread. Cheers


#171

@Levet. MaxSez.

I defer to your judgement. Regret mis-count of Bumps. The violations noted are glaring. I would refer you to the direction issued by your contemporary as noted below. Regards


#172

@Maxmustang

As you may have read in my posts within this community before, this forum is built on discussions and opinions. You can’t take away someone’s stance or viewpoint because it isn’t cut from the same cloth as yours. I haven’t devoted time into this investigation involving the aforementioned air lines therefore it would be a poor decision to get involved without having knowledge, multiple sources and history. I would love to chime in and offer any input, opinion and foresight but this is far at the bottom of my list of priorities. I firmly believe that everyone should be entitled to and have the chance to explain their position on this topic which many have above but I will not barge in here and discredit, persuade, denounce others views. I appreciate your concern and position on this matter as you have earned the privilege to offer your opinion in here as well. Take care Max, Your Fire Dawg ✊


#176

@Levet MaxSez: Your position noted. (Did you ever run for office Dog). The middle of the road is always safest. But; “If It ain’t Boeing it ain’t Going”! LOL


#177

Okay, some news that has come in during the last few days.


It is said that Boeing is in talks with Embraer concerning a possible deal. This has been CONFIRMED by Boeing. If this deal is related to the E-Jets than this will not only affect the CSeries but possibly some CRJ models.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielreed/2017/12/22/a-boeing-embraer-tie-up-is-hardly-a-surprise-but-it-sure-would-make-things-interesting


Bombardier now has no near future plans for a new aircraft program (because apparently they did before). They have been pouring money into programs and accumulated much debt, and now believe (as a result of the Airbus deal) that the aircraft the offer now will produce adequate revenue.


Another possible customer for the CSeries!
Aeromexico, an airline that has heavily favoured Boeing.

If I’m understanding properly, if the tariffs effect the delivery of Delta’s CS100 which are slotted for 2018, Aeromexico could potentially be the customer of the aircraft that are slotted for FA then.


Bombardier has delivered its first CS300 to Korean Airlines!


#178

I honestly think that what Boeing did was kinda right, but moreof what the GOVERNMENT did that was wrong. Boeing put a 80% tariff on Bombardier because they did something illegal, but the GOVERNMENT put a 300 tariff.

Canada buying F35? LOL! The Super Hornets are far less expensive than the F35 which isn’t even complete yet.

TLDR; Canada funds aircraft, goes wrong, tries to save itself but does something illegal, Boeing places a tariff but GOVERNMENT adds a way higher 1. canada_triggered.png cancels super hornets and Airbus saves Bombardier.

Disagree with me all if you don’t think. I’m a Irkut and slight Boeing fanboy, but that is no excuse to not think I’m wrong.


#179

Loan = Legal
Subsidies = Illegal
∵ Canada gave Bombardier a loan and not subsidies.
∴ This is not illegal.
AND
∴ Boeing has an ill-founded argument.


F-35 is operational. Has been to delivered to numerous countries.

Super Hornets are far less expensive than F-35 because the Lightning is superior to the Hornets in technology. The Lightning is much more modern and is a much better long term replacement, which the RCAF is in dire need for. The Hornets are only an INTERIM replacement (why would Canada even want a interim replacement when they have a good enough long term replacement that they were supposed to get anyways in the first place). The Super hornets have been in service for 20 years, and the F-35’s for 2. You see the difference. That is why the price differs. Why spend SIX BILLION DOLLARS on an interim replacement only meant to last 10 maybe 15 years MAXIMUM. Now Canada MAY buy used F-18s (even worse) from Australia to be used until a replacement is selected and deliveries has begun in about 2025. Money down the drain! This replacement ‘race’ that the Canadian Gov’t has launched is open to countries and manufacturers. Proposals will be made by 2019, a contract rewarded by 2022, and first delivery by 2025. Why go through all of this and waste more money when a commitment was already made by the previous gov’t to a current contender (F35). Waste of money and time!
F-35 > Super Hornets.


#180

Why have you stolen my IFAET Slack profile pic? Also, there aren’t very many new advancements in the news regarding this topic… But I support Bombardier here so I’m glad the topic is still open.


#181

Didn’t know that, cool


#182

Your argument about the Super Hornets being outdated has no basis. Boeing has been consistently upgrading its systems to meet with current needs of its buyers. By your argument, the USAF might as well ditch the 60 year old B-52 stratofortresses and replace all of them with the B-2 stealth bombers simply because they are newer (which by the way, cost 800 million a piece).

I am not trying to say the F-35 isn’t a technological marvel (it absolutely is). I am just saying that making the claim the Hornets will only be in service for 15 years is ridiculous.


#183

You know what would be on of the few things that would seriously and literally knock the breath out of me? If Frontier signed up for some CSERIES. Man I’d be ecstatic.


#184

Not really. From what I’ve heard, it was that Boeing couldn’t get them an order slot before 2020.


#185

Bombardier is $9B in debt, that’s Billion with a big “B”. I just can’t understand how some of our members can continue to support a loser in this court case, it was a loser out of the gate. Remember he who holds the Gold makes the Rules. “If it ain’t Boeing it ain’t Going”. Boeing is Golden.
Max Sez, “Up the Republic and the Rising of the Moon!”


#186

That’s pretty normal for an airline manufacturer, Boeing and Airbus are in the same boat with long term loans etc.


#187

@Chatta290… MaxSez: LOL… A likely story, Your loyalty to Bombardier is commendable.


#188

I don’t really have much interest in Bombardier, I can see that this situation is ridiculous though hence my chiming in to keep a fair discussion, Boeing are in the wrong here. I’m more interested in Airbus and Boeing.


#189

Now I realize that my statement is incorrect. They bought the CS100 and not CS300. Boeing has no direct competition to the CS100. My bad. They’re so similar…

Boeing claiming the CS100 is harming their sales. Pathetic!


#190

At least Bombardier is decent enough to declare they’re 9bn in debt, Boeing (and even Airbus) doesn’t declare their subsidies as debts do they 🤔


#191

Boeing is in 9.56 billion US dollars of long-term debt, Bombardier is in 8.7 billion Canadian dollars (6.95 billion USD) of long-term debt. That being said, Bombardier’s annual turnover is much smaller, so they do have a greater debt burden. But all companies borrow money, it makes financial sense for companies to go borrow money.

Aversion to interest-bearing debt when the prevailing market rate of debt is below the expected rate of return on a project is a foolish move. You’re leaving money on the table. This is not personal finance where people see debt as some sort of bogeyman, companies love borrowing money when they can generate a greater return than the interest on the debt.

I’m disappointed in seeing you use misleading numbers and rhetoric to paint Bombardier as a “loser”. We can agree to disagree with our opinions of the CSeries program, but the use of misleading numbers regarding debt and painting long-term debt for corporations in a negative light when it makes financial sense for companies to further your point that Boeing is “golden” is unfortunate.