3 ms·

According to the article, Airbus bought the stake "at no cost". Unless I'm misunderstanding something, shouldn't this be a loss for Quebec? I guess the Airbus/

by Cyph0n 9y ago

According to the article, Airbus bought the stake "at no cost". Unless I'm misunderstanding something, shouldn't this be a loss for Quebec? I guess the Airbus/Boeing duopoly is here to stay. Bombardier looked like a promising future competitor... They still have their rail business, so all is not lost.

Doctor_Fegg 9y ago
It's possible that Bombardier Rail may be absorbed by a merged Siemens/Alstom - the dust hasn't settled yet.
gsnedders 9y ago
The rail business, Bombardier Transportation, is headquartered in Berlin, and as one of the sibling comments says, may yet get sold off. Undoubtedly, the money eventually flows back to Bombardier's headquarters but it is primarily a European division.
forapurpose 9y ago
> shouldn't this be a loss for Quebec? Agreed. It's a loss for Quebec, Bombardier, Canadian workers (who lose jobs to Alabama), Canadian taxpayers, and most importantly, for free trade and free markets - this will only establish anti-competitive policies as an accepted norm, a dangerous precedent. Not that anyone cares about economics any more; it all seems political.
- danmaz74 9y ago
  Looks like only final assembly will be moved to Alabama, and only for the jets destined to the US...
- kharms 9y ago
  >this will only establish anti-competitive policies as an accepted norm Wouldn't it have the opposite effect? Quebec subsidized a local industry and lost.
- stale2002 9y ago
  How is it a loss for the free market? Now Bombardier doesn't have to pay the ridiculous 300% tax. They are subject to less regulations and more free market.
  - forapurpose 9y ago
    The 300% tax still distorted the market by pushing Bombardier into a deal they otherwise might not have taken, into investing resources in a location (Alabama) that they might not otherwise have chosen, and by taking a competitor out of a marketplace with very high barriers to entry.
jeffrey_t_b 9y ago
> I guess the Airbus/Boeing duopoly is here to stay. Comac is a promising competitor, too, and are explicitly targeting the bread-and-butter size classes of Airbus/Boeing.

by Cyph0n 9y ago

Doctor_Fegg 9y ago

It's possible that Bombardier Rail may be absorbed by a merged Siemens/Alstom - the dust hasn't settled yet.

gsnedders 9y ago

The rail business, Bombardier Transportation, is headquartered in Berlin, and as one of the sibling comments says, may yet get sold off. Undoubtedly, the money eventually flows back to Bombardier's headquarters but it is primarily a European division.

forapurpose 9y ago

> shouldn't this be a loss for Quebec? Agreed. It's a loss for Quebec, Bombardier, Canadian workers (who lose jobs to Alabama), Canadian taxpayers, and most importantly, for free trade and free markets - this will only establish anti-competitive policies as an accepted norm, a dangerous precedent. Not that anyone cares about economics any more; it all seems political.

danmaz74 9y ago
Looks like only final assembly will be moved to Alabama, and only for the jets destined to the US...
kharms 9y ago
>this will only establish anti-competitive policies as an accepted norm Wouldn't it have the opposite effect? Quebec subsidized a local industry and lost.
stale2002 9y ago
How is it a loss for the free market? Now Bombardier doesn't have to pay the ridiculous 300% tax. They are subject to less regulations and more free market.
- forapurpose 9y ago
  The 300% tax still distorted the market by pushing Bombardier into a deal they otherwise might not have taken, into investing resources in a location (Alabama) that they might not otherwise have chosen, and by taking a competitor out of a marketplace with very high barriers to entry.

jeffrey_t_b 9y ago

> I guess the Airbus/Boeing duopoly is here to stay. Comac is a promising competitor, too, and are explicitly targeting the bread-and-butter size classes of Airbus/Boeing.