4 ms·
The argument is that Bombardier was selling jets at unfairly low prices thanks to subsidies from the Canadian government. I have no idea if this is true or not,
by burkaman 9y ago
The argument is that Bombardier was selling jets at unfairly low prices thanks to subsidies from the Canadian government. I have no idea if this is true or not, but generally you can't get tariffs without pointing to some alleged unfair trading practice.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- zzalpha 9y agoI have no idea if this is true or not, but generally you can't get tariffs without pointing to some alleged unfair trading practice. I'd buy that if this was a WTO ruling but these are tarrifs adjudicated by Americans, supporting an American company. The US similarly imposed tarrifs on softwood lumber not that long ago, and they were determined to be illegal once it hit the WTO. There's no reason to believe that won't happen again.
- skgoa 9y agoIt is true as far as we know. However: * Boeing is guilty of the same, selling hundreds of both the 737 and 787 far below production costs to be able to compete with Airbus' 320 and 350. * Slapping such a massive tarif onto the CSeries was a political move aimed purely at squashing a new competing product that barely overlaps in cost/capabilities with a 40 year old, obsolete Boeing product.