3 ms·
Even if the involved parties are corrupt it’s a good ruling. Replace the players and that outcome is preferrable over the alternative.
by the_mitsuhiko 9y ago
Even if the involved parties are corrupt it’s a good ruling. Replace the players and that outcome is preferrable over the alternative.
- ubernostrum 9y agoI've said it elsewhere, but: This was basically a case about just how publicly and openly corrupt aircraft manufacturers can get away with being. Previously, they at least put some effort in to hide how much they were secretly being subsidized by their respective home governments and how much of a discount their customers got as a result. But this time around Bombardier either didn't bother or didn't succeed in keeping that mostly under wraps, and that seems to've violated an unspoken norm of the industry, which provoked Boeing to go after them. Which then provoked Airbus to get involved to try to spite Boeing. Which then made it a major story that people actually heard about. I find it hard to conclude that there's a "good" or "winning" outcome here that doesn't involve addressing the underlying industry-wide corruption.