5 ms·
Boeing has not only lost their way (i.e. 737 MAX), but was actively malicious in its use of the federal government to impose tariffs against Bombardier in a hug
by miketery 6y ago
Boeing has not only lost their way (i.e. 737 MAX), but was actively malicious in its use of the federal government to impose tariffs against Bombardier in a huge deal to Delta airlines.
End result is that Bombardier suffered a huge loss, had to sell IP to airbus (joint venture deal), prices to end consumer are higher, and aviation manufacturing competition is stiffed.
- nickff 6y agoBoeing did not abuse the tariff system; they used it exactly as designed. The tariff system encourages reports by competitors, and awards a portion of the collections to the competitors. I am a free-trader, and think all tariffs are bad, but Boeing acted in the spirit of that law. Bombardier's aspirations were stymied by an incredibly expensive certification process, which they underestimated.
- jacquesm 6y agoAirbus got a very nifty little plane out of it too, one that Boeing can not currently effectively compete with.
- Ericson2314 6y agoBombardier IIRC fucks over NYC and other cities with crappy over-budget behind-schedule subways cars, so eh, a pox on both their houses.
- 908B64B197 6y agoI'm still puzzled by the Canadian government's decision not to help Bombardier when that happened. I mean the tariffs were eventually waived. The A220 has something like 600+ firm orders from what I recall. It's going to be hugely profitable and Airbus is basically making all the profits. Was it politically motivated? Why wouldn't Canada want an aerospace sector?
- themihai 6y agoBombardier was not really a sure bet and maybe Canada didn't want to risk tax payer's money? Just because Airbus succeeded with A220 doesn't mean Bombardier would have done the same.
- 908B64B197 6y agoIt already had more orders than required to break even. Development on the aircraft was also completed (and it was FAA/EASA certified) when Airbus took over. I'm failing to see how this wasn't a sure bet...
- joncrane 6y agoProbably because at the time it was deemed politically unpopular for the state to prop up a private business.
- 908B64B197 6y agoCorrect me if I'm wrong but I always pictured Canada as being way more interventionist than the US. Oil and gas, Hydro power in Newfoundland and auto plants all got bailed out. I'm surprised they would give up support for a cutting edge industry like aerospace. That type of expertise will be almost impossible to rebuild.
- sansnomme 6y agoMore like they learnt nothing from the brain drain due to Avro cancellation.
- Hongwei 6y agoBombardier has its own problems and is viewed as a corrupt Quebec company by much of English Canada (that is, the rest of us). So the other comments on the political appetite to bail them out again are mostly correct. [1] https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-world-bank-accuses-bombardier-of-corruption-to-win-contract-in/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-world-bank-... [2] https://globalnews.ca/news/3354398/bombardier-trudeau-hammered/ https://globalnews.ca/news/3354398/bombardier-trudeau-hammer... [3] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/bombardier-what-happened-bailout-1.5453012 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/bombardier-what-happ...
- 908B64B197 6y agoSo Canadians would rather have Europe or the US take the lead (and make the profits) rather than Canada because the company is from Quebec? To me that makes no sense.