4 ms·

> if Boeing goes out of business, we would be left with just one major manufacturer of passenger jets The former US president certainly helped with that, as hi

> if Boeing goes out of business, we would be left with just one major manufacturer of passenger jets The former US president certainly helped with that, as his misguided tariffs on aluminium killed Bombardier's C-Series plane. Bombardier had to _give_ it to Airbus so it had a chance to see the light of day. It's now known as the A220.

rob74 6y ago
I was under the impression that had more to do with this episode: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSeries_dumping_petition_by_Boeing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSeries_dumping_petition_by_Bo... - basically Boeing complained that Bombardier was selling the CSeries at dumping prices, the US International Trade Commission agreed and threatened additional duties on the imported planes, so Bombardier partnered up with Airbus to be able to (partly) build the planes in the USA and thus avoid paying the additional tariffs.
- emilecantin 6y ago
  Yeah, Boeing was complaining that Bombardier was receiving subsidies (which it did, at great expense to Québec taxpayers), while it was receiving many times that amount in subsidies as well from the US gov. > US International Trade Commission agreed If you think that wasn't from political pressure, I have a bridge to sell you.
- 908B64B197 6y ago
  The ruling didn't hold up in court. What's interesting is how Trudeau immediately bowed down to Trump. All he did was to basically threaten to not buy Boeing fighter jets and instead get f35 from Lockheed (which he was contractually obligated to anyways). I still don't understand why he reacted so submissively to Trump. Having the CSeries sold to Airbus at a huge discount was foolish: The plane already had a profitable amount of orders. Now Europeans are reaping the benefits. Why didn't he step up?
cptskippy 6y ago
The tariffs really struck me as contradictory to their intent. They said the tariffs would bring factory jobs back to America, but they seemed specifically designed to make most manufacturing more expensive. Most finished products weren't taxed but raw materials were. So if someone wanted to setup a TV factory it would cost more to import the necessary parts.
- minikites 6y ago
  >The tariffs really struck me as contradictory to their intent. Welcome to the post-1980 Republican party.
- hiram112 6y ago
  > Most finished products weren't taxed but raw materials were. This is kind of a simplistic summary. The tariffs were targeted to ensure certain industries remain solvent in the US so we're not dependent on foreign imports. In some cases, that meant products farther down the manufacturing chain, and in others, closer to the source. For example, steel was one of "raw materials" we targeted. We might not be so concerned about finished products using steel at the moment (e.g. cars), but we want to ensure we can create tanks and fighter jets in wartime. So you'd expect we would tariff imported steel, but not cars, because the cost of the steel in a modern car (which is more than half its weight) is not that significant compared to the other components.
stewx 6y ago
Bombardier has a long history of incompetence. Just google "Bombardier delays" or "Bombardier defects". They have been bleeding money for years and sucking up billions in corporate welfare to stay afloat.
- emilecantin 6y ago
  Oh, no need to google here; I have some friends that worked there that have confirmed this on multiple occasions. It's just frustrating as a Québec taxpayer to see this plane program bailed out from Bombardier's incompetence with my tax money, only for the US & Boeing to force it to be given to Airbus. I feel like we really got shafted in that saga.
  - 908B64B197 6y ago
    Québec taxpayers actually made money with the deal, strangely enough. Bombardier basically split the CSeries program from it's main division and placed all assets (factories, IP for the plane) in a separate company. The government then invested in that company and got shares in return. So it's really more like VC. These shares also get a part of the profits from the CSeries and the government can sell them if it wishes.
- 908B64B197 6y ago
  Rail or airplanes? The two companies have been distinct for many years now. Rail projects are a political nightmare, as every buyer is a government (municipal, state, national) and wants their rail equipment to be manufactured in their jurisdiction. So they can make a big announcement that the X millions they just paid is actually creating good jobs. Then a few years later the job dries up for a designated site (project completed) so the local government keeps bailing it out else they'll get voted out for getting rid of all these jobs! Plus, of course, every project is custom hardware. And is long enough that it will span at least two municipal, state or national administrations so expect a feature creep/change of requirements in the middle.

rob74 6y ago

I was under the impression that had more to do with this episode: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSeries_dumping_petition_by_Boeing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSeries_dumping_petition_by_Bo... - basically Boeing complained that Bombardier was selling the CSeries at dumping prices, the US International Trade Commission agreed and threatened additional duties on the imported planes, so Bombardier partnered up with Airbus to be able to (partly) build the planes in the USA and thus avoid paying the additional tariffs.

emilecantin 6y ago
Yeah, Boeing was complaining that Bombardier was receiving subsidies (which it did, at great expense to Québec taxpayers), while it was receiving many times that amount in subsidies as well from the US gov. > US International Trade Commission agreed If you think that wasn't from political pressure, I have a bridge to sell you.
908B64B197 6y ago
The ruling didn't hold up in court. What's interesting is how Trudeau immediately bowed down to Trump. All he did was to basically threaten to not buy Boeing fighter jets and instead get f35 from Lockheed (which he was contractually obligated to anyways). I still don't understand why he reacted so submissively to Trump. Having the CSeries sold to Airbus at a huge discount was foolish: The plane already had a profitable amount of orders. Now Europeans are reaping the benefits. Why didn't he step up?

cptskippy 6y ago

The tariffs really struck me as contradictory to their intent. They said the tariffs would bring factory jobs back to America, but they seemed specifically designed to make most manufacturing more expensive. Most finished products weren't taxed but raw materials were. So if someone wanted to setup a TV factory it would cost more to import the necessary parts.

minikites 6y ago
>The tariffs really struck me as contradictory to their intent. Welcome to the post-1980 Republican party.
hiram112 6y ago
> Most finished products weren't taxed but raw materials were. This is kind of a simplistic summary. The tariffs were targeted to ensure certain industries remain solvent in the US so we're not dependent on foreign imports. In some cases, that meant products farther down the manufacturing chain, and in others, closer to the source. For example, steel was one of "raw materials" we targeted. We might not be so concerned about finished products using steel at the moment (e.g. cars), but we want to ensure we can create tanks and fighter jets in wartime. So you'd expect we would tariff imported steel, but not cars, because the cost of the steel in a modern car (which is more than half its weight) is not that significant compared to the other components.

stewx 6y ago

Bombardier has a long history of incompetence. Just google "Bombardier delays" or "Bombardier defects". They have been bleeding money for years and sucking up billions in corporate welfare to stay afloat.

emilecantin 6y ago
Oh, no need to google here; I have some friends that worked there that have confirmed this on multiple occasions. It's just frustrating as a Québec taxpayer to see this plane program bailed out from Bombardier's incompetence with my tax money, only for the US & Boeing to force it to be given to Airbus. I feel like we really got shafted in that saga.
- 908B64B197 6y ago
  Québec taxpayers actually made money with the deal, strangely enough. Bombardier basically split the CSeries program from it's main division and placed all assets (factories, IP for the plane) in a separate company. The government then invested in that company and got shares in return. So it's really more like VC. These shares also get a part of the profits from the CSeries and the government can sell them if it wishes.
908B64B197 6y ago
Rail or airplanes? The two companies have been distinct for many years now. Rail projects are a political nightmare, as every buyer is a government (municipal, state, national) and wants their rail equipment to be manufactured in their jurisdiction. So they can make a big announcement that the X millions they just paid is actually creating good jobs. Then a few years later the job dries up for a designated site (project completed) so the local government keeps bailing it out else they'll get voted out for getting rid of all these jobs! Plus, of course, every project is custom hardware. And is long enough that it will span at least two municipal, state or national administrations so expect a feature creep/change of requirements in the middle.