Back to Squawk list

Delta Will Not Pay Proposed Bombardier CSeries Tariffs

Soumis
 
Delta Air Lines chief executive Ed Bastian is confident that the carrier will take delivery of the 75 Bombardier CS100s it has on order without paying a proposed 300% tariff on the aircraft. (www.flightglobal.com) Plus d'info...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


picturetaker
Christian Parada 28
The U.S. Department of Commerce needs to reduce it's daily cocaine intake.
w2bsa
w2bsa 6
Christian, are we sure it’s cocaine or Trump idiocy??
23allkimm
Randall Kimm 0
Both,Trump has Peruvian White dumped into the ventilation systems daily. Everyone is taking a bathroom break or a smoke with a friend. However, doing this happens more than 27 times a day is a little weird don't you think questions?
picturetaker
Christian Parada 4
EliotSteele
Eliot Steele -6
Actually, it's is correct, as in "it is".
ThomasFrisch
Thomas Frisch 7
Eliot,
Sorry, you're wrong. Christian meant the US Dept of Commerce should cut back on using cocaine.
patpylot
patrick baker 12
this boeing effort is confusing to me, for I have to wonder "where's the beef?". Bombardier is not their problem now or in the future, airbus is now and will be so in the future.Check what is in the coffee, for this makes no sense anyway I spin it.
TorontoJeff
Jeff Phipps 6
Bombardier, if the C-series is successful, will very much be Boeing's problem. The CS100 does not compete with Boeing but if the 100 and 300 did well you can be sure airlines would be making Bombardier launch the CS500 and this aircraft would eat the 737's market share big time. Boeing wants to destroy the competition before it gets going. They learned a lesson with thinking Airbus couldn't compete.
23allkimm
Randall Kimm 1
Thats the plan and there is nothing Boeing or Embraer will stop the Bombardier C-Series engine named progress!
mfejfar1
m f 1
Well put. This is definately Boeing's motivation. Hopefully regulators don't allow this beat down to happen.
21voyageur
Dan Chiasson 3
Big balls from a company caught with their pants down.
xtoler
Larry Toler 5
Probably some newbie lawyer hired by Boeing trying to make a name for himself.
joelwiley
joel wiley 4
Or an Airbus mole.
shenghaohan
Shenghao Han 11
Boeing should go fry bigger fish instead... Why trying to challenge those 100 seater but not focus on the battle with Airbus... Maybe Boeing's lawyers got bored...
ColinSeftel
Colin Seftel 6
Boeing sees the C Series as a serious threat to the 737 Max 7. In May, Boeing's vice-chairman Ray Conner told US trade officials, "Bombardier's CSeries and its aggressive sales tactics threaten the very existence of Boeing's 737 Max 7 and the US aerospace industry." (Report by Flight Global, https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/cseries-prices-threaten-737-max-7-viability-boein-437624/)
wopri
Wolfgang Prigge 7
Of course Boeing knows a thing or two about agressive sales tactics. They do it themselves a lot, like when they gave an insane discount to United to shut out Bombardier.

http://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-took-some-extraordinary-measures-to-crush-its-canadian-opposition-2016-3
21voyageur
Dan Chiasson 6
True - this Boeing holier than thou BS is so transparent. Panic move on their part. Hope Delta resists being bullied. In the mean time, the C series is exceeding expectations in Europe. With Trump in power, perhaps further focus on Europe, followed by Asia is Bombardier's best approach.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 -5
You buy Delta stock and I'll buy Boeing.
RRKen
Kenneth Schmidt 8
What is missing from the below conversation is two points of fact.

First off, Boeing does not market a product that competes with the CS100 ordered by Delta. Without competition, there cannot be any complaint of "dumping" or market dominance.

Second, people continue to say that Canada subsidized Bombardier. Fact is, Quebec made a loan to Bombardier, that must be paid back. Fact is that Canada invested in the company, and those shares have value which must be paid on demand should the Government want to close that investment. On the other hand, Boeing received subsidies from the State of Washington and more which never have to be paid back, they were a gift.

There is no case here. There is no excuse for Boeing to bring this action against Bombardier.
Flightdog
Roger Curtiss 6
There does seem to be a disconnect here. Boeing claims the C-Series could affect 737-7 sales and yet it never bid that aircraft for the Delta sale-so how could that have made a difference?
I am surprised the Commerce Dept. finds merit in the claim...and I am a Boeing shareholder

If this claim prevails it will be ashortsighted win for Boeing. They will lose (at a minimum) F-18 sales to Canada along with increased animosity from European customers and industries that deal with Bombardier.
21voyageur
Dan Chiasson 8
IMHO, this is but a testosterone play by Boeing. Reeks of Trumpism or at the very least Boeing taking advantage of the current "USA Fist" doctrine. My guess is that when Trump fades into the sunset, Boeing will suddenly be more receptive to reality. Hypocritical but the reality of big US business. On the other side of the coin, I hope / suspect that European providers will be rushing to address the recoil to this Boeing approach. Perhaps Boeing's commercial arm is disconnected from its military arm. Big gamble on Boeing's part! I can say that the Canadian gov't and general population clearly distrust Boeing / US. With the Cdn military making overtures to purchasing used F-18s from Australia, a clear message is being sent. Let's see where this plays out.
watkinssusan
mary susan watkins 7
roger..well said..this is part of the new trump economic system,which is (as mr spock used to say on star trek)highly illogical...
21voyageur
Dan Chiasson 4
IMHO, this is but a testosterone play by Boeing. Reeks of Trumpism or at the very least Boeing taking advantage of the current "USA Fist" doctrine. My guess is that when Trump fades into the sunset, Boeing will suddenly be more receptive to reality. Hypocritical but the reality of big US business. On the other side of the coin, I hope / suspect that European providers will be rushing to address the recoil to this Boeing approach. Perhaps Boeing's commercial arm is disconnected from its military arm. Big gamble on Boeing's part! I can say that the Canadian gov't and general population clearly distrust Boeing / US. With the Cdn military making overtures to purchasing used F-18s from Australia, a clear message is being sent. Let's see where this plays out.
ColinSeftel
Colin Seftel 11
No US airline will pay the import duty. They will set up an offshore subsidiary (if they don't already have one) and lease the planes from it.
watkinssusan
mary susan watkins 10
regardless of what mr trump and his "cronies" say,(and yes, this is a political issue because of mr trumps hypocritical ideas on "free trade"and making/purchasing in America),a company or corporation should be free to price and compare any purchase,particularly a large order of aircraft,and if they are offered a reasonable deal from elsewhere,make that purchase without being "fined" with an extremely large tariff..i might add mr trump already has had some drama of his own making,with boeing ,and they are an American company..

xtoler
Larry Toler 4
Yet he owns a Boeing 757 and at one time a 727. Saw them gathering dust on the ramp at KLGA.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 -4
Not to mention that apparently he is getting a better deal on the planes and thus saving taxpayer money. His successes will prolly be short lived though thanks to career politicians.
mfejfar1
m f 6
The actual costs were never released, only Trump's exaggerations.
SmokedChops
SmokedChops 2
The 727 was sold to a shell corp of another Trump subsidiary for $1 (one dollar) two days before Trump Airlines went tango-uniform. The bankruptcy judge took note of it. Perfectly legal. Very shady.
EliotSteele
Eliot Steele 5
How does his purchasing planes involve any savings to the taxpayer. If, in fact, he got a great deal, it would cost taxpayers more due to lost sales tax revenue.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 -3
It was my understanding the planes were already on order. If they were not the best deal is "no deal".
gerardogodoy
gerardo godoy -9
There you go again!!!!!The left eating their guts out!!!!!
EliotSteele
Eliot Steele 10
I don't see you presenting any counterfacts. Just the common attempt to belittle. But, that is the primary calling card of this president.
jkcooney
Joseph Cooney 5
Nonsense comments like those relating to this action are not enhancing this website or reflecting well on the people making the comments.
SueLockwood
Sue Lockwood 5
Shades of Avro Arrow...political and without merit. It's the old "squash the competition"...modernized.
joelwiley
joel wiley 4
Flame me if you want, but I wonder if Boeing may have gotten some indication that the current administration would, if not countenance, at least not oppose such rapaciously aggressive behavior.

Or that in the noise and confusion, they could get away with it.
Turmel
Daniel Turmel 4
Well, the last news; Airbus partnership in the C-Series with Bombardier, that could be partly (and cynically) build in US(Alabama). It would flush the "tax"...

(... must be a "sweating afternoon" in Seattle...)
As another good lesson of arrogant and pretentious attitude, Boing probably lost a few billion by loosing the sale of F18 Hornet fighters to the Canadians.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 -2
You're late to the party. This was posted below an hour and a half ahead of you. Tariff worked.
canuck44
canuck44 4
Tariff did work somewhat but Boeing shit in their own bed...now they have Airbus in their backyard with a superior product. Delta and JetBlue will load up on the
C series and continue the Airbus line for larger jets.
mfejfar1
m f 1
Completely agree.

In addition to Delta and JetBlue, American is also a likely customer. Before this announcement, I heard talk of either CS300 or 319neo's. Now that the 319 is dead, I'd expect to see another large US order. Alabama is going to get busy in a hurry.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 -2
But good for AL and US. Pretty sure BA will survive.
stevemondral
steve mondral 4
wopri
Wolfgang Prigge 3
Yes, and the fun part is the opening up of a second production line for the CSeries in Mobile, Alabama. Apparently Delta is willing to wait if necessary.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 1
So the tariff worked for the US not necessarily for BA?
mfejfar1
m f 3
The parts will ship to AL already painted. The amount of work required to be done in the US is miniscule for them to say "made in America". Just bolt on the wings and presto. I'd call this a victory for AL, a neutral event for BBD as they have lost control of their jet but gained long term viability/stability, a huge win for Airbus, and a huge loss for BA as the CSeries has gained stability and marketing power and will likely grow into MAX territory when Airbus is ready to replace the neo's.

Whether or not this benefits the US is unclear. If BA takes a big hit from international military spending and MAX orders then it could backfire on the US as well. Trade wars don't normally end well for any side.
Turmel
Daniel Turmel 4
... And, as M. Bastian said, Boing is no-match of the quality of Bombardier.
(Fuel efficiency, Noise reduction, Avionics, etc..)
Same reasons why Airbus got a part of the market in the US !
And Boing do not produce anymore planes of this size.
And Boing had the help($) of their government, what, nine times..!!?! and Bombardier couldn't ??!?
It's pure & simple Yankees protectionist and pretentiousness attitude..!
A real match of their Donald Duck in power..!
jkcooney
Joseph Cooney 3
UK was wise in dismissing the case action as frivolous and without merit. The US can and probably will follow suit.
SueLockwood
Sue Lockwood 3
You see we up here in the Great White North have understood our place with the US when it comes to producing a quality product. Nice neighbours until pushed too far though. The C series needed a global partner to give it the international boost it needed. Thanks for helping with that Boeing! Hopefully, it will be seen as a win win win for all.
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
Are you implying that Airbus would not have taken a stake in Bombardier if it could not also poke that stake in Boeing's eye?
SueLockwood
Sue Lockwood 4
The stake was a bonus.
mfejfar1
m f 1
I believe "up the tailpipe" is the term you're looking for ;)
CarolPackwood
Carol Packwood 1
This makes no sense to me as all Airlines have been making money and will continue to make money. Working together to get people the places they want to go should be a good thing.
greggs0072003
Gregg Bell 1
Boeing go screw yourselves. I cannot believe that this big monopoly player whom Canada has bought planes off of for decades. They have the gonads to do this to a Canadian company is beyond anything I have ever seen. I know if I were prime minister of Canada I would oppose 4oo% tariffs on all Boeing products. I would subsidize Air Canada and Westjet to scrap all their Boeing products and buy Bombardier and Airbus period. You want a war Boeing??and to think they want to go to Brazil and buy old used aircraft for Delta instead of new Bombardier aircraft. Thats a slap in the face to Delta. Hey Delta, move your airline to Canada, your American dollar will go further it will be cheaper to operate from here and then you can buy the Bombardier aircraft. I hope other airlines will see this and follow suit. Its time Boeing had its rear kicked so hard that it wont do this again.
fedexman2
Eric Schmaltz 1
Well said.
n9341c
n9341c -1
Gregg, don't break the pill in half anymore. Take the whole thing, OK?
larryzee
Larry Zimmerman -7
I like Bombardier and their products, but if the Canadians are directly subsidizing production of the C-series, why wouldn't it make sense to offset that advantage by imposing a tariff? Not 300%, that's punitive, but proportional to the extent that the Canadians are chipping in per aircraft.
cyberjet
cyberjet 8
Follow the money, as in, the billions in tax breaks and subsidies Boeing receives both irectky and indirectly. Then follow the millions they spent to help Trump get elected and you'll find how this whole thing is both a sham and the ultimate in hypocrisy.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 -4
All the so called tax loopholes for tons of industries were bought and paid for long before the current president. He might sell out too; that remains to be seen.
mfejfar1
m f 4
It doesn't remain to be seen. It's been sighted.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 -4
Prove it!
mfejfar1
m f 7
OK off the top of my head:
1. Attacking net neutrality to benefit monopolized ISPs
2. Use of Mar-a-lago and other conflicts of interest, failure to divest interests
3. Proposed tax breaks benefiting primarily the top 10% of earners and worsening the defecit
4. Proposed 300% tariff on C-Series
5. Enlisting the help of Russia to spread uncertainty and divisiveness.
6. Nepotism within administration to further his family's wealth (Ivanka's business deal with China for instance)
7. Eliminating public visitor logs at the White House (also no logs at Mar-a-Lago)
8. Eliminating clean coal laws
9. Wasting taxpayer time with investigations into crowd size at inauguration and voter fraud allegations.

I'm sure you're a good person, but the child in the White House is not.
canuck44
canuck44 0
You should probably turn off CNN and NBC. You seem to go for all the head fakes and Democrat talking points when all the action is under reported or ignored. He is cleaning up eight years of Obama's unconstitutional policies like giving billions to insurance companies after this was denied by Congress twice....nor will he be giving another $145 Billion to the Iranians without authorization.
mfejfar1
m f -1
Wow, I see you're just dismissing everything I said by calling it a "head fake". Thanks friend.

As to your points about Obama's "unconstitutional policies", I'll defer to my common sense which says most of his policies were done with good intentions. Whether or not they were unconstitutional I'll leave up to the courts. But the practice of executive orders has been getting stronger and stronger for decades. I don't necessarily agree with it, but forgiving Trump's actions simply because Obama used executive orders is just insincere.

Giving billions to insurance companies is the Republican congress' fault. Obama had to compromise to get something passed that moved us towards a better system. He succeeded in that, knowing full well it was not an optimal plan, in the hopes that future governments would IMPROVE upon it. Now that Trump is attacking it at every turn, it's just going to get worse, not better.

I don't know the details of the Iranian deal enough to comment. But I hope whatever is happening will either save us money or be approved by the appropriate channels. Good on Trump if that's the case.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 -1
Congress controls the purse is way the system works. Otherwise we might as well have a king instead of a president.
mfejfar1
m f 1
Hey something we agree on!

I'm just not sure how it applies to what I said. Did I say something to the contrary?
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 -2
Obama went against the constitution and appropriated money without congressional approval. You seemed to think that was ok.
mfejfar1
m f 3
You clearly didn't read my post then.

"As to your points about Obama's "unconstitutional policies", I'll defer to my common sense which says most of his policies were done with good intentions. Whether or not they were unconstitutional I'll leave up to the courts. But the practice of executive orders has been getting stronger and stronger for decades. I don't necessarily agree with it, but forgiving Trump's actions simply because Obama used executive orders is just insincere."

And you still ignore my earlier points. Notice how I address your concerns but you ignore mine?

I'm getting the impression you do this a lot.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 -2
Your supposed common sense don't mean squat legally. The constitution does.
All your claims mean zero or something would be happening. Nothing is.
Virtually everything president O did by exec order is getting undone.
Enough politics. Back to the airplanes. I could give a crap what planes Delta buys as long as there is something in it for the US. I won't be riding in them. I don't care if Boeing (I'll use the whole name for you) made a screw up. Pretty sure they'll be just fine.
Time to move on.
mfejfar1
m f 1
See you around :)
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 -4
You're zero for zero. Those are opinions. Prove he took money.
mfejfar1
m f 6
Prove he didn't. That's an impossible argument.

And nothing I posted was opinion.
n9341c
n9341c -3
Oh I see. Make the claim - any claim - and then tell others "prove he didn't!" and that justifies your position. Go back to your CNN forum. You'll have plenty of supporters there, dumb sh**.
mfejfar1
m f 4
Slow down there and read what I was replying to. I agree with you.

The second half of your post is belittling nonsense that strips your credibility.

Se connecter

Vous n'avez pas de compte? Inscrivez-vous maintenant (gratuitement) pour des fonctionnalités personnalisées, des alertes de vols, et plus encore!