C Series Info
10-02-2017, 01:20 PM
#881
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: Baja Vermont
Posts: 5,186
In fact, our agreement is structured with maximum takeoff weight provisions that reflect our intended deployment plan to fly the aircraft, on average, on routes that are less than 1000 miles. If we exceed those averages, i.e., the plane needs to carry more fuel because it's flying longer distances, we're going to be required to pay Bombardier additional payments.
GF
10-02-2017, 02:25 PM
#882
Doing Nothing
Joined APC: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,316
The problem for Bombardier and Delta is they didn't win on the "we're only looking at 100-110 seat jet" and Boeing doesn't compete. The market was expanded to really just any narrowbody. They seem to care more about the dumping not whether it harmed Boeing product today. Plus all of Bombardiers marketing pointed towards the CS300 TOO! And that is undoubtedly a 7 Max competitor. I think this might have worked out in Bombardier's favor had there not been a CS300.
Basically, CSeries is a cool jet, people were reluctant to buy the hype, they didn't buy the plane, bad sales, plane meets the hype but the company almost went under if not for the Government and then it was dumped on the market. Just really bad timing and bad assumptions on market needs and reception.
Basically, CSeries is a cool jet, people were reluctant to buy the hype, they didn't buy the plane, bad sales, plane meets the hype but the company almost went under if not for the Government and then it was dumped on the market. Just really bad timing and bad assumptions on market needs and reception.
That's it. So Delta's and Bombardier's argument falls flat. The facts are undeniable: subsidies and price dumping. The fact that remains to be proven is did this do any harm to Boeing. Maybe we have a chance there. No one wanted the 737-700 really and no one really doesn't want the Max 7 because the economics suck. It's unfortunate for us that they narrowed the investigation to the scope they did.
10-02-2017, 03:49 PM
#883
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Position: Left
Posts: 1,816
This is what Boeing claims:
Also fwiw, DAL was not after the 3000 mile range of the C Series, they wanted 1000.
From Delta's Greg May
Basically, CSeries is a cool jet, people were reluctant to buy the hype, they didn't buy the plane, bad sales, plane meets the hype but the company almost went under if not for the Government and then it was dumped on the market. Just really bad timing and bad assumptions on market needs and reception.
Second, but for the $3 billion government subsidies, Bombardier would not have been able to offer the subject merchandise at the dumped prices it has. In fact, Quebec, Bombardier, and Delta all acknowledge that but for the subsidies, there would have been no sale to Delta. That evidence, too, is in the record.
They also claim the same play was made against UAL which forced them to sell the 737-7Max (Dear God fix the freaking airplane names Boeing) at an exceptionally low price which they later got UAL to convert to the 738Max. Also fwiw, DAL was not after the 3000 mile range of the C Series, they wanted 1000.
From Delta's Greg May
In fact, our agreement is structured with maximum takeoff weight provisions that reflect our intended deployment plan to fly the aircraft, on average, on routes that are less than 1000 miles. If we exceed those averages, i.e., the plane needs to carry more fuel because it's flying longer distances, we're going to be required to pay Bombardier additional payments.
The problem for Bombardier and Delta is they didn't win on the "we're only looking at 100-110 seat jet" and Boeing doesn't compete. The market was expanded to really just any narrowbody. They seem to care more about the dumping not whether it harmed Boeing product today. Plus all of Bombardiers marketing pointed towards the CS300 TOO! And that is undoubtedly a 7 Max competitor. I think this might have worked out in Bombardier's favor had there not been a CS300. Basically, CSeries is a cool jet, people were reluctant to buy the hype, they didn't buy the plane, bad sales, plane meets the hype but the company almost went under if not for the Government and then it was dumped on the market. Just really bad timing and bad assumptions on market needs and reception.
Ooooh where to begin? First, United used Bombardier to negotiate lower prices on 737-700NGs (some of the last in the NG production line) and not the 737-700MAX. End-of-the-line 700NGs. But most airlines use that bargaining tactic - they pit one manufacturer against another to lower your purchase price. Ryanair keeps threatening Boeing that it will take Airbus airplanes - and Boeing reduces its per-unit prices in return. It is laughable. You can't penalize Bombardier for United's excellent negotiating skills. Ultimately, United chose not to even take the 700s and will convert the NG orders to MAX airplanes in the future. This article has a great explanation of the United negotiation:
United Ditches Its 737-700 Order, And It?s Unclear What Will Replace It | Cranky Flier
Again, don't blame Bombardier for United's excellent negotiating.
Second, Boeing offered Delta used Air Canada E190s for a reason - because Delta was interested in a specific seat category (100-120 seats). The deal did not include additional 737-700/800NGs because Delta was not looking for 150 seat airplanes at the time. Why would E190s have been offered if Delta asked for a 150 seat airplane? They didn't.
Don't forget that the US Government nationalized General Motors in 2009 - and yet nobody seems to remember that... Quebec did not nationalize Bombardier - it provided a bridge investment because Canada wants to maintain thousands of aerospace-related jobs. Again, you see this type of investment all of the time around the world - and no doubt Boeing has benefitted big time from non-airline-related projects that can be used to fund the hugely capital-intensive 787 and similar projects.
It is very clear that Boeing is deathly afraid of the CSeries because it is a better airplane. Putting a 219% tariff on any product coming from a friendly, neighboring trade partner (and benefiting our consumers) is ASININE. This is super political with our NAFTA and Post-BREXIT negotiations going on right now. Everyone knows that Boeing is trying to avoid further competition with a better product - they learned their lesson by not squashing Airbus during the 1980s. Regardless, actually proving financial harm from a product that does not compete with an existing product will be interesting to watch. Let me say it again: the CS100 does not compete with any current Boeing product - that is irrefutable. Grouping it with a larger aircraft type (the CS300) is convenient for them - but Delta was interested in a 100-120 seater which is why Boeing offered the used E190s. Can't wait to hear all of the BULLSHRIMP legal lingo from the Boeing lawyers/lobbyists....
10-02-2017, 05:51 PM
#884
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Well said on the last paragraph. The commerce department defined the imported merchandise as: 100-150 seats regardless of seating config, 2900 nm radius, 8 seats at 36 in pitch and the rest at 32 in pitch.
That's it. So Delta's and Bombardier's argument falls flat. The facts are undeniable: subsidies and price dumping. The fact that remains to be proven is did this do any harm to Boeing. Maybe we have a chance there. No one wanted the 737-700 really and no one really doesn't want the Max 7 because the economics suck. It's unfortunate for us that they narrowed the investigation to the scope they did.
That's it. So Delta's and Bombardier's argument falls flat. The facts are undeniable: subsidies and price dumping. The fact that remains to be proven is did this do any harm to Boeing. Maybe we have a chance there. No one wanted the 737-700 really and no one really doesn't want the Max 7 because the economics suck. It's unfortunate for us that they narrowed the investigation to the scope they did.
I like saying screw you Boeing.
By the way I don't think the tarrif is even related to Boeing, I believe their complaint is to go. I think. It takes a while to go through that transcript you posted.
10-02-2017, 06:06 PM
#885
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Ooooh where to begin? First, United used Bombardier to negotiate lower prices on 737-700NGs (some of the last in the NG production line) and not the 737-700MAX. End-of-the-line 700NGs. But most airlines use that bargaining tactic - they pit one manufacturer against another to lower your purchase price. Ryanair keeps threatening Boeing that it will take Airbus airplanes - and Boeing reduces its per-unit prices in return. It is laughable. You can't penalize Bombardier for United's excellent negotiating skills. Ultimately, United chose not to even take the 700s and will convert the NG orders to MAX airplanes in the future. This article has a great explanation of the United negotiation:
United Ditches Its 737-700 Order, And It?s Unclear What Will Replace It | Cranky Flier
Again, don't blame Bombardier for United's excellent negotiating.
Second, Boeing offered Delta used Air Canada E190s for a reason - because Delta was interested in a specific seat category (100-120 seats). The deal did not include additional 737-700/800NGs because Delta was not looking for 150 seat airplanes at the time. Why would E190s have been offered if Delta asked for a 150 seat airplane? They didn't.
Don't forget that the US Government nationalized General Motors in 2009 - and yet nobody seems to remember that... Quebec did not nationalize Bombardier - it provided a bridge investment because Canada wants to maintain thousands of aerospace-related jobs. Again, you see this type of investment all of the time around the world - and no doubt Boeing has benefitted big time from non-airline-related projects that can be used to fund the hugely capital-intensive 787 and similar projects.
It is very clear that Boeing is deathly afraid of the CSeries because it is a better airplane. Putting a 219% tariff on any product coming from a friendly, neighboring trade partner (and benefiting our consumers) is ASININE. This is super political with our NAFTA and Post-BREXIT negotiations going on right now. Everyone knows that Boeing is trying to avoid further competition with a better product - they learned their lesson by not squashing Airbus during the 1980s. Regardless, actually proving financial harm from a product that does not compete with an existing product will be interesting to watch. Let me say it again: the CS100 does not compete with any current Boeing product - that is irrefutable. Grouping it with a larger aircraft type (the CS300) is convenient for them - but Delta was interested in a 100-120 seater which is why Boeing offered the used E190s. Can't wait to hear all of the BULLSHRIMP legal lingo from the Boeing lawyers/lobbyists....
United Ditches Its 737-700 Order, And It?s Unclear What Will Replace It | Cranky Flier
Again, don't blame Bombardier for United's excellent negotiating.
Second, Boeing offered Delta used Air Canada E190s for a reason - because Delta was interested in a specific seat category (100-120 seats). The deal did not include additional 737-700/800NGs because Delta was not looking for 150 seat airplanes at the time. Why would E190s have been offered if Delta asked for a 150 seat airplane? They didn't.
Don't forget that the US Government nationalized General Motors in 2009 - and yet nobody seems to remember that... Quebec did not nationalize Bombardier - it provided a bridge investment because Canada wants to maintain thousands of aerospace-related jobs. Again, you see this type of investment all of the time around the world - and no doubt Boeing has benefitted big time from non-airline-related projects that can be used to fund the hugely capital-intensive 787 and similar projects.
It is very clear that Boeing is deathly afraid of the CSeries because it is a better airplane. Putting a 219% tariff on any product coming from a friendly, neighboring trade partner (and benefiting our consumers) is ASININE. This is super political with our NAFTA and Post-BREXIT negotiations going on right now. Everyone knows that Boeing is trying to avoid further competition with a better product - they learned their lesson by not squashing Airbus during the 1980s. Regardless, actually proving financial harm from a product that does not compete with an existing product will be interesting to watch. Let me say it again: the CS100 does not compete with any current Boeing product - that is irrefutable. Grouping it with a larger aircraft type (the CS300) is convenient for them - but Delta was interested in a 100-120 seater which is why Boeing offered the used E190s. Can't wait to hear all of the BULLSHRIMP legal lingo from the Boeing lawyers/lobbyists....
Now that's Boeing talking.
If Bombardier really could not sell the jet and the company had to be rescued and then had launch pricing, then I think that's where the tarriff is probably going to stick. That's the government talking and I bet they're probably right. Had Bombardier secured a loan from China or some bank, no problem.
For Boeing, losing orders for F-18s in exchange for killing the C Series is a bet I bet Boeing is fine with because a successful C Series family would be a major problem for them in 10+ years.
We'll see. I just think it's a lesson that a better mouse trap isn't all it's cracked up to be. Airlines want a known thing, they only have so much risk they can financially handle. Whoever marketed the C Series at it's launch done ****** up.
10-02-2017, 06:11 PM
#886
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
But you sure learn a lot from that transcript about how Delta buys jets.
10-02-2017, 06:40 PM
#887
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Position: Left
Posts: 1,816
What Boeing claimed was that the program was not viable. Or as it was stated elsewhere was the program was uncreditworhty and unequityworthy and the government was their only hope. So in 2015 they get a government loan, in 2016 they dump the jet with "launch pricing" but 7-8 years after launch with UAL which cost them in their 737 sale. And with DAL which is a future problem.
Now that's Boeing talking.
If Bombardier really could not sell the jet and the company had to be rescued and then had launch pricing, then I think that's where the tarriff is probably going to stick. That's the government talking and I bet they're probably right. Had Bombardier secured a loan from China or some bank, no problem.
For Boeing, losing orders for F-18s in exchange for killing the C Series is a bet I bet Boeing is fine with because a successful C Series family would be a major problem for them in 10+ years.
We'll see. I just think it's a lesson that a better mouse trap isn't all it's cracked up to be. Airlines want a known thing, they only have so much risk they can financially handle. Whoever marketed the C Series at it's launch done ****** up.
Now that's Boeing talking.
If Bombardier really could not sell the jet and the company had to be rescued and then had launch pricing, then I think that's where the tarriff is probably going to stick. That's the government talking and I bet they're probably right. Had Bombardier secured a loan from China or some bank, no problem.
For Boeing, losing orders for F-18s in exchange for killing the C Series is a bet I bet Boeing is fine with because a successful C Series family would be a major problem for them in 10+ years.
We'll see. I just think it's a lesson that a better mouse trap isn't all it's cracked up to be. Airlines want a known thing, they only have so much risk they can financially handle. Whoever marketed the C Series at it's launch done ****** up.
I am curious to see how this financial harm argument gets presented. In the meantime, I am hoping Delta moves forward with the process because it will be an awesome airplane for Delta. Time will tell....
Last edited by David Puddy; 10-02-2017 at 07:08 PM.
10-02-2017, 06:52 PM
#888
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Here
Filler
Filler
10-02-2017, 10:50 PM
#889
Covfefe
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Posts: 3,001
Some good info here about how subsidized Boeing is, and its hypocrisy in this case.
Should Canada have been more discreet about subsidizing Bombardier? - Politics - CBC News
Should Canada have been more discreet about subsidizing Bombardier? - Politics - CBC News
10-03-2017, 03:09 AM
#890
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Some good info here about how subsidized Boeing is, and its hypocrisy in this case.
Should Canada have been more discreet about subsidizing Bombardier? - Politics - CBC News
Should Canada have been more discreet about subsidizing Bombardier? - Politics - CBC News
For us, what does Delta do if the tarrifs stick? Or if the tarrifs get worse?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
