C Series Info
10-03-2017, 12:26 PM
#901
:-)
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,339
In similar cases, the DofC will determine if the tariff is due at contract or invoice, if contract, Delta would likely have to post a tariff bond till the ITC decision. That money could be tied up for years before Delta gets a favorable decision. Not to mention that Bombardier's poor credit rating will play a key role in this dumping decision.
10-03-2017, 01:13 PM
#902
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: 7ERA
Posts: 1,218
[QUOTE=Denny Crane;2440409]The bolded above is a true statement but................. What you are not acknowledging is that the Commerce Department is not looking at the the CS100 in particular, it’s looking at ranges (100-150 seats and up to 2900nm). A Boeing product DOES fit in the described ranges. [QUOTE]
While you are right about the ruling and the tariff, the range the Commerse Dept quoted was specifically set up to include both the CS-100 and the 737-700/max, to make it appear the US product was harmed. No reasonable person in the industry thinks that the 737 and the CS-100 are competitors. I don't think Boeing is at all concerned about the CS-100 or 300, they are worried about a potential CS-500, which would absolutely compete with the 737 and would be a much better product.
The best argument against the tariff is that Boeing did not submit a 737 for that competition and instead offered used E-190s.
While you are right about the ruling and the tariff, the range the Commerse Dept quoted was specifically set up to include both the CS-100 and the 737-700/max, to make it appear the US product was harmed. No reasonable person in the industry thinks that the 737 and the CS-100 are competitors. I don't think Boeing is at all concerned about the CS-100 or 300, they are worried about a potential CS-500, which would absolutely compete with the 737 and would be a much better product.
The best argument against the tariff is that Boeing did not submit a 737 for that competition and instead offered used E-190s.
10-03-2017, 03:49 PM
#903
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Position: Left
Posts: 1,816
[QUOTE=Xray678;2440548][QUOTE=Denny Crane;2440409]The bolded above is a true statement but................. What you are not acknowledging is that the Commerce Department is not looking at the the CS100 in particular, it’s looking at ranges (100-150 seats and up to 2900nm). A Boeing product DOES fit in the described ranges.
While you are right about the ruling and the tariff, the range the Commerse Dept quoted was specifically set up to include both the CS-100 and the 737-700/max, to make it appear the US product was harmed. No reasonable person in the industry thinks that the 737 and the CS-100 are competitors. I don't think Boeing is at all concerned about the CS-100 or 300, they are worried about a potential CS-500, which would absolutely compete with the 737 and would be a much better product.
The best argument against the tariff is that Boeing did not submit a 737 for that competition and instead offered used E-190s.
Exactly! Why offer the E190 if they had a viable alternative?
While you are right about the ruling and the tariff, the range the Commerse Dept quoted was specifically set up to include both the CS-100 and the 737-700/max, to make it appear the US product was harmed. No reasonable person in the industry thinks that the 737 and the CS-100 are competitors. I don't think Boeing is at all concerned about the CS-100 or 300, they are worried about a potential CS-500, which would absolutely compete with the 737 and would be a much better product.
The best argument against the tariff is that Boeing did not submit a 737 for that competition and instead offered used E-190s.
10-03-2017, 10:14 PM
#904
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: Kickin’ Back
Posts: 6,971
I am not disagreeing with you guys!
All I’m saying is........IMO, if the US International Trade Comission does not modify the seat range, the tariff will be upheld. Then this becomes a huge deal (and goes to the WTC) that will not be good for anyone in the long run.........except maybe Boeing because they will bury a seriously viable longterm competitor if this sale goes thru.
Denny
All I’m saying is........IMO, if the US International Trade Comission does not modify the seat range, the tariff will be upheld. Then this becomes a huge deal (and goes to the WTC) that will not be good for anyone in the long run.........except maybe Boeing because they will bury a seriously viable longterm competitor if this sale goes thru. Denny
10-04-2017, 03:17 AM
#905
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,418
I am not disagreeing with you guys! All I’m saying is........IMO, if the US International Trade Comission does not modify the seat range, the tariff will be upheld. Then this becomes a huge deal (and goes to the WTC) that will not be good for anyone in the long run.........except maybe Boeing because they will bury a seriously viable longterm competitor if this sale goes thru.
Denny
All I’m saying is........IMO, if the US International Trade Comission does not modify the seat range, the tariff will be upheld. Then this becomes a huge deal (and goes to the WTC) that will not be good for anyone in the long run.........except maybe Boeing because they will bury a seriously viable longterm competitor if this sale goes thru. Denny
10-04-2017, 03:50 AM
#906
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
I wonder if anyone over in the French Annex has heard anything?
(French Annex = shed we put the 350, 320 sim 4 and CS100 SIM in)
10-04-2017, 04:02 AM
#907
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-03/u-k-is-said-to-see-canada-responsible-in-bombardier-boeing-spat
The U.K. is said to see Canada as primarily responsible for the trade dispute between Boeing Co. and Bombardier Inc. because of the level of its state aid to the aerospace company.
Publicly, the British government has said that the U.S. imposition of punitive duties on Bombardier is disproportionate, and Prime Minister Theresa May even lobbied U.S. President Donald Trump unsuccessfully to try to prevent it.
...
Privately, it believes that Canada has overstepped the mark in aid to Bombardier, according to two officials who declined to be named while talking about an ongoing dispute. Bombardier spokesman Simon Letendre declined to comment.
...
Bombardier’s case rests on the fact the government of Quebec’s aid package was not a subsidy -- but rather a direct investment in the C Series program. In exchange for a $1 billion cash infusion, the Canadian province received a 49.5 percent stake in the C Series.
...
A final determination on the so-called countervailing duties is due in December. The Commerce Department is expected to decide by Wednesday whether to also impose anti-dumping duties on the C Series.
On that matter, Boeing is seeking duties of about 80 percent. The trade penalties could be reversed by the U.S. International Trade Commission if the tribunal determines that Boeing wasn’t injured by Bombardier’s jet program. That decision is expected to be made next year.
The U.K. is said to see Canada as primarily responsible for the trade dispute between Boeing Co. and Bombardier Inc. because of the level of its state aid to the aerospace company.
Publicly, the British government has said that the U.S. imposition of punitive duties on Bombardier is disproportionate, and Prime Minister Theresa May even lobbied U.S. President Donald Trump unsuccessfully to try to prevent it.
...
Privately, it believes that Canada has overstepped the mark in aid to Bombardier, according to two officials who declined to be named while talking about an ongoing dispute. Bombardier spokesman Simon Letendre declined to comment.
...
Bombardier’s case rests on the fact the government of Quebec’s aid package was not a subsidy -- but rather a direct investment in the C Series program. In exchange for a $1 billion cash infusion, the Canadian province received a 49.5 percent stake in the C Series.
...
A final determination on the so-called countervailing duties is due in December. The Commerce Department is expected to decide by Wednesday whether to also impose anti-dumping duties on the C Series.
On that matter, Boeing is seeking duties of about 80 percent. The trade penalties could be reversed by the U.S. International Trade Commission if the tribunal determines that Boeing wasn’t injured by Bombardier’s jet program. That decision is expected to be made next year.
10-04-2017, 06:19 AM
#908
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Stay THIRSTY, my friends!
Posts: 1,898
I think that when the smoke clears, some form of penalties will remain. Delta will be on the hook for them at some point, unless the order is cancelled.
Right now, it appears that Delta is moving ahead with plans for delivery of the CSeries. The questions are:
Does Delta at some point back out of the order due to the major increase in capital cost?
Does this development further hurt Bombardier from selling the aircraft, putting them at risk of liquidation?
Can Delta assume that it can no longer negotiate with this manufacturer for further orders due to the fact that the price has been 'set' by the government, not the free market?
So with those questions in mind, Delta has a decision to make.
Keeping in mind that there are always behind-the-scenes factors, most of which I have no knowledge of, such as tax incentives, write-downs, political considerations, stock holdings, contractual obligations etc...
Does Delta take delivery of this aircraft or do they cancel the order, and pursue other options for that market segment?
***The advantage to canceling the order is, obviously, cost and budget overruns being avoided, and potentially being the owners of an orphaned and unsupported fleet of aircraft.
***Disadvantages to cancellation include Bombardier not surviving the loss, and thus, losing the potentially huge advantage of having a third manufacturer in the market..
I think those are the two main issues that Delta faces. With first deliveries coming in a few months, and a bid for the category due in a matter of days... we should have our answer as to which way the wind is blowing very soon--- because Delta is either all in on this jet or they aren't. I suspect that the BOD will make the decision in the upcoming weeks.
Right now, it appears that Delta is moving ahead with plans for delivery of the CSeries. The questions are:
Does Delta at some point back out of the order due to the major increase in capital cost?
Does this development further hurt Bombardier from selling the aircraft, putting them at risk of liquidation?
Can Delta assume that it can no longer negotiate with this manufacturer for further orders due to the fact that the price has been 'set' by the government, not the free market?
So with those questions in mind, Delta has a decision to make.
Keeping in mind that there are always behind-the-scenes factors, most of which I have no knowledge of, such as tax incentives, write-downs, political considerations, stock holdings, contractual obligations etc...
Does Delta take delivery of this aircraft or do they cancel the order, and pursue other options for that market segment?
***The advantage to canceling the order is, obviously, cost and budget overruns being avoided, and potentially being the owners of an orphaned and unsupported fleet of aircraft.
***Disadvantages to cancellation include Bombardier not surviving the loss, and thus, losing the potentially huge advantage of having a third manufacturer in the market..
I think those are the two main issues that Delta faces. With first deliveries coming in a few months, and a bid for the category due in a matter of days... we should have our answer as to which way the wind is blowing very soon--- because Delta is either all in on this jet or they aren't. I suspect that the BOD will make the decision in the upcoming weeks.
10-04-2017, 06:29 AM
#909
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2013
Position: On the hotel shuttle
Posts: 5,849
I can't see us taking delivery of these aircraft.
1) We will scramble to maintain the -88's and make them as compliant as possible until ...
2) A massive 320neo order arrives and as such ...
3) The next AE will be in Feb. The good news -- it will be another MOAB's. The bad news -- it will be all ATL 88.
1) We will scramble to maintain the -88's and make them as compliant as possible until ...
2) A massive 320neo order arrives and as such ...
3) The next AE will be in Feb. The good news -- it will be another MOAB's. The bad news -- it will be all ATL 88.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
