Bombardier - A sign of things to come?
Discussion
///ajd said:
B'stard Child said:
You can't call people Spastics anymore - the Spastics Society changed their name to Scope so it really should be "Scopies"
HTH
I thought you were better than that. Disappointed.HTH
jsf said:
You would expect the EU to raise the second most disputes purely based on its size.
Your don't actually give an answer for what the EU can do for the Bombardier workers in this case.
Your second answer doesn't answer my question, it discusses the trade dispute. That's not what I asked you.
So far you have failed to address both of my questions, maybe you can try again.
The direct answer to the first question is that the EU could raise an WTO action in support of those UK workers as they have done in the past. Are you saying they have never done that to support our industry? Whether they will or not in this situation is unclear - do we have to ask/prompt the EU? Are we unwilling to do so, given our situation? Is it normal to wait for the US to finally make their mind up whether they mean it? Maybe.Your don't actually give an answer for what the EU can do for the Bombardier workers in this case.
Your second answer doesn't answer my question, it discusses the trade dispute. That's not what I asked you.
So far you have failed to address both of my questions, maybe you can try again.
I did answer the second question - it is successful. That does not disprove the potential benefits of being inside a trading bloc with the protections that can bring - which appeared to be the point your were trying to make. We are in one, and the bombardier supply chain including Belfast was set up whilst we were in that EU bloc - that has an impact at the UK supply base level, as well as the protections offered any of our businesses by the EU at the WTO.
You might not like the answers, but answers they are.
Perhaps you can tell us all what the "correct" answers are, if you have another view.
turbobloke said:
Eddie Strohacker said:
In summary, I don't like people who disagree with me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dagJneEc328
///ajd said:
jsf said:
You would expect the EU to raise the second most disputes purely based on its size.
Your don't actually give an answer for what the EU can do for the Bombardier workers in this case.
Your second answer doesn't answer my question, it discusses the trade dispute. That's not what I asked you.
So far you have failed to address both of my questions, maybe you can try again.
The direct answer to the first question is that the EU could raise an WTO action in support of those UK workers as they have done in the past. Are you saying they have never done that to support our industry? Whether they will or not in this situation is unclear - do we have to ask/prompt the EU? Are we unwilling to do so, given our situation? Is it normal to wait for the US to finally make their mind up whether they mean it? Maybe.Your don't actually give an answer for what the EU can do for the Bombardier workers in this case.
Your second answer doesn't answer my question, it discusses the trade dispute. That's not what I asked you.
So far you have failed to address both of my questions, maybe you can try again.
I did answer the second question - it is successful. That does not disprove the potential benefits of being inside a trading bloc with the protections that can bring - which appeared to be the point your were trying to make. We are in one, and the bombardier supply chain including Belfast was set up whilst we were in that EU bloc - that has an impact at the UK supply base level, as well as the protections offered any of our businesses by the EU at the WTO.
You might not like the answers, but answers they are.
Perhaps you can tell us all what the "correct" answers are, if you have another view.
As you know the UK can't raise anything at the WTO itself, we have to ask the EU, I'm not even sure in this case that the EU can raise the matter at all because the dispute is between a Canadian company and the USA. In my opinion being in the EU is irrelevant in this case, it could happen both as members and when on our own, but I think in cases where only the UK is impacted it may be helpful to have a more focused on UK only membership of the WTO driving the agenda at the WTO and in the corridors of power in the USA also.
The point to my second question was to illustrate that even when a high tech business is having to deal with a part of their business inside the EU and a part outside of the EU, it can still be very successful. Once we leave the EU that will be the situation we will have with Airbus. So its nice that you now accept that leaving the EU is not a reason for Airbus to pull its UK facilities from the UK.
jsf said:
///ajd said:
This is actually two questions:
Once we leave, it will be Canada and the UK.
The argument as to whether the UK (60M) has a larger influence/sway on trade disputes than the EU (440M) is well trodden.
Your questions don't undermine the points made effectively by Mike.
I suspect there will be backtracking on the tariffs as they are so outrageous - but who knows what Trump will do - that Ford factory in Mexico was soon toast.
You would expect the EU to raise the second most disputes purely based on its size.jsf said:
1. I would appreciate if ///ajd would explain to me how our membership of the EU helps the Bombardier workers in this particular case.
The EU has a record in the WTO of defending our interests, usually with the US - and has done so in the past. The EU raises the second most disputes with the WTO, only second to the US - who seem to be the focus of many issues. jsf said:
2. Could it not be argued that Bombardier is a good example of how high tech industry partnerships work well without the requirement of joint membership of a large block such as the EU, as the Northern Ireland and Canadian plants working together is technologically and commercially successful.
Yes, to a point, but Bombardier Belfast is operating within the EU. As it stands Bombardier have the protection of Canada and the EU against protectionist US actions such as this. Once we leave, it will be Canada and the UK.
The argument as to whether the UK (60M) has a larger influence/sway on trade disputes than the EU (440M) is well trodden.
Your questions don't undermine the points made effectively by Mike.
I suspect there will be backtracking on the tariffs as they are so outrageous - but who knows what Trump will do - that Ford factory in Mexico was soon toast.
Your don't actually give an answer for what the EU can do for the Bombardier workers in this case.
Your second answer doesn't answer my question, it discusses the trade dispute. That's not what I asked you.
So far you have failed to address both of my questions, maybe you can try again.
Tryke3 said:
jsf said:
///ajd said:
This is actually two questions:
Once we leave, it will be Canada and the UK.
The argument as to whether the UK (60M) has a larger influence/sway on trade disputes than the EU (440M) is well trodden.
Your questions don't undermine the points made effectively by Mike.
I suspect there will be backtracking on the tariffs as they are so outrageous - but who knows what Trump will do - that Ford factory in Mexico was soon toast.
You would expect the EU to raise the second most disputes purely based on its size.jsf said:
1. I would appreciate if ///ajd would explain to me how our membership of the EU helps the Bombardier workers in this particular case.
The EU has a record in the WTO of defending our interests, usually with the US - and has done so in the past. The EU raises the second most disputes with the WTO, only second to the US - who seem to be the focus of many issues. jsf said:
2. Could it not be argued that Bombardier is a good example of how high tech industry partnerships work well without the requirement of joint membership of a large block such as the EU, as the Northern Ireland and Canadian plants working together is technologically and commercially successful.
Yes, to a point, but Bombardier Belfast is operating within the EU. As it stands Bombardier have the protection of Canada and the EU against protectionist US actions such as this. Once we leave, it will be Canada and the UK.
The argument as to whether the UK (60M) has a larger influence/sway on trade disputes than the EU (440M) is well trodden.
Your questions don't undermine the points made effectively by Mike.
I suspect there will be backtracking on the tariffs as they are so outrageous - but who knows what Trump will do - that Ford factory in Mexico was soon toast.
Your don't actually give an answer for what the EU can do for the Bombardier workers in this case.
Your second answer doesn't answer my question, it discusses the trade dispute. That's not what I asked you.
So far you have failed to address both of my questions, maybe you can try again.
jsf said:
There is no correct answer, I was asking for your opinion on the matter. Why you have to always think there is a battle going on when most people just want a normal conversation I don't know.
As you know the UK can't raise anything at the WTO itself, we have to ask the EU, I'm not even sure in this case that the EU can raise the matter at all because the dispute is between a Canadian company and the USA. In my opinion being in the EU is irrelevant in this case, it could happen both as members and when on our own, but I think in cases where only the UK is impacted it may be helpful to have a more focused on UK only membership of the WTO driving the agenda at the WTO and in the corridors of power in the USA also.
The point to my second question was to illustrate that even when a high tech business is having to deal with a part of their business inside the EU and a part outside of the EU, it can still be very successful. Once we leave the EU that will be the situation we will have with Airbus. So its nice that you now accept that leaving the EU is not a reason for Airbus to pull its UK facilities from the UK.
You say we'd be better at the WTO on our own. Again I think that is far from proven - we have a much smaller market than the EU - and there are cases where the EU have fought for issues just affecting the UK and won. Winning cases at the WTO is one thing, but the question then becomes what sanctions can you take - what counter tariffs can you impose - or even better just threaten and have that big stick - to ensure all sides play fair. That is where we are yet to see the difference between the EU flexing its weight and the UK trying to do that on its own. Logic suggests the bigger market will have more clout. The counter argument in favour of the UK acting alone is what? As you know the UK can't raise anything at the WTO itself, we have to ask the EU, I'm not even sure in this case that the EU can raise the matter at all because the dispute is between a Canadian company and the USA. In my opinion being in the EU is irrelevant in this case, it could happen both as members and when on our own, but I think in cases where only the UK is impacted it may be helpful to have a more focused on UK only membership of the WTO driving the agenda at the WTO and in the corridors of power in the USA also.
The point to my second question was to illustrate that even when a high tech business is having to deal with a part of their business inside the EU and a part outside of the EU, it can still be very successful. Once we leave the EU that will be the situation we will have with Airbus. So its nice that you now accept that leaving the EU is not a reason for Airbus to pull its UK facilities from the UK.
The dynamics of the Bombardier and Airbus issues under discussion are quite different.
One is facing potentially crippling tariffs - which are being levied between supposedly "progressive, free trade orientated countries" of US, Canada and the UK (in the EU), whilst the other is looking at the possible imposition of unknown tariffs, barriers, free movement restrictions and regulatory uncertainty across a fundamental part of its supply chain (wings etc.).
To suggest these don't matter at all (as you are surely doing) to Airbus is completely counter to what they are telling the government when the DExEU is going round the bazaars asking industry "so brexit, what do you reckon?".
One of the interesting things I've picked up is that feedback to DExEU from UK industry is that Industry are pretty well completely aligned on these topics, and they want solutions that don't hobble their operations. Hard brexit won't given them that - but we'll have to see to what extent that starts to change our economy and the decisions companies will make.
---
PS Battle? No battle on my side but have a look at your multiple "answer my question" posts and then when I do - with complete politeness (read my first response again and show me where my "attitude" is - there is none whatsoever). What I do get in response is "you haven't answered my question" with some sneering "try again" comment. You may want to consider if your comment more closely aligns with your own posts....
///ajd said:
You say we'd be better at the WTO on our own. Again I think that is far from proven - we have a much smaller market than the EU - and there are cases where the EU have fought for issues just affecting the UK and won. Winning cases at the WTO is one thing, but the question then becomes what sanctions can you take - what counter tariffs can you impose - or even better just threaten and have that big stick - to ensure all sides play fair. That is where we are yet to see the difference between the EU flexing its weight and the UK trying to do that on its own. Logic suggests the bigger market will have more clout. The counter argument in favour of the UK acting alone is what?
The dynamics of the Bombardier and Airbus issues under discussion are quite different.
One is facing potentially crippling tariffs - which are being levied between supposedly "progressive, free trade orientated countries" of US, Canada and the UK (in the EU), whilst the other is looking at the possible imposition of unknown tariffs, barriers, free movement restrictions and regulatory uncertainty across a fundamental part of its supply chain (wings etc.).
To suggest these don't matter at all (as you are surely doing) to Airbus is completely counter to what they are telling the government when the DExEU is going round the bazaars asking industry "so brexit, what do you reckon?".
One of the interesting things I've picked up is that feedback to DExEU from UK industry is that Industry are pretty well completely aligned on these topics, and they want solutions that don't hobble their operations. Hard brexit won't given them that - but we'll have to see to what extent that starts to change our economy and the decisions companies will make.
---
PS Battle? No battle on my side but have a look at your multiple "answer my question" posts and then when I do - with complete politeness (read my first response again and show me where my "attitude" is - there is none whatsoever). What I do get in response is "you haven't answered my question" with some sneering "try again" comment. You may want to consider if your comment more closely aligns with your own posts....
And your point is?The dynamics of the Bombardier and Airbus issues under discussion are quite different.
One is facing potentially crippling tariffs - which are being levied between supposedly "progressive, free trade orientated countries" of US, Canada and the UK (in the EU), whilst the other is looking at the possible imposition of unknown tariffs, barriers, free movement restrictions and regulatory uncertainty across a fundamental part of its supply chain (wings etc.).
To suggest these don't matter at all (as you are surely doing) to Airbus is completely counter to what they are telling the government when the DExEU is going round the bazaars asking industry "so brexit, what do you reckon?".
One of the interesting things I've picked up is that feedback to DExEU from UK industry is that Industry are pretty well completely aligned on these topics, and they want solutions that don't hobble their operations. Hard brexit won't given them that - but we'll have to see to what extent that starts to change our economy and the decisions companies will make.
---
PS Battle? No battle on my side but have a look at your multiple "answer my question" posts and then when I do - with complete politeness (read my first response again and show me where my "attitude" is - there is none whatsoever). What I do get in response is "you haven't answered my question" with some sneering "try again" comment. You may want to consider if your comment more closely aligns with your own posts....
///ajd said:
jsf said:
There is no correct answer, I was asking for your opinion on the matter. Why you have to always think there is a battle going on when most people just want a normal conversation I don't know.
As you know the UK can't raise anything at the WTO itself, we have to ask the EU, I'm not even sure in this case that the EU can raise the matter at all because the dispute is between a Canadian company and the USA. In my opinion being in the EU is irrelevant in this case, it could happen both as members and when on our own, but I think in cases where only the UK is impacted it may be helpful to have a more focused on UK only membership of the WTO driving the agenda at the WTO and in the corridors of power in the USA also.
The point to my second question was to illustrate that even when a high tech business is having to deal with a part of their business inside the EU and a part outside of the EU, it can still be very successful. Once we leave the EU that will be the situation we will have with Airbus. So its nice that you now accept that leaving the EU is not a reason for Airbus to pull its UK facilities from the UK.
You say we'd be better at the WTO on our own. Again I think that is far from proven - we have a much smaller market than the EU - and there are cases where the EU have fought for issues just affecting the UK and won. Winning cases at the WTO is one thing, but the question then becomes what sanctions can you take - what counter tariffs can you impose - or even better just threaten and have that big stick - to ensure all sides play fair. That is where we are yet to see the difference between the EU flexing its weight and the UK trying to do that on its own. Logic suggests the bigger market will have more clout. The counter argument in favour of the UK acting alone is what? As you know the UK can't raise anything at the WTO itself, we have to ask the EU, I'm not even sure in this case that the EU can raise the matter at all because the dispute is between a Canadian company and the USA. In my opinion being in the EU is irrelevant in this case, it could happen both as members and when on our own, but I think in cases where only the UK is impacted it may be helpful to have a more focused on UK only membership of the WTO driving the agenda at the WTO and in the corridors of power in the USA also.
The point to my second question was to illustrate that even when a high tech business is having to deal with a part of their business inside the EU and a part outside of the EU, it can still be very successful. Once we leave the EU that will be the situation we will have with Airbus. So its nice that you now accept that leaving the EU is not a reason for Airbus to pull its UK facilities from the UK.
The dynamics of the Bombardier and Airbus issues under discussion are quite different.
One is facing potentially crippling tariffs - which are being levied between supposedly "progressive, free trade orientated countries" of US, Canada and the UK (in the EU), whilst the other is looking at the possible imposition of unknown tariffs, barriers, free movement restrictions and regulatory uncertainty across a fundamental part of its supply chain (wings etc.).
To suggest these don't matter at all (as you are surely doing) to Airbus is completely counter to what they are telling the government when the DExEU is going round the bazaars asking industry "so brexit, what do you reckon?".
One of the interesting things I've picked up is that feedback to DExEU from UK industry is that Industry are pretty well completely aligned on these topics, and they want solutions that don't hobble their operations. Hard brexit won't given them that - but we'll have to see to what extent that starts to change our economy and the decisions companies will make.
---
PS Battle? No battle on my side but have a look at your multiple "answer my question" posts and then when I do - with complete politeness (read my first response again and show me where my "attitude" is - there is none whatsoever). What I do get in response is "you haven't answered my question" with some sneering "try again" comment. You may want to consider if your comment more closely aligns with your own posts....
You have failed to address how the EU helps in this case. It clearly doesn't. It's OK to say that.
The benefit the UK will have once we are back to a normal nation member at the WTO is we can tailor our tariff regime and then seek out agreements outside the WTO to reduce the possibilities of issues arising in the first place. The norm is for there not to be disputes, but to have beneficial trade arrangements tailored to your countries needs.
The assertion made in this thread was that the Bombardier situation is a sign of things to come when the UK leaves the EU, the reality in this case is it doesn't matter.
You last point, maybe if you didn't ignore people who ask direct questions that are hard for you to answer whilst spinning your agenda, people wouldn't have to keep asking you multiple times. It's the norm for you to just disappear and hope people forget after a few pages, then you start posting again as though those questions didn't exist. It gets a bit tedious and impossible to have any meaningful debate with behaviour like that.
jsf said:
I'm not sure how you expect the UK to illustrate our flexing of our muscles in the WTO when we cant do that yet as members of the EU. It's a bit of a none point at this stage. The WTO doesn't take account of the size of the block its dealing with when you end up in their courts, they rule on the laws and agreements on their merits. If the outcome of those rulings are ignored its a pointless system for anyone to be a member of anyway, so your point on not being able to retaliate because you are too small is a bit daft too.
You have failed to address how the EU helps in this case. It clearly doesn't. It's OK to say that.
The benefit the UK will have once we are back to a normal nation member at the WTO is we can tailor our tariff regime and then seek out agreements outside the WTO to reduce the possibilities of issues arising in the first place. The norm is for there not to be disputes, but to have beneficial trade arrangements tailored to your countries needs.
The assertion made in this thread was that the Bombardier situation is a sign of things to come when the UK leaves the EU, the reality in this case is it doesn't matter.
You last point, maybe if you didn't ignore people who ask direct questions that are hard for you to answer whilst spinning your agenda, people wouldn't have to keep asking you multiple times. It's the norm for you to just disappear and hope people forget after a few pages, then you start posting again as though those questions didn't exist. It gets a bit tedious and impossible to have any meaningful debate with behaviour like that.
It starts to become an issue if WTO rulings get ignored. Then it will start to become relevant.You have failed to address how the EU helps in this case. It clearly doesn't. It's OK to say that.
The benefit the UK will have once we are back to a normal nation member at the WTO is we can tailor our tariff regime and then seek out agreements outside the WTO to reduce the possibilities of issues arising in the first place. The norm is for there not to be disputes, but to have beneficial trade arrangements tailored to your countries needs.
The assertion made in this thread was that the Bombardier situation is a sign of things to come when the UK leaves the EU, the reality in this case is it doesn't matter.
You last point, maybe if you didn't ignore people who ask direct questions that are hard for you to answer whilst spinning your agenda, people wouldn't have to keep asking you multiple times. It's the norm for you to just disappear and hope people forget after a few pages, then you start posting again as though those questions didn't exist. It gets a bit tedious and impossible to have any meaningful debate with behaviour like that.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/0...
If you can't see this, then fine, but most others can, and as above Mike put it well. Your questions do not change this perfectly reasonable analysis at all.
--
Your questions were rather tangential in the first place as the above shows, so they didn't really need to be answered, no matter how relevant you thought they were. Out of courtesy I answered them despite the rather desperate bleating on your part which frankly begged for them to continue to be ignored. After which you were then rude. I thought you were a step up from sidicks, but know I realise you maybe from the same mould. It is a bit rich calling me tedious given the above referenced bleating.
///ajd said:
Your questions were rather tangential in the first place as the above shows, so they didn't really need to be answered, no matter how relevant you thought they were. Out of courtesy I answered them despite the rather desperate bleating on your part which frankly begged for them to continue to be ignored. After which you were then rude. I thought you were a step up from sidicks, but know I realise you maybe from the same mould. It is a bit rich calling me tedious given the above referenced bleating.
So the US have now upped the tarif to 300%
What utter pricks.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-4153...
What utter pricks.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-4153...
Edited by MellowshipSlinky on Saturday 7th October 07:37
Lets hope the rumours of a possible lease deal through a Canadian company (i.e. they then lease the aircraft to Delta to avoid purchase tariffs) can find a way around this - but you suspect the US will try and close that loophole.
Whether the brexiteers want to admit it our not, we could do with EU WTO leverage - as used in the past for UK steel a decade or so ago - to combat this trump nonsense.
Whether the brexiteers want to admit it our not, we could do with EU WTO leverage - as used in the past for UK steel a decade or so ago - to combat this trump nonsense.
An interesting alternate angle on the Bombardier issue is this.
Boeing employ far more people in the UK than Bombardier do.
18,700 to be precise.
Boeing are intimating that what helps Bombardier harms Boeing and by extension those employed by Boeing.
May is in a dilly of a pickle here due to her tie up with the DUP and their interests.
Boeing employ far more people in the UK than Bombardier do.
18,700 to be precise.
Boeing are intimating that what helps Bombardier harms Boeing and by extension those employed by Boeing.
May is in a dilly of a pickle here due to her tie up with the DUP and their interests.
///ajd said:
Lets hope the rumours of a possible lease deal through a Canadian company (i.e. they then lease the aircraft to Delta to avoid purchase tariffs) can find a way around this - but you suspect the US will try and close that loophole.
Whether the brexiteers want to admit it our not, we could do with EU WTO leverage - as used in the past for UK steel a decade or so ago - to combat this trump nonsense.
EU WTO leverage could help this situation?Whether the brexiteers want to admit it our not, we could do with EU WTO leverage - as used in the past for UK steel a decade or so ago - to combat this trump nonsense.
Then why isn't it? We haven't left yet, are fully paid up members etc.
Murph7355 said:
EU WTO leverage could help this situation?
Then why isn't it? We haven't left yet, are fully paid up members etc.
Shush, you're ruining the remoan arguement.Then why isn't it? We haven't left yet, are fully paid up members etc.
Bit like your car insurance not paying out when you write your car off 5 days before the policy ends cos you didnt renew with them, "oh you're leaving us anyway so get used to sorting yourself out".
gadgetmac said:
An interesting alternate angle on the Bombardier issue is this.
Boeing employ far more people in the UK than Bombardier do.
18,700 to be precise.
Boeing are intimating that what helps Bombardier harms Boeing and by extension those employed by Boeing.
May is in a dilly of a pickle here due to her tie up with the DUP and their interests.
Yes and no. The thing is - the UK will obviously posture on the Canadian side of the argument on this but we are not the ones who are in a position to do much to fight it (other than stern words). Pretty much all of our potential Boeing spend for the immediate future is essentially locked in (the last I heard with the exception of the final 18 helicopters of the 50 Apache order). The only threat that we could really offer up is that we do have a long memory and this little spat may affect the ability of Boeing to win future business.Boeing employ far more people in the UK than Bombardier do.
18,700 to be precise.
Boeing are intimating that what helps Bombardier harms Boeing and by extension those employed by Boeing.
May is in a dilly of a pickle here due to her tie up with the DUP and their interests.
However - a lot of people on here seem to be trying to brexitize this debate without recognising that the EU will be fighting it all the way irrespective of the UK as Bombardier employs people across most of Europe (of which their aviation business interests include Germany, France, The Netherlands and Italy) and the action could potentially set a precedent which would be detrimental to larger EU players. EADS in particular often ends up compromised in US deals as a result of Boeing lobbying (the one that springs to mind is where they were royally screwed on the tanker deal) and they would probably want the Canadians to win this and pressure the EU to act accordingly.
Boeing's motivations are clearly a long term play to try and kill off a competitor before it becomes established though. Viewed through a short term perspective their actions are pretty silly as if the tariffs stand they will all but guarantee losing the Canadian business for both the F18 buy and the replacement for the Aurora maritime patrol aircraft - several billion bucks of prospective business locked out on day one. Their fear is obviously not the CS100, but rather the company getting a toehold in the US market to push the CS300 against Boeing's entry offerings. The airline industry is trending towards smaller rather than larger aircraft and this is where the real battleground in global aviation is.
The only thing that springs to mind that we could do directly is to offer to lease the Canadians Typhoons from our reserves on extremely favourable terms to facilitate the immediate termination of the F18 deal. Remember that those aircraft are a temporary measure to plug a capability gap until the Canadians determine what to buy instead of the F35 (which Trudeau seems dead set against) and that would position Europe to be better placed to pick up that business instead of a US option (as things currently stand, that will probably close the production line for the Hornet).
Regardless though - this has a long way to run yet, and a lot of behind closed doors horse trading will be involved.
Well this has just backfired on Boeing.
Airbus has just bought 50.1% of the Bombardier C series project, so rather than killing off a small competitor they just made their biggest rival more powerful.
With Airbus having USA production facilities that kills the tariff stone cold dead if they produce enough of the aircraft there.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-4164...
Brexit doesn't seem to have put off Airbus investing in a UK based manufacturing plant either.
You have to laugh.
Airbus has just bought 50.1% of the Bombardier C series project, so rather than killing off a small competitor they just made their biggest rival more powerful.
With Airbus having USA production facilities that kills the tariff stone cold dead if they produce enough of the aircraft there.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-4164...
Brexit doesn't seem to have put off Airbus investing in a UK based manufacturing plant either.
You have to laugh.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff