Bombardier - A sign of things to come?
Discussion
jsf said:
55palfers said:
It would be interesting to add up all the "development" money Boeing (and other US aircraft companies) have enjoyed from the US military over the years.
The spin-offs to civilian planes would have been very useful
The EU is already taking the USA to court at the WTO for the Washington state subsiding the taxes for Boeing and their 777X program at the Seattle manufacturing and development plant. The action was started in 2014 when Obama was President.The spin-offs to civilian planes would have been very useful
The co-complainants are Brazil; China; India; Japan; Korea, Republic of; Russian Federation; Australia; Canada
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases...
Anyone trying to turn this Bombardier story into a Brexit story is an idiot.
Edited by jsf on Wednesday 27th September 20:41
mike9009 said:
jsf said:
55palfers said:
It would be interesting to add up all the "development" money Boeing (and other US aircraft companies) have enjoyed from the US military over the years.
The spin-offs to civilian planes would have been very useful
The EU is already taking the USA to court at the WTO for the Washington state subsiding the taxes for Boeing and their 777X program at the Seattle manufacturing and development plant. The action was started in 2014 when Obama was President.The spin-offs to civilian planes would have been very useful
The co-complainants are Brazil; China; India; Japan; Korea, Republic of; Russian Federation; Australia; Canada
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases...
Anyone trying to turn this Bombardier story into a Brexit story is an idiot.
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 27th September 20:41
turbobloke said:
gadgetmac said:
turbobloke said:
We're in the EU now.
But they are not likely to enter into a trade war on our behalf any more. It's also the UK that will have to do that in the future too - all on its ownsome according to the spokesman.At the moment from our vantage point within the EU and, hypothetically speaking, if the UK government wanted to do what the USA has just done could they do it?
NOT ME.
You say "as YOU put it"
I put nothing, I merely reported on an article being yada yada yada.
Have you watched the report because we can move forward from there?
These disputes have been going on for decades with the aviation manufacturers. Boeing has been in spats with Airbus, Embraer and Bombardier about what constitutes a "subsidy". Boeing benefits massively from US government spending and from EXIM Bank financing backdoors, other countries have favourable loans to their indigenous manufacturing base. Most of this has played out under WTO judgements. This one is slightly different (for now) as being a US unilateral decision fuelled by a Trump agenda. Its got further to run. Anyone who thinks a 220% duty to cover the "subsidy " has got their calculator working correctly is living in cloud cuckoo land. That would mean these aircraft would be selling in their thousand. They simply haven't and its only the Delta order which has been acknowledged to be below cost by Bombardier to get the market going that has riled Boeing (which incidentally doesn't have a comparable product in reality). Belfast is just theoretical collateral damage that won't come to pass in the current scenario.
Edited by Speed 3 on Wednesday 27th September 21:17
mike9009 said:
jsf said:
I suppose that response saves you the time required to discuss the subject in hand.
I had discussed it earlier with the only response being 'idiot'. Sorry if you missed my post! 
You make some fair points on how size of market (in terms of real spending power) can impact on any trading relationship you may have.
This particular story isn't Brexit related, it makes no difference whether we are inside or outside the EU, but you see the usual band wagon jumpers trying to make this into a disaster story for the government and a reason why Brexit is a bad idea and will fail.
mike9009 said:
I also do not think this is as a result of Trump - it is active lobbying by the government sponsored Boeing. The whole premise of the pot calling the kettle black.
The US Trade Spokesman said that since Donald came to power applications to have certain trade deals reviewed as unfair by US companies had risen by 50% due to them expecting a more favourable outcome under this administration.Let me clear on this...'The US Trade Spokesman said'.
jsf said:
mike9009 said:
jsf said:
I suppose that response saves you the time required to discuss the subject in hand.
I had discussed it earlier with the only response being 'idiot'. Sorry if you missed my post! You make some fair points on how size of market (in terms of real spending power) can impact on any trading relationship you may have.
This particular story isn't Brexit related, it makes no difference whether we are inside or outside the EU, but you see the usual band wagon jumpers trying to make this into a disaster story for the government and a reason why Brexit is a bad idea and will fail.
gadgetmac said:
mike9009 said:
I also do not think this is as a result of Trump - it is active lobbying by the government sponsored Boeing. The whole premise of the pot calling the kettle black.
The US Trade Spokesman said that since Donald came to power applications to have certain trade deals reviewed as unfair by US companies had risen by 50% due to them expecting a more favourable outcome under this administration.Let me clear on this...'The US Trade Spokesman said'.
My opinion is that the companies would have lobbied for these punitive tariffs if Trump was not in power.
mike9009 said:
gadgetmac said:
mike9009 said:
I also do not think this is as a result of Trump - it is active lobbying by the government sponsored Boeing. The whole premise of the pot calling the kettle black.
The US Trade Spokesman said that since Donald came to power applications to have certain trade deals reviewed as unfair by US companies had risen by 50% due to them expecting a more favourable outcome under this administration.Let me clear on this...'The US Trade Spokesman said'.
My opinion is that the companies would have lobbied for these punitive tariffs if Trump was not in power.
REALIST123 said:
Amazing how a trade row between the US and Canada, that happens to have an impact on a British Company, can be used by some to demonstrate the difficulties the UK may face on leaving the EU.
Either stupidity or wilful scaremongering.
Little news about the imminent end of the EU Sugar Beet quotas that could lead to 50% increases in UK production. Perhaps because it's good news?
Spoil sport! It's much more interesting when you can make up your own 'facts'. Either stupidity or wilful scaremongering.
Little news about the imminent end of the EU Sugar Beet quotas that could lead to 50% increases in UK production. Perhaps because it's good news?
gadgetmac said:
mike9009 said:
gadgetmac said:
mike9009 said:
I also do not think this is as a result of Trump - it is active lobbying by the government sponsored Boeing. The whole premise of the pot calling the kettle black.
The US Trade Spokesman said that since Donald came to power applications to have certain trade deals reviewed as unfair by US companies had risen by 50% due to them expecting a more favourable outcome under this administration.Let me clear on this...'The US Trade Spokesman said'.
My opinion is that the companies would have lobbied for these punitive tariffs if Trump was not in power.
Edited by mike9009 on Wednesday 27th September 21:52
How do defence contracts work and not be "state aid"? A Government awards a development contract of say £1bn for x systems, the contractor then sells export versions at price that is less than the unit cost per the original systems because all the expensive work has been paid for.... in the US sense, their own production scales make any export sales a lot cheaper but the initial cost was all state funded?
As for the UK trying to sell defence kit to the US, the protectionistic(sp?) barriers put up are obscene and so blatant it would make a good soap opera! I've seen the sharp end of this on probably the best product available, that US forces really wanted yet it got openly blocked by every senator with a local interest and every US manufacturer who wanted to suppress a competitor. There's a whole other story about refusing integration of kit onto US platforms to actually destroy a UK platform export contract bid entirely just by a simple blocking act - that'll be saved for another thread sometime.
As for the UK trying to sell defence kit to the US, the protectionistic(sp?) barriers put up are obscene and so blatant it would make a good soap opera! I've seen the sharp end of this on probably the best product available, that US forces really wanted yet it got openly blocked by every senator with a local interest and every US manufacturer who wanted to suppress a competitor. There's a whole other story about refusing integration of kit onto US platforms to actually destroy a UK platform export contract bid entirely just by a simple blocking act - that'll be saved for another thread sometime.
I would not concern yourself further with trivia such as defence contracts whether in support of tech development or otherwise.
Steptoe's government in waiting will make defence a thing of the past through meditation, yoghurt and Glasto.
All shall be good once all are connected their inner Labour goodness.
Steptoe's government in waiting will make defence a thing of the past through meditation, yoghurt and Glasto.
All shall be good once all are connected their inner Labour goodness.
mike9009 said:
gadgetmac said:
mike9009 said:
gadgetmac said:
mike9009 said:
I also do not think this is as a result of Trump - it is active lobbying by the government sponsored Boeing. The whole premise of the pot calling the kettle black.
The US Trade Spokesman said that since Donald came to power applications to have certain trade deals reviewed as unfair by US companies had risen by 50% due to them expecting a more favourable outcome under this administration.Let me clear on this...'The US Trade Spokesman said'.
My opinion is that the companies would have lobbied for these punitive tariffs if Trump was not in power.
The point he was making about the UK in the EU appeared to be that in any similar situation in the future when the UK is outside of the EU we will not have many cards to play (aka threats of retaliation) against their aircraft industry as we are small potatoes on our own. However, within the EU we would have far greater protection as the EU is a bigger aircraft market than the US and so they would not want to start a trade war with the EU over a future "bombardier" scenario.
His opinion was this was one of the downsides of Brexit for the UK, far less clout and protection.
The same opinion would also stand for other industries where the EU is the "bigger fish" in any dispute. Personally I can't see the flaw in the argument.
gadgetmac said:
Fair enough, but thats not the issue in this instance.
Of course not - we are still part of the EU and anyway this has more of the appearance of a US based spat with a side effect of UK collateral damage where the only UK leverage against boingg may be UK defence expenditure.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff