Trump administration sides with Boeing in Bombardier dispute

There was a statement on this on page 13 of the reader-less ALPA Magazine....

The Department of Commerce recently ruled that Canadian manufacturer Bombardier has received anticompetitive support from the Quebec regional government, siding with Boeing in a major multibillion dollar complaint. As a result, the Trump administration has imposed a 300 percent import duty on Bombardier’s C Series jets. The tariff would more than likely triple the price of Bombardier’s jets sold in the United States.

In response, Bombardier made a deal with Airbus that gives the European company a majority stake in the C Series jets. Following the deal, Airbus announced its plan to move C Series production to its plant in Mobile, Ala., which the company says will allow the jets to be sold in the United States without penalty of the tariff.

With the UK—a major manufacturing center for both Bombardier and Airbus—negotiating trade deals with the EU and with Canada renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement with the United States, the Boeing vs. Bombardier dispute has been impacting U.S. trade relations. UK Defense Secretary Michael Fallon has warned that Boeing’s ongoing complaint “could jeopardize” the U.S. manufacturer’s ability to secure UK government contracts.

ALPA applauds the Trump administration for seriously considering government subsidies as a cause for action. The Association is reminding government officials that the subsidies some Middle East carriers are receiving from their governments are considerably larger than those in question in the Bombardier case and should receive similar immediate attention
Click to expand...
 
ATN_Pilot said:
“ALPA applauds the Trump administration...”

Disgraceful.
Click to expand...

Isn't this the same/similar kind of stance those here are touting that the current and previous administrations should have/have had regarding the ME3 and their subsidies and unfair business practices vs the US3?
 
MikeD said:
Isn't this the same/similar kind of stance those here are touting that the current and previous administrations should have/have had regarding the ME3 and their subsidies and unfair business practices vs the US3?
Click to expand...

You mean the Ex-Im bank thing that Moak had a hard-on about? Yeah, similar thing. Attack the Canadians for subsidizing, but we keep on doing the same with the bank, which gives foreign carriers an unfair advantage.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
You mean the Ex-Im bank thing that Moak had a hard-on about? Yeah, similar thing. Attack the Canadians for subsidizing, but we keep on doing the same with the bank, which gives foreign carriers an unfair advantage.
Click to expand...

I think it’s geared more toward the governments subsidizing ME3 losses, rather than the ExIm argument.

Government subsidization of losses makes aircraft financing (ExIm) a moot point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top