[martin14]

BRAH BRAH:

If the Government ended taxpayer support for Bombardier how many jobs would be in jeopardy?

All of them

[bootlegga]

rickc rickc:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Boeing doesn't wave the flag? You sound even more delusional than Bart is...Boeing would raise a holy shitstorm if the American military ever bought a major weapons platform from a European bidder instead of an American one. Heck, they whine when they lose out to Lockheed!

Neither company is innocent of getting subsidies, but the fact is that Boeing didn't even bother to bid on the contract that they filed a complaint about.

And if you had an inkling of Canadian history, you know that yes, our government has to stand up for Canadian companies - otherwise we'll have the same brain drain in the aviation industry we had 60 years ago when Diefenbaker scrapped the Arrow.

Frankly, it's time for Canada to just pony up and buy the Eurofighter Typhoon instead of ANY American plane. It might cost a bit more, but it better meets our needs of a twin-engine mult-role aircraft. The Super Hornet is a slight upgrade over the CF-18 and the F-35 is a POS that isn't suited to our needs. The only American plane that meets our true needs is the F-22 Raptor, and the US has refused to export it to any ally.

Whats with the insults? I get it that you are pissed with Boeing for their actions, but you don't have to get personal with me. I don't work for Boeing, or have any financial stake in the company.

Anyone who honestly believes that ANY US defence contractor doesn't wave the flag IS delusional and I'll stand by that, just as you stand by your comment.

rickc rickc:

You are worried about the brain drain? That train left the station a long time ago.

Not really - the Canadian aerospace industry supports 208,000 jobs - that's four times what Avro did in the 1950s.

http://aiac.ca/industry-statistics/

They may not be cutting edge jobs, but neither are all the jobs at US/European aerospace companies.

rickc rickc:

A few months ago during the heat wave planes were grounded in Nevada and Arizona. The only ones missing their connecting flights were flying on Bombardier aircraft. Boeing and Airbus were taking off on time.

You make it sound like Bombardier aircraft are some sort of substandard, third-rate aircraft, when they have to meet all the same certifications and requirements that Boeing does.

That problem affected a lot of smaller aircraft, not just Bombardier CRJs (not C-series aircraft).

And the difference in capability is four degrees Celsius, which until very recently, wasn't a problem. Odds are this will be rectified by a hot and high package like other aircraft manufacturers offer.

rickc rickc:

I don't mean to be curt,

Sure you do, your entire post is dripping with snark.

rickc rickc:

...lets not pretend that Bombardier is on the cutting edge of tecnology when it comes to aviation. They are not. By a long shot.

It all depends on what aircraft you're talking about. Sure, the CRJ is a old and dated, but the C-Series incorporates all the same techologies Boeing and AirBus use on their planes like composite materials and advanced wings.

rickc rickc:

They ARE on the cutting edge when it comes to shaking down tax payers. If you can find another North American company that is more proficient in fleecing taxpayers to stay in business (while at the same time continually moving jobs offshore), name them. That I would like to hear. Hey its your tax dollars. If you want to keep throwing good money after bad with no oversight whatsoever, thats your choice. Its no skin off my back.

This is about the only thing I agree with you - Boeing AND Bombardier are two peas in a pod when it comes to begging/demanding tax breaks, subsidies and other forms of corporate welfare.

rickc rickc:

You seem to think that I am a shill for Boeing.

I never said that - you did.

I said you were delusional if you thought Boeing never waved the flag to get its way, which is exactly what EVERY single US defence contractor does every time a European company has the audacity to even bid on a defence contract. Do you remember the stink when Beretta won the US Army pistol contract? It's so bad, that most European manufacturers don't bother bidding on US contracts any more.

[BRAH]

martin14 martin14:

BRAH BRAH:

If the Government ended taxpayer support for Bombardier how many jobs would be in jeopardy?

All of them

Then the Government takes full control because taxpayers shouldn't be saddled with the burden of funding it any longer.

[Thanos]

Bump. US Department of Commerce approves and additional 80% in penalty tariffs, bringing the total levied on Bombardier to 300%.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/bombard ... -1.4343262

$1:

The U.S. Commerce Department has hit Bombardier with more duties on its CSeries commercial jet in the Canadian company's trade fight with Boeing.

The department said Friday it will impose a 79.82 per cent preliminary anti-dumping duty against the Montreal-based company's 100- to 150-seat civilian aircraft.

The U.S. government move follows last week's decision to slap preliminary countervailing tariffs of nearly 220 per cent on Bombardier, bringing the total duties imposed by the U.S. on the CSeries to almost 300 per cent.

Boeing, the petitioner in the case, has argued that the Canadian government unfairly subsidizes Bombardier in the construction of the CSeries commercial jets. Boeing launched its appeal to the U.S. government in April, several months after Bombardier announced the sale of up to 125 CSeries jets to Delta Airlines.

After what Quebec and Montreal did to Energy East all I have to say is Team Boeing FTW!





(and this stupid self-sabotaging country can take it's one-way-only flow of patriotism and shove it right up it's collective ass )

[BartSimpson]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Anyone who honestly believes that ANY US defence contractor doesn't wave the flag IS delusional and I'll stand by that, just as you stand by your comment.

Of course they wave the flag! THEY'RE HELPING TO DEFEND OUR COUNTRY, FOR CHRIST'S SAKE!!!

Do you want Canada to depend on firms that suffer from moral equivalence and who would be concerned that some poor Russian, Iranian, or Nork might get shot down by your 'unfairly superior' aircraft?

You toss around the term 'delusional' rather freely here while your own stance seems to me to be fundamentally fucked up.

There's nothing wrong with a defense contractor who's unapologetically patriotic. Not in the least.

[shockedcanadian]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Anyone who honestly believes that ANY US defence contractor doesn't wave the flag IS delusional and I'll stand by that, just as you stand by your comment.

Of course they wave the flag! THEY'RE HELPING TO DEFEND OUR COUNTRY, FOR CHRIST'S SAKE!!!

Do you want Canada to depend on firms that suffer from moral equivalence and who would be concerned that some poor Russian, Iranian, or Nork might get shot down by your 'unfairly superior' aircraft?

You toss around the term 'delusional' rather freely here while your own stance seems to me to be fundamentally fucked up.

There's nothing wrong with a defense contractor who's unapologetically patriotic. Not in the least.

Patriotism is a bad word in Canada. I know of government employees who take great pride in "fooking the dog" and in doing the minimum. It's a badge of honor for some to exploit the taxpayer and treat it like a personal banking account. I've seen a guy asleep at a provincial office and co-workers suggesting "he always takes a nap around this time".

When the country goes belly up from crony-capitalism, nepotism, neo-communism, general exploitation and the lack of innovation that comes with it, everyone will blame the poor guy down the road on welfare milking $500 a month. While their neighbour will be a government patsy making $150k to show up half the year.

[herbie]

$1:

Of course they wave the flag! THEY'RE HELPING TO DEFEND OUR COUNTRY, FOR CHRIST'S SAKE!!!

Yeah. No need for gov't loans when you're still living off the interest from B 29s, B 52s, etc.
Airbus gets gov't loans
Embraer gets gov't support
Ilyushin gets gov't support

US aircraft makers have conglomerated down to a few with huge military contracts, which it pretends isn't a form of gov't support and want the world to play by their rules.

Delta could move their head office to Toronto and get the best of both worlds. Until the US plays a new protectionist game.

[Thanos]

Bump, because stupidity needs all the attention it can get!

In an effort to do an end-run around dealing with Boeing apparently L'il Potato has given the instruction to go begging to Australia to pick up some of their F-18's, most of which now are also as old as Canada's original compliment of Hornets were:

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/15 ... 18-hornets

$1:

One of the strangest sagas in defense procurement over the last decade has been Canada's meandering road to a new fighter aircraft to replace, or even augment, the country's relatively small fleet of aging CF-18 Hornets. We have talked in great depth about this issue, and although the Super Hornet is clearly the right jet for Canada, a recent trade spat has made it politically unsavory for the Trudeau Administration to order even a handful of the strike fighters as a interim measure before selecting a fighter to replace the entire CF-18 fleet sometime in the future.

In the meantime, Ottawa quickly pivoted to looking for possible second-hand Hornet options to help bolster their current fleet of roughly 75 CF-18s. After seemingly leaving no stone unturned, Australia's F/A-18A/B Hornet fleet, which is nearly as old, seems to be where Canada has the best shot at attaining extra airframes without having to wait too long or go through Boeing to obtain them.

From most accounts, Australia has kept its F/A-18A/B fleet in remarkable fighting condition. These jets served as the country's only fighter for many years, and have seen action in conflict zones half way around the globe—most recently flying missions against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. But with a burgeoning Super Hornet fleet and F-35s on the way, the Aussies can probably spare some of their legacy Hornets in the near term.

Considering Canada seems to have few other options, and has now officially presented Australia with a letter of interest in acquiring some of its surplus Hornets, Ottawa isn't exactly in the best position to negotiate on price. In fact they are in a pretty damn lousy one. Time has run out on kicking the proverbial can down the road, and their current Hornet fleet needs help now if it is to survive well into the next decade. Simply put, beggars can't be choosers, and since the Trudeau Administration is willing to embargo the purchase of new Super Hornets from Boeing, Australia may be the only show in town short of acquiring an entirely different type.

Snapping up Eurofighter Typhoons or leasing Saab JAS-39 Gripens may seem like a good idea, but the cost of introducing another fighter type into the RCAF arsenal is a nonstarter considering the force's frugal budget, and especially considering yet another new type could be introduced less than a decade later after a final replacement fighter is selected. Training, support, logistical channels, tactics development, even basing requirements differ drastically from fighter to fighter and from manufacturer to manufacturer, so procuring another distinct fighter type as an interim solution isn't going to happen unless there is no other choice. In the end, Canada would be better off paying top dollar for a couple dozen Aussie CF-18s than going down such a route.

In a country where every major decision and project absolutely has to be done in the most inexplicably dumb manner possible, watch Trudeau (in an attempt to rival Chretien's idiocy of buying scrap-heap submarines that have the potential out of mere obsolescence to kill anyone unfortunate enough to be assigned to them) end up spending as much on ancient 40-year old Australian F-18's that they could have spent on brand-new state-of-the-art SuperHornets.

This is Canada, where the dumbest thing possible isn't just a possibility, it's a 100% certain goddamn guarantee. "Maybe we should restart the production line for the Avro Arrow while we're at it. That'll show them greedy Americans! Hyuck hyuck hyuck!".

[ShepherdsDog]

electroshockedcanadian forgetting which account he was using electroshockedcanadian forgetting which account he was using:

I know of government employees who take great pride in "fooking the dog"

How did this become about your mother?

[bootlegga]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Anyone who honestly believes that ANY US defence contractor doesn't wave the flag IS delusional and I'll stand by that, just as you stand by your comment.

Of course they wave the flag! THEY'RE HELPING TO DEFEND OUR COUNTRY, FOR CHRIST'S SAKE!!!

Do you want Canada to depend on firms that suffer from moral equivalence and who would be concerned that some poor Russian, Iranian, or Nork might get shot down by your 'unfairly superior' aircraft?

You toss around the term 'delusional' rather freely here while your own stance seems to me to be fundamentally fucked up.

There's nothing wrong with a defense contractor who's unapologetically patriotic. Not in the least.

US firms aren't patriotic, they're anti-competitive leeches sucking at Uncle Sam's teat. It has far less to do with patriotism and far more to do with greed. They have zero desire to see a true free market when it comes to any contracts and essentially have and demand a monopoly on US defence contracts.

I fully understand why politicians (from every nation and political stripe) support it, because jobs mean votes and that means they can stay in office for eons, sucking off the same teat as Boeing and Lockheed and all the rest.

[Thanos]

LOL, it gets even funnier. Apparently the US as the originator of the F-18 can step in and prevent any country that bought them, no matter how long ago or how old the planes now are, from selling them to another country without American approval.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada- ... -1.4354326

$1:

Canada's plan to shop for used Australian fighter jets rather than buy new Boeing Super Hornets may backfire, according to defence experts, because the U.S. government will ultimately have a say on whether a deal proceeds.

Even though the FA-18 Hornets are nearly three decades old, require regular corrosion maintenance and are nearing obsolescence, their proposed resale would still require Washington's approval because they are advanced warplanes, originally manufactured in the U.S., a former Royal Australian Air Force officer told CBC News.

"I imagine all of it is going for a fair bargain price," said Peter Layton, a fellow at Griffith University in South East Queensland, Australia, who was a reserve force group captain.

Few customers exist for Australia's used warplanes, and selling to Canada would be an easier sale than most, because the Pentagon would not require all sensitive technology to be stripped out of the aircraft.

But in the context of Canada's current tit-for-tat aerospace trade dispute with the U.S., another defence expert said no one should expect the Trump administration to do Canada any favours in light of the heated rhetoric surrounding Boeing.

"There's a lot of things they could do just within the executive authority to simply be unhelpful," said Dave Perry, an analyst at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute. "I don't know how far they can go, but if the government of the United States didn't want the aircraft to be sold, it would be very difficult to get them."

Australia's defence materiel group produced a scathing report in 2012 noting that the country's FA-18s were rapidly running out of airframe life and required bigger and bigger slices of the maintenance budget.

"The incidence of discovery of airframe corrosion in the Hornet fleet is increasing, and the annual cost of corrosion‐related repairs has increased significantly," said the report, which Layton said was considered "too critical" by the defence establishment.

The Trudeau government has been using the threat of buying used FA-18s from Australia as a bargaining chip in its wider trade dispute with Washington.

On the eve of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump last week, Public Services and Procurement revealed the Liberal government had sent a letter to Australia expressing interest in buying some of its old fighters.

The department had been talking with Chicago-based Boeing about buying 18 new Super Hornets, but those negotiations were suspended after the giant U.S. aircraft-maker filed a trade complaint against Bombardier over passenger jet sales.

The U.S. Commerce Department intends to impose nearly 300 per cent tariff and anti-dumping duties on the Montreal-based manufacturer's CSeries jet.

Trudeau said Canada no longer has an intention of doing business with Boeing.

The used Australian jets are approximately the same age and configuration as Canada's CF-18s, which the Liberals insist must be supplemented if the air force is to meet its Norad and NATO commitments at the same time.

How well those Australian jets would solve that problem is an open question.

Layton said Canada would likely get only five to seven years' service out of each warplane.

Advances in both fighter jet development and anti-aircraft defences among potential enemies and adversaries mean that Canada's air force, in a just a few years, would be limited to low-intensity conflicts in uncontested skies.

At this rate we should acquire the Aussie F-18's sometime in 2030, and then receive our first batch of F-35's sometime in the mid-2070's. Gee, who ever would have thought that the devil's bargain the Canadian government has had with Bombardier would have caused so much fuss and agitation?

[DrCaleb]

Is there an aerospace industry anywhere that doesn't get breaks from it's government?

[Thanos]

There wouldn't be an aerospace industry period if they didn't. You figure with all the money Bombardier's received that they could have finally put together an entirely Canadian fighter program for us. Oh well, guess no one was expecting the overwhelming hypocrisy of American subsidies to Boeing and all the rest to finally come and bite us on the ass.

[PluggyRug]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Is there an aerospace industry anywhere that doesn't get breaks from it's government?

Is there a day when there isn't a mattress sale.

[Sunnyways]

Bombardier may close over this. Fine, but our govt. should never buy one more thing from Boeing.