Pontifications: Next steps in Boeing-Bombardier trade complaint

By Scott Hamilton

Sept. 18, 2017, © Leeham Co.: The US Department of Commerce is due next Monday to hand down its preliminary decision on whether to impose tariffs on Bombardier’s C Series sold to Delta Air Lines.

The price dumping complaint, filed by Boeing earlier this year, cleared the US International Trade Commission on a 5-0 vote. The ITC found probable cause (my words) to proceed with the complaint. From there, investigation shifted to the DOC.

The details are complex and need not be recapped here. What is important are the next steps, assuming—as widely expected—DOC sides with Boeing.

The politics

Two weeks ago, it was revealed Boeing walked away from negotiations with the Canadian government to resolve the issue. Last week, it was revealed UK Prime Minister Theresa May talked with President Donald Trump about the complaint. More discussions are to follow.

It may be noteworthy, if accurate, that Boeing may be coming back to the table. See the last paragraph in this Sept. 12 article from The Global and Mail.

One industry observer wrote that the UK is coming to the table too little, too late. This is a totally uninformed position. LNC has known since July something was up with the UK, which is a purchaser of Boeing military goods. In fact, it was announced at the Paris Air Show agreed to purchase 50 Apache helicopters.

I don’t know the current status of this deal, but just raising the issue, as did the Ulster Unionist Party of Northern Ireland, has all kinds of implications. It was suggested to me in July that the UK (and May specifically) was gearing up and the UK could potentially cancel Boeing contracts or otherwise act.

Why is the involvement of the Ulster Unionist Party important?

The C Series wings are produced at Bombardier’s Northern Ireland factory and it is the biggest employer in this perpetually depressed area. These are also high-paying jobs.

More to the point, May barely survived a June snap election. She remained in office through forming a coalition government. The swing political party? The Democratic Unionist Party

If May is unsuccessful in getting Boeing, somehow, to drop this complaint, could the DUP bolt, in which case the May government collapses? Does Boeing want to be responsible for this? Does Donald Trump want to lose a kindred spirit?

The scenarios are ripe for the imagination.

Next Steps

Irrespective of the politics, here are the possibilities of what’s next, on the assumption that no settlement is reached in the next week and Commerce rules in Boeing’s favor next Monday.

  • Tariffs are imposed on a per-airplane delivered basis. The tariffs will be escrowed while appeals are pending. The first airplane is scheduled for delivery in April.
  • An appeal of the DOC decision may be made to US Federal District Court in Washington (DC). But, somewhat exquisitely, this isn’t the only place.
  • An appeal could be filed with the US Court of International Trade. According to this article in Forbes, the CIT is a much tougher place to win a complaint than the US ITC or Commerce.
  • The government of Canada can appeal the decision to (of all places) NAFTA. A review board is made up of (get this) Mexico, Canada and the US. Thanks to President Trump threatening to pull out of NAFTA and otherwise insulting Mexicans, Mexico, its president, Canada and dismissively its premier, some people are chortling over the prospect of NAFTA adjudicating an appeal.
  • If this weren’t bad enough, the DOC decision can be appealed to (drum roll) the World Trade Organization. US tariffs are higher than those allowed by the WTO, of which the US is a member. If, by the time the appeal wound through the WTO, and if it were upheld, the WTO could reduce the tariffs imposed by Commerce. As we all know from the Airbus-Boeing proceedings, it can take years and years for a final outcome at the WTO.
  • The next phase is to assess the “injury” to Boeing. The timeline is next year.
Withdrawing from NAFTA

Trump vowed to withdraw from NAFTA, or at least renegotiate its terms. He can sign an executive order withdrawing from NAFTA. Withdrawal would moot an appeal to NAFTA, but there is a line of thinking that Congress must ratify the withdrawal because of treaty obligations. Whether Congress would go along is questionable. In the meantime, NAFTA continues.

This case is far from over if a settlement of some kind isn’t reached. If it continues, it will remain fodder for the media (and enrichment for the lawyers) for years to come.

61 Comments on “Pontifications: Next steps in Boeing-Bombardier trade complaint

  1. Bombardier/Canadair still has some space before the C-series program losses reach top 787 levels. One can compare the CS100 to the 787-8 (most likely never make a profit, hence all sold at a loss) and the CS300 to the 787-9 that will make money. ( & the CS500 to the 787-10, very profitable)

    • I would like to know this as well. What happens if bbd and Delta cancel the contract and renegotiates a new one which is also to Boeings disliking?
      Would the whole process have to start again?. It has been pointed out that normally dumping cases are decided when the contract is completed.

    • Hello Andrew,

      If anti-dumping or countervailing duties were imposed (people seem to focus here on the anti-dumping case, there is also a separate countervailing duty, i.e. disallowed government subsidies case), then the Secretary of Commerce would issue an enforcement order to the US Customs Service, ordering them to collect the duties before the subject products were allowed to enter the US. See the quote below from the USITC website, which may be found at the link following the quote. I believe that any funds collected w would be kept by the US government.

      “If the USITC determination is affirmative, the Secretary of Commerce issues an antidumping order (in a dumping investigation) or a countervailing duty order (in a subsidy investigation), which is enforced by the U.S. Customs Service. ”


  2. The option of Boeing purchasing Bombardier Aerospace still remains. The CS100 and CS300 make an excellent addition to Boeing’s portfolio, as well as a potential CS500 would. The gap between the CS500 and 787 leaves enough room for the 797. Britain will be pleased, as the wing production will remain in NI, in return the defense deals with the UK are being secured. The 737 retires in glory. Strategically this move would put Airbus under serious pressure. The C-Series/797 will be more efficient than the A32x series.

  3. The option of Boeing purchasing Bombardier Aerospace still remains. The CS100 and CS300 make an excellent addition to Boeing’s portfolio, as well as a potential CS500 would. The gap between the CS500 and 787 leaves enough room for the 797. Britain will be pleased, as the wing production will remain in NI, in return the defense deals with the UK are being secured. The 737 retires in glory. Strategically this move would put Airbus under serious pressure. The C-Series/797 will be more efficient than the A32x series.

    • Is this option still on the table? I got he feeling that BBD has more chance of linking up with Airbus than Boeing. Not necessarily a full takeover but rather something more nuanced to save face for BBD. It would fit nicely into the Airbus stable with an option to resize the A320 towards the A321/2 and develop the CS500 over a longer timeframe to replace the A320. Lots of wins for both parties but it would mean a lack of system compatibility between aircraft which may make the rest of the Airbus range look slightly dated in some respects.

      • AF Robert’s comment noted commercial aircraft between 100 and 150 seats from Canada.

        Why not move the CS100/300 production to AB’s plant in Mobile, US and use the BBD facility in Canada to build an A320+?

  4. Unless Trump genuinely listens to May and is willing to act based on any different opinion I think the UK angle is overstated. It has no real alternative to Boeing built AH64s (budget not there, Tigers not good) and the Trump/May relationship is almost certainly more one of May acting from history (to re-affirm the ‘special relationship’ that is far more special to the UK than the USA) and necessity (Brexit) than agreeing with Trump policies (ie the supposed kindred spirits). Leaving the Kawasaki P1 (vs P8) as the probably tenuous twig.

    I think the CIT is key one.

    • Actually, probably not even then P1/P8 (must be costs to any contracts break). Plus Boeing is actually investing in the UK, at the new Boeing Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre, something she won’t want to mess up.

      • P8 desperately needed, AH64 too hard to cancel. Recent noises about new Chinnocks are probably being dangled for good behaviour from Boeing. New factory is a bit of a token PR effort. The Unionists won’t stop supporting Mrs May over this, they like to use this to demonstrate they have a bit clout with the government. This whole issue has no profile at all in the UK.
        So Boeing no doubt feels that they have the UK angle well covered. What they are are probably underestimating, is the general feeling of discontent which will grow, and if this is not sorted out, go on for years.

  5. Is the tariffs specific to Delta’s order for 75 CS100?

    What will happen if Delta takes only say 25 x CS100’s, convert 50 of those to 25 x CS300’s at US acceptable prices then and re-orders X number of CS100’s, again at US acceptable prices?

    ….or cancels all 75 and re-order?

    • Boeing can sell 737s for as low a price as they like, as it’s their home market. Result, Delta buys Boeing. Ofcouse it won’t work like that.

        • Good point, those MD88s are ancient, only Cseries really suitable and available in the time frame. Someone should point this out to the DOC.
          Why on earth did bbd price it so low? Why did boeing push them there?
          Pull up Boeing, you’re pissing everyone off, including plenty of US interests. Push the price up a bit and walk away.

          • Hopefully people get to their senses, reach a settlement on an acceptable price and get on with it.

            With DL’s short term SA needs maybe an order for 75 B737-800NG’s (with Scimitars) could be part of it?

            BBD on the <130 seats and AB on the 321's.

          • Hello Grubbie,

            Delta management has been pretty consistent in stating that the Cs100’s are intended primarily to replace 76 seat regional jets which will then replace 50 seat regional jets, and that Delta’s MD88’s will be replaced primarily by 180 to 200 seat aircraft as part of a fleet wide up-gauging plan. The following quote is from the testimony of Delta Supply Chain Vice President Greg May at the 5-18-17 USITC hearing on the Boeing-Bombardier case. See page 208 at the link following the quote.

            “But what I will say is outside of our order, our next focus is actually on large, narrow bodies and this is more about what was touched on earlier about how we’re doing up gauging and so we have, as far as this bow wave of aircraft being replaced, our next bow wave of aircraft being replaced are MD88s. Those are 150-seat airplanes that we are replacing with 180 to 200-seat aircraft, similarly to how we’re replacing 50-seat airplanes with the 100 to 110-seat airplanes. It’s all part of our up gauging strategy, which is in the airline industry it’s an ever-falling yield, falling fare prices. We need to come up with ways that are going to improve our economics. Up gauging is a key piece of that strategy.”


            Here is a quote from a Delta press release on an add on the their A321 order. For the full press release see the link after the quote.

            “The Airbus A320 family of aircraft continues to be a cost-efficient, reliable and customer-pleasing mainstay of our narrowbody fleet,” said Ed Bastian, Delta’s incoming chief executive. “The order for the A321s is an opportunistic fleet move that enables us to produce strong returns and cost-effectively accelerate the retirement of Delta’s 116 MD-88s in a capital efficient manner.”


          • @A.P.Robert, A321 is much bigger than any model of C series will ever be, so what is boeing worried about? Not sure if I completely believe Delta on that,although I am a bit doubtful about how big the market is for the Cseries.

        • “Something needs to happen at Delta on the single aisle front, their fleet is aging.”
          Delta (and pre-merger NWA) is rarely concerned about fleet age. If the price of oil spikes, they may care in terms of fuel consumption, but this is an airline management that will happily fly aircraft down to the nub.
          But they do it well – excellent Tech Ops, investments in significant cabin refreshes, and maintaining very high dispatch reliability.
          Delta management would also, I’m pretty sure, be quite willing to buy or otherwise secure plenty of 8 or 10 year old single aisle aircraft coming of of ULCC service in Asia. Delta has bought up basically every MD-90 it can get their hands on, and worked an advantageous deal on that big ex-AirTran 717 fleet.
          I hope the CS100 enters service for Delta on time. I think it will be a fine aircraft. But Delta bought them strategically, not because they ‘had to’ for any fleet age reasons. Not how they work it.

    • Hello Anton,

      Generally, anti-dumping and countervailing duty cases evaluate whether a particular country or producer is engaged in dumping or benefiting from prohibited subsidies. If duties are imposed, they are imposed on a certain product from a certain manufacturer or country, until or unless the duties are retracted due to new activity in the case. They are not restricted only to the particular sales that were examined in the period of review for the antidumping or CVD case. In the absence of new case activity, there is a five year sunset review which examines whether the practices that led to imposition of duties are still in effect.

      Boeing in its petition requested “imposition of antidumping and countervailing duties on US imports of 100 to 150 seat large civil aircraft from Canada”. If Boeing’s request was granted, duties would apply to all 100 to 150 seat large civil aircraft from Canada. It is of course possible that USITA and USITC could rule against Boeing, or grant duties with a more limited scope than Boeing requested, for instance, only on 125 to 150 seat large civil aircraft from a specified Canadian manufacturer. Contrary to the image of incompetent bureaucrats on wild rampage prevalent on this web site, regulatory types that I have known and worked with have tended to be very knowledgeable about the regulations that it is their job to enforce, very conscientious about applying them fairly and precisely, and if they have lasted in the job, have a pretty thick skin about being called names by people whose statements reveal that have very little or knowledge of the regulations it is their job to enforce, or that they have not carefully read the case materials, as the regulators are required to do. Given my experience with regulatory types, I wouldn’t be surprised if any ruling in Boeing’s favor gets pared down to something with a more focused and precise scope than Boeing requested.

      For concreteness, following is an excerpt from a fairly typical enforcement order for a countervailing duty case, which instructs customs to collect cash deposits of 13.93% of entered value, indefinitely, on all shipments of certain photovoltaic products from a list of particular Chinese manufacturers.

      “1. Commerce has completed its administrative review of the countervailing duty order on certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic products from the People’s Republic of China for the period 06/10/2014 through 12/31/2015 and published the final results in the Federal Register on 09/12/2017 (82 FR 42792).

      2. Accordingly, for shipments of certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic products from the People’s Republic of China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after 09/12/2017, you shall collect a cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties at the following percentages of the entered value.

      Producer and/or Exporter: Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd.
      Case Number: C-570-011-002
      Cash deposit Rate: 13.93%
      Note: Entries from the following companies may enter under C-570-011-002: Trina Solar Limited; Trina Solar (Changzhou) Science & Technology Co., Ltd.; Yancheng Trina Solar Energy Technology Co., Ltd.; Changzhou Trina Solar Yabang Energy Co., Ltd.; Hubei Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd.; Turpan Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd.; and Changzhou Trina PV Ribbon Materials Co., Ltd.

      Producer and/or Exporter: Chint Solar (Zhejiang) Co., Ltd
      Case Number: C-570-011-003
      Cash deposit Rate: 13.93%”

      • Thanks for the details AP, now I know what’s going on (I think).

        My summary is that the Delta CS100 deal and any potential CS300 is snookered in the US (as for other airlines), at least for 5 years, except if penalties are paid. Guess the leasing of such aircraft will also be regarded as “from Canada”?

        Basically the CS100/300 is “band/black-listed” from the US. I also see this as an attack on DL which is not a Boeing Airline such as Southwest. DL needs these aircraft, AB can’t supply the 320 family due to backlogs. The 319NEO’s could have been an option out for DL, but not really, such is the MAX7’s.

        Will similar apply if the same aircraft is build in another country and given a different name? Assembly line in Ireland could be interesting.

        On technicalities what does “from Canada mean”? Manufactured, designed, holding company, etc.?

        What does 100-150 seats mean, capacity or used in such layout, does it include crew and crew seats? You can nearly get 100 seats into a Q400 with a serious squeeze including crew.

        Was just wondering if DL operates the CS100 with 98 seats, 3 x 4 (12) in the front and 16 x 5 (80) in the back, crew most likely 5-6? That totals 98 max?

        And a warm welcome to the US for the SSJ100 (Russia), ARJ21’s (China), MRJ90 (Japan) and E-190/195’s (Brasil).

        …..and long live Boeing and the MAX7.

        p.s. Will the same then apply if AB put up a assembly line in the Canada to build A319’s, it falls in the 100-150 seat category?

  6. How would Bombardier be able to pay billions of tariffs in escrow? Would that force them into bankruptcy before the case is even finally decided?

    • There is too much attention on the United States! Imagine other orders coming from all over the world!

      • Totally agree. With the sprouting of airports/destinations in more rural parts of India and China that suitable to jet aircraft think how many application could there be for an aircraft such as the CS100, especially field performance, that bis outgrowing larger props.

        …and don’t forget smaller destinations in Eastern Europe. Actually WiizAir could do wonders with a CS100 flying into destinations that can not be served with A320/1’s or 737-800’s.

        …and holiday/island destinations in the Caribbean, Fiji, Indian ocean, Alaska’s West Census area,Philippines and Indonesian Islands, etc….

  7. Would Boeing even have the capacity to build these planes? Would they really want to sacrifice sales of the higher earning models for a floor scraping deal?

  8. It is known that if NAFTA is abandoned by Trump, the old bilateral trade rules between Canada and the United States will come into force automatically, giving the Canadian government and Bombardier the right to sue Boeing for infringement competitiveness. The impact on Boeing’s image of the collapse of May’s coalition and Irish deputies if it were to shatter because of the conflict with Bombardier would have to be imagined in advance. For the duration of all these challenges, one can imagine that Airbus will not remain without nothing, neither COMAC, nor Embraer and, above all, neither Delta. Understand that Delta has already purchased a flight simulator for the CSeries. Given the purchasing power of Delta and the forced renewal of its fleet of single-aisle aircraft, this is a tremendous opportunity to build a balance of power with Boeing, to ask him to temper his aggressiveness, reduce his power over the airlines, … to order more CS300 and becoming the launch client of the CS500!

  9. Just a simple question, there have been many discussions here on Leeham, but…..

    What does Boeing REALLY want to achieve with this complaint?

    Destroy BBD/CS-series,
    Force US airlines to buy Boeing,
    Save the MAX7,
    Show of to the US President,
    Pre-Amble looking for support to build an NSA.

  10. What is on the table for Boeing? 9 P-8 patrol planes, 50 Apaches, who knows how many CH-47s. Also with the EU wanting to flex its muscle to demonstrate its power to the Irish and Scots, maybe Ryan Air might make a few calls to Boeing on behalf of the EU and say he may be forced to switch to Cseries 100, 300 AND 500 if they don’t back down. Britain is still part of the EU and the EU is very keen to derail Brexit. A massive power flexing by Fortress Europe would be impossible for Boeing to ignore. Just remember Airbus considered buying the Cseries program at one point. Imagine if they were to make an equity infusion at this point. Would Boeing and the USA still dare to bully Canada?

    • No way, the EU can’t get out of it’s own way and I have no idea how would force Ryanair to not buy Boeing that wouldn’t be illegal or invoke numerous lawsuits.

      • Expand Lutton and add a Rail link, freeze Stanstead. Then whisper in a lepricon’s este.

      • @Geo

        The EU couldn’t impose counter tariffs on 737s sold to Ryanair because Airbus, apparently, will not sell A320s to Ryanair. 😉

        As for the legality of imposing tariffs, please do keep in mind that when the US starts to unilaterally impose tariffs, then any other nation/trade-block can respond in kind.

        Since WW2, the US has been throwing its weight around with respect to trade issues. However, as the US role in the global economy steadily declines, it would seem as if it’s going to be ever harder for the US to dictate the terms of international trade. It may appear, therefore, that Canada and other nations won’t any longer tolerate to being cowered by American antics and bullying.

  11. No chance. US senators are slowly waking up to the fact that much of the plane is made in their states however.

  12. Has anyone considered that Bombardier may yet self destruct on its own (with a little help from P &W)? Aren’t they really burning through their cash stash with CSeries work in process/ramp up, with little sold product going out the door? And what about the screw ups on the train side with late deliveries and related lawsuits? (Check the Toronto Transit Commission woes with delivery of Bombardier streetcar rail. Interesting parallels, re: failure to make timely deliveries of Bombardier vehicles!)

  13. An interesting article from the Washington Times on this dispute


    A couple of things jumped out of the article :

    “More than half of the value (55%) of each C Series aircraft is from American-based companies. This venture represents more than $30 billion of domestic economic activity, with 22,000 jobs created in supported across 17 states.”

    With Bombardier supporting so many American jobs and companies how can the Trump administration be looking at taking punitive action designed to put them out of business? Boeing may have higher US content but they are increasing the foreign content of their aircraft (IIRC the 787 has 30% foreign content) so Boeing is far from being an “all American” product.

    Also Leeham news gets a mention in this article:

    “In its formal complaint, Boeing relied heavily on the work of the Leeham Co., an aerospace and aviation consultancy specializing in aircraft program accounting to illustrate Bombardier’s launch pricing for the C Series. It now appears that Boeing’s own pricing practices are attracting more attention, as the same Leeham Co. recently published a report on the 787 — Boeing’s latest clean-sheet program. The report shows conclusively that Boeing is “guilty” of the very same launch pricing practices it now complains about.”

  14. Just a “technical admin” question.

    If Delta registers a company, “Delta Canada”, could this company operates routes within in the US with Delta’s US license/permit?

  15. If I were Theresa May the coalition with the unionists would be the least of my worries. Her party is quite capable of stabbing her in the back at any point. She is walking the green mile at present and survives solely because the party views the future debacle until Brexit is resolved (ha) as too difficult to solve. They might as well let her destroy herself and then pick up the pieces.

    In aerospace terms I would be more conscious of the other elephant in the room, what will happen to Filton and Broughton? I can see the Germans licking their lips at the thought of gradually siphoning off wing work as time goes on.

    I like the thought that May can outmanoeuvre Trump but there is one issue, she cares too much and he just likes playing games. No contest from a negotiation perspective.

    • …and on the Ryanair front there’s problems of its own. Did they over cook it?

      Haven’t checked stock prices but there could be opportunities out there?

  16. And on the other hand Air Canada is replacing A320/1’s with 737MAX’es.

    If there was any form of loyalty it could have been NEO’s with P&W’s, but maybe they knew something about the PW1100G?

    A bit of “humor” is that Air Canada is going to start flights to Dublin with MAX8’s, but on the other side one of the worlds airlines with the biggest fleets of Boeing’s is based in Ireland.

    If this is going pear-shaped for the CS100/300 in the US the President and Senate must be made aware that US airlines are being robbed to operate what could be one of the best and fuel efficient aircraft and the world.

  17. It would appear as if the US International Trade Commission operates like a kangaroo court and that the US Department of Commerce will follow suit and deny Bombardier due process and fairness in the name of expediency. What a sham!

    Canada should obviously, therefore, just up the ante. Cancellation of all Boeing military contracts (i.e. 18 F/A-18s etc.) and business dealings between Boeing and the Canadian government, while responding in kind by imposing equivalent tariffs on Boeing’s 737 MAX-series sold to Air Canada, in addition to any other aircraft from Boeing Commercial Aircraft sold to Canadian Airlines. In short, kangaroo court rulings in favour of Boeing would in this case best be countered by Canadian tit-for-tat kangaroo court rulings.

    How do you negotiate with a bully? Can you reason with an egotist who will not listen to another point of view? The answer for game theorists and strategists has been clear for almost 40 years: tit-for-tat. The basic rule is be nice – and respond in kind.

    It seems to be the idea behind Canada’s increasingly strong reaction to U.S. tariffs and “Buy American” policies. In the past, Canada has been content to play the long game of adjudication rather than rapid response. But in aerospace and lumber disputes, tit-for-tat is the new Canadian order of the day.


    • Tit-for-Tat does not work with a bully, you must outsmart him.

      I don’t know the answers but their must surely be ways. To much Canadian Government involvement could lead to claims of “unfair” support for BBD, etc.

      BBD aircraft is also dependent on suppliers from the US, so take care, you could cut you’re own nose to spoil you’re own face.

      Also, BBD is doing lots of other business in the US, this just straight Boeing and the CS100/300. There biggest feat possibly the CS500?

      • Please do read again. I specifically mentioned Boeing products and not products from other US suppliers. In short, Canada outsmarts Boeing by refusing to have anything to do with the company.

        As for government involvement — well, the US government is already involved acting on behalf of Boeing, which could/should lead to claims of “unfair” support for Boeing, etc.

        • That’s what I indirectly trying to say with outsmarting. If the Canadian Government keeps its powder dry on this one the US Government could be digging a hole for themselves and Boeing?

          • Well, the Canadian Government has already indicated where it’s moving with respect to Boeing — it’s not as if they’re keeping their powder dry.

            I do agree, however, that the US Government is helping Boeing to dig a big hole for future Boeing sales in Canada and elsewhere, and that the people in charge at Boeing don’t seem to realise they’re shooting themselves in the foot on this one.

          • Air Canada is changing from 320/1’s to MAX8/9’s, any one in the know at what prices these were sold the AC?

  18. Was wondering about the possibility of forming “Delta Canada”, a charter company. Could the US Government stop Delta Connection to use Delta Canada as charter company in the US using CS100/300’s?

  19. The CRJ1000 seating capacity is quoted to be 97 to 104, that is 101.5.

    So is it now a 100-150 seat aircraft made in Canada and so also effected by the ruling?

  20. Delta/BBD can make as strong case on aircraft availability, the MAX7 has not flown yet and AB’s backlog. Just had a quick look;

    310 A320 family delivered in the first 8 months of 2017, you can call it 40/month, backlog nearly 5700, that’s around 142 months or nearly 12 years!!

    • The rest of the world should start to boycott Boeing products…this corrupt abuse of the US political system is a massive threat to the global fair trade system that has allowed 50 years of record economic progress for mankind…any educated witness understands that Boeing simply lost to a superior product and is now trying to use corrupt 3rd world banana republic politics to try and make up for a lack of good product development. Shame on you Boeing ….if you are successful in this corrupt pursuit, you will set off a massive global trade war which will badly hurt global growth and hurt everybody….stop being such babies.

  21. It occurred to me that in redponse to an adverse ruling, Bombardier could simply shift whatever portion of CSeries production that is relevant to US? It is claimed that currently US content is 50%. First at what %, would this be deemed to no longer be an import, or is that based just on wherever the final assembly takes place?

    Anyway, since their final assembly plant in Quebec does not seem that extremely automated, one can imagine possibly building the plane in their US plant(s) for private jets. So, for only that portion ordered by US carriers, do the minimum to be able to call it locally made. Then, end of story, no?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *