Boeing statement on loss in Bombardier trade case

Statement by The Boeing Company

January 26, 2018

“We are disappointed that the International Trade Commission did not recognize the harm that Boeing has suffered from the billions of dollars in illegal government subsidies that the Department of Commerce found Bombardier received and used to dump aircraft in the U.S. small single-aisle airplane market. Those violations have harmed the U.S. aerospace industry, and we are feeling the effects of those unfair business practices in the market every day.

“While we disagree with the ITC’s conclusion today, we will review the Commission’s more detailed opinions in full as they are released in the coming days.

“Boeing remains confident in the facts of our case and will continue to document any harm to Boeing and our extensive U.S. supply chain that results from illegal subsidies and dumped pricing. We will not stand by as Bombardier’s illegal business practices continue to harm American workers and the aerospace industry they support. Global trade only works if everyone adheres to the rules we have all agreed to. That’s a belief we will continue to defend.”

18 Comments on “Boeing statement on loss in Bombardier trade case

  1. So relieved. Sanity is ruling at last. Now to see US assembly under way.

  2. One cynical argument is that Boeing bought themselves 6-12 months where Airbus and Bombardier concentrated on this case whilst Boeing knew it was vexatious from the outset and concentrated on making sales and producing big numbers

  3. What are the next steps for Boeing? I read somewhere that there is a law that might enable Boeing to sue Bombardier or enact tariffs using a different method. Bombardier said in their filings that they’ll build a US FAL no matter what because Boeing can still go after them.

  4. BA — how does it face the future?
    More lawyers or more engineers?

    I think the lawyers have won.
    Who needs to build better product when you can litigate your way to success.

    The tanker fiasco had went to their heads.
    Great that they have been brought down back to reality.

    • What ever was been smoked in the office it seemed to have not worked try another bush next time.

      • Maybe Boeing should move its HQ back to Seattle. Weed is legal here. That stuff in Chicago must be really bad.

        • It is bad … as Mr Enders says : how is it possible to fight against your customers (Delta)

        • Scott … was Mr Macsomething (I want to forget his name) Boeing’s CEO at the time who decided the move to Chicago … he was more harmfull to Boeing than Bombardier for sure !!!

          • You’re thinking of McNerney, but it was Phil Condit who was CEO in 2001 when the decision was made to move corporate HQ to Chicago.

          • So Sorry for my mistake
            I am getting too old and time flies

        • The Commercial airplanes business still has its HQ in Seattle.
          Boeing has major other divisions outside the commercial airplane business and its likely to have more people in Arkansas than Chicago ( around 700)

          • The decision to file the complaint was made in Chicago.

  5. If “everyone played by the same rules” the 787 would get countervailing and antidumping duties all over the world. And is Boeing serious about its sentence “illegal business practices continue to harm American workers “? Maybe the one that’s trying to harm American workers is the company that tried to put a 292% tariff on a plane that’s 52% made in the US and whose supply chain supplies 22,700 American jobs across 19 US states. The hypocrisy is just so astounding…
    Justice prevailed today

  6. The question is if an appeal freezes things again for BBD.

    Sure the mobile FAL can go forwards but at some points when hard $$ need to be spent building airplanes there… rational companies (AB) will delay if the appeals are still strongly pursued by BA.

  7. It all depends on the CS sales to appear – if they do come we will see new FAL, if not – we will not.

    Very simple.

  8. Ok M. Boeing you don’t like subsidies and you think they distort the market, why dont you Boeing meet with Airbus, Embraer and Bombardier and Comac and Irkut and discuss a way to finance your big programs with (0) that is zero tax payer money .In those discussion you could also talk about opening the US military market to oversea NATO country, and share the lucrative military market and the derivative technologies that anyway make its way in all commercial aircraft one day and offset that need to be pay back for hardware purchases. An airplane Pact to avoid trade wars and leave the tax payer of the hook.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.