Breaking News: Bombardier wins at USITC–no harm to Boeing, in stunning unanimous vote

Jan. 26, 2018: In a shocking reversal and a stunning defeat for Boeing, the US International Trade Commission ruled unanimously Boeing was not harmed by Bombardier’s government subsidies and low-price deal to sell 75+50 CS100s to Delta Air Lines.

This means the prospect of tariffs, of 292%, is dead.

Details to come.

32 Comments on “Breaking News: Bombardier wins at USITC–no harm to Boeing, in stunning unanimous vote

    • Quite refreshing to see the 500lb Gorilla get knocked out! Amazing that occasionally the legal system actually works as intended.

  1. OMG… Surprises do happen. “Ding dong the witch is dead… What old witch… That old witch”. Good on’ya Bombardier, Canada, and… Well… Airbus and Delta.

    Great news. Boeing must be seething 😀

  2. A rare case of facts underpinning the base of reality.

    Probably a long time before we see that again.

    • No way,some one got to them. Possibly US interests,but my money is on the otherwise not terribly useful Mrs May.

      • Hello Grubbie,

        Regarding: “No way,some one got to them.”

        Below is an opposing opinion from former USITC Chairman Dan Pearson that is excerpted from the Reuter’s article at the link after the excerpt.

        Former ITC chairman Dan Pearson praised the decision by phone.

        “Not a single commissioner was willing to buy Boeing’s arguments,” he said. “I think ‘America First’ is a policy of the White House and the Commerce Department,” he said. “But it’s not the policy of an independent agency (like the ITC).”

        Myself, I have no opinion one way or another until I see a document that explains the USITC’s reasoning.

        • No way again!No one isn’t surprised by this decision and it happened the day after Trump was in Davos. Also Boeing has been in extensive talks with BBD and the Canadian government this week.A deal has been done.

        • Of the four currently serving USITC commissioners, three were appointed by former President Obama, and one was appointed by former President Bush #2. Below are excerpts from their bios on the USITC website. There are currently two vacancies for which nominations are pending. Additionally, there are two commissioners whose terms have expired who are continuing to serve until their replacements are confirmed by the US Senate.

          Rhonda Schnare Schmidtlein, a Democrat of Missouri, is the Chairman of the U.S. International Trade Commission. Chairman Schmidtlein was nominated to the USITC by President Barack Obama on July 15, 2013; renominated on January 6, 2014; and confirmed by the U.S. Senate on March 6, 2014.

          David S. Johanson, a Republican of Texas, is the Vice Chairman of the U.S. International Trade Commission. Vice Chairman Johanson was designated Vice Chairman by President Barack Obama on August 11, 2016, for the term ending June 16, 2018. He was nominated to the USITC by President Obama on April 8, 2011, and confirmed by the U.S. Senate on October 31, 2011. He was sworn in as a member of the Commission on December 8, 2011, for a Commission term expiring on December 16, 2018.

          Irving A. Williamson, a Democrat of New York, was nominated to the USITC by President George W. Bush on September 7, 2006; renominated on January 9, 2007; and confirmed by the U.S. Senate on February 1, 2007. He was sworn in as a member of the Commission on February 7, 2007, for a term expiring on June 16, 2014. He served as Chairman of the USITC for the term June 17, 2012, to June 16, 2014 and as Chairman by operation of law from June 17, 2016, through January 13, 2017. He served as Vice Chairman of the USITC for the term June 17, 2010, to June 16, 2012.

          Meredith M. Broadbent, a Republican of Virginia, was nominated to the USITC by President Barack Obama on November 8, 2011, and confirmed by the U.S. Senate on August 2, 2012. She was sworn in as a member of the Commission on September 10, 2012, for a term expiring on June 16, 2017. She served as Chairman of the Commission from June 17, 2014, through June 16, 2016.

        • “America first” do not mean “America alone” (POTUS saying)
          So many comments were stating the Boeing case was “absurd”

          Thanks for the unanimous decision giving some credit to USITC

      • Even if.
        it will be cloaked in some other ( nefarious ) explanation.
        Never tell the truth.

  3. The original complaint and the US tribunal ruling was just naked protectionism at the behest of the local tycoon capitalist.

    BA has led the way in using the cheque book to defend its market position against industry headwinds. The rumours and educated guesses abound where it has cut the price of its products in the face of opposition quality and its customers playing an excellent game of hardball.

    BBD and it’s Delta offer makes a cash surplus at the contribution cost level — consequently the dumping accusation was just so much playing to the gallery and sour grapes.

    They have just saved AB $5bill with all their posturing.
    Next question is who now makes an offer for the MC-21?

    • No one in their right minds. Russia reversal in joining the mainstream world since Putin change of policies makes it impossible for anyone credible to invest in the MC-21.

      See the Italians with the SuperJet 100.

      • What are you buying?

        Test info?
        A fully detailed CAD model?
        Manufacturing tech?

        You can start from scratch and design a new wider SA aircraft with an EIS of realistically 2030 or you can use the MC-21 platform / component set to bring the date forward by 5 years.

        Interesting decision to make.

        • *Design — I doubt the airplane gets near the 787/350 design tech in *any* way. Far from that. So what are you really buying? What IP? Sure the plane is a bit wider. And?
          *Manufacturing tech — In Russia, really? For a full airframe?
          *Engines — They are 10 to 20 years behind now. Chose a western one anyhow. Are not even allowed to service them MRO-wise.

          The latency gains you are talking about is really hard to take advantage of as the workforce is ‘000s of miles away. And you can’t move them. Cultures are nearly totally incompatible with modern western approaches.

          Russia made a choice 10 years ago to revert its burgeoning integration to the western ways. It is what it is. It’s over for now as far as heavy asset building goes. They have lost any hope to compete on true inefficiencies beyond protectionism rules. Barrier of entry are too hard. It takes years of brutal competition to learn.

          Like the Superjet 100, these are attempt to get to catchup level at best. Nothing else. See where that SJ-100 got them.

          More successful attempts have been made around software product dev. centers (ie, just get smart people). I know this world very well. Even there, there are so many IP theft, security, racketeering issues, that the momentum we saw in the 1990/2000 has really slowed. Such a pity as they have great (individual) folks who are so smart and who can work very hard. Even a near critical mass of them. But the system still prevents them from commercially organizing in a free/functioning env. (read: mafia-like) and thrive. You can’t be world-class this way.

          Airbus made the coup of the century by getting BBD. They competed. They are world class.
          Let’s see if Boeing gets Embraer. They are near world-class. CS is still better it seems.

          • The MC-21 is supposed to be available with western engines. You may have heard of them PW1400G.
            The wings are made of carbon fibre using ‘out -of-autoclave curing techniques. This is more advanced than what Boeing is doing with the 777X.
            The fuselage is Al, and metallurgy is a Russian strength, so they wont have any problems there ( Boeing has contracts for Russian titanium).
            Yes the overall plane systems may have questions from western eyes, but thats nothing a major partner like Embraer cant fix

            Of course it cant get near the 787/350 nose to tail tech, but its a single aisle, with more advanced carbon manufacture of the wing ‘not yet seen’ at this scale in the west.

          • @dukeoffurl
            Engines: reread what i wrote. That was my point. And worse even (MRO-wise).
            Wings: Perhaps but can they make them to specs? It takes an industrial ecosystem to be world-class (repeatable manufacturing, efficient, to specs, repairable, etc.). b) will the wings be delivering the flight performance?
            Metals: Shipping metals overseas does not mean you know how to use them + make an overall system efficient with them. b) i thought advanced airplanes used composites now for the airframes. What gives?

            Yeh… we are going to trust this plane will displace the current world-class guys? Nice to root for anti-US underdogs but this betrays a lack of understanding as how complex, heavy assets are built/evolved over time. It takes a life time.

            And now your point is the Brazilians will teach them how to fix that plane? wow… weed may be legal whereever you are 🙂 Do you even understand what operationalizing what you are venturing means? lol.

          • Really don’t think you understand Russian engineering / technological history or you allow yourself to forget all too easily.

            They will grow out of their current wild east situation and return to what they have been good at for 200 years. It might have been slow going at times but they have led the world in quite a few areas.

            Their biggest problem has been hubris, vanity and nationalistic pride but they are still players in a lot of fields — aero being one of them.

            Fair enough that quality control was thanks to the KGB / the threat of a holiday in the cold bits of Siberia either world class for the military / non existent for the plebs but their track record is all around us.

            The US also has the good and the bad.
            Just that it is the mirror opposite.
            Bad for the military, good in the main for the civil side / plebs.

            Strange that.

            However buying into the MC-21 programme would be a good move. They keep certain markets and huge amounts of new credibility while the new investor gets Nafta / SA / EU / ME and Pacific rim.

          • “Shipping metals overseas does not mean you know how to use them”
            of course not- those Russian titanium submarines were just a CIA smokescreen. The An-124 had the entire cargo floor made of titanium.
            Yes the aircraft world has moved more into composites but metals still play a big part – even the 787 is only half composite.
            I think you know very little about aerospace structures and how they are made all over the world- mostly amoung ‘different cultures’ what ever that is supposed to mean. Engineering, especially aerospace has long had an international culture of its own that transcends the laguage they speak or the food they eat.

          • “*Design — I doubt the airplane gets near the 787/350 design tech in *any* way.

            you appear to be arguing from ZERO specific knowledge ( actually more like the percolation of what arguments we saw with the emergence of the “Dreamliner”: “everybody else can only copy”. 🙂

      • Reversal: This is the image the US wants to show.

        After the US propped president Jeltzin went under in alcoholic stupor Russia has moved to stop being gutted by the West. Airlines using the SSJ 100 seem to be happy.
        Except for strongly targeted issues generated by US institutions.

  4. This has been one of those strange situations where the longer the legal issues have continued the essential rightness of Bombardiers position (or more correctly the lack of rightness of the Boeing position) has shone out. Was it really down to a poor response to the original requests from the ITC??

  5. All of the contorted logic towards the CS seemed to ignore the very premise that aircraft manufacturing is based on for Boeing and Airbus. Every program that they have is a long term gamble with a high loss leader for years up front.

    What if they give away the aircraft for free based on future parts and services, so what?

    • This has come up when talking about Boeings move into services. Something like 60% of annual world maintenance spend is on engines and line maintenance. Not much room for a Airbus or Boeing to use economy’s of scale.
      Theres too many individual OEMs of subsystems like undercarriage, a/c, hydraulics, actuators for the majors to make back the money instead of at purchase time.
      The engine manufacturers are part way along the path to paying some upfront but the lions share during maintenance.

    • Its not free for Airbus , as the FAL could be something $400 mill worth and the tie in will allow the suppliers to to reprice as an Airbus product.

Leave a Reply

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