Boeing & Bombardier Battle

Yet another front opens up in the Canada-US trade fight

Boeing and Bombardier are locked in a vicious public relations battle, and billions of dollars could be on the line.

In the wake of US trade actions against Canadian softwood lumber, Boeing is using language similar to the lumber dispute in an attempt to cast Bombardier as an “unfair” trader.

Boeing has accused Bombardier of selling their C-Series passenger jets at prices that are far too low. Bombardier won a contract with Delta Airlines, and Boeing has alleged those planes were purchased too cheaply.

Bombardier has fought back, saying the allegations that Delta bought each plane for $19.6 million is “absurd.”

Now, Boeing has filed a claim with the US International Trade Commission. They attest that Bombardier set a new “low price ceiling,” by selling planes for under the $33.2 million manufacturing cost. They want the US government to impose duties on the Bombardier planes – which wold be terrible for Bombardier and great for Boeing.

Not much sympathy for Bombardier

This fight comes at a bad time for Bombardier. They have taken a massive hit in public perception, after their arrogant elitist executives gave themselves massive bonuses – even as they groveled for a taxpayer funded bailout.

As a result, there is little sympathy for Bombardier as they complain about Boeing’s attack – even if Bombardier has done nothing wrong in this specific case.

Spencer Fernando

2
Share Your Thoughts

avatar
2 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
2 Comment authors
Bruce MarkusmladzichMargaret Louise Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
mladzichMargaret Louise
Guest

Of course Bombardier can undercut them! It costs them nothing! It costs Canadians plenty, though

Bruce Markus
Guest
Bruce Markus

This was nothing more than a Canadian government jobs program. It was never a commercially viable project, which is why Bombardier only moved forward after promises of non-recourse guarantees and “loans” that BBD was not legally bound to repay to the provincial and federal governments. They were advised by counsel some eight years ago to make a voluntary disclosure to the Antitrust Division of the USDOJ. They refused. Because they knew that what they were doing was illegal.