snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Non-UL Chat > Business Bytes

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 27 September 2017, 05:51 PM
WildaBeast's Avatar
WildaBeast WildaBeast is offline
 
Join Date: 18 July 2002
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 15,349
Airplane U.S. slaps stiff tariff on Bombardier's new jet

Quote:
The U.S. Commerce Department has backed Boeing in its challenge to Bombardier, recommending an enormous tariff on sales of the Canadian firm's C Series jetliner.

The initial ruling by the International Trade Commission, an arm of the Commerce Department, recommends a 219.63% tariff on the delivery of each airliner.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/26/news...ing/index.html
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 27 September 2017, 08:28 PM
UEL's Avatar
UEL UEL is offline
 
Join Date: 01 August 2004
Location: Ottawa/Fredericton, Canada
Posts: 9,104
Baseball

And with Buy America influencing this heavily, there goes the Super Hornet and F35 purchases**.

US companies are out to lose $7 billion for the SuperHornet and $49 billion for the F35.

Protectionist policies hurt Americans more than free trade policies.

**Just focusing on aircraft as this was what the challenge was. I'm certain that other areas of industry hurting too. Canada can always purchase from Europe and Asia.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 27 September 2017, 08:42 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 11,973
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by UEL View Post
Protectionist policies hurt Americans more than free trade policies.
Only if you assume other countries will retaliate! Surely no country would do that to us!/We may not have thought that far ahead./We will crush you!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 27 September 2017, 09:28 PM
UEL's Avatar
UEL UEL is offline
 
Join Date: 01 August 2004
Location: Ottawa/Fredericton, Canada
Posts: 9,104
Baseball

Quote:
Originally Posted by erwins View Post
Only if you assume other countries will retaliate! Surely no country would do that to us!/We may not have thought that far ahead./We will crush you!
I know your tongue is firmly embedded in your cheek. But it has already started to happen. Trump is not the first president to attempt to impose Buy American.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 27 September 2017, 09:47 PM
WildaBeast's Avatar
WildaBeast WildaBeast is offline
 
Join Date: 18 July 2002
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 15,349
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by UEL View Post
And with Buy America influencing this heavily, there goes the Super Hornet and F35 purchases**.

US companies are out to lose $7 billion for the SuperHornet and $49 billion for the F35.

Protectionist policies hurt Americans more than free trade policies.

**Just focusing on aircraft as this was what the challenge was. I'm certain that other areas of industry hurting too. Canada can always purchase from Europe and Asia.
Not to mention this ruling will also directly harm another American company -- Delta. They'll either be stuck paying ridiculously high prices for the planes they ordered, or be forced to switch to different aircraft that are less suited to their needs. Boeing doesn't even make a plane that meets Delta's requirement for a 100 to 120 seat airliner. The next best thing in terms of the kind of plane they wanted is the Embraer 190, built in Brazil.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 27 September 2017, 11:31 PM
Lainie's Avatar
Lainie Lainie is offline
 
Join Date: 29 August 2005
Location: Suburban Columbus, OH
Posts: 74,331
Default

Those are details. Details are dangerously close to nuance, and best ignored.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 28 September 2017, 12:57 AM
BoKu's Avatar
BoKu BoKu is offline
 
Join Date: 20 February 2000
Location: Douglas Flat, CA
Posts: 3,868
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by UEL View Post
...Canada can always purchase from Europe and Asia.
I have every confidence that if Canada wanted a something to to toe-to-toe with the F-22, they develop it themselves in a couple years and PWC would have motors for them in time. And if they wanted something to go up against the F-35 they could just add some ballast to their F-22 equivalent and push its schedule out a couple years.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 28 September 2017, 01:05 AM
UEL's Avatar
UEL UEL is offline
 
Join Date: 01 August 2004
Location: Ottawa/Fredericton, Canada
Posts: 9,104
Baseball

Quote:
Originally Posted by BoKu View Post
I have every confidence that if Canada wanted a something to to toe-to-toe with the F-22, they develop it themselves in a couple years and PWC would have motors for them in time. And if they wanted something to go up against the F-35 they could just add some ballast to their F-22 equivalent and push its schedule out a couple years.
Even without our own R&D, there are some incredible aircraft coming out of Europe and South America (we won't look to China or Russia for military tech) that will suit our needs.

Protectionism in the US will only hurt US companies. After all, if there is a trade war a brewin', then we have a whole developed global marketplace that did not exist when NAFTA was first envisioned.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 29 September 2017, 02:41 PM
Alarm's Avatar
Alarm Alarm is offline
 
Join Date: 26 May 2011
Location: Nepean, ON
Posts: 5,566
Teacher

Quote:
Originally Posted by UEL View Post
Even without our own R&D, there are some incredible aircraft coming out of Europe and South America (we won't look to China or Russia for military tech) that will suit our needs.

Protectionism in the US will only hurt US companies. After all, if there is a trade war a brewin', then we have a whole developed global marketplace that did not exist when NAFTA was first envisioned.
Didn't we recently sign a new & improved trade agreement with the EU?

Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 29 September 2017, 02:57 PM
Psihala's Avatar
Psihala Psihala is offline
 
Join Date: 28 February 2001
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 7,912
Airplane Boeing warned Bombardier dispute 'could jeopardise' future UK contracts

Boeing's behaviour over a long-running trade dispute "could jeopardise" its chances of receiving future contracts, the UK Government has warned.

http://news.sky.com/story/boeing-war...racts-11056096
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 29 September 2017, 03:07 PM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,516
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by UEL View Post
Protectionism in the US will only hurt US companies.
I don't see how you can justify saying "only" here. Canada trade is a much smaller percentage for the US than US trade is for Canada. It would certainly hurt both but there's no way Canadian companies could come out unscathed. It's just bad news for everyone.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 29 September 2017, 04:38 PM
UEL's Avatar
UEL UEL is offline
 
Join Date: 01 August 2004
Location: Ottawa/Fredericton, Canada
Posts: 9,104
Baseball

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganzfeld View Post
I don't see how you can justify saying "only" here. Canada trade is a much smaller percentage for the US than US trade is for Canada. It would certainly hurt both but there's no way Canadian companies could come out unscathed. It's just bad news for everyone.
You are right in the way you read that. The "only" was supposed to describe "hurt", not the US companies. (where I would have said "...will hurt only US companies.")

In our globalised marketplace I don't know of an industry that will benefit from any country applying protectionist measures, regardless of who applies them. So, applying a protectionist measure will not help anything.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 29 September 2017, 04:38 PM
crocoduck_hunter's Avatar
crocoduck_hunter crocoduck_hunter is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Roseburg, OR
Posts: 12,356
Default

I think UEL meant it in the sense that protectionism would lead only to harm for US companies in the long term, not that it would hurt only US companies.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 29 September 2017, 10:42 PM
Richard W's Avatar
Richard W Richard W is offline
 
Join Date: 19 February 2000
Location: High Wycombe, UK
Posts: 25,936
Default

Well I'm just glad that, thanks to Brexit, those of us in the UK will be able to benefit from the fantastic trade deals we'll get from Trump's USA, which will be much better than the ones we'd worked out through the EU (even Trump says so!), never mind the useless tariff-free ones we already had within Europe.

Trump said at one point that he was keen to negotiate with the UK first! He's bound to have our interests at heart, rather than those of the USA. Not like the Europeans, who were only holding us back by being on our side. Trump recognises how great Britain is, and wants to put us first. And if he's said anything to contradict that since, I must not have been listening.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganzfeld View Post
It's just bad news for everyone.
Yep, even some of the more enthusiastic Leavers these days seem to have got to the point where they're arguing not that it will be good for the UK, but that it will be worse for other European countries, and therefore (relatively speaking) we'll be better off simply because other people will come out of it even more badly than us. As far as I can see, even that part's not true, but it's the way things seem to be going at the moment.

(I don't like to use the term "Brexiteers", because some find it derogatory, and I don't think we need to call them names in order to put them down).
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 03 October 2017, 05:58 PM
jimmy101_again jimmy101_again is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2005
Location: Greenwood, IN
Posts: 6,862
Default

I suspect US airlines can figure a way around the tariff. For example, create an offshore company that can buy the jets. Then hire that company to service US routes. That's basically how shipping works, there are very few US flagged ships carrying goods into/out of the US. (Only shipment between US ports are restricted to US flagged ships.)
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 03 October 2017, 07:53 PM
WildaBeast's Avatar
WildaBeast WildaBeast is offline
 
Join Date: 18 July 2002
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 15,349
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmy101_again View Post
I suspect US airlines can figure a way around the tariff. For example, create an offshore company that can buy the jets. Then hire that company to service US routes.
That would A) Be a violation of their agreement with their pilots' union, which states that jets with more than 70 seats* must be flown by the airline's own pilots (as opposed to a regional affiliate, which is what this offshore company would effectively be). In fact I believe one of the reasons Delta ordered the CS100 was because the union agreed to allow more large regional jets to be flown by their regional partners if Delta added a new small plane to its own fleet that would be flown by their own pilots. B) It would violate US laws forbidding foreign companies from operating domestic flights in the US, unless they only use this hypothetical offshore company for international flights, but that's not the sort of route they bought these planes for.

ETA: On another board someone suggested a foreign company could by the planes, and Delta could lease them from that company. But someone said that wouldn't work either because the planes would still have to be registered in the US if they're to be flown by a US airline, and merely registering the planes here would be considered an "import" that would trigger the tariff even if Delta isn't the legal owner of the planes.

*Or thereabouts; the precise limit varies from airline to airline and I don't know the specifics of Delta's contract, but they all have some sort of clause like that.

Last edited by WildaBeast; 03 October 2017 at 08:01 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 03 October 2017, 08:38 PM
jimmy101_again jimmy101_again is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2005
Location: Greenwood, IN
Posts: 6,862
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WildaBeast View Post
That would A) Be a violation of their agreement with their pilots' union, which states that jets with more than 70 seats* must be flown by the airline's own pilots (as opposed to a regional affiliate, which is what this offshore company would effectively be).
Agreements with employees are regularly modified. Declaring bankruptcy is a common way of doing it without any input, at all, from the employees. Something like 100 airlines have declared bankruptcy in the last couple decades including a couple very large US carriers (Delta, American, USair, United ...)
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 03 October 2017, 09:17 PM
WildaBeast's Avatar
WildaBeast WildaBeast is offline
 
Join Date: 18 July 2002
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 15,349
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmy101_again View Post
Agreements with employees are regularly modified. Declaring bankruptcy is a common way of doing it without any input, at all, from the employees. Something like 100 airlines have declared bankruptcy in the last couple decades including a couple very large US carriers (Delta, American, USair, United ...)
That may be so, but this sounds like a particular issue that the union tends to not like to budge much on, from what actual pilots are saying on that other board. And since all the major airlines are actually profitable now, with Delta in particular doing quite well, I'm not sure how easy it would be to claim bankruptcy just to get out of a union contract.

Besides, not of that gets around the fact that a foreign company wouldn't be allowed to fly the routes they actually ordered the plane for.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04 October 2017, 07:38 PM
jimmy101_again jimmy101_again is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2005
Location: Greenwood, IN
Posts: 6,862
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WildaBeast View Post
That may be so, but this sounds like a particular issue that the union tends to not like to budge much on, from what actual pilots are saying on that other board. And since all the major airlines are actually profitable now, with Delta in particular doing quite well, I'm not sure how easy it would be to claim bankruptcy just to get out of a union contract.

Besides, not of that gets around the fact that a foreign company wouldn't be allowed to fly the routes they actually ordered the plane for.
That is all probably true (though bankruptcy typically terminates all labor contracts and liabilities like pensions.)

So the prohibition on non-US airlines operating between US airports, and the on non-US shipping companies operating between US sea ports, are examples of long-standing protectionism.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05 October 2017, 02:09 PM
Seaboe Muffinchucker's Avatar
Seaboe Muffinchucker Seaboe Muffinchucker is offline
 
Join Date: 30 June 2005
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 18,314
Glasses

In the U.S., Open Skies Agreements control which airlines fly which routes. This part of it involves the EU. There are other agreements covering other areas.

Seaboe
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.