F-35 news roundup

[TaiidanTomcat]

3 hours ago, phantom said:

 

 

Its legal FOR the states as long as they can screw over other companies. Funny, read in the newest Combat Aircraft how the USN is FUNDING the level three Super Hornet upgrades. Is not the USN the US government? Is this not the exact thing Boieng is complaining Bombardier is getting.

 

 

 

 

Which civil airline is buying the Super Hornets?

[TaiidanTomcat]

17 minutes ago, Don said:

Like "11bee" wrote above, this is just a preliminary ruling. The big ruling isn't expected until spring/early summer 2018 and it could still go in anyone's favor. But for the short term...the uncertainty of dealing with and investing in Bombardier in the next 6 months coupled with its hurting light rail division which also took a big hit yesterday,  could severely damage the company in the long run. And has also been pointed out, what is Delta's move? No doubt investment in Bombardier will feel it, and there will be layoffs and cutbacks (at least temporarily) at Bombardier.

 

In terms of this thread and the F-35, there are interesting times ahead for Canada and JT in selecting the new fighter. Time is of the essence as the CF-18's aren't going to last forever. How can Junior proceed with the Boeing SH now? He really can't as it would be certain political suicide. But he's painted himself into a corner with the F-35 by making it an election promise of "not going to buy it". If he goes ahead with buying the F-35 he does have a small "out" thanks to Boeing but he still runs the risk of backlash from the vocal anti-F-35 crowd. Used legacy Hornets from Australia? Possible. But how long before someone in the Canadian media points out that used or not they're still a Boeing product and is throwing good money at a used and temporary fix really a good idea? Canadian CFMIG-29's or CFSU-30's...? <-------interesting what if's.

 

Much entertainment awaits.

 

EDIT: Spelling.

 

Trudeau needs to just use this as an excuse to go F-35 and be done with it. They re still in the program. Canada was never so "done" with the F-35 That they actually left

[Don]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/boeing-bombardier-trade-war-brewster-1.4308734

 

Hints are the Delta order will get the axe. From the article:

"...Bombardier's contract with Delta will have to be cancelled, because neither the airline nor the manufacturer will pay that enormous duty.

Even if the ruling is overturned on appeal before international trade watchdogs, he [Baskin] said, the timing of the ruling is horrible for Bombardier because of "its terrible balance sheet."

 

Also from the above linked article:

"During the election campaign, however, Trudeau ruled out buying the Lockheed F-35 stealth fighter, and the bruising political rhetoric surrounding Boeing suggests that company has also been ruled out [referring to the Super Hornet interim idea]. Defence experts say that leaves only European fighter jets to consider.

"I can't see us going ahead with a competition that doesn't include the North American entrants," said Dave Perry, of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute.

"They've painted themselves into a corner, and they're going to have to make a choice about which one of these positions they back away from."

 

Interesting stuff...

[TaiidanTomcat]

43 minutes ago, Don said:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/boeing-bombardier-trade-war-brewster-1.4308734

 

 

"They've painted themselves into a corner, and they're going to have to make a choice about which one of these positions they back away from."

 

 

 

There it is. They have to look bad one way or the other. No selfie sticking your out of this one. Which promise do they want to break?

[Chris L]

 

 Well , let's face it guys. The bottom line is that it's all about politics . You'll never find anything good in that topic

 

 Cheers, Christian 

[MacStingy]

6 minutes ago, Chris L said:

 

 Well , let's face it guys. The bottom line is that it's all about politics . You'll never find anything good in that topic

 

 Cheers, Christian 

 

6 minutes ago, Chris L said:

 

 Well , let's face it guys. The bottom line is that it's all about politics . You'll never find anything good in that topic

 

 Cheers, Christian 

Please, don't use the P word. My thread was shut down long ago and this is the only one on this topic now. Maybe we. Can decide on code names/words to use to keep the authorities from shutting it down.

[Chris L]

 

 Sorry.... X will never agree with Y

 

 Regards, Christian 

[TaiidanTomcat]

15 minutes ago, Chris L said:

 

 Sorry.... X will never agree with Y

 

 Regards, Christian 

 

 

Actually no. X wanted the F-35. Y refused to buy it. X and Y can agree on F-35. In fact Y originally got Canada into the JSF program. Y continues to stay in the JSF program while also saying they'll never buy it. Y said there would be an "open" and "fair" competition while unfairly excluding a competitor. Don't be like Y. Y looks silly and immature.

 

Y is In a mess completely of their own making because all the contradictions have finally piled up. y even engineered a crises that demanded immediate action. Now Y is stuck in a web of their own lies and double speak.

 

X will not criticize Y on the F-35 decision.

Edited September 27, 2017 by TaiidanTomcat

[Chris L]

 

 Never the less , X will never agree to be Y  or vice versa  . Someone will have to agree to give something . That's why Algebra and the dreaded word ( - - - - ics )  upset my stomach .

 

 Someone always gets hurt in the process.

 

 Regards, Christian

[Scooby]

6 hours ago, 11bee said:

Easy - take billions in state aid, dump a poorly selling jet to Delta at below cost in a desperate attempt to salvage a dying program.  It’s all good.  

 

Just note before all the crying starts, a final ruling is a long way down the road and many things can happen in the interim.   I do wonder if this will put a temporary hold on the Delta order?  

 

Well, we could put a 219% duty on the 787s Boeing just sold our airlines. What's fair is fair.

 

I didn't even feel sorry for Bombardier until I saw this ruling.

 

You saying Boeing never had generous funding from the US government during the war years? I bet they did and it gave them a huge competitive advantage.

[TaiidanTomcat]

25 minutes ago, Scooby said:

 

Well, we could put a 219% duty on the 787s Boeing just sold our airlines. What's fair is fair.

 

I didn't even feel sorry for Bombardier until I saw this ruling.

 

You saying Boeing never had generous funding from the US government during the war years? I bet they did and it gave them a huge competitive advantage.

 

There are obviously some pretty specific and complicated rules. If Canada wants to slap duties on its airlines that will hurt them for help the gov gave boeing 70 years ago go right ahead. 

 

Your government is batting a thousand right now so you might as well go full potatoe 

 

The running them for this week is "self destruction" so i say go for it. 

[Jonathan_Lotton]

10 hours ago, phantom said:

 

 

Its legal FOR the states as long as they can screw over other companies. Funny, read in the newest Combat Aircraft how the USN is FUNDING the level three Super Hornet upgrades. Is not the USN the US government? Is this not the exact thing Boieng is complaining Bombardier is getting.

 

Boeing is not playing right, fair, or anything. This is BS.  Especially since the poor hard done by Americans were asking for 80% duty. How does this screw jobs in other countries "court" possibly thing 219% is ethical?

 

So not only is the American administration going after North Korea, Iran, football players, CANADA is now a target?....Oh wait, we all ready are with these BS NAFTA challenges.

 

So..let me get this straight..

 You're equating the USN funding an upgrade program for the Super Hornet..to government subsidies? 

 

[ST0RM]

ARC Wars: When modelers turn political analysts

[Don]

 

[Scooby]

1 hour ago, TaiidanTomcat said:

 

There are obviously some pretty specific and complicated rules. If Canada wants to slap duties on its airlines that will hurt them for help the gov gave boeing 70 years ago go right ahead. 

 

Your government is batting a thousand right now so you might as well go full potatoe 

 

The running them for this week is "self destruction" so i say go for it. 

 

Boeing didn't even have a jet in the Delta competition as they don't build 100 seaters. Boeing had one goal here, to damage a competitor.

 

The tariff would go to Boeing, not our airlines. Our airlines could always buy Airbus products.

 

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

42 minutes ago, Scooby said:

 

Boeing didn't even have a jet in the Delta competition as they don't build 100 seaters. Boeing had one goal here, to damage a competitor.

 

The tariff would go to Boeing, not our airlines. Our airlines could always buy Airbus products.

 

 

 

why are we even talking about this? I don't think you understand what the rules are and you are going on about Super Hornet funding and Government funding during World War II.

 

They lost. Boeing made their case within the framework. The good news is the Super Hornet Fiasco is avoided. and thats about the only thing thats topical on the thread.

 

Start a seperate thread, do your research and present your case. 

[RedCrown]

https://globalnews.ca/news/3771694/commentary-sorry-to-be-unpatriotic-but-im-kind-of-glad-the-u-s-spanked-bombardier/

 

I have to agree with him.

[Scooby]

1 hour ago, TaiidanTomcat said:

 

why are we even talking about this? I don't think you understand what the rules are and you are going on about Super Hornet funding and Government funding during World War II.

 

They lost. Boeing made their case within the framework. The good news is the Super Hornet Fiasco is avoided. and thats about the only thing thats topical on the thread.

 

Start a seperate thread, do your research and present your case. 

 

This is related to the Super Hornet fiasco. 

 

It's not often the two of us disagree. Boeing even to this day is a major contractor to the military receives a lot of subsidies.

 

Ironically, Boeing gave United a huge discount of 73% before Bombardier gave a similar deal to Delta. Ironically it is OK for Boeing to give a similar discount.

 

"The effect of stiff competition and production delays was apparent in early 2016. On 20 January, United Continental Holdings ordered 40 Boeing 737-700 aircraft instead.^[109] Aside from ready availability of aircraft already in full production, the purchase of Boeing vs. the Bombardier CSeries was financially prudent. Since United already flies 310 of the 737, there will be savings for pilot training and fewer spare parts will need to be stocked. Boeing also reportedly gave United a massive 73% discount on the 737 deal, dropping the price to $22 million per aircraft,^[110] well below the CS300 market value at $36 million.^[111] In November 2016, United deferred this order to save $1.6Bn in CAPEX or $26 million per 61 aircraft.^[112]"

Edited September 27, 2017 by Scooby

[11bee]

6 hours ago, Scooby said:

 

You saying Boeing never had generous funding from the US government during the war years? I bet they did and it gave them a huge competitive advantage.

So sue them.  

 

All’s fair in love and business baby.   BA reacted to the new guy in DC and saw a great chance to bury a potential competitor.   Now folks are aghast over their hardball tactics.   Welcome to capitalism 101.  

 

If you want to see truly hardball business tactics in play, look at some of the antics Lockheed pulled off back in the day.  

 

Regardless, this isn’t going to be resolved for years, in the short term might just allow the Delta order to be delayed but given the small orderbook for this jet, that might be sufficient.  

[Scooby]

36 minutes ago, 11bee said:

So sue them.  

 

All’s fair in love and business baby.   BA reacted to the new guy in DC and saw a great chance to bury a potential competitor.   Now folks are aghast over their hardball tactics.   Welcome to capitalism 101.  

 

If you want to see truly hardball business tactics in play, look at some of the antics Lockheed pulled off back in the day.  

 

Regardless, this isn’t going to be resolved for years, in the short term might just allow the Delta order to be delayed but given the small orderbook for this jet, that might be sufficient.  

 

Actually one was the replies was upset when I said we should hit Boeing with a 219% tariff.

 

Ironically a lot of US workers will lose their jobs over this change. Pratt and Whitney is one company that builds the engines.

[11bee]

8 hours ago, Scooby said:

 

Ironically a lot of US workers will lose their jobs over this change. Pratt and Whitney is one company that builds the engines.

Pratt has a huge backlog of engines for the 737max and A320neo.   No one will be losing any jobs in CT.    

[phantom]

23 hours ago, TaiidanTomcat said:

 

 

Which civil airline is buying the Super Hornets?

 

 

The point is almost all these BIG companies have gotten government subsidies over the years. Look at the billions Canada and the US put in the auto industry a couple years ago. Only to have those same companies CLOSE some of those same plants. Either moving from Canada to the US or some US to Mexico. The entire thing is greed. A profit is one thing, greed and destroying competition is another.

[Scooby]

5 minutes ago, phantom said:

 

 

The point is almost all these BIG companies have gotten government subsidies over the years. Look at the billions Canada and the US put in the auto industry a couple years ago. Only to have those same companies CLOSE some of those same plants. Either moving from Canada to the US or some US to Mexico. The entire thing is greed. A profit is one thing, greed and destroying competition is another.

 

100% correct.

[Scooby]

1 hour ago, 11bee said:

Pratt has a huge backlog of engines for the 737max and A320neo.   No one will be losing any jobs in CT.    

 

Tell that to the Governor of CT. He expressed his concerns.

[Don]

Folks its just round one of a two or three round bout. Nothing is solid or even a certainty until spring or early summer 2018. Odds are the duty will get severely reduced to the 80-90% Boeing originally asked for or get thrown out all together. I doubt it will stand as is. Bottom line, if Bombardier can't survive this recent decision and get its bungling rail division on track (pun intended) for the next 6 or so months until this issue is resolved  then people should be questioning (and they are if you read the Cdn papers and comment sections) the leadership and viability of the company and its decisions over the last few years (which have been abysmal if we're honest).

 

But getting back to the original topic, the concern for the RCAF should be how this Boeing Vs. Bombardier distraction will affect the decision to find a replacement for the Cf-18's. Time is not on the RCAF's side. Common sense would lead one to believe that JT has a legitimate "out" to proceed with the F-35 purchase and use Boeing as the scape goat. Added to that the Québec Premier was quoted as saying this:

 

“Not a bolt, not a part, not a Boeing plane entering Canada as long as this conflict is not solved in a satisfactory way,’’ Couillard said at a news conference in Quebec City. “Quebec is attacked, Quebec will resist.’’ [I guess Bombardier is Québec now... or Québec is Bombardier...]

 

So JT can technically shelve the idea of buying used Australian Air Force legacy Hornets, again using Boeing as the excuse. He could kill two birds with one stone (save political face and finally get that new fighter monkey off his back) if he just rises in the House and seizes the moment. He'd be painted as a patriotic hero in the adoring medias eyes. But that would make common sense...

 

...Or...

 

The urgent need for a decision on the new fighter gets pushed to the back burner for the next half a year or so and more time is wasted, time the RCAF simply doesn't have.

 

Why do I see scenario #2 happening.