C'est surement disponible a qq'part mais pas grand monde le savent parce qu'au US y se pete pas les bretelles avec ca 2 fois par semaine dans le Journal de Montréal... Ca aide pas ca.
BBD (Bombardier) stock goes down by a lot today
- Thread starter [ShInGo]
- Start date
C'est surement disponible a qq'part mais pas grand monde le savent parce qu'au US y se pete pas les bretelles avec ca 2 fois par semaine dans le Journal de Montréal... Ca aide pas ca.
c'est ca que jdisais aussi mais en mrelisant jme suis mal expliqué , les médias ommettent sciement de mentionner ce fait dans les articles a matin pis c'est ca qui mfait débuzzer , ca donne un status de victime a bombardier quand en réaliter ils ont chier sur le WTO si ya des preuves de dumping.
ek notre cash enplus( jfais mon jean-guy ) , on est tous complices lul
en realité bombardier a dumper a 19m pour un prix de base de 33m si jme trompe pas. stu juste des allégations ou ya des preuves que lavion vallait 33m ?
1. MSRP on planes is a fictitious number that is nowhere near sale prices. Planes regularly sale for 40-50% off their list price.
2. 33M is what Boeing says it cost Bombardier to build each c-series. How they would know this without being involved in industrial espionage is beyond me (if the 33M is even correct)
3. Boeing gets a ridiculous amount of tax brakes from Washington state, multiples of what QC has put into Bombardier.
4. Boeing also enjoys those sweet profit guaranteed military contracts.
5.Boeing requested an 80% CVD the fact that the commerce department has come out with a duty that's almost 3 times that, has no basis in reality and is clearly a protectionist measure. Boeing doesn't make a plane at this moment that competes with the C Series, so how they can prove they've encured loses and damages should be interesting to say the least.
I think most people would agree that you'd have a hard time justifying a 220% CVD + Anti dumping duty. Sure there's an argument to be made that the QC bailout could consitute a subsidy and capital injection that allows them to sell below cost but not at the scale these tariffs imply.
2. 33M is what Boeing says it cost Bombardier to build each c-series. How they would know this without being involved in industrial espionage is beyond me (if the 33M is even correct)
3. Boeing gets a ridiculous amount of tax brakes from Washington state, multiples of what QC has put into Bombardier.
4. Boeing also enjoys those sweet profit guaranteed military contracts.
5.Boeing requested an 80% CVD the fact that the commerce department has come out with a duty that's almost 3 times that, has no basis in reality and is clearly a protectionist measure. Boeing doesn't make a plane at this moment that competes with the C Series, so how they can prove they've encured loses and damages should be interesting to say the least.
I think most people would agree that you'd have a hard time justifying a 220% CVD + Anti dumping duty. Sure there's an argument to be made that the QC bailout could consitute a subsidy and capital injection that allows them to sell below cost but not at the scale these tariffs imply.
Spaceman Spiff
Well-known member
En aviation, les premiers exemplaires d'un nouveau modèle sont vendus à perte. C'est une pratique répandue dans l'industrie. Pourquoi? Parce que les compagnie de transport aériennes sont frileuses et ne veulent pas prendre de chances avec des avions inconnus. En plus, il y a plein de coûts logistiques et de formation associés à l'adoption d'un nouveau fournisseur d'avions. La vente sous le prix coûtant sert d'incitatif et ça permet aussi de garder tes chaînes de montage occupées au lieu de mettre des employés à la porte en attendant les commandes.
thanks pal!
could you explain to me what would make a dumping case even remotely viable then? from the little ive reasearched on the subject today its illegal
for someone like me that doesnt know much on the subject its simple arithmetics , 1+1=2 - translate to : sell a bunch of planes under the ''msrp'' + dumping laws and non written laws stating that its frowned upon = win stupid prizes.
There are 2 things at play in the commerce department judgement.
1) Did Bombardier enjoy an illegal government subsidy (in the form of government bailout)?
2) Are they dumping their planes in the US market?
It just so happens that boeing's argument is that #1 allowed #2 to occur. Also this isn't a typical dumping case that you would see with let's say a commodity or agricultural goods.
Aerospace is a very unique sector where all the players enjoy government subsidies in one form or an other (literally every single one) and it's not unsual for plane manufacturers to sell planes at a lost because they'll make up that money during the lifetime of that aircraft through maintenance and parts.
So part of the outrage at this decision is the hypocrisy behind it because every government supports their aerospace sector and every plane manufacturer has sold planes at below costs including Boeing.
once again thanks.
to me #1 allowed #2 to occur but if theyre all doing it in one form or another , then i'll change my position and sit behind bombardier even if i would have loved to have another reason to laugh at them( once again like a jean-guy) thrown at me on this sunny wednesday morning.
Spaceman Spiff
Well-known member
Dumping is a lot more than just selling something below production cost. The goal of dumping is to get rid of the competition by selling at a loss until some or all of your competitor go bankrupt and then jack up the prices once you have a big enough market share.
Ronin
Legacy Member
That's the part that pisses me off the most. It's ridiculous how some are ready to completely shut their eyes to how crazy huge of a government handout milliary contracst are.
the 101 on how to create a monopoly.
i just didnt knew it was normal in the aviation industry.
after a bit more research , Boeing is smart enough to evade the ''illegal subsidies'' charges placed upon them by indirectly giving money to being thru NASA and Defense projects.
they ( boeing or the gov not sure ) did the same thing to airbus last year.
airbus sent them back their own lawsuit stating that they were doing it too but indirectly.
i also like the nuance between the word subsidies and investment in the eyes of the law regarding that type of thing
interesting
theyre smart.
funny edits : new meds for my epic mental illnes are working wonders , i dont feel attacked or ridiculised at all when im proven wrong lul.
Spaceman Spiff
Well-known member
Spaceman Spiff
Well-known member
Speaking of subsidies...
Spaceman Spiff
Well-known member
Bombardier Transport et BRP sont devenues deux compagnies distinctes. Il me semble qu'il y a eu une crosse des dirigeants associée à ce split.
Broody
Well-known member
Hier ils ont rebrassé les parts de DOO (en faveur de Beaudier groupe j'imagine, j'ai lu en diagonale) et ça a droppé de 7%, ça monte la confiance envers eux...
KossaK
Active member
yep, les turbo prop son super populaires partout dans le monde dans les vols locaux.
Le duré du vol est presque la même pour beaucoup moins de Fuel.
Aussi, Les petits avions à réaction ne sont pas populaires. Les lignes arédiennes veux des midzise bi moteur avec de range.
Comme ça ils sont certains de les remplir de passage et pouvoir desservir plus de destinations secondaires un pays à un n’autre.
Toujours u un faible pour les turbo prop en général.
Je trouve ça plus cool et esthétique que des Fan.
Le duré du vol est presque la même pour beaucoup moins de Fuel.
Aussi, Les petits avions à réaction ne sont pas populaires. Les lignes arédiennes veux des midzise bi moteur avec de range.
Comme ça ils sont certains de les remplir de passage et pouvoir desservir plus de destinations secondaires un pays à un n’autre.
Toujours u un faible pour les turbo prop en général.
Je trouve ça plus cool et esthétique que des Fan.