Airliners.net

The Boeing filed a petition with the US government, charging Bombardier with “price dumping” the C-Series in its deal last year with Delta Air Lines. Boeing claims Bombardier sold the airplanes for about $20m, against a cost to build the airplanes of about $33m.

Boeing petition ask U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) to investigate subsidization and pricing of Bombardier C Series airplanes and issue anti-dumping countervailing duty order against the sale of those aircraft in the U.S. market.

Complaint highlights how the C-Series has received extensive direct foreign government support totaling more than $3 billion so far, in violation of existing U.S. trade statutes which are designed to address precisely this type of predatory behavior according to Boeing.


Boeing targets Bombardier for “dumping” CSeries
https://leehamnews.com/2017/04/27/boein ... series-us/

=

This follows Brazil WTO complaint in February against Canada over Bombardier aid on the C-series project.

If only they built a 100 seater, perhaps one that Delta has in its fleet...

Good for Boeing, this should be investigated.

By regular financial measures, the project should be dead and instead public money is being directly used to prop up production while aircraft are sold at below cost, the same argument Brazil lodged with WTO. Dumping planes is no different than dumping steel or lumber.

With US president only today telling Canada and Mexico they will reopen provisions on NAFTA and last week having placed import duties on Canadian timber, this is good further ammunition for US side to negotiate over.

Because boeing obviously never sold under the cost of production for the dreamliner. Ever

planes112 wrote:

Because boeing obviously never sold under the cost of production for the dreamliner. Ever

Or the UA 73G order.

I imagine that it's a 'shot across their bows' by Boeing to ensure that the Delta deal is the last one conducted in that manner.

Like WTO complaint this largely comes down to two things.

a) Was government taxpayer fund money "invested" in the project based on generally accepted commercial terms, or was it more a sweetheart bailout/subsidy?
b) Based on trade agreements, producers are not to trade subsidized products at cut-trade pricing creating unfair dumping and advantage against market competitors.

Lets see what comes of it, but I personally have my doubts the Canadian investment in the project were on strict commercial terms, and instead more meant to protect jobs and prop up BBD, per both company and government statements at the time.

alasizon wrote:

planes112 wrote:

Because boeing obviously never sold under the cost of production for the dreamliner. Ever

Or the UA 73G order.

fundamentally different. This is a dumping case which means that it is kosher to do that within your own country. If they did that to say, Air Canada, that would be bad

Well, I love Boeing, but POT, meet KETTLE.
The UA 73G deal instantly comes to mind.

BUT- I suspect that this exact incident is how we know that Bombardier has a formidable product. If it were a turd, Boeing wouldn't care about it.

AA737-823 wrote:

Well, I love Boeing, but POT, meet KETTLE.
The UA 73G deal instantly comes to mind.

BUT- I suspect that this exact incident is how we know that Bombardier has a formidable product. If it were a turd, Boeing wouldn't care about it.

Again, the UA deal is super different. It is a US carrier buying from a US producer. Dumping laws do not apply because it is all within country

alasizon wrote:

planes112 wrote:

Because boeing obviously never sold under the cost of production for the dreamliner. Ever

Or the UA 73G order.

Dreamliners we're sold at the prices well before the problems hit. Boeing probably thought they would still be profitable before $&$$ hit the fan. BBD knowingly sold them at an extreme loss. Additionally, while many will argue the state of Washington subsidizes Boeing via tax breaks, Canada did a direct cash infusion = a different playing field imo. Neither Boeing, BBD, or Airbus is innocent here but imo BBD is really really pushing the envelope here.

phxa340 wrote:

alasizon wrote:

planes112 wrote:

Because boeing obviously never sold under the cost of production for the dreamliner. Ever

Or the UA 73G order.

Dreamliners we're sold at the prices well before the problems hit. Boeing probably thought they would still be profitable before $&$$ hit the fan. BBD knowingly sold them at an extreme loss. Additionally, while many will argue the state of Washington subsidizes Boeing via tax breaks, Canada did a direct cash infusion = a different playing field imo. Neither Boeing, BBD, or Airbus is innocent here but imo BBD is really really pushing the envelope here.

The timing does not matter for dumping cases. The thing that matters is that they were paid less than the cost of production.

I agree about the cash infusion for the CA govt

planes112 wrote:

AA737-823 wrote:

Well, I love Boeing, but POT, meet KETTLE.
The UA 73G deal instantly comes to mind.

BUT- I suspect that this exact incident is how we know that Bombardier has a formidable product. If it were a turd, Boeing wouldn't care about it.

Again, the UA deal is super different. It is a US carrier buying from a US producer. Dumping laws do not apply because it is all within country

Has anyone shown that the UA deal was below their cost to produce them? They may have but I haven't seen it personally.

I suspect it's possible to produce a 73G these days with $5 worth of scrap metal and a few zip ties.

Well, not quite, but there's certainly a major cost-of-production advantage this late in a program.

Boeing ought to be ashamed. They are trying to muscle BBD out of the market. Yes, obviously BBD is selling early builds below cost. Boeing delivers entire programs under cost routinely!

BBD is NOT trying to strategically eliminate Boeing from the marketplace. The suggestion is not only asinine, it is clearly strategic intimidation by Boeing.

planes112 wrote:

The timing does not matter for dumping cases. The thing that matters is that they were paid less than the cost of production.

Well then a lot of things can be considered "dumping" with that metric - essentially anything sold below production cost for any reason.

I'm not an international finance and trade lawyer, but in the cases I have read about that involved accusations of dumping, they always involved a mature production line with known production costs that created product that was intentionally sold below said production costs to saturate a market and secure market share. Micron Technologies, for example, has filed multiple anti-dumping complaints with the US against established Japanese, Korean and Taiwanese DRAM manufacturers.

Boeing did not intentionally price their early 787 sales contracts below production costs because they had yet to build the thing so they didn't have a mature production line with known production costs and once they did have a mature line, the production costs had significantly exceeded the original projections due to all the re-work on the delivered frames. In addition, Boeing consistently raised 787 ASPs to help recover those additional costs. If they intended to dump 787s on the market to discourage customers from buying A330s and A350s, they would have continued to sell them at the original prices.

Stitch wrote:

planes112 wrote:

The timing does not matter for dumping cases. The thing that matters is that they were paid less than the cost of production.

Well then a lot of things can be considered "dumping" with that metric - essentially anything sold below production cost for any reason.

I'm not an international finance and trade lawyer, but in the cases I have read about that involved accusations of dumping, they always involved a mature production line with known production costs that created product that was intentionally sold below said production costs to saturate a market and secure market share. Micron Technologies, for example, has filed multiple anti-dumping complaints with the US against established Japanese, Korean and Taiwanese DRAM manufacturers.

Boeing did not intentionally price their early 787 sales contracts below production costs because they had yet to build the thing so they didn't have a mature production line with known production costs and once they did have a mature line, the production costs had significantly exceeded the original projections due to all the re-work on the delivered frames. In addition, Boeing consistently raised 787 ASPs to help recover those additional costs. If they intended to dump 787s on the market to discourage customers from buying A330s and A350s, they would have continued to sell them at the original prices.

I am not a lawyer either but I am in a lot of meetings with them. While the traditional definition of dumping agrees with you (saturate market intentionally), the definition that counsel uses is price was below production.

Interesting tidbit from the report: Boeing projects that BBD will make just over 2000 CSeries jets (using all BBD numbers for the cost base of the estimate). I wonder if they will be able to meet that.

Do Bombardier do the same program accounting as Boeing?

I mean that how many 787 has been sold below price of construction?

I feel that Boeing is in deep water here. Playing the Trump card.

All new aircraft are sold below production cost for several years after launch. It took many years, and close to 400 aircraft sold (if I remember correctly), for Boeing to reach breakeven on the 787. That is, breakeven (production costs/ sales price), not return on investment (currently more then 32 billions in deferred costs).

The question is about subsidies. The Canadian government invested a few billions in Bombardier, while Boeing is usually given subsidies in the form of tax breaks, generous government grants for doing research and gets overpaid on military sales. Airbus usually gets interest free loans in order to be able to launch new programs.

mercure1 wrote:

Good for Boeing, this should be investigated.

By regular financial measures, the project should be dead and instead public money is being directly used to prop up production while aircraft are sold at below cost, the same argument Brazil lodged with WTO. Dumping planes is no different than dumping steel or lumber.

With US president only today telling Canada and Mexico they will reopen provisions on NAFTA and last week having placed import duties on Canadian timber, this is good further ammunition for US side to negotiate over.

It's only no different if it's not the same.

Dumping a product to undermine the market position of a foreign competitor is a problem. Selling below cost as a loss leader to establish a market foothold, in contrast, is a long-running practice.

planes112 wrote:

The timing does not matter for dumping cases. The thing that matters is that they were paid less than the cost of production.

I agree about the cash infusion for the CA govt

The WTO response to Airbus on the government support matter was pretty tame. I'm expecting similar for Bombardier.

There's more that matters than just the cost of production. However, when the cost of production is not clearly established, the cost of sales within the country of origin can be used, so the Air Canada order may be relevant.

More importantly, no dumping case can proceed without a determination of injury. Boeing has to demonstrate they lost sales of their 110 seat aircraft to prove dumping. Jokes about the 737-Max 6 aside, I doubt Delta will want to jeopardize either their ability to take delivery of the CSeries or pricing on potential firming up of options, so they are probably not going to help Boeing prove harm by supporting contentions that a different sized aircraft lost, and therefore Boeing was injured, primarily because of the price.

Lastly, the WTO rules on dumping are not actually formulated to prevent dumping per se. They're formulated to prevent nations from using dumping accusations as an illegitimate pretext for trade restrictions. As such, if the WTO does find Bombardier practiced dumping, that means the restrictions in the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs against imbalanced trade policies are not violated if the US takes action against Bombardier.

So the US then can, but does not have to take action. It seems safe to say the airlines will argue against taking action, because they will want another competitive option to buy from.

There's some decent basic info on this here:
https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/wh ... grm8_e.htm

Wow, Boeing feels threatened by little Bombardier. Everyone is guilty of this in the aviation industry. I mean look at the 787 program, tax breaks here and there, outsourcing to countries where subcontractors get government benefits of various kinds etc. etc. etc. Indeed a clear cut case of pot and kettle.

Dutchy wrote:

Wow, Boeing feels threatened by little Bombardier. Everyone is guilty of this in the aviation industry. I mean look at the 787 program, tax breaks here and there, outsourcing to countries where subcontractors get government benefits of various kinds etc. etc. etc. Indeed a clear cut case of pot and kettle.

Exactly, because I suspect they know the Cseries is superior (at least in pax experience in every way. Sour grapes on BBD dreaminlining a regional jet if you ask me...

All fun and games until it happens to you eh Boeing?

iamlucky13 wrote:

mercure1 wrote:

Good for Boeing, this should be investigated.

By regular financial measures, the project should be dead and instead public money is being directly used to prop up production while aircraft are sold at below cost, the same argument Brazil lodged with WTO. Dumping planes is no different than dumping steel or lumber.

With US president only today telling Canada and Mexico they will reopen provisions on NAFTA and last week having placed import duties on Canadian timber, this is good further ammunition for US side to negotiate over.

It's only no different if it's not the same.

Dumping a product to undermine the market position of a foreign competitor is a problem. Selling below cost as a loss leader to establish a market foothold, in contrast, is a long-running practice.

I would also add that comparing airplanes to softwood lumber, dairy, and steel are totally different things. Commercial aircraft are not as fungible as softwood lumber, dairy, or steel. If I'm building a house, it doesn't matter if I built the house with American or Canadian softwood lumber. If I'm building a car, it doesn't matter if it is American or Canadian steel that went into the car.

Airplanes are a bit different; in order for Boeing to prove that they were harmed, they would have to prove that the C-Series is a direct competitor to their 737 and that an airline could easily substitute one for the other. That's a harder thing to prove; would an airline like Delta consider and compare the C-Series to the 737?

iamlucky13 wrote:

It's only no different if it's not the same.

Err...it's only no different if it's the same.

Sorry. I can't seem to edit the original post.

so in theory, Boeing should be fighting against the ME3 "price dumping" seats in the TATL markets? Or are they just picking and choosing the battles that will line their pockets?

Typical American company. They can do all sorts, affect other companies financially, but when another foreign company does it vice versa, oh no thats not on.....

777Mech wrote:

so in theory, Boeing should be fighting against the ME3 "price dumping" seats in the TATL markets? Or are they just picking and choosing the battles that will line their pockets?

Likewise Delta shouldn't have bought the CSeries due to Bombardier receiving ''direct foreign government support'' and dumping prices, which is unfair to Boeing and ultimately bad for the US airline industry. Or are they just picking and choosing their battles?

planes112 wrote:

Because boeing obviously never sold under the cost of production for the dreamliner. Ever

That is, as we know, fake news...

As a frequent flyer I'm happy if they dumped. The 737 sucks and I'll be glad when I can book the c series over it.

Boeing should look in the mirror. Like others have said, they've dumped prices as well - even though it might not be covered by law as such. Playing dirty. I hope the CSeries succeeds and racks up hundreds of orders over the next few years.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

planes112 wrote:

AA737-823 wrote:

Well, I love Boeing, but POT, meet KETTLE.
The UA 73G deal instantly comes to mind.

BUT- I suspect that this exact incident is how we know that Bombardier has a formidable product. If it were a turd, Boeing wouldn't care about it.

Again, the UA deal is super different. It is a US carrier buying from a US producer. Dumping laws do not apply because it is all within country

Has anyone shown that the UA deal was below their cost to produce them? They may have but I haven't seen it personally.

Bombardier took a forward loss when they made the Delta deal. That acknowledges that they were losing money. If Boeing sold an airplane that actually is a loss, that loss would show up somewhere. That UA 73G deal was aggressively priced, but I fully believe that there were some offsets against other businesses between United and Boeing in that deal that allowed it to not be sold at a loss. It probably was one of the smallest margin deals they have done, but it is not the same as what Bombardier did. Bombardier told the world they sold at less than cost.

If something is hysterical hypocritical, than this. Pricing their own 737-700 down below everything to kill of a Bombardier C-series deal, receiving 8 billion USD aid from the Washington State. Are they relying on America first, we may but others not?

Newbiepilot wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

planes112 wrote:

Again, the UA deal is super different. It is a US carrier buying from a US producer. Dumping laws do not apply because it is all within country

Has anyone shown that the UA deal was below their cost to produce them? They may have but I haven't seen it personally.

Bombardier took a forward loss when they made the Delta deal. That acknowledges that they were losing money. If Boeing sold an airplane that actually is a loss, that loss would show up somewhere. That UA 73G deal was aggressively priced, but I fully believe that there were some offsets against other businesses between United and Boeing in that deal that allowed it to not be sold at a loss. It probably was one of the smallest margin deals they have done, but it is not the same as what Bombardier did. Bombardier told the world they sold at less than cost.

Which is exactly what Boeing does with Program accounting - the first few hundred are sold at a loss. If Bombardier was able to use Program Accounting they could have spread any loss throughout their Entire production run - just like Boeing does. I'm sure ANA who I think ordered 50 787 off the get go probably paid less than even the cost of the stabilized long term cost of production was going to be at time of launch.

Impossible to know though as Boeing especially uses so many smoke and mirrors when it's brewing it's books.

Boeing builds nearly 500 787 at a loss of about together 27 Billion USD. The bigger part is outside of the USA. It is accepted that the first frames in a new type of aircraft are sold at a loss. When one company has done that to the extreme than Boeing.

AA737-823 wrote:

Well, I love Boeing, but POT, meet KETTLE.
The UA 73G deal instantly comes to mind.

BUT- I suspect that this exact incident is how we know that Bombardier has a formidable product. If it were a turd, Boeing wouldn't care about it.

The 737 has been selling for 50 years and the cost per plane has to be low as engineering costs and assembly line fine tuning has been paid off allowing Boeing to have wide latitude in pricing. Bombardier just launched the CS series and the upfront costs are high and the delays must have contributed to the total cost of the plane. Whether it is legal or not, they had to gain orders or fold the project. The 100 seat airliner market is a tough one, Boeing, Airbus, Embraer, Mitsubishi, etc make it a crowded field.

mercure1 wrote:

Good for Boeing, this should be investigated.

By regular financial measures, the project should be dead and instead public money is being directly used to prop up production while aircraft are sold at below cost, the same argument Brazil lodged with WTO. Dumping planes is no different than dumping steel or lumber.

With US president only today telling Canada and Mexico they will reopen provisions on NAFTA and last week having placed import duties on Canadian timber, this is good further ammunition for US side to negotiate over.

Timber is not related to NAFA and President Trump wanted his name in the papers, he has no power to negotiate NAFTA.

Dutchy wrote:

Wow, Boeing feels threatened by little Bombardier. Everyone is guilty of this in the aviation industry. I mean look at the 787 program, tax breaks here and there, outsourcing to countries where subcontractors get government benefits of various kinds etc. etc. etc. Indeed a clear cut case of pot and kettle.

Boeing must feel emboldened with a former executive now in the Trump administration. The administration runs on favours for friends and pay to play, so Boeing expects to get American government help in taking out a foreign competitor.

b747400erf wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Wow, Boeing feels threatened by little Bombardier. Everyone is guilty of this in the aviation industry. I mean look at the 787 program, tax breaks here and there, outsourcing to countries where subcontractors get government benefits of various kinds etc. etc. etc. Indeed a clear cut case of pot and kettle.

Boeing must feel emboldened with a former executive now in the Trump administration. The administration runs on favours for friends and pay to play, so Boeing expects to get American government help in taking out a foreign competitor.

This was started long before trump.

reidar76 wrote:

All new aircraft are sold below production cost for several years after launch. It took many years, and close to 400 aircraft sold (if I remember correctly), for Boeing to reach breakeven on the 787. That is, breakeven (production costs/ sales price), not return on investment (currently more then 32 billions in deferred costs).

Which is why they got the total production cost for 2085 planes and made the average cost of it

iamlucky13 wrote:

More importantly, no dumping case can proceed without a determination of injury.

look at the conclusion of the report. The report that BBD has a dumping margin of 80.5%. This is the heavily redacted version and I am willing to bet that the 10x larger one dives into this one more. They cannot publically state their damages because it would give a super clear roadmap on the 737 pricing.

Personally, I would surprise to see this continue because Delta is going to be very pissed and the message is already delivered

PlanesNTrains wrote:

planes112 wrote:

AA737-823 wrote:

Well, I love Boeing, but POT, meet KETTLE.
The UA 73G deal instantly comes to mind.

BUT- I suspect that this exact incident is how we know that Bombardier has a formidable product. If it were a turd, Boeing wouldn't care about it.

Again, the UA deal is super different. It is a US carrier buying from a US producer. Dumping laws do not apply because it is all within country

Has anyone shown that the UA deal was below their cost to produce them? They may have but I haven't seen it personally.

It seems odd but the assertion made by planes12 is correct: NAFTA defines dumping this way:

Dumping is the sale of goods in foreign markets at prices below those charged for comparable sales in the home market or that are below the cost of producing the goods.

Boeing's deal on 73Gs to United isn't relevant to Boeing's claim against C-Series pricing to Delta.

https://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/Home/Re ... uestions#5

Boeing's action in the US is much more serious than that of Brazil (Embraer) in the WTO. Not only is the US a crucial market for aircraft but there is also the possibility of details about the unexpected sale to Delta Airliners being investigated in depth without delay.

Boeing benefits from the guidance of the new government, while providing clear signals that it will not sit idly by as long as Russian and Chinese aircraft are developed with huge subsidies. In this play, Bombardier is a big, static target.

The point that Boeing is missing is the C series was by far the most capable aircraft in the category. Boeing doesn't even sell anything comparable to the size of CS 100. Also, new 73NGs, while great, use 70s and 80s technology in the name of keeping the same type rating for a few customers.

Everyone north of the border knows that BBD has been the generous recipient of ridiculous amounts of federal and provincial subsidization for years and years, without which the Quebec-based company not to mention huge supporter of the Liberal Party, (duh....), would have failed long, long ago.

Outside of Quebec and Toronto, most taxpayers in the ROC won't be said to eliminate giant sucking sound of BBD disappear for good, to be replaced by a commercial venture that understands how to live within its means.

I would imagine it will be very, very difficult to disprove this charge.

surfdog75 wrote:

The point that Boeing is missing is the C series was by far the most capable aircraft in the category. Boeing doesn't even sell anything comparable to the size of CS 100. Also, new 73NGs, while great, use 70s and 80s technology in the name of keeping the same type rating for a few customers.

For a few customers? The 737 has done very well over the years and it manages for the most part to keep up with the A320 series minus the A321. Whether the 737MAX10 is ever produced and how close it comes to the A321, it remains to be seen. The 737 of today is much different than the first 737-100, engines,wings,etc have over the years been refined and thousands of sales to many airlines have made the 737 one of the most successful airliner production runs of all times.

jimbo737 wrote:

Everyone north of the border knows that BBD has been the generous recipient of ridiculous amounts of federal and provincial subsidization for years and years

Boeing received $13 billions tax break not including military contracts (100% non-refundable). BBD use the same model than Airbus, interest free loan and reimbursable launch aid in addition with government investment in the company. Nobody is innocent in the aerospace industry.

http://www.seattletimes.com/business/bo ... ax-breaks/

jimbo737 wrote:

to be replaced by a commercial venture that understands how to live within its means.

I think this is the part you're missing - a truly "commercial" venture in this segment is nearly impossible to run "within its means". If BBD disappears, there isn't a cashed-up entrepreneur standing by to "replace" it, it's just gone. Not saying it's right or wrong, just that it is.

surfdog75 wrote:

The point that Boeing is missing is the C series was by far the most capable aircraft in the category. Boeing doesn't even sell anything comparable to the size of CS 100. Also, new 73NGs, while great, use 70s and 80s technology in the name of keeping the same type rating for a few customers.

Your points aren't relevant to a NAFTA or WTO dumping case. Does the C-Series compete with new orders for 737s? Obviously, even if seat count isn't identical. Can Boeing (or Airbus) show loss of market share due to C-Series? That's one for the lawyers, but every potential C-Series delivery could be assessed as a loss for Boeing/Airbus. It's not as if Swiss was going to buy nothing and wind down flying as old aircraft were retired...

Will Boeing use WTO and NAFTA tribunals to its advantage? Sure - all smart companies would.

1. Is BBD offering lower prices in another market than in its home market?

Any chance Boeing would go after COMAC who is receiving extensive government subsidies, or would that cause them to fall out of favor with the Chinese government, and potentially lose many sales? Ridiculous how the Chinese gov't can bully their way out of things like this while Canada gets taken advantage of by not aggressively standing up for these sort of trade issues.

tlecam wrote:

1. Is BBD offering lower prices in another market than in its home market?

yes on page 75 of the official complaint (not pdf page 75). On page 120 of the report, they say that the estimated price for the air canada planes are 30 million while the delta planes are 19.6 million. They are trying to use both points to prove dumping


Pg 75 states:

Having lost out at United for the time being, Bombardier was so determined to win the Delta campaign that it offered pricing significantly below both its cost of production and the pricing recently provided in its home market to Air Canada

https://leehamnews-5389.kxcdn.com/wp-co ... 042717.pdf

Boeing should fInd the billions to buy out Bombardier or at least the C-Series and produce the CS500 to replace the 737 lines and concentrate on new MOM to cover the tip end of the 737 line and the 5000nm unicorn.

I get the feeling that this was response not to that Delta order but one they think they are about to get. What if Southwest and it's Boeing fleet sudsy found itself with the C-Series in it's scheduling bag