One in the eye for Boeing

Discuss all things 'aviation' that do not fit into a more appropriate forum
Post Reply
User avatar
effects
Posts: 1275
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 4:36 pm
Location: 1.5 miles west of 06 EGLF

One in the eye for Boeing

Post by effects »

Nikon P900 (Sony DSC-HX400V, Sony DSC-HX300 and DSC-H2 retired)

User avatar
speedbird2639
Posts: 1349
Joined: Wed 13 Jul 2011, 11:35 am

Re: One in the eye for Boeing

Post by speedbird2639 »

Hopefully this will be used as a precedent for other industries that have tariffs slapped on them by The Donald. He has slapped a 30% tariff on PV panels which they reckon could cost the US 23,000 installers jobs as people baulk at paying for the higher priced domestically produced panels.

MingtheMerciless
Posts: 42
Joined: Fri 07 Apr 2017, 2:58 pm
Location: Under a wanderin' star

Re: One in the eye for Boeing

Post by MingtheMerciless »

I'm sure this case will be put in front of the 'right' judges who will find for Boeing at the appeal.

User avatar
Wissam24
UKAR Staff
Posts: 8270
Joined: Mon 29 Apr 2013, 9:54 am
Location: London

Re: One in the eye for Boeing

Post by Wissam24 »

Lose lose lose for Boeing and a win win win for Airbus here. Assuming any appeals are unsuccessful (which isn't a given, mind), I'd expect a sharehold lawsuit or two on that one.
Twitter: @samwise24 | Flickr: samwise24 | Shamelessly copying LN Strike Eagle's avatar ideas since 2016

User avatar
boff180
UKAR Staff
Posts: 9830
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 2:28 pm
Location: Solihull
Contact:

Re: One in the eye for Boeing

Post by boff180 »

Boeing lost on one key thing imho.

They do not produce an airliner in the same class as they C series. Everything they currently have (until they buy Embraer) is bigger.

Therefore they could not be suffering injury as they claimed as the C series doesn’t compete with them.

It was basic petty “why aren’t you buying from me”’bullying as we’ve come to expect from Boeing.

User avatar
Brevet Cable
Posts: 13725
Joined: Tue 05 Mar 2013, 12:13 pm

Re: One in the eye for Boeing

Post by Brevet Cable »

Don't know if it's correct or not, but on Radio 4's 'Any Questions' yesterday Frances O'Grady ( General Secretary of the TUC ) claimed that a large number of American Trade Unions were opposed to the tariff imposition and had been lobbying against it.
Tôi chỉ đặt cái này ở đây để giữ cho người điều hành bận rộn
아직도 숨어있다

GertrudetheMerciless
Posts: 911
Joined: Mon 08 Sep 2008, 7:25 pm

Re: One in the eye for Boeing

Post by GertrudetheMerciless »

Wissam24 wrote:Lose lose lose for Boeing and a win win win for Airbus here. Assuming any appeals are unsuccessful (which isn't a given, mind), I'd expect a sharehold lawsuit or two on that one.


Not quite sure that'll be an avenue they'll pursue, seeing as apparently the Canadians started sniffing to spend their money elsewhere for F-18 replacements (which could well have been Boeing's very own Super Hornet).

User avatar
Tommy
UKAR Staff
Posts: 9401
Joined: Mon 14 Mar 2011, 11:39 pm

Re: One in the eye for Boeing

Post by Tommy »

GertrudetheMerciless wrote:
Wissam24 wrote:Lose lose lose for Boeing and a win win win for Airbus here. Assuming any appeals are unsuccessful (which isn't a given, mind), I'd expect a sharehold lawsuit or two on that one.


Not quite sure that'll be an avenue they'll pursue, seeing as apparently the Canadians started sniffing to spend their money elsewhere for F-18 replacements (which could well have been Boeing's very own Super Hornet).


Much stranger things have happened, but it appears that ship has sailed as a result of the above dispute.

Article dated 8th Dec 2017:
https://www.ft.com/content/d3094604-dc6 ... 4b1c09b482

Canada is now looking for second hand legacy Hornets from Australia.

I have wondered whether the Typhoon (or the Rafale) could be pushed to be exported to Canada. It's a working omni-role platform, it's not Boeing, it's a twin-engine generation 4.5 jet with proven performance and a pretty large and well-developed infrastructure system orchestrated around it. Second hand legacy F-18s are fine, but they're only going to prolong the inevitable. If the Super-H isn't the way to go, and Canada has already taken a dump on the idea of purchasing the F-35, I cant understand why Dassault or the Eurofighter consortium isn't making significant pushes across the pond. It would be nice to be able to sell our jets to a nation we "like" rather than places like Saudi etc..

Anyway, good for Bombardier. Boeing's policy of dispute/litigation has come home to roost. They can only roll that dice so many times. Disputing the B-21 selection, making *huge* issues regarding the KC-46, legal battles on the Saudi AH-6is, and you can bet your bottom dollar some sort of dispute if their airframe isn't picked for the T-X competition, has given them a monumental amount of bad press. Even when (and sometimes because) they win.

Corporations like Boeing obviously have entire departments weighing up cost/benefit scenarios of litigation, but Boeing have shaped themselves into a grubby corporate machine that will make every effort to sue the competition out of existence, or at the very least cost the US taxpayer millions of extra dollars because they don't get their way.

The above is very much a simplification, I know, but to go into the nuances of it would be a monumentally long post which I have neither the time nor inclination write, and no-one else would have the time or inclination to read. And, more importantly, I seldom have a clue what I'm actually talking about. I just wrote the above because I have a pizza in t'oven and I'm waiting for it to finish cooking :grin:

User avatar
jalfrezi
UKAR Staff
Posts: 2289
Joined: Sat 16 Jun 2012, 2:23 pm
Location: Cambridge

Re: One in the eye for Boeing

Post by jalfrezi »

Tommy wrote:
GertrudetheMerciless wrote:
Wissam24 wrote:Lose lose lose for Boeing and a win win win for Airbus here. Assuming any appeals are unsuccessful (which isn't a given, mind), I'd expect a sharehold lawsuit or two on that one.


Not quite sure that'll be an avenue they'll pursue, seeing as apparently the Canadians started sniffing to spend their money elsewhere for F-18 replacements (which could well have been Boeing's very own Super Hornet).


Much stranger things have happened, but it appears that ship has sailed as a result of the above dispute.

Article dated 8th Dec 2017:
https://www.ft.com/content/d3094604-dc6 ... 4b1c09b482

Canada is now looking for second hand legacy Hornets from Australia.

I have wondered whether the Typhoon (or the Rafale) could be pushed to be exported to Canada. It's a working omni-role platform, it's not Boeing, it's a twin-engine generation 4.5 jet with proven performance and a pretty large and well-developed infrastructure system orchestrated around it. Second hand legacy F-18s are fine, but they're only going to prolong the inevitable. If the Super-H isn't the way to go, and Canada has already taken a dump on the idea of purchasing the F-35, I cant understand why Dassault or the Eurofighter consortium isn't making significant pushes across the pond. It would be nice to be able to sell our jets to a nation we "like" rather than places like Saudi etc..

Anyway, good for Bombardier. Boeing's policy of dispute/litigation has come home to roost. They can only roll that dice so many times. Disputing the B-21 selection, making *huge* issues regarding the KC-46, legal battles on the Saudi AH-6is, and you can bet your bottom dollar some sort of dispute if their airframe isn't picked for the T-X competition, has given them a monumental amount of bad press. Even when (and sometimes because) they win.

Corporations like Boeing obviously have entire departments weighing up cost/benefit scenarios of litigation, but Boeing have shaped themselves into a grubby corporate machine that will make every effort to sue the competition out of existence, or at the very least cost the US taxpayer millions of extra dollars because they don't get their way.

The above is very much a simplification, I know, but to go into the nuances of it would be a monumentally long post which I have neither the time nor inclination write, and no-one else would have the time or inclination to read. And, more importantly, I seldom have a clue what I'm actually talking about. I just wrote the above because I have a pizza in t'oven and I'm waiting for it to finish cooking :grin:


Sorry Tommy I just can't agree with that at all, are you really trying to say pizza for Sunday lunch is OK? :facepalm: :loser:

User avatar
Tommy
UKAR Staff
Posts: 9401
Joined: Mon 14 Mar 2011, 11:39 pm

Re: One in the eye for Boeing

Post by Tommy »

jalfrezi wrote:
Sorry Tommy I just can't agree with that at all, are you really trying to say pizza for Sunday lunch is OK? :facepalm: :loser:


Honestly, it's leftover pizza from the night-out before, too. #Winning :rock: :king:

GertrudetheMerciless
Posts: 911
Joined: Mon 08 Sep 2008, 7:25 pm

Re: One in the eye for Boeing

Post by GertrudetheMerciless »

Tommy wrote:
Much stranger things have happened, but it appears that ship has sailed as a result of the above dispute.

Article dated 8th Dec 2017:
https://www.ft.com/content/d3094604-dc6 ... 4b1c09b482

Canada is now looking for second hand legacy Hornets from Australia.


Indeed, but you wonder how much of that was politics from the Canadians to show that they were will to take their dollars elsewhere.

Post Reply