Castanet

We should be building our own Fighters and not with Bombardier. We had the 2nd best Air Force in the world in the 70s and we even had the best interceptor in the world at the time. That of course was the Avro Arrow, it could even launch satellites. Our government was stupid then and is still stupid for not having our own Fighters. We did it then and could do even better now, saving BILLIONS.

Bombardier won. Boeing lost.

https://www.castanet.net/news/Canada/21 ... victorious

JagXKR wrote:Bombardier won. Boeing lost.

https://www.castanet.net/news/Canada/21 ... victorious

Good. Nice to have the moral hogh ground. Now to get bombardier off welfare .

You really don’t get it do you?

ALL Aerospace manufacturers are subsidized. And Bombardier at a bare fraction of what Boeing receives. Additionally Bombardier has repayed all government loans plus interest and then some. Bombardier received this latest loan because there was an engine problem that delayed construction and demonstration of this new plane which threatened to kill the entire project, which would have resulted in a ton of lost revenue and thousands of lost jobs.

Take off your ideological blinders and try to understand how things actually work.

Anyways this is a great victory for Canada.

I really don’t get it. Bombardier uses the Canadian government like some kind of bank. All business need to make it without tax dollars.

Boeing messed up - plain and simple.

Delta ordered 75 CS100s and the only 2 aircraft Boeing makes that is even comparable (seat capacity wise) are the older 737-600 and the newer 737 MAX-7 - both of which still burn almost as much fuel and offer very little range advantage over the larger 737s. Airbus was in the same boat with the A318. The 737-600 was a complete sales failure for that very reason. Boeing only sold 69 x 737-600s compared to 1128 x 737-700s, 5023 x 737-800s and 510 x 737-900s. So out of 6943 Next Gen 737s sold - only 1 single percent of those were a direct competitor to the CS100. There are only 4 airlines that operate the -600 series in the world (5 if you count Janet Air out of Vegas for the US Armed Forces) - so it is an extremely rare bird to fly on, WestJet has a fleet of them and if you can get on one (easily recognizable, as its the only 737 without winglets) consider yourself lucky. As for the newer MAX-7, out of the 4000 plus MAX orders to date, only 58 of those are for the MAX-7.

Boeing decided to scrap the B717 program (which was the MD95 when Boeing took over McDonnell Douglas) which would have been a more direct competitor to the CS100 (capacity wise) and could have ended up with a more efficient fuel burn than the 737-600 and MAX-7 if it would have been re-engined. Delta has 91 x 717s in their fleet (awesome plane to fly on BTW, especially if you sit in the back ) and guess what the CS100 is replacing?

Simply put, Boeing nor Airbus have a comparable aircraft that can compete directly with the CS100 in a seat per seat cost per mile scenario.

christopher wrote:I really don’t get it. Bombardier uses the Canadian government like some kind of bank. All business need to make it without tax dollars.

I normally would agree with you - but the CS series is a phenomenal aircraft and it is going to do very well for Bombardier and the Canadian Economy and inject Bombardier with cash for future programs like the next generation of regional turboprops.

christopher wrote:I really don’t get it. Bombardier uses the Canadian government like some kind of bank. All business need to make it without tax dollars.

And like from bank, when they borrow money they have to repay it plus interest and fees. Which Bombardier has done time and time again.

Picture you have a business, and you have just made a huge investment in a new product you are about to unveil at a trade show...when suddenly there is an accident and you’re not going to be ready. You’ll have to delay it until next year. Now you could go to a bank and take a loan, knowing that next year you’ll easily be able to pay it off. Or...as you’re saying should be done, you go out of business, end up in debt and declare bankruptcy.

In the end here Bombardier wins, Canada wins. Bombardier will repay their loans, Canada will profit off of it, thousands will remain employed, and all of us will be better off for it. Scrap your ideological lenses and celebrate this for what it is.

Omnitheo wrote:

christopher wrote:I really don’t get it. Bombardier uses the Canadian government like some kind of bank. All business need to make it without tax dollars.

And like from bank, when they borrow money they have to repay it plus interest and fees. Which Bombardier has done time and time again.

Picture you have a business, and you have just made a huge investment in a new product you are about to unveil at a trade show...when suddenly there is an accident and you’re not going to be ready. You’ll have to delay it until next year. Now you could go to a bank and take a loan, knowing that next year you’ll easily be able to pay it off. Or...as you’re saying should be done, you go out of business, end up in debt and declare bankruptcy.

In the end here Bombardier wins, Canada wins. Bombardier will repay their loans, Canada will profit off of it, thousands will remain employed, and all of us will be better off for it. Scrap your ideological lenses and celebrate this for what it is


.

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/bombardier-and-canadas-corporate-welfare-trap
The repay is somewhat fuzzy

^^^ Based on what that link says tells me what I've been saying all along is bang on.
Any & all private &/or publicly traded companies should sink or swim on their own dime, if their own investors are willing to ante up.... why should the taxpayers.
From the looks of it with little chance of ever seeing the monies repaid with interest or without interest.

Great news today for Bombardier today AND a $$$ BONUS for me.......