Boeing were fools in their attempt to freeze Bombardier's C series aircraft out of the US market (and possibly many more), it was done in a way that almost certain to fail, for commercial reasons, since for the tariff to apply on the C-Series Boeing had to show it suffered harm. the only play was political, which is why Bombardier thought they would lose.
Boeing's errors:
1) Mischaracterisation of the aircraft segment
2) Subsidy directly harmed Boeing
3) Boeing refused to disclose it's launch customers discount
First Boeing, insisted that the aircraft was a 2,900nm 130-150 seat category aircraft, deliberately leaving the Embraer aircraft because it was only a 2,880nm range aircraft. By doing this they were able to say that the Bombardier aircraft was in the US$ 70 million range instead of the US$ 30 MM range. That was a huge, huge lie and the USITP saw through this very easily -- especially when Embraer insisted that their aircraft didn't have a 2,900nm range (when in fact their brochures talks about 2,880...).
Secondly, Boeing was harmed in the Delta contract -- one small problem, Boeing never answered the Delta request for proposal (only Bombardier and Embraer did). By definition, if you don't try to obtain an order, if you don't bid for a contract you cannot be harmed if someone else gets the contract because you never asked to participate (although you were sent the request for proposal -- and Delta has been begging Boeing to produce smaller aircrafts...)
Bombardier also claimed that Boeing gives a deep discount to its launch customers. Boeing refused to disclose the depth of its discount to even a single launch customer.
The USITP voted 4-0 against Boeing's request, within 30 minutes of hearing the case!
What is surprising is that Bombardier expected to lose the hearing against Boeing and the US government. There have been a number of political tariffs imposed of late that have been upheld by the USITP and this was considered a political shot across Canada's bow in the NAFTA discussions. It possible that the level of tariffs was so high that it was deemed "ridiculous" that Boeing's defense was flawed (especially when Delta testified that Boeing declined to participate in its request for proposal).
The funny thing is that there was almost certainly an illegal subsidy by the Quebec government when in 2013 it acquired a 50% interest in the aircraft in exchange for over a billion dollar in loan and subsidies. It is hard to see how the Province of Quebec will ever recover these sums, but I've seen worse decisions in the past.
Finally, Boeing managed to damage its brand. Boeing had a point, not a great point, but a point nevertheless. There was a subsidy. Boeing's problem is, of course, that it gets tons of subsidies via its defense work (where a lot of R&D is paid by the US government). Boeing has damaged its ability to sell a new aircraft; the B737MAX, forcing it to concentrate on the B737NG (its precursor aircraft). The whole battle for the 150-190 seat segment is well outside the Boeing/Bombardier dispute, but with Boeing now in active talks with Embraer, the demise of the C-series would have been very good for Boeing's future.
Boeing is usually such a nimble player, the "war" with Bombardier was doomed to failure unless it was seen as a political play -- turns out the USITP didn't agree.
C'est la vie!
Comments