# CANADA TO BUY USED RAAF JETS



## fubar57 (Dec 12, 2017)

Liberals to buy used Aussie fighter jets as stopgap to replacing aging CF-18s in mid-2020s

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Crimea_River (Dec 13, 2017)

Don't get me started.......

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wayne Little (Dec 13, 2017)

You Guys will have to practice flying upside down.....

Reactions: Funny Funny:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Dec 13, 2017)

Gonna be a sum beach to land too

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 13, 2017)

sad


----------



## Rogi (Dec 13, 2017)

This will end up worse than the used subs :O  I wonder when they arrive if J.T. (Justin Trudeau) will post selfies with the aircraft  lol

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (Dec 13, 2017)

So is this more about politics than common sense?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 13, 2017)

... it's totally about politics (if I may use that term ). _Totally_. Bombardier is a Quebec-based charity of the Quebec-Ontario Liberal Party elite.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Crimea_River (Dec 13, 2017)

It's ALL about politics. 

Globe editorial: Canada’s incurable case of fighter-jet lag


----------



## vikingBerserker (Dec 13, 2017)

Yikes................


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 13, 2017)

... and yet the Liberal gov't of the time bought into the multi-national Lockheed-Martin F-35 technology development consortium for $$$ millions and has continued to renew year after year. That was the only _sane _military procurement that Liberals have made since the original decision to procure F-18s .... to replace licence-Bombardier-Montreal- built CF-5s .... _that _procurement along with the previous procurement of licence-Bombardier-Montreal- built CF-104s. Both of these ACs were totally unsuitable to Canada's defense needs. We should have bough F4 Phantoms ... but I'm guessing that a licensing agreement with McDonnell-Douglas was either not available or not to Bombarier (Canadair's) liking,

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Rogi (Dec 13, 2017)

michaelmaltby said:


> ... and yet the Liberal gov't of the time bought into the multi-national Lockheed-Martin F-35 technology development consortium for $$$ millions and has continued to renew year after year. That was the only _sane _military procurement that Liberals have made since the original decision to procure F-18s .... to replace licence-Bombardier-Montreal- built CF-5s .... _that _procurement along with the previous procurement of licence-Bombardier-Montreal- built CF-104s. Both of these ACs were totally unsuitable to Canada's defense needs. We should have bough F4 Phantoms ... but I'm guessing that a licensing agreement with McDonnell-Douglas was either not available or not to Bombarier (Canadair's) liking,



I would agree with the Phantom, its still used by nations today and a kick butt ride, but honestly if we want to save money, let's just procure some Otters/beavers/bush planes with "heavy" weapons (the odd polar bear, penguin etc.) serves dual purposes, saves money by using Canada's natural resources and saves the environment against global warming, cause that's apparently a huge thing now. 

Wasn't really a huge Liberal fan in the first place, I always try to give people a chance, but the policies just keep piling up that make his government the "selfie" cabinet of the year, I'm afraid that J.T. will win an Oscar for his acclaimed documentary of himself and his life. 

We've both forgot the highlight in our life, they are spending our money, if it was their own then they'd have more policies in place to protect it, when its someone elses they can spend on things that shouldn't be used, like these used 18s

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Dec 13, 2017)

I feel like a used car salesman...."Have we got a deal for you!!!" comes with built in CD DVDs and cigarette lighters thrown in for free......

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Dec 13, 2017)

So the F-35 are not cancelled, just a few more years away. The classic F-18s are a stopgap and will integrate well within Canada's existing CF-18 infrastructure, I would assume mainly to keep pilots, crews and operational units trained and intact until the CF-35 Goddot arrives.

Canada has a few budget problems due to the collapse in oil prices though it must be said that the people who vote for liberal governments don’t have balanced budgets as a priority.

Australia has actually accepted delivery of two F-35 at Block 2B standard. It will require 160 modifications to get them to Block 3A which may be combat capable. Because of a method of testing called concurrency the system has not been tested as a whole (supposed to speed things up)

The most amazing thing about the F-35 is its sales team. Didn't President Donald J Trump, horrified by the effect on the budget, want to shut down the whole program in favour of modified super Hornet instead they walked out with more orders (and it must be said a price reduction) though the most stealthy feature of the F-35 is said to be it's budget.

Is the F-35 Americas Me 210 Zerstoerer, a program in which so much has been invested in the form of effort, opportunity, faith, personal reputations that it is impossible to alter.

Interestingly Australias best value for Money turned out to be the F-111, an aircraft that was also steeped in controversy. Having the range to deal with the issue to our immediate north.

The air threat to Canada is non-existent. Stealthy fighter bombers don't stop subway bombers. Why spend money there? What are you fighting for? Is it even worth fighting. Kim Il Jong can't do a thing because it can't put boots on the ground.

The threat to Canada, is as it is to all western nations, internal.

The best thing about buying Canadian Super Hornets may have been to stop it being spent in even more wasteful areas.

The question is, does Canada have a foreseeable threat that the super hornet solves before the arrival of CF-35.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 13, 2017)

Koopernic said:


> Australia has actually accepted delivery of two F-35 at Block 2B standard. It will require 160 modifications to get them to Block 3A which may be combat capable.



And yet the USMC declared IOC on the 2B software load. Why, then, would the RAAF require 3A before any possibility of combat capability?





Koopernic said:


> The threat to Canada, is as it is to all western nations, internal...The question is, does Canada have a foreseeable threat that the super hornet solves before the arrival of CF-35.



Really? I'm sure those who live close to Ukraine might disagree with you, and then there's that small thing called NATO which might have some impact on Canada's future defence posture.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Dec 13, 2017)

parsifal said:


> I feel like a used car salesman...."Have we got a deal for you!!!" comes with built in CD DVDs and cigarette lighters thrown in for free......



The RAAF does thing properly. The maintenance will have been lovingly done and the record books kept in order.

Can't say whether they'd be as precise as the Canadian Air Force . I saw amazing things in Canada such as pedestrian crossings that you had to stop at even though there was no one there, just in case. Air Canada is the only airline I've ever flown in in which the cabin crew won't let you unbuckle at the aero bridge after the engines have stopped. They make you wait for the seat belt on signs to extinguish.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Dec 13, 2017)

buffnut453 said:


> And yet the USMC declared IOC on the 2B software load. Why, then, would the RAAF require 3A before any possibility of combat capability?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Doubts over fighting ability of Australia’s F-35 stealth fighters

The issues in the Ukraine are not a threat to Canada. Nada.

The relationship between Russians and Ukrainians is as the one between New Zealanders and Australians or Canadians and Americans. It’s close and good. For there to have been blood drawn is unbelievably tragic.

One thing I saw was a democratically elected government in the Ukraine destabilized by western intelligence agencies and media with the help of a certain one wold Government billionaire famous for short selling the pound.

I’m not talking out of my own blow whole. I’ve worked in Russia, Ukraine and Siberia in mining area and had many conversations with the guys that take care of security and Hazop issues. They usually have a special forces background.

The issue here is fundamentally that
1 The “wizards of the universe” bankers hate Putin because he reversed the corrupt privatizations that occurred under Boris Yeltsin when the Russian people were vulnerable. They want revenge. There is nothing so awful as a greedy or angry banker. You can’t understand the world till you understand money systems and banking systems and their fundamental link to political systems.

Ofcourse they can’t say that so they make up stories about Putin hating gays or something. (All the big chain hotels I’ve stayed at in Moscow and St Petersberg had gay literature and newspapers in their lobby)

2 NATO and EU wanted to enlarge itself. Natural organizational tendency. Also see 1 above.

3 For the Commonwealth of Independent States there is a fundamental issue of viability without Black Sea access.

While Putin and the CIS is not clean in the Ukraine neither is the West. Destabilizing governments is abominable. It should be a crime.

To be frank I’m more afraid of our own western Governments. Parts are out of control. They helped create ISIS (not directly and not perhaps deliberately but by incompetently funding people that worked with them) . In Syria Putin and Assad were the lessor of the two evils.

To get back to basics, I can’t see that Canada has a security problem in the Ukraine. It’s too far away. Unless it’s military industrial complex’s need an enemy to justify their money, jobs and shiney new weapons, a deputy dog issue or an alignment with the masters of the universe.

My wish for Canada, wait for the F35 and stay out of it. War is a terrible thing and wars within our own civlisation is suicidal.


----------



## Crimea_River (Dec 13, 2017)

5...4...3...2..

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Dec 13, 2017)

michaelmaltby said:


> ... it's totally about politics (if I may use that term ). _Totally_. Bombardier is a Quebec-based charity of the Quebec-Ontario Liberal Party elite.



Many ww2 aircraft net readers will have heard of the Pareto Principle. Often just called the 80:20 principle. For instance the idea that 80% of quality problems can be solved by dealing with 20% of the issue or that say 80% of pollution is caused by 20% of cars.

The idea came out of distributions Italian Economist Wilfredo Pareto noticed when studying revolutions. The insight was that 80% of wealth always ends up with 20% of people. It’s far “worse” now I believe.

All movements promote an ideal of utopian equality and wealth. Creates lots of righteous fervor. They all end up the same way, often worse if you think of Pol Pot, Zimbabwe, Holdamoor.

Anyway, I’m out of this thread.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 13, 2017)

Koopernic said:


> Doubts over fighting ability of Australia’s F-35 stealth fighters .



Most of that article presents old information overlaid with a huge dose of obfuscation - lots of hyperbole about major failings without actually going into detail about what they are and whether they are significant operationally. Also, you misquoted the article. The author states the Aussie airframes are to 2B standard but that's contradicted by an ADF spokesperson who made it clear they're already at 3i. More selective quoting to suit the argument perhaps?

I won't go into the rest of the rant about Syria, ISIS and Russia.




Koopernic said:


> The issues in the Ukraine are not a threat to Canada. Nada.



That's total nonsense. The issues in Ukraine and Russian expansionism bring a direct threat much closer to several NATO nations. As a member of NATO, it therefore clearly is a threat to Canada's interests necessitating, by treaty, a military response if Russia (or anyone else) attacks any NATO nation. Is there a direct threat to Canadian territory? Probably not, but the western powers haven't engaged in a fighting war of national survival since 1945....and the point when you realize you have an imminent threat is not the time to start re-equipping. You'll lose before you even start.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 13, 2017)

Watching...

Some of you are already going past it, and I suspect you are doing it on purpose.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Dec 14, 2017)

The questions in my mind are: will the refurbished Hornets (they are not super hornets as I understand it) be able to complete the RCAFs mission requirements for the next 10 years or so. I think they can, but it is a risk. The RCAF might in a hot war be called upon to undertake hazardous ops and whether the hornets can still do it is an open question.

Having said that, the RAAF previously refurbished and onsold its Mirage fleet mostly to the Pakistanis, who sang the praises of the used aircraft and continued to use them for quite a few years after the deal was made

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (Dec 14, 2017)

Yikes, I thought they were Super Hornets. I'm not sure I understand the logic in this then.

Would it be better to just buy new SAAB 39 Gripens at US$30-60m each? If they decide to buy the F-35s I think the SAABs would be a nice compliment and would be newer and cheaper to maintain than older Hornets


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 14, 2017)

No ... pretty planes but not the answer
Andrew Coyne: Fighter jet mess reeks of politics, deceit and cowboy economics


----------



## Totalize (Dec 14, 2017)

The issue of the purchase of the Aussie Jets is a stop gap measure until we replace the current fleet of F-18's with our next generation fighter. It has gotten political here in Canada because of Boeing. This company is at the root of the issue why?

1. Boeing filed a complaint with the U.S. trade department that stated Bombardier was being heavily subsidized by the Canadian government and that their new 300 series aircraft are being sold into the U.S. at price that is exceedingly low and is according to them an act of dumping. The U.S. government agreed and hit Bombardier with a +300% countervailing penalty/price increase on their aircraft sold into the U.S. Boeing disingenuously stated they were not expecting the government to hit Bombardier with such a severe penalty but they will take it. In fact the complaint which was primarily targeted at Bombardier's new 300 series aircraft is against an aircraft Boeing has publicly stated does NOT compete with their fleet of commercial aircraft. Go figure.

2. What is the real motive behind Boeing's actions? They have seen the rise of Airbus as a competitor to them and they don't like it. Airbus was heavily subsidized by European governments that were part of the consortium and Boeing wants to prevent a future occurrence of this again. Boeing does not like competition.

3. The primary argument Boeing has is that they only want fair and free competition in the market place and they are against the subsidies that the Canadian government and the European governments provide their national aerospace companies.

4. Argument 3. would make sense by Boeing if it were true that only these countries subsidize their aerospace sector but this is simply NOT THE CASE. Just about every major commercial aircraft manufacturer be it Bombardier, Airbus, Embraer and yes even Boeing are heavily subsidized by their own country's governments. In the case of Boeing their HQ used to be in Seattle but when the the state of Washington did not give them the subsidies they wanted in the form of tax breaks they relocated to Chicago because Illinois offered then a better tax break. Additionally, they are heavily subsized by many other state governments including still the State of Washington among others. In fact they was a recent report that took a look at the industry in general and the subsidies these manufacturers get and guess who is the most subsidized? Yep you guessed it Boeing, Understandably this really makes their actions against Bombardier laughable. Boeing I believe is like 2x more subsidized than Airbus their nearest competitor. Bombardier is down the list at like 3rd or 4th.

5. Hence you can see why the Canadian government is pissed off at Boeing. I would be too at their shady business practices. When the Canadian government canceled plans to purchase their Superhornets Boeing did not make a big fuss about it. They know the Canadian government was on to their shady business practices. From what I am hearing Boeing are all but out of the fighter competition to replace Canada's fleet of fighters in the next 5-7 years. *As our Prime Minister said, we do not want to do business with a company that is trying to destroy our aerospace sector*. So much for Boeing and their condescending, arrogant attitude toward Canada. Their poor business practices cost them and not only that but It might very well get worse for them yet as Britain and the EU are now said to be looking closer at their contracts with Boeing and considering opening them up to competition or canceling them outright in situations where European (principally Irish) workers would not be hit.. Boeing want's fair competition...be careful what you wish for Boeing.

6. My understanding of what Canada wants in a fighter is one that can fufill a dual purpose role. First they need to be able to patrol and defend the Canadian North as part of our commitment to NORAD. These patrols are long an arduous and so a reliable aircraft is mandatory. Canada likes a twin engine aircraft to be able to preform this mission since it's better to have 2 engines should one quit up there in the barren, frozen north. Secondly, they need a good multi role aircraft that can support NATO. There's a big argument about whether a single engine or twin engine aircraft can fulfill the Norad mission but I won't get into that suffice it to say Russia has a very similar Geography to Canada and shares a big border with us and I don't think any of their front line fighters have a single engine.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 14, 2017)

A few things - 

No way can you compare the subsidies Canada gives to Bombardier to the State Tax breaks Boeing is receiving, they are miniscule compared to what a company like Bombardier would receive. State tax breaks are many times given for a period of time, just a carrot to get a company to move their offices and bring jobs with them but when they run out the company pays the full amount of tax or tries to negotiate by threat of moving once again. When Boeing moved it's corporate offices it was more of a symbolic gesture than anything else as the mainstay of the company is still firmly planted in Washington State.

Agree, Boeing's position on this is pretty dumb, especially when the -300 doesn't compete with anything they are building. At the same time be rest assured that if for some reason F/A-18s are purchased, they will come with an offset agreement where you'll find companies like Bombardier, Magellan, IMP, etc. manufacturing parts for Boeing. If Canada would buy F-35s, any offset agreement could go on for decades as i think it's quite obvious by now that the F-35 is going to be around for a very long time.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 14, 2017)

My personal desire is that this whole military procurement issue go on in all its farcical absurdity until it becomes so outrageous to a tax-paying, voting public that they demand realistic, pragmatic procurement management. Whatever political stripe is in power at any given moment, the public has the right to DEMAND that said government treat the MILITARY (and veterans) and procurement for the military with total professionalism. Pragmatism that they cannot hide must drive the process.

*All* defense industries ARE SUBSIDIZED. This Boeing-Bombardier brew-haw is sheer political grandstanding. 
When Canada needed C-17 Globemasters in a hurry for the Af'stan Mission we jumped queue and got them fast with help from the US Government and Boeing. Making an enemy of Boeing is STUPID and short sighted, demonstrating that the politicians playing this game don't know their business.

I think Canada should have a healty, robust aircraft- aerospace industry but I do not think this industry should be a sacred cow. It will be subsidized, just as Boeing, Airbus, Embraer, Sukhoi, Mig are all undoubtedly subsidized. That is simple realism, IMO

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Dec 14, 2017)

This looks vaguely similar to the treatment we received back in the 60s with our Mirage program. France were happy enough to give a manufacturing licence but objected when we got involved on Vietnam. All kinds of threats were made, The Swedes tend to act in a similar way. Now it appears the US is travelling down the same, or similar path...."you can buy our stuff but if you do something we don't like....look out!!!"

Whatever happens here I think it will be bad


I haven't seen any detail as to the costs of this deal.....

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 14, 2017)



Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Crimea_River (Dec 14, 2017)

FLYBOYJ said:


> No way can you compare the subsidies Canada gives to Bombardier to the State Tax breaks Boeing is receiving, they are miniscule compared to what a company like Bombardier would receive.



Not just state tax breaks:






Source: http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/sites/default/files/docs/pdf/UncleSamsFavoriteCorporations.pdf

By comparison, Bombardier has received between 3 and 5$B in government subsidies depending on which numbers you believe. Embraer recently won approval for the WTO to investigate $3B in "illegal" government subsidies for Bombardier. WTO to Probe Canadian Jet Subsidies in New Bombardier Blow

Don't get me wrong - I hate that I, as a taxpayer, am contributing to corporate welfare but let's keep hings in perspective and realize that we Canadians are by no means the only ones doing it. Nor are we the biggest culprits.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 14, 2017)

Crimea_River said:


> Not just state tax breaks:
> 
> View attachment 475944
> 
> ...



Good info but we were talking "State" tax breaks, a big difference here. 

The first chart is a little skewed as grants and tax credits are put into one barrel. Some federal grants have to paid back, so is that really a sbusidy compared to what Airbus would get from their supporting countries? I don't know if you could really call a tax credit a subsidy. Tax is still being paid but at a lower rate (and many times by a few percent points) and usually something is offsetting that credit (like employing a whole bunch of people in a depressed area). I see a "questionable subsidy" when a government throws money at a loosing program or project for the sake of keeping it running (ie Canadair during the early Challenger Program) and keeping people employed for political gain, or paying for commercial market R&D programs so a product could later be sold on the international market at a reduced rate because R&D expenditures don't have to be recovered during production.

The second chart is also a bit skewed as it combines federal loans with loan guarantees and bail out assistance. The last I seen none of those companies needed any "bailing out" and federal loans will have to be paid paid back (mind you the interest rates will most favorable!)

In one form or another, every facet of the aircraft manufacturing industry is receiving some type of subsidy, directly or indirectly, its a matter of how blatant that subsidy rolls into the corporation coffers.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Crimea_River (Dec 14, 2017)

FLYBOYJ said:


> ....In one form or another, every facet of the aircraft manufacturing industry is receiving some type of subsidy, directly or indirectly, its a matter of how blatant that subsidy rolls into the corporation coffers.



On that part I agree. I'll be in a position to agree with the rest when Boeing repays the $65B but I'm not holding my breath.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Torch (Dec 14, 2017)

michaelmaltby said:


> View attachment 475936


----------



## Rogi (Dec 14, 2017)

They can really easily pay it off, I'd take a new jet or even a used 18 any day to pay off the amount they owe the tax payer  hehehe


----------



## swampyankee (Dec 14, 2017)

One of the problems with buying ex-RAAF F-18s as an interim solution is that these sorts of solutions tend to last far too long. Instead of removing them from service in the 2020s, either the government of the day will decide to keep them along with a more modern aircraft or they'll decide to keep them in lieu of replacement.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Dec 14, 2017)

And here I thought we were getting new F-18 Super Hornets to replace our classic Hornets as they are past their used by date and the intended replacements, the F-35, are still a few years from delivery....

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 14, 2017)

It will be interesting, if I am still alive, to read what the actual deal made was (is) in 25 years time.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Dec 14, 2017)

pbehn said:


> It will be interesting, if I am still alive, to read what the actual deal made was (is) in 25 years time.



Drones.


----------



## Koopernic (Dec 15, 2017)

Greyman said:


> Drones.


Bomarc

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shinpachi (Dec 15, 2017)

From historical point of view, this reminds me of Singapore in 1941 when Japanese thought they could attack there.


----------



## Lucky13 (Dec 15, 2017)

Second hand ammunition too....only used once?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 15, 2017)

Lucky13 said:


> Second hand ammunition too....only used once?



And once again I find myself looking for a "Groan" option (in addition to Bacon, Like, Agree and Winner)!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (Dec 15, 2017)

There is this one which fits:


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 15, 2017)

Agreed...just need it adding to the ever-growing list of options at the bottom right of each post. Simples, right?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Crimea_River (Dec 15, 2017)

This will do:

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Dec 16, 2017)

Emoji used to work.


----------



## Totalize (Dec 19, 2017)

Andy your bang on. Let's not split hairs over "state taxes" Let's be honest with ourselves and call a spade a spade. The fact of the matter is the $65-71 billion is a dollar amount Boeing will never have to pay in taxes as part of running their business. A subsidy is a subsidy is a subsidy whether its national government loan guarantees or state tax breaks which roll over continuously. Boeing is the most subsidized a/c manufacturer in the world by a long shot. So they have no other reason to fight this fight other than to destroy an aerospace company in order to prevent what could become another competitor in the future. Airbus as I understand has now taken a small equity position with Bombardier and some of the major construction of the -300 will take place at one of their U.S. facilities which means high paying jobs for Americans. Don't count on Boeing doing anything of the sort in Canada beyond building a few smaller aircraft parts. They are a bunch of F.....kers plain and simple.

The "Borg" Boeing was suppose to have a meeting with the US government yesterday I believe to discuss how they would be hurt by Bombardier selling their jets to U.S. carriers. They don't compete with Bombardier in that market segment so It will be interesting to hear the BS they spue out to justify the tariff and their "dumping" claim. Won't be surprised if the half wits in the U.S. government agree. Shameful.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 19, 2017)

Totalize said:


> Andy your bang on. Let's not split hairs over "state taxes" Let's be honest with ourselves and call a spade a spade. The fact of the matter is the $65-71 billion is a dollar amount Boeing will never have to pay in taxes as part of running their business. A subsidy is a subsidy is a subsidy whether its national government loan guarantees or state tax breaks which roll over continuously.* Boeing is the most subsidized a/c manufacturer in the world by a long shot.* So they have no other reason to fight this fight other than to destroy an aerospace company in order to prevent what could become another competitor in the future. Airbus as I understand has now taken an small equity position with Bombardier and some of the major construction of the -300 will take place at one of their U.S. facilities which means high paying jobs for Americans. Don't count on Boeing doing anything of the sort in Canada beyond building a few smaller aircraft parts. They are a bunch of F.....kers plain and simple.
> 
> The "Borg" Boeing was suppose to have meeting with the US government yesterday I believe to discuss how they would be hurt by Bombardier selling their jets to U.S. carriers. They don't compete with Bombardier in that market segment so It will be interesting to hear the BS they spue out to justify the tariff and their "dumping" claim. Won't be surprised if the half wits in the U.S. government agree. Shameful.



I agree with many of your points but do you have proof of that? How about subsidies received by Airbus, both legal and illegal?

EU Failed to Cut Off Illegal Subsidies to Airbus, WTO Rules



> Don't count on Boeing doing anything of the sort in Canada beyond building a few smaller aircraft parts



And that's where Canada could grab Boeing by the balls as if Boeing was really serious about selling F/A-18s to Canada, and Canada was serious about buying them in lieu of the F-35. The Canadian government could negotiate an offset program that could place hundreds of jobs in Canada and probably negotiate with Boeing to stop their stupidity against Bombardier. This was done by Lockheed in the 1970s and 80s during the CP-140 program where the last 150 or so P-3s built (including the CP-140) had about 40-45% of their structure built in Canada.

In the end, the current Canadian government should not have bought the anti-F-35 BS, stayed on board as a customer and partner and probably could have come out way better in providing jobs to the Canadian Aviation Industry while enhancing their air force.


----------



## Greyman (Dec 19, 2017)

FLYBOYJ said:


> *In the end, the current Canadian government should not have bought the anti-F-35 BS, stayed on board as a customer and partner and probably could have come out way better in providing jobs to the Canadian Aviation Industry while enhancing their air force.*


----------

