Skip to comments.
Bombardier (Canadian co.) lands major contract
Globe and Mail ^
| Monday, May. 12, 2003
| TERRY WEBER
Posted on 05/13/2003 11:15:10 AM PDT by eBelasco
Bombardier lands major contract
Bombardier Inc. said Monday it has struck a deal with Arlington, Va.-based US Airways Group Inc. for the sale of as many as 275 regional aircraft with a potential value of $10.4-billion
(Excerpt) Read more at theglobeandmail.com ...
TOPICS: Business/Economy; Canada; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: aerospace; bombardier; brazil; canada; embraer; socialism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-66 next last
another airline to not fly on
1
posted on
05/13/2003 11:15:10 AM PDT
by
eBelasco
To: eBelasco
This was an insult after taxpayers prop them up & pull them out of bankruptcy.
2
posted on
05/13/2003 11:20:11 AM PDT
by
Steven W.
To: Steven W.
Unfortnately, there aren't many domestic RJ manufacturers to choose from.
3
posted on
05/13/2003 11:24:56 AM PDT
by
Buck W.
To: Buck W.
"Unfortnately, there aren't many domestic RJ manufacturers to choose from." Are there any?
The trial lawyers having done their best to keep the logical manufacturers -- Beech and Cessna -- out of the business...
4
posted on
05/13/2003 11:28:44 AM PDT
by
okie01
(The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE.)
To: eBelasco
Another part of US Airways contract went to Brazil based Embraer (85 jets from each). $4.3 billion and jobs done gone.
Then at the same time 'Snow job' from Treasury secretary said on ABC's "This Week" on the dollar sinking "When the dollar is at a lower level it helps exports...exports are getting stronger as a result." Right Canadian and Brazil exports.
5
posted on
05/13/2003 11:30:54 AM PDT
by
ex-snook
(American jobs need balanced trade - WE BUY FROM YOU, YOU BUY FROM US)
To: okie01
There aren't really any. And interestingly enough, most of the US domestic jet sales over the next few years will be in this segment, as airlines use them to replace turboprops and smaller airliners on regional routes.
To: Buck W.
"....Unfortnately, there aren't many domestic RJ manufacturers to choose from....."
True. Are there any at all? There seems to be a jump between the smallest "major" aircraft (737, DC-9, etc) right into small prop planes made by Beech, etc.
The RJ market is dominated, it seems, by Fokker, Bombardier, a Brazilian outfit, British Aerospace....but no American companies. Wonder why Lear, Beech, etc., don't jump into the market?
7
posted on
05/13/2003 11:32:39 AM PDT
by
Victor
To: Victor
Wonder why Lear, Beech, etc., don't jump into the market? I thought Lear was made by Bombardier.
To: eBelasco
"another airline to not fly on"
What planes would you have them buy? Regional-sized planes aren't much in evidence among US manufacturers.
To: eBelasco
"for the sale of as many as 275 regional aircraft with a potential value of $10.4-billion"
You would think for that amount of money that Boeing could open up a new division to keep their workers occupied...
10
posted on
05/13/2003 11:47:55 AM PDT
by
RS
(nc)
To: Larry Lucido
"...I thought Lear was made by Bombardier...."
I think you're right. But then, there's also Cessna. I just don't know why domestic manufacturers are not gearing up for an obviously growing market.
11
posted on
05/13/2003 11:53:13 AM PDT
by
Victor
To: MineralMan
If the Canadian and Brazilian governments would stop illegally subsidizing these companies, maybe the market would work correctly and a US manufacturer could enter the market.
12
posted on
05/13/2003 11:57:10 AM PDT
by
eBelasco
To: Larry Lucido
Bombardier purchased the Learjet Corporation (now Learjet Inc.) of the United States, in 1990.
13
posted on
05/13/2003 12:04:30 PM PDT
by
Snowyman
To: eBelasco
Sorry, that argument won't fly (no pun intended). There are no domestic makers of regional jets that I'm aware of. I've flown on quite a few of them, my favorite being the Bombardier.
The airlines cannot justify flying a 737 or larger into some airports and these jets fill the bill. The alternative is not having service to a particular market. So get used to it, because you're gonna be seeing more of them. If you have a problem with US manufactures not making any of these type of jets, call em let let them know - Buy stock (all you need is one share) and go to a shareholders meeting and bring it up.
I'm not going to fault an airline that is struggling to stay in business, for going out and buying assets that will help it fill a niche that other carrier's don't yet address.
To: AFreeBird
Are you suggesting we let a corporation follow what's in its business self-interest, and not boycott those traitorous pseudo-allies to the north? Should we suggest they use Michelin tires as well?
15
posted on
05/13/2003 12:12:52 PM PDT
by
eBelasco
To: Victor
Both Beech and Cessna took it in the shorts when several product liability suits found them liable for accidents involving forty and fifty-yr old private planes. Planes which had not been maintained or serviced according to factory specs or were used in an unsafe manner.
The manufacturers were, of course, the "deep pockets" that the trial lawyers were aiming at. Both Beech and Cessna had to set up huge liability reserves (I think Beech even went thru bankruptcy) and their capitalization shrank to survival status.
As a consequence, neither has had the capital resources to devote to the design and development of this class of plane.
In sum, trial lawyers are the sole reason all this manufacturing has gone offshore.
16
posted on
05/13/2003 12:13:38 PM PDT
by
okie01
(The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE.)
To: eBelasco
"If the Canadian and Brazilian governments would stop illegally subsidizing these companies, maybe the market would work correctly and a US manufacturer could enter the market."
Illegally? How are goverment subsidies of airline manufacturers in Canada and Brazil illegal? I assume those governments can do as they please, within their own laws.
US manufacturers are not interested in the Regional market, apparently. There it is. Tough nuts, I guess, but if you're going to fly on a short route, you'll be in a non-US-built plane.
Of course, you could start an aircraft company and start building them if you wanted to.
To: ex-snook
You are so right. What we need is government intervention. What we need is a planned economy. /sarc
18
posted on
05/13/2003 12:17:19 PM PDT
by
1rudeboy
To: AFreeBird
You are very right in your comments afreebird.
But I guess what I have a problem with is what my Canadian government does. It gives this company a lot of money in the form of low interest loans etc. This helps make the company more competitive in the bidding and shuts out any form of competition that wants to get into the game.
And that load of money is my tax dollars. And what irks me the most is that my tax dollars fund a super large company who runs most of its large plants in Europe and in the USA for the most part.
Now I know ALL governments, including the USA, subsidizes all types of industries etc. But I wish my Canadian government would spend my tax dollars on Canadian companies who need a little help (such as the corporate tax decrease last year) instead of boosting a stock in a large company that can do quite well by itself.
I sometimes wonder if the Federal liberals who run the government all have stock in this company.
19
posted on
05/13/2003 12:20:07 PM PDT
by
hawkaw
To: Snowyman; ex-snook
Bombardier purchased the Learjet Corporation (now Learjet Inc.) of the United States, in 1990. So these planes, or parts of these planes, will be built in the U.S? Better not tell ex-snook.
20
posted on
05/13/2003 12:20:49 PM PDT
by
1rudeboy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-66 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson