Bombardier (Canadian co.) lands major contract

Globe and Mail ^ | Monday, May. 12, 2003 | TERRY WEBER

[Space Wrangler]

I have no problem with the engines. A friend of mine had a KTM motocross bike back in the 80's with the Rotax engine, and it ran great. The problem came from SeaDoo's engineering, and namely they're utter failure in converting the Rotax's to marine use. They also tend to over power the engines, and therefore become less reliable. I've seen too many of those things detonate over the years to chalk it up to bad luck. Seadoo did a poor job of adapting those engines to marine use, and specifically in the PWC's.

[ContentiousObjector]

Uhh... when it comes to illegal subsidies and betraying free trade, the Bush administration is among the absolute worst in the world, the current Bush administration has done things that the Soviets wouldn't have done.

[Squawk 8888]

Bombardier also makes SeaDoo Personal watercraft and snowmobiles, and are currently trying to sell the recreational products division at this time to raise cash to build it's aerospace business.

I thought it rather ironic that they're getting out the recreational market. The company was founded by Armand Bombardier, inventor of the snowmobile.

[Poohbah]

You have to admit--if you want a cool surname, "Bombardier" is just about the coolest one out there :o)

[Poohbah]

How is the proposed 767 leasing deal fraudulent?

[Squawk 8888]

I wouldn't worry much about corporate welfare because in the export market there's no real advantage. What the companies gain in subsidies is negated by the higher cost of doing business imposed by interventionist governments- that's why Boeing and Airbus are on the same competive level, Airbus is heavily subsidized but they have to contend with French labour law. Same thing for Bombardier- Canadian payroll taxes and labour laws, though not as barbaric as the French, are still pretty brutal compared to the USA.

[Space Wrangler]

The Bombardier family is actually one of the one's that are interested in purchasing the recreational products division. They no longer have controlling interest in the company, but have explored a stock trade deal with Bombardier to obtain that division.

[Space Wrangler]

It's a cool name, but it's probably not pronounced the way you think it is. It pronounced bom-bard-dee-yay, not bomb-a-deer.

[eBelasco]

Boeing receives it's fair share of subsidies too.

[Poohbah]

I thought it was Bom-bar-deer, as in the job.

"Oh there are no fighter pilots down in Hell
The place is full of navigators, queers and bombardiers..."

[taxed2death]

What the hell difference would it make if an American company entered this market? Do you really think an American company would set up a manufacturing facility in the US? You must be delusional :)

[taxed2death]

I just purchased an Aprilia 1000 (Italian bike) with a Rotax engine in it. It's a ripper

[Squawk 8888]

AFAIK most of Boeing's subsidies are in the form of military contracts that are VERY generous.

[Space Wrangler]

No. I thought that was the pronunciation too until a few years ago at a boat show I saw the CEO of Bombardier Recreational speaking, and he referred to it as bob-bar-dee-yay. I've also heard it referred to as bom-bard-dee-yay on various baoting tv shows as well. I think Bom-bar-deer sounds much cooler.

[eBelasco]

heheh:)
Unlike wine, there's no option besides two socialistically subsidized choices of Embraer and Bombardier. At least with wine I can drink American or Australian. Seize and nationalize, or transfer to Boeing, the Lear plants maybe?

[Provost-Marshal]

Sorry, I disagree. Whatever punitive trade actions the Bush administration takes, are done to instill market discipline against those nations which do not support free markets. This is done to ensure that markets remain free -- you could call it "market medicine", and it's for everyone's good.

[Poohbah]

Of course, "Bomb-a-deer" sounds pretty cool, too :o)

[eBelasco]

Depending how badly one is slurring one's voice, it frequently comes out like bomb-Bard-jay.

[ContentiousObjector]

Under the Boeing deal, the Air Force will lease 100 767s for 10 years for use as tankers, the military is paying $20 million a year for each plane.

That in it's self is way above the lease price of a 767 at the best of times and in the current market almost impossible to imagine. This $200,000,000 per plane for a ten year lease is FAR higher than what the military would pay if they were just to buy the 767's outright.

And if that isn't bad enough, the military will have to pay Boeing to convert them from the commercial 767's they will roll off the line as into tankers (gee, maybe you should build them as tankers to start with) and then pay Boeing again to convert them back into commercial 767's at the end of the lease. I think the estimated cost is $25 million per plane for the tanker conversion and $30 million per plane to convert it back to a commercial 767. And come 2015 used 767's will be almost worthless and not worth the $30 million it would cost to convert them back to airliners.

The cost of the leasing scam could be as much as 500% more than buying the jets upfront, The only purpose of this deal is to keep the 767 assembly line open and to funnel subsudies to Boeing.

The British on the other hand are planning on buying used 767's that are parked in the desert and from British Airways and doing the same conversion.

[Sub-Driver]

Agree, USAIR is a regional airline. I fly them often, and on legs from PHL to Portland Me, or Columbus Oh they are empty. Cost's alot to use a 737 or A319 on those routes. Also USAIR has alot of DASH 8's that they would like to replace - I think these are 32 seaters. As an aside, CJR's and Embraer are nice aircraft, very modern but after one hour they get on my nerves because they are cramped.