Britain warns Boeing it might miss out on business over Bombardier row

Read a persuasive analysis about this yesterday. Apparently, Bombardier charged Delta a price adequate to secure a profit over the estimated length of the program but lower than the amount plowed into the program to date. This is common as R&D and ramping up a production facility require huge expenditures but bring in no income.

Boeing does the same thing and has been criticized by many for their action. They will likely lose the case, make many enemies, and look stupid.

Boeing owes is existence to extreme government protection. The US military took German aircraft technology at the end of the ww2, the world's most advanced at the time, and handed over the blueprints to US companies like Boeing. Then Washington ordered Germany to cease all aircraft production.

Otherwise, we'd all be flying around in Junkers and Messerschmidts today.

Boeing owes is existence to extreme government protection. 

You have always been a proponent of more government control, and increased regulation of business, and Boeing is an example of what happens when things go the way you recommend. Because the government has the power to heavily regulate the aircraft industry (and exercises this power vigorously) , it is virtually impossible for any new aircraft manufacturer to be created. And because this regulation has caused either the closure or absorption of almost all other aircraft manufacturers, we end up with virtual monopolies like Boeing. The government protections and subsidies which Boeing receives are returned to Washington via Boeing's lobbyists, many of whom are former politicians. All of this of course is intentional, monopolies cannot exist without state intervention. From aircraft companies, to care companies, to banks, they have regulated and legislated competitors out of business, and erected walls to prevent new ones from entering the market.

Boeing, like GM, BOA, and others, is now considered "too big to fail", and because this is so, it, it'e executives, it's lobbyists, and it's bought politicians in Washington can depend on the taxpayers supporting them, instead of relying on building quality aircraft at a competitive price. With no more competition from American aircraft companies, and Airbus being nothing but the European version of a "too big to fail" company, there is no such competition. The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer.

As much as I can see the hypocrisy of Boeing, I can't help but see this as a bad precedent if it allows Bombardier to continue on as there would be no excuse for blocking Chinese firms who have received even greater state subsidies..

Needless to say, this is what you get when both sides are employing protectionism

As a Canadian I'd like to see Bombardier be severely chastised in some way. They suck up government money to cover for their sloppy management, then give their managers huge bonuses from that government money. Not to mention they are corrupt as sin.

@sangetsu03

Bombardier is the Canadian version of "too big to fail".

Boeing should setup shop within N.I. and employ double the number that Bombardier did, then all would be fine.

As much as I can see the hypocrisy of Boeing, I can't help but see this as a bad precedent if it allows Bombardier to continue on as there would be no excuse for blocking Chinese firms who have received even greater state subsidies.

With a predicted trillion dollar airline market, Boeing has already publicly made it clear that they'd suck up to China no matter what, just to get inside.

@sangetsu03

"Because the government has the power to heavily regulate the aircraft industry...it is virtually impossible for any new aircraft manufacturer to be created"

No, it's because private investors alone can't and won't shoulder the massive startup costs for a venture where returns come over the long term.

Boeing is an example of what happens when things go the way you recommend. 

Well, yes, Boeing is one of America's greatest industrial triumphs, perhaps THE greatest. That's what happens. And guess what: it needed extensive government support and protection to get there..

Without it, lots more Americans would be working at Walmart and and MacD's - in sectors where the private sector rules supreme - for poverty wages, and fewer with high paid careers in aerospace engineering and technology.