[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

It's still competition.

Southwest Airlines is relevant in this discussion because 100% of their fleet is 737 and the CS300 would fly for Delta on routes that place it in direct competition with Southwest:

And that's all that matters.

Replacing 40 year old aircraft for one of two airlines, isn't hurting a manufacturer that isn't building a replacement for nor it is bidding for the business.

Hmmm, a company that didn't bid to replace it's old aircraft and that it doesn't produce anymore is hurt when another company wins that bid. You have some strange ideas about 'competition'.

WTF are you talking about? Southwest is always replacing their older 737's with new ones.

The last of their 737-300 fleet gets retired in three days and the first of their 170 new 737-MAX 8 starts service the next day.

The 737 may have started service forty FIFTY years ago but it's been continually upgraded and continually produced ever since.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737

$1:

The 737 series is the best-selling jet commercial airliner in history.[4] The 737 has been continuously manufactured by Boeing since 1967 with 9,659 aircraft delivered and 4,427 orders yet to be fulfilled as of August 2017.

[shockedcanadian]

Remember, the RCMP and their surrogates in Canada would gladly watch their powers and budgets increase at the expense of the broader Canadian economy.

Treasonous.

America should just rip up NAFTA and let the Canada innovate and expand it's economy in the private sector and compete like Big Boys. We don't even have a domestic auto industry and we are upset that America wants more of such jobs back in America? How many Americans is our non-existent auto industry employing?

It would be devastating to the RCMP and OPP if NAFTA was ripped up as the gravy train would dry up, but that's our only hope as a nation.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

It's still competition.

Southwest Airlines is relevant in this discussion because 100% of their fleet is 737 and the CS300 would fly for Delta on routes that place it in direct competition with Southwest:

And that's all that matters.

Replacing 40 year old aircraft for one of two airlines, isn't hurting a manufacturer that isn't building a replacement for nor it is bidding for the business.

Hmmm, a company that didn't bid to replace it's old aircraft and that it doesn't produce anymore is hurt when another company wins that bid. You have some strange ideas about 'competition'.

WTF are you talking about? Southwest is always replacing their older 737's with new ones.

The last of their 737-300 fleet gets retired in three days and the first of their 170 new 737-MAX 8 starts service the next day.

The 737 may have started service forty FIFTY years ago but it's been continually upgraded and continually produced ever since.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737

$1:

The 737 series is the best-selling jet commercial airliner in history.[4] The 737 has been continuously manufactured by Boeing since 1967 with 9,659 aircraft delivered and 4,427 orders yet to be fulfilled as of August 2017.

$1:

The Bombardier CSeries or C Series is a family of narrow-body, twin-engine, medium-range jet airliners by Canadian manufacturer Bombardier Aerospace. The 108 to 133-seat CS100

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_CSeries

And looking at that 737 article, the 'Specifications' at the bottom, the 'Exit Limit' or max passengers that most closely matches the C series is the 737-100 or 747-200, which are no longer produced!

And Boeing still didn't bid for the Delta contract, so how can it's business suffer in a market it didn't compete in?

[DrCaleb]

Interesting article:

$1:

What the Canadian government has heard from Boeing is that the company is torn between two imperatives: completing the military sale with Canada and avoiding what it perceives to be a colossal mistake of its past.

The company has said this publicly.
Canadian Ambassador 20170406

Sources say the Canadian Ambassador to the U.S., David MacNaughton, delivered a message to Boeing similar to what's now the Canadian government's public mantra: "I don't do business with people suing me." (Fred Chartrand/Canadian Press)

In an interview with The Canadian Press, Marc Allen, president of Boeing's international division, said: "We watched another competitor come up and enter the market in a very similar fashion."

That competitor was Airbus, in the 1970s.

A consortium of French, German, and U.K. interests, Airbus started small in the U.S. market, with European subsidies propping up its twin-engine and single-aisle planes. But the product lines, and the planes, grew, and by the 1990s the company had become a U.S. giant in its own right, muscling aside smaller players like McDonnell Douglas.

Now Airbus is aiming for 50 per cent of the American market after opening its first jetliner plant in the U.S.

Boeing claims to fear a repeat. After Bombardier's sale of 75 mid-sized planes to Delta Air Lines, it launched a complaint based on Bombardier's various forms of assistance from Canadian and Quebec taxpayers.

Never mind that Boeing is by far the No. 1 recipient of U.S. government subsidies. It drew $14.4 billion US in various forms of assistance since the 1990s according to the website Subsidy Tracker, far more than any other U.S. company and far more than what Bombardier received. The U.S. Export-Import bank is jokingly referred to in Washington as, "the Bank of Boeing."

Canada vs. Boeing: How the fight with aerospace giant began, on Pennsylvania Ave

[DrCaleb]

A little factoid I heard on the news last night; Bombardier employs about 2000 people assembling the C series jet in Quebec - but the parts they assemble come mainly from the US and employ about 23,000 people there.

[BartSimpson]

Bombardier's own marketing positions the CS300 as direct competition to the 737.

They lost this lawsuit when they did that.

Now the next sound you'll hear will be the soft, crackling sound of the burning NAFTA agreement.

[DrCaleb]

Followed by massive unemployment surge in the US, Canada and Mexico.

MAGA!

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Followed by massive employment surge in the US

FTFY.

NAFTA was not a good deal for the US and I'll be happy when it's undone. It was also following in the footsteps of the European Common Market in that the leftists and the free trader capitalists kept using it as a starting point for a common North American currency (remember the Amero?), Deep Integration, and their proposed North American Union.

No thanks.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Followed by massive employment surge in the US

FTFY.

NAFTA was not a good deal for the US and I'll be happy when it's undone.

What about it has not been good? The increased productivity? The plethora of new products? The availability of fresh produce? Decades of economic growth?

I notice you also totally glossed over Boeing's acceptance of all sorts of government subsidies while suing Bombardier for the same thing.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

It was also following in the footsteps of the European Common Market in that the leftists and the free trader capitalists kept using it as a starting point for a common North American currency (remember the Amero?), Deep Integration, and their proposed North American Union.

No thanks.

I recall. And what happened with that? Did we ever go to a combined North American Union? And I agree, no thanks. In any such deal, we'd have to accept the lowest standards, and that would be the US or Mexicos.

[shockedcanadian]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Followed by massive employment surge in the US

FTFY.

NAFTA was not a good deal for the US and I'll be happy when it's undone. It was also following in the footsteps of the European Common Market in that the leftists and the free trader capitalists kept using it as a starting point for a common North American currency (remember the Amero?), Deep Integration, and their proposed North American Union.

No thanks.

If NAFTA is ripped up there will be MANY Canadian covert police operatives wondering how they will justify their existence now that so many U.S corporations have left back home to America and cannot be entered and meddled with.

The days of Canadas de-facto control of the economy are coming to an end, and the centralized government supported by all parties in Canada are scared to death that free markets and individual liberty are necessary to innovate, compete and win business.

You don't see Germany or Japan failing and crying because they don't have a free trade agreement with America. Why is this?

Capitalism and individual liberty will beat socialism and state harm against citizens every single time.

[shockedcanadian]

shockedcanadian shockedcanadian:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Followed by massive employment surge in the US

FTFY.

NAFTA was not a good deal for the US and I'll be happy when it's undone. It was also following in the footsteps of the European Common Market in that the leftists and the free trader capitalists kept using it as a starting point for a common North American currency (remember the Amero?), Deep Integration, and their proposed North American Union.

No thanks.

If NAFTA is ripped up there will be MANY Canadian covert police operatives wondering how they will justify their existence now that so many U.S corporations have left back home to America and cannot be entered and meddled with.

The days of Canadas de-facto control of the economy are coming to an end, and the centralized government supported by all parties in Canada are scared to death that free markets and individual liberty are necessary to innovate, compete and win business.

You don't see Germany or Japan failing and crying because they don't have a free trade agreement with America. Why is this?

Capitalism and individual liberty will beat socialism and state harm against citizens every single time.

Odd, how so many Canadians and OPP operatives are employed in the auto industry in Ontario, how many Americans do Canadian automotive companies employ?

Oh wait, we don't HAVE a domestic auto industry do we?

Carry on America, Canada is a very slow learner, but they will eventually throw the dossiers in the fireplace, come out of their bunkers and support capitalism and liberty. If not, well, we all sink. This day was inevitable really. At least maybe the next generation will have the freedoms promised.

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

What about it has not been good? The increased productivity? The plethora of new products? The availability of fresh produce? Decades of economic growth?

You're seeing this entirely in the lens of Canada and US relations. You're not having to deal with California's insanely stringent emissions laws while NAFTA permits smoky, stinky, unsafe Mexican trucks and buses to crap up our roads and our air. Mexico via NAFTA is of far more concern to me than Canada is.

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I notice you also totally glossed over Boeing's acceptance of all sorts of government subsidies while suing Bombardier for the same thing.

The subsidies offset our higher corporate taxes and the subsidies are going to be ended with the new tax scheme that President Trump is proposing.

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

It was also following in the footsteps of the European Common Market in that the leftists and the free trader capitalists kept using it as a starting point for a common North American currency (remember the Amero?), Deep Integration, and their proposed North American Union.

No thanks.

I recall. And what happened with that? Did we ever go to a combined North American Union? And I agree, no thanks. In any such deal, we'd have to accept the lowest standards, and that would be the US or Mexicos.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

What about it has not been good? The increased productivity? The plethora of new products? The availability of fresh produce? Decades of economic growth?

You're seeing this entirely in the lens of Canada and US relations. You're not having to deal with California's insanely stringent emissions laws while NAFTA permits smoky, stinky, unsafe Mexican trucks and buses to crap up our roads and our air. Mexico via NAFTA is of far more concern to me than Canada is.

Well, ya! I'm Canadian. I don't have to deal with Mexican trucks.

Seems like an opportune time to up the environmental regulations in NAFTA to get Mexico up to California standards that all auto manufacturers already respect.

[BartSimpson]

See, that's the thing. A trade agreement should not have all sorts of codicils that infringe on domestic and internal policies.

Imagine us requiring in NAFTA that you folks have to recognize free speech, property rights, and the right to keep and bear arms?

None of that has any business in a trade agreement.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

See, that's the thing. A trade agreement should not have all sorts of codicils that infringe on domestic and internal policies.

Imagine us requiring in NAFTA that you folks have to recognize free speech, property rights, and the right to keep and bear arms?

None of that has any business in a trade agreement.

Why not? But you are mixing social and economic policies. That's exactly what Boeing is suing for here, economic policies.

Why should all businesses in the countries under agreement not be held to the same economic policies? If labour standards are low in one country, it would favour them as cheaper source of labour than the others. Same with environmental standards. All countries should agree to follow one set of standards, then all businesses are equal.

Social policy is a different matter, and should be left out.