Canada to buy used jets

[badbadboy]

I'm not opposed to bail-outs, per se (to Bombardier or others) IF they pay it back. If not, then its a stickier situation. By giving a boost to a company to keep it alive, it MAY be the final push needed to get their plane tested & certified, with the prospect of future profits. I don't know the full history of Bombardier, but their challenges with the CSeries is no different than Boeing or Airbus have had with their latest planes (and I'd argue Bombardier had a steeper hill to climb; its exponentially harder to design & build a plane as it gets bigger, whereas Airbus and Boeing wereAirbus and Boeing discount their new planes heavily to get them out in the fleets, prove to others they work fine, and often don't make a profit on a plane for YEARS (I *think* Airbus started making a profit on the A380 Superjumbo just a year or two ago, nearly 10 years after they were first introduced).

Subs are a different story. Buying used ones isn't necessarily a bad move (nor buying used planes). Singapore purchased 4 used subs from Sweden and they operated just fine. The key was: Singapore recognized this as a stop-gap/building-block measure and pursued NEW subs shortly after. Canada has not done this - everyone thinks of these subs as the same as new, but they were also stop-gap, to carry over the capability from the retiring Oberons to a new sub. But the Conservative govt wouldn't pursue new subs and the Liberal govt now wants to see them prove SOMETHING before committing to a new class (which is very expensive). Canada did get a good deal on these subs...for just the subs. But got a bad deal (partially their fault) on spare parts.

I agree with your synopsis on the airline industry. Bombardier has been around for decades primarily in the urban rail transportation market. They have OEM'd their products to other larger manufacturers around the world. I am one of those guys who reads the annual reports when they arrive in the mail because I used to own their stock. It was good value plus had a dividend component added to the stock price.

Whether its unfairly supported by Quebec or Federal government vs any US Corporation or EU Manufacturer would be an endless debate. All of these heavy industries get support of some kind or another from State/Federal, Province/Federal or Country/European Union. It's the way they satisfy voters, satisfy stock holders and keep skilled workforces employed. Defining what is a level playing field would not be a simple task and would probably just disintegrate into a Political Left vs Right argument as we see south of the border every day.

I never bought into the justification for buying the Subs even at a crazy $750M for four subs. Being leaky Subs added insult to injury IMO.

The idea was to use these diesel electric subs in the Arctic to watch all the other nations with Nuclear Subs who were poaching on our territory in the Beaufort Sea. Diesel electric can not stay submerged like a Nuclear Sub which is apparently almost indefinitely. It made sense when we had a regular sea of arctic ice to use a Sub. These days the Beaufort stays mostly clear year round.

 

[summerbreeze]

Canada's commitment to NATO is mainly submarine detection

 

[badbadboy]

Canada's commitment to NATO is mainly submarine detection

Yet DND closed the Nanoose Bay Base responsible for Sub Detection on the West Coast. That place had sensor arrays all the way up the coast.

 

[summerbreeze]

Yet DND closed the Nanoose Bay Base responsible for Sub Detection on the West Coast. That place had sensor arrays all the way up the coast.

more recent radarsat capabilities with focused beam scanning is beginning to replace the sensor arrays although no one is talking about it

 

[Lo-ki]

 

[badbadboy]

more recent radarsat capabilities with focused beam scanning is beginning to replace the sensor arrays although no one is talking about it

Not sure how a space based radar can detect low frequency Sonar signals. Not challenging your post but it is a head scratcher for sure.

So I found this article.

https://breakingdefense.com/2015/01/transparent-sea-the-unstealthy-future-of-submarines/

Canada still using 1960's Diesel Electric Subs?

 

[rickoshadows]

Not sure how a space based radar can detect low frequency Sonar signals. Not challenging your post but it is a head scratcher for sure.

So I found this article.

https://breakingdefense.com/2015/01/transparent-sea-the-unstealthy-future-of-submarines/

Canada still using 1960's Diesel Electric Subs?

A lot of countries use D/E submarines. They are quieter than their nuclear counterparts when submerged. The Upholder class was designed to ambush Soviet nuclear subs in the Greenland/UK gap.

 

[badbadboy]

A lot of countries use D/E submarines. They are quieter than their nuclear counterparts when submerged. The Upholder class was designed to ambush Soviet nuclear subs in the Greenland/UK gap.

Not sure if it matters if they can hear our leaky Sub's air bubbles as we are sinking to the bottom ound:

US, UK, Russia, China, India, France, Argentina, and Brazil all have nuclear powered Subs. I'm not sure which countries you are referring to who are using diesel / electric powered subs who may be venturing into the Arctic that we need to watch.

 

[summerbreeze]

diesel/electric subs still give navies significant concern due to how quiet they can run

during the Falklands war, Argentina had a d/e sub, the brits and no idea where it was and had the Argentinian navy had better torpedoes, the brits might have lost a few warships from it

depends on the ocean conditions though but in certain cases, diesel/electric subs can still be very effective

nuclear have the advantage of staying under water for extremely long times and are faster, need completely different training for the engineering folks on board, chief engineer often has a phd in nuclear physics as well as a marine engineering degree

 

[badbadboy]

diesel/electric subs still give navies significant concern due to how quiet they can run

during the Falklands war, Argentina had a d/e sub, the brits and no idea where it was and had the Argentinian navy had better torpedoes, the brits might have lost a few warships from it

depends on the ocean conditions though but in certain cases, diesel/electric subs can still be very effective

nuclear have the advantage of staying under water for extremely long times and are faster, need completely different training for the engineering folks on board, chief engineer often has a phd in nuclear physics as well as a marine engineering degree

Could have but all the ships lost in the Falklands were from bombs via aircraft or Exocet missiles from the Argentinian battle cruiser. Six ships in all.

We will never know how many near misses there may have been.

Thinking about our Navy Subs made me think of this clip

 

[uncleg]

Good money to made in used weaponry...large or small.:amen:

 

[badbadboy]

US Trade Commission 4 - 0 against Boeing's 300% Duty

https://www.canadianmanufacturing.c...rce=CMO&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=180129A

Not surprisingly Boeing lost this round because their argument was weak, didn't directly effect Boeing and would only further hurt US Trade relations with Canada.

 

[paulal]

Bombardier is, by far, the greatest manufacturing and commercial success Canada has ever known. Their new plane is an engineering marvel, yet Canadians like Storm Rider don’t appreciate our national success stories, and complain bitterly about interest free loans to our great innovators, while supporting hundreds of billions in direct subsidies through waived roayalites for Alberta’s non-renewable oil sands industry. What a farce. Good thing ignoramuses aren’t in charge or they’d only be satisfied when Canada is brought back to the 19th Century as a poor, backward natural resource holding tank for other countries.

 

[westwoody]

Not surprisingly Boeing lost this round because their argument was weak, didn't directly effect Boeing and would only further hurt US Trade relations with Canada.

The tariffs were totally political. Trump did it to play to his supporters, period.

 

[luvsdaty]

Diesel electric subs are much quieter than nuclear subs. The noisiest part of a nuc sub is all the stesm passing through ships piping system. With the upgrades that have been done to the Victoria class subs, they're still a serviceable sub for the Canadian fleet

 

[storm rider]

Bombardier is, by far, the greatest manufacturing and commercial success Canada has ever known. Their new plane is an engineering marvel, yet Canadians like Storm Rider don’t appreciate our national success stories, and complain bitterly about interest free loans to our great innovators, while supporting hundreds of billions in direct subsidies through waived roayalites for Alberta’s non-renewable oil sands industry. What a farce. Good thing ignoramuses aren’t in charge or they’d only be satisfied when Canada is brought back to the 19th Century as a poor, backward natural resource holding tank for other countries.

Bombardier is the biggest failure in Canadian business history.The management of the company are idiots and the only reason the company is in business is because of the BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars that the sponge of a company has absorbed due to Lieberal Government bailouts.

As for the oil industry in Alberta over the last 20 years Ottawa has SUCKED out 200 BILLION in money from Alberta and thrown it to the "have not" Provinces like the Maritimes etc and of course Quebec.....the reason Quebec gets cheap university etc is because Alberta is paying for it via our "shitty non renewable resources" that have driven the Canadian Economy for the last 20 years.

Take the share Alberta has been robbed of for the last 20 years away from the table and Canada with it's Social Programs would now be FUCKED.

As for what is or was the BEST Canadian aerospace development ever made THAT was the AVRO Arrow BITD....if the AVRO Arrow had been produced Canada would have the most cutting edge airforce on the 3rd rock from the sun and AVRO would still be in business and EXPORTING them to other nations.Instead due to a poor decision Canadian tax payers get hosed/fucked for repeated BILLION dollar bailouts of Bombardier.....please correct me if I am wrong and that Bombardier has not gotten BILLIONS of tax payer monies.

SR

 

[badbadboy]

Bombardier is the biggest failure in Canadian business history.The management of the company are idiots and the only reason the company is in business is because of the BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars that the sponge of a company has absorbed due to Lieberal Government bailouts.

As for the oil industry in Alberta over the last 20 years Ottawa has SUCKED out 200 BILLION in money from Alberta and thrown it to the "have not" Provinces like the Maritimes etc and of course Quebec.....the reason Quebec gets cheap university etc is because Alberta is paying for it via our "shitty non renewable resources" that have driven the Canadian Economy for the last 20 years.

Take the share Alberta has been robbed of for the last 20 years away from the table and Canada with it's Social Programs would now be FUCKED.

As for what is or was the BEST Canadian aerospace development ever made THAT was the AVRO Arrow BITD....if the AVRO Arrow had been produced Canada would have the most cutting edge airforce on the 3rd rock from the sun and AVRO would still be in business and EXPORTING them to other nations.Instead due to a poor decision Canadian tax payers get hosed/fucked for repeated BILLION dollar bailouts of Bombardier.....please correct me if I am wrong and that Bombardier has not gotten BILLIONS of tax payer monies.

SR

Well, I am glad you posted about Bombardier getting subsidies from Canadian Taxpayers.

Again, perhaps it is best you do some simple research about the other players in this discussion aka The Boeing Company who receive lucrative directed orders from the US Govt and enjoy Billions of US $ Subsidies from Federal, State and Counties who love having Boeing in their back yards.


Bombardier got subsidies? Boeing received $64B from the U.S. government
By Erica Alini National Online Journalist, Money/Consumer Global News


When the Quebec government and Ottawa stepped in to shore up a struggling Bombardier with cash for its prized CSeries aircraft, danger was lurking, according to William Mitchell, professor of strategic management at the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management.


Sure enough, not too long afterwards, Boeing filed a complaint with the U.S. government alleging that Canada’s airplane manufacturer was encroaching on its home turf by selling CSeries aircraft on the cheap (to Delta Air Lines in the specific case) thanks to government subsidies. Now, Washington has slapped a preliminary 219 per cent import duty on Bombardier that’s meant to counteract the effect of those subsidies and help level the playing field.

READ MORE: Bombardier: A step-by-step guide to the trade dispute


“They left themselves open to that by needing financial help,” Mitchell said, speaking about Bombardier.

Sure, developing the CSeries, a whole new line of mid-size commercial aircraft was a big bet for Bombardier, which has until recently only dabbled in the regional jet market. It has sunk about $6 billion in the CSeries so far. But a company as old and established as Bombardier should have been able to handle that without government handouts, argues Mitchell.

In part, Bombardier has itself to blame.

READ MORE: COMMENTARY: Sorry to be unpatriotic, but I’m kind of glad the U.S. spanked Bombardier



But there’s another story about subsidies in this intricate cross-border trade drama – and it is about Boeing. The U.S. aircraft manufacturing giant is among the top recipients of both federal, state and local subsidies in the U.S., according to a tally compiled by Good Jobs First, a Washington-based organization.

The company received $457 million in federal grants, which are typically non-repayable, between 2000 and 2014. In addition to that, there was a whopping $64 billion in federal loans and loan guarantees.

WATCH: How should Canada Respond to the Hefty Tariff Slapped on Bombardier?


That, combined with $18 billion in contract awards in fiscal 2014 alone, make Boeing “exceptionally favored by Uncle Sam,” notes the report.

But that’s not all. Boeing also received an eye-popping $13 billion in state and local subsidies over the same 15-year period.

The U.S. aircraft maker also has another key advantage: military contracts. (Note these are not disclosed because of US National Security - BBB )

READ MORE: Canadian industries concerned about knock-on effects of Bombardier tariffs

Thirty-six per cent of Boeing’s $94.5 billion revenue for 2016 came from the U.S. Department of Defense (U.S. DoD), according to the company’s financial statements.

Those military dollars are an “indirect help” for Boeing’s commercial aircraft business, noted Mitchell.

READ MORE: Quebec fights back after Bombardier slapped with 219% duty

Even if one assumes modest spillover from the research and development (R&D) activity that Boeing conducts on behalf of the U.S. DoD, “the R&D resources they have and the scale they’re able to generate by virtue of their military business gives them inherent advantages,” said Jesse Goldman, partner at Bennett Jones in Toronto.

Bombardier, by contrast, doesn’t even rank as one of the major recipients of Canada’s much smaller defence spending.

Still, that’s not to say Boeing is an outlier in the aerospace industry. Indeed, gobbling up government dollars is the norm.

“The aerospace industry – I don’t care what country you’re in – is highly, highly subsidized by domestic governments,” said Goldman.

WATCH: What is going on with the Bombardier, Boeing dispute?


It’s not about the money, it’s about the rules – and politics

So what’s the brouhaha about the money pocketed by Bombardier?

The issue is whether they contravened international trade rules set by the World Trade Organization, which referees global trade.

Countries don’t really care about other countries’ subsidies unless they feel that those dollars are propping up foreign competitors that start harming their domestic companies and industries. That’s when WTO rules allow for the imposition of import duties, after thorough investigation, in order to cancel out the impact of the subsidies.

WATCH: The politics of America’s big tariff on Bombardier


https://globalnews.ca/news/3773916/bombardier-boeing-subsidies/

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/natio...-has-never-ever-received-subsidies-you-decide

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...winners-in-each-state/?utm_term=.0b5c41c5256d

https://www.economist.com/news/busi...ecome-political-boeing-takes-flight-hypocrisy

The AVRO happened nearly 60 years ago. Time to get over it and move on. Or just keep blaming your Conservative Prime Minister Diefenbaker for kowtowing to the US.

 

[paulal]

Storm rider completely ignores the fact that oil sands companies were given a gigantic, over-the-top break on royalties for non-renewable resource extraction in the 1990s (ie. when oil prices were below $20/barrel and the viability of Suncor was threatened). These grotesquely unfair breaks are almost completely intact today.

Today, the huge “payout” in taxes isn’t being borne by the corporations operating in the oil sands, but by their employees. Storm Rider, why are you and so many Tory acolytes full of hatred towards anything from Quebec? Why not admit the truth? The Alberta oil sands companies are being given our non-renewable natural resources for a song, getting exemptions that are saving them hundreds of billions in subsidies each and every year:

Case 1: Bombardier, repayable interest free loans worth at most one or two billion. Jobs created; 50,000. Long term prospects: excellent
Case 2: Oinkle sands companies, rock bottom royalties that no other Canadian mining companies get, worth over $150 billion each year. Jobs created; 200,000. Long term prospects: finite.

As a taxpayer, I want to invest in option one each and every time. Stop pretending that there’s a plot to screw Alberta. It’s a tired conspiracy theory that holds no water. Alberta and Albertans are getting, by a country mile, the biggest tax break in Canadian history. The big four oil sands companies are stoking anger and paranoia because it suits their financial interest to do so. You’re being used as a pawn dude, having someone point at an incident down the street while they pick your pocket.

 

[westwoody]

Alberta's economy is dependent on oil revenue.
If the world price goes down or up Alberta has little control.
But if the price goes up and helps the economy you can bet the Tories will take credit for sound economic management.
If the price goes down and Alberta's economy slumps the Tories will blame Liberals or NDP for poor management.
Most Albertans cannot see past their own nose.

 

[paulal]

Where is Storm rider’s and other right-wing outrage at the unfair subsidies worth hundreds of billions each year given to Suncor, Syncrude, Shell and CNRL? Why are you giving them a free pass? Their subsidies dwarf Bombardier by hundreds or thousands of times. Is it because they aren’t in Quebec? Why do you expect other Canadians to subsidize Alberta business activities 20 years after oil prices recovered? The big four in the oil sands are making hundreds of billions in profits, thanks to the generosity of the Canadian taxpayer. Yet you are only worried about interest free loans to a French-Canadian owned company headquartered in Montreal. Why is that Storm rider? Where is the real Lie you keep talking about?