back to article The UK isn't ditching Boeing defence kit any time soon

The British government is publicly threatening to stop giving defence contracts to American aerospace firm Boeing – even though this is laughably unrealistic. Both the Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary have, over the last couple of days, warned Boeing that it is undermining its relationship with the UK, in financial …

  1. Zog_but_not_the_first
    Mushroom

    War!

    What is it good for?

    Business...

    1. Korev Silver badge
      1. Graham Jordan

        Re: War!

        20 years later I still sing this song.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Don't the W.T.O. get involved in things like this?

    1. Voland's right hand Silver badge

      Don't the W.T.O. get involved in things like this?

      Not in military procurement or anything with a national security clause. WTO does not have a say in these.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        I think he's on about Boeing VS Bombardier

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          I was, thanks

      2. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        Don't the W.T.O. get involved in things like this?

        How many divisions does the WTO have ?

        1. Rich 11

          How many divisions does the WTO have ?

          They don't need divisions; they have lawyers.

          1. John Smith 19 Gold badge

            "They don't need divisions; they have lawyers."

            OK, how many divisions of lawyers do they have.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Pirate

              Re: "They don't need divisions; they have lawyers."

              "OK, how many divisions of lawyers do they (the WTO) have"

              I'm betting far fewer divisions than Boeing, if you want to place a paycheck or two on the issue.

  3. wolfetone Silver badge
    Coat

    Well I just can't wait to see what cracking trade deal we get with the USA after Brexit.

    Mine is the one with a one way Ryanair ticket to an airport outside of Benidorm.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Mine is the one with a one way Ryanair ticket to an airport outside of Benidorm.

      So your plan is "walk, hitchhike, swim" to get there then?

      1. wolfetone Silver badge

        "So your plan is "walk, hitchhike, swim" to get there then?"

        Totally depends if my flight gets cancelled or not.

        1. TRT Silver badge

          Totally depends if my flight gets cancelled or not.

          Or if the batteries go flat mid-way.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Even if the flight goes ahead as scheduled, you may still have to "walk, hitchhike,swim" as RyanAir never seem to land quite where you might expect them to.

          1. Joe Harrison

            Nonsense, Ryanair land in very convenient places. I flew into Polperro London Airport with them only last week

          2. Stoneshop

            as RyanAir never seem to land quite where you might expect them to.

            Any landing you can walk away from is a good one.

            1. GrumpyKiwi

              Re: as RyanAir never seem to land quite where you might expect them to.

              They say in the Air Force

              A landings OK

              If the pilot gets out

              And can still walk away

              But in the Fleet Air Arm

              The prospects are dim

              If the landings piss poor

              And the pilot can't swim

            2. John Smith 19 Gold badge
              Unhappy

              "Any landing you can walk away from is a good one."

              Isn't that RyanAir's corporate motto?

            3. Anomalous Cowturd
              Mushroom

              Re: as RyanAir never seem to land quite where you might expect them to.

              >>>Any landing you can walk away from is a good one.

              And if the plane is still airworthy, it's a great one.

              1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
                Happy

                "And if the plane is still airworthy, it's a great one."

                You sound like a Ryanair regular.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Go with Easyjet, their aircraft are Airbus

      1. Voland's right hand Silver badge

        Go with Easyjet, their aircraft are Airbus

        Not just that.

        SleasyJet plan to still fly after B-day and have a rather Sleasy plan revolving around the dual cittizenship of their major shareholder (I wonder how long until this is shot down by regulators one way or another).

        Ryanair has no plan B for B day - they have openly stated that they intend to relocate all flights out of Stansted and cancel all internal UK flights.

        1. TRT Silver badge

          ...shot down by regulators one way or another...

          I take it you don't mean in a MH17y sort of a way.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I think what we should do is impose huge tariffs on reality TV imported from the states.

    Even if it doesn't work I'll be happy as my other half is addicted to the crap.

  5. lglethal Silver badge
    Thumb Down

    Pot... Kettle ... Black... hmmm I know there's a sentence in there somewhere...

    Boeing accusing someone else of getting government subsidies is pretty much the height of hypocrisy. hell all the aircraft manufacturers get subsidies, the Europeans, the Chinese, the Japanese, the Russians, the Indians, the Americans, everyone does. Aircraft are bloody expensive to build, and its a hell of a lot of cost up front, long time to profit, and they will employ a shedload of People. It's no surprise they get subsidies.

    But the fact they are all starting to sue each other in the WTO (and other trade bodies) is just annoying. The only people getting rich are the lawyers...

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Meh

      Re: Pot... Kettle ... Black... hmmm I know there's a sentence in there somewhere...

      If Bombardier collapses, then Boeing will probably be in line to buy up the remains for the patents and intellectual property associated with the C Series jets. That would be a win-win situation for them, i.e. Boeing wins twice.

      1. Spudley

        Re: Pot... Kettle ... Black... hmmm I know there's a sentence in there somewhere...

        If Bombardier collapses, then Boeing will probably be in line to buy up the remains for the patents and intellectual property associated with the C Series jets. That would be a win-win situation for them, i.e. Boeing wins twice.

        Alternatively, they could get outbid by an upstart Chinese manufacturer with an eye on buying a set of ready-to-build aircraft designs, and a then Boeing lose big-time as the market gets flooded with cheap aircraft and no amount of complaints from Boeing will have any effect.

        So yeah, there's plenty of ways this could go bad for Boeing.

        1. djstardust

          Re: Pot... Kettle ... Black... hmmm I know there's a sentence in there somewhere...

          A bit like the situation with Apple & Imagination. Bastards!

        2. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

          Re: Pot... Kettle ... Black... hmmm I know there's a sentence in there somewhere...

          Alternatively, they could get outbid by an upstart Chinese manufacturer

          Except they have friends in Washington that can block the sale to any chinese investor.

          Amazing what a good deal you can get when all other bidders are blocked

          1. Doctor Evil

            Re: Pot... Kettle ... Black... hmmm I know there's a sentence in there somewhere...

            "Except they have friends in Washington that can block the sale to any chinese investor."

            Except that Bombardier is a Canadian company and I don't believe Boeing has many friends left in Ottawa now. So no.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Pot... Kettle ... Black... hmmm I know there's a sentence in there somewhere...

        If Bombardier collapses, then Boeing

        No it is not. Airbus is fairly clear it is next in line, so I suspect they have already pushed the necessary buttons in Brussels.

        1. This post has been deleted by its author

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Pot... Kettle ... Black... hmmm I know there's a sentence in there somewhere...

          >No it is not. Airbus is fairly clear it is next in line

          Airbus is building the A320 in Alabama now - US and China is where they're investing as that's the only way to sell there - EU plants will be a shadow ten years hence.

    2. antiquam bombulum

      Re: Pot... Kettle ... Black... hmmm I know there's a sentence in there somewhere...

      Indeed. For them to say it's not fair because Airbus got government seed capital is disingenuous. They can huff and puff all they like about level playing fields when it is as clear as day to anyone not totally partisan that Boeing does everything it can to ensure the playing field is not level. In their case, they use their lobbyists to ensure that their Congressmen will vote a collective "wrong answer" if any tender decision favours a non-US supplier. Europe may well provide subsidies to get their manufacturers underway, but Boeing and other major suppliers use underhanded methods to subvert tender processes that provide like-for-like comparisons that end up deciding on a non-US supplier. They ensure that any decision that comes up with a decision in favour of a non-US supplier will be appealed til the end of time. (BTW: I have not yet heard whether the European startup subsidies are required to subsequently be repaid at more-or-less commercial rates. It would not surprise me in the least if the US manufacturers' lobbyists ignore this.)

  6. Alister

    So, Gareth, are you suggesting that Bombardier should shut up and accept a 220% tax on their sales to the US, even though Boeing have no comparable aircraft to the C series, and therefore there is no valid conflict of interest?

    Do you think that the British government should not protest such a blatant misuse of power?

    1. SkippyBing

      I think he's pointing out the UK Government's options are actually rather limited, no matter what they want to do.

    2. Scuby

      Actually the 737 Max 7 or Max 8 are pretty close in comparison.

      138 - 153 seats in a 2 Class config.

    3. Jon 37

      "no comparable aircraft to the C series, and therefore there is no valid conflict of interest"

      I'm sorry, but that's nonsense.

      Boeing may not have a "100-110 seat aircraft" as Bombardier are claiming. But if Bombardier's aircraft wasn't available then passengers would fly on slightly smaller or slightly larger aircraft from other manufacturers. There might be slightly more or less flights per week and at slightly more or less cost per flight, but the difference will be small. So Boeing definitely competes with the C series. And if the C series was receiving illegal subsidies that would clearly be bad for Boeing.

      The people complaining about Boeing's interference may have other valid points, but this one is clearly nonsense and makes me distrust anyone who's spouting it.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      >even though Boeing have no comparable aircraft to the C series

      ....but they had been supplying Delta with rebuilt Embraer E-190s.

      The case actually hinged on the fact that during the last Bombardier bailout the Quebec Government bought a 40-odd % stake in C-Series for $1 billion - that's on the back of another couple of billion in Canadian Gov subsidies in recent years. This doesn't seem to get much reporting in the UK.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    A curious note, thinking of the C17

    That Shorts (The NI plane maker now part of Bombardier) did once build long range heavy lift transports for the RAF. But of course, that was a long time ago, before the traitors of Westminster painstakingly and completely dismantled the vast majority of our indigenous aerospace capability. Either by outright cancellations, by early retirements, by preferring crap, expensive multinational junk. Funny to think British engineers developed brilliant machines like the Vulcan, Victor, Canberra, Bucaneer, TSR-2, Harrier, Hawk, Belfast, Nimrod, the Lynx (early ones, at any rate). But now what indigenous capability is there? I daresay Taranis will soon be cancelled "to save money" so that MoD can then buy some expensive foreign product a few short years later.

    Now that the tosspot clowns of the British government look round, and find they've got nowhere else to go and buy defence aircraft rather than Boeing, they might care to note that it is ALL THEIR FAULT for years of dithering, poor decisions, a total lack of strategic judgement, and persistent under-investment in a military whom they routinely call upon when they're in a fix (invariably of their own making).

    1. Korev Silver badge
      Pint

      Re: A curious note, thinking of the C17

      Sadly I can only upvote you once

      1. Aladdin Sane

        Re: nowhere else to go and buy defence aircraft rather than Boeing

        There's Airbus and Lockheed-Martin. BAE won't develop any aircraft on their own any more it would seem.

        1. hammarbtyp

          Re: nowhere else to go and buy defence aircraft rather than Boeing

          Sukhoi, Tupolev, Ilyushin .... I mean its not like Trump will complain against those would he

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: nowhere else to go and buy defence aircraft rather than Boeing

            Sukhoi, Tupolev, Ilyushin

            Dassault, Saab and worst case scenario we can import some fresh tea from the colonies, like for example the Hindustan Aviation TEJAS. It will make for a nice "cuppa" on Queen Lizzy's deck if it is finally fitted with some arrester wires.

            On a more serious note - we are financing the Ukrainian cleptocracy anyway, we might as well get some fecking Antonovs out of it. There is no way anyone can convince me that a C17 is more capable than An124. So instead of paying them to "improve democracy" how about paying them to unmothball the An124 production line or even better - disassemble it and ship it to Belfast.

            1. Rich 11

              Re: nowhere else to go and buy defence aircraft rather than Boeing

              how about paying them to unmothball the An124 production line or even better - disassemble it and ship it to Belfast.

              Given how well our lovely government have negotiated defence contracts in recent decades, I expect they'd cock it up and get the An2 production line unmothballed and shipped to Belfast by mistake.

              Beautiful aircraft, but not quite up to spec for modern heavy lift.

              1. Stoneshop

                Beautiful aircraft, but not quite up to spec for modern heavy lift.

                Well, if two swallows can carry a coconut together, why wouldn't a bunch of An2's provide the required heavy lifting capability combined?

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: Beautiful aircraft, but not quite up to spec for modern heavy lift.

                  "Well, if two swallows can carry a coconut together, why wouldn't a bunch of An2's provide the required heavy lifting capability combined?"

                  Wait, European or African An2's?

                  1. Stoneshop
                    Headmaster

                    Re: Beautiful aircraft, but not quite up to spec for modern heavy lift.

                    Wait, European or African An2's?

                    Yes.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: nowhere else to go and buy defence aircraft rather than Boeing

          There's Airbus and Lockheed-Martin.

          Both foreign corporations that the UK cannot really rely on, and with little product overlap with the Boeing offers that are relevant here.

          Airbus don't know what they're doing. The A400M has been a financial disaster, is barely ready for military use, with Airbus asking to be let off the penalty clauses in the contracts it signed. In the words of John Gilbert in the House of Lords ""The A400M is a complete, absolute wanking disaster, and we should be ashamed of ourselves. I have never seen such a waste of public funds in the defence field since I have been involved in it these past 40 years."

          Maybe Lockheed Martin are better? They are kindly willing to sell us their F35 POS, but require us to let them do maintenance in increasingly authoritarian and erratic Turkey. Even ignoring the project problems, that maintenance requirement is a super idea for defence resilience, eh?

          1. SkippyBing

            Re: nowhere else to go and buy defence aircraft rather than Boeing

            'They are kindly willing to sell us their F35 POS, but require us to let them do maintenance in increasingly authoritarian and erratic Turkey.'

            There are clauses that allow them to relocate the depth maintenance facility to another location, the UK is I think first choice in the event of Turkey becoming more of a basket case. To be fair 10+ years ago when the decision was made Turkey seemed like a great idea, and they've actually got a good record on locally producing F-16s.

            1. Mark 110

              Re: nowhere else to go and buy defence aircraft rather than Boeing

              We do make Airbus wings on Deeside.

              And jet engines at Derby.

              Theres probably quite alot of other stuff we do as well. I bet theres a fair chance we could put a whole plane together with enough government subsidy . . Oh!!

              1. Stoneshop
                Devil

                Re: nowhere else to go and buy defence aircraft rather than Boeing

                we could put a whole plane together with enough government subsidy

                80% of the budget will be spent on committee meetings determining what colour it should be, and the remaining 80% on committee meetings to determine the composition of the aforementioned committees.

                1. CrazyOldCatMan Silver badge

                  Re: nowhere else to go and buy defence aircraft rather than Boeing

                  80% of the budget will be spent on committee meetings determining what colour it should be, and the remaining 80%

                  You see! There really is a magic money tree! That extra 60% budget had to come from somewhere..

              2. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: nowhere else to go and buy defence aircraft rather than Boeing

                Not a widely-known fact, but the UK is the world's second largest aerospace nation after the US. Sadly, we can't really build a whole plane on our own any more.

                As for Boeing buggering the British aviation sector, it's been going on for decades. It would be nice to finally know the truth about all those one-sided technology 'exchanges' of the 1960s when Boeing engineers were allowed by the British government to see everything about the DH121 trijet and the HS134 narrow-body long-range twinge which both look uncannily like the much later Boeing 727 and 757 airliners.

                1. Lars Silver badge
                  Coat

                  Re: nowhere else to go and buy defence aircraft rather than Boeing

                  "The aerospace industry of the United Kingdom is the fourth-largest national aerospace industry in the world and the third largest in Europe, with a global market share of 6.4% in 2016".

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

                2. Lars Silver badge
                  Happy

                  Re: nowhere else to go and buy defence aircraft rather than Boeing

                  @Mike Richards

                  Hopefully more widely known facts.

                  Below are the 15 countries that exported the highest dollar value worth of aerospace products during 2016:

                  United States: US$134.6 billion (41% of total aerospace exports)

                  France: $53.4 billion (16.2%)

                  Germany: $44.6 billion (13.6%)

                  United Kingdom: $21 billion (6.4%)

                  Canada: $10.3 billion (3.1%)

                  Singapore: $6.7 billion (2%)

                  Japan: $5.1 billion (1.6%)

                  Spain: $5.1 billion (1.5%)

                  Italy: $4.9 billion (1.5%)

                  Brazil: $4.8 billion (1.5%)

                  Ireland: $4.1 billion (1.2%)

                  China: $3.4 billion (1%)

                  India: $3 billion (0.9%)

                  Netherlands: $2.6 billion (0.8%)

                  Israel: $2.4 billion (0.7%)

                  The listed 15 countries shipped 93.1% of global aerospace exports in 2016 by value.

                  From a continental perspective, North America accounted for the highest dollar value worth of aerospace exports during 2016 with shipments amounting to $145.5 billion (44.3% of global total). In second place were European Union exporters at 43.3%

                  http://www.worldstopexports.com/aerospace-exports-by-country/

              3. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: nowhere else to go and buy defence aircraft rather than Boeing

                We do make Airbus wings on Deeside. And jet engines at Derby. Theres probably quite alot of other stuff we do as well.

                Oh there is. My original post might suggest otherwise, but I don't believe we've lost this country's engineering talent, and you're right to point up the expertise in wings, engines. I suspect that for all the brickbats, BAES are very good on airframes and manufacturing, Augusta Westland have world class skills in helicopter design, MBDA have cutting edge experience in missile design down at Filton, and so on. My moan was that as a nation we've lost a lot of control over how those skills can be used, the control exercised by MoD produces persistently wrong outcomes, and as a result we've apparently lost the capability to build a high quality indigenous aircraft. If a country the size of Sweden (about the same population as Greater London and suburbs) can knock out the hugely impressive Gripen on their own, then we could certainly make out own. The persistent, long term and enduring failure of MoD and government to sort out UK made strike aircraft, heavy transport helicopters, and carrier aircraft is unforgivable - we should find those responsible for the decisions, and publicly hang them on the Embankment, so that MPs and MoD employees can see the corpses dangling in the wind (maybe send a few to be hanged outside the front door of MoD Procurement at Abbey Wood in Bristol as well).

                And one other thought, in the light of the Chinook bungling by MoD in the last decade. Back in 1952, the UK actually had an indigenous tandem rotor helicopter, the Bristol Belvedere, developed largely as a commercial venture. As ever, a few military sales but the cancellations of orders, and no visionary interest from the MoD. Had that been supported, then future developments would have meant that there wasn't only once choice for heavy lift helicopters.

          2. hammarbtyp

            Re: nowhere else to go and buy defence aircraft rather than Boeing

            Airbus don't know what they're doing. The A400M has been a financial disaster, is barely ready for military use, with Airbus asking to be let off the penalty clauses in the contracts it signed. In the words of John Gilbert in the House of Lords ""The A400M is a complete, absolute wanking disaster, and we should be ashamed of ourselves. I have never seen such a waste of public funds in the defence field since I have been involved in it these past 40 years."

            I can only assume that he was suffering long term memory loss at the time since i myself can remember(and in fact worked on some of these) Nimrod AEW, Nimrod MRA4, Tornado ADV, to name but 3.

            At least the A400M will be operational, available and provide much needed air lift capabilities. unlike the Nimrod which only resulted in providing museums with exhibits

            If we want to talk success and failures may I point you to the Airbus A330 multi role tanker which has been a fantastic successful program, especially compared to the Boeing KC-46 Pegasus equivalent whose development has been no where near as smooth

          3. Jon B

            Re: nowhere else to go and buy defence aircraft rather than Boeing

            Was that a dare to be the first person to get that word into Hansards?

            "The A400M is a complete, absolute wanking disaster, "

    2. Alister
      Pint

      Re: A curious note, thinking of the C17

      Here, have another one...

      1. JamesPond
        Pint

        Re: A curious note, thinking of the C17

        And another one.

        BAe do build small jets in partnership and EADS has the A400M. Given that BAe took over nearly all of the British aircraft factories and design/development resources, there is a severe lack of capability now. BAe only seems to care about long term service contracts, not developing new aircraft to RAF specifications.

        1. lglethal Silver badge
          Pint

          Re: A curious note, thinking of the C17

          Whilst I can agree with you in principle - did you really have to use The Short Brothers as your example? TSB stood for Those Shitty Bastards for more years than I can remember. If it was possible to fuck something up on an aircraft you could count on them to find the way to do it...

    3. Laura Kerr

      Re: A curious note, thinking of the C17

      And another. Well said, that man.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: A curious note, thinking of the C17

      Of course, the British aerospace industry failing to come up with any good selling aircraft to foreign markets after Canberra, Hunter, Hawk, and Provost/Strikemaster might be part of it.

    5. John Smith 19 Gold badge
      Unhappy

      tosspot clowns of the British government look round,..got nowhere else to go..rather than Boeing,

      To the contrary.

      It was the MoD (and it's predecessors) blind faith that the UK needed a "National Champion" that allowed (and in some cases forced) the wholesale merging of the UK military aircraft industry.*

      Behold the magnificence that is BAe Systems!

      And let us not forget the 23000 men and women of MoD Procurement.

      The f**king delusional bu***hit heroic vision of the 1957 Defense Review under the Conservative Defense Minister Duncan Sandys (no aircraft, all missile) also helped put the UK military aircraft industry in the place it is today.

      1. DanceMan

        Re: tosspot clowns

        "The f**king delusional bu***hit heroic vision of the 1957 Defense Review under the Conservative Defense Minister Duncan Sandys (no aircraft, all missile) also helped put the UK military aircraft industry in the place it is today."

        Similar occurrence in Canada. The US conned a gullible Diefenbaker into scrapping the Avro Arrow and buying Bomarc missiles, which a subsequent gov't refused to arm with nukes. American aerospace companies set up hiring halls in nearby motels after the cancellation and many Canadians ended up in the US space program and aircraft industries. The Arrow may not have been perfect but it had many new developments that could have led to better subsequent fighters. Instead we bought crap Voodoos.

        Now Boeing wants to screw us again.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: @ John Smith 19

        To the contrary. It was the MoD (and it's predecessors) blind faith that the UK needed a "National Champion" that allowed (and in some cases forced) the wholesale merging of the UK military aircraft industry.

        You're correct, but I don't think that is contrary to my point, I think it is all part of the same thing. It is the UK bunglement that encouraged the formation of BAES (with much of its roots in Labour's idiotic nationalisation programmes of the past), the same government that has specified that it actually WANTS aircraft to be international collaborations, and has got itself to a point that it now believes its purpose is to micro-massage the specifications of what it does buy to the point that the resulting product is (a) too expensive for export, (b) takes twice as long to become available for export, and (c) doesn't actually do what people want. Bunglement also have contributed hugely to the consolidation of the industry by their incompetent boom and bust procurement, utterly naieve about the need to keep a sustainable industry (in aircraft, missiles, helicopters, ships or army equipment, too). What they should have been doing (since forever) is phasing specification, design and build programmes across training, close support strike, stand off strike, air defence, transport, tanker, AEW & surveillance requirements.

        Look at a continuing, if ageing British success story the Hawk. Started off in 1968 as a commercial venture by Hawker Siddeley (because they saw that the MoD's preferred option of the international collaborative Jaguar had turned out too big, too complicated and far too expensive) . Designed by blokes using pencils, paper and slide rules, they came up with a brilliant little jet with stonking performance that's been licensed to both the Yanks and to India, and many hundreds have been built, and in service with around 20 countries round the globe. The critical success factors (above pure engineering talent) were that although intended to meet a UK military need, it was built as a commercial project, it didn't have the albatross of the MoD round its neck, micro-managing every aspect and regularly changing the specification, and it was the creation of a single design team in a single country.

      3. Stoneshop
        Boffin

        Re: tosspot clowns of the British government look round,..got nowhere else to go..

        The f**king delusional bu***hit heroic vision of the 1957 Defense Review under the Conservative Defense Minister Duncan Sandys

        A name I recognise from R.V.Jones' "Most Secret War", in which he is portrayed not very positively.

    6. CrazyOldCatMan Silver badge

      Re: A curious note, thinking of the C17

      they might care to note that it is ALL THEIR FAULT for years of dithering, poor decisions

      No, no - you have it all wrong. Any mistakes in the past are quite clearly 'the fault of the previous government' and nothing whatsoever to do with the current incumbents.

      Even if they were part of the previous administration.

      Politics. Where teflon would be seen as an unacceptably high friction substance and memories are often conveniently short.

    7. SkippyBing

      Re: A curious note, thinking of the C17

      'Funny to think British engineers developed brilliant machines like the Vulcan, Victor, Canberra, Bucaneer, TSR-2, Harrier, Hawk, Belfast, Nimrod, the Lynx'

      I'm not sure I've ever seen the Belfast included on a list of brilliant machines before. It was so slow on one proving flight the pilot messaged to the effect that 'there are no signs of scurvy yet.' when proceeding across the Indian Ocean.

      The TSR-2 was brilliant on paper, there were a lot of issues still to be overcome when it was scrapped.

  8. Korev Silver badge
    Coat

    Silly idea

    The tariff sounds like a plane stupid idea.

    Yes, yes. I'm Boeing, I'll get my coat

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Silly idea

      I'm not sure how it got off the ground.

  9. Len

    Cseries not really competing with 737

    As far as I know the Bombardier CSeries is not really competing with the 737 as the smallest 737 is much bigger than the biggest CSeries. If anything the CSeries is competing for the slot that is currently taken by older AVRO and Fokker aircraft and by contemporary Embraer models.

    This is relevant because it makes Boeing's complaint more interesting as their concern doesn't seem to be about direct competition for their own aircraft but rather as if they don't like a company to grow to a stage where they may become a competitor.

    1. rh587

      Re: Cseries not really competing with 737

      As far as I know the Bombardier CSeries is not really competing with the 737 as the smallest 737 is much bigger than the biggest CSeries. If anything the CSeries is competing for the slot that is currently taken by older AVRO and Fokker aircraft and by contemporary Embraer models.

      Some and some. The CS300 is rated for 130-160pax depending on configuration (1 or 2 classes). This compares very evenly with the 737 MAX-7 (130-172pax) or the older 737-700/800. 6000km range is -ishly comparable also.

      The CS100 overlaps with the Embraer E-2s, but most Embraers are smaller (<100pax) and not really comparable.

      As you say, Bombardier are a small player but unlike Embraer (who have been content to mostly play with smaller regional/domestic-service models), Bombardier have come straight in with a larger product which is no doubt why Boeing are taking more of an interest of whether they're going to get ideas of developing stretched variants or larger models running up to 230pax which would tread significantly on their toes.

    2. thames

      Re: Cseries not really competing with 737

      Boeing have come right out and told the press in Canada that it's not really about Bombardier's current planes. Boeing didn't even bid on the Delta contract they're complaining about, because all their planes were too large. This by the way is a major reason why a number of trade experts expect the Boeing complaint to get tossed out later in the process (they've yet to prove "harm").

      The actual issue is Airbus, and Boeing executives are still arguing over whose "fault" it was for not killing Airbus before they became a serious competitor. They're now trying to kill off Bombardier now rather than waiting for them to design planes which do compete directly with Boeing.

      What they're apparently really looking for is a carve up of the global market, with other companies agreeing to Boeing getting 50% of the global market for large jets. They see Embraer and the Chinese companies also growing, and they want to limit them as well.

      Bombardier has close partnerships with the Chinese aircraft industry, and these latest events are expected to push them closer together. A big sale of CSeries jets in China is expected shortly, the announcement possibly to be timed to coincide with the Canadian PM's visit to China later this year.

      As for the whole premise behind the Reg story itself, someone's had a few too many beers with Boeing's PR reps. Nobody has suggested that either the UK or Canada are going to scrap their existing Boeing kit overnight and replace it with stuff bought elsewhere. Instead Boeing's salesmen are going to find that the DND and MoD aren't going to be in a rush to return their phone calls about new sales.

      Canada is in the process of replacing and expanding their fleet of jet fighters, and have told Boeing that if they don't back down they can forget about being allowed to bid (many considered them to be a shoe in until this cropped up). May has stuck her oar into the situation to make sure that the UK's interests are preserved if Canada and Boeing come to some sort of understanding as a result of this. Now that she's involved and offered her support, Canada will have to consult with her before doing anything that jeopardises jobs in the UK.

  10. Dan 55 Silver badge

    Another empty threat

    Brexit: All UK ports should be a building sites by now.

    Boeing: The government couldn't give up even if it wanted to.

    Not working out too well...

  11. JamesPond
    Black Helicopters

    Typical Boeing

    Typical Boeing, whenever they lose a big contract, they complain, as per the USAF tanker refueling KC-X program - Airbus with Northrop Grumann won, Boeing protested and then won the resulting contract! Same with the F22, it's generally agreed that the F23 was the better aircraft in every aspect except for extreme low speed maneuverability. But again Boeing was part of the F22 so guess which aircraft won!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Typical Boeing

      You are aware the US defence budget is just social security by another name?

      In other words US defence companies are to too big to fail.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I don't think anyone was seriously suggesting we could end our relationship with BOEING.

    I understood it to mean that BOEING might lose out on future procurement.

    1. Rich 11

      What future procurement? We can barely pay for the gear we have under contract at the moment.

  13. Lars Silver badge
    Coat

    Canada-headquartered Bombardier

    Rather call it a Canadian family company as the family still controls 60% of the company. A problem for the Canadian government when giving them state subsidies. May may huff and puff (and should) but it's a case between a US and a Canadian company and should be dealt with accordingly. The 220% is of course ridiculous. The company has an interesting history with ski-doo and what not.

    1. Gis Bun

      Re: Canada-headquartered Bombardier

      You think Boeing isn't getting subsidies from the US?

      First manufacturer Twitler visited after his "win" was to Boeing.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Canada-headquartered Bombardier

        Yep, that was his visit to a 787 plant in South Carolina where he burbled on and on about 'Jerbs!' This June Boeing laid off 200 workers from the plant.

        Boeing had previously slurped up more than $1 billion in 'incentives' from South Carolina. Of which more than $300 million was in the form of direct tax breaks.

    2. Doctor Evil

      Re: Canada-headquartered Bombardier

      "The 220% is of course ridiculous."

      Boeing actually suggested "only" 80% duty in their original complaint filing. The U.S. Department of Commerce itself inflated that to 220%.

      It would be interesting to know what calculus the DoC used to arrive at this because, according to Bombardier, "more than half of the [CSeries] jet's components are made by U.S.-based companies, and the jet's manufacturing supports more than 22,000 jobs across 17 U.S. states". Someone's foot has a nice red laser dot on it.

  14. John 98

    Shame about Brexit

    Otherwise we could threaten to make life tough all across Europe for Boeing. As it is, the only thing we have to slap their wrist with is an imaginary wet lettuce

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Devil

    IRE-land

    Geddit?! IRE Land! BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

    Oh, just SHUT it, Bono...just SHUT IT.

    Oh, Look Apple just paid another .0000001% in Taxes to the US and EU.

    How's that again?

    In Hell, all the Accountants are Canadian.

    1. Rich 11

      Re: IRE-land

      I think you may have posted to the wrong article. That or you are a geographically-challenged illiterate.

      1. CrazyOldCatMan Silver badge

        Re: IRE-land

        That or you are a geographically-challenged illiterate.

        You missed option 3: a moron.

  16. Zog_but_not_the_first
    Trollface

    What's in a word?

    When Trump told May she was at the front of the "queue" for trade deals, she probably though he meant queue. This looks more like cue - chalked, up and ready to go, so bend over.

  17. Gis Bun

    You can probably kiss a good chunk of the 4000 jobs in Ireland gone.

    What Twitler and company don't understand is that there are another 6000 jobs in the US that depend on the C Series.

    Experts say Boeing has nothing as good as the C Series in it's class.

    Finally, Boeing is reminding me of Twitler. If he can't get his way he makes changes to the rules [like dropping the senate approval to 50 votes from 60].

    Other governments as well as airlines also object to this phoney tariff.

    1. CrazyOldCatMan Silver badge

      You can probably kiss a good chunk of the 4000 jobs in Ireland gone.

      And the collapse of the Conservative-DUP pact.

      Which will make the whole Brixit thingy even more 'interesting'..

  18. JC_

    Good luck to Bombardier!

    No surprise that Boeing is fighting dirty - the 737 is out of date compared to the existing A320 family, and for passengers the 737 Max won't particularly improve the situation.

    The piddly 737 cabin width means that (in economy) seat width is only 17 inches, compared to 18 1/2 in the A320s and C-Series. Windows are small and low, overhead compartments cramped and the plane is noisier than the competition. The 737 fuselage won't be getting any wider, just longer.

    1. Korev Silver badge

      Re: Good luck to Bombardier!

      Since when have airlines cared about passenger comfort? They're probably more interested in running costs.

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    All part of the NWO plan: order from chaos

    You'd have to be outstandingly noncompetitive to need a 220% tariff over a competitor from a nation with a similar level of economic development. A few % tariff to level the field is understandable, but not 220%. Is there a historic precedent for this level of tariff between (previously) friendly nations? If there is, I'm sure it was countered with reverse tariffs.

    It almost looks like Trump is a puppet of globalists who are instructing him to really foul things up so they can usher in their one world government system in reaction to his planned failures.

  20. Fruit and Nutcase Silver badge
    Black Helicopters

    Outwitting the MoD

    "that the dastardly American firm had outwitted the MoD’s contract negotiators. Of course, no such thing had happened."

    No, outwitting the MoD's contract negotiators is one where our own can show the Americans a ship or two

  21. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Northern Ireland jobs or US hardware.

    DUP support or "Coalition of chaos".

    Free trade agreement with the US.

    You can almost hear their heads exploding.

    LOL.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Northern Ireland jobs or US hardware.

      Has anyone spotted Liam Fox or Jacob Rees Mogg to find out their 'thoughts' on this latest demonstration of the oh-so-special relationship?

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "...Boeing only has to threaten to raise prices to quieten British objections..."

    Or it could just raise them anyway regardless. No one's going to stop them.

  23. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    UK dependence on monopoly military suppliers

    The only question is whether the UK should join the Non Aligned Movement pre or post brexit? Then they could buy their "defence" equipment from anywhere.

    And with the UK's love of democracy, being in the same club as two thirds of the UN countries has got to be good ;)

  24. hammarbtyp

    On 2 February 2017, Boeing stated it would bid the KC-46A for the Royal Canadian Air Force's Strategic Tanker Transport Capability competition, a project to replace Canada's fleet of CC-150 Polaris tanker aircraft. The contract is valued at C$1.5+ billion.[97]

    -Wikipaedia

    Hey, Boeing, good luck with that......

  25. EnviableOne

    Something NAF TA

    I thought US and Canada were in NAFTA

    The North American Free Trade Agreement

    does this not violate the agreement?

    plus HMG killed the whole aerospace industry by changing the goalposts constantly on every project eventually bancrupting the smaller plaers that them got swallowed by BAe Systems.

  26. Tom Paine

    The thing about NI politics....

    ...you don't tend to get huge swings against unpopular parties. Voting patterns are still horribly tribal and sectarian. The DUP wouldn't lose those seats if Boeing sent a Dreamliner to circle Belfast trailing a banner saying "Up yours, Ulster!" So the posturing is even /more/ meaningless than the piece suggests.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like