Bombardier at the Trough

[Wetcoast40]

On March 15th, Bombardier announced it intended to develop an new 110 - 150 seat Passenger Jet if orders could be obtained. Naturally, Bombardier expect to be financed by Ottawa in order to put them on an equal footing with Embraer (Brasil), AirBus (GB/FR/GR) and Boeing (Pentagon). Another black hole for taxpayer money in Quebec. The very thing we need. This should make the Sponsorship scandal look like chump change.
Today's poll in the Globe and Mull indicates that their on line readership is opposed to supporting this ridiculous venture by a 3 to 1 count. That won't stop our Liberal buddies from trying to bribe Quebec voters with our money. And, just watch the line-up of other parties all set to shovel cash on them.
:idea:

 

[no1important]

RE: Bombardier at the Tro

Bombardier have been professional welfare bums for as long as I can remember.

 

[Wetcoast40]

Only because we let them. This country doesn't have enough money to support a major league aircraft manufacturer. If there's any doubt, just guess how much subsidy Brasil pours into Embraer. It's in the billions! We would be better off to lobby Airbus to become a fabricator/supplier they way we did with Boeing and in its day, Douglas. Any downturn in the world demand for small commercial passenger jets willl put Bombardier in serious financial difficulty.

 

[mrmom2]

Bombardier should stick to what they do best making one of the worlds best snowmobiles

 

[Wetcoast40]

I wouldn't bet on them being in the Snowmobile business for very long. Too much competition and no Government grants.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Bombardier at the Tro

If you want an aerospace industry in Canada, then you are going to have to accept Bombardier getting government money.

If all those people were layed off the same people who are on here complaining about Bombardier would be complaining that Quebecois were lazy bums, just like those guys on the East Coast are.

You can't have it both ways.

 

[Wetcoast40]

And your point is?

 

[no1important]

RE: Bombardier at the Tro

I also know they got lots of money to build a maintenance yard for the Skytrain out here. If that skytrain technology was so good why is Vancouver the only place that uses it?

 

[mrmom2]

Westcoast the old family bought back the snowmobile division .They will be around for quite awhile .There snowmobiles are probably the only profitable business left

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Bombardier at the Tro

My point is that you have to make up your minds. Either we keep pouring money into Bombardier or we let them fold and face the consequences. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but if you are unwilling to accept the consequences (and most on the political right have a history of such unwillingness) then you should be quiet.

Better yet, you could offer up reasonable alternatives, like joining forces with Brazil (just an example...I haven't looked into the feasibility of it) so that both Canada and Brazil benefit.

 

[Wetcoast40]

No 1. I am sure that the London Docklands extension to the London Underground (Tower of London to Greenwich) is Bombardier and is the only truly wretched part of the whole system. The Skytrain system isn't so bad but the cost of building and running it is ridiculous. I'm also of a mind that it is in use in Washington, D.C., but that's only a guess. A delightful bit of irony, don't you think?

 

[Wetcoast40]

Rev, I wouldn't suggest no support, but I am mindful that in the case of Bombardier, we get no accounting of how much or how it is used. Hence, my reference to "black hole". I suggest a look at the Ottawa Citizen/Vancouver Sun editorial re this published today in the Sun. I would provide a link, but my skills are limited in that area.

 

[Wetcoast40]

Mr. Mom:
I understand that the recreational division is having a difficult time in the competitive market. Lots of competition from Japan. I hope a return to the original roots of the company is a solution. I am old enough to have ridden in one of their original snowmobiles -- a plywood sided half-track with a straight six Chrysler engine. Round portholes in the side and no insulation. I was in Norman Wells, N.W.T. in the late '50's and it was being used by Imperial Oil during the winter months. In short, I'd like to see them succeed since they invented the concept.

 

[mrmom2]

Isn't Bombardier being sued for the train system they put in New york.?

 

[Wetcoast40]

Mr. Mom:
They are being sued by Amtrak regarding the performance of their "High Speed Rail System" which is neither high speed nor efficient. In this case, Bombardier claim that the condition of the rail, roadbed and other physical obstacles prevent them from meeting the performance objectives. You would have thought they would have addressed those problems before they took the contract.
On the other hand, Amtrack, like Via Rail, is Government Subsidized passenger rail company with typically bloated overhead and little common sense in their operation. They are just following the typical American dictum: When in doubt, Sue!

 

[Reverend Blair]

Rev, I wouldn't suggest no support, but I am mindful that in the case of Bombardier, we get no accounting of how much or how it is used.

It's funny...the auditor general was in town yesterday and she said that we had swung to far the other way when it came to accountability, that it had become a witch hunt that was paralyzing some government departments. She's the one who got the whole advertising scandal going because she said there wasn't enough accountability.

 

[mrmom2]

I think we all need numbered companys with goverment contracts if thats how she feels .

 

[jackd]

Some earlier posters forgot that very recently, both the Federal and the Ontario Government jointly 'supported' GM Canada in Ontario to the tune of $435Millions to create a mere 250 jobs.
Last time I look, GM Canada declared a profit of $ 2.4Billions.

Bombardier is much more involved in high-tech R&D than GM is, hires on average much more qualified employees than GM does, exports almost 100% of its production outside the country, helping the Canadian balance of payment to the benefit of all. The proposed investment in Bombardier will create 5,000 much higher paying jobs (not 250).
Could it be that when some of the poster see the word "Quebec", it automatically equates to a questionable investment.

[/b]

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Bombardier at the Tro

A couple of points though, Jack. GM kicked in the lion's share of the money (a couple billion, wasn't it). The Ontario government just put in a little in comparison. There is also the sub-text of GM packing up and moving if they don't get what they want. Add in that the R&D money is for environmetally friendlier cars so that it contributes to meeting Kyoto, and $435 million starts looking like a much more reasonable investment.

Again, not taking sides here. I am tired of innaccurate sound-bites becoming accepted fact though.

 

[jackd]

Blair: I never said the governm. investment in GM was unreasonnable.

There is also the sub-text of GM packing up and moving if they don't get what they want.

Same for Bombardier: Bombardier were seriously looking at having the new jet built in New Mexico or Blefast in account of what the local governments were offering them.
Canada had to remain competitive to keep the business in house.