Diese Website verwendet Cookies. Mit der Weiternutzung der Website drücken Sie Ihr Einverständnis mit dem Einsatz von Cookies aus.
Schließen
Wussten Sie schon, dass die Flugverfolgung auf FlightAware durch Werbung finanziert wird?
Sie können uns dabei helfen, FlightAware weiterhin kostenlos anzubieten, indem Sie Werbung auf FlightAware.com zulassen. Wir engagieren uns dafür, dass unsere Werbung auch in Zukunft zweckmäßig und unaufdringlich ist und Sie beim Surfen nicht stört. Das Erstellen einer Positivliste für Anzeigen auf FlightAware geht schnell und unkompliziert. Alternativ können Sie sich auch für eines unserer Premium-Benutzerkonten entscheiden..
Schließen
Back to Squawk list

Canada doesn't buy Fighter Aircraft from Boeing

Übermittelt
 
This is not an airliner news and normally shouldn't be mentioned here on "Airliner Watch". But it is strictly related to the airliner wars between Boeing and Bombardier, and makes the headline. (airlinerwatch.com) Mehr...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


ronstewart
Steve Cochrane 1
Air Canada is buying the new 737 max? go figure
canuck44
canuck44 4
Contracts have been signed well before this dispute arose. Air Canada and WestJet are both private corporations with Boeing orders so it would be difficult at this point for the government to interfere at this point without violating a number of agreements. If NAFTA disappears, all bets are off the table.
Jeraboam
Jeraboam 4
I believe that the contract between Delta and Bombardier was also signed before Boeing convinced the US government to slap the 300% tax on the C series. It seems appropriate for Bombardier to demand that the Canadian government slap a similar tax on all US government subsidized Boeing aircraft involved in the sale to Air Canada and Westjet. Apparently huge subsidies to Boeing for its development of military aircraft supports its commercial aircraft development too. It is also one of biggest beneficiaries of state tax exemptions/subsidies in the entire USA.
dardav
dardav 1
Uhmmm its still a Boeing!!
canuck44
canuck44 6
True, but does not create any revenue for Boeing and will dry up the spare parts business for Boeing as some of them are to be hanger queens to maintain the existing CF-18 inventory.

When they come up with an RFP next year for the actual replacement, the contents will tell us all how serious the government in shutting out Boeing from the next series of contracts.
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 5
Actually it is the other way around...some of the CF-18's will become "hangar queens" as you call them..lol
What I do find funny and at the same time shameful of Boeing "Our commitment to creating an equal market for everyone in the aerospace field remains. We will continue to support efforts to build an environment of fair and free competition that respects the established rules,"..of all the hypocritical things to say...they got govt subsidies up the wazoo which dont have to be paid back...and dumped aircraft to United to, more than likely, put a bitter taste in United's mouth about Bombardier prices for the C Series..neither Boeing nor the Dept of Commerce have any final pricing on the Delta deal yet.."300% duty"...and the Boeing a''es still push the subject.
canuck44
canuck44 6
Certainly that is their "Emperor has no clothes" statement. I would have commented on it but it nauseated me too much. I doubt it was intended for anyone with knowledge of the market but for the low information politician.
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 5
Looks like I shouldn't have commented on it either..lol..the unfortunate part about it is, a number who do have knowledge of the market are still rooting for Boeing.
clbea
Claude B. 1
The CF-18 are only temporary. The big order in military jets will be. ---- 88 --- jets.
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 1
You mean the F/A-18's..the 18 from Australia will boost the number of aircraft as of right now...however some of the CF-18's are on wobbly legs and will become, as canuck44 put it, hangar queens (spare part donors)
herdy34
Jon Herd 1
A Boeing that was built in Australia.

:)
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 0
The words “free and fair” only have real meaning in Utopia.
Ramer
Ramer -2
You misspellled Canada, and the world is not fair in case you haven't followed the American political media. The USA stole the Canadian Aerospace industry from Diefenbaker; paybacks are hell.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 -1
You want a redo of your post?
Also, you are correct in that C A N A D A needs a better medical service. That’s why wealthy Canadian’s come to the US. Socialized is great for a snotty nose. Not so good for the serious sh—!
Ramer
Ramer 0
The Affordable Care Act. Neither Affordable nor does it provide any Care without a unbearable deductible.
If you do real, not politicized, research you will find that Canada provides some of the finest healthcare in the world. If the super rich can afford to jump the line by paying through the nose for a US doctor, why not let them? Saves the system money and helps the American economy.
canuck44
canuck44 0
As someone who has practiced in both countries, you both have a degree of veracity. Canada does provide a lot of primary care...in the major cities. Once you need specialty care life becomes more difficult as they control costs by rationing access to sophisticated elective care creating waiting lists which are cost effective if, as Ramer suggests they jump the system and come to the USA where access is essentially instant. Even to get an MRI in Canada often requires approval from a Neurologist after a six month wait to get in and another three for the study. In Toronto the Veterinarians were using the CT scanner at night to help pay the bills.
If you die or undergo miraculous divine cure while waiting or if you abandon hope, the system saves money.
The other problem is the lack of subspecialists who like myself bail out to the USA, not for the money as they are almost the same, but for the ability to care for our patients in quality facilities in a timely fashion. A lot of good people remain but many are in very short supply. One of my old Army buddies was essentially killed by the province of Nova Scotia when his hematologist retired and none were available to look after his leukemia. Had he come down here, I could have had him seen and treatment started in 24 hours. This rationing is particularly felt by surgeons who cannot get more than an hour or two of OR. When I bailed a colleague who is a head and neck surgeon left with me; he had a two year waiting list.
Ramer
Ramer 2
It is not all that simple. Canadian health care is Provincial so you have ten different systems and ANYONEs experience with one is UNIQUE. Every Province has its budget and its own problems. Trying to paint one problem as a poster child for TEN systems is insane. I have personal experience with Ontario, Alberta and BC all of. which have delivered excellent health care NO, the systems are not perfect... we can't afford perfect. But we could take the money that would go to Boeing and fix problems that exist. You don't fix stupid with glib criticisms. You take WASTE money and add hospitals AS needed.
canuck44
canuck44 1
The same model is used in all the provincial systems under the Federal Provincial agreement. Initially the Feds were to cost share at 50-50 (like Medicaid in the USA) but he who holds the purse pulls the strings and at one point they were down to 16% leaving the provinces and territories to make up what they could which impacted their fee schedules and the universal funding for hospitals. Politically the Feds had to put in more money and "cutting waiting lists" became an issue requiring more money.
Each province has a different fee schedule and some have rural and urban fee schedules (like Medicare in the USA). They also have different rules for access often built around the provincial supply of needed providers. Had you required radiation oncology in BC a few years ago you were in trouble just like the hematology shortage in the Maritimes. Patients were sent to Washington state in order to avoid the pre-election criticism.
Ramer
Ramer 1
Taxpayers cannot afford expensive hospitals in every nook and cranny of the Province. Thus they are located in population centres. Victoria BC has TWO of the finest hospitals in Canada or the USA and those who REQUORE SERVICES NOW move to the front of the queue. Those who may need services within the next sixty days have to wait a bit. Triage is a pretty standard protocol in medicine. As I said, it is not perfect NOR CAN WE AFFORD PERFECT but we can AFFORD BETTER if we don't waste Taxpayer money on useless F-35 EGO-JETS. That money will buy more equipment that saves lives.
canuck44
canuck44 0
Hospitals in Canada are granted fixed budgets (global budgeting)as opposed to per diem rates. Some services are compensated within that budget as a bloc essentially allowing the province to control how much and how some expensive services are delivered...rationing by any other term.
Royal Jubilee and Victoria General are descent hospitals but are essentially equivalent to moderate sized community hospital systems in the USA (full disclosure: I trained some doctors in that system). You are correct on moving acutely ill patients to the front of the queue, but remember that pushes those on the waiting list further down often until they become acute while waiting with loss of productivity. This is very well described in the Simon Fraser report on health care access. In the USA for example Cardiac surgery for Acuity levels 1 & 2 are undertaken and patients like me go back to work in 10 days. Sitting on waiting lists deteriorating to level 3 & 4 prolongs disability and increases complications. When you ration care the 1 & 2 never get surgery until you become a 3 or 4. Here over 90% of cardiac patients are in a cath lab within 90 minutes and if necessary in the OR within hours.
Hospitals in Canada can and do deliver quality care often without the available capital and resources to move to the very top levels. Costs however are controlled by limiting the access and quantity a problem which will remain as long as government bureaucrats and politicians make the big decisions.
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 1
While I do agree with a great many of your posts, you are comparing apples to oranges...those patients may be in a cath lab or OR but what happens, after, when they have no insurance?
Remember too that Canada's population is more spread out and comes in at 1/10th total populious of the US. While I agree the Federal government should be investing more across the board, to help alleviate some of the burden on the provinces, and while I appreciate your contributions to the medical field, please don't go down trodding our hospitals to corporation hospitals of the US.
canuck44
canuck44 1
The no insurance thing is a myth for accessing acute care...anyone who shows up in an ER in the USA gets any needed care and many are enrolled in various government plans after their acute problem is managed. Even illegals get that care. Many will have bills afterwards and many are unable to pay so essentially it gets written off.
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 2
Sorry but I disagree with that final sentence..I have a few US friends who have no medical insurance and an ER visit 6 yrs ago ended up costing them a whole wack, which they couldnt afford..still paying to this day and have been issued many "if you don't pay, we shall sue" type letters...and myself, as a visitor, must carry extra insurance (above OHIP) or be hit with a wallop of a bill should I need ER help...been there, had that happen...no "written off" for me..and here...ANYONE gets ER care..yes the worst are placed to the front, but if I break a bone, Id rather a person who came in with a heart attack or stroke get placed in front of me (thou I would still be human and grumble)..at least I would know, I wont have to sell my truck to have to pay a staggering bill.
Yes Canada's health care system needs a wack of work and overhaul and yes, the governments (both provincial and federal) need more kicks in the backside to properly allocate funds.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 1
I knew you would chime in not only as the voice of knowledge on the subject but a voice of reason. Merry Christmas Doc.
canuck44
canuck44 0
Thanx and Merry Christmas to you. Quiet for me as I am on call.

People in the USA do not realize that the major aspect of health care costs is government underpayment (Medicare pays 62-75% of the actual cost while Medicaid somewhat less). Unlike Canada these underpayments are shifted to other consumers while that choice does not exist north of the border. I was Chairman of the Board of the health system here (seven hospitals) and in my last year we shifted $120 Million to other patients to compensate for underpayment by Medicare and Medicaid.
Ramer
Ramer 1
So, the truth comes out. Because you are underpaid or not paid for some health care, the people who carry insurance and DO PAY end up paying double or triple what they should pay. I have heard that before from a Scottsdale Head of Emergency. So, once again Government is the problem, not the solution.
canuck44
canuck44 0
Exactly. That underpayment was on a system with $1.2 billion in revenue that year and 1500 inpatient beds. Occupancy rates are >100% (over 60% Medicare)during season and 80% in off season. Other areas of the country do not have the high acuity Medicare we have so look somewhat better. With our elderly population we are the 7th busiest Joint replacement center in the USA and do 4 to 10 heart surgeries per day.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 0
I know one thing about the financial end of the medical field. Those that have the ability (a job) are expected to pay their bill. Those who have no means to pay are paid for by those who work. Any money paid by the government is money taken from those that work and pay taxes. It’s that simple.
The big problem other than money is that government gets involved with healthcare decisions and that is always a fail. IMHO.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 0
I offer no defense of the ACA. It is a lame attempt to combine insurance with medical welfare and has been a disaster for everyone that pays for it. I retreat to my original remark that free and fair don’t really exist.
As far as Canada’s airplane purchases go —— good luck.
angelocalleja
Angelo Calleja 0
Yeh Canada byes aircraft from Australia now!!!!!
clbea
Claude B. 1
... buy...
RedentorP
Redentor Pineda 1
Second hand rather.
AllanRostic
Allan Rostic -1
Boeing is right. Canadian taxpayers have involuntarily poured billions of dollars into A decrepit broke company to support their failing efforts to compete. The Embraier jet complaint was justied too.
Bombardiers CS series commercial jets would not have proceeded with taxpayer subsidies, forgiveable loans, and handouts. Boeing is right to challenge this.
So the utopia socialist Liberal won't buy new Boeing jets....so what. Canada should have bought F16's at the outset...
Ramer
Ramer 0
The USA provides Canada's defence for free. We don't need a cluster of leading edge junk to maintain till we need more expensive junk. We don't need EGO-JETS. Let's spend our money wisely on improved medical services for Canadians who NEED help. Used junk with a paint job is just fine.

Anmelden

Haben Sie kein Konto? Jetzt (kostenlos) registrieren für kundenspezifische Funktionen, Flugbenachrichtigungen und vieles mehr!