I keep seeing arguments that Boeing made a mistake in pushing on the tariffs, or that this deal with Airbus is bad for Boeing.
They're wrong. In Boeing's ideal world, they're the only airplane manufacturer in the world. The next best thing, is to only have Airbus as competition. Boeing's interests are served tremendously by keeping the global market as consolidated as possible down to just Boeing and Airbus. They have one main target to focus on when it comes to competition and politics. Airbus eating Bombardier is the next best thing to Bombardier going out of business. Simply put, Boeing would rather Airbus own / control Bombardier, than have Bombardier exist as a successful independent airplane manufacturer.
I get your argument; but one of Boeing's objectives has been to try and keep Airbus out of the US (both defense and commercial). This deal with Delta will showcase, within the US, the CSeries. That could result in other US airlines following suit (particularly smaller regional airlines). Airbus is already fairly successful within the US with regional aircraft sales, this will only further cement that.
Plus keep an eye on China's Comac. They're only ten years old (2008) but due to massive state investment are becoming pretty competitive, they may be eating both Boeing and Airbus's lunch by 2030 if this level of investment continues.
I agree, China will eventually split the global airplane market into a three way race with Boeing and Airbus. I don't think anything can stop that. No doubt Boeing and Airbus know that. As soon as it's possible, use case by use case, China's airlines will switch their purchases to mostly domestic produced airplanes (they won't have a choice for the most part, government edict will dictate that).
You do realize that the Snowden papers show that Boeing did exactly the same corporate espionage, aided by the NSA steaking data from Airbus and directly giving it to Boeing?
The US is just as problematic as China in these things, and has the same levels of subsidies for industries deemed important to national security.
> The US is just as problematic as China in these things, and has the same levels of subsidies for industries deemed important to national security.
Let's talk about government subsidies:
(July 2015)
"China's Global 500 companies are bigger than ever—and mostly state-owned"
"the top 12 Chinese companies are all state-owned. They include massive banks and oil companies that the central government controls through the State-Owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the ruling State Council (SASAC), which appoints CEOs and makes decisions on large investments. Of the 98 Chinese companies on the list, only 22 are private."
Using one example to proclaim that the US is committing as much intellectual theft as China, is comical. The US has dramatically more to lose than China does, given its general technological superiority (whether at the university lab level or the corporate R&D level).
The second point is even more absurd, and very easily demonstrated to be false (as I did above). Most of China's largest corporations are State controlled entities. Most of their largest industries, such as steel, are directly controlled by the government. A very large share of the Chinese economy is operated by fully nationalized, or partially nationalized fake corporate entities. So called State corporations.
I posted this in an earlier thread on the topic, but I'll rehash it here.
Having Airbus buy this line from Bombardier is actually very good for Boeing. For a long time, one of the major selling points of Airbus twins has been cockpit commonality. They're so close that your pilots can maintain type ratings on several different airframes. That gives airlines labor flexibility.
Boeing hasn't had that option. The closest they came was with the 757/767 -- those airframes had the same 41 section.
Now that Airbus is going to be selling an aircraft that won't have the same cockpit as the A319/320, Boeing will have a better opening to sell their 737. The airlines are going to need to pay for training on multiple airframes, so why not consider Boeing as well.
They're wrong. In Boeing's ideal world, they're the only airplane manufacturer in the world. The next best thing, is to only have Airbus as competition. Boeing's interests are served tremendously by keeping the global market as consolidated as possible down to just Boeing and Airbus. They have one main target to focus on when it comes to competition and politics. Airbus eating Bombardier is the next best thing to Bombardier going out of business. Simply put, Boeing would rather Airbus own / control Bombardier, than have Bombardier exist as a successful independent airplane manufacturer.