Part of the reason is their liquidity concerns. When you buy a plane you place a 5-10% deposit. Since BBD is sold out for the first 4 years, that is a long time to risk your deposit on a company bleeding cash no? Its like a run on the bank. They have sold 243 and have options for another 400 or so. That is a lot of planes. There is a LOT of interest. But when a plane is new there is risk, so why rush until you see it operate.
Hey brother can you spare a $billion to bailout Bombardier?
- Thread starter rafterman
- Start date
Most of the issues are allegedly with Mexican parts. Toronto wanted cheap so you have to source from cheaper manufacturing centers. So the TTC is not blameless. The ones that are delivered are apparently excellent.
"Obviously not all the delays in this project have been caused by Bombardier and we will discuss this with our customer in due time," he said.
considering what we know about the TTC, do you really think its 100% BBDs fault?
Slightly off topic but has anyone else noticed that non-Canadians do not know how to pronounce "Bombardier"? They say bomb-ba-dear. Bugs the hell out of me whenever I hear it.
Don't give them a damn fucking penny, as far as I am concerned.
Then again, we live in a new era. Maybe nationalize the damn thing. Sell planes to the expanded Island Billy B. Airport. That could work.
Corporate Headquarters in the big T.O., that is non-negotiable.
Expropriate it!!!
Right now!!!
:eyebrows:
Then again, we live in a new era. Maybe nationalize the damn thing. Sell planes to the expanded Island Billy B. Airport. That could work.
Corporate Headquarters in the big T.O., that is non-negotiable.
Expropriate it!!!
Right now!!!
:eyebrows:
Have been thinking about this, and after talking to my friend Mr.Lattlbats, lets look at this another way.
Granny, not saying which one, has some shares of Hydro she wants to trade.
Is trading shares of Hydro in exchange for shares of Bomberieers, a good trade?
Mr.Lattbatts thinks so.
Mr.Labbatts is what Harper called old stock Canadians, you know the type, built the country then ask for handout. Naturally he would suggest this course of action.
Not sure which way I am leaning, maybe Mr. Lattablats will talk me into it.
:hippie:
Granny, not saying which one, has some shares of Hydro she wants to trade.
Is trading shares of Hydro in exchange for shares of Bomberieers, a good trade?
Mr.Lattbatts thinks so.
Mr.Labbatts is what Harper called old stock Canadians, you know the type, built the country then ask for handout. Naturally he would suggest this course of action.
Not sure which way I am leaning, maybe Mr. Lattablats will talk me into it.
:hippie:
Oh good God! Gem? its 10 year return is negative. Not my idea of a gem.
Supporting the aerospace industry is and always has been a total waste of funds. There's something about aerospace and the french - in France they can't resist it either. And airlines are just as bad.
The problem with all these people suggesting helping this industry, helping that industry, is that their is no understanding of the concept of double entry bookkeeping!
I mean, if helping companies is so great, why not do more? Twice as much, 100 times as much, after all there's no cost right?
When you prop up uneconomic industries you put a drain on the public purse that could be used to lower taxes and encourage profitable investment elsewhere. It slows down growth. Its not as sexy for Jimmy's roofing and siding to be able to hire a new employee, but it based on a more solid foundation.
the problem is everybody gets excited about sexy technology, whereas a society's wealth can do real well with no great national champions
That inability to let the largen zombie companies fail is a signigicant factor in Japanese lost two 9 and counting) decades. they didn't let the zombie companies die, so small innovative companies are starved of capital.
Even with a 10 year negative return, there is plenty of money to go around. Money for the Beaudoin family that owns a big stake in the company, money for the workers with the high salaries, tax dollars for the Fed/Prov governments. So putting a $billion in and eventually getting a $billion + out is a no brainer.
I don't have any problem with the dual class share structure to be honest, and neither does the govt. The reason is simple. The dual class structure allows the govt to use BBD as a instrument of industrial policy, and it has done so to great effect. The Bedouins made some mistakes here, but also had some circumstances fall against them. This is a family with a great legacy and no private board of directors will fight as hard to defend it as they will.
nottyboi,
The dual class share structure is good for the family, the company and the country. Some people want to do away with the dual class share structure so that they can better benefit from greater profits. So long as the dual class share structure exist, it will be very difficult to disperse profits to shareholders. In an industry where there is feast or famine with nothing between profits must be kept so that the company can survive hard times.
The dual class share structure is good for the family, the company and the country. Some people want to do away with the dual class share structure so that they can better benefit from greater profits. So long as the dual class share structure exist, it will be very difficult to disperse profits to shareholders. In an industry where there is feast or famine with nothing between profits must be kept so that the company can survive hard times.
Not for the shareholders. The $10 million the government will put in to bolster the company, will eventually be repaid. The government is protecting the jobs so that the workers can pay taxes.
Again, no concept of double entry bookkeeping. You are assuming this vague 'multiplier effect' which is never actually specified is going to make it all worthwhile.
It doesn't. There is also a NEGATIVE multiplier effect in higher taxes and a waste of resources that could go to something more useful. It is actually the 'stimulus' debate in another guise.
Again, if its so great, why not do more and more and more?
Because the returns are low or negative whereas the debt is fixed and immovable.
Until you become a Greece that it.
It doesn't. There is also a NEGATIVE multiplier effect in higher taxes and a waste of resources that could go to something more useful. It is actually the 'stimulus' debate in another guise.
Again, if its so great, why not do more and more and more?
Because the returns are low or negative whereas the debt is fixed and immovable.
Until you become a Greece that it.
Greece is a country where they fish, grow olives and have seasonal tourism. Tax collection is lax and unemployment is high. It is the governments lack of intervention/participation or lack of the ability to intervene or participate that has put it in trouble.
