back to article Aviation industry hits turbulence as Airbus buys into Bombardier’s new jetplanes

Airbus has struck a deal to buy a majority stake in Canadian plane-maker Bombardier's C Series Aircraft in a deal that will mean a shakeup for the global aviation market. Bombardier's C Series are regional jets with between 100 and 150 seats. Neither Airbus nor its main rival Boeing currently compete in this market. Airbus …

  1. Adam 52 Silver badge

    Proof that you need the clout of a large trade body (in this case the EU) if you want to take on the US in trade negotiations. Canada and the UK together were too small and weak to fight Boeing.

    I wonder how Trump's "big angle exciting" trade deal with the UK is coming along?

    1. Pascal Monett Silver badge

      I'm pretty sure it's coming along like everything else Trump promises : straight to /DEV/NULL.

      1. Voland's right hand Silver badge

        straight to /DEV/NULL.

        Not even that. It is straight to the courts for exceeding authority as well as violating existing laws and/or constitution.

        By the time it is out of the courts all fanfare and bluster is out of that and it is a distinctly business as usual affair.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "I'm pretty sure it's coming along like everything else Trump promises..."

        So, the left has finally entered the 'acceptance phase' of their overwrought, self-inflicted national trauma. Well done! ;-/

        Sigh. I kinda miss all the pathetic fantasizing about impeachment...

        1. Pascal Monett Silver badge

          Sorry to rain on your parade Big John, but I'm French and living in France. That means that I have absolutely no relation to your "left".

          Indeed, most of the time I believe you Americans believe we French are Communists.

          In any case, you'll have to continue waiting for your dear 'acceptance phase'.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            So, it's an "Unto death I grapple with thee" sort of thing? Well, I suppose everyone needs a hobby.

            BTW, we're not waiting. No one really expects rationality from Progressives any more. Trump is simply bulldozing the reeking piles of filth left by the previous Oval Occupant, to the cheers of working America. Next comes defeating and removing the too-comfortable swamp creatures in Congress pretending to be conservative Republicans, starting with the befuddled Senator McCain and his sidekick Sen. Flake.

            1. strum Silver badge

              > to the cheers of working America

              of whom a record majority now disapprove. Loser president. Loser followers.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Windows

                > "...of whom a record majority now disapprove."

                That desperate belief is all that stands between you and madness, I suppose.

                So yes, we're losers, bigtime. Happy now? ;-/

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Trump is simply bulldozing the reeking piles of filth left by the previous Oval Occupant, to the cheers of working America.

              Yes, I've seen the cheering from all the military personnel he's been insulting over the last few days. Keep an eye on your healthcare premiums in the next few months. It's a shame it's not limited to Trump voters, otherwise you could term it Darwinian selection.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Proof that you need the clout of a large trade body (in this case the EU) if you want to take on the US in trade negotiations. Canada and the UK together were too small and weak to fight Boeing.

      The funny bit is that US protectionism has thus backfired dramatically in that it resulted in a far stronger and organised competitor for Boeing with a wider market footprint. Well done.

      A just reward IMHO, and I wish the new company well.

    3. Alan Brown Silver badge

      "Canada and the UK together were too small and weak to fight Boeing."

      300% import duties on aircraft just create opportunities for creative ownership setups.

      As in, a subsidiary company in Canada which wetleases the aircraft to US interests.

      Interestingly, Bombardier's actual competition in this market segment are Embraer and (soon) COMAC - neither of whom will be fazed by US sanctions.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Proof that you need the clout of a large trade body (in this case the EU) if you want to take on the US in trade negotiations.

    Your unbounded confidence in the EU is quite touching. But lets see how this pans out before being quite so sure. Airbus have never made much money, over the past decade their return on assets has bounded between one and two and half percent, indicating that they are barely viable. Boeing have always contested that AIrbus have been propped up by EU governments, and what Airbus have done is to hitch two WTO trade disputes together. I suspect Boeing are secretly throwing each other high fives over this.

    But in all the corporate shenanigans, I have to ask, if the 115 seat market is so valuable, why haven't Airbus or Boeing bothered to develop offerings in that segment before? Of course, they did, such as the A318, that nobody wanted to buy.....

    1. Alan Johnson

      "Your unbounded confidence in the EU is quite touching. But lets see how this pans out before being quite so sure. Airbus have never made much money, over the past decade their return on assets has bounded between one and two and half percent, indicating that they are barely viable"

      Airbus' viability or not is irrelevant. The UK alone will be f*ck*d by the US whenever there is a significant advantage. The UK as part of the EU is a completely different prospect. I worked ina an industry essentially created in the UK, destroyed by completely overt US action which simply passed a law that permission was required to by non-american product. The end result was that a US companies bought the Britich companies and patents at which point the law was repealed. This was before the EU gave us enough muscle to deter this sort of thing. It may be that you thing that this is not relevant or important but it is dishonest to claim the UK will negotiate on an equal footing with the US with respect to trade. We will not.

      1. David Lewis 2
        Coat

        The UK alone rest of the world will be f*ck*d by the US whenever there is a significant advantage.

        FTFY

        1. 404 Silver badge

          Japan competes with the US, what's wrong with the Brits? We know you know how to do it, take the Opium Wars for instance, or British India tea trade.

          The British have lost their way.

    2. graeme leggett

      Boeing complaining about other manufacturers and state support?

      All that cross-funding from over-priced military and space kit obviously slipped their mind.

    3. Mr.Mischief

      No market for 100-150 seaters

      Except that this spat was started because Delta ordered a bunch of regional jets from Bombardier. Boeing doesn't make what Delta wants to buy but that still didn't stop Boeing to go running to the courts. There is a market for 100-150 seaters and if you read the article you'd have noticed that Bombardier and Embraer both make jets in this class.

    4. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      "But in all the corporate shenanigans, I have to ask, if the 115 seat market is so valuable, why haven't Airbus or Boeing bothered to develop offerings in that segment before?"

      Which also raises the question of why Boeing brought the Bombardier subsidy case in the first place. What is their interest?

  3. Hans 1 Silver badge
    Boffin

    Boeing gets way more state aid per annum than all other aircraft manufacturers of all types and sizes on the planet combined ... just saying ...

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Meh

      Just saying... but not just linking...

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Game over

        Okay Hans, since you weren't able to provide a link, I went to the BBC. They say that the WTO in Geneva has now sided with Boeing and against Airbus. And let's not even talk about China's subsidies!

        So your statement is low-grade bilge. Boeing is NOT the spoon fed tax money hog you claim. Next case.

  4. wolfetone Silver badge

    Heard on the radio that it's going to be securing the jobs of those in the north of Ireland. However, I can't see that happening long term. This is just about a bailout so Airbus can get the IP Bombardier has and other patents for use on their other Airbus craft.

    More often than not, when a bigger company takes over a smaller one and they promise job security, they're lying through their teeth and eventually the jobs will be cut for "efficiency" savings or whatever the buzzword is on that day.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Or it could be simply to piss off Boeing.

    2. colinb

      I don't think Patents have much to do with it. Is a 2-3 layout radical?

      The C Series just happens to be a recently designed aircraft so its pretty light and efficent, its running off the shelf engines (PW) that could easily be on a A320Neo.

      Looking at the list of Bombardier patents it includes

      - Exit row table for an aircraft

      - Lighting array for an aircraft (boy racer lights on a wing)

      - Aircraft drainage system

      - Aircraft seat

      Not setting the world on fire there.

      Its most likely to stop someone else getting it plus some potential leverage against Boeing, although most Airlines do not fly a mixed fleet, given its cheaper to fly a homogenous fleet (e.g Ryanair=Boeing).

      1. Voland's right hand Silver badge

        although most Airlines do not fly a mixed fleet,

        Bombardier + Airbus mix is what a lot of large Eu carriers want.

        Lufthanza is already doing that, Iberia is looking at that too as their smaller aircraft are approaching their use by date. There are a few others. It makes sense - run Bombardier current A series and C series on routes (and days) when there is light load, use Airbus 320 and 321 for the busier short-haul routes (and days).

        1. colinb

          You could be right, although current orders for the CSeries is weighted towards Middle East, Asia and the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bombardier_CSeries_orders_and_deliveries

          Its the backing of Airbus that would drive more Airlines/Lessors to take a look and having an aircraft that can share Engines from the pool is a big selling point.

      2. Muscleguy Silver badge

        Tell that to Air New Zealand who have to service tiny place domestic flights in NZ as well as glitzy long haul to the other side of the world. They have a range of small turbo props to do the smaller place runs to supplement the jets for the longer, more populous spine routes.

        On the small routes, a bit like Glasgow to Belfast, cabins are not very pressurised as they don't fly that high. On approach they hand out boiled sweets, for the ears. Everyone takes one.

        Last I was back I flew Auckland to New Plymouth in one. Had to cadge a lift to Hamilton to catch the bus back though as fog had closed the airport. No non visual radar assist equipment there.

      3. Alan Brown Silver badge

        "Is a 2-3 layout radical?"

        Only inasmuch as it's a return to layouts seen on some 1950s aircraft

        "Looking at the list of Bombardier patents it includes"

        Are those design patents or technology ones?

        Bear in mind that the USA uses the name patent for both trade dress (design) and actual innovation.

    3. Mage Silver badge

      Re: NI Jobs

      La la land / Cloud cuckoo. Airbus won't preserve the NI jobs. Airbus has paid zero and the Canadian Government must be relieved. Canada unlike UK is moving toward Europe and EU. They have done an EU trade deal and are an associate in the ESA (the EU help funds it, but not all members of ESA are in EU and not all EU members are in ESA).

      ESA and Canada is important to Airbus. Not NI. Besides Airbus has a plant in Seattle (?), not N.I.?

      1. HarryBl

        Re: NI Jobs

        They have an assembly plant in Alabama which could be used to produce C types for Delta and avoid the 300% tariff as they're made in the USA.

  5. Pascal Monett Silver badge
    Coat

    "if carriers are willing to install Sardine Class on A380s"

    If ?

    I'm pretty sure that, if I ever decide to take a flight again, I'll have to buy a 1st-class ticket just to have enough room to breathe.

    1. Prst. V.Jeltz Silver badge

      Re: "if carriers are willing to install Sardine Class on A380s"

      Do you really need to breathe? I mean a 1st class ticket costs about the same as a house

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: "if carriers are willing to install Sardine Class on A380s"

      Next step will be economy passengers under general anaesthetic and stacked efficiently.

      First class will get their choice of compatible blood transfusion / organs for transplant from cattle class during long haul flights.

      1. Prst. V.Jeltz Silver badge

        Re: "if carriers are willing to install Sardine Class on A380s"

        "Next step will be economy passengers under general anaesthetic and stacked efficiently."

        I'm in! Rows of those funny japanese sleep tube things would be good.

    3. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken Silver badge

      Re: "if carriers are willing to install Sardine Class on A380s"

      After the barley sugar injections, you won't mind.

    4. Alan Brown Silver badge

      Re: "if carriers are willing to install Sardine Class on A380s"

      "If ?"

      They won't. It affects cargo capacity too much and cargo is where the profits are.

      (a fully sardined A380 with 830 passengers only has 8 cargo container positions available below decks thanks to baggage (but 4-7 times the cargo MASS lifting ability than a fully sardined 777 that has 35 positions available)

      Keeping pax numbers to 550 or so is an economic decision more than made up by the increased cargo capacity and the resulting deadspace gets turned into halo-class seating that you can use for marketing (bump a lucky few stiffs into the seats) or for wild profit (20-30k charges per leg, on space that's already paoid for twice over)

  6. lglethal Silver badge
    Go

    Missed a point...

    You missed one important Point on this - the plan is to assemble the C series for the American markets at Airbus's factories in the US in order to try and avoid the American tariffs on the C-series. It will be very interesting to see how that plays out.

    It's undeniably a kind of tarriff avoidance shenanigans, but it IS going to be bringing Jobs in to America. I wonder how the Trump Administration will play that one? If they block it, they're preventing more Jobs on American soil (America first? really?), for an american firm who arent going to be adding new Jobs anytime soon (since Boeing are not in that market). They'll also be upping the price for other American firms (Delta being the biggest purchaser of the C-series), which will affect American consumers.

    Should be interesting to see which way they stick or twist here. Popcorn anyone?

    1. EddieD

      Re: Missed a point...

      And it possibly won't work. The BBC website website says that it could be ruled as "trade circumvention", and therefore not be allowed.

      1. graeme leggett

        Re: Missed a point...

        There presumably must be a possibility that the approach might work, else why try such a suggestion. Unless it's to flush Boeing and US Gov's position into the open.

        1. AndyS

          Re: Missed a point...

          I presume the "country of origin" has to add a certain amount of value to a product. Final assembly of an aircraft fits that category - there is a huge amount of work, and a very significant percentage of the value of the final aircraft, added during assembly and finishing. Assuming major air-frame components continue being manufactured in the same locations as currently (NI, Canada, China and the US, and sub-assemblies from all over the globe), if the aircraft is then assembled in Alabama, the only reasonable country to name on the "made in" label would be the USA.

          1. SkippyBing Silver badge

            Re: Missed a point...

            ' if the aircraft is then assembled in Alabama, the only reasonable country to name on the "made in" label would be the USA.

            And is more or less what happens with the 787, unless those Dreamlifters flying to Japan are just stocking up on Manga. So hard for Boeing to complain about it. With a straight face.

          2. Alan Brown Silver badge

            Re: Missed a point...

            "I presume the "country of origin" has to add a certain amount of value to a product."

            There's the issue that if Boeing challenges that particular one, many of their own aircraft models would be affected.

    2. bazza Silver badge

      Re: Missed a point...

      You missed one important Point on this - the plan is to assemble the C series for the American markets at Airbus's factories in the US in order to try and avoid the American tariffs on the C-series. It will be very interesting to see how that plays out.

      Whilst the tariff is now a consideration, apparently Airbus and Bombardier were talking about a deal before the tariff was announced. Now, that's either excellent judgement on their part as to how the trade dispute would pan out, or there's more at stake than that.

      The C-Series is such an excellent fit against what Airbus is already manufacturing and selling that a deal between the two companies was pretty strong. Airbus had an effective gap in their catalogue (the planes they were offering in the class simply weren't selling). Bombardier had the right aircraft, with certification and excellent in-service reports, but lacked the ability to take it to the world and swamp the market. Put the two together, et voila! A very strong line up, and the manufacturing capacity and financial muscle to make it a world beater.

      A consequence of the deal might be that they can sidestep the US tariffs. However, I think that what is more important is that the C-Series is now a serious contender in the world market. And the world market is far larger than the US market. Doing well in the USA would be nice of course, but the real prize (one now within their reach) is the global market. Win that, and losing out in America won't really matter at all. Win that, and the existing Bombardier and Shorts Brothers factories will be kept pretty busy (Airbus haven't got lines lying idle in Europe to soak away the work).

      Also everyone is forgetting that the tariffs are yet to be imposed. That issue is in itself not settled until the new year, when the US government determines whether or not Boeing was "damaged" by the under-pricing the US government says they found.

      Boeing's Mistake

      All the nice things we can say about the neatness of an Airbus-Bombardier tie up can also be said about a hypothetical deal between Boeing and Bombardier, if not more so. Bombarider's design is clearly excellent, and Boeing are in dire need of an excellent design to compete in the single aisle market. Why oh why oh why were Boeing more focused on grinding Bombardier into the dust than on recognising the opportunity represented by a financially stressed but technically competent Bombardier? Pride? Over-Confidence? These are dangerous traits.

      Airbus have clearly sweet talked Bombardier (and importantly their family shareholder who still have a lot of influence in the company) in a way that Boeing never even begun to consider. Boeing's aggressive trade stance was probably the final straw that forced Bombardier (and the family, and other shareholders) into realising that the future lay in a deal, not in independence.

      Now that the deal is announced one has to conclude that the future of the design, and by extension the Bombardier company, employees, etc. could very well be far larger than they ever dared hope for. It's a case a 50% slice of a 2000 airframe program being more valuable than 100% of a 500 airframe program. And given the quality of the design there's no reason to suppose that it won't get to be that big over the coming decades.

      Airbus's 60 Year Free Ride

      Since February 1987 Airbus have not really had to touch the design of the A320 to keep it competitive. Only recently have they NEOised it. And now they've picked up a better design with lots of growth potential for $1.00. This will see them through for another 30 years, probably. This has got to count as the cheapest ever R&D budget spent in maintaining market share.

      Boeing has had 30 years to come up with a 737 replacement design that would actually make Airbus sweat, but hasn't done so. This is a ridiculous, decades long failed strategy by Boeing. And now look what's happened. Airbus has taken another leap ahead for the price of a coffee.

      Develop and Compete, or Die. Perhaps Boeing don't believe in Evolution?

      Timing

      The timing is significant. We're about 9 months from the Farnborough airshow; that is an ideal period of time in which to go to potential customers, show them the plans, and get a few sales lined up for announcement at the show. The deal between Airbus and Bombardier is itself not scheduled to close until H2 2018, but I don't think that'll matter.

      Reportedly there's already been some hurried analysis by various fleeting planners. There's probably a lot of operators out there tempted by the C-series, but were nervous about Bombardier's ability to fulfil an order. Now that concern has all but gone away, and with Airbardier likely willing to let some early orders go through at knock down prices, the C-series is suddenly back on their radar scopes. There's real financial advantage for the early buyers, so I expect the phone lines will be a bit busy in the next 9 months.

      1. Alan Brown Silver badge

        Re: Missed a point...

        "Airbus's 60 Year Free Ride"

        The Bombardier deal creates a new size range that Airbus previously didn't play in - and which Boeing got out of when they closed the 717 line 11 years ago.

        Neither an improved 320 or 737 will play in this segment, and they're being resized upwards.

        FWIW, whilst both airframes have had a long production life, the reason for that is that they were rightsized for the job at hand in the first place and nothing was to be gained by reeingeering from scratch. The NEO models of both types still keep the basics intact whilst allowing for improved manufactiring techniques and engines that couldn't be incorporated in the existing frames.

        It's a bit like how the VW beetle kept the same shape and size for 40 years but the 1950s version doesn't have a single component in common with the 1960s one which doesn't share any with the 1970s one - but the 1970s one does look quite different to the older generation.

  7. Anonymous South African Coward Silver badge

    "Sardine class" = meh

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Trade tariffs - on planes?

    I've never quite understood this. If the US requires high tariffs on foreign planes that purchased by American companies, why don't they just purchase the plane through a foreign-registered subsidiary company?

    1. maffski

      Re: Trade tariffs - on planes?

      Because the US doesn't allow non US companies to fly internal routes within the US (the EU is the same I think).

      And the whole thing isn't about state subsidy - it's because Boeing made a bet that there wouldn't be demand for 80-150 seat aircraft and so didn't develop it's small line, but point to point intracontinental routes (rather than regional hubs) are proving popular.

      Embraer and Bombardier have modern efficient designs at that size and neither Boeing or Airbus have a cost effective choice. The main growth for these aircraft is outside the US so it's all a bit mute anyway.

      1. anothercynic Silver badge

        Re: Trade tariffs - on planes?

        Boeing has never had a plane for the 85-120 seat market. The 737 NG never really filled that gap. That's what allowed Bombardier into the market with the CRJ models in the first place, and Embraer with their ERJ.

        What is surprising is to see Embraer siding with Boeing on this one... Mostly because Bombardier will be able to snatch more of Embraer's market from the larger ERJ 195. Given the crappy passenger experience in the existing ERJs and the E2 jets still being a bit further out of service, Bombardier has two odd years to sew up some good orders once the CS proves itself with Delta (it already has with SWISS and Baltic, who both absolutely love the series from an economics and passenger satisfaction standpoint).

    2. anothercynic Silver badge

      Re: Trade tariffs - on planes?

      One way around it is to lease the planes, but there is no aircraft lessor based in Canada. They're all either US (GECAS, AerCap, Air Lease, ILFC), or they're European. Delta usually wants to own its jets. It's too late to set up a leasing company in Canada that nominally owns the jets and leases them to Delta given the high profile the 300% tariff has generated.

      1. colinb

        Re: Trade tariffs - on planes?

        this is a good point but it doesn't really matter where the Lessor is based. EU based Lessors buy Boeing/Airbus and lease into Japan, Asia, China all the time.

        This might work but Delta have been against leasing in the past as ultimately the lessee gives up any sale profit on the back-end, which is where the money is.

        A structured Sale and Leaseback with a Delta EU based SPC and a large lessor(s) maybe.

        The main problem is Lessors like liquid markets for Aircraft so they can predict sales values and its too early to say what the resale market is going to be for the CSeries.

        Indications are good but its a major leap of faith for a risk adverse industry.

        1. anothercynic Silver badge

          Re: Trade tariffs - on planes?

          The lessor does make a difference when it comes to the ownership and subsequent payment of the punitive tariff is concerned (i.e. if you import the jet to the US and register it there, then the tariff applies). If the jets remain outside of scope where the tariff is concerned, Delta is golden, but as you point out, Delta has always preferred to *own* their planes, and they'd prefer to keep their jets US-registered, and given the high profile this has, any action Delta takes to avoid having to pay the tariff (or coming up with any shenanigans to avoid the tariff) will immediately be flagged by Boeing as 'you're not playing nice'. Of course, that's just happened with Boeing's PR chief shouting at Airbus that 'this ain't gonna save that jet, buster!' (I paraphrase)

  9. Walter Bishop Silver badge

    Washington $8.7 billion subsidy to Boeing

    Tax breaks for Boeing: We’re No. 1

    'Overview of US subsidies to Boeing’s Large Commercial Aircraft division (USD millions)'

    1. colinb

      Re: Washington $8.7 billion subsidy to Boeing

      Yep, ran a shakedown on Seattle in 2003 when they launched a 'competition' for the Dreamliner and got an effective tax write-off of $3.2 billion over 20 years.

      Its own Engineers Union called it “corporate extortion of the communities and people who have long supported Boeing.”

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The corruption is a other problem for Airbus

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/airbus-corruption-scandal-threatens-ceo-tom-enders-a-1171533.html

    1. Hans 1 Silver badge
      Unhappy

      Re: The corruption is a other problem for Airbus

      Rolls Royce ?

      You cannot sell to certain countries if you don't bribe officials, everybody does it .... I am not saying it is good, just, the norm, sadly ;-(

  11. herman Silver badge

    I think that they only need to do the final assembly of all the paperwork in the USA in a Double-Irish-American-Sandwich to have it Made in the USA with Zero Tax (TM) like Apple does with its products.

  12. Lars Silver badge
    Happy

    A few articles

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-17/airbus-boss-nails-bombardier-timing

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/richardaboulafia/2017/10/17/bombardier-airbus-cseries-boeing/#1829d167491e

    Short term I would assume NI is safe, long term I suppose it's about what the hell Brexit means Brexit means.

  13. Gis Bun

    What Twitler and company forgets while they got bamboozled by Boeing [who can't fight their legal battles on their own and have to cry like a child] is that without this deal, expect many layoffs in the US as Bombardier uses many plants and thousands of works to supply them.

    Unsure why Boeing went after Bombardier as Boeing has nothing in the same "class". Meanwhile they have lost any future orders for military aircraft from the Canadian government and the UK government may do the same.

    In addition, this 300% tariff will probably go to the international trade court where they are expected to lose. A small percentage and they had a chance. 300%? Nope.

    Bombardier/Airbus will also say that Boeing themselves get government funding. Show me one aircraft manufacturer that does.

    Airbus just gave Twitler's administration the finger.

    1. Lars Silver badge
      Happy

      @Gis Bun

      Apparently those C models will be assembled in Alabama so that it should rather increase the workforce in the US.

      Now lets countdown for Twitler's twit about having created more work. And why not, it could, in a way, become the first time he doesn't tell a lie for a very long time.

  14. Marty McFly
    Mushroom

    Setting the bar

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmefnkTvWIw

    That's how it's done, right thar!

    1. Lars Silver badge
      Happy

      Re: Setting the bar

      Delta CEO says "Bombardier innovation, not price is what attracted us".

      https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/17/delta-to-take-planes-at-center-of-trade-dispute-after-airbus-deal.html

  15. Jove Bronze badge

    Airbus is paying USD 1 for the transfer, but there is also a transfer of debt and risk liabilities.

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

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019