This I cannot understand

[John Arton]

In France there is a shipyard at St. Nazaire that has been taken into State ownership after a take over bid by Fincantari, an Italian sate owned shipyard.
Both ship yards have historically received subsidies from their respective governments to build new facilities.
The French Yard was part of the STX group, previously Aker and had Korean backing.
They built the QM2 amongst other cruise vessels in a dry dock paid for with state aid. The dock was built to enable construction of VLCC's and large Gas Carriers. If you look at pictures of the yard you can see the massive drydock alongside the fitting out basin, which was the original dock where many years ago the built French warships in the days of sail. Both the French and Italian yards have carved out a reputation for themselves building mega cruise liners that without State aid to build the new facilities (dry dock, workshops etc.) they most likely would not be in business today.
Now contrast this with the U.S.A's attitude to Bombardier aircraft.
Bombardier is a Canadian aircraft manufacturer that specialises in the short haul, inter city sector aircraft. They have designed a new aircraft capable of carrying between 100-150 people which not any other major aircraft manufacturer has (Boeing or Airbus).
Now Bombardier brought out Shorts of Belfast some time ago. Most of you will remember shorts successful "Skyvan", it was the Ford Transit on wings of the air industry, small, efficient, could land an take off anywhere.
Shorts, now owned by Bombardier, received government aid to build a brand new factory in Belfast where parts for Bombardier aircraft are built. At present thy are building the wings for the new "C" class planes, the wings are shipped over to Canada where the aircraft are assembled.
Bombardier won and order from an American airline for something in the region of 100 units, which they won not only on quality etc. but also they were the only manufacturer to bid.
We all know that Boeing have now taken Bombardier to court saying that due to subsidies they are selling the aircraft below cost and that is unfair completion. Its B.S. of course and sour grapes on Boeings part as neither Bombardier in Belfast or Canada receive State subsidies to pay for wages, materials etc. They only got State AID to build ne facilities.
Now back to shipyards,
A major American cruise liner company, H.O. in Florida, decides to order new Cruise Liners.
The Contract to build them is placed with the French/Italian yard both of them having received State Aid in the past as well as receiving subsidies from thee Governments. The ships will not be owned or registered in the U.S.A. but will be registered as single ship owners in Panama or Monrovia.
Do we hear a peep regarding this from Jones Act supporters or anti trust bodies in the U.S.A., heck no.
Can anyone explain the difference between the Bombardier case and Carnivals new building plan (which for sure is being carried out in State Subsidised yards.)
rgds
J.A.

[Lewis McColl]

The mind boggles , it is just typical of the Yanks nit picking and Boeing has some lobby within the American halls of power.
The whole setup sucks , ship yards as well being funded by national governments, have to be bending the rules that far that they form a circle.
The UK should have applied the same standards as other EU countries.

[Stan Carter]

John, soon after the news came out that bombardier had secured the order from (delta I believe) that the US courts, no doubt at Donalds direction, slapped a 230 per cent import duty on each aircraft being delivered. within a few days a further 30 per cent was added. the excuse was that each aircraft was sold at discount prices. At present Canada and Mexico are in negotiations with the USA over NAFTA, which the Donald would love to scuttle as he feels the US is getting screwed over. with the USA it's all me me me, us us us. At the moment with all the fires going on in California, the US is going to need a lot of softwood lumber to rebuild, plus the fact we are looking to buy new fighter aircraft,how about the euro fighter, maybe our government will keep this in mind when dealing with US trade delegates.
regards, stan.

[Lewis McColl]

Stan the Euro fighter as far as I am aware cannot be Marinised as in, you cannot land it of an the current carriers the RN have., I may have got this wrong??
The option is this _76031775_qe_class_aircraft_carrier_9.jpg and even that is a jump jet. AHHHHH!!!! did we not invent the jump jet and flogged it off to the yanks. okay old school was the Harrier, but surely the basic concept has not changed. Time I think to checkout some bank accounts of MP's and others involved in Military procurement.

[Stan Carter]

Lewis, we don't have any aircraft carriers, the only one we had was scrapped years ago.
stan,

[Lewis McColl]

HMS Queen Elizabeth is the lead ship of the Queen Elizabeth-class of aircraft carrier, the largest warship ever built for the Royal Navy and capable of carrying up to forty aircraft.

[vic mcclymont]

The new Harriers are designed only to carry jump jets, another cockup.
.
Vic