I really wouldn't worry too much. Sure, losing the US market was a blow. And I'll go over the dirty tricks below. But for Bombardier itself? They made that deal months before the airplane entered service with any customer. The uncertainty of how the plane would do had potential customers being hesitant and Bombardier struggling to gain traction. Since then, the CSeries has done spectacularly in service. 97% dispatch rate. That's amazing for a new airplane. And fuel burn coming in 3% better than brochure numbers. A 1% reduction in fuel burn might be worth in the high six figures. 3%? Incredible. And also unheard of to achieve in months after launch. So Bombardier will sell those airplanes. Possibly for even more than what Delta was going to pay for them. The only issue is getting locked out of the US market.
Now about that ruling. What a steaming load..... To begin with let's recall that Delta never asked Boeing to bid the 737-700 because they considered that airplane too big. Boeing then offered up used 717s, a plane they have not made in a decade. Bombardier was desperate to get a deal after Boeing sold airplanes at or under cost to United and cut Bombardier out. So BBD did the same for the Delta deal.
Boeing now complains to the ITC. The ITC, in its investigation has to decide if a 140 seat 737-700 (itself superceded by the 737-7 MAX) is substitutable with a 110 seat CS100. How does the ITC go about doing this? By asking "other importers". Who are the other importers? Delta's competitors. So the ITC went to Delta competitors and asked them if Delta got an unfair deal. And asked them if the airplane was substitutable. Of course, they told the ITC that the planes are substitutable. You can replace three 100-seater flights with two 150-seater flights. Which is true in theory, but in practice Delta wanted a 100 seater airplane to open up new long, "thin" routes from its hubs. These are smaller centres which may warrant only 2 flights a day to Atlanta or New York or Detroit or LA. The ITC's substitutability test ignores several things like the desire to have more frequencies, the cost to run larger aircraft with more empty seats and the higher threshold to open up new markets.
Gets worse. Boeing asked for a 79% tariff. The commission calculates 219%. How'd they do that? They argued that the entire equity stake from the Quebec was a subsidy and cash infusion, while neglecting that a successful CSeries makes that stake worth far more than what the government paid.
If this tariff stands, there are options. And I hope the govenrment goes through with several retaliatory measures:
1) Let Air Canada know, in no uncertain terms, that if they don't adjust their 737 MAX order, the Middle Eastern carriers will be allowed in.
2) Increase NAV Canada fees for American carriers transiting Canadian airspace. The FAA will retaliate. But that only impacts 10% of Canadian airline traffic. On the other hand, the Americans will pay more for every flight heading to Asia and Europe.