Tdmt 2310

TDMT 2310

Case Study

1. Do you think Bombardier and Embraer are guilty as charged? Please explain your answer.

In my opinion, I think Bombardier and Embraer both blame each other of what they are individually guilty of, so they are guilty as charged. In it both of them made that the government helped with the plane production, whether there was it low interest the federal loan or a subsidy, both of them are guilty of violation of methods of a subsidy of the WTO. I think both Bombardier and Embraer have to complain collectively the WTO to remove some of those methods of a subsidy. As legitimacy of subsidies is only in it, other countries also subsidize the own companies. Both Embraer and Bombardier took out the indictment of the WTO in breaking subsidy methods and that mean that they must continue to take low interest federal loans and subsidy’s to remain in business and meet those deadlines to stay competitive and profitable.

2. Do you think that such matters should be considered internal and therefore not fall under the jurisdiction of the WTO?

I think that the competition between Embraer and Bombardier is external. Also, it is governed by the trade and WTO’s subsidy practices. However, the government help them to meet deadlines for dates. This help is internal and shows in subsidies or low interest rate loans. It is normal that government is helping some of its own companies, but in this case if government will not help Bombardier, the company will leave country.

3. Why do you believe that the Canadian and Brazilian governments are still so willing to subsidize export industries?

I think that the Canadian and Brazilian government are still willing to subsidize export industries due to competition. In case of Bombardier and Embraer, they were engaged in an aggressive battle for global market share in the regional-jet market and were expecting to increase demand in the regional-jet market. If government will not support these companies in...