I take from this exchange that Airbus has control of the C Series design team, and can redirect to product development as it sees fit? Or will Bombardier be able to parter with Airbus on equal footing so that any future work is mutually beneficial?
I'm not so willing to bash this deal as a failure of any one aspect of political will or trade policy or public ignorance, so much as I am to bash the Canadian business mentality. Bombardier was not up to being a world class aerospace producer (by which I mean a corporation that could not only design, but market, finance, build, and outmanouever competitors in the marketplace). This fact has been known for years. The financial props, and the continued presence of the family in Bombardier's governance, should made it apparent that there were weak links. Champions don't have weak links. (Streetcars needn't enter into this picture.)
In free enterprise, a company has the right to chart its own course. But, if one is not quite good enough, there are consequences.
It's a bit like sports. Real fans don't start talking Stanley Cup when a single line starts scoring. It's not disloyal for fans to point out their team's weak links, nor is it a Canadian inferiority complex to bash Bombardier's weak links.
Bombardier just wasn't good enough. The investment community, the Canadian media, the investors, the government, all are guilty of stepping around this elephant in the room. Canadian companies that want to capture world championships can't just aspire, they have to eliminate weak links. Nobody insisted on this. Canada needs to learn a lesson about being hard on ourselves.
- Paul