With the idea of revoking the “type certification” in retaliation for the Canadian delays towards the manufacturer Gulfstream, the Tycoon only gets a splash in the shares on the stock exchange. But to act would be to wipe out thousands of American jobs
Donald Trump’s maneuver against the Canadian manufacturer Bombardier has a very specific purpose: to make the shares collapse by demonstrating that without the United States aeronautical market the losses of money are very high. Nothing else, a retaliation against the certification delays applied to Gulfstream (General Dynamics company) business jets produced in the USA and which without that sheet of paper cannot be sold in Canada. So the tycoon threw it on the table: a clear threat to revoke the certification of the large-cabin planes of the jet manufacturer produced in Canada and to impose import duties of 50% on new planes until Canada has certified the last aircraft produced by the competing company from the States.
The president’s warning, which arrived Thursday evening, has caused confusion and alarm among airlines and aviation analysts, but especially among buyers and owners of Canadian-made private jets, but it has no technical basis and therefore, under ICAO (The International Civil Aviation Organization) rules, has no chance of being enforced. It is different for duties, which are instead a prerogative of governments. But for those in the US who operate or own a jet produced by Bombardier, Trump’s words were a cause for alarm because a lot of time passes between the issuing of an order and the delivery of a jet, even a few years, and each operator of these airplanes plans its movements in terms of orders and deliveries well in advance to satisfy its wealthy customers.
Because Trump’s threat risks being an own goal
It is also true that planes and aerospace parts have largely escaped the Trump-led trade war, with Canadian-made aircraft continuing to be exported to the US under the USMCA trade agreement that is still in place. But when Trump threatens to “withdraw the Type Certificate admitted by the US aviation authority FAA to the Bombardier Global Express and all planes produced in Canada “until the Gulfstreams are certified in that country”, he in fact damages himself for several reasons: the on-board instrumentation is largely produced in the US, just like some engine components and other parts. Therefore such a measure would damage both the operators of those US national airplanes and the companies that supply products aeronautics at Bombardier.
Finally, there would be a devastating impact on certain airlines such as American Airlines and Delta Air Lines which have Canadian-made aircraft in their fleet used mainly for regional connections. In short, a sensational own goal with only one winner: the much-fought Franco-German-Spanish Airbus.
As for the Canadair aircraft registered in the USA and used by proven operators, according to the FAA they are in the fleet of 122 operators for a total of 5,466 units between airplanes and helicopters. Finally, there is also a negative impact on employment: in the USA, Bombardier has four factories in which around 3,000 specialized workers work who would remain at home. And Trump knows this very well since during his first mandate he hastened to inject liquidity into the sector hit by Boeing’s crisis.
What the current Washington administration has perhaps forgotten, however, is that although the USA is the leading airplane producer in the world, as well as the nation with the most aerospace factories, the sector remains the most globalized ever. And without products such as Italian electro-mechanical components, Canadian engines and Taiwanese electronics, the supply chain would suffer fatal blows.
Technically, the “type certification” is the document that approves a flying machine in a country other than the country of production. Without it it is not possible to import, register and operate the aircraft, therefore it is the “piece of paper” that opens the markets. And it is no coincidence that Western aeronautical authorities such as the FAA, but also the European EASA and the English CAA, are careful not to help Chinese manufacturers in obtaining this result. While they have always collaborated with each other so that the markets for their national products were mutually recognized.
