US to decertify Bombardier business jets

[Flyaway]

Posted without comment.

WASHINGTON/MONTREAL, Jan 29 (Reuters) - President Donald Trump said on Thursday the U.S. was decertifying Bombardier Global Express business jets and threatened 50% import tariffs on all aircraft made in Canada until the country's regulator certified a number of planes produced by U.S. rival Gulfstream.
"If, for any reason, this situation is not immediately corrected, I am going to charge Canada a 50% Tariff on any and all aircraft sold into the United States of America," Trump said of the Gulfstream certification process in a post on Truth Social.

https://www.reuters.com/business/ae...al-express-until-canada-certifies-2026-01-30/

 

[Archibald]

MTHRFKER

 

[DWG]

It's an incredibly dangerous/stupid precedent. It's effectively threatening retribution against any national airworthiness authority that doesn't absolutely kowtow to FAA rulings, when FAA occasionally falls short on what other NAAs consider a safety issue. Consider the 737 Max, where non-US NAAs insisted on ascertaining for themselves whether the MCAS issues had been fixed, and recertification worldwide spread over a year or more.

Pretty sure it'll be a violation of ICAO regs, too.

 

[tacitblue1973]

Sure, let the manufacturer's own certification for fuel system and wing icing stand, that'll go well. Just blame the countries they're most likely to leave a smoking hole in. Smh

 

[publiusr]

Pretty sure it'll be a violation of ICAO regs, too.

Regs are what this bunch wants to dismantle as well---from the same people who brag about making government so small you can drown it in a bathtub. Starships shedding debris everywhere--fine. Bombardier jets that take folks to the Caribbean without incident for the most part--yeah.....THAT they call unsafe. Laissez-faire for me but not for thee.

 

[fightingirish]

Hi folks, the Airbus A220, formerly known as the Bombardier CSeries (BCS), is one of my favorite commercial aircraft after flying on it from Berlin to Tallinn. I just hope the final assembly line at the Airbus Mobile facility in Alabama stays unaffected by this political issue.

 

[GTX]

Given the impact of this on airlines already flying the types, and more specifically their profits, I predict a TACO moment coming...

 

[Archibald]

As dumb as this. https://www.kyivpost.com/post/68339 Those two are like lost siblings... for the worst.

 

[DWG]

Regs are what this bunch wants to dismantle as well---from the same people who brag about making government so small you can drown it in a bathtub. Starships shedding debris everywhere--fine. Bombardier jets that take folks to the Caribbean without incident for the most part--yeah.....THAT they call unsafe. Laissez-faire for me but not for thee.

Oh, sure, but it's ICAO regs that nations use to judge whether other nations' airlines are safe to operate in your airspace. If the US stops following ICAO regs, then do other nations declare its airlines unsafe, because they can't be sure they're following the appropriate airworthiness/operations regs anymore, and start barring them from their airspace?

 

[piginapoke]

Oh, sure, but it's ICAO regs that nations use to judge whether other nations' airlines are safe to operate in your airspace. If the US stops following ICAO regs, then do other nations declare its airlines unsafe, because they can't be sure they're following the appropriate airworthiness/operations regs anymore, and start barring them from their airspace?

In these crazy times, I wouldn't be surprised if they stopped following ICAO regs. I'd love to see his face if US Airlines were immediately banned. I don't think it would get that far as the airlines would be hammering at his door and the stock market would get hit.

 

[Arjen]

love to see his face if US Airlines were immediately banned

That would amount to a Big Beautiful Wall around the USA. Not to keep the unwanted unwashed outside the US, but to keep US airlines inside.

 

[Big_Zukini]

Has decertification actually happened?

Because it just sounds a lot like the tariffs - all over the news, but nothing actually happening.

 

[Avimimus]

The fact that this includes business jets makes me suspect that some people at Mar-a-lago (and elsewhere) who own them might complain about the sudden depreciation of their asset... so that might get reversed?

Doesn't this also push Canada towards selecting the Gripen in order to help bail out Canadian manufacturers (i.e. Bombardier)?

 

[Big_Zukini]

Doesn't this also push Canada towards selecting the Gripen in order to help bail out Canadian manufacturers (i.e. Bombardier)?

Canada's participation in the F-35 program and the general global disinterest in the Gripen mean it's just trading one manufacturing process for another.

 

[Foo Fighter]

So, our defence is in good hands and, we can really trust our US defence contributors? How long can the F-35 go without being certified by those nations contributing to and flying the things?

 

[Big_Zukini]

So, our defence is in good hands and, we can really trust our US defence contributors? How long can the F-35 go without being certified by those nations contributing to and flying the things?

The F-35 is not getting decertified.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Uhm.

I don't think that the FAA can decertify an aircraft that is current on maintenance.

 

[Avimimus]

Just a reminder: Anything about the F-35 or Gripen that isn't related to Canadian manufacturers facing potential decertification or tariffs (and Gripen production being a potential bailout) is presumably off-topic.

Of course, this does raise the question of whether Canadian subcontractors on the F-35 may also see their workshares reduced/removed if relations continue to deteriorate.

 

[PMN1]

Post from Michal on the HP&CA board on his

So as best I can gather from the Gulfstream thing from various reporting it seems to be something like this:

Trump mentioned the 500, 600, 700, and 800. The 500 and 600 are already certified by Canada so unclear why those would be mentioned at all. The FAA introduced some new new fuel icing test requirements during the certification process of the 700 and 800, and Gulfstream got a temporary waiver from those to give them some time to develop test methods and such, and they’re supposed to complete the tests and demonstrate compliance by the end of 2026. Canada has gotten more cautious with accepting FAA certifications as is since the debacle with Boeing and the 737 MAX, so the process of accepting the waiver approach has taken some time as they do a more detailed review of the aircraft themselves rather than rubber stamping the FAA work. However, the 700 is reportedly slated to be certified by Canada shortly, at the next meeting of the responsible body.

This begs the question why this rant emerged at all, since the 700 would be certified soon anyway and presumably the 800 in the not too distant future as well. Just wait a bit and it’d probably resolved itself anyway, now it just serves to add on to the animosity between the US and Canada, and further reduces the chances of additional F-35 sales there.

 

[GTX]

https://open.substack.com/pub/barry...nfrj&utm_medium=ios&shareImageVariant=overlay

 

[Apophenia]

Another go (without any reference to the instigator) ...

Just a reminder that US jobs are also at risk. Global 7000/8500 wings are manufactured at Bombardier's Red Oak plant in Texas. That facility provides work for 600+ US technicians, engineers, and managers.

 

[amadolabonte]

It's an incredibly dangerous/stupid precedent. It's effectively threatening retribution against any national airworthiness authority that doesn't absolutely kowtow to FAA rulings, when FAA occasionally falls short on what other NAAs consider a safety issue. Learn more here about the broader regulatory concerns, particularly when authorities need to independently assess safety issues. Consider the 737 Max, where non-US NAAs insisted on ascertaining for themselves whether the MCAS issues had been fixed, and recertification worldwide spread over a year or more.

Pretty sure it'll be a violation of ICAO regs, too.

Exactly. The 737 MAX situation is a good example of why independent oversight matters. International cooperation and harmonized standards are important, but national aviation authorities should still be able to conduct their own safety assessments and delay approval when they have legitimate concerns. No regulator should feel pressured to accept another authority’s decision simply because of political or economic consequences. Multiple independent reviews may take longer, but in aviation, that extra scrutiny can be an important safety safeguard.