This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Old talk

Bombardier has sold his recreational division (including: snowmobile, watercraft, ouboard engines, atv, Rotax engines) last winter 2003. The recreational division is now know as BRP (see www.brp.com).

OK, new article created under Bombardier Recreational Products AlainV 14:01, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Bombardier monorail in Las Vegas

An encyclopedia article is not a consumer review or consumer watchdog. Bombardier has transit systems or major transit system components in hundreds of cities around the globe. If everybody who went through some problesm with Bombardier transit systems (or Bombardier airplanes) posted a paragraph here it would become a consumer's report. The paragraph previously posted on the Bombardier monorail operations in Las Vegas duplicated exactly a paragraph already existing in the Las Vegas monorail article. It is a concern specific to that monorail system. If there were other issues with other Bombardier monorail installations around the globe or other present or past issues with some other Bombardier transport systems then it would make sense to make a paragraph summing them up and then putting in half a phrase or a phrase on the issues with the Bombardier monorail in Las Vegas. --AlainV 21:34, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In Helsinki (Finland), the trams provided by the German manufacturer Bombardier have upseted the city council and the users, since their acquisition in ~2000. In 2005, when there was the World Championships in Athletics, the city council of Helsinki had to buy used German trams of the 1970s, while almost half of the Bombardier trams were stuck at the depot for being repaired. When the old trams of the 1970s have been introduced, as a temporary substitution, the Helsinki City Transport organization has received a huge number of letters of happy users! So, yes, faultiness of Bombardier's trams could deserve a paragraph, if they are indeed problematic in many parts of the world. Some links from the biggest and most serious newspaper in Finland:

Helsinki City Transport plans purchase of used trams from Germany (07.04.2005)

Fault-ridden Helsinki trams will be repaired in Germany on a tight schedule (Nearly one in two of the trams now standing idle in depots) (30.09.2005)

Helsinki considers calling off low-carriage tram order from Germany (21.03.2007)

Helsinki City Transport seeks leaseback deal for troubled Bombardier trams (20.04.2007)

Paul Deshayes 15:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop censoring this article

I understand that you are from Montreal and have some kind of loyalty to Bombardier, and that is great. But Wikipedia has a strong policy of neutrality, and you do not have the right to censor articles to impose your own personal views of the company on everyone else.

Let me give you an example. Die-hard Michael Jackson fans probably don't want to see allegations of sexual abuse in his article. But guess what? It is a major news story, and - true or not - people who want a rounded, unbiased view of Mr. Jackson deserve to hear every publicly known fact about him.

Now, much as when people hear the name "Michael Jackson", the first thing that comes to mind is "sexual abuse"; the same is true, in the western US, of Bombardier. When people hear this name, they immediately think of the malfunctioning monorail system. Therefore, especially at a time when this story is actively in the news, the Bombardier page deserves some kind of mention of the story.

I don't know how things are in Canada but here in the United States we have a strong history of free speech, it's one of the fundamental rights guaranteed to every citizen; and most Americans agree that it is a right that should be extended to all citizens of the world. You may like Bombardier, and you certainly have the right to defend any kind of allegations against it. But you do not have the right to censor such a story from the page. This is a major news story here. It's created quite a controversy, and here in Las Vegas, when people hear the name "Bombardier" they immediately think of the scandal. It involved hundreds of millions of dollars, and therefore is important enough to warrant a small paragraph on the page.

You are more then welcome to research the issue, and make the case for Bombardier in the article, but again, you do not have the right to censor it. I am adding the paragraph for a third time, and if you remove it again, I will have no choice but to report this censorship to the Wikipedia authorities.

You have not signed your comments, but I am addressing the person above. The idea that someone would be "welcome to research the issue, and make the case for Bombardier in the article" vis a vis the Las Vegas transit system brings us to an issue of due weight. Problems with a Bombardier transit system in Las Vegas may merit coverage in this article, but they should not have the weight that you seem to think they deserve.

Step back please. To understand due weight, I suggest you visit the Concorde article. The aircraft's Paris crash is dealt with in a single paragraph, this from a very long article on the history of the Concorde. Now, can you argue that a startup delay for the Bombardier transit system in Las Vegas merits greater relative weight?

I have edited the section accordingly, trimming the attendant criticisms which were not specific to Bombardier. I also don't think we need the NPOV Hand any longer.

RomaC 16:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I made a summary of the paragraph you re-inserted. I was hoping that you would do it yourself since you seem to know the topic well. Every transit sytem has its "teething" problems, and instead of hiding or trying to hide them as you seem to think I was trying to do, I was in fact making it easier for everybody to see them. If you take the trouble of going to the page histories of this article and the Las Vegas you will discover that I was the one who placed hyperlinks between them. I noticed that while you have made several additions to the Las Vegas monorail article you did not mention once that the Bombardier monorail system in Disneyworld has known flawless operations for decades, taking millions of adults and children from point A to point B in complete safety. You have added only negative elements. And you have never provided context. Do you consider that unbiased? Is it neutral to report only the disasters and not report the possible causes that experts have offered in the press?--AlainV 03:32, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I also think the article is somewhat biased - against Bombardier. (CNT)

I agree with that. Free speech in the american mindset too often means free POV. Have to depict the whole thing, or nothing. True some controversies have parcelled Bombardier's history, but it didn't get where it is today by doing crap.

I agree. This article as currently written is indeed biased against Bombardier. The criticisms section consists of four rather large paragaphs (with a total of 53 lines) criticizing various activities conducted by this company. Only 3 lines in the entire article can even remotely be seen as argueing in favor of Bombardier - and they are in the criticisms section. ("Canada and Bombardier have countered by denouncing Brazil's direct and indirect subsidies to Embraer, their own major aircraft manufacturer and one of Bombardier's principal competitors in the regional jet market.").

When only one side of the argument is presented at all (those 3 lines hardly count against 53 lines), then the article is very clearly one-sided and biased. It is not even an issue of "equal coverage" - the opposing side is not mentioned at all.

To add insult to injury, whoever wrote the criticisms section against Bombardier has himself claimed that someone else is pro-Bombardier - and did so while using some rather heated language. He claims "I understand that you are from Montreal and have some kind of loyalty to Bombardier". Then, he someone compares this Bombardier case to the case of Michael Jackson?!

In addition, the comments above about Montreal and "loyalty to Bombardier" are turning this page into a national patriotic affair. It does not need to be this way.

Also, the article uses wording such as "Some Canadians object to..." or "some business analysts believe..." - without providing us with specific references as to who these Canadians or business analysts are. If there are no references provided, how can we tell that the statements are not just the personal opinion of whoever wrote that section of the article?

All in all, the criticism section must be reworked to become unbiased.

While being unbiased is certainly a worthy goal, after perusing this article today and then looking at its history, it seems that the way it's been made "unbiased" is to remove all of the criticism. Combined with the way some of the article's tone could pass for corporate history on Bombardier's own web site (referring to the founder consistently as "Armand," as if he's our good friend, and describing his achievements with slightly breathless admiration), is this possibly tilted just a little bit in the "pro-Bombardier" direction? Screenfuls of Bombardier's alleged misdeeds aren't NPOV, but devoting a sentence or two somewhere to controversies surrounding its subsidies seems appropriate, doesn't it? (N.B.: I do see that the "criticism" section was removed primarily due to lack of sourcing, but this could addressed by typing bombardier subsidies into Google and spending 5-10 minutes figuring out where to put the results in.) ChipotleCoyote (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Weasel tracks have been spotted

"Controvertial" Qingzang Railway? From what I understand there are some environmental concerns, but I haven't heard of it being particularly controvertial. Can the original author clarify?

Anything Tibetian is an instant POV dramabomb. --Adamrush 19:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes you are right about Tibet and reactions. And so I think "controversial" is appropriate. I'm not the original author but I went in and cut excess, trimmed back the rhetoric in that section. I noted my reasons above. I hope the NPOV Hand can stay off this one now. We'll see.

RomaC 17:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Bombardier developed a partnership with deere and Co

Criticisms Section

Question there have been over a thousand modification to the Acela Express for poor design (they used velcro to hold air deflectors in place for Christ sake, all of which now fall down) and materials, I have first hand knowledge and only company technical bulletin and revised repair manuals that other would not have access to for comfirmation, what do I cite?--Kev62nesl 07:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I see the latest additions to the Criticisms section were reverted and I'm inclined to agree with that move. But as this was an NPOV-flagged article until recently, I'd like whomever made the additions to come to the talk page here and simply explain how outsourcing is specific to Bombardier these days. It seems to me that this issue could be raised in pretty well every article about North American/European companies, couldn't it? The fact that Bombardier gets tax breaks does not seem to be specific to the company either, can you explain why you think it belongs in this article please. RomaC 01:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The concerns may be common, but they do come up a good deal more frequently with Bombardier than with most companies; outsourcing is also more of an issue with Bombardier than with many companies precisely because they are perceived as being in some way ‘propped up’ by the national government. Many people seem to have fixed on them as a standard example of ‘what’s wrong’ with multinational corporations, Canadian business, or whatever, and while Wikipedia certainly shouldn’t endorse these views, the article would be incomplete if it didn't mention that they exist. David Arthur 15:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I see, thanks. Actually your explanation here is good, so Bombardier has come to symbolize the "big bad tax-sucking corporation" for many Canadians.

Also I'd hazard a guess that the fact Bombardier are from Québec and have been involved in the arms industry hasn't brought them any sympathy from 1) the old 'I don't want French on my Corn Flakes box' gang; 2) young, anti-war types; and, 3) the neo-anarchist anti-globalization camp. Well, now I see why the content in this article has been so hotly debated and controversial! Maybe this could/should be noted in the criticisms section of article? (half serious half joking) RomaC 02:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I re-read the article again (I hadn't read it in a long time) and noticed somebody took out a phrase where I noted that Bombarier agressively seeks and obtains subsidies, direct and indirect, or other concessions such as tax breaks or cheap land for its factories in all of the countries in which it operates. And it does so openly within the legal framework of those countries. By taking this out it looks as if Canadian taxpayers only are subsidising Bombardier. I also had a phrase in there which noted that other large corporations did the same thing in the same countries. To note just one example: Bombardier got huge breaks of all sorts from the UK government when it bought the Shorts aircraft company in Northern Ireland but at the same time many other large corporations got breaks of all kinds from the business-friendly Thatcher government. --AlainV 05:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Noted. That's why I think we don't need to point out that some big companies get tax breaks, or that some people object to tax breaks for big companies, it's not something specific to Bombardier. But as DA pointed out above, Bombardier is something of a lightning rod for these complaints in Canada.

RomaC 07:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. It’s not so much a matter of what Bombardier do, but how they’re perceived, and while the article definitely could use some reworking to make this clear, it would be incomplete if the criticisms went unmentioned; the average Canadian, if Bombardier is mentioned, is more likely to know about subsidies, outsourcing, and badly-selling aeroplanes than about their large, successful train-building business. Another difficulty facing this article is that while criticisms appear on this page, positive statements about Bombardier will generally end up on the pages about their individual products, so I think it’s almost inevitable that the article about the company itself will come across as rather negative. David Arthur 15:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Slightly off topic perhaps but I found it interesting to discover while poking round on this that the Canadian government also gave a bunch of subsidies ($200 million) to General Motors plants in Ontario this year. I wonder, was there also an outcry in Canada about that handout, because there is no mention of it in the GM article.

Another thought, there are Wikipedia articles on Subsidies and Corporate welfare. How about citing Bombardier along with other companies in a new section in one or both of those articles then cross-linking them with the Bombardier entry? Bombardier seems a good Canadian example of this sort of thing after all, but the whole issue could be put in context if it were addressed in a dedicated article. RomaC 15:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I have seen the flawed Dash planes delivered to SAS being all over the news lately due several incidents with potential fatal outcome. In the perspective of the other scandals. It seems there's a red thread. Most of the incidents are related to mechanical failures and delays (due mechanical?). Makes you wonder how many other near accidents and undiscovered flaws there is. Bombardier products seems to be something to stay clear of in the interest of self preservation. My guess is bad management and company culture which tend to occour when subsidies are available without proper requirements. Electron9 01:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Concerning criticism of Bombadier...

Seems Bombadier invoked the laweyers on an enthusiast site:

http://www.croydon-tramlink.co.uk/news/index.shtml

Wouldn't want them to invoke the lawyers on WikiPedia (In particular given the recent 'incident' concerning 'false' information....)

New Logo

I've posted the official new logo for Bombardier. I'm surprised it took that long for someone to notice. --Jay (Reply) 23:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

WHY????

Does anybody know why bombardier changed their atv line up name so much? I havent figured out Why yet? --Harvick29 20:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Headquarters: Montreal or Berlin???==

In today's Le Devoir (oct 25) http://www.ledevoir.com/2006/10/26/121347.html, André Navarri, president of Bombardier, is quoted as «Bombardier est d'abord une entreprise européenne, la première entreprise ferroviaire d'Europe», a-t-il rappelé. Son siège social n'est d'ailleurs pas à Montréal mais à Berlin. (Bombardier is first and foremost an European company, Europe's first in railway industry. Indeed, its headquarters are not in Montreal, but in Berlin.)Marcus wilby73 19:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

--Okay, it was sorted out. Apparantly, the division of transportation, Bombardier transportation, is the one having its hq in Berlin. 199.202.95.16 07:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Clearly where the companies headquarters is situated is a good indication of what nationality the company is. I think it would be a good contribution to the article to state where all of Bombardier's workforce is employed. For example, whether 10% Ontario, 40% Quebec, 20% Ireland etc. Does anybody know this and do you feel it would be a good contribution?. Canking 11:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Transfer of assets between subsidiaries

Until someone can cite a source, I removed the paragraph on Bombardier booking profits on asset transfers between subsidiaries. This is completely out of line with how consolidated financial statements are presented under GAAP and any auditor would force management to change its statements accordingly.

G. Csikos

G., the work you have described is listed as user contribution: "216.239.75.67." Be sure to log in to leave your name when you edit (if that is possible since I see you are on a McGill account). Bzuk 15:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Bombardier Buses

Their was a range of buses used for Dublin Bus during the 80's and 90's going by the name Bombardier. Their is a link to another site with more details: http://busexplorer.com/WorldBus/BombardierGAC-Text.html

Maybe worth a mention if the two are connceted. Xen 1986 18:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Cross Border Sales Controversy

If this issue surrounding all-terrain vehicles is a recent one as the article claims, then it must involve not Bombardier, but Bombardier Recreational Products, which was spun off into a separate company beyond Bombardier’s control several years ago. Surely, then, it does not belong in this article? David Arthur 12:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. The Toronto Star article I sited also refers to Bombardier Recreational Products. I have moved it. --JefeMixtli 12:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

When

We need some dates on when Bombardier acquired ~~Canadair~~, Learjet and other businesses. Randall Bart Talk 06:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

History

Is it just me, or does "To keep his business going, Armand switched gears and developed vehicles for the military" sound like copypasta from an article regarding Bombardier? Saying something like "switched gears" when no tangible gears were actually switched does not sound like a phrase that really belongs in an encyclopedia, but go ahead and correct me if I'm wrong. Sandwiches99 23:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I concusr that it's not quite encyclopedic phrasing, and should be changed. YOu might try Google-ing part or all of the sentence, and see what pops up. If a copyrighted text was used, we would need to source it and rewrite the text. - BillCJ 23:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bombardier.svg

Image:Bombardier.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Bombardier are the current main sponsors of Derby County FC.

"Bombardier are the current main sponsors of Derby County FC."

... is this at all relevant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PS 4 (talk • contribs) 06:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Articles on subsidiaries

I have trimmed the sections on Aerospace and Transportation down to just the necessary facts and dates. Most of the other information is better covered in the actual articles for those divisions. It's very odd to have the main article containg 2 to 3 times as much history info as the daughter articles! I am working the text on Aerospace into that aritcle, but I have placed the Transportation section on that talk page, as railways are not my priimary area of knowledge. Let's try to keep these sections short form now on. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 05:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.informationbuilders.com/applications/bomb_bar.html. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a license compatible with GFDL. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Rather than the version now in play, why not rewrite the material? FWIW Bzuk (talk) 14:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Undiscussed page move

Why was this article moved without discussion? Even the rationale given makes no sense. And since the user moving the3 page can't spell/type, a revert is not possible without admin help. Also, per WP:NCCORP, Bombardier Inc. would be the second choice, but this would also need admin assistance. I will be asking an admin to revert the undiscussed move. A formal move discussion should be held here to gain a consensus for moving the page from Bombardier. - BillCJ (talk) 21:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

‘Bombardier’ seems by far the simplest and most appropriate title to me. David Arthur (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The page was moved to Bombardier Incorporated because that is the name of the company! That makes perfect sence. When searching up Bombardier you should be directed to this page to search through your options. If you look at that page, you can see Bombardier has various many uses, and in trying to find other articles regarding Bombardier is very difficult.--gordonrox24 (talk) 14:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:NCCORP: ‘The legal status of the company (Inc., plc or LLC), is not normally included, i.e. Microsoft or Wal-Mart.’ When talking or writing about this company, it is far more common to call them ‘Bombardier’ than ‘Bombardier Inc.’, and I don’t think I’ve ever heard ‘Bombardier Incorporated’. David Arthur (talk) 14:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The company website uses both "Bombardier" and "Bombardier Inc.", so either one is valid. Legal statuses can be used in disamgiguating titles per the WP:NCCORP. The main issue is whether the company is the primary topic for the Bombardier. I agree it's an important company, esp to Canada, but I don't beileve it stands above the other definitions of the term, esp. the bomb aimer and the rank. As such, I would support a move of this page to Bombardier Inc., and moving Bombardier (disambiguation) to Bombardier. Note that an admin would have to perform these moves, and they would need a clear concensus here to do so. I can list this at the proper place, and add a merge tag to this page, if we want to make this discussion more formal. - BillCJ (talk) 18:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that would be a good idea. Bombardier sells planes and other vehicles world-wide, but is for the most part selling their snowmobile in Canada. The other Bombardier uses apply on a grander scale.--gordonrox24 (talk) 20:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

This article isn't actually about the snowmobile manufacturer – that's a (now) separate company called Bombardier Recreational Products. For reference, I believe Bombardier is the world's biggest manufacturer of trains, and third biggest of aeroplanes. David Arthur (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with whether or not it is the primary topic for the term Bombardier. It can still be a very important topic, but not be the primary use of the term. - BillCJ (talk) 20:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing BRP up. I also would like to suggest putting Bombardier Recreational Products on the Bombardier(disambiguation) page. --user:gordonrox24

There's no reason that I know of for it not to be listed on the DAB page. I'll add it, along with several of Bombardier's divisions. - BillCJ (talk) 00:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Bombardier → Bombardier Inc., Bombardier (disambiguation) → Bombardier — The company, while very important and notable, is not the obvious primary topic for the term "Bombardier". Bombardier should be the DAB page. — BillCJ (talk) 09:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Support - Per my nom, and discussions in section above. - BillCJ (talk) 09:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - As stated above, Bombardier is an important company, but not the most importand topic associated with the name Bombardier.--gordonrox24 (talk) 13:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Support per nom. The company is definitely pretty notable, but I don't think it meets the requirements of a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I for one would first think of the guy who pushed the button in a bomber, but even that might not be enough widely searched to merit it being the primary. Parsecboy (talk) 01:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Qualified Support - I support the intent, but the naming convention discourages uses of things like "Inc." Instead, I'd suggest we follow the convention and use either Bombardier (company) or Bombardier (manufacturer). AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Alan, could you provide a specific guideline for that? WP:NCCORP specifically states that "When disambiguation is needed the legal status, main company interest or "(company)" can be used to disambiguate." There seems to be no preference given, assuming the oreder here is arbitrary. "Bombardier Inc." is used by the company, and seems more intuitive than Bombardier (company). - BillCJ (talk) 02:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Support Seems like the easiest option, and since Bombardier does refer to itself by the sole (trademark) name, it makes sense. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC).
Support - Bombardier becomes a disambig page right? Age of usage would takes precedent in my book, but this is a quite notable name coke/coke - support either "Bombardier (company)" or "Bombardier Inc." - not "Bombardier (manufacturer)" scope of business is too broad. FengRail (talk) 01:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Support: the split of Bombardier Recreational Products from Bombardier Inc. substantially weakens the latter's claim to be the primary topic. Bombardier (company) and Bombardier (manufacturer) are not good disambiguations, because Bombardier Recreational Products is both a company and a manufacturer. Bombardier Inc. is acceptable under WP:NCCORP as a disambiguation and preferable and because that title is used by the company and is a likely search term. Baileypalblue (talk) 08:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Yes User:FengRail Bombardier will become the DAB page.--gordonrox24 (talk) 23:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Bombadier has the WORST accounts payable department of any company I have ever dealt with! They send out checks late, they don't answer phone calls they are unethical! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.206.57.60 (talk) 17:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)