←back to thread

Boeing overcharged the U.S. Air Force 8,000% above market for soap dispensers

(www.reuters.com)
152 points lr0 | 5 comments | 21 Nov 24 04:19 UTC | HN request time: 0.403s | source
Show context
oivey ◴[21 Nov 24 08:00 UTC] No.42202104[source]▶
It is strange how much apologia there is for Boeing in this thread. Why does it have to be somehow the government’s fault or somehow reflective of the actual cost to make the dispensers? Why should Boeing get the benefit of the doubt, especially given their complete failures on their fixed price contracts (Starliner, Air Force One, KC-46 tanker)? They’re so unable to control costs they’re talking about never taking fixed price contracts ever again. Given those failures, it seems safe to assume they’re screwing taxpayers on their cost plus contracts.
replies(6): >>42202119 #>>42202209 #>>42202477 #>>42202746 #>>42203237 #>>42203437 #
1. rullelito ◴[21 Nov 24 08:03 UTC] No.42202119[source]▶
> Why does it have to be somehow the government’s fault

Because they bought it.

> They’re so unable to control costs

I assume you talk about the government here?

replies(3): >>42202181 #>>42202661 #>>42203015 #
2. oivey ◴[21 Nov 24 08:14 UTC] No.42202181[source]▶
> Because they bought it.

Fair enough, but I was referencing people taking a Boeing exec’s claim that somehow regulations cause military soap dispensers to cost that much at face value.

> I assume you talk about the government here?

No. Read the whole sentence. I’m referencing Boeing and the tens of billions Boeing has lost on fixed price contracts.

replies(1): >>42202474 #
3. red_admiral ◴[21 Nov 24 09:14 UTC] No.42202474[source]▶
> somehow regulations cause military soap dispensers to cost that much at face value

MILSPEC is a thing - but unless the soap dispenser involves electronics, I don't think that applies here.

(If someone had bought an IoT enabled soap dispenser for a military plane, that would have been their own stupidity.)

4. forgotoldacc ◴[21 Nov 24 09:55 UTC] No.42202661[source]▶
Having someone who goes through a list and cross-references the price of every screw and soap dispenser against the market rate to ensure they're not being scammed incurs a huge cost. Especially since the US government is buying billions of various supplies every year.

A better solution than hiring people to watch for literal scams is to simply not scam people and hold them liable when they're found to have done so.

Your logic is the same as thieves who say, "It's not my fault that I stole their wallet. They should've put it in a slash-proof backpack and locked it with a combination lock that isn't easily picked." Sure, some degree of security and caution is good. But not defending criminal behavior is better.

20 years ago, Boeing had a good reputation. Now it's known as a company that'll pick your pockets and kill you. Quite a downfall.

5. trompetenaccoun ◴[21 Nov 24 10:53 UTC] No.42203015[source]▶
>Because they bought it.

When someone gets tricked in a shell game, is it fine because they voluntarily bought into it? Would you legalize such schemes? Of course any scam (short of outright extortion and robbery) relies on the victim to voluntarily hand over money. We could take a social Darwinist approach to business and say any way you gain an advantage is legitimate as long as it's not by physical force. But obviously something nefarious is going on here, because no one would knowingly overpay by that much for no apparent benefit. It's likely kickbacks were involved. This is fraud, they're stealing taxpayer funds.