←back to thread

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

(www.reuters.com)
152 points lr0 | 2 comments | 21 Nov 24 04:19 UTC | HN request time: 0s | 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 #
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 #
1. 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 #
2. 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.)