←back to thread

152 points lr0 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.21s | source
Show context
oivey ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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. forgotoldacc ◴[] 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.