4 ms·

The U.S. is not going to shut down Boeing. How many jobs would be lost if that happened, especially in this economy? The fine is quite low.

immibis 2y ago
The US has propped up Boeing, because it's primarily a military contractor.
- dralley 2y ago
  People keep saying this but it borders on conspiracy talk. The Air Force leadership has been pissed off at Boeing for well over a decade. Every project they've been given has turned into a clusterfuck even moreso than average. They fortunately had the foresight to not give them any cost-plus contracts, so at least it's Boeing eating most of the cost overruns rather than the Air Force, but the point remains that Boeing mismanagement has been a headache for the military. Politicians care about getting elected, which means they don't want layoffs on their watch. Politicians don't care what the military thinks or else they'd stop funding a lot of dumb projects that the military doesn't give a shit about - of which there are many. There are so many examples of congress putting their hand on the scale that I really don't understand the popular insistence that the military is the problem here.
  - bombcar 2y ago
    The military isn't the problem, it's that the military has no other options. Who else are they going to buy planes to bomb different-colored countries with? SpaceX? Airbus? It is to laugh. When you get a company that is too big to fail, it rests directly on the government for not identifying and solving the issue earlier.
    - zokier 2y ago
      Boeing hasn't won any major military aircraft deals in recent decades. The latest big bomber purchase, B-21, went to Northrop Grumman, as did the not so recent B-2. Fighters have been going to Lockheed (F-22 and F-35). The biggest recent win for Boeing was KC-46 tanker airplane, which is just modified 767. I suppose there is also the handful of F-15EXes that are vestige from their McDonnell Douglas merger.
  - SJC_Hacker 2y ago
    > The Air Force leadership has been pissed off at Boeing for well over a decade. Military brass don't control procurement. That would be Congress. In fact the military often frequently has systems it doesn't want/need precisely because Congress. See the Zumwalt destroyer and the Littoral Combat Ship.
- anticensor 2y ago
  It's not like the law doesn't have a way to ban a contractor from government contracts. In fact, the law has multiple offences that are punishable by a ban from government procurement contracts.
akira2501 2y ago
> The U.S. is not going to shut down Boeing. It's a monopoly. Just break it up. > How many jobs would be lost if that happened "We don't negotiate with [economic] terrorists." > especially in this economy? $77b annual revenue. Positive quarterly growth rate the last 8 out of 12 quarters. Two global wars we refuse to negotiate peace in and Boeing is a major weapons supplier. Then again, if you kill and scare enough people with faulty planes, the state of the economy will be immaterial to what will happen to your interests.
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  > "We don't negotiate with [economic] terrorists." This is just so silly. Shutting down a company results in people losing their jobs. No terrorists involved.
  - grecy 2y ago
    > Shutting down a company results in people losing their jobs. No terrorists involved. I'm always baffled by this unholy protection of "jobs". Making asbestos essentially illegal resulted in tens of thousands of people losing their jobs and shutting down coal plants will do the same. It makes no sense to protect jobs at all costs, and doing so can have very bad outcomes. If a company is doing something illegal or dangerous or that does not serve society anymore, we shouldn't bend over backwards just because people will lose their jobs.
    - robertlagrant 2y ago
      > I'm always baffled by this unholy protection of "jobs". I wasn't invoking any unholy protection of jobs. It's very clear the context I was replying to: that "job loss" isn't "economic terrorism". Can we not treat the comment section as that party game where people only read the previous sentence of the story and write a follow-on sentence? You have the whole thread available to you.
  - Zigurd 2y ago
    Spirit Aerosystem will soon no longer exist. but the assets and almost all the jobs will be divided between Boeing and Airbus. If Boeing were split up the result would be similar.

immibis 2y ago

The US has propped up Boeing, because it's primarily a military contractor.

dralley 2y ago
People keep saying this but it borders on conspiracy talk. The Air Force leadership has been pissed off at Boeing for well over a decade. Every project they've been given has turned into a clusterfuck even moreso than average. They fortunately had the foresight to not give them any cost-plus contracts, so at least it's Boeing eating most of the cost overruns rather than the Air Force, but the point remains that Boeing mismanagement has been a headache for the military. Politicians care about getting elected, which means they don't want layoffs on their watch. Politicians don't care what the military thinks or else they'd stop funding a lot of dumb projects that the military doesn't give a shit about - of which there are many. There are so many examples of congress putting their hand on the scale that I really don't understand the popular insistence that the military is the problem here.
- bombcar 2y ago
  The military isn't the problem, it's that the military has no other options. Who else are they going to buy planes to bomb different-colored countries with? SpaceX? Airbus? It is to laugh. When you get a company that is too big to fail, it rests directly on the government for not identifying and solving the issue earlier.
  - zokier 2y ago
    Boeing hasn't won any major military aircraft deals in recent decades. The latest big bomber purchase, B-21, went to Northrop Grumman, as did the not so recent B-2. Fighters have been going to Lockheed (F-22 and F-35). The biggest recent win for Boeing was KC-46 tanker airplane, which is just modified 767. I suppose there is also the handful of F-15EXes that are vestige from their McDonnell Douglas merger.
- SJC_Hacker 2y ago
  > The Air Force leadership has been pissed off at Boeing for well over a decade. Military brass don't control procurement. That would be Congress. In fact the military often frequently has systems it doesn't want/need precisely because Congress. See the Zumwalt destroyer and the Littoral Combat Ship.
anticensor 2y ago
It's not like the law doesn't have a way to ban a contractor from government contracts. In fact, the law has multiple offences that are punishable by a ban from government procurement contracts.

akira2501 2y ago

> The U.S. is not going to shut down Boeing. It's a monopoly. Just break it up. > How many jobs would be lost if that happened "We don't negotiate with [economic] terrorists." > especially in this economy? $77b annual revenue. Positive quarterly growth rate the last 8 out of 12 quarters. Two global wars we refuse to negotiate peace in and Boeing is a major weapons supplier. Then again, if you kill and scare enough people with faulty planes, the state of the economy will be immaterial to what will happen to your interests.

robertlagrant 2y ago
> "We don't negotiate with [economic] terrorists." This is just so silly. Shutting down a company results in people losing their jobs. No terrorists involved.
- grecy 2y ago
  > Shutting down a company results in people losing their jobs. No terrorists involved. I'm always baffled by this unholy protection of "jobs". Making asbestos essentially illegal resulted in tens of thousands of people losing their jobs and shutting down coal plants will do the same. It makes no sense to protect jobs at all costs, and doing so can have very bad outcomes. If a company is doing something illegal or dangerous or that does not serve society anymore, we shouldn't bend over backwards just because people will lose their jobs.
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    > I'm always baffled by this unholy protection of "jobs". I wasn't invoking any unholy protection of jobs. It's very clear the context I was replying to: that "job loss" isn't "economic terrorism". Can we not treat the comment section as that party game where people only read the previous sentence of the story and write a follow-on sentence? You have the whole thread available to you.
- Zigurd 2y ago
  Spirit Aerosystem will soon no longer exist. but the assets and almost all the jobs will be divided between Boeing and Airbus. If Boeing were split up the result would be similar.