Many of you might assume that Starliner is a cost-plus contract. Cost-plus contracts are common for large capital projects but they often end up running way ove

Many of you might assume that Starliner is a cost-plus contract. Cost-plus contracts are common for large capital projects but they often end up running way over budget because the provider is essentially incentivized for budget overruns because they get paid more. It turns out Starliner is a fixed-price contract (for $4.2 billion). So when Starliner had an issue a couple of years ago Boeing was forced to do another test and eat the launch cost. We ened more of this. SLS (and Artemis?), for example, is largely done by cost-plus contracts. It's common for companies and governments to want to have more than one supplier so they can't so easily be price-gouged (which doesn't really work but that's a separate topic). SpaceX got a $2.6 billion contract for Crew Dragon and its launch cost has to be substantially lower than Starliner's. So NASA will still push Starliner for this reason. But this whole debacle is deeply embarrasing for Boeing, so much so that people at the top may actually get fired. That's really rare for the executives responsible for a strategy to be held accountable for its failures. Boeing is just not in a great place and I honestly don't know how you right the ship at this point. A fish rots from the head and I imagine Boeing has descended into warring fiefdoms where some VPs just try and increase their head counts so they can get promoted to SVP.