5 ms·

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 co

by oivey 2y ago

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.

rullelito 2y ago
> 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?
- oivey 2y ago
  > 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.
  - red_admiral 2y ago
    > 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.)
- forgotoldacc 2y ago
  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.
- trompetenaccoun 2y ago
  >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.
pydry 2y ago
It's strange how much some people are assuming this is as a result of a mistake or incompetence instead of simple corruption. "Whoops I made $600 from something that cost me $10"
- oivey 2y ago
  True. That’s really a bridge too far for people who believe a Boeing executive who says tactical soap dispensers really do cost $700.
  - SlightlyLeftPad 2y ago
    The international man of mystery would like a word. Those tactical soap dispensers can be a great defense against tactical shoes. Can’t put a price on that.
  - hulitu 2y ago
    In the same country where Pentagon paid 10$ for a paperclip. (cannot find a source right now, ddg and startpage are both braindead when it comes to searching)
    - pydry 2y ago
      https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-07-30-vw-18804-story.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-07-30-vw-18804-... It was screws, maybe? According to the U.S. attorney, the company “grossly inflated prices intentionally”, although according to mschuster91 people just don't understand the level of paperwork needed to create these $37 screws and $600 toilet seats.
- mschuster91 2y ago
  > "Whoops I made $600 from something that cost me $10" I've written about this here some time ago - you don't pay for the soap dispenser or trash bin itself, you pay for the paperwork showing that it is safe to install this trash bin, soap dispenser or whatnot into this specific model of aircraft or spacecraft, and you pay for the paperwork that details the entire life of every tiny little piece used to manufacture that component. For flight-critical parts, IIRC that goes as far as to documenting the specific lot of the iron ore that was used to make the metal sheets, so in the event of something cropping up where something got fucked up in the mine or the smelter, you can recall every single part that could be affected. And there's lots of testing (and associated waste) at each part of the step. Anything that goes into an airplane or spacecraft has ridiculous rules attached to it... rules that were literally written in blood. Aerospace is amongst the safest ways of transportation because of decades of crashes and learning from each and every single one. Your average Home Depot soap dispenser has none of that, if it breaks it breaks.
numbsafari 2y ago
It’s always really frustrating when the facts of a specific situation don’t conform to our preconceived notions and biases.
lupusreal 2y ago
> complete failures on their fixed price contracts In fact, Boeing has stated they will no longer bid for fixed price contracts at all. They are institutionally incapable of making money by simply selling a product to the government for a price agreed to up front. Other companies can, but Boeing cannot. It's a rotten company. https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/10/boeing-says-it-cant-make-money-with-fixed-price-contracts/ https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/10/boeing-says-it-cant-ma... Cost-plus contracts should be emergency measures for wartime only. They should be illegal otherwise. They hurt our country, not just by getting the government scammed by greedy corporations, but also by ruining companies like Boeing that should otherwise be competent and valuable assets to the country.
- numbsafari 2y ago
  The government is a ridiculous customer. The military especially so. Folks rotate every 18 months or so, each one coming in looking to “prove” themselves. Invariably they create rework and delays while they come up to speed, and by the time they come full circle and realize how much waste they’ve created, they’re off to the next gig, leaving their mess behind for the next person to eventually discover.
BigJ1211 2y ago
Though I don't disagree principally. My experience with government contracts echos the much higher costs you have to make to get 'simple' things through. You end up jumping through so many hoops to get something cheap through that you spend much more on the process than the part could ever cost. Granted 8000% is still absurd, but 1000% wouldn't necessarily be unrealistic.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

by oivey 2y ago

rullelito 2y ago

> 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?

oivey 2y ago
> 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.
- red_admiral 2y ago
  > 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.)
forgotoldacc 2y ago
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.
trompetenaccoun 2y ago
>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.

pydry 2y ago

It's strange how much some people are assuming this is as a result of a mistake or incompetence instead of simple corruption. "Whoops I made $600 from something that cost me $10"

oivey 2y ago
True. That’s really a bridge too far for people who believe a Boeing executive who says tactical soap dispensers really do cost $700.
- SlightlyLeftPad 2y ago
  The international man of mystery would like a word. Those tactical soap dispensers can be a great defense against tactical shoes. Can’t put a price on that.
- hulitu 2y ago
  In the same country where Pentagon paid 10$ for a paperclip. (cannot find a source right now, ddg and startpage are both braindead when it comes to searching)
  - pydry 2y ago
    https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-07-30-vw-18804-story.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-07-30-vw-18804-... It was screws, maybe? According to the U.S. attorney, the company “grossly inflated prices intentionally”, although according to mschuster91 people just don't understand the level of paperwork needed to create these $37 screws and $600 toilet seats.
mschuster91 2y ago
> "Whoops I made $600 from something that cost me $10" I've written about this here some time ago - you don't pay for the soap dispenser or trash bin itself, you pay for the paperwork showing that it is safe to install this trash bin, soap dispenser or whatnot into this specific model of aircraft or spacecraft, and you pay for the paperwork that details the entire life of every tiny little piece used to manufacture that component. For flight-critical parts, IIRC that goes as far as to documenting the specific lot of the iron ore that was used to make the metal sheets, so in the event of something cropping up where something got fucked up in the mine or the smelter, you can recall every single part that could be affected. And there's lots of testing (and associated waste) at each part of the step. Anything that goes into an airplane or spacecraft has ridiculous rules attached to it... rules that were literally written in blood. Aerospace is amongst the safest ways of transportation because of decades of crashes and learning from each and every single one. Your average Home Depot soap dispenser has none of that, if it breaks it breaks.

numbsafari 2y ago

It’s always really frustrating when the facts of a specific situation don’t conform to our preconceived notions and biases.

lupusreal 2y ago

> complete failures on their fixed price contracts In fact, Boeing has stated they will no longer bid for fixed price contracts at all. They are institutionally incapable of making money by simply selling a product to the government for a price agreed to up front. Other companies can, but Boeing cannot. It's a rotten company. https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/10/boeing-says-it-cant-make-money-with-fixed-price-contracts/ https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/10/boeing-says-it-cant-ma... Cost-plus contracts should be emergency measures for wartime only. They should be illegal otherwise. They hurt our country, not just by getting the government scammed by greedy corporations, but also by ruining companies like Boeing that should otherwise be competent and valuable assets to the country.

numbsafari 2y ago
The government is a ridiculous customer. The military especially so. Folks rotate every 18 months or so, each one coming in looking to “prove” themselves. Invariably they create rework and delays while they come up to speed, and by the time they come full circle and realize how much waste they’ve created, they’re off to the next gig, leaving their mess behind for the next person to eventually discover.

BigJ1211 2y ago

Though I don't disagree principally. My experience with government contracts echos the much higher costs you have to make to get 'simple' things through. You end up jumping through so many hoops to get something cheap through that you spend much more on the process than the part could ever cost. Granted 8000% is still absurd, but 1000% wouldn't necessarily be unrealistic.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]