Hacker News Reader

Comment by FredPret | Hacker News Reader

That comment thread is wild. Do you think it is genuine?

If what that commenter says is true, the whole company ought to be shut down.

It’d also be an easy sell for either of the two presidential candidates - one can say he’s clamping down on incompetent elites who aren’t that elite after all; the other can talk about a profit-seeking company killing Americans.

View on HN

>If what that commenter says is true, the whole company ought to be shut down.

No it won't. Boeing has reached too big to fail status.

They employ many millions of people directly and indirectly between commercial and military aerospace.

Boeing has reached PEAK too big to fail recently too when they announced that due to their too big to fail status, they are unable to estimate or control costs anymore and will no longer bid for any US military contracts that are fixed-price.

What you will see is billions in bailout funds given to Boeing shareholders.

Still ought to be shut down though. Given they're outsourcing so much of their maintenance and shitting their bed on their existing products, at some point too big to fail just turns into a big failure.

I think the cracking down on incompetent elites that aren't that elite is something Republicans feel should be left to the market to decide. I don't think it's an easy sell to argue the government should shut down an entire company over issues rather than letting the issues lead to fewer sales and having the market sort it out. I think most Republicans would vehemently disagree with a statement like "the government should decide who the elites are", which this action seems to be doing.

I agree the profit-seeking company killing Americans is an easy sell with democrats and possibly even a good chunk of independents.

Boeing is also a major defense contractor, and has facilities spread out across many states. No politician of either party is going to call for the shutdown of a major employer of their constituents and a key component of national security.

That’s true but it’s very easy to imagine at least one party being more than willing to have the FAA be less deferential.

why don't they acquire Boeing into a government owned company (for the defense stuff)

The US doesn't do government-owned (except in exceptional circumstances). For one, they would be sued by the shareholders (unfair seizure) and competitors (unfair competition). It also is not clear that the government acquiring something would make it run better.

seems to me that you might want quality control on those defense/weapon systems. if the rot is this bad in one part of the company like as not it is just as bad on the govenrment contract side as well.

The pressure to cut costs may be a little lower on the government contract side.

Depends on the contracting mechanism. If it's something like cost-plus, there is less pressure. But on fixed cost, it might be just as great.

Sure, but due to its nature the aircraft industry for commerical planes isn't really a free market.

Obviously, Boeing and Airbus represent a duopoly. When you factor in one of them is US-based and is relied upon to deliver on certain national security projects, defense etc no politician is going to let the commercial arm fail and risk the national security arm failing too.

Also there is a lag in the system around failure. The market could decide that Boeing planes are poorly constructed, but how many accidents and deaths would have to happen in order for customer (airlines) to decide to no longer put in orders. That's not really feasible.

"Too big to fail"

It’s hard for both candidates. Boeing is our only airline manufacturer and an American institution. If it shuts down all we have is an European Airbus and creates an opening for a Chinese COMAC.

Don't forget Canadian Bombardier!

it sounds genuine to me - perhaps it's worth it for him to be a whistleblower?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com