Hacker News Reader

Defense contracts are not subsidies. They are won by competition with the likes of Lockheed. Most of the money won is spent providing the product or service. The profit margins on defense contracts are not nearly large enough to "subsidize" an airline business. Yes, some R&D crosses over but it's no easy trick. Lockheed does not play in the commercial space at all.

Disclosure: Former Boeing Employee.

View on HN

I've read enough books about Boeing to say that this is established practice (IE, the people who ran boeing during the 747 period specifically said this internally).

Some R&D examples I've seen is the movement of advanced electronics and structural materials from military craft to commercial craft. Boeing and AirBus both benefitted tremendously by their military contracts.

I think the point is that at a certain level there are only 3 or so defense contractors that have the infrastructure to bid on and win those contracts. Given that they are not "subsidies", but when there are only 2 corporations that are expected to receive the money, then you must call a spade a spade.

If you look at things like the Boeing/Northrop Grumman Tanker contract, then it is hard to fathom that any of the $35B for 180 planes (that's 190M for each plane) wouldn't lead to significant development that could be shared with Boeing's commercial sector.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com