Boeing CEO meets Trump, committed to lower AF1 cost.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by yaxomoxay, Dec 21, 2016.

  1. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
  2. chown33 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    #3
    Sadly, a "personal commitment" is not the same as a contract. If he's serious, turn it into a contractual rider, so it holds up in court and can't be weaseled out of (no offense to Mustelids).
     
  3. yaxomoxay thread starter macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #4
    Very true, but it's a beginning.
     
  4. nrvna76 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
  5. chown33 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    #6
    I agree it's a start. It'd be a shame if it ended there.

    As a freelance developer, I've been in enough contract negotiations to know that as soon as we start discussing putting things like caps, penalties, etc. into contracts, it becomes a very different ballgame. In a way, it's kind of funny when it turns into a "Don't you trust my personal commitment?", and all I have to do is reply "Would you trust mine without a contract?". Even if some terms don't end up in a contract, it's interesting to see who is reluctant to go there and who is willing.
     
  6. yaxomoxay thread starter macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #7
    We shall see. It will be difficult to tell taxpayers that they have to pay the full bill after the CEO said that he can make it cheaper. This will certainly be an interesting thing to watch.
     
  7. MacAndMic macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2009
    #8
    Tweets = The Art of the Deal. All of those tweets aren't so silly after all are they?
     
  8. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #9
    Am I missing something here? The Boeing CEO pledged to keep the cost below trump's estimate of 4 billion.

    Politifact (it's interesting that Politifact is now accepted by conservatives as a legitimate source) quotes the cost will between $2.87 and $3.73 billion over the next 12 years.

    So there is no cost lowering involved here. All that's happened is the CEO assured trump that the costs won't exceed his claim of 4 billion, and since the costs were likely to be less than 4 billion, it's a nice little spin to interpret that as some kind of cost lowering.
     
  9. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #10
    Trump talked to him, it's getting lowered. Boeing has too much government slush coming their way they can just shift it to another project.
     
  10. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #11
    In reality, however, any cost estimate at this stage would in all likelihood have doubled by the time the things actually see the light of day. A firm commitment to absorb the usual inflationary pressures would in fact be a significant gain.
     
  11. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #12
    Additional costs were reflected in the politifact article.
     
  12. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #13
    It would still probably end up costing double....
     
  13. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #14
    You didn't trump it enough.

    Trump just saved America a million bazillion dollars.

    Which will now be spent on a Great Wall.
     
  14. 5684697, Dec 22, 2016
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2017
  15. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #16
    Perhaps a hot air balloon would do the trick. No need for fuel, either...
     
  16. nrvna76 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    #17
    You've used the 4 billion as Trumps number in both threads now. Trump did not come up with that number. Even the air forces budget for JUST R&D was something like 2.7 billion. And they'd still have no planes!
     
  17. yaxomoxay thread starter macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #18
    There is no way, and I mean no way, that a predicted cost in a span of 12 years could be kept within the stated budget without modifications to the original plan. We're talking aerospace for a gov't program.
     
  18. Chew Toy McCoy macrumors regular

    Chew Toy McCoy

    Joined:
    May 13, 2016
    #19
    Which do you want, decreased government spending or wage increases and more job openings? Because you won’t get both. “We’re going to charge less while increasing wages and hiring more people” said no corporation ever. Government contractors depend on government waste.
     
  19. A.Goldberg macrumors 68000

    A.Goldberg

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Location:
    Boston
    #20
    Looking how government contracts typically turn out with this kind of thing- overbudget and late, I think any effort to reduce cost and promote efficiency is key. It's not wonder we're 20 TRILLION IN DEBT. That's an inconceivable amount of money.

    It's silly to think government contractors don't realize the US government practically has a blank checkbook. If they can finagle themselves the right way, they can milk the system.

    While this is only one project of one company with an indeterminate outcome, Grandstanding or not, I think it sends the right message that Trump will not F-around with government contracts.

    I think we will know if this is grandstanding depending on what Boeing does. Just "assuring" a cost below $4B means nothing. Putting in writing to cover cost overrun would be another thing.

    After, building a state of the art, top secret, one of a kind Flying Fortress is not like buying a McDonald's Hamburger with a set price tag.
     
  20. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #21
    From the OP's source ...
    From the politifact article cited in the OP's source ...
    •••
    From the politifact article cited in the OP's source ...
    They are obviously testing some next gen ****. When they have that figured out, building the plane is likely to be the least expensive phase of the project.
     
  21. yaxomoxay thread starter macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #22
    ,

    It's a limited program, so no. Your last statement is not true. R&D and production costs will be as high as they can be.
     
  22. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #23
    Please be specific as to what part of my statement is not true, and then please provide a source to back up your claim.
     
  23. yaxomoxay thread starter macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #24
    The incorrect part of your post is that building the things will be cheaper than R&D (unless we talk about the government equivalent of "pennies").
    The source? 12+ years of international experience in high-tech R&D aerospace programs, on experimental, commercial, and military vehicles commissioned and sold to several countries, including but not limited to (some) R&D for the Marine One that Obama then canned.
    The other hidden cost is maintenance, but that of course follows production. The product might be cheap to build but Boeing might introduce the typical "new technology" (= proprietary and no one else can lower the price, of course; yes even on government programs that are technically speaking owned by the USG ).
     
  24. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #25
    That is covered in your own source. Costs are projected out to 2026. And still by your source the price comes to 3.73 billion. Now it's entirely possible that costs may exceed that estimate. But that is speculative ... though you're welcome to speculate as much as you desire.
     

Share This Page