This is such a ridiculous comparison and shows a severe lack of understanding of how these companies operate.

The defense and commercial sides of Boeing operate very differently and have limited overlap, in terms of people, budget, and location. For example, nearly all of the commercial work is performed in Seattle at the plant, while the defense work is spread around the country at numerous sites. There is of course overlap in terms that they share common infrastructure (HR, training, some office space, IT services, facilities, etc.), but by and large, of the 120,000 employees out of 140,000, you are either working in the commercial side or the defense side.

Now, anyone can tell you that government contracting works very differently than commercial business. There is a large, large set of laws in place and all sorts of processes that must be followed to comply, and how you charge the government for things and account for them is _very_ strict. Working on commercial products and charging a government contract for it will put you in jail. Even using government funds for things not called out in the contract will put you in jail.

Furthermore, if you are on the defense side, you are almost always working on specific projects. You bid on a contract, you win it, and you work on it. If the contract is canceled or not extended, those people usually get canned. If the project is classified, you cannot share with anyone else, even on the defense side. You can't use commercial money, and you can't use the money you get for anything except what is explicitly called out in the contract. It is all very much a silo. And believe me, there are many audits, and they are painful. The government doesn't fuck around with these things.

If you are an employee working on the defense side, you may work on commercial projects, and vice versa, but you are only doing one or the other at any time, and you rarely switch. Most people will switch from commercial to defense once _in their careers_, if at all.

If you work at these types of companies, this separation of assets, budget, and people is very obvious, even down to the physical nature of it. You can visit any office in Seattle and it will be much nicer than an office in a defense site; the government does not look kindly on buying big screen TVs with their money! The people are different, the terminology is different, the restrictions and processes are VERY different (how you handle government property, classified or ITAR information, how you charge to contracts, etc.), the unions are different, the payscales are different, etc. Even down to what types of computers the employees use. Sometimes it is like the two wings of these companies are completely different creatures.

I would also point out that the defense side is under constant pressure to lower their costs. These companies win and lose contracts all the time, and no one is safe; just ask anyone who got fired after they lost a bid. The vast majority of these contracts are competetive, they are not cost-plus, and there is severe pressure to keep the costs down from all sides. You are constantly being audited and being held accountable. And even making a plane, for example, is no guarantee that you get any of the other business (maintenance, upgrades, training, etc.). Defense companies can and do "steal" projects from others, unlike in the past.

The defense and commercial sides of Boeing exist to be counter-cyclical. They don't exist to share money, or for a back-door for the government, and the contracts, obviously, are used to produce goods that are actually used (planes, bombs, etc.), and are completely different from a government "loan" that is never intended to be paid back.

There are _plenty_ of criticisms one can level at the defense industry in America, and Boeing in particular, but using government funds to prop up their commercial business is not one of them.