←back to thread

Boeing overcharged the U.S. Air Force 8,000% above market for soap dispensers

(www.reuters.com)
152 points lr0 | 1 comments | 21 Nov 24 04:19 UTC | HN request time: 0.21s | source
Show context
cjensen ◴[21 Nov 24 06:40 UTC] No.42201750[source]▶
The US has 222 C-17 Aircraft. A single C-17 costs over $300 million.

If you ask Boeing for soap dispenser parts for these, what should they cost? Boeing charged $149,072 for the dispensers. That's $671 per plane. Is that too much?

If you had to make these dispensers, make sure they conform to rules for aircraft parts and Air Force parts, provide formal responses to bids, etc., how much could you make them for?

It seems high to me. The article says 8000%, which is less than $10 per plane. So while it seems high, it's definitely not 8000% high.

replies(7): >>42201837 #>>42201842 #>>42201957 #>>42201992 #>>42202214 #>>42203503 #>>42204171 #
bagels ◴[21 Nov 24 07:03 UTC] No.42201842[source]▶
Can you imagine even being a one-man shop making 222 bespoke soap dispensers to some absurd spec AND jumping through all the documentation hoops that are required for only $150k? I wouldn't take that job. Sounds awful.
replies(6): >>42201956 #>>42201973 #>>42202065 #>>42202083 #>>42202118 #>>42202157 #
mjevans ◴[21 Nov 24 08:10 UTC] No.42202157[source]▶
I wonder what's special enough for this to be different from certified aviation grade equipment? It'd be nice it they could either make a bunch of a design (usefully) for the military to fulfill mil-spec, or if they could take an existing design and just make it in a mil-spec compliant way.
replies(1): >>42202489 #
1. rocqua ◴[21 Nov 24 09:18 UTC] No.42202489[source]▶
Boeing could have specced some weird stuff on the dispenser, just to make it harder to get elsewhere. Things like impact resistance, yield strength in a fire, or counter-rotating threads to prevent it shaking out.