←back to thread

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

(www.reuters.com)
152 points lr0 | 7 comments | 21 Nov 24 04:19 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
oivey ◴[21 Nov 24 08:00 UTC] No.42202104[source]▶
It is strange how much apologia there is for Boeing in this thread. Why does it have to be somehow the government’s fault or somehow reflective of the actual cost to make the dispensers? Why should Boeing get the benefit of the doubt, especially given their complete failures on their fixed price contracts (Starliner, Air Force One, KC-46 tanker)? They’re so unable to control costs they’re talking about never taking fixed price contracts ever again. Given those failures, it seems safe to assume they’re screwing taxpayers on their cost plus contracts.
replies(6): >>42202119 #>>42202209 #>>42202477 #>>42202746 #>>42203237 #>>42203437 #
pydry ◴[21 Nov 24 08:21 UTC] No.42202209[source]▶
It's strange how much some people are assuming this is as a result of a mistake or incompetence instead of simple corruption.

"Whoops I made $600 from something that cost me $10"

replies(2): >>42202232 #>>42202415 #
mschuster91 ◴[21 Nov 24 09:03 UTC] No.42202415[source]▶
> "Whoops I made $600 from something that cost me $10"

I've written about this here some time ago - you don't pay for the soap dispenser or trash bin itself, you pay for the paperwork showing that it is safe to install this trash bin, soap dispenser or whatnot into this specific model of aircraft or spacecraft, and you pay for the paperwork that details the entire life of every tiny little piece used to manufacture that component. For flight-critical parts, IIRC that goes as far as to documenting the specific lot of the iron ore that was used to make the metal sheets, so in the event of something cropping up where something got fucked up in the mine or the smelter, you can recall every single part that could be affected. And there's lots of testing (and associated waste) at each part of the step.

Anything that goes into an airplane or spacecraft has ridiculous rules attached to it... rules that were literally written in blood. Aerospace is amongst the safest ways of transportation because of decades of crashes and learning from each and every single one.

Your average Home Depot soap dispenser has none of that, if it breaks it breaks.

replies(11): >>42202509 #>>42202516 #>>42202526 #>>42202550 #>>42202561 #>>42202636 #>>42202702 #>>42202785 #>>42202950 #>>42203357 #>>42203418 #
1. do_not_redeem ◴[21 Nov 24 09:26 UTC] No.42202526[source]▶
Shouldn't risk factor into the equation? If your soap dispenser breaks, yeah that sucks and it's maybe a little gross, but you can just replace it with you land. I struggle to imagine what rule about soap dispensers was written in blood.

Surely there's a more cost-effective happy medium somewhere between "just buy the Home Depot 2-for-1 special" and "we ran a background check on the guy who mined the metal"

replies(3): >>42202677 #>>42202690 #>>42203750 #
2. mschuster91 ◴[21 Nov 24 09:57 UTC] No.42202677[source]▶
> If your soap dispenser breaks, yeah that sucks and it's maybe a little gross, but you can just replace it with you land. I struggle to imagine what rule about soap dispensers was written in blood.

The very second you start making an exception because "a soap dispenser is trivial", other stuff will get labeled as exempt (or treated as such), eventually there will be no one knowing what is exempt and what is not, and someone will treat something as exempt that clearly shouldn't have been exempt, causing an incident.

In aircraft and spacecraft design and manufacture, the rule is "safety by design". Treating everything as "needs to be certified by default" is fail-safe, it eliminates entire classes of incident causes.

replies(1): >>42203799 #
3. DidYaWipe ◴[21 Nov 24 10:00 UTC] No.42202690[source]▶
Mmmm, this ignores the cause of Boeing's recent failings.

If a piece of military hardware or software fails, one or two or a dozen people die... if they can't eject.

If a piece of civilian hardware or software fails, hundreds of people die. Witness the 737 Max.

The breakdown of the barrier between the military and commercial sides of Boeing has resulted in a catastrophic reduction in quality on the civilian side. So overcharging for soap dispensers on the military side is far more egregious than overcharging for them on the civilian side, because the stakes are actually lower.

replies(1): >>42202728 #
4. mschuster91 ◴[21 Nov 24 10:08 UTC] No.42202728[source]▶
> because the stakes are actually lower.

I'd actually disagree there. The stakes for military aircraft are higher - assume Russia or China sends a nuclear bomb equipped squad on their merry way to Alaska.

If even one of the US planes has an issue taking it out of the fight, the Russian bomber squad may succeed, dropping a nuke and killing tens of thousands of people.

replies(1): >>42203108 #
5. alternatex ◴[21 Nov 24 11:11 UTC] No.42203108{3}[source]▶
Your argument makes sense if we ignore the topic of the thread. I don't think nuclear war readiness capabilities boil down to having good soap.
6. pydry ◴[21 Nov 24 12:40 UTC] No.42203750[source]▶
The idea that Boeing of all organizations is consistent about adhering to rules written in blood is also darkly comical.

"Whoops sometimes our windows fall off mid flight but trust me bro, this soap dispenser is a fucking disaster waiting to happen"

Occam's razor says this is corruption.

7. pydry ◴[21 Nov 24 12:44 UTC] No.42203799[source]▶
>The very second you start making an exception because "a soap dispenser is trivial", other stuff will get labeled as exempt

As we've seen from the slight "windows falling off planes mid flight" problem which they furiously tried to cover up, Boeing has a bit of a problem with making exceptions where it actually matters.

A far more likely explanation here isn't that Boeing is being too strict and disciplined over all things up to and including a soap dispenser, but that a bunch of people have their noses in the trough and have figured out a hack to drain money out of the federal government budget.