soap dispensers
Sounds like money laundering was going on.
You ever see the video of the snap on socket being sold for 50k?
This is a regular occurrence in the MIC, it only comes up when you fail to deliver on something and the Pentagon actually decides to open an investigation.
Why? It’s common knowledge you can easily ask 300% of your default price if it’s the government. And soap dispensers are kind of needed. Nowadays companies often buy the non-touchy expensive ones. So it isn’t really too weird.
So… what you’re saying is too big to fail corporations are leaches and nationalizing them would be more efficient and cost effective than the current wealth transfer to shareholders?
Stories like this are sometimes more complicated than they appear. The infamous examples of $500 hammers, for example, were anti sparking hammers for working around flammables or munitions, hence requiring special materials, certification, and low production runs.
For this case, we have liquid hand soap dispensed by a pump. Pumps require a sealed vessel. Unlike commercial planes, military planes are required to anticipate prolonged operation with an unpressurized cabin. At max altitude of a C17, atmospheric pressure is only 20% of sea level. Off the shelf dispensers are unlikely to be designed to withstand that pressure difference, let alone function normally. In a high demand environment like aerospace, even apparently minor failures like an exploding soap container needs to be taken seriously due to the possibility of unexpected cascading failures. Why not use bar soap, then? Unfortunately this too has complications, like not being able to be securely mounted, liquid soaps having superior hygiene and cross contamination characteristics, and necessity for military standardized soap, sometimes designed for heavy metal, eg lead, which is likely if the cargo were munitions.
This unusual set of requirements unlikely to be seen outside the military context, so whether designed by Boeing or off the shelf the unit would likely have low quantity manufacturing runs, significantly increasing per unit costs. Combine that with the necessary certifications and the per unit costs balloon even further.
While a soap dispenser having an 80x markup seems absurd, it might be more reasonable than it seems at first glance. To be clear, there absolutely is military contractor graft. I just don’t expect even a $10,000 soap dispenser would be a substantial proportion if it even within the C17.
The infamous examples of $500 hammers, for example, were anti sparking hammers for working around flammables or munitions, hence requiring special materials, certification, and low production runs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Packard_Commission
I’m not one to praise Reagan, but the Packard Commission picked off some incredibly low hanging fruit. The $435 hammer ($1235 adjusted for inflation) was a boondoggle by any standard. That it was overcharged by a factor of 2-3x instead of the sloppy journalism implying a 100x markup doesn’t refute the fact that these contracts were corrupt on their face.
While a soap dispenser having an 80x markup seems absurd, it might be more reasonable than it seems at first glance.
Either the equipment could be purchased wholesale much cheaper (as was often the case even for industrial grade goods) or the production should have been insourced to the department that had a bespoke demand.
The fact that Boeing exists at all is absurd, given the degree to which government monopsony and security concerns force them to act as a department within the public sector. But the extortionary rates illustrate the fraud that is the reason these public-private relationships exist.
You take all those factors THEN double the cost. Government contracting in a nutshell.
Isn’t that what the military is for? The rich need a public institution that simply pays them what they want.
War is a racket
Great quote. Better book. Written by “A True American Hero.”
For its part, Boeing representatives announced they are “reviewing the report, which appears to be based on an inapt comparison of the prices paid for parts that meet aircraft and contract specifications and designs versus basic commercial items that would not be qualified or approved for use on the C-17,” the company said in a statement.
looks dubiously at dispenser
In what way is the right-hand soap dispenser not adequately qualified?
EDIT: It looks like the C-17 can fly pressurized, so I don’t think that it can be undergoing pressure changes, which is the one thing that I could think of.
The cabin is usually pressurized to the equivalent of 8000 ft asl. So the dispenser does have to deal with pressure changes. A simple vent hole aught to take care of that though.
Also, as the safety briefing says, “we do not anticipate a change in cabin pressure,” but if a rapid decompression should occur, there was probably some provision made so that the soap dispenser doesn’t just shatter or explode or something.
I would hate not to be able to use the dispenser if the plane lost cabin pressure… how would I ever survive dying if I had dirty hands when it happened?..
Pretty sure loss of cabin pressure doesn’t equal death
I’m 90% sure these deals are a way to funnel money into defense contractors without having a suspicious paper trail.
Overcharge a bit here and there, and by sheer volume you get a nice shadow budget to build and operate things that aren’t even supposed to exist.
Welcome to the MIC. Have a gold star and a bunch of war crimes that would make Satan question his existence.
You didn’t think they actually spent ten thousand dollars for a hammer and thirty thousand for a toilet seat, did you?
Came here to post this lol
What’s the reference?
Independence Day (1996)
They just walked in to the underground lab beneath Area 51. The president was curious how it was paid for.
What kindernacht said.
Judd Hirsch plays Jeff Goldblum’s character’s dad, who has low tolerance for bullshit lol
