this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2024
602 points (99.3% liked)

Not The Onion

12180 readers
861 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] radix@lemmy.world 132 points 6 days ago (2 children)

You didn't think they actually spent ten thousand dollars for a hammer and thirty thousand for a toilet seat, did you?

[–] ShareMySims@sh.itjust.works 65 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (2 children)

Came here to post this lol

You didn’t think they actually spent ten thousand dollars for a hammer and thirty thousand for a toilet seat, did you?

[–] fartsparkles@sh.itjust.works 17 points 6 days ago (2 children)
[–] kindernacht@lemmy.world 57 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Independence Day (1996)

They just walked in to the underground lab beneath Area 51. The president was curious how it was paid for.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ShareMySims@sh.itjust.works 8 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

What kindernacht said.

Judd Hirsch plays Jeff Goldblum's character's dad, who has low tolerance for bullshit lol

[–] noxy@yiffit.net 10 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I'm so fucking glad I'm not the only one who IMMEDIATELY thought of that guy saying that line

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Yawweee877h444@lemmy.world 8 points 6 days ago

I knew someone would post this fast and I was not dissapointed.

[–] antihumanitarian@lemmy.world 37 points 5 days ago (4 children)

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.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

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.

[–] T156@lemmy.world 6 points 5 days ago

Your standard one-way-valve/flexible-tube dispenser, for example, would leak quite horribly at altitude (or burst), neither of which is desirable.

[–] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 7 points 5 days ago

You take all those factors THEN double the cost. Government contracting in a nutshell.

[–] asmoranomar@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago

Let's not also forget the fleet of passenger aircraft for distinguished persons, maintained by the military, with everything custom made and embroidered with presidential seals and produced in the USA and run through vigorous inspection to prevent microphone or pagers or something inside your soap dispenser.

[–] P34C0CK@lemmy.world 82 points 6 days ago
[–] solrize@lemmy.world 62 points 6 days ago (2 children)

soap dispensers

Sounds like money laundering was going on.

[–] mlg@lemmy.world 15 points 6 days ago

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.

[–] x00z@lemmy.world 15 points 6 days ago (2 children)

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.

[–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 4 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

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?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Saik0Shinigami@lemmy.saik0.com 2 points 5 days ago (3 children)

It’s common knowledge you can easily ask 300% of your default price if it’s the government.

primarily because government requirements are often way more strict than standard commercial or consumer... If someone sets up a contract with you that requires you do 100 things you normally don't do... you're going to charge more. 3x is likely fair in most cases where compliance becomes a thing just for the cost of talking to counsel about meeting those requirements.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] riodoro1@lemmy.world 44 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Isn’t that what the military is for? The rich need a public institution that simply pays them what they want.

[–] Bacano@lemmy.world 16 points 6 days ago (1 children)
[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Great quote. Better book. Written by "A True American Hero."

[–] tal@lemmy.today 45 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (3 children)

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.

[–] Pyotr@lemmy.world 42 points 6 days ago (2 children)

The COTS unit shown there is not tested and certified to the contract requirements Boeing was working to. Simple as. If the price ridiculous? Absolutely yes. But you cannot go to a home hardware store and slap one in a plane.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 16 points 6 days ago (1 children)

If I can slap it in a collapsible sub, I can slap it in an airplane!

Besides, it's not like it's supposed to be what's holding the door plug on.

[–] Pistcow@lemm.ee 11 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Everyone single part on a plane has to be certified and from a certified supplier that goes through a stupid process to be certified.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 16 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Well, some of it ain't stupid.

Imagine the shortcuts Boeing would take if they were beholden to no certifications at all.

[–] Carighan@lemmy.world 4 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (2 children)

Yeah we'd have planes falling out of the skies!

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago

Or worse, unplanned.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Hawke@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Well ya can but you’re taking some risks if you do. Your soap dispenser might not work worth a shit if you haven’t tested it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] leisesprecher 28 points 6 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago

Welcome to the MIC. Have a gold star and a bunch of war crimes that would make Satan question his existence.

[–] Fermion@feddit.nl 18 points 6 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 23 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] y0din@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago (3 children)

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?..

[–] PaintedSnail@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Slippery soap all over the floor would complicate matters.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Alwaysnownevernotme@lemmy.world 22 points 6 days ago

Soap dispensers in general are a fucking racket. They're like 50$ a refill

[–] Chocrates@lemmy.world 25 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Boeing keeps stepping on the rake.

[–] seaQueue@lemmy.world 24 points 6 days ago

I mean, wouldn't you if the rake handle had huge bags of cash tied to it? They'll always step on the rake but they're practiced enough that they only get hit in the face occasionally.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ruckblack@sh.itjust.works 21 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Cool I'm so glad I got wildly overpriced soap dispensers on planes I'll never board for the fucking huge chunk of cash our useless fucking government takes from me instead of healthcare, or roads that aren't full of potholes, or properly functioning public transit, I love this country and my life

[–] Backlog3231@reddthat.com 10 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Thats because the US military has been a blank cheque for defense contractors for a long time.

[–] BonerMan@ani.social 8 points 6 days ago (4 children)

And why exactly did they pay it?

[–] Mog_fanatic@lemmy.world 11 points 6 days ago

I work in this space. There's a wide variety of reasons, a company being dumb and greedy is definitely among them but typically just a tiny part of the equation. The biggest thing is certified vendors. The military/government is incredibly strict with who they'll contract with. Which means the supply is incredibly limited on many things, which in turn means that companies will ratchet up prices a crazy amount in part to deal with the goofy standards that the government requires on their goods but also because they know the demand far outweighs the supply.

There is also the burden of time. The US government drags their feet an INSANE amount on projects. It scales with size as well. The larger the project the slower things move almost every time. It very frequently gets to a point where they need stuff done right now because they waited too long and will pay pretty much any price to do it.

There is also the fact that the military is operating with a budget chalk full of "fuck you money." In short, money is immaterial. Half the time they don't even look at the price, whatever it costs doesn't matter, just get it done and get it done right.

My company marks up shit an insane amount and I know for a fact pretty much every other certified vendor is as well. I dunno about 8k% (lol) markup but honestly that doesn't shock me. The prices I've seen are jaw dropping. And they pretty much never get negotiated or rejected.

[–] Pantsofmagic@lemmy.world 12 points 6 days ago (1 children)

It's often the military's own flowed down certification requirements that result in significantly higher costs

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ronflex@lemmy.world 7 points 6 days ago

I would say kinda based if it wasn't my tax dollars going toward that crap. Starts to put the massively over-inflated military budget into perspective.

[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 7 points 6 days ago (1 children)

This isn’t oniony. It happens all the time. The ongoing theory is that it’s done to cover top secret expenditures.

[–] LavenderDay3544@lemmy.world 8 points 6 days ago

It's much more likely to be corporate kickbacks for political donations.

[–] skizzles@lemmy.world 6 points 6 days ago

This is exactly what happens when the system is based on lowest bid contracts.

[–] kibiz0r@midwest.social 6 points 6 days ago
[–] magnetosphere@fedia.io 5 points 6 days ago

I know “everybody does it” isn’t a valid excuse, but… everybody does it.

load more comments
view more: next ›