The U.S.'s $13B aircraft carrier has a toilet problem
popularmechanics.com
The U.S.'s $13B aircraft carrier has a toilet problem
1–10 of 98 posts
Re: The U.S.'s $13B aircraft carrier has a toilet problem
#2Wait, what kinda of acid and how much? $400,000 seems like a lot.
Re: The U.S.'s $13B aircraft carrier has a toilet problem
#3Wait, what kinda of acid and how much? $400,000 seems like a lot.
Exactly. The real question is - why do the chemicals cost $400,000? This seems to be a recurring theme with U.S. expenditure - particularly within the defense sector. When you get nearly blank checks from the government it’s not uncommon for items to be “marked up” so to speak and the difference pocketed by the vendors. Granted, this kind of stuff is pervasive across all sectors/layers.
“[A] McKinsey “business analyst”—someone with an undergraduate degree and no experience—lent to the government priced out at $56,707/week, or $2,948,764/year.”
Re: The U.S.'s $13B aircraft carrier has a toilet problem
#4Wait, what kinda of acid and how much? $400,000 seems like a lot.
Exactly. The real question is - why do the chemicals cost $400,000? This seems to be a recurring theme with U.S. expenditure - particularly within the defense sector. When you get nearly blank checks from the government it’s not uncommon for items to be “marked up” so to speak and the difference pocketed by the vendors. Granted, this kind of stuff is pervasive across all sectors/layers. “[A] McKinsey “business analys…
Why did you have to bring politics into this (Buttlegug)?
Re: The U.S.'s $13B aircraft carrier has a toilet problem
#5Wait, what kinda of acid and how much? $400,000 seems like a lot.
Figure can include not only acid costs, but work amount and ship idle costs
Re: The U.S.'s $13B aircraft carrier has a toilet problem
#6"The more they overthink the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain."
Re: The U.S.'s $13B aircraft carrier has a toilet problem
#7Wait, what kinda of acid and how much? $400,000 seems like a lot.
Exactly. The real question is - why do the chemicals cost $400,000? This seems to be a recurring theme with U.S. expenditure - particularly within the defense sector. When you get nearly blank checks from the government it’s not uncommon for items to be “marked up” so to speak and the difference pocketed by the vendors. Granted, this kind of stuff is pervasive across all sectors/layers. “[A] McKinsey “business analys…
> $56,707/week, or $2,948,764/year.
I picked the wrong job.
Re: The U.S.'s $13B aircraft carrier has a toilet problem
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. The real question is - why do the chemicals cost $400,000? This seems to be a recurring theme with U.S. expenditure - particularly within the defense sector. When you get nearly blank checks from the government it’s not uncommon for items to be “marked up” so to speak and the difference pocketed by the vendors. Granted, this kind of stuff is pervasive across all sectors/layers. “[A] McKinsey “business analys…
> $56,707/week, or $2,948,764/year. I picked the wrong job.
they are paid a pittance of a salary compared to their charged. McKensey is pocketing the difference.
Re: The U.S.'s $13B aircraft carrier has a toilet problem
#9Wait, what kinda of acid and how much? $400,000 seems like a lot.
Exactly. The real question is - why do the chemicals cost $400,000? This seems to be a recurring theme with U.S. expenditure - particularly within the defense sector. When you get nearly blank checks from the government it’s not uncommon for items to be “marked up” so to speak and the difference pocketed by the vendors. Granted, this kind of stuff is pervasive across all sectors/layers. “[A] McKinsey “business analys…
The amount of red tape involved in working with the government- especially anything related to defense- is astounding. I previously worked with a start up whose contacts in the military genuinely wanted to buy our services, but the process to do so was so long that the company ended up pivoting to focus exclusively on the commercial market. It was a less ideal fit, but it actually paid.
Take:
One part slow bureaucracy
One part nepotism
One part jealousy of internal teams
One part good intentions (regulations to prevent said nepotism)
And you get a cluster of inexcusable outcomes.
The company seriously considered hiring a consulting firm whose sole business was helping other businesses land government contracts. The fact that the system is so inefficient that that kind of arbitrage opportunity exists is depressing.
The only companies that can possibly win government contracts here are those that are huge, with tons of staff dedicated to winning government contracts. The end result is they can charge the moon and the sky, not because they do what they do better than anyone else, but because they are just as bloated and inefficient as the government itself and can survive the process of winning the contract in the first place.
Re: The U.S.'s $13B aircraft carrier has a toilet problem
#10What problem is solved by using aircraft-style toilets on Navy ships?