71–80 of 387 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean seriously, you really believe this?
I'd welcome your contrary explanation if you have one handy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Blame Boeing or the government willing to pay it?
Why not both? Boeing shouldn't be exploiting the system and the government shouldn't be buying at those prices. But alas, here we are with an inflated military budget that has leeches and mismanagement at every corner. Just to make number go up in bank account...
This is a reducto ad absurdum example of how the US government is paying out the nose to keep a bunch of manufacturing and development work on-shore in the USA. Yeah, sure, it's a trash can, there's no reason it should cost $50k. We're all agreed that's an absurd amount to pay for a trash container. The government isn't just paying for the trash can. They're paying for people to design, tool, and maintain that design…
Is this comment a joke?
Just look at the myriad failed Kickstarter projects that tried to make consumer stuff. Even getting something normal made in China can be serious work. And far more if you actually want to do a good job of it. Linus Tech Tips put a surprising amount of work into making a screwdriver.
Then consider that the military probably has a bunch of requirements like "this can't break into sharp shards" and "it can't emit toxic smoke if it burns", and they'll want that to be proven. Certifying all those things is a whole job on its own.
This is a reducto ad absurdum example of how the US government is paying out the nose to keep a bunch of manufacturing and development work on-shore in the USA. Yeah, sure, it's a trash can, there's no reason it should cost $50k. We're all agreed that's an absurd amount to pay for a trash container. The government isn't just paying for the trash can. They're paying for people to design, tool, and maintain that design…
Agreed. Alas, there is an aspect of over regulation. Does the trash can need to be certified to an extreme level of depth or can some solider in the machine shop quickly throw something together? I think in many societies we’ve lost the wiggle room that allows for pragmatic solutions in the name of safety. Maybe the risk reduction was worth it? Maybe not. But arguments for risk averse behavior tend to win more than 5…
I'd much rather fly on a plane that's regulated and certified out the nose than one that's not.
I'd rather live in a country that invests in people's skills and knowledge than one th t doesn't.
This is a reducto ad absurdum example of how the US government is paying out the nose to keep a bunch of manufacturing and development work on-shore in the USA. Yeah, sure, it's a trash can, there's no reason it should cost $50k. We're all agreed that's an absurd amount to pay for a trash container. The government isn't just paying for the trash can. They're paying for people to design, tool, and maintain that design…
Explain then how Boeing managed to stay afloat when it was forced to charge "only" $300 per trash can.
Aren't these kind of odd prices usually just laundering money for black projects?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean seriously, you really believe this?
No they don't... they are playing the devil's advocate I think or being sarcastic. This is just plain corruption and fraud but it's legal because defense sector...
Because what I think is not what you claim.
If its going on an aircraft and it's no longer made or stocked, then yes there will be extra cost as it has to go through certification, testing, flammability, tooling and various other things. So while the top line price may be high for the bin, but a breakdown of costs would indicate where the money is going. Overcharging? perhaps and possible, but more info needed.
All the certifications for all that were done well before. This price change only began in 2020. Boeing had been charging $300 for the trash can for at least a decade prior. The current change is just exploiting the system. Moreover the 707, which is basically what these trash cans were made for, entered service in _1957_. Sometimes a spade is just a spade, greed is just greed and you don't need to bend over backward…
Getting small quatities for obsolete aircraft parts, even in the civilian world, costs fortunes.
And yes, if it was (speculation) a new production run, all the manufacturing most likely needed re-certification: new production site, new production tech and so on. Maybe even certification to whatever standard was used for the original 707 / E-3, which might even be impossible (surface treatment that is now illegal due to EHS reasons, material norms being obsolete requiring new certification of the part using e.g. plastics with another norm...).
Plus the obligatory surcharge for the endless pockets of the litteral Pentagon.
There was an interesting article going around explaining accounting artifacts in the DoD from the late '90s. See 'the myth of the $600 hammer': https://www.govexec.com/federal-news/1998/12/the-myth-of-the...
If its going on an aircraft and it's no longer made or stocked, then yes there will be extra cost as it has to go through certification, testing, flammability, tooling and various other things. So while the top line price may be high for the bin, but a breakdown of costs would indicate where the money is going. Overcharging? perhaps and possible, but more info needed.
All the certifications for all that were done well before. This price change only began in 2020. Boeing had been charging $300 for the trash can for at least a decade prior. The current change is just exploiting the system. Moreover the 707, which is basically what these trash cans were made for, entered service in _1957_. Sometimes a spade is just a spade, greed is just greed and you don't need to bend over backward…
So when they’re approached to make some more, what are they going to do? The easy answer is turn down the request, and I wouldn’t be surprised if they did. Then they’d have said something like “the person who made these retired three years ago, the machinery is now scrap metal, the software for that machinery is on a floppy disk in a recycling centre somewhere, I don’t even know how who sold us the materials, and whatever we can do to replicate it would be considered a new product that has to go through testing again. So if you want this it’d take a lot of resources, and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.”
To which the response would have been: “get it done.”
I’m sure there was some added on to sweeten the deal, mind, but that isn’t the outrageous thing, nor would it be as dramatic as it sounds. The outrageous thing is that Boeing would have specifically outlined the end of production of components years in advance, and that would have been opportunity to buy and stockpile while the price was reasonable. Of course, some middle manager would have said “lol no it’s just a bin, we will just get one from Walmart”, and the complications would have only been realised when it was too late.