Boeing accused of 7,943% markup on C-17 soap dispenser

[Fives]

https://aerospaceglobalnews.com/news/bo ... dispenser/

[Grey Ghost]

They were doing that back in the early 80s on the RAF Chinook spares. A £5 screwdriver from Halfords equated to $250 for the same thing classed as a special tool by Boeing. Also a stand for the compressor spool of the engine was over $1000, 3 bits of wood, a couple of canvas straps and some screws. We got more by getting the chippie shop to make them for less than a fiver. They're were many more examples but I have forgotten them. At the time I was an engineering instructor in the Chinook ground school.

[Malcolm]

The issue is that aerospace and military contracts always have extra requirements and specifications above and beyond normal shop bought stuff - stuff must be able to be stored at temperatures between -40C and +150C, and must work at temperatures between -40C and +125C. They must meet altitude, pressure and fire specifications. They must meet vibration specifications. Etc, Etc, Etc.

Yes you might be able buy a seemingly identical item from Poundland, but the manufacturer/supplier won't guarantee it'll meet all those specifications, so Boeing/Airbus/BAe/Whoever (or more likely the suppliers to Boeing/Airbus/BAe/Whoever) have to test the item to make sure it meets all the required specs. These tests cost many thousands of pounds/dollars. We get low volume electronic items CE tested, and it typically costs us £25K-£50K per item just for the electrical/emissions tests. These costs have to be spread across the number of items ordered, so if you only order 10 items, then each item ends up costing £2.5K - £5K. Order 100 items, then each item costs £250 - £500. And that item may be a simple £2 USB-C cable, but it can be shown to meet all the required specifications dictated by the customer.

Of course most of these additional specifications are nonsense, but that's not Boeing's fault, it's the military procurement's fault for cut and pasting a previous nonsense document into the contract for this item, because the Muppet drafting the contract doesn't realise the stupidity and knock on cost effects it'll have. So you end up with stories like this and the million dollar toilet seats.

[Sparts99]

Didn't Lockheed do the same thing with the C5 coffee machine?

[Fighterfoto]

Yes I remember the C-5 coffee story, Lockheed argued that the machine would still work following a decompression of the aircraft. And in reality if the tempo is either -40C or +150C getting soap out of a dispenser will be the least of your concerns.

[Agent K]

The issue is that aerospace and mi............ etc.

Absolutely Malcolm, agreed, it's not as clear as the headline grabbing numbers suggest. As you say items for on board aircraft have to meet particular design requirements, certification standards, and use of approved materials and all that adds to the unit cost. Contrary to statements the articles could not, for example, be bought in Poundland for £1 or whatever.

[TomG]

The issue is that aerospace and military contracts always have extra requirements and specifications above and beyond normal shop bought stuff - stuff must be able to be stored at temperatures between -40C and +150C, and must work at temperatures between -40C and +125C. They must meet altitude, pressure and fire specifications. They must meet vibration specifications. Etc, Etc, Etc.

However those specs are sometimes detailed by the customer and can be a self inflicted bullet in the foot. For example we had similar challenges with the Typhoon GPU that had ridiculous high & low operating temperature requirements. It was changed by the customer who later recognised that there was a very slim chance of there being a pink fleshy thing operating it in the upper and lower temperature bands.