[niffydroid]

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.

[dgrin91]

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 backwards to find an excuse for bigcorp.

[i-use-nixos-btw]

That’s all well and good, but as soon as the mass manufacturing of the item halts, it’s no time at all before the assembly machinery is dismantled, the people reskilled, software updated, supply chains cut, etc.

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.

[hef19898]

Short answer: obsolescence. The article hints at that, prices increased once the 707 was no longer considered a commercial product. I guess here, but the initial contract stipulated prize stability for a certain period after the last 707 delivery and them something about retirement of the 707 fleet.

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.

[asynchronous]

Love that it’s always the three names I think of when I read these articles too.

[hypeatei]

Umm, no. A 17,000% increase in price for a TRASH CAN is not justified under any circumstance. That is straight up robbery that Boeing knows they can get away with.

[DanTheManPR]

I'm guessing that what's happening here is that Boeing could be making more money doing something other than building trash cans, and so is sending an absurdly exorbitant quote to their customer to communicate "stop buying this".

[onos]

Blame Boeing or the government willing to pay it?

[hypeatei]

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...

[cannonpalms]

I believe that Boeing is doing what any rational economic actor would do in this situation. To the extent that there is a problem here, I see it as a regulatory problem.

[bluedino]

You also have requirements that are very different than other industries. Make a part for Boeing? All the plans, production records, testing and certifications, need to be kept for 50 years