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.

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

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

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

soap dispensers

Sounds like money laundering was going on.

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

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.

Boeing keeps stepping on the rake.

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

And why exactly did they pay it?

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.

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

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

Four Hundred Dollar Ashtray

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