$700 Toilet Seat Truth
randy stiefer
Tell me, was the infamous $700 AWACS toilet seat story from the
1980s basically accurate in that the exact item in question
was a simple toilet seat?
I heard once, that it was a fiberglas cover that
sealed an access opening to the septic system and that commercial
airlines with Boeing 707s would pay around $350 for them.
I tried to look up stories in the Armed Forces Journal
at the University of Texas library, but the eighties are missing
from their bound backissues.
Thanks for any help or leads.
P. Wezeman
My memory is that it was $600 for the toilet seat for a
Lockheed Orion. According to what I read, magazine reporters checking
on the story found that it was not just the seat, but the entire top
cover for a chemical toilet. They sent the specifications for the
seat around to several suppliers who did that kind of plastic molding
and found that $600 was a competitive price.
Later there was the $7,000 coffee maker for the C-5 transport.
It was an off-the-shelf airliner coffee maker. The Air Force paid about
twice what an airline would, but that was because they requested a
discontinued model of the same type as they were already using.
Not to say there isn't some waste, fraud, and abuse going on
but reporters often jump to conclusions.
"You don't think they really pay six hundred dollars for a
toilet seat, do you?"
Peter Wezeman, anti-social Darwinist
"Carpe Cyprinidae"
Matthew Saroff (Remove 123456. to reply)
randy stiefer <c...@onr.com> wrote:
>Tell me, was the infamous $700 AWACS toilet seat story from the
>1980s basically accurate in that the exact item in question
>was a simple toilet seat?
> I heard once, that it was a fiberglas cover that
> sealed an access opening to the septic system and that commercial
>airlines with Boeing 707s would pay around $350 for them.
Hi,
As I recall, it was a "Toilet Seat" in the sense that it
was a seat that the toilet assembly sat in, not a seat that a
user would sit on.
--
Matthew Saroff | Standard Disclaimer: Not only do I speak for
_____ | No one else, I don't even Speak for me. All my
/ o o \ | personalities and the spirits that I channel
______|_____|_____| disavow all knowledge of my activities. ;-)
uuu U uuu |
| In fact, all my personalities and channeled spirits
Saroff wuz here | hate my guts. (Well, maybe with garlic & butter...)
For law enforcment officials monitoring the net: abortion, marijuana, cocaine,
cia,plutonium, ammonium nitrate, militia, dea, nsa, pgp, hacker, assassinate.
Send suggestions for new and interesting words to:
msa...@123456.pobox.com. (remove the numbers to reply)
Check http://www.pobox.com/~msaroff, including The Bad Hair Web Page
RobbelothE
Having done some small part of the acquisition business, let me explain the
high costs. The government contracts with manufacturer A to provide widgets
for its new BCF-99 aircraft at a price of $175 each which includes $25 profit,
$25 in raw materials, prorated overhead and research-and-development costs.
(Overhead includes the cost of labor, utilities, manufacturing jigs, a building
to manufacture it in, etc). This price is based upon a production run of 1,000
widgets at 100 per month. That means there is a cost of $125 per widget over
and above raw materials Over the life of the contract the overhead cost is
$125,000 based on 1,000 units. ($125 ea). When Congress comes along and
slashes the production run to 100 aircraft, the widget manufacturer still makes
his $25 per unit profit, his raw materials still cost $25 per unit but now that
$125,000 overhead is prorated over only 100 widgets, zooming the overhead cost
to $1,250 per widget! That brings the total cost to $1,300 per widget ($1,250
plus $25 in raw materials plus $25 profit) when the original planned cost had
only been $175. Bottom line, the overhead remains the same no matter how many
units are produced. You can thank your friendly local elected
Congressman/Senator for driving costs up in many (not all cases). I know this
was rather simplified and the numbers fictious but I tried to not get bogged
down in details -- besides, I wrote this at 6 in the morning!
Ed Robbeloth
Cradlets
Hi Randy,
The toilet enclosure in an airplane has to be designed to keep any highly
corrosive urine from getting to the aircraft structure. As I recall the
"$700 toilet seat" was the total enclosure. I don't know if it was an AWACs or
P-3 this story came from, but having worked on C-141Bs for 5 years I know what
the enclosure on that jet looked like. It was the size of a walk-in shower,
and in my opinion $700 was very reasonable for what the thing actually was. I
also had the wonderful experience of working for an airline for nine months
until they got bought out and I was laid off, and I can also tell you they also
pay what seem to be outrageous prices for aircraft parts. I remember a light
strip, basically a piece of plastic with two copper traces, about 2 inches by
1/4 inch with three little light bulbs soldered on, you'd guess a dollar or two
to look at it, cost a couple of HUNDRED dollars. Absolutely NUTS!!! This
strip was used in the standby ADI indicator on a British Aerospace ATP
airliner, and we HAD to use them when the lights burned out, FAA doesn't allow
substitutions for parts designated by the aircraft manufacturers.
Scott Wilson
David Lesher
robbe...@aol.com (RobbelothE) writes:
>When Congress comes along and
>slashes the production run to 100 aircraft, the widget manufacturer still makes
>his $25 per unit profit, his raw materials still cost $25 per unit but now that
>$125,000 overhead is prorated over only 100 widgets, zooming the overhead cost
>to $1,250 per widget! That brings the total cost to $1,300 per widget ($1,250
>plus $25 in raw materials plus $25 profit) when the original planned cost had
>only been $175. Bottom line, the overhead remains the same no matter how many
>units are produced. You can thank your friendly local elected
>Congressman/Senator for driving costs up in many (not all cases).
Err, I'll disagree with the blame here. To my eye, what happens
is the seller & buyer say to the Hill "Oh yes, it will cost $x per."
But that number is set based on unrealistic demands.
The problem is, of course, if the AF went to the Hill and admitted
they really only needed 25, not 125 of the X-99's; the per unit
cost would get a GREAT deal of scrutiny.
And of course, the solution the vendors come up with is....
"Why just let us sell [ally of the week] 50 of them"
THAT way, we get the quantity discount.......
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
Paul F Austin
RobbelothE wrote:
>
> Having done some small part of the acquisition business, let me explain the
In the particular case of the "toilet seat", the item was actually a
molded fiberglass cover for the sanitary tank on IIRC, a P-3. The
"toilet seat" was a 3 foot by 2 foot complex molding that had a toilet
seat molded into it. $750 is entirely reasonable for something with
about the complexity of a fender panel for a Corvette.
--
Eat a live toad, first thing in the morning
and nothing worse will happen to you all day
-------------------------------------
Paul Austin
PAU...@HARRIS.COM
Ronald C. Bestrom
randy stiefer wrote:
> Tell me, was the infamous $700 AWACS toilet seat story from the
> 1980s basically accurate in that the exact item in question
> was a simple toilet seat?
> I heard once, that it was a fiberglas cover that
> sealed an access opening to the septic system and that commercial
> airlines with Boeing 707s would pay around $350 for them.
> I tried to look up stories in the Armed Forces Journal
> at the University of Texas library, but the eighties are missing
> from their bound backissues.
> Thanks for any help or leads.
If you think a USAF contractor is overcharging the government for an
item, submitting false claims, committing fraud, substituting parts, not
performing to contract specifications for testing, etc; there is a
solution. Contact the Air Force Office of Special Investigations
(AFOSI). AFOSI is the senior investigative agency of the USAF. Its
mission is to investigate all allegations of criminal, fraud and
counter-intelligence activity targetted against the USAF, its personnel
and materiel. AFOSI has agents on each USAF base and in many cities.
The agents assigned in the cities are usually specialized in contract
fraud and monitor the activities of USAF contractors. The AFOSI office
is Seattle is involved in the investigation of contractor activities in
Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana and Alaska. We also are involved in
the investigation of allegations of counterfeit or bogus parts,
technology transfer (providing US technology to other countries) and
counterintelligence activity targeted against our military contracts, or
the USAF. The AFOSI office in Seattle can be reached at (206) 553-1500.
Ronald C. Bestrom
George R. Gonzalez
randy stiefer wrote in message <34DFD9...@onr.com>...
>Tell me, was the infamous $700 AWACS toilet seat story from the
>1980s basically accurate in that the exact item in question
>was a simple toilet seat?
That could very well be true.
Your typical first reaction is, why couldnt they have just gone down to
Home Depot and bought a $7 toilet seat?
The answer is that most every item on a aircraft has to be extensively
tested for the harsh environment. By the time the item has been put
through environmental tests, including temperature cycles, vibration,
G-loads, the cost has gone sky high.
Even something as simple as a toilet seat failing could result in a
mission failure.
Imagine trying to fly a plane with toilet-seat fragments in your
posterior!
Paul Tomblin
In a previous article, randy stiefer <c...@onr.com> said:
>Tell me, was the infamous $700 AWACS toilet seat story from the
>1980s basically accurate in that the exact item in question
>was a simple toilet seat?
I just paid $70 for a gas cap for my Piper Archer. I looked exactly the same
as one you could get from Pep Boys for $7, but it had a TSO number stenciled
on it. The gas cap costs $7, the number stenciled on it cost the other $63.
--
Paul Tomblin (ptom...@xcski.com) I don't buy from spammers.
"Tower zero one request clearance for takeoff."
"Cleared runway three contact ground point six three when off the runway."
- Michael Crichton destroys whatever technical credibility he had left.
Jim
I am more than occasionally impressed by the postings and responses of
this NG. Especially this one, most of the responses are very clued in.
Yes, it was the P-3 Orion. Yes, it was the fiberglass cover and
enclosure (toilet seat makes such a better story though). Remember,
everything that goes into a military airplane must conform (not always,
but the vast majority of time) to Mil-Spec. That means it has to be
compatable with the other materials, not give off toxic fumes when
exposed to heat, not interfere with the eletronics, oh and by the way in
a lot of cases be compatible with NBC (nuclear, bio, chemical) warfare
requirements. If your Ace hardware toilet seat met all those
requirements it would cost you $700 too.
Ed Robbeloths comments are particularly appropriate, now Ed; go do the
same math with the B2. An entire plant was built around a prodcution
run of about 120 aircraft. Reduce the run to 20 and see what happens to
overhead.
Some comments for Dave Lesher:
It is important to remember that aircraft production programs cover
years (decades). Administrations come and go, Congressmen come and go.
Support from the services shifts with the changing requirements that the
'outside' world (threats) generate (certainly this is being generous as
politics generates plenty of it own requirements). One cannot
appreciate this procurment process until you have dealt with it in some
detail. It's not like buying a car, or a fleet of cars for that matter,
and its not like buying commericial aircraft either. Congressmen are
not dumb (at least most of them are not), the officers and civilians in
the military procurment cycle are not dumb either. In fact they are
some of the sharpest people you will ever run across. The task of
fielding something as complex as a new weapon system and keeping it
affordable is not easy. Just the other day I heard a statement worth
sharing: "A new airplane is not just a new design like next years car,
it's a new invention. And new inventions don't lend themselves to
schedules very well."
All of this is not to say that there is not abuse and certainly waste.
There is.
Ok, I'm off my soapbox.
Jim
RobbelothE
To end this thread (I hope), let me provide a quote from President Calvin
Coolidge regardin the Army's desire to buy a large number of airplanes:
Couldn't they just buy one and take turns flying it?
Ed Robbeloth
Ed Robbeloth
David E. Oakley
randy stiefer wrote:
> Tell me, was the infamous $700 AWACS toilet seat story from the
> 1980s basically accurate in that the exact item in question
> was a simple toilet seat?
> I heard once, that it was a fiberglas cover that
> sealed an access opening to the septic system and that commercial
> airlines with Boeing 707s would pay around $350 for them.
> I tried to look up stories in the Armed Forces Journal
> at the University of Texas library, but the eighties are missing
> from their bound backissues.
> Thanks for any help or leads.
Randy
This may have actually been in the news more than once. A man (I think
in Calf.) went to the news people with the story that the Air Force was
getting ripped off. He claimed that his company would make the item for
one tenth of what the government was being charged. I don't know if it
was he or the news people that changed the item to a seat, which it
wasn't. It was more like a "Porta-Potty" made to mil. specs. A request
for quotation was sent to the company. They "No Bid". They not only
couldn't make it at the price that they had told the news people, they
couldn't make it at any price. A news release was sent out on the no bid
but the news people didn't think that that part of the story was news
worthy. I'm not sure how the news people reported it so you could try
doing searchs on the C-5B and the P-3.
David
National Aero Safety
> >1980s basically accurate in that the exact item in question
> >was a simple toilet seat?
>
> as one you could get from Pep Boys for $7, but it had a TSO number stenciled
> on it. The gas cap costs $7, the number stenciled on it cost the other $63.
>
> --
> Paul Tomblin (ptom...@xcski.com) I don't buy from spammers.
> "Tower zero one request clearance for takeoff."
> "Cleared runway three contact ground point six three when off the runway."
> - Michael Crichton destroys whatever technical credibility he had left.
The $63 just about covers the Aviation Products Liability
Insurance that is required on the item in question, by the daily
work of the Legal Community on our behalf. Just another example
of the litigious society that we all live in, here in North
America.
ROSWELL
Alan Constant
RobbelothE wrote:
>
> Having done some small part of the acquisition business, let me explain the
> for its new BCF-99 aircraft at a price of $175 each which includes $25 profit,
> $25 in raw materials, prorated overhead and research-and-development costs.
> (Overhead includes the cost of labor, utilities, manufacturing jigs, a building
> to manufacture it in, etc). This price is based upon a production run of 1,000
> widgets at 100 per month. That means there is a cost of $125 per widget over
Many years back I read something in one magazine (perhaps Aviation Week)
about one of the services requiring some special parts for helicopter
engines or transmissions that went something like this (dollar values
are made up):
The part itself was fairly inexpensive to make but the tooling, overhead
and setup costs were very high. The company making the part said they
could turn out 1,000 of these parts for $100,000 (a unit price of $100).
The service said "We don't want 1,000, we only want 116."
The company said "If you only want 116, it will cost you $93,000 (a unit
price of $800).
The service ordered 116 and the public became outraged at their spending
$800 a piece for a part they could have had for only $100 a piece.
If I recall, the official explanation was "We determined we only needed
116 of the parts. Had we ordered 1,000 the cost would be $100,000, the
unit price would have been $100, and we would have almost 900 parts we
have no use for sitting on the shelf rusting. The cost to produce 116
was $93,000 which brought the unit cost up to $800, but by purchasing
only 116, we actually saved the taxpayer $7,000."
For once a government explanation actually makes some sense!
Everyone seems to forget that the company has to recoup their costs
which remain the same whether they produce one item or one million so
basing "the deal" on unit cost can be quite misleading.
A. Constant
sirius
National Aero Safety <nat...@wwisp.com> wrote in article
<34E1B890...@wwisp.com>...
Luckily, Ralph, that crap pretty much stops at the border. Up here, the
loser gets assessed court costs and pays the winner's legal fees, both of
which are quite good deterrents against nuisance suits. As a matter of
fact, the Canadian system was proposed to the American Bar Association a
couple of years ago and they just about booed the guy offstage.
Jeff
sirius
Steven P. McNicoll
sirius wrote in message <01bd3793$4ca8e820$7484...@WWDC.wwdc.com>...
>
>>
>> The $63 just about covers the Aviation Products Liability
>> Insurance that is required on the item in question, by the daily
>> work of the Legal Community on our behalf. Just another example
>> of the litigious society that we all live in, here in North
>> America.
>>
>> ROSWELL
>>
>
>
>Luckily, Ralph, that crap pretty much stops at the border. Up here, the
>loser gets assessed court costs and pays the winner's legal fees, both of
>which are quite good deterrents against nuisance suits.
>
If only the US were that progressive!
>
>As a matter of
>fact, the Canadian system was proposed to the American Bar Association a
>couple of years ago and they just about booed the guy offstage.
>
No surprise there!
Harry Andreas
> randy stiefer wrote:
>
> > Tell me, was the infamous $700 AWACS toilet seat story from the
> > 1980s basically accurate in that the exact item in question
> > was a simple toilet seat?
> > I heard once, that it was a fiberglas cover that
> > sealed an access opening to the septic system and that commercial
> > airlines with Boeing 707s would pay around $350 for them.
> > I tried to look up stories in the Armed Forces Journal
> > at the University of Texas library, but the eighties are missing
> > from their bound backissues.
You are correct. It was in either AW&ST or AFJ complete with pictures.
If you picture a complete lavatory unit, walls, toilet, etc, that's what
it was. The press, as usual, buggered up the facts.
--
Harry Andreas
the engineering raconteur
Phormer Phantom Phixer
ever try to build anything to MILSPEC ????
it ain't easy or cheap
>randy stiefer <c...@onr.com> wrote:
>Tell me, was the infamous $700 AWACS toilet seat story from the
>1980s basically accurate in that the exact item in question
>was a simple toilet seat?
> I heard once, that it was a fiberglas cover that
> sealed an access opening to the septic system and that commercial
>airlines with Boeing 707s would pay around $350 for them.
>I tried to look up stories in the Armed Forces Journal
>at the University of Texas library, but the eighties are missing
>from their bound backissues.
>Thanks for any help or leads.
John D. Farley AT-3
VF-11 USS Forrestall/NAS Oceana "74-"78
AIMD wc/610
Phormer Phantom Phixer
fa...@bogusminn.net