First-Half 2016 Delivery Performance for Airbus and Boeing Reflect Continued Supply Chain Challenges
As the commercial aircraft industry moves into the second-half of 2016, it is time for our usual Supply Chain Matters six month industry review of performance. Reflecting on delivery performance thus far, there are continued signs of industry supply chain supply challenges.
Let’s begin with Airbus which reported the booking of a total of 227 confirmed orders in the first six months of the year. That number may be somewhat understated since at the industry’s recently completed Farnborough Air Show, Airbus achieved bragging rights for announcing orders and commitments for 279 commercial aircraft, more than half originating from a single airline customer, that being AirAsia who ordered 100 A320neos.
Airbus recorded the delivery of a total of 298 aircraft in the first-half, which consisted of the following:
- 160- Single aisle aircraft (Variants of A319, A320, A321)
- 38- A330’s
- 27- A350’s
- 2- A380’s
In the above, tell –tale signs of supply disruption are reflected in two key aircraft. There were only 8 completed deliveries of the brand new A320neo, no doubt reflecting the ongoing catch-up in delivery of the brand new Pratt & Whitney geared turbofan engines. Airbus had delivered just 5 A320neos in Q1 meaning that just 3 were delivered in Q2. As noted in our prior commentary, nearly a dozen of completed A320neos have been reported as lined-up on factory adjacent runways and parking areas awaiting Pratt to deliver completed engines. The exiting delay is associated with fixing the engine’s cooling design through a combination of software and component modifications. Pratt engine deliveries were not expected to catch-up until after June and there are continued reports that Pratt’s supply chain remains strained. The other new engine offering, the new LEAP model from CFM International is expected to be available in the second-half of this year as-well. With a stated target to have a production level of 50 A320neo’s per month by 2017, there is a lot more planning and execution remaining.
A further problematic area acknowledged by Airbus has been supply and bottleneck challenges associated with newest model A350 production, and first-half completion of 27 reflects that ongoing challenge. Supply challenges have been noted as interior seating and structures and Airbus senior management has expressed public frustration regarding ongoing supply glitches.
Turning to Boeing, the aircraft producer reported the booking of a total of 321 orders in the first-half. At the completion of the Farnborough event in July, Boeing was able to announce orders and commitments for 182 aircraft but just 20 actual new firm orders.
Boeing further recorded the delivery of a total of 298 aircraft reflecting its previously announced scaled-down expectations for delivery cadence this year. The breakdown was:
- 3- 747’s
- 5- 767’s
- 51- 777’s
- 68- 787 Dreamliners
In the above, a challenged area remains completed deliveries of Dreamliners although the cadence has improved slightly beyond 10 per month. There is still a long way to go in ramp-up and lots of internal pressures remain since the program remains cash negative until delivery performance dramatically improves. Both Boeing’s Seattle and South Carolina assembly facilities are now producing completed Dreamliners.
With current order backlogs of nearly ten years for Airbus and over seven years for Boeing at current production cadence levels, both manufacturers have been concentrating on increased production automation and longer-term strategic supplier agreements. In June, key suppliers urged both manufacturers to move cautiously on demand noting that there are definitive restrictions on the ability to ramp-up the industry supply chain to expected volume output cadence. Another growing concern is the ability of aircraft engine producers to be able to support higher output volumes given the increased technical sophistication of the new generation engines. Pratt alone is in the midst of managing five different new engine models and with both commercial aircraft dominant manufacturers continuing to book further orders and explore newer model introduction, the pressure builds.
Again, only time will prescribe the course of events in an industry that is clearly reflecting supply chain distress.
© Copyright 2016. The Ferrari Consulting and Research Group and the Supply Chain Matters® blog. All rights reserved
Last week, the United States Congress passed new federal legislation related to the labeling of food ingredients, specifically food products made from genetically modified organisms (GMO’s). The new regulations are expected to be signed by President Barack Obama. These new requirements have drawn mixed perceptions among consumers as well as industry participants and will lead to further language interpretations along with process and technology changes in the months and years to come.
While the Grocery Manufacturers Association lauded the bill passing as a tremendous victory for consumers and common sense, general and business media are noting quite different perceptions.
The new labeling regulations supersede tougher measures already passed by the State of Vermont that went into effect in July. That Vermont law required food manufacturers and grocery chains selling prepared foods in the state to explicitly label food containing GMO ingredients by January 0f 201. Some leading food producers had already initiated efforts to comply. According to news reports that we have reviewed, this new federal legislation renders the Vermont law null and void.
The new federal food labeling legislation allows regulators up to an additional two years to determine the new federal guidelines while smaller food manufacturers would have up to three years to comply. The compromise federal bill spreads out the timetable for conformance and introduces the ability of food manufacturers to utilize QR codes as a means of transmitting full disclose of GMO ingredients. The new federal regulations passed in what the New York Times described as: “.. after a battle that cost food and biotech companies hundreds of millions of dollars (Of lobbying) over the last few years.”
As business media notes, within the core of this ongoing debate is a reality that the vast majority of corn, soybeans and other crops grown across the United States are currently genetically engineered to avoid pest and crop losses. One U.S. Senator predicted certain future litigation challenging the new regulations. For instance, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) interprets the current bill’s definition of foods as not including the many products containing refined oil and sweeteners. The U.S. Agriculture Department, designated to oversee enforcement of the new labeling regulations disagrees with the FDA interpretation.
Perhaps the most controversial aspect is that the new law allows food companies several options to disclose ingredients. According to reports, producers can either add additional text to existing physical labels, place a yet to be determined symbol on product packaging to denote GMO ingredients, or utilize a “digital link” such as QR bar code that consumers can scam with a smartphone that would transfer detailed information from a dedicated web page. The latter option is drawing pointed controversy because current industry data seems to indicate that only 20 percent of current shoppers actually scan a digital code on grocery items to retrieve such information. Proponents also point out anything short of full physical label disclosure will inhibit full disclosure. They further point out that the use of digital media penalizes consumers that currently do not own a smartphone with scanning capabilities.
In spite of all of this ongoing controversy, leading food manufacturers have the opportunity to rise above the noise and take the lead on measures of full disclosure.
Regardless of the ultimate timetable, there are obvious food supply chain implications. They include the ongoing transition to more organically sourced farming and food ingredients which will take additional years of transition to complete. The other obvious implication is greater transparency related to the entire food supply chain.
As Supply Chain Matters has noted in many prior commentaries, most all of this activity should come under the broader umbrella of incorporating broader aspects of sustainability in ongoing business objectives. By our lens, advanced technology in providing full end-to-end visibility of product, ingredient and supplier sourcing will be the new table stakes in providing consumers the visibility they desire. Producers who elect to drag their feet are delaying the inevitable, and open the door for industry disruptors to gain the trust and confidence of consumers and grocers that actions are being taken to assure both visibility as well as longer-term sustainability for healthier products.
©Copyright 2016. The Ferrari Consulting and Research Group LLC and the Supply Chain Matters® blog. All rights reserved.
In supply chain and procurement communities, there is somewhat of a known axiom that any lower-tiered component supplier, even smaller in scope, can cause a significant supply chain and production disruption. That lesson was reaffirmed in the 2011 devastating earthquakes and tsunami that struck Japan when automotive and high tech manufacturers discovered later in the aftermath that important component suppliers suffered major damage in production facilities.
This week, automotive supply chains have yet another reminder.
General Motors indicates that a contract dispute and bankruptcy filing from a key supplier could force it to close all North American assembly plants, potentially causing millions of dollars in losses per day. Clark-Cutler-McDermott Co. is a component supplier for 175 acoustic insulation and interior trim parts that are apparently utilized in nearly every vehicle GM produces in North America.
According to a published report from The Detroit News, the supplier stopped producing parts for GM after shifts on Friday and laid off its workforce. Clark-Cutler-McDermott previously had shut down business operations June 17 and laid off workers until GM was granted a temporary restraining order last month by a U.S. District judge in Detroit, forcing the supplier to temporarily resume production. That order expired Monday. According to a published report by The Wall Street Journal, GM has accused the supplier of using the bankruptcy process and its position as a critical parts supplier to protect personal interests rather than honor contracts.
The Franklin Massachusetts-based supplier filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy last week, and is seeking to sell its business assets because of what it calls unprofitable contracts with GM that have led it to lose $12 million since 2013. Further indicated was that the loss rate of loss had recently accelerated to more than $30,000 a day. The company, which also filed bankruptcy for its subsidiary CCM Automotive Lafayette LLC, says in court records that more than 80 percent of its revenue comes from GM. That is a significant risk for any supplier, especially a smaller one in the nature of a global automotive producer.
A report indicates that GM loaned the supplier millions of dollars to continue operating and also increased prices paid for parts. GM, in court filings, said it told the supplier it would completely fund the sale of the business to another entity.
A U.S. Bankruptcy Court hearing is scheduled to discuss several requests from the supplier and GM. The judge may rule on motions from the supplier to reject GM contracts, give it the authority to pay wages and benefits and obligations, use of collateral cash or GM’s motions that would require the company to deliver inventory to GM and turn over GM tools and equipment or honor its contracts with GM.
Obviously this is a situation that no procurement and supply chain operations team looks forward to and obviously has a lot of GM teams scrambling in back-up contingency planning. The subsequent weeks will be critical in producing back-up supply plans.
Supply Chain Matters recently highlighted a WSJ report of a different focus by GM’s procurement teams, one that allowed 400 U.S. and Canada based component suppliers for GM vehicles being produced in Brazil and Mexico to be able to periodically renegotiate their supply contracts. These suppliers are currently challenged with the effects of a volatile foreign currency environment causing rising material and labor costs. This development was newsworthy because among long time automotive industry watchers, GM developed somewhat of a past reputation as a strict negotiator with what the WSJ describes as “ironclad” contracts with suppliers. Unfortunately, this latest news, coupled what eventually transpires regarding this one supplier, will either add or distract from previous perceptions regarding GM as a customer.
There has been some additional news regarding the status of electric car manufacturer Tesla Motor’s rollout of its planned gigafactory to produce its own electric cells for use in both its automobiles as well as other rechargeable battery supply needs.
The Associated Press reports that Tesla has now received and sold about $20 million in transferable tax credits granted by the State of Nevada in conjunction with an overall $1.3 billion incentives package put in place to lure Tesla to selecting the northern Nevada site location. In its most recent progress report issued to the state, Tesla indicated that as of the first quarter of 2016, an average of 369 workers were employed at the plant thus far, while an average of 599 construction workers continue to work on plant construction and fit-out.
Reports point out that Tesla continues with a strategic supply agreement with Japan based battery supplier Panasonic. This supply agreement reportedly calls for the production of 1.8 billion battery cells through 2017, to support the output needs for both the Model S and the Model X. As of Q1, Panasonic had over 50 employees working at the Nevada battery plant.
The battery plant is being designed to eventually support the production needs of upwards of 500,000 electric powered vehicles per year. The design goal is that the plant would ultimately be able to produce batteries at 30 percent less cost, and when operational, would provide the capacity to be the single largest battery manufacturing volume plant in the world. The gigafactory is part of Elon Musk’s vision that batteries will not only be required in new automobiles, but in alternative energy applications as well. Hence, Tesla’s recent announcement of its intent to acquire SolarCity, the other component of this strategy, which includes supplying storage batteries to capture electricity captured by solar cells during the day, for use in other periods.
Meanwhile, a Bloomberg Businessweek published a report indicates that pressure to speed-up the original production ramp-up output of the gigafactory has taken on new significance because of the 330,000 preorders that have already been received for the new Model 3.
According to the report- “The accelerated schedule to supply the Model 3, the automaker’s first mass market car, doesn’t leave much time to create a complex supply chain that includes expanded mining and exploration operations.”
Further noted is that the Model 3 will feature a newer high-capacity battery with enhanced energy density to expand operating range. To keep the base price of the Model 3 at its targeted $35,000 range, Tesla engineers are working on different compositions of metal content within the rechargeable batteries. Tesla has reportedly hired specialized metals experts to travel the world to seek out and work with metals suppliers.
In a Supply Chain Matters commentary published in September of 2015, we highlighted the bold supply chain vertical integration strategy that resulted in the concept of the gigafactory, destined to be one of the largest battery manufacturing plants in the world. We further noted the strategic importance of plant’s location in Nevada, close to available suppliers of lithium metal.
At Tesla’s annual stockholders meeting in May, Founder and CEO Elon Musk indicated that lithium metal will only account for two percent of the total materials in the firm’s electric cells. Rather than compete with high-tech and consumer electronics producers across Asia and Korea that consume 85 percent of current lithium supply, the strategy appears to be substituting other metal compounds instead. Similar to what we noted last year, the Bloomberg report indicates that strategic supply agreements for lithium have been signed with Bacanora Minerals and Pure Energy Minerals, each to explore and mine the metal within sources close to the new factory. However, a specialized metals research firm predicts a global deficit of lithium supply this year, turning to slight surplus in 2017 and 2018.
Musk reportedly indicated to stockholders that a bigger determinant for the Model 3 is the cost of nickel in the form that Tesla engineers require. That metal is being substituted for cobalt. Global-wide supplies of nickel have increased during the past two years resulting in a 50 percent decrease in prices.
As with many value-chain strategies related to a firm’s product supply chain, the ability to support both short and long-term customer demand need often rests with key strategic supply agreements. In the case of Tesla, that equates to the critical supply of not just battery cells, but the metals and compounds that go into the production of such cells.
A glance at Tesla’s recently filed Form SD, Specialized Disclosure Report with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) related to adherence to avoidance of conflict materials can give one a sense of how important metals supply is for Tesla. The Annex lists 41 different global suppliers of Tantalum, 51 suppliers of Tin and 35 suppliers of Tungsten. The scope is truly global in-nature.
Two Contrasting Events: Brexit and the Expanded Panama Canal Add New Dimensions for More Active Planning – Part Two
It’s the last Monday in June and as we pen this part two Supply Chain Matters advisory commentary two major developments over these past few days are going to have a definitive long-term impact on various industry supply chains. One is the unexpected results of the referendum by voters in the United Kingdom endorsing an exit from the European Union. Our part one posting of this series addressed our initial perspectives and recommendations regarding Brexit. In this part two advisory, we will address yesterday’s formal opening of an expanded Panama Canal.
Yesterday, after nine years and in excess of $5 billion in investment, the Panama Canal Authority formally opened new locks on both the Pacific and Atlantic Ocean facing entries to accommodate the transit of far larger ships. The first ocean container ship to transit the expanded canal, the renamed Cosco Shipping Panama, operated by Costco Shipping Lines traversed an expanded canal from the Atlantic to the Pacific side.
The opening of this well-known expanded waterway was completed after nearly two years of delay, and considerable cost overruns. At one point in 2014, a stalemate raised doubts as to whether this huge infrastructure project would ever be completed. Container vessels with capacity in excess of 12,000 TEU’s are now expected to be able to take advantage of the widened canal with promised faster direct transit times from Asia based ports directly to eastern United States ports, thus avoiding inter-modal movements across the United States. The other opportunity is for east coast based regional shippers to now have a direct transit route to East Asia.
There has been much anticipation as well as speculation regarding the benefits of an expanded Panama Canal. About a year ago, The Boston Consulting Group (BSC) and C.H. Robinson released a joint study-How the Panama Canal Expansion is Redrawing the Logistics Map, and predicted that by 2020, up to ten percent of container traffic bound for the United States from East Asia could shift their destination to U.S. East Coast ports. According to the authors, that shifting volume is equivalent to building a port double the size of the existing Ports of Savannah and Charleston. The study concluded that this container routing shift will permanently alter the competitive balance among U.S. East and West Coast ports as well as the battleground region for determining the most cost efficient or service-sensitive assumptions in logistics and transportation routing. The BSC study concluded that time-sensitive cargo may continue to route through U.S. west coast while cost sensitive or high density cargos may have economic advantages in east coast port routings.
Since then, other studies have pointed to new opportunities in logistics and transportation related to direct Asia to U.S. and converse goods transit, including the operation of new inland ports.
However, the one current gating factor is that many of the key U.S. East Coast ports are still working on infrastructure projects that would allow larger vessels to call on such ports. The ports currently best prepared to handle these larger vessels are the Ports of Miami and Savannah. Both the Ports of Baltimore and Charleston have active dredging projects underway while the combined Ports of New York and New Jersey still have significant infrastructure requirements yet to be overcome including a bridge near Bayonne New Jersey.
As we noted in a previous Supply Chain Matters commentary, a current boom in distribution and warehouse development includes large investments in east coast regions. The State of South Carolina is aggressively positioning its logistics and distribution infrastructure to be an economic beneficiary of the new routing. Over six million square feet of warehouse space is under construction in the Greenville- Spartanburg region mostly being attributed to the ability to support direct ocean container movements from Asia to the U.S. An inland port at nearby Greer South Carolina is connected by rail to the Port of Charleston. From the Greenville- Spartanburg area, trucks can transit goods to the rest of major eastern U.S. cities or to U.S. Midwest manufacturing regions within a day’s drive. Thus, an alternative option opens up for direct transit and distribution of goods.
A lot will depend on active analysis and modeling by logistics and transportation as well as S&OP teams on the various cost and service options related to ocean movements to U.S. West Coast ports with intermodal truck and mail inland vs. direct ocean transit to U.S. East Coast ports with adjacent inland distribution and transit. A factor in modeling will be assumptions on port and infrastructure readiness as well as direct labor environment. Another uncertain factor is the all-important long-term cost of fuel, which is currently still hovering at unprecedented low levels.
Needless to state, global supply chain logistics and distribution routing has no changed. Active global supply chain network modeling and assessment has become an all-important necessity followed by capability elements for ensuring broader supply chain wide visibility. The expanded Panama Canal now opens a long anticipated new opportunity but comes with differing and changing assumptions.
Be prepared with people, technology and more informed decision-making capabilities.
© 2016 The Ferrari Consulting and Research Group and the Supply Chain Matters® blog. All Rights Reserved.