https://fordauthority.com/2025/11/fo...t-in-december/

 

This is great news for all the companies that rely on their products and service. In another thread, it was mentioned that the beer companies could be in trouble. Well, the beverage distributors can bottle their products, Ford is just stuck.

Maybe going forward, Ford stops relying on a sole source for it's metal skins, OR, maybe Ford buys a little more than what is needed for immediate assembly.

I don't feel sorry for any of the auto builders. They all use a "just in time" method of acquiring products needed for car assembly and I get it, inventory is expensive. But, is it cheaper to have a small inventory or shut down a line or five, furlough workers and not build?

 

No offense, but it is clear that you never worked a day in the automotive manufacturing sector, specifically supply chain management. It's not at as simple as keeping a few extra boxes of parts on hand. FWIW, I never spent a day working for the USCG, but I also don't try to suggest how they should run things, either.

 

I guess I'm the one who should have said "no offense". Sorry to have offended you sir. What I would have done differently had I fielded an opinion like the one that I offered is I would have taken the time to educate in my response. I would have greatly appreciated that as I have no issues what so ever with being wrong or being proven that I was wrong. I just want to learn and I want to keep the discussion going.

With that, don't you think that the American people have about heard the excuse of supply chain issues quite enough since the early days of covid? We've all had to live with roller coaster pricing, price gouging, lack of inventory, lack of spare parts, lack of a qualified workforce and the list goes on. I feel it's naive to think that things don't happen yet irresponsible to not be somewhat prepared.

Semper Peratus.
Always Ready

 

Having a single supplier to support a high volume manufacturer is just downright stupid. Having a single suppler with a single manufacturing plant is just downright insane. With all the quality problems Ford is having and add this disaster to the mix, I'm shocked Jim Farley still has a job.

 

Single source supplier is risky for sure.

You want to know what crazy is with the risk of sole source supplier? Think about Southwest Airlines. Their fleet consists of only 737’s. What would happen to them if the FAA grounds the 737 with a Airworthiness Directive like they just did with the MD11 after the Louisville crash near the Ford Plant?

Every other airline that I can think of uses several different aircraft in their fleets.

 

The trade off is MRO costs of maintaining a variety of models and air frame classes at the same time, as well as the corporate overhead of having two suppliers to deal with along with less bargaining power if the order is cut in half with Boeing and then the balance is negotiated with Airbus. SW doesn't fly super long haul international flights since their out of the country destinations are limited to the Caribbean and Mexico+CenAm so they don't need widebodies or super long haul jets.

AFAIK SW does the MRO in house. If they have multiple models in inventory then they either have to set up new facilities/lines to do so, or contract it out to someone like Delta. Neither option is cheap. Since they have a 4 versions of 737 variants, it would take a catastrophic problem for all 4 to be grounded by the FAA since each model is treated on its own certification wise.

 

SWA is taking a risk having all its eggs in one basket. All variants of B737, except the Max, have the same FAA Type certificate A16WE. I’ve had to deal with and comply with multiple FAA AD’s. Sometimes they are limited to a batch of airframe serial numbers, components etc. There are lots of commonalities among the different variants of the B737. While it’s rare, it would not be unreasonable that a single grounding AD would pertain to almost all the B737 variants at SWA. If an Emergency AD like the one the FAA just released on the MD11 affected B737 that would be devastating for SWA

 

if the scenario you are describing indeed does occur then the US aviation industry as whole would be crippled overnight. The non-Max models of 737s in addition to Max’s are widely used across carriers, AA alone flies almost 500 of them which accounts for just about 1/2 of their overall fleet and a huge portion of their domestic routes. You can’t realistically use the MD11 example that only impacts a limited number of cargo only airframes(around 60-70 from what I read) and extrapolate it to arguably one of the if not THE backbone of domestic passenger carriers.

aviation as a whole is a business of risks. My money is on an extremely remote chance that a fleet wide grounding of all SW planes could happen. YMMV.

 

Talk about risk assessment with sole source anything, look no further than the US Navy with aircraft carrier design and construction, it's all done in Newport News, Va. If that's not scary enough, dive into the submarine business. Two designers and builders, both on the East coast and they share all the work to keep both viable. While other yards are certified to overhaul and maintain, only two build and they are years behind.

The nation as a whole in terms of military or automotive needs to look further back in history than WWII to recognize the need for a robust supply chain.

 

The only other country that is actively fielding multiple(more than 2) fleet carriers right now is China, and their only one shipyard that is building truly modern carriers is the one outside of Shanghai that is no doubt the first target by their enemies should war breaks out, where their 003 Fujian was built and the 004 nuclear carrier is slated to begin. The one in Dalian is only for building outdated Kiev class knockoffs that are little more than artificial reefs should a hot war break out.

Having two parallel production lines for nuclear fleet carriers is , to understate it, cost prohibitive and no country on earth can afford it. When we reminisce about WWII supply chain, we often forget how simple those ships were compared to modern combat vessels, and even then, the (much well spent) debt that put the US in during that war was only taken care of by steady inflation aided by the post war boom. I remember my grand father talking about having to travel the country to sell war bonds during his leave stateside in between his overseas government paid for vacations getting shot at by the Jerry & Co.

Also, there is a reason why it is hard to find good labor pool for the carrier production business. If you ever spent time in a half built carrier or one undergoing maintenance when the interior HVAC and electrical systems are not working at full capacity, you would not want to do it for under 100k a year. It's dark, hot, humid, wet, slippery, disorienting for even seasoned workers. And don't get me started on finding a restroom on it. In my previous life my coworkers and I all prayed to NOT get on an HII assignment.

 

^^^

Fully agreed sir. I rode LA class boats for eight years prior to my Coast Guard career. I spent time at HII before it was HII and more time in Naval shipyards in Portsmouth, VA and Peal Harbor as well as plenty of private yards around the country.

Ships were simple in WWII but, if you consider the advances in technology since, they're no more complicated now than then ONCE you remove nuclear power from the equation. In truth, nuke power isn't that complicated. It heats up and creates steam which turns turbines for electricity and propulsion. Isn't that what an oil fired boiler did?
The last two CG ships that was I assigned to still used diesel fired boilers for the galley, heat and the fresh water still. They've since added RO units for fresh water.
I think what's made ships more complex is Nav, comms and weps.

Much of the same equipment used in ships is used in the automobile world. They both use steel, light weight metals, plastics, computers and some form of fuel to propel. Yes, yes, ultra simplistic.

Bottom line, we need to get it together and become more and more independent.