ࡱ >
` bjbj n z! , 1 1 1 1 1 E E E 8 } " | E V 0 B 7 7 7 7 8 @ T (C , U U U U U U U W Z R U 9 1 TD 8 8 TD TD U 1 1 7 7 U PK PK PK TD , 1 7 1 7 U PK TD U PK PK r R p S 7 l E F RS tU U 0 V `S Z (H ( Z S S n Z 1 lT TD TD PK TD TD TD TD TD U U PK TD TD TD V TD TD TD TD Z TD TD TD TD TD TD TD TD TD :
AEROSPACE MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY
GM 105
Professor Hatton
December 11, 2009
___
Report Completed By:
Sarah GregoryLeslie HortonStaci MilesLauren RolsonMarcin Skubala
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u HYPERLINK \l "_Toc248299377" INTRODUCTION PAGEREF _Toc248299377 \h 4
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc248299378" BACKGROUND PAGEREF _Toc248299378 \h 4
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc248299379" DOMINANT ECONOMIC INDICATORS PAGEREF _Toc248299379 \h 5
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc248299380" 1. Market Size PAGEREF _Toc248299380 \h 5
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc248299381" 2. Scope of Competitive Rivalry PAGEREF _Toc248299381 \h 6
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc248299382" 3. Number of Companies in the Industry PAGEREF _Toc248299382 \h 7
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc248299383" 4. Customers PAGEREF _Toc248299383 \h 8
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc248299384" 5. Ease of Entry/Exit PAGEREF _Toc248299384 \h 8
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc248299385" 6. Technology/Innovation PAGEREF _Toc248299385 \h 9
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc248299386" 7. Product Characteristics PAGEREF _Toc248299386 \h 10
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc248299387" A. Government PAGEREF _Toc248299387 \h 10
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc248299388" B. Commercial Aircraft PAGEREF _Toc248299388 \h 10
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc248299389" 8. Scale Economies PAGEREF _Toc248299389 \h 11
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc248299390" A. Internal PAGEREF _Toc248299390 \h 11
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc248299391" B. External PAGEREF _Toc248299391 \h 12
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc248299392" 9. Experience Curve Effects PAGEREF _Toc248299392 \h 12
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc248299393" 10. Capacity Utilization PAGEREF _Toc248299393 \h 13
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc248299394" 11. Industry Profitability PAGEREF _Toc248299394 \h 13
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc248299395" SIX FORCES OF COMPETITION PAGEREF _Toc248299395 \h 14
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc248299396" 1. Threat of New Entrants PAGEREF _Toc248299396 \h 14
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc248299397" 2. Bargaining Power of Suppliers PAGEREF _Toc248299397 \h 16
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc248299398" 3. Bargaining Power of Buyers PAGEREF _Toc248299398 \h 16
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc248299399" 4. Threat of Substitute Products/Services PAGEREF _Toc248299399 \h 17
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc248299400" 5. Intensity of Rivalry among Competitors PAGEREF _Toc248299400 \h 17
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc248299401" 6. Relative Power of other Stakeholders-Unions PAGEREF _Toc248299401 \h 18
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc248299402" COMPETITIVE POSITION OF MAJOR AEROSPACE COMPANIES PAGEREF _Toc248299402 \h 18
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc248299403" COMPETITOR ANALYSIS OF MAJOR AEROSPACE COMPANIES PAGEREF _Toc248299403 \h 20
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc248299404" Boeing Co. PAGEREF _Toc248299404 \h 20
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc248299405" Lockheed Martin Corporation PAGEREF _Toc248299405 \h 21
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc248299406" Northrop Grumman Corporation PAGEREF _Toc248299406 \h 23
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc248299407" Raytheon Co. PAGEREF _Toc248299407 \h 24
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc248299408" Other Manufacturers PAGEREF _Toc248299408 \h 25
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc248299409" Airbus PAGEREF _Toc248299409 \h 25
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc248299410" United Technologies PAGEREF _Toc248299410 \h 26
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc248299411" KEY SUCCESS FACTORS PAGEREF _Toc248299411 \h 26
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc248299412" Reducing Costs PAGEREF _Toc248299412 \h 26
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc248299413" Maintaining Access to Foreign Markets PAGEREF _Toc248299413 \h 27
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc248299414" INDUSTRY PROSPECTS AND OVERALL ATTRACTIVENESS PAGEREF _Toc248299414 \h 29
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc248299415" Factors Making the Industry Attractive PAGEREF _Toc248299415 \h 29
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc248299416" Factors Making the Industry Unattractive PAGEREF _Toc248299416 \h 31
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc248299417" Special Industry Problems and Issues PAGEREF _Toc248299417 \h 32
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc248299418" Profit Outlook PAGEREF _Toc248299418 \h 33
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc248299419" Micro Jet Airplanes PAGEREF _Toc248299419 \h 33
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc248299420" CONCLUSION PAGEREF _Toc248299420 \h 35
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc248299421" Works Cited PAGEREF _Toc248299421 \h 37
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc248299422" Appendix A. Aircraft Information Fixed-Wing Aircraft PAGEREF _Toc248299422 \h 38
INTRODUCTION
The accomplishments and advancements in the aerospace manufacturing industry over the last century since the Wright Brothers made their first flight on December 17, 1903 are astounding. The first flight covered a distance of one hundred twenty feet in twelve seconds. Today, airplanes allow us to travel across continents and are a crucial part of our military. The manufacturing of these aircrafts has evolved into an industry that has become an enormously profitable and has had a significant impact on our business world. This report analyzes the aerospace manufacturing industry and highlights the dominant economic characteristics, the six forces of competition, the competitive position of major companies within the industry, key success factors, and industry prospects and overall attractiveness.
BACKGROUND
Aerospace manufacturing is a high technology industry geared especially towards governmental work that produces aircraft, guided missiles, space vehicles, aircraft engines, propulsion units, and related parts.
There are hundreds of manufacturing companies and suppliers that are responsible for building and supplying the aircrafts used today, however the aerospace industry is largely dominated by a few large firms that contract to produce aircraft with government and private businesses (usually airline and cargo transportation companies). These large firms, in turn, subcontract with smaller firms to produce specific systems and parts for their vehicles. To better understand the sheer number of aircrafts produced, the attached appendix of this report includes a list obtained from the U.S. Department of Transportation and Federal Aviation Administration that lists the vast number of aircrafts the industry manufactures.
Firms producing transport aircraft make up the largest segment of the civil (nonmilitary) aircraft portion of the industry. Civil transport aircraft are produced for air transportation businesses such as airlines and cargo transportation companies. These aircraft range from small turboprops to wide-body jets and are used to move people and goods all over the world. Another segment of civil aircraft is general aviation aircraft where aircrafts in this segment range from small two-seaters designed for leisure use to corporate jets used for business transport. Civil helicopters, which make up one of the smallest segments of civil aircraft, are commonly used by police and large city traffic departments, emergency medical services, and businesses such as oil and mining companies that need to transport people to remote worksites.
In the HYPERLINK "http://www.answers.com/topic/united-states" \t "_top"United States of America, the HYPERLINK "http://www.answers.com/topic/defense-department-of" \t "_top"Department of Defense and the HYPERLINK "http://www.answers.com/topic/nasa" \t "_top"National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) are the two largest consumers of aerospace technology and products. Others include the very large HYPERLINK "http://www.answers.com/topic/airline" \t "_top"airline industry. The aerospace industry employed four hundred seventy two thousand wage and salary workers in 2006. There are over one hundred major aerospace and defense companies that are members of the Aerospace Industries Association (founded in 1919, shortly after the birth of flight).
DOMINANT ECONOMIC INDICATORS
Market Size
The United States market share in helicopters, civil aircraft, launch vehicles and jet engines has decreased a staggering 50% in the past 40 years. While once highly profitable, Wall Street reports the aerospace industry has been on a decline for years and now only accounts for 1.8% of the S&P 500 market capitalization. During the 1970s this number was at nearly 9%. March 2009 proved to be the roughest month for the industry with stock prices drastically plummeting. Over the past few months the industry has begun to recover and have gained back an average of 60% from their bottom, but still far from their peaks just a short time ago.
With the rise of terrorism and threats to national security, more and more money is spent on our nations defense systems. The market for government defense systems has been growing steadily and will continue growing. Boeing, Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin are companies in the industry with large amounts of sales from the U.S. Government. Commercial aircraft also has huge market share in the aerospace industry and is currently decreasing in market size. Airline companies are experiencing less people traveling and in turn are placing fewer orders on new aircraft.
Current Market Forecasts for major commercial airplane manufacturers reveal project demands for 25,000-29,000 new aircrafts between 2009 and 2028. Every year airline manufacturers look at current market conditions and forecast the next twenty years. Various world regions are also individually analyzed. The report shows that Asia Pacific region is expected to have the largest amount of new air transport deliveries at 8960, followed by North America and Europe.
Scope of Competitive Rivalry
With a decreasing market size in the industry, aerospace manufacturers are competing more than ever to gain new business. Buyers are looking to spend less money and get the best products possible. These factors create an enormous challenge for aerospace manufacturers to manufacture products with high labor costs and fierce competition. As technology is always changing, companies in the industry are also looking for new ways to improve their products or services to outperform their competitors.
Outsourcing is a major trend which aerospace manufacturers are using to gain competitive advantages. One of the main reasons for outsourcing is to save money which is crucial for an industry which is struggling to make profits. Another reason is to save valuable time and resources. Take for example Boeing, which is outsourcing as much as 70% of manufacturing on their new 787 Dreamliner. Not only is outsourcing saving them millions, but would cut production times in half.
Number of Companies in the Industry
There are thousands of aerospace manufacturers which exist in the U.S. However, the majority remain small organizations because of entry barriers. Barriers prevent companies from entering the industry primarily due to the high capital requirements which require the need to invest large amounts of financial resources.
Every year Aviation Week puts out its Top Performing Companies list which compares various aerospace manufacturing companies. The top six companies in the industry rank as follows:
Lockheed Martin Corp
Precision Castparts Corp
Boeing
General Dynamics Corp
Thales
Raytheon
Below is a table highlighting various aspects of a few major competitors:
Lockheed MartinBoeingNorthrop GrummanRaytheonFortune 500 Rating54th 34th 69th place108th Employees146,000162,000123,00072,800Year Founded1995191619941922HeadquartersBethesda, MDChicago, ILLos Angeles, CAWaltham, MA
Customers
The two largest consumers of aerospace products and technology in the United States are the Department of Defense and NASA. The U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) is in charge of national security and the military. With an expected budget of over $600 billion for 2010 the DOD has the financial capability to continuously seek the newest and best technologies to protect homeland security.
Although companies such as Boeing have large integrated defense systems and receive nearly half of their sales from the U.S. Government, the target market for commercial jet manufacturers are primarily commercial airline companies. With a relatively limited client base for airplane manufacturers this creates fierce competition. Often times organizations must share customers and work together to create products to satisfy customer needs. Because of the limited amount of customers, airplane manufacturers such as Boeing must do business worldwide.
Certain aerospace manufacturers, such as Boeing, also have a customer base which consists of personal and corporate sales and leasing. Commercial jets and airplanes account for most of the industries private sales. With multi-million dollar price tags, individuals or corporations must have the financial ability to purchase and maintain these expensive aircrafts. Although a more popular option for customers are to lease aircraft to help alleviate some of the costs.
Ease of Entry/Exit
Ease of entry to the aerospace manufacturing industry can vary depending on what products or services are offered. Overall, to become a major aerospace manufacturer, one of the largest entry barriers is having capital requirements which require the need to invest large amounts of financial resources. In order to become a prime contractor for the government, a company must convince them that their ideas and proposals are the best. Attaining contracts can prove to be difficult for newcomers because you are competing against more established, reputable and financially capable organizations. In addition, facilities must be large enough to accommodate the project with a skilled staff.
Technology/Innovation
With the need for continuously improving products, technology is a key factor in creating the future of the aerospace industry. Major manufacturing firms invest hundreds of millions of dollars in research and development in order to provide and improve strategic capabilities of their organizations. These capabilities include, but are not limited to: energy efficiency, reducing emissions, noise, and hazardous materials as well as increasing material recycling.
By implementing these changes it not only benefits the environment, but customers are also able to save money in running costs. Aerospace manufacturers are constantly looking for new ways to improve the flow of aerodynamics, materials, propulsion and systems by synthesizing them all together. Most of the industries focuses are to improve fuel efficiency in aircraft. With the U.S. Military being the worlds largest consumer of oil, they are looking for alternatives to help suppress their impact on the environment. One of those plans is to certify its aircraft fleet to use a 50-50 mix of biofuel and jet fuel.
With commercial airlines struggling to stay in business, they rely heavily in the technological improvements of aircraft to keep them running. The core of the solution also lies in efficiency of the aircraft. One of the leading manufacturers of commercial airplanes, Boeing, is developing their 787 Dreamliner as a showcase to what they can accomplish with technology. Everything from the design to construction materials were extensively researched to create maximum efficiency. As a result the midrange airplane will consume 20% less fuel and be 10% less expensive to operate than its major competitor.
Product Characteristics
In the aerospace manufacturing industry, many products are tailored to fit the needs of the customer. The U.S. Government and NASA, for example require highly specified products, many of which are kept secret for security purposes. Commercial aircraft, on the other hand share many of the same characteristics and features.
Government
With high concerns about national security and defense, the U.S. Government invests lots of money in keeping with the best and latest aerospace products. These include, but are not limited to: airlifts, tankers, battle network communication, fighter and bomber jets, integrated command control, launch systems, missile defense, weapons, rotorcraft, surveillance and aerial vehicles. There are hundreds of different aviation products the government uses, each of them carrying their own unique characteristics. Take for example the B-52 Sprit. It was developed by Northrop Grumman, Boeing and Vought Aircraft Industries. Its primary goal is to attack time critical targets early in a conflict to lower war making potential in enemies. The unique design minimizes observability in order to avoid radar detection.
Commercial Aircraft
The majority of society would have a hard time differentiating commercial aircraft brands, models and sub models. Regardless of their similarity, each airplane holds their own unique characteristics. Starting from one of the oldest and largest aircrafts, the Boeing 747 has been around since the 1960s. Throughout the decades the 747 has seen changes into 15 different sub models. The latest 747 sub model is the 747-8 which was launched in November 2005. Additionally, there are two types of 747-8 being produced today. The Intercontinental carries people and the Freighter hauls cargo. Seat mile costs for the 747-8 are 13% lower and trip costs are 2% lower than the 747-400 it replaced. Fuel efficiency is also improved by 16% compared to the 747-400. Because the basic design of the 747 has been around so long, it is the only large plane that fits most modern airport infrastructure, giving it the ability to travel to more destinations.
Scale Economies
Economies of scale are becoming more important to aerospace manufacturers as the industry struggles. The two economies which exist in the industry are internal and external.
Internal
Technical economies- Many firms in the industry are producing many of their own parts or machines for specific tasks. This helps prevent shortages, improves turnaround time, saves time, and money.
Administrative economies- Managers and leaders are assigned to various departments to keep focus on specific projects. As a result, this leads to better products, innovations and quality.
Financial Economies- Loans are made to companies to finance production facilities and headquarters.
Marketing Economies- There is a limited amount of advertising in the industry. Firms typically solicit bids for government contracts or market to airline companies.
Research and Development Economies- Companies in the industry are continually seeking and developing new ways to improve technology and efficiency.
External
Aerospace manufacturers have suppliers who supply certain goods or services to save time.
The industry is beginning to outsource production of aircrafts to cut production times and save money.
Companies work closely with customers to understand their wants and needs.
Experience Curve Effects
As a business grows, it often finds new ways to increase production while reducing costs. However, many leading companies in the industry have been in business for decades and because of a lack of strong competition, they do not perform to the best of their ability. Therefore, when new rivals enter the industry it often catches companies off guard and seeks to catch up to new competition.
Industry leader Boeing is a great example of this. For decades Boeing was the leading manufacturer of commercial airplanes and did not have a strong, major competitor. Rather than develop new aircraft around new technologies, technologies were being developed for old aircraft. When emerging competitor Airbus began producing commercial aircraft that beat Boeing, they gained significant market share. As a result, Boeing for the first time in nineteen years will be releasing a new commercial airplane to compete with Airbus.
Capacity Utilization
With the entire aerospace manufacturing industry trying to recover from the economic downturn, companies with high capacity utilization are scaling back in all kinds of ways to get through hard times. Fewer customers and buyers translate to decreasing production rates. Almost all the major companies in the industry have announced major layoffs. Not only are production workers being laid off, but departments ranging from Research and Development to Information Technology are also seeing the pink slip.
Economists speculate that March 2009 was the bottom of the industries financial downturn. As a result, the industry has slowly begun to recover. Companies can now begin to restructure their organizations, goals and objectives to meet new market forecasts. Although aerospace manufacturing companies will not be able to utilize production capacity as much as hoped, it will enable the industry to better focus on other aspects in their financial recoveries.
Industry Profitability
2008 proved to be an economically challenging time for the industry. The economy was on the verge of collapse which translated to consumers spending much less on traveling. Over the past few decades the U.S. airline industry has seen both good and bad times in terms of its net income. From 1979-1989, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics and Data Base Products reports a $2.9 billion dollar profit for U.S. airlines. Followed by a $10.7 billion dollar loss from 1990-1994, $23.1 billion dollar profit from 1995-2000 and a staggering $55.4 billion dollar loss from 2001-2008. Reports for 2009 are also looking grim at $3.1 billion dollars lost so far this year. Below is a chart various financial highlights of companies in the industry:
Northrop GrummanBoeingLockheed MartinRevenue35.16 B63.01 B43.80 BNet Income-1.27 B-34 M3.02 BProfits-1,262.0 M2,672.0 M3,217.0 MStockholders Equity11,920.0 M-1,294.0 M2,865.0 MMarket Value14,729.6 M27,251.6 M28,175.0 M
One of the most profitable companies in the industry was Lockheed Martin. Nearly 90% of their sales came from the U.S. Government. The results indicate that the majority of aerospace manufacturing companies are less than profitable. Although profits have been meager, the fact of the matter is industry has been growing at an average rate of five percent per year.
SIX FORCES OF COMPETITION
When compared to the general environment of aerospace manufacturing, the industry environment often has a direct effect on the firms strategic actions. Our textbook discusses Porters five forces of competition in most industries. However, in analyzing the Aerospace manufacturing Industry, not only do we cover the five forces model which includes (1) the threat of new entry, (2) the power of suppliers, (3) the power of buyers, (4) product/service substitutes, and (5) the intensity of rivalry among competitors, we are adding the sixth force of another stakeholder group the Unions.
Threat of New Entrants
The aerospace manufacturing industry is very well established. There are only a handful of big players in the industry. Since start-up costs for an aerospace manufacturing company are extremely high, the threat of new entrants is low. A great sum of money must be invested to attain the economies of scale, and it is difficult to enter the market with existing firms already operating on cost and differentiation strategies.
The threat of entry into the commercial aerospace industry at the aircraft or engine manufacturer level is quite low. New airplanes and engines require extremely high investments accompanied with great risk and the inability to get a positive return on that investment for many years. However, the threat of entry at the aircraft or engine manufacturer level is further reduced by several other factors. Aerospace manufacturing has a long learning or experience curve due to its complex assembly and testing operations and its high content of labor performing complicated tasks. Companies can only understand this learning curve after many years of continuous investment in research and development. Companies may require government subsidies, either directly through grants-in-aid or indirectly through military contracts, to enter the industry. It is estimated that one of the leaders in the industry Airbus received over $10 billion from European governments so it could get to a level where the company can survive on its own. Now the worldwide aerospace industry has well-established firms with an abundance of resources to react against any potential entrants.
The barriers to entry are less for potential manufacturers of components or subsystems, but they are still quite high in comparison to many industries. During the past decade the aircraft and engine manufacturers have been drastically reducing the number of suppliers, which makes it even more difficult to enter the industry even as a manufacturer of components or subsystems.
Bargaining Power of Suppliers
Suppliers can affect an industry through their ability to raise prices or reduce the quality of purchased goods or services. The bargaining power of aerospace suppliers is really not that strong. There are several suppliers to choose from and all the major suppliers are forced to compete with each other for market share. When buyers in the aerospace manufacturing industry are looking to make a purchase it is indefinitely going to be an expensive purchase and price will be a key factor in the buyers decision. But there are exceptions where a supplier may possess key technologies that another firm does not. In general, the prime contractors in the aerospace industry have several suppliers to choose from.
Bargaining Power of Buyers
Bargaining power for buyers is fairly high in the aerospace manufacturing industry. Airline companies often force cutthroat competition between the aircraft manufacturers, Boeing and Airbus. Airlines ordering a large number of planes like countries like China, who combines orders from state-run airlines, can press for astonishing discounts from the prime contractors. These orders are a relatively large percentage of the aerospace prime contractors' total sales, so buyers are in a valuable position to demand price reductions. The switching costs for aircraft and engines are very low, which increases the buyers' power. Airline pilots and mechanics can quickly be trained on other planes and engines. The huge losses of most airlines in the early 1990s made them more desperate to reduce costs, which had a direct impact on the airplane and engine prices demanded by the airlines.
Threat of Substitute Products/Services
Prime contractors in the commercial aerospace industry like Boeing, an airframe manufacturer and Pratt & Whitney, an engine manufacturer face almost no threats of substitute products because of an airplane's uniqueness in speed and ability to travel over water. For short distances over land, airplanes may sometimes compete against automobiles and trains.
The threat of substitute products exists at the part/component level and is moderately high in the aerospace industry. For example, new materials and /or new technology can make obsolete the materials previously in common use in the construction of airplanes and engines. Part of the industry involves changing with the latest and greatest technological advances.
For example long ago, towards the end of the 1920s, spruce was displaced in favor of duralumin. After the Second World War, titanium displaced some uses of aluminum and medium strength steels and more recently carbon composites have disrupted the balance yet again. Apart from the possibility of resurgence in the use of natural wood as the ultimate in sustainable manufacturing of aero structures, this leaves the three major material categories of aluminum, titanium and carbon still trying to achieve an optimum balance. Changes like these are always being made to keep current and competitive within the industry.
Intensity of Rivalry among Competitors
According to Porter, intense rivalry is related to the presence of several factors, including; the number of competitors, rate of industry growth, product or service characteristics, amount of fixed costs, capacity, height of exit barriers, and diversity of rivals. Although the aerospace industry has only a limited number of prime contractors, competition is fierce for the reasons discussed above. Aerospace firms desperately seek to win large orders from airlines to try to recover their high fixed costs and their large investments required to develop new aircraft and engines. The industry's prime contractors are equally balanced and have very little differentiation in their product lines, which increases even more the intensity of the competition.
Relative Power of other Stakeholders-Unions
A sixth force should be added to Porters list to include a variety of stakeholder groups from the task environment. Workers in the aerospace industry generally receive standard benefits, including health insurance, paid vacation and sick leave, and pension plans. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics in 2006, 21 percent of all workers in the aerospace industry were union members or covered by union contracts, compared with about 13 percent of all workers throughout private industry. Some of the major aerospace unions include the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers; the United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America; the Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace (SPEEA); and the International Union of Allied Industrial Workers of America. Unions have proven to be a beneficial force of competition in the aerospace manufacturing industry.
COMPETITIVE POSITION OF MAJOR AEROSPACE COMPANIES
When considering the competitive position of the companies in the industry, there is various data that needs to be considered. The table below, which was found online on Yahoos Finance website, gives a lot of key data regarding three of the top companies in the aerospace industry: Lockheed Martin Corporation, Boeing Co, Northrop Grumman Corporation, and Raytheon Co. It shows the earnings of these four companies as of this point in the year 2009.
Lockheed MartinBoeingNorthrop GrummanRaytheonMarket Cap:28.72B38.37B17.19B20.02BEmployees:146,000162,200123,60072,800Qtrly Rev Growth (yoy):4.50%9.10%4.10%5.80%Revenue (ttm):43.80B63.01B35.16B24.30BGross Margin (ttm):10.82%15.41%17.30%20.34%EBITDA (ttm):5.03B1.55B3.61B3.19BOper Margins (ttm):9.54%-0.11%8.17%11.82%Net Income (ttm):3.02B-34.00M-1.27B1.85BEPS (ttm):7.654-0.059-3.9024.63P/E (ttm):9.93N/AN/A11.28PEG (5 yr expected):1.095.551.151.19P/S (ttm):0.650.610.490.82
When you look at and compare all four of their Market Capital, you can see that Boeing takes the lead by over $10B, with Lockheed Martin coming closest. While so far this makes Boeing seem like the leader, it is important to consider the Net Income of each. Under this, Boeing comes in third with Lockheed Martin in the lead with $3.02B and Raytheon behind Lockheed with $1.85B. The other two companies are actually in the negative when it comes to Net Income which can have negative effects on the company. The cause of Boeings negative reports is mostly due to the late release of the 787 Dreamliner, which was supposed to take flight earlier in the year. Due to this misreading of release, the expected income and earnings from this plane were not able to be reported. Another important factor to look at is the quarterly revenue growth, which Boeing has the highest at 9.1%. This chart compares the number on a year-over-year basis, which means it is comparing the third quarter of 2009 to the third quarter of 2008. Compared to its competitors, Boeing has had a higher growth in revenue compared to the previous year, which could greatly be attributed to the big strike back in 2008. The company with the highest gross margin would be Raytheon, which means they are the quickest at turning their raw materials into revenue.
COMPETITOR ANALYSIS OF MAJOR AEROSPACE COMPANIES
Boeing Co.
Boeing leads the aerospace industry and is well known for its manufacturing of military airplanes and commercial airplanes as well as many other things like satellites, missiles, missile defense, and launch systems. Boeing is also the largest commercial and military airplane manufacturer. Boeing separates itself into 5 main divisions: Commercial Airplanes, Boeing Military Aircraft, Global Services and Support, Boeing Capital Corporation, and Network and Space Systems. Their main goal is to continue to lead the industry as well as continue to create new and innovative aircrafts and to meet their entire customers growing needs. According to the Fortune 500 list, Boeing leads its competitors with the number 34 spot.
When looking at the table below, it shows the reported sales and net income for Boeing from 2008. As you can see, there was a negative growth in sales from the previous year as well as a negative net income. This number can greatly be attributed to the strike by International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) that forced the manufacturing factories in Washington to close down for almost three months. So far in 2009, the company has seen a growth in sales, and according to an article entitled Will Boeing Soar or Get Grounded by Glenn Curtis, it states that Boeing is already being presently traded more than 21 times the expected amount for 2009. With the release of the 787 Dreamliner occurring within the next year and the large backlog that Boeing currently has, sales and revenue should only continue to increase in the next years to come.
Important Numbers
Company TypePublic - (NYSE: BA) Fiscal Year-EndDecember2008 Sales (mil.)$60,909 1-Year Sales Growth(8%)2008 Net Income (mil.)$2,672 1-Year Net Income Growth(34%)2008 Employees162,200
Important People
Chairman, President, and CEOW. James McNerney Jr.EVP and CFOJames BellVP Information Technology and CIOJohn Hinshaw
Lockheed Martin Corporation
Lockheed Martin Corporation is a large corporation which is known for its efforts in research, design, development, manufacturing, and integration of technological systems. It is divided into four divisions: Electronic Systems, Information Systems and Global Services, Aeronautics, and Space Systems. Lockheed Martin takes up the number 54 spot on the Fortune 500 list and is one of the leaders in the industry. According to the chart below, which can be found on the company website, you can see that the majority of the companys sales are in dealing with the United States government. The chart below is in reference to the 2007 sales of the company. The main goal sought out by Lockheed is to continually improve global security for its customers. All of their research and products are made to act upon this goal.
The table below references the 2008 sales and net income of Lockheed Martin. As you can see, the company has continued to grow since 2007 and has increased their sales and revenue.
Important Numbers
Company TypePublic - (NYSE: LMT)Fiscal Year-EndDecember2008 Sales (mil.)$42,731 1-Year Sales Growth2%2008 Net Income (mil.)$3,217 1-Year Net Income Growth6%2008 Employees146,000
Important People
Chairman, President, and CEORobert StevensEVP and CFOBruce TannerEVP Electronic SystemsChristopher Kubasik
Northrop Grumman Corporation
Northrop Grumman Corporation creates products, services, and solutions for aerospace, electronics, information systems, and shipbuilding. It currently ranks number 69 on the Fortune 500 list, and is one of the leaders in its industry. Northrop Grumman, like Lockheed Martin, considers itself to be one of the leaders in global security. The company has been divided into five main business sectors: Aerospace Systems, Electronic Systems, Information Systems, Shipbuilding, and Technical Services. The company delving into the shipbuilding field is a unique area compared to the competitors listed in this analysis. The main focus of most of these companies is in the aerospace industry, but Northrop Grumman takes their technology a step further to assist in creating ships for the US Military. The goals and vision of this company is to be the leader and most trusted company in the industry when it comes to the security and technological systems they create.
While looking at the table below, you can see that in 2008 they reported a negative net income which showed a very large negative net growth in comparison to 2007. According to the Northrop Grummans Annual Report from 2008, much of the negative growth in the company was attributed to the economic conditions of the United States starting at that time. Despite the negative aspects and the effect of the economy, the company still reached record sales.
Important Numbers
Company TypePublic - (NYSE: NOC)Fiscal Year-EndDecember2008 Sales (mil.)$33,887 1-Year Sales Growth5%2008 Net Income (mil.)($1,262)1-Year Net Income Growth(170%)2008 Employees123,600
Important People
DirectorLewis ColemanChairman and CEORonald SugarPresident, COO, and DirectorWesley BushCorporate VP and CFOJames F Palmer
Raytheon Co.
Raytheon Company is known for its designs, development, manufacturing, and integration of technological services and products. It works with commercial as well as government customers. It has six business sectors which are Integrated Defense Systems, Intelligence and Information Systems, Missile Systems, Network Centric Systems, Space and Airborne Systems, and Technical Services. Raytheon holds the rank of number 108 on the Fortune 500 list and is considered among the leaders in the Aerospace and Defense Industry. This company is much smaller than many in the industry, but is still able to function as one of the leaders in the global economy. Raytheon prides itself on its Six Sigma program used to transform its culture and to create more of a people-to-people network. They feel this will help lead them into being a leader and looked up to by its competitors and customers. The six steps are Visualize, Commit, Prioritize, Characterize, Improve, and Achieve, and these steps are just a continuous circle.
The table below shows that the company has seen a large growth in its sales from 2007 to 2008; over 9%. At the same time they have seen a negative growth in its net income. According to the 2008 Annual Report, this could be attributed to the negative economy, which has obviously affected all companies in the industry. Despite the negative economy, they were still able to grow and improve upon the company.
Important Numbers
Company TypePublic - (NYSE: RTN)Fiscal Year-EndDecember2008 Sales (mil.)$23,174 1-Year Sales Growth9%2008 Net Income (mil.)$1,672 1-Year Net Income Growth(35%)2008 Employees73,000
Important People
Chairman and CEOWilliam SwansonLead DirectorMichael RuttgersSVP and CFODavid WajsgrasVP and CAOMike Wood
Other Manufacturers
Airbus
Another leading company in the aerospace industry is Airbus, a privately held company based in Europe. While Airbus in considered to be one of the leading competitors of Boeing and many other companies in this industry, since it is privately owned it is difficult to compare much of the numbers. Private companies are not required to report the same information as the publicly owned companies. The company was first created in 1970 and works not only with commercial airliners but also in the defense markets. The company is made up of three segments: operations, programs, and core functions. The main goal of this company is to create the most modern and comprehensive aircrafts for its customers as well as lead with the highest standards of their products and support. The reported revenue for the company as of 2008 is $38.7B.
United Technologies
Established in 1929, United Technologies provides technological services to the aerospace industries and building systems. The company is number 37 on the Fortune 500 list and is a top competitor in the industry. Revenues reached over $58B in 2008 and despite the hard economy they continued to grow. The main vision for the company is to lead in quality of their products and services. Their main goals are led by their ACE mission, which stands for Achieving Competitive Excellence.
KEY SUCCESS FACTORS
If you were to ask the Executive Vice President Airplane Production of Boeing, Bob Dryden, what the Key Success Factors for a company in the Aerospace Manufacturing Industry, he would say to reduce costs and maintain access to foreign markets. Those two key factors are crucial in order to gain continued success in the global marketplace.
Reducing Costs
In the Aerospace Manufacturing driving down cost is crucial to being able to compete. Dryden states, "We must continue to reduce our costs because cost reductions will be the key to selling airplanes at prices airlines can afford. Boeings ability to lower their prices enables the company to remain competitive and gives Boeing a reputation of passing along the savings to its customers. Other big competitors in the Aerospace Manufacturing Industry include United Technologies, Lockheed Martin, Honeywell International, and Northrop Grumman. The major competitors in the industry also owe their success to reducing costs and they would concur with the statements made by Dryden.
By reducing costs, companies are able to grow and this growth includes job growth and opportunity. The key to success of cost reduction is more and more important to achieve especially in economic downtimes. The Aerospace Manufacturing Industry has been very risky over the past decade and much is an effect of the struggling Airline Industry. The hardship of the Airline Industry has put even more emphasis of the need for a brilliant strategy for cost reduction.
GMP Group Conferences, a company known for hosting conferences and events, held the second series of an Advanced Aerospace Manufacturing conference this November. The focus of this conference was manufacturing, supply chain, and operational excellence for aerospace manufacturers and suppliers, particular focus will feature cost reduction initiatives and increased collaboration with channel partners in other countries.
Maintaining Access to Foreign Markets
The access into foreign markets is a huge opportunity in the Aerospace Manufacturing Industry. If competitors within the industry are able to breakthrough into the developing markets such as BRIC (Brazil Russia India and China) they will continue to satisfy the second Key Success Factor.
According to Boeings website, Over the past five years, sales outside of the United States have accounted for 70 percent of Boeing commercial airplane sales. Statistics and feedback of sales outside of the home country were similar among the top competitors in the industry. The growth in overseas sales brings with it a need to have continued access to foreign markets. That can mean placing work in other countries, which in turn creates more job growth.
HYPERLINK "http://www.aia-aerospace.org/assets/chart_aerospace_trade.pdf" \t "_blank"
According to this graph found on the Aerospace Industries Association webpage, foreign trade remains vital to the aerospace industry. U.S. exports of $95.1 billion in 2008 account for nearly half of the industry's customer base. Despite rising imports and aggressive foreign competition, the U.S. aerospace industry maintains a sizable trade surplus (currently $57.4 billion) the largest of all manufacturing sectors.
Airbus has made plans to increase their productions by opening a new production line in China. This type of move is going to expand their business into the Chinese market and help Airbus meet predicted worldwide demand over the next decade. The initial costs in China will increased initially, but in the future provide airbus with protection to exchange-rate.
The F-16 also known as The Fighting Falcon was built by Lockheed Martin, a large competitor in the Aerospace Manufacturing Industry. This European fighter was in the works since 1977 and is a great example of co-production and the establishment of one of the most successful multinational consortium program in history. Countries involved in the production of this product include Belgium, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands and the United States. Since that time, fourteen additional countries have participated in manufacturing the F-16. The multinational program continues to grow and strengthen the international partnership that now contains more than 50 industrial companies.
According to Lockheed Martin, "The F-16 is the most affordable and proven choice to meet the force structure needs and security requirements of air forces around the world. The increased technology enhancements are a clear result of global sustainment and are the reason for the success, reliability, and safety of the F-16.
Dryden of Boeing added, That market access can also include working with other countries to develop and improve the aviation industry and air travel market in those countries, especially those whose airlines are state owned. According to the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA), "The potential air travel markets in those countries are huge, but only for manufacturers that are willing to be partners in laying the solid foundation for healthy growth."
AIA also noted that the world air travel market is expected to grow about 5 percent per year more in the Asian markets. This continues growth is expected to increase over the next twenty years. This increase is also going to create a demand for the roughly 15,000 new airplanes to be built. It is also interesting to note that although there is a huge increase for partnerships across the globe, the majority of the jobs that are created from this demand are going to be in the home country of the company.
INDUSTRY PROSPECTS AND OVERALL ATTRACTIVENESS
Factors Making the Industry Attractive
There has been much advancement in the business and technology in the Aerospace Manufacturing Industry over the past few years. These advancements have enables domestic companies become connected to companies globally. When resources are available globally this can dramatically reduce costs and therefore increase revenues.
Communication networks are one of the obvious improvements that have advanced technologically with the wireless technology of the internet. Although the internet has been a huge part of the US for the past decade, this wasnt that case in developing countries around the world. These developing countries have become a huge factor in the global business field and it is a huge advance in their societies that they are now familiarizing themselves with the World Wide Web. It is much easier for a business person to find out real-time information across seas with the use of the Internet, rather than having to make a long and costly trip to the other end of the world.
The improvement in the software markets and information technology has also offered great attractiveness to the Aerospace Manufacturing Industry. Many software companies have consolidated to be more compatible with one another, which allow the Manufacturers more of a common ground for competition and for mergers. Manufacturers such as Boeing and Honeywell recently teamed together their Research and Development teams to conduct an experiment to produce a renewable fuel resource out of a type of green plan. These two competitors have also worked on teams together when repairing the space station back in 2000. With the increased technological advancements in software it has made communicating information electronically much more convenient.
Business infrastructures have also been under a makeover in the industry in order increase their productivity. Improvements like this will pave the way to a very efficient business which with lower costs and higher revenues. With the documentation of problem solving and day to day activities, future problems will be handled with less complication and more ease.
Computer Aided design and Drafting CADD has offered the Aerospace Manufacturing Industry a great opportunity to product products much faster and cheaper than before. According to The Bureau of Labor Statistics, Firms producing commercial aircraft have reduced development time drastically through computer-aided design and drafting (CADD), which allows firms to design and test an entire aircraft, including the individual parts, by computer; the drawings of these parts can be sent electronically to subcontractors who use them to produce the parts.
Factors Making the Industry Unattractive
Similar to most other industries, the economic downtime has cause for overall a very unattractive market. One of the most affected segments of the Aerospace Manufacturing Industry would be regional and business aviation. Many CEO s and Executives are forced by board members to rid the company of such luxuries at private and company jets. Business jet manufacturers are now faces with a large number of backlogs and are forced to revise their forecasted production for the future to lower their inventory costs.
While the large profitable manufacturers like Boeing and Airbus, weather the crisis quite well, the smaller suppliers in the industry are facing tough times. The smaller suppliers are unable to fund new R&D products and even production is increasingly difficult for these companies, in part because of the increased cost of financing and credit terms.
The constant consolidation and restructuring of airline companies has made is quite difficult for the smaller companies that are trying to grow a profit in the industry. Global manufacturers seem like they are going to be strong enough to make it through the tough economic times, but that is a whole new story for the smaller companies who feel that they dont have enough funding to expand overseas.
The economic crisis has also put large constraints on the spending of the Department of Defense. The Department of Defense has been forced to find new alternatives to their spending new and maintaining the equipment that they already have purchased. These constraints along with others give the Aerospace Manufacturing Industry a very unattractive look.
Special Industry Problems and Issues
HYPERLINK "http://www.aia-aerospace.org/assets/chart_sales_product.pdf" \t "_blank"
This chart was found on the Aerospace industry Association and shows how sales increased across all major product groups in 2008, with many individual categories reaching record highs. Total sales increased 2% to a record $204.4 billion driven by increasing sales in nearly every other major product group.
Part of the recent increase in sales is due to the introduction of many major new aircrafts, both the civil and military. The new introduction should lead the industry to a substantial increase in production and in employment over the future.
As in the past the military aircraft and missiles portion of the U.S. industry has done much better than the civil portion, which may have some to so with the terrorist attacks and the fact that we are at war. The need for our Nations security will only continue to crow these two sectors of the Aerospace Industry. Many defense companies have been able to grow their cash reserves because of the high levels of HYPERLINK "http://topics.forbes.com/government%20spending"government spending. Governments like the US continue to struggle to fuel the many financial bailouts and to contain spending. Projected growth of U.S. spending on social entitlement programs, and the cost the U.S. commitment overseas, will largely affect the new procurement programs. This type of behavior can increase operational spending, but wont have the same affect on new weapons systems which will probably decline. Other countries such as the U.K., London, and France have also planned to reduce spending on defense which fill continue on to hit the Aerospace Manufacturing Industry.
Another downside of the US recession and credit crisis is how it has affected the airline industry greatly. This recession has forced profits down and will continue to do so until the economic situation of the US improves. The rise in the price of oil has also affected the airline industry over the past decade and will continue to do the same unless new renewable forms of fuel are found. With the average ticket prices over 50% higher than they were two years ago and profits for airlines not improving, airlines have found more ways to pass along the fees to their customers and decreasing the consumers willingness to travel by air.
Profit Outlook
Micro Jet Airplanes
As new trends begin to emerge in the Aerospace Manufacturing Industry many producers are introducing smaller, cheaper planes that are going to give passengers more efficient travel. Business travelers that are dissatisfied with large airports and increased security are what drive this emerging market. There are many new services offered such as air taxi that are offered by aerospace companies. The air taxi services transports travelers from point to point all while avoiding commercial airline hubs. The following Boeing Dreamliner is a perfect example of the smaller, new trend in Aerospace Manufacturing.
The global challenges of protecting the environment along with the defense programs are only going to create an increase in demand of new technology and procedure to innovate new products and create more growth. Aerospace manufacturers that have government contracts are under a lot of pressure to decrease costs and become more efficient in production. Commercial aerospace Manufacturers are also under an immense amount of pressure to increase margins and shareholder profits, in order to do this many companies have had to merge and outsource work into developing countries. Cost reduction is not the only thing that will increase profits. New technology will enable companies to become more efficient and use fewer resources to make their product.
The airline industry is slowly on its way back up, after the huge hit from the terrorist attacks. Some project that air travel is going to increase upwards of five percent a year over the next twenty years. This increase is going to slowly open the doors for more manufacturers in the Aerospace Manufacturing market. This increase in commercial air travel along with the new air taxi, point-to-point air travel, and the need for defense the possibilities are endless in the Aerospace Manufacturing.
CONCLUSION
Airplanes have evolved from a far-fetched concept and novelty into critical aspects of everyday transportation and various military activities. We rely on airplanes for numerous uses that include recreational travel, business purposes, shipment of cargo, and military defense to simply name a few. As new needs arise, and technologies are developed and incorporated into aerospace manufacturing to address those needs, the industry will continue to grow.
For example, the way in which commercial and military aircraft are designed, developed, and produced continues to undergo significant change in response to the need to cut costs and deliver products faster. Firms producing commercial aircraft have reduced development time drastically through computer-aided design and drafting. This has allowed firms to design and test an entire aircraft (including the individual parts) by computer and send the drawings of these parts electronically to subcontractors who use them to produce the parts. Increasingly, firms have been bringing together teams composed of customers, engineers, and production workers to pool ideas and make decisions concerning the aircraft at every phase of product development. Additionally, the military has changed its design philosophy, using commercially available, off-the-shelf technology when appropriate, rather than developing new customized components.
It is truly amazing to think that in merely 100 years, an industry has come into existence and now is and will undoubtedly continue to be a major force in the business world and many constant aspects of everyday life.
Works Cited
Aerospace Statistics. Aerospace Industries Association. December 1, 2009.
.
Airbus. Airbus. December 1, 2009. .
Appendix A: Aircraft Information Fixed-Wing Aircraft. US Department of Transportation: Federal Aviation Administration. .
"Boeing". The Boeing Company. December 1, 2009. .
"Boeing: Long-term market -- Staying current." The Boeing Company. Web. Dec. 2009. .
Bureau of Labor Statistics. United States Department of Labor. December 1, 2009. .
Fortune 500 2009. CNNmoney.com December 1, 2009. .
Hoover.com Hoovers Inc. December 1, 2009. .
Industry Review and Outlook. Rep. Air Transport Association, 11 Dec. 2009. Web. .
Lockheed Martin. Lockheed Martin Corporation. December 1, 2009. .
Northrop Grumman. Northrop Grumman Corporation. December 1,2009. .
Raytheon. Raytheon Company. December 1, 2009. .
"The Jetmakers - ENTRY INTO THE AEROSPACE INDUSTRY." General Atomic Homepage. Web. Dec. 2009. .
United Technologies. United Technologies Corporation. December 1, 2009.
.
"Yahoo! Finance." Yahoo!. December 1, 2009. .
Appendix A. Aircraft Information Fixed-Wing Aircraft
TYPE ENGINE ABBREVIATIONS
P
piston
T
turboprop
J
jet
CLIMB AND DESCENT RATES
Climb and descent rates based on average en route climb/descent profiles at median weight between maximum gross takeoff and landing weights.
SRS
SRS means same runway separation; categorization criteria is specified in para HYPERLINK "http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/ATC/atc0309.html" \l "3NJ3acJACK"3-9-6, Same Runway Separation.
MANUFACTURERS
Listed under the primary manufacturer are other aircraft manufacturers who make versions of some of the aircraft in that group.
AIRCRAFT WEIGHT CLASSES
a. Heavy. Aircraft capable of takeo f f w e i g h t s o f m o r e t h a n 2 5 5 , 0 0 0 p o u n d s w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e y a r e o p e r a t i n g a t t h i s w e i g h t d u r i n g a p a r t i c u l a r p h a s e o f f l i g h t .
b . L a r g e . A i r c r a f t o f m o r e t h a n 4 1 , 0 0 0 p o u n d s , m a x i m u m c e r t i f i c a t e d t a k e o f f w e i g h t , u p t o 2 5 5 , 0 0 0 p o u n d s .
c . S m a l l . A i r c r a f t o f 41,000 pounds or less maximum certificated takeoff weight.
LAND AND HOLD SHORT OPERATIONS (LAHSO) AIRCRAFT GROUP AND DISTANCE MINIMA
FAA Order 7110.118, Land and Hold Short Operations, includes procedures and conditions for conducting land and hold short operations at designated airports. Appendix 1 to Order 7110.118 groups certain aircraft according to available landing distance for LAHSO operations. Aircraft group information for the purposes of Order 7110.118 is incorporated in this Appendix under Performance Information.
NOTE-* Denotes single-piloted military turbojet aircraft or aircraft to receive the same procedural handling as a single-piloted military turbojet aircraft.*** Denotes amphibian aircraft.+ Denotes aircraft weighing between 12,500 lbs. and 41,000 lbs. For Class B Airspace rules, these aircraft are large, turbine-engine powered aircraft.
TBL A-1
Land and Hold Short Operations (LAHSO)Aircraft Group/Distance Minima
Sea Level -999
1,000-
1,999
2000-
2,999
3000-
3,999
4000-
4,999
5000-
5,999
6000-
6,999
7000-
7,000
Group 1
2500
2550
2600
2650
2700
2750
2800
2850
Group 2 & Below
3000
3050
3100
3150
3200
3250
3300
3500
Group 3 & Below
3500
3550
3600
3650
3700
3750
3800
3850
Group 4 & Below
4000
4050
4100
4150
4200
4250
4300
4350
Group 5 & Below
4500
4550
4600
4650
4700
4750
4800
4850
Group 6 & Below
5000
5100
5200
5300
5400
5500
5600
5700
Group 7 & Below
6000
6100
6200
6300
6400
6500
6600
6700
Group 8 & Below
7000
7100
7200
7300
7400
7500
7600
7700
Group 9 & Below
8000
8100
8200
8300
8400
8500
8600
8700
Group 10
Greater than 8000 feet
HYPERLINK "http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/ATC/atcapda.html" \l "@i1I219cmweb"TBL A-1 is an air traffic control tool for identifying aircraft, by groups, that are able to land and hold short based on theavailable landing distance. Air traffic managers shall utilize HYPERLINK "http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/ATC/atcapda.html" \l "@i1I219cmweb"TBL A-1 for identifying aircraft by groups that areabletoland and hold short at their facility in accordance with FAA Order 7110.118, Land and Hold Short Operations.
At locations requesting to utilize LAHSO with aircraft requiring greater than 8,000 feet ofavailable landing distance, airtraffic managers shall coordinate with the appropriate Flight Standards' office and AirTraffic Operations, Terminal Safety and Operations Support to obtain a letter of authorization approving LAHSO.
AIRBUS INDUSTRIES (International)
Model
TypeDesignator
Description
Performance Information
Number & Type Engines/Weight Class
Climb Rate (fpm)
Descent Rate (fpm)
SRS Cat.
LAHSO Group
A-300B2/4-1/2/100/200, A-300C4-200
A30B
2J/H
3,500
3,500
III
8
A-300B4 - 600
A306
2J/H
3,500
3,500
III
7
A-310 (CC-150 Polaris)
A310
2J/H
3,500
3,500
III
7
A-318
A318
2J/L
3,500
3,500
III
A-319, ACJ
A319
2J/L
3,500
3,500
III
7
A-320
A320
2J/L
3,500
3,500
III
7
A-321
A321
2J/L
3,500
3,500
III
A-300ST Super Transporter, Beluga
A3ST
2J/H
III
A-330-200
A332
2J/H
3,500
3,500
III
8
A-330-300
A333
2J/H
III
8
A-340-200
A342
4J/H
3,500
3,500
III
9
A-340-300
A343
4J/H
III
9
A-340-500
A345
4J/H
III
9
A-340-600
A346
4J/H
III
9
A-380-800
A388
4J/H
III
10
BEECH AIRCRAFT COMPANY (USA)
(Also CCF, COLEMILL, DINFIA, EXCALIBUR, FUJI, HAMILTON, JETCRAFTERS, RAYTHEON, SWEARINGEN, VOLPAR)
Model
TypeDesignator
Description
Performance Information
Number & Type Engines/Weight Class
Climb Rate (fpm)
Descent Rate (fpm)
SRS Cat.
LAHSO Group
1900 (C-12J)
B190
2T/S+
2,400
2,400
III
7
B300 Super King Air 350
B350
2T/S+
3,000
3,000
III
7
100 King Air (U-21F Ute)
BE10
2T/S
2,250
2,250
II
7
17 Stagger Wing (UC-43 Traveler, YC-43 Traveler)
BE17
1P/S
1,375
1,375
I
2
Twin Beech 18/Super H18
BE18
2P/S
1,400
1,000
II
4
18 (turbine)
B18T
2T/S
2,000
2,000
II
19 Musketeer Sport, Sport
BE19
1P/S
680
680
I
1
200, 1300 Super King Air, Commuter (C-12A to F, C-12L/R, UC-12, RC-12, Tp101, Huron)
BE20
2T/S+
2,450
2,500
III
7
23 Musketeer, Sundowner
BE23
1P/S
740
800
I
2
24 Musketeer Super, Sierra
BE24
1P/S
1,000
1,000
I
3
300 Super King Air
BE30
2T/S+
3,000
3,000
III
6
33 Debonair, Bonanza (E-24)
BE33
1P/S
1,000
1,000
I
4
35 Bonanza
BE35
1P/S
1,200
1,200
I
3
36 Bonanza (piston)
BE36
1P/S
1,100
1,100
I
2
36 Bonanza (turbine)
B36T
1/T/S
I
400 Beechjet, Hawker 400 (T-1 Jayhawk, T-400)
BE40
2J/S+
3,300
2,200
III
8
50 Twin Bonanza (U-8D/E/G, RU-8 Seminole)
BE50
2P/S
1,600
1,600
II
4
55 Baron (T-42 Chochise, C-55, E-20
BE55
2P/S
1,700
1,700
II
6
56 Turbo Baron
BE56
2P/S
II
58 Baron
BE58
2P/S
1,730
1,730
II
6
60 Duke
BE60
2P/S
1,600
1,600
II
8
65 Queen Air (U-8F Seminole)
BE65
2P/S
1,300
1,300
II
5
70 Queen Air
BE70
2P/S
II
76 Duchess
BE76
2P/S
1,500
1,500
II
4
77 Skipper
BE77
1P/S
750
750
I
1
80 Queen Air (Zamir)
BE80
2P/S
1,275
1,275
II
88 Queen Air
BE88
2P/S
II
95 Travel Air
BE95
2P/S
1,250
1,250
II
5
99 Airliner
BE99
2T/S
1,750
1,750
II
5
90, A90 to E90 King Air (T-44 V-C6)
BE9L
2T/S
2,000
2,000
II
5
F90 King Air
BE9T
2T/S
2,600
2,600
II
7
2000 Starship
STAR
2T/S+
2,650
2,650
III
7
Premier 1, 390
PRM1
2J/S+
3,000
3,000
III
T34A/B, E-17 Mentor (45)
T34P
1P/S
1,150
1,150
I
1
T-34C Turbo Mentor
T34T
1T/S
1,100
1,000
I
T-6A Texan II
TEX2*
1T/S
I
U-21A/G, EU-21, JU-21, RU-21, Ute (A90-1 to 4)
U21
2T/S
2,000
2,000
II
QU-22 (1074/1079)
U22
1P/S
I
BOEING COMPANY (USA)
(Also GRUMMAN, IAI, LOCKHEED-BOEING, MCDONNELL DOUGLAS, NORTHROP-GRUMMAN, ROHR)
Model
TypeDesignator
Description
Performance Information
Number & Type Engines/Weight Class
Climb Rate (fpm)
Descent Rate (fpm)
SRS Cat.
LAHSO Group
B-52 Stratofortress
B52
8J/H
3,000
3,000
III
707-100 (C-137B)
B701
4J/H
3,500
3,500
III
9
707-300(C-18, C-137C, E-8J-Stars, EC-18, EC-137, KC-137, T-17)
B703
4J/H
3,500
3,500
III
9
717-200
B712
2J/L
III
7
720
B720
4J/L
3,000
3,000
III
9
727-100 (C-22)
B721
3J/L
4,500
4,500
III
7
727-200
B722
3J/L
4,500
4,500
III
7
727-100RE Super 27
R721
3J/L
4,300
4,300
III
727-200RE Super 27
R722
3J/L
4,300
4,300
III
737-100
B731
2J/L
3,000
3,000
III
7
737-200 (Surveiller, CT-43, VC-96)
B732
2J/L
3,000
3,000
III
7
737-300
B733
2J/L
5,500
3,500
III
7
737-400
B734
2J/L
6,500
3,500
III
8
737-500
B735
2J/L
5,500
3,500
III
7
737-600
B736
2J/L
4,000
4,000
III
7
737-700, BBJ, C-40
B737
2J/L
4,000
4,000
III
8
737-800, BBJ2
B738
2J/L
4,000
4,000
III
7
737-900
B739
2J/L
4,000
4,000
III
8
747-100
B741
4J/H
3,000
3,000
III
10
747-200 (E-4, VC-25)
B742
4J/H
3,000
3,000
III
10
747-300
B743
4J/H
3,000
3,000
III
10
747-400 (Domestic, no winglets)
B74D
4J/H
3,000
3,000
III
747-400 (International, winglets)
B744
4J/H
3,000
3,000
III
10
Model
TypeDesignator
Description
Performance Information
Number & Type Engines/Weight Class
Climb Rate (fpm)
Descent Rate (fpm)
SRS Cat.
LAHSO Group
747-400LCF Dreamlifter
BLCF
4J/H
III
747SCA Shuttle Carrier
BSCA
4J/H
III
747SR
B74R
4J/H
3,000
3,000
III
10
747SP
B74S
4J/H
3,000
3,000
III
9
757-200 (C-32)
B752
2J/L
3,500
2,500
III
7
757-300
B753
2J/H
3,500
2,500
III
8
767-200
B762
2J/H
3,500
3,500
III
9
767-300
B763
2J/H
3,500
3,500
III
9
767-400
B764
2J/H
3,500
3,500
III
9
777-200, 777-200ER
B772
2J/H
2,500
2,500
III
9
777-200LR, B777-200LRF
B77L
2J.H
III
777-300
B773
2J/H
2,500
2,500
III
9
777-300ER
B77W
2J/H
III
787-3 Dreamliner, Dreamliner (Srs. 3)
B783
2J/H
III
787-8 Dreamliner, Dreamliner (Srs. 8)
B788
2J/H
III
787-9 Dreamliner, Dreamliner (Srs. 9)
B789
2J/H
III
C-135B/C/E/K Stratolifter (EC-135, NKC-135, OC-135, TC-135, WC-135)
C135
4J/H
2,000
2,000
III
C-17 Globemaster 3
C17
4J/H
III
C-97 Stratofreighter
C97
4P/L
2,500
3,000
III
KC-135A Stratotanker (J57 engines)
K35A
4J/H
2,500
3,000
III
KC 135D/E Stratotanker (TF33 engines)
K35E
4J/H
5,000
3,000
III
KC 135R/T, C-135FR, Stratotanker (CFM56 engines)
K35R
4J/H
5,000
3,000
III
KE-3
KE3
4J/H
3,500
3,500
III
RC-135
R135
4J/H
3,000
3,000
III
E-3A (TF33), E-B/C, JE-3, Sentry
E3TF
4J/H
3,500
4,000
III
E-3A (CFM56), E-3D/F, Sentry
E3CF
4J/H
III
E6 Mercury
E6
4J/H
3,500
3,500
III
E-767
E767
2J/H
2,500
2,500
III
75 Kaydet (PT-13, PT-17, PT-18, PT-27, N2S)
ST75
1P/S
840
840
I
CIRRUS (USA)
Model
TypeDesignator
Description
Performance Information
Number & Type Engines/Weight Class
Climb Rate (fpm)
Descent Rate (fpm)
SRS Cat.
LAHSO Group
SR-20, SR-20 SRV, SRV
SR20
1P/S
I
1
SR-22
SR22
1P/S
I
1
VK-30 Cirrus
VK3P
1P/S
I
GENERAL DYNAMICS CORP. (USA)
(Also BOEING CANADA, CANADAIR, CANADIAN VICKERS, CONSOLIDATED, CONVAIR, FOKKER, GRUMMAN, KELOWNA, LOCKHEED, LOCKHEED MARTIN, MITSUBISHI, SABCA, SAMSUNG, TUSAS)
Model
Type Designator
Description
Performance Information
Number & Type Engines/Weight Class
Climb Rate (fpm)
Descent Rate (fpm)
SRS Cat.
LAHSO Group
Canso/Catalina***
CAT
2P/S+
600
600
III
7
Convair 240/340/440, Liner, HC-131
CVLP
2P/L
1,000
800
III
7
Convair 540/580/600/640
CVLT
2T/L
1,500
1,500
III
7
F-111, EF-111, (RF-111 Aardvark, Raven
F111*
2J/L
5,000
5,000
III
F-16 A/B/C/D/N, NF-16, TF-16 Fighting Falcon, Netz, Barak, Brakeet
F16*
1J/L
8,000
5,000
III
F-16XL Fighting Falcon
F16X*
1J/L
III
Valiant
VALI
1P/S
600
750
I
GRUMMAN AEROSPACE CORP. (USA)
(Also AERO MOD, AMERICAN GENERAL, GRUMMAN AMERICAN, GULFSTREAM AMERICANMID-CONTINENT, NORTHROP GRUMMAN, SERV-AERO)
Model
Type Designator
Description
Performance Information
Number & Type Engines/Weight Class
Climb Rate (fpm)
Descent Rate (fpm)
SRS Cat.
LAHSO Group
A-6, EA-6, KA-6 Intruder, Prowler (G-128)
A6*
2J/L
7,500
5,000
III
AA1 Trainer,Tr2, T-Cat, Lynx
AA1
1P/S
850
1,250
I
1
AA-5, Traveller, Cheetah Tiger
AA5
1P/S
660
1,000
I
1
C-1, TF Trader (G-96)
G96
2P/S+
III
C-2 Greyhound
C2
2T/L
1,000
2,200
III
E-2, TE-2, Hawkeye, Daya
E2
2T/L
2,690
3,000
III
F-3F (G-11/32), Replica
F3F
1P/S
I
F-6F Hellcat (G-50)
HCAT
1P/S+
III
F-7F Tigercat (G-51)
TCAT
2P/S+
III
F-9F Panther (G-79)
F9F
1JS+
III
F-14 Tomcat
F14*
2J/L
6,000
4,000
III
G-164 Ag-Cat, Super Ag-Cat
G164
1P/S
1,500
1,500
I
1
G164 Turbo Ag-Cat
G64T
1T/S
1,500
1,500
I
1
G-21 A/38/39 Goose (JRF)***
G21
2P/S
1,000
1,000
II
G-44 Widgeon (J4F)***
G44
2P/S
1,000
1,500
II
5
G-73 Mallard***
G73
2P/S+
1,600
1,600
III
6
G-73T Turbo Mallard***
G73T
2T/S+
III
G-1159, G-1159B Gulfstream 2/2B/2SP (C-20J, VC-111)
GLF2
2J/L
5,000
4,000
III
8
GA-7 Cougar
GA7
2P/S
1,600
1,500
II
1
HU-16, SA-16, UF Albatross (G-64/111)***
U16
2P/S+
1,500
1,500
III
4
OV-1, RV-1, AO-1 Mohawk (G-134)
V1
2T/S+
2,100
1,300
III
S-2, S2F, P-16 Tracker (G-89)
S2P
2P/S+
III
S-2 Turbo Tracker
S2T
2T/S+
III
X-29 (712)
X29
1J/S+
III
LOCKHEED CORP. (USA)
(Also AERITALIA, CANADAIR, FIAT, FOKKER, HOWARD, LEAR, LOCKHEED-BOEING, LOCKHEED-MARTIN, MBB, MESSERSCHMITT, MITSUBISHI, PACAERO, ROCKWELL, SABCA)
Model
Type Designator
Description
Performance Information
Number & Type Engines/Weight Class
Climb Rate (fpm)
Descent Rate (fpm)
SRS Cat.
LAHSO Group
B-34, PV Venture, Harpoon (L-15/137/237)
L37
2P/S+
III
C-5 Galaxy (L-500)
C5
4J/H
2,500
2,000
III
C-130A/B/E/F/H, CC-130, DC-130, EC-130/E/G/H/Q, HC-130, JC-130, KC-130B/F/H/R/T, LC-130, MC-130, NC-130, RC-130, TC-130, VC-130, WC-130E/H, T-10, TK-10, TL-10, Tp84 Hercules, Spectre, Aya, Karnaf, Sapeer (L-100/182/282/382)
C130
4T/L
1,500
1,500
III
C-141 Starlifter (L-300)
C141
4J/H
3,500
3,000
III
L-049/749/1049 Constellation, Super Constellation, Starliner (C-121, RC-121, EC-121, VC-121, WV, R7V, Warning Star)
CONI
4P/L
1,700
1,700
III
9
F-22 Raptor (L-645)
F22*
2J/L
III
F-104, RF-104, TF-104 Starfighter (L583/683)
F104*
1J/L
5,000
4,000
III
F-117 Nighthawk
F117
2J/L
III
L-1011 Tri-Star (all series)
L101
3J/H
3,500
3,000
III
9
L-18 Lodestar (C-56/57/59/60, R50, XR50)
L18
2P/L
1,800
2,000
III
L-188 Electra
L188
4T/L
1,850
2,000
III
7
L-1329 Jetstar 6/8
L29A
4J/L
4,000
3,500
III
8
L-1329-5 Jetstar 2/731
L29B
4J/L
4,000
3,000
III
9
P-2D to H, SP-2, P2V Neptune(L-426/726/826)
P2
2P/L
III
P-3, AP-3, EP-3, NP-3, RP-3, TP-3, UP-3, VP-3, WP-3, CP-140 Orion, Aurora, Arcturus (L-85/285/685/785)
P3
4T/L
1,850
2,000
III
P-38, F-5 Lightning (L-222/322/422)
P38
2P/S+
III
S-3, ES-3, US-3 Viking (L-394)
S3
2J/L
2,000
2,000
III
SR-71 Blackbird
SR71
2J/L
III
T-33, AT-33, NT-33, RT-33 Shooting Star, T-Bird (L-580)
T33*
2J/L
2,000
2,000
III
U-2, ER-2
U2*
1J/S+
6,000
6,000
III
MARTIN COMPANY (USA)
Model
Type Designator
Description
Performance Information
Number & Type Engines/Weight Class
Climb Rate (fpm)
Descent Rate (fpm)
SRS Cat.
LAHSO Group
404
M404
2P/L
1,600
1,500
III
3
B-26 Marauder (179)
B26M
2P/S+
III
WB-57 (272)
WB57
2J/L
III
NORTHROP CORP. (USA)
(Also CANADAIR, CASA, AIDC, F+W EMMEN, KOREAN AIR, NORTHROP GRUMMAN)
Model
Type Designator
Description
Performance Information
Number & Type Engines/Weight Class
Climb Rate (fpm)
Descent Rate (fpm)
SRS Cat.
LAHSO Group
B-2 Spirit
B2
4J/H
III
C-125 Raider
C125
3P/L
III
E-2 Hawkeye
E2
2T/L
2,690
3,000
III
F-5, RF-5 Freedom Fighter, Tiger 2, Tigereye (N-156C/F)
F5*
2J/S+
8,000
5,000
III
# $ % m
& ' ( ) * + , - ŮvgvUgvgC"h!] 5;CJ \aJ mH nH u #j{ h!] UmH nH uj h!] UmH nH uh!] mH nH u *j hUn h!] 0J UmH nH u h!] mH nH uhUn h!] 0J mH nH u$j hUn h!] 0J UmH nH u h$ j h$ Uh 0 hid h 6\ j hL" hY UmH nH u hid h hid h 5CJ aJ # $ & ' ( ) 0 A S W X m , y )
C T
$
gd 0
$dh a$gd - . J K L M W X Y s t u v w x y z { ҿkY #jo h!] UmH nH u*j hUn h!] 0J UmH nH u "h!] 5;CJ \aJ mH nH u #ju h!] UmH nH uj h!] UmH nH uh!] mH nH u $j hUn h!] 0J UmH nH u *j hUn h!] 0J UmH nH u h!] mH nH uhUn h!] 0J mH nH u "
#
$
%
&
'
(
)
*
+
G
H
I
J
L
M
i
j
k
ȹn\ȹ#jc h!] UmH nH u*j hUn h!] 0J UmH nH u h!] mH nH u#ji h!] UmH nH uj h!] UmH nH uh!] mH nH u h!] :CJ aJ mH nH u $j hUn h!] 0J UmH nH u *j hUn h!] 0J UmH nH u hUn h!] 0J mH nH u $
! " # = > ? @ A B C D E a ȹn\ȹ#jW h!] UmH nH u*j hUn h!] 0J UmH nH u h!] mH nH u#j] h!] UmH nH uj h!] UmH nH uh!] mH nH u h!] :CJ aJ mH nH u $j hUn h!] 0J UmH nH u *j hUn h!] 0J UmH nH u hUn h!] 0J mH nH u $a b c d f g y z { ȹn\ȹ#jK h!] UmH nH u*j hUn h!] 0J UmH nH u h!] mH nH u#jQ h!] UmH nH uj h!] UmH nH uh!] mH nH u h!] :CJ aJ mH nH u $j hUn h!] 0J UmH nH u *j hUn h!] 0J UmH nH u hUn h!] 0J mH nH u $ 1 2 3 M N O Q R S T U V r s t u w x ȹn^L #j? h!] UmH nH uh!] 6CJ ]aJ mH nH u*j hUn h!] 0J UmH nH u h!] mH nH u#jE h!] UmH nH uj h!] UmH nH uh!] mH nH u h!] :CJ aJ mH nH u $j hUn h!] 0J UmH nH u *j hUn h!] 0J UmH nH u hUn h!] 0J mH nH u
"
#
2
3
4
N
ӵӵõӵnӵ_ h!] :CJ aJ mH nH u *j hUn h!] 0J UmH nH u #j9 h!] UmH nH u*j hUn h!] 0J UmH nH u h!] mH nH uhUn h!] 0J mH nH uh!] 6CJ ]aJ mH nH u$j hUn h!] 0J UmH nH u j h!] UmH nH uh!] mH nH u"T U
R i * e L m t l
$
$
$
$
N
O
P
R
S
T
U
V
W
s
t
u
v
x
y
tbtL *j hUn h!] 0J UmH nH u #j- h!] UmH nH uh!] 6CJ ]aJ mH nH u*j hUn h!] 0J UmH nH u h!] mH nH uhUn h!] 0J mH nH uh!] :CJ aJ mH nH u $j hUn h!] 0J UmH nH u h!] mH nH u j h!] UmH nH u#j3 h!] UmH nH u
/ 0 1 K L M O P Q R S T p q ĵģĵߚ߄uĵcĵuߚ #j! h!] UmH nH uh!] :CJ aJ mH nH u *j hUn h!] 0J UmH nH u h!] mH nH u#j' h!] UmH nH uj h!] UmH nH uh!] mH nH u h!] 6CJ ]aJ mH nH uhUn h!] 0J mH nH u$j hUn h!] 0J UmH nH u#q r s v w
* + ɺɯɅoɺɯ]Ʌ #j h!] UmH nH u*j hUn h!] 0J UmH nH u h!] mH nH u#j h!] UmH nH uj h!] UmH nH uh!] mH nH u h!] :CJ aJ mH nH u hUn h!] 0J mH nH u$j hUn h!] 0J UmH nH u *j hUn h!] 0J UmH nH u$+ , - F G H b c d f g h i j k ɾɂl]ɾK #j h!] UmH nH uh!] :CJ aJ mH nH u *j hUn h!] 0J UmH nH u h!] mH nH u"h!] 5;CJ \aJ mH nH u #j h!] UmH nH uj h!] UmH nH uh!] mH nH u hUn h!] 0J mH nH u$j hUn h!] 0J UmH nH u *j hUn h!] 0J UmH nH u # $ % ' ( ) * + , H I J K M N h i j бЦoЦ] #j h!] UmH nH u*j hUn h!] 0J UmH nH u #j h!] UmH nH uj h!] UmH nH uh!] mH nH u *j hUn h!] 0J UmH nH u h!] mH nH uhUn h!] 0J mH nH u$j hUn h!] 0J UmH nH u h!] :CJ aJ mH nH u$ B C D ^ _ ` b c d бЦoЦ] #j h!] UmH nH u*jt hUn h!] 0J UmH nH u #j h!] UmH nH uj h!] UmH nH uh!] mH nH u *jz hUn h!] 0J UmH nH u h!] mH nH uhUn h!] 0J mH nH u$j hUn h!] 0J UmH nH u h!] :CJ aJ mH nH u$d e f g ) * + E F G I J K бЦoЦ] #j h!] UmH nH u*jh hUn h!] 0J UmH nH u #j h!] UmH nH uj h!] UmH nH uh!] mH nH u *jn hUn h!] 0J UmH nH u h!] mH nH uhUn h!] 0J mH nH u$j hUn h!] 0J UmH nH u h!] :CJ aJ mH nH u"K L M N j k l m
ͮͣlͣZ #j h!] UmH nH u*j\ hUn h!] 0J UmH nH u #j h!] UmH nH uj h!] UmH nH uh!] mH nH u *jb hUn h!] 0J UmH nH u h!] mH nH uhUn h!] 0J mH nH u$j hUn h!] 0J UmH nH u "h!] 5;CJ \aJ mH nH u
, - . / J K L f g h j k l m n o бЦoЦ] #j h!] UmH nH u*jP hUn h!] 0J UmH nH u #j h!] UmH nH uj h!] UmH nH uh!] mH nH u *jV hUn h!] 0J UmH nH u h!] mH nH uhUn h!] 0J mH nH u$j hUn h!] 0J UmH nH u h!] :CJ aJ mH nH u$ ; < = > Q R S m n o q r s t u v ȍn\ȍ #j h!] UmH nH u*jD hUn h!] 0J UmH nH u h!] mH nH uh!] :CJ aJ mH nH u #j h!] UmH nH uj h!] UmH nH uh!] mH nH u $j hUn h!] 0J UmH nH u *jJ hUn h!] 0J UmH nH u hUn h!] 0J mH nH u ! 3 4 ɾɄnɾ\Ʉ #j h!] UmH nH u*j8 hUn h!] 0J UmH nH u h!] mH nH uh!] 6CJ ]aJ mH nH u#j h!] UmH nH uj h!] UmH nH uh!] mH nH u hUn h!] 0J mH nH u$j hUn h!] 0J UmH nH u *j> hUn h!] 0J UmH nH u 4 5 6 I J K e f g i j k l m n ɾɂlɾZK h!] :CJ aJ mH nH u #j h!] UmH nH u*j, hUn h!] 0J UmH nH u h!] mH nH u"h!] 5;CJ \aJ mH nH u #j h!] UmH nH uj h!] UmH nH uh!] mH nH u hUn h!] 0J mH nH u$j hUn h!] 0J UmH nH u *j2 hUn h!] 0J UmH nH u ! " $ % & ' ( ) E F G H u v w ҿn\ #j h!] UmH nH u*j hUn h!] 0J UmH nH u h!] :CJ aJ mH nH u #j h!] UmH nH uj h!] UmH nH uh!] mH nH u $j hUn h!] 0J UmH nH u *j& hUn h!] 0J UmH nH u h!] mH nH uhUn h!] 0J mH nH u ' n ( # # &