24 avril 2020 | International, Technologies propres, Méga données et intelligence artificielle, Fabrication avancée 4.0, Systèmes autonomes (Drones / E-VTOL), Conception et essais virtuels, Fabrication additive

Impact of COVID-19 on commercial MRO

Impact of COVID-19 on commercial MRO

Opinion: How COVID-19 Has Already Changed Everything

David Marcontell April 17, 2020 Oliver Wyman

To say that COVID-19 is having a devastating effect on aviation is an understatement. With hundreds of millions of people living under stay-at-home orders and unemployment rates in the U.S. and Europe rising faster than they ever have, global airline capacity in available seat-miles is down 59% compared to what it was at this time last year. The International Air Transport Association is forecasting airline losses of $252 billion—a tally that has been revised upward twice in the last six weeks.

At my own firm, we cut our 2020 forecast for demand in the MRO market by $17-35 billion to reflect the nearly 11,000 aircraft that have been taken out of service and the 50% drop in daily utilization for those that are still flying. Oliver Wyman also lowered its projection for new aircraft deliveries by 50-60% versus 2019 after a comprehensive review of original equipment manufacturer (OEM) build projections versus airline demand. Deliveries for most current-production models are expected to drop 50% or more in 2021 and 2022. As a result, we project that it will be well into 2022 before the global MRO market might return to the size it was before COVID-19.

This crisis has gone well past the point of a V-shaped recovery. Lasting damage has been done, and not unlike the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks or the 2008 global financial crisis, the behavior of governments, businesses and the public is likely to have been changed forever.

Following 9/11, it took nearly 18 months for passenger traffic to return to its previous level, and when it finally did, travel looked very different than it had before the attacks. Passenger anxiety and the “hassle” factor associated with heightened airport security caused people to stay at home or drive. It took nearly a decade for the public to adjust to the new normal of commercial air travel.

In a post-COVID-19 environment, it is not unrealistic to expect new screening protocols to be put in place to help manage the risk of reinfection or an emergence of new hot spots. Already, international public health officials are considering such tools as immunization passports and body temperature scanning (already in use by some airports) that would be applicable to everyone on every flight, much like our security screening is today.

In addition, virtual meeting technology—adoption of which is expanding quickly out of necessity—is now becoming business as usual for work and socializing, and it's unlikely we will turn away from it entirely even when the disease is a memory. These combined influences will undoubtedly slow passenger traffic growth.

COVID-19 also will change the industry's labor landscape. For the past several years, the aviation industry has been concerned with a looming labor shortage. Before the coronavirus crisis, regional airlines were already being forced to shut down because they couldn't find enough pilots; others were trimming flight schedules. A stunning 90% of the Aeronautical Repair Station Association's 2019 survey reported difficulty finding enough technicians—a situation that cost ARSA members more than $100 million per month in unrealized revenue.

COVID-19 will change all that. With the global fleet expected to have 1,200 fewer airplanes flying in 2021 than 2019, the industry will need roughly 18,000 fewer pilots and 8,400 fewer aviation maintenance technicians in 2021. The depth of the cutbacks is the equivalent of grounding 1-2 years' worth of graduates from training and certification programs around the world. How many would-be pilots and mechanics may now be dissuaded from pursuing a career in aviation with those statistics? If people turn away now, when aviation comes back it may be a few years before that candidate pipeline is restored.

Another example of permanent change from aviation's last cataclysmic event was the consolidation of the OEM supply chain after the Great Recession. Tier 1 and Tier 2 suppliers went on a buying spree, gobbling up smaller companies. While the post-COVID-19 business environment will undoubtedly be hazardous for these same suppliers, the consolidation of the past decade has put them in a better position to survive this upheaval.

Can the same be said for the MRO community, which comprises many smaller, privately held and family-owned companies? I suspect not. While governments are scrambling to provide financial relief for small businesses hurt by the global economic shutdown, these efforts will likely fall short. The result might well be a further consolidated MRO community dominated by the OEMs plus a handful of fully integrated firms that provide support to both OEMs and airlines.

COVID-19 is a painful reminder that aviation always will be a cyclical business. With each cycle, the industry renews itself, performing better than before. One should expect this cycle to be no different. The biggest question is: How long will this cycle last?

—David Marcontell, Oliver Wyman partner and general manager of its Cavok division, has aftermarket experience with leading OEMs, airlines, MROs and financial services.

Sur le même sujet

  • Last Week to Submit for Innovation Days in Austin

    16 décembre 2019

    Last Week to Submit for Innovation Days in Austin

    The Army is looking for new technology that can be in the hands of Soldiers by 2023. So we're inviting companies to share their ideas for the chance to "pitch" us during Innovation Days in Austin and earn a new Army contract. To be considered, submit your concept through our online portal, which guides you through the required information in a Turbo Tax® style. You can find more information on what to include in this quick overview or via the announcement. You may not know all of the answers, and that's ok. The more technical details, visuals, and vision you can share to illustrate your technology, the better we'll be able to assess it against the Army's needs. The deadline to submit concepts for this event is 4:00pm ET on December 20, 2019. We can't wait to see what you've got! https://aal.army/innovationdays/

  • ‘The math doesn’t make sense’: Why venture capital firms are wary of defense-focused investments

    31 janvier 2020

    ‘The math doesn’t make sense’: Why venture capital firms are wary of defense-focused investments

    By: Aaron Mehta WASHINGTON — In American's technology marketplace, venture capital funds are crucial for pumping capital into small companies in need of cash infusions to keep operating. Part of the venture capital model is acknowledging that many of those businesses will fail, but if a few are successful, venture capitalists can make huge returns on their investments. At a time when the Pentagon is working hard to entice small technology companies to work on defense projects, venture capital, or VC, funding could further mature technology and give entrepreneurs a chance to keep projects going. And yet, investors seem wary of putting forth cash to support companies with a defense focus. Why? In the wake of the very public fight inside Google over working with the Pentagon — which ended with the company pulling the plug on its Project Maven participation — there was a consensus from the defense establishment that there may be a culture gap that is simply too large to overcome. But according to a trio of venture capitalists who spoke to Defense News in December, the reasons are simpler. Katherine Boyle, with VC firm General Catalyst, said the culture issue is overblown for the VC community. The reluctance to work on defense programs comes down to a mix of “math and history," she said. "The math is the reason why investors are hesitant to put a third of their fund into these types of technologies because history shows us that they haven't worked out well,” Boyle explained. She said the math can be broken down into three factors: mergers, margins and interest rates. On the first, she pointed to the fact that the defense sector has seen thousands of firms exit the market, sometimes because of acquisitions by primes. But, she argued, where mergers and acquisitions tend to occur in other parts of the world to acquire new technology or capability, in the defense realm it's all about contracting value. That makes it “very difficult for new technologies to enter the market and ultimately be acquired at the valuations that venture investors would need to see in order to have a return for their fund.” In terms of margins, Boyle pointed out that defense firms are very focused on hardware, which requires a lot of investment upfront. That makes it “very difficult to invest in for venture capital firms because software has 80 percent margins, and it's much easier to build a company that can scale very quickly if it's software-based versus needing a lot of capital,” she said. The third factor, interest rates, ties into the last two. For decades interest rates have allowed VC firms to expand dramatically — something that requires a constant flow of return from investments in order to turn around funds and quickly invest in another opportunity. In the world of defense, investors with $3 billion to $5 billion under management by the VC community will find it difficult to get the kind of returns investors are accustomed to from other markets. All three of those factors come together in a mix that means there are very few chances for VC firms to invest in defense-related companies that match up with what a VC traditionally wants to see, said John Tenet, a partner with investment firm 8VC and vice chairman of the defense company Epirus. “VC investors invest based on speed and scale and probability of a 10 to 20 times return. And so I think that's where you've seen a little bit of apprehension, at least in [Silicon] Valley,” Tenet said. “The exits haven't been that fast, and you sort of have these five big players on one side [that] sort of monopolize the market.” From a pure numbers standpoint, a good benchmark for performance is to look at the S&P 500, according to Trae Stephens, co-founder and chairman of Anduril Industries and partner at Founders Fund. Over a 10-year period, an investor in the S&P can expect to get roughly 3 times their investment back. VC firms want to be able to beat that for an investment to be worth it. To highlight the challenge of attracting VC funding to defense firms with potentially limited return, Stephens pointed to the case of Blackbird Technologies. A venture-backed player in specialized communications tech aimed at the defense market, Blackbird was bought in 2014 by Raytheon for about $420 million. That looks good on paper, but the reality is the churn isn't strong enough for a big, Silicon Valley-based venture capital group. “A lot of times in the government, people say: ‘Oh, Blackbird is this, like, great example of a success story that was like a boost for venture.' It's actually not. It's not a venture scale of return for most funds,” he said. “There are some funds where the economics of [an exit that size] is really good, but for large, Silicon Valley tier-one funds, it doesn't move the needle. And so you have to have these multibillion-dollar opportunities in order for it to really make economic sense.” Another issue raised by Stephens will be familiar to defense primes as well: concerns over sharing intellectual property with the Defense Department. The department is essentially saying “you are the right product for us, now turn over your source code,” Stephens said. “It's crazy. We're literally doing to our companies in America what we're criticizing the Chinese for doing to their companies and to our companies when we enter that market. And so there has to be a better commercial practice for enabling companies to retain their IP and do business with the government without having to fight a legal battle every time they go through a contract.” ‘Knock down the doors' Despite those concerns, all three venture capitalists that spoke to Defense News are involved in investments in defense-focused firms. So why are they spending their money in the sector? Mission is part of it — the belief that, as Americans, a stronger Defense Department benefits their firms. But that only goes so far if dollars don't follow. Once again, it comes down to math. Investing in a company focused on defense technologies, which may have to wait years to secure a contract with the Pentagon, isn't a great strategy for a VC firm looking for quick returns. But if a company is able to get government funding early on, the business suddenly becomes more worthy of investment, said Boyle. “If the government is allocating capital in the right way, it will get VC dollars immediately. Like, it will follow so quickly,” Boyle said. “I see so many people come in to our office and they have an OTA [other transaction authority contract], and they're excited. It's a small, $1 million contract, and that is great for a seed company. But if that same company came in 18 months later and said, ‘Oh, by the way, the OTA has turned into a $10 million contract,' that would meet every milestone that I usually see to series A.” (An OTA is a type of contract that enables rapid prototyping; series A financing is the investment that follows growth from initial seed capital used to launch operations.) “$10 million to the US government is nothing, but to [a] startup — $10 million is the best startup I've seen all year, if they're an 18-month-old startup and they're getting that kind of capital early on,” she said. Added Stephens: “It means they're doing something right.” That creates a chicken and egg scenario: Venture capitalists only want to invest in companies that already have a Pentagon contract, but small firms often can't keep the doors open long enough without external funding while waiting for the department's contracting processes to progress. While groups such as the Defense Innovation Unit — the Pentagon's technology hub — are helping speed along that process, it remains a problem with no easy solution, at a time when the Pentagon needs the nondefense technology community in ways it hasn't for decades. Boyle believes there is a “growing group” of investors who see the strong success of a handful of companies like goTenna, Anduril or Shield AI that have managed to break through and become successful defense-focused investment vehicles. That means the next few years are going to be critical for everyone involved. “None of us would be here if we weren't optimistic,” she said. “I actually think this is an incredible time to be investing in deep tech, particularly deep-tech companies that are selling to the Department of Defense because if it doesn't happen now, it never will.” https://www.defensenews.com/smr/cultural-clash/2020/01/30/the-math-doesnt-make-sense-why-venture-capital-firms-are-wary-of-defense-focused-investments/

  • 3D Printing of Multilayered Materials for Smart Helmets | 3D Printing Progress

    3 août 2021

    3D Printing of Multilayered Materials for Smart Helmets | 3D Printing Progress

    A mechanical and aerospace engineering professor is developing advanced helmets to ensure that members of the military are as protected as possible from blasts and other types of attacks.

Toutes les nouvelles