Marc D's Profile
Very clear view on a topic that is becoming more and more risky !
I think that as long as Tesla doesn’t encourage competition among battery manufacturers, they have little influence. Indeed, currently only a few manufacturers have the capacity to produce so large amouts of batteries (1). So Tesla has little leverage on them as they are on an oligopoly.
Thanks to a more competitive scheme, Tesla would be able to switch suppliers as soon as one of them is discovered as guilty of non moral practicies.
Currently, Tesla is betting everything with Panasonic (2), and I think this is a very risky strategy that can backfire as soon as Tesla loose control over Panasonic.
Very interesting article !
I don’t think that food subsidies are the problem, I think they are the solution. Without any subisidies, fishermen would use damaging techniques and would fish all around the world without any restrictions. The main goal of that is to reduce cost (from operations and from salaries). Thanks to well thought out subsidies, governments can encourage local fishing and local consumption.
Moreover, some subisidies can be implemented to help poor fishermen to live with moderate cacth level. It would help to to loosen the pressure on the natural stock (1).
Finally, I beleive that regulation and quotas are needed to protect not only fish but also our planet. Indeed, as they are less and less fish around the world you have to go to always more extreme regions to find some. Quotas would not only help to re-create the natural stocks but also help to re-built local fishing in order to avoid going far away.
Very interesting article with a clear view on the issue.
I truely beleive that it is not enough for companies to react to climate change only to the extent to which it directly impacts their value chain. However, given the current worldwide regulation, if they are the only one to be environmental friendly, it might increase their cost and make them less competitive. So: yes, it is not enough, but they behave in an economical way and thus regulators should force all the players to react to climate change to kill any competitive advantage of not reacting to climate change.
The regulation trend is going on in California for example (1). The local gouvernment is taking care of these issues and is showing interesting results and I truely believe that this kind of regulation should be implemented worldwide.
Very interesting article!
3d printing is so far from UPS core know-how that it seems far fetched (at first!) to think that they are at risk.
I truely believe that 3D printing will disrupt many businesses and manufacturing can be one of them. However, I beleive that many parts can’t be replaced by 3D printed ones. Indeed, the performances of 3D printed parts are so low that in many cases thet won’t be eligible for replacements of injection molded parts for example (1).
Thus, I believe that this will stay a niche business and that UPS isn’t at high risk.
However, even if I think the probability is low, the severity of such a risk is so high that UPS can’t afford risking anything. Thus UPS is completely right in investing some money on this, just as a preventive action plan.
You are perfectly right CL !
The reason why everyone isn’t doing this is that in the engine maintenance business, manufacturers are intensively investing on technologies to kill any form of competition on the maintenance. Moreover, manufacturers bundle the engine itself with a maintenance contract so the customer is locked in for several years to maintain its engines by the manufacturer. Thus, on that precise area, engine manufacturers seem to have win the consolidation battle.
For example, Rolls-Royce now mainly sell its engines through a TotalCare contract: they sell both the engine itself and the maintenance of it for several years.
Very interesting article! And very clear point of view on a very complex topic !
Your view on Bombardier supply chain as a whole is very interesting, and the paradox of the situation with the UK is all the more ironic indeed.
However, the fact that Boeing has no product in the 100 seat range is notably an issue for Boeing. As no product existed in that range before the CSeries, airlines had to buy a bigger 737 even if it didn’t perfectly match their needs becauset the had no choice. With the CSeries, airlines can now buy a smaller and more affordable aircraft which will then hit Boieng sales as it has no product on that market.
The next question I would have is: now that the final assembly can be done in Alabama in Airbus facilities to avoid tariff, what about sub-assemblies that are still done abroad? Will the tariff be also applied to them? Will Airbus find a loophole to avoid them?