John Plant: Well essentially the play on forged wheels for aluminum is that you start off with what’s the big picture in terms of truck and trailer production essentially in North America and Europe, albeit we do play in some of the Asian markets so it’s a significant share position as well. And then you factor in basically some — so whatever percentage change that is in a new factor in as a positive against what I think will be a worse macro position next year. There’ll be some penetration achieved against steel wheels particularly as fuel efficiency requirements that step up, a fractional contribution but nothing in a great node in terms of adoption of different I’ll say powertrain hinting out there is move towards electrification or whatever but no big moves next year but that’s a positive venture as well.
And the manufactural share improvement on top of that. So, basically we see secular growth in the segment offsetting some macro decline in the assumed markets and that’s why I guided as commented an idea about high single-digit reduction for the business is our assumption trying to be fairly cautious at this point in time until we’ve got a better read on what’s the general economy going to do although I did see freight rates begin to stabilize and improve recently. So, there’s a lot of factors yet to bring to bear in terms of what the final outlook for next year is I want to take a fairly cautious assumption. This year I don’t really commented — a more difficult second half as it is we’ve still been able to burn off backlog. And let’s say even despite today we have — is it Mac truck which is subject to the UAW strike.
Our arrears are such that that’s not going to affect us in the fourth quarter. And our assumption is that by Q1 next year by another couple of months at UAW dispute the Mac truck will be resolved and therefore they’ll be back. So that’s about it really. It’s been pretty strong this year. I give you the general is into next year.
Ronald Epstein: And then maybe just one follow-on if I may just a little change subject. When we think about the Pratt & Whitney situation with the GTF and all the tests that need to be reworked, is that good bad neutral for you guys? I mean how should we think about the impact on you? I mean the company vis-a-vis the GTF situation?
John Plant: Yes. I’ll start off with having to separate two issues I think on the GTF, because I think while it gets all and mashed together, I see them as quite separate and then the catalysts intertwining for convenience. So this contamination issue clearly that requires inspection that might take, I don’t know, so many days, let’s call it, 20, 30, 40 days or an off wing to achieve that inspection. And then, I guess longer if those risks turn out they required to be replaced or not. And I guess it is a small fraction of those that will require to be replaced. That’s one item or separate item. Over, let’s say, previously incentive field but I’ll call it, left field there is the discussion about the time on wing issues that have been publicized by everybody regarding the GTF we’re particularly in harsh climate countries or pollution countries the time working is a fraction of the predecessor engine and also what we originally thought for the GTF.
So, the question then becomes for the problems around the combustor the filling of holes the higher temperature and then those temperatures and pollutants hitting the two blades in the high-pressure turbine those clearly require replacement. And the question is, what is the replacement interval for them? And so that stands alone as an issue. Pratt & Whitney will determine what frequency they want to replace those blades, again, more of a question for perhaps than for myself. We’re able to stand behind them and supply what needs to be supplied within degrees. The question is, what’s the requirement? Then, of course, you can intertwine them together. So maybe where those engines are off wing for the powder metal contamination issue maybe the opportunity will be taken to replace some of those high-pressure turbine laser and other components on the engine or maybe it won’t.
That’s a practice issue. And the question I have in my mind is, do they go for full replacements for them as they really look at inspect and take the engines off the wing for the first time or do they stick them back on just because the lines will want the engines back on wing and only seek to replace those in harsh climates at that time. And so maybe that’s the more of the while I read from MTU of the 300 days turnaround time. So I just don’t know Ron, but it will finally turn out to be, because it’s a choice by ratio [ph] or Pratt & Whitney to determine to what extent do they make improvements for the time on wing issue including the high-pressure turbine parts as they take those into serve. So why it’s written about us almost one issue of power of metal, I think there are two distinct issues which may come together but just depending upon the pressure to get those engines back on wing and we are still in discussions with Pratt & Whitney regarding all of that.
And they determined how many of our parts go to OE production and how many go to the spares market. And that’s up to them and the aircraft manufacturers to decide that.
Ronald Epstein: Got it. Thank you very much.
John Plant: Thank you.
Operator: The next question comes from Noah Poponak with Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead.
Noah Poponak : Hey, good morning everyone. John I was hoping to get a little more color from you on your perspective on the broader aerospace new-build ramp-up. You’ve had good perspective. And as you mentioned you’ve been cautious and that it’s been correct. It felt like in the middle of the year and kind of around the air show and into the summer you sounded more optimistic and sounded like the supply chain was kind of finally ready to go. And then we’ve had these incremental engine and aerostructures issues. Did Boeing especially — and I guess Boeing and Airbus keep the underlying broader supply chain going towards the planned higher rates? And is everything kind of ready to ramp once after fuselage and the like are fixed. And you mentioned them giving you plans for next year. Are they incrementally more firm on that now with the master schedule than they’ve been recovery to date are things firmer? Or is that wishful thing?
John Plant : I mean, I think Boeing in particular I have had firm plans throughout the year, it’s been the realization of those plants, which has been more of the issues. And I guess it’s from a combination of reasons, there’s always going to be somewhere in the supply chain amongst all the parts of difficulties. There’s always going to be the degree of experience in Boeing on plants with all of the change of people in and out or out and in regarding post-COVID. And then of course, we read in the press about the difficulties of, I’d say was it strike at Spirit Aerospace and then some other production issues of some failed parts and holes and all the rest of it. And yet there seems to have been some management change there, which may proved to be positive because that’s a TBD.
And hopefully, I guess, you listen carefully to the commentary from Spirit yesterday. We’re optimistic that those fuselage and other component problems to get resolved it’s not sitting in our control. But should those begin to improve, I think, that’s a major step forward in Boeing realizing its own plans for production rate increases and also getting behind it the retrofit of those sales, which were subject to pass those only or holes billed too big and bigger fasteners. So I think they’re hoping Herculean efforts to try to achieve all of that. But as you know circulate events by themselves don’t sort of produce the output, and we’ve still got to see that improve. So, hopefully, during October, November, December, we’ll begin to see rate pick up, it’s spirit other suppliers and then obviously, boring itself to get to their required or stated rate four to next year.
