217年的排名將美國(guó)排在第一位

Aerospace manufacturing attractiveness rankings Geographic assessment for aerospace manufacturing investment August 2017 01 Country rankings and commentary 04 State rankings and commentary 08 Appendix 20 Contact Introduction The aerospace and defense industry reported higher revenues and profits in 2016 compared with 2015. Demand for air travel increased by 6.3 percent in 2016, the second consecutive year above six percent and sixth consecutive year above five percent, which is consistent with the 20-year forecast,1  far exceeding global economic growth expectations, and causing heightened demand for aircraft, engine, and parts manufacturing. Large commercial aircraft production has already increased more than 40 percent since 2011, with long term forecasts calling for further increases.2  As aerospace companies pursue available opportunities to help satisfy demand, they are in the enviable position of being able to choose the most advantageous locations for business expansion. This 2017 Aerospace Manufacturing Attractiveness Rankings is a qualitative framework that looks at all countries and states within the US to help provide aerospace companies with information to improve manufacturing supply chains, control costs, and plan for future growth. In this fourth edition of our analysis, we have improved and refined the ranking methodology to provide a more meaningful comparison of both countries globally and states within the US for aerospace manufacturing. The 2017 index is based on a weighted score of category and subcategory rankings. Ranking categories include Labor, Infrastructure, Industry, Economy, Cost, Tax Policy, and Geopolitical Risk. As states share similar geopolitical risk, that category is excluded from the state rankings. Within each category, there are subcategories that provide additional data for our analyses. While both state and country rankings use comparable metrics, there are slight differences in each measure’s relevance to the ranking and the availability of quantitative information. Country rankings rely on 32 unique measures obtained from seven different data sources; state rankings rely on 34 unique measures obtained from ten different data sources. The use of such a diverse dataset allows for optimal quality in the rankings. Individual users of this report may decide to weigh these factors differently than our methodology, depending on circumstances. Details on the methodology are described in the ranking methodology section. We hope you find this year’s aerospace attractiveness rankings informative and useful. We welcome your thoughts on our findings and their potential impact on your strategy. 1  PwC, “Aerospace & Defense 2016 Year in Review and 2017 Forecast”, June 2017. 2  Ibid PwC 2017 Aerospace Manufacturing Attractiveness Rankings 01 Country rankings and commentary This year’s rankings place the United States in first place, followed by Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada. New entrants to the top ten include Australia, Taiwan, and Denmark. Singapore, the Netherlands, and France dropped out of the top ten. Top 10 countries by rank for aerospace attractiveness 1–5 6–10 11–15 16–20 21–25 26–30 31–35 36–40 41–45 46–50 51-55 56-60 Country Overall  Rank Cost Labor Infrastructure Industry Geopolitical  Risk Economy Tax Policy United States 1 11 2 6 1 2 16 36 Switzerland 2 18 9 11 18 5 7 18 United Kingdom 3 23 16 5 4 7 28 10 Australia 4 13 11 20 16 1 17 25 Canada 5 24 8 13 8 13 26 17 Taiwan 6 7 6 17 22 18 14 30 Hong Kong 7 16 18 1 18 39 20 3 Japan 8 8 3 10 6 10 12 70 Denmark 9 5 13 8 51 25 15 7 Germany 10 19 7 6 5 4 38 48 PwC 2017 Aerospace Manufacturing Attractiveness Rankings 02 United States The United States consistently places first in the aerospace manufacturing rankings as a result of the aerospace industry’s significant scale, supported by a relatively strong economy, robust air transportation infrastructure, and active defense posture. Within the Industry category, the United States was first in industry size and maturity, as the country continued to have the highest proportion of global aircraft and spacecraft sales3  and defense spending. Accordingly, the United States’ performance in Industry far exceeded that of other countries in the analysis. The United States also placed high in the Labor, Geopolitical Risk, and Infrastructure categories, but fell short on Tax Policy. The United States is known to have 1,710 aircraft, engine, and parts manufacturing companies and $212 billion in annual revenue.4  While we cannot directly compare this year’s methodology with the prior year, the United States improved its rankings in the Infrastructure and Cost categories. Switzerland Switzerland moved up five spots to take second place in the rankings this year. It ranked well in the Geopolitical, Economy, and Labor categories. Within the Economy category, Switzerland ranked first in the subcategories of Interest Rates and fourth in Outside Investment. Centrally located to provision the European aerospace markets, Switzerland was a key supplier to the Middle East and continued to be a prime location for business aviation as well as maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) operations. Despite its relatively small size, the country hosts two notable global aerospace manufacturers, RUAG and Pilatus. Headquartered in Bern, RUAG is a leading supplier of aircraft components and services in both aerospace and defense, with 8,734 employees and annual turnover nearly $2 billion USD. Pilatus, a smaller company in total employment, specializes in production related to business jets and single-engine turboprops. United Kingdom The United Kingdom fell from second to third place this year as a result of a decline in the Cost and Economy categories. These results may be related to uncertainties surrounding BREXIT, including the possibility that the United Kingdom will face more restricted supply chains as the country separates from the European Union. Even so, as of 2016, the United Kingdom still received the benefits of a powerful wave of prior investments. The industry had £31 billion turnover, £27 billion in exports, and a growth rate of 39 percent during the last 5 years.5 This past year, Boeing opened a £20 million production facility in Sheffield to manufacture components for the company’s next-generation aircraft, and Rolls-Royce announced plans to invest more than £30 million to manufacture a range of aerospace discs for in-service engines. In addition, Boeing announced its plans to invest £3 billion in the United Kingdom, creating 2,000 jobs and doubling its workforce there.6 3 IHS Markit Ltd, “Aircraft & Spacecraft Industry Outlook”, February 2017. 4 IBSWorld, “Aircraft, Engine & Parts Manufacturing in the US: Market Research Report”, January 2017. 5 ADS, “UK Aerospace Outlook Report 2016,” July 28, 2016. 6 Russell Hotten, “Boeing signs £3bn deal for nine marine patrol planes,” BBC News, July 11, 2016. PwC 2017 Aerospace Manufacturing Attractiveness Rankings 03 Australia Australia ranked fourth overall, an improvement of 14 places from last year, ranking first in Geopolitical Risk, and eleventh in Labor. The country benefited from low strategic, political, and sovereign risk as well as a predictable climate. Also helpful was the country’s top ranking in Basic Education, a subcategory of Labor.7 IBISWorld reports8  that aircraft manufacturing and services revenue in Australia has increased over the past 5 years as a result of a surge in exports, primarily due to the United States and France; Australian parts are key components of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner and the Airbus A380. Currently, major aircraft manufacturing companies, such as Boeing, Airbus, and BAE Systems have facilities in Australia, making it an attractive location for new manufacturing investment. Canada While Canada dropped two places in this year’s rankings, it still came in fifth overall. According to IBISWorld, Canada’s aircraft, engine, and parts manufacturing industry includes 440 companies, with annual revenues of $21 billion.9  Bombardier, headquartered in Quebec, is continuing to expand its relationship with the Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China (Comac). In recent news, Bombardier reportedly held talks with Comac about a potential investment in Bombardier’s commercial aerospace division.10 Bell Helicopter and United Technologies Corporation also have a large presence in Canada and provide a sound foundation for the future of Canadian aerospace manufacturing. 7 World Economic Forum, “The Global Competiveness Report 2016-2017,” September 28, 2016. 8 IBSWorld, “Aircraft Manufacturing and Repair Services in Australia”, January 2017. 9 IBSWorld, “Aircraft, Engine & Parts Manufacturing in Canada: Market Research Report,” May 2017. 10 Alicja Siekierska, “Bombardier in talks with Chinese aircraft manufacturer for potential investment: report,” Financial Post, May 18, 2017. Considerations for your business Demand for aircraft continued to be strong in most regions of the world, but especially in rapidly growing markets in Asia Pacific. This region, with a burgeoning middle class and a large and growing population, offers significant opportunities for US aircraft manufacturers and can drive both international and domestic expansion. However, since some global markets pose significant risk, US companies can mitigate this risk by considering each country’s specific regulations, tax policies, and intellectual property protection laws. Also, companies need to address human resource issues, such as talent recruitment, training, and retention, which require knowledge of cultural norms and sensitivities. These risks have to be measured against the soundness of offshoring to extend supply chains overseas. In recent years, some companies have moved to re-shore all or part of their supply chain as domestic business conditions have become more competitive. To support this new resurgence in American aerospace manufacturing, companies, educators, and policy makers need to promote the skills and policies that will foster investment growth in the US. PwC PwC 2017 Aerospace Manufacturing Attractiveness Rankings 04 There were several significant movements in the state rankings this year. In particular, Georgia took first place, Michigan second, and Arizona third. North Carolina reentered the top ten, placing fourth. Meanwhile, Florida fell four ranks to sixth place, while Virginia and New York jumped into the top ten for the first time in the past four years. Washington and Indiana fell out of the top ten, while Utah and Missouri dropped out of the top ten rankings, partly as a result of changes in the methodology. While rank improvements and reductions can be attributed to a variety of industry dynamics and manufacturing investments, many movements are the result of refinements to the ranking methodology. Below is a closer look at a few notable industry initiatives among the top 10 states. Top 10 states by rank for aerospace manufacturing attractiveness State rankings and commentary 1–5 6–10 11–15 16–20 21–25 26–30 31–35 36–40 41–45 46–52 State Overall Rank Cost Labor Infrastructure Industry Economy Tax Policy Georgia 1 10 19 12 4 7 20 Michigan 2 7 28 4 11 3 25 Arizona 3 21 23 6 5 24 4 North Carolina 4 15 24 25 6 5 14 Virginia 5 23 6 13 23 20 12 Ohio 6 21 35 2 3 8 30 Florida 6 20 30 9 12 10 18 Colorado 8 35 3 7 28 30 2 Texas 8 28 33 11 1 5 27 New York 10 24 8 21 9 11 38 PwC 2017 Aerospace Manufacturing Attractiveness Rankings 05 Georgia Georgia moved up by two ranks to first place this year, mainly because of an improved ranking in the Industry category and a strong placement in the newly-added Economy category. Among the Economy subcategories, Georgia scored highly in Gross State Product (GSP), GSP Growth, and Level of Government Subsidies and observed the third largest GSP growth in 2016. Within Industry, Georgia ranked fourth as the home of over 500 aerospace companies, producing more than $8.44 billion in global aerospace exports annually.11 Additionally, Georgia is close to space launch facilities. With these strengths, Georgia is continuing to attract investments in commercial aviation and space technology, with a focus on autonomous commercial aircraft, commercial space, and existing defense platforms. Lockheed Martin Aeronautics in Marietta is home to the only US military cargo aircraft currently in production and the assembly site for the center wing box of the United States’ newest fighter.12 With recent revisions to defense budgets, these proven programs are poised for additional growth. On the commercial side, Gulfstream Aerospace Corp., a subsidiary of General Dynamics, continues to add a significant number of innovative options to modernize its iconic GIV and GV aircraft families, which have large manufacturing facilities in Savannah and Brunswick.13 Pratt & Whitney, a division of United Technologies Corp, announced earlier this year that it will invest approximately $386 million in its Columbus facility to increase the production of parts and maintenance services and reduce costs for new and existing engine programs.14 Michigan Michigan moved into second place in the rankings after falling to eighth place last year. This improvement is supported by the state’s strong performance in the Economy, Infrastructure, and Cost categories. Looking at the subcategories in Economy, Michigan ranked third in the Consumer Price Index (CPI), sixth in Exports, and seventh in Manufacturing Output. In the Costs subcategories, Michigan ranked second in Labor Productivity and sixth in the Cost of Materials. In Tax Policy, Michigan showed a slight improvement in the rankings, most likely a reflection of its policy to phase out personal property tax for most businesses. In Infrastructure, the state’s ranking was bolstered by the Quality of Electricity Supply. The Michigan Aerospace Manufacturing Association continues to support the industry through research and development in the aerospace supply chain. While identifying opportunities for cost savings, the association has taken a proactive stance in the development of additive manufacturing technology and battery logistics. These efforts have helped attract investment in Michigan’s aerospace industry. In particular, AE Industrial Partners acquired Michiganbased Moeller Aerospace in 2016. 11 Georgia Department of Economic Development, Aerospace, http://www.georgia.org/industries/aerospace. 12 Georgia Department of Economic Development, “New frontiers for Georgia Aerospace in 2016,” February 18, 2016. 13 General Dynamics press release, “Gulfstream Continues to Invest in GIV and GV Aircraft Families,” October 31, 2016. 14 Pratt & Whitney press release, “Pratt & Whitney Expanding Business in Columbus, Georgia, to Meet Increased Demand,” February 14, 2017. PwC 2017 Aerospace Manufacturing Attractiveness Rankings 06 Arizona Arizona came in third this year, a decline of two places, but maintained a strong attraction for aerospace manufacturing. It continues to have an ideal climate for aircraft testing and space observation, one of the best transportation infrastructures, and a tax policy congenial to business. According to the Arizona Commerce Authority, the state currently houses 1,200 aerospace and defense companies, showing a large network of suppliers that can serve aerospace manufacturing. Last year, there were two M&A transactions that supported Arizona’s ranking; Mesa-based Able Aerospace was acquired by Textron for an undisclosed amount, and TriMas acquired Parker Hannifin’s Tolleson facility which manufactures complex machined parts for the aerospace industry. Additionally, large investments from non-aerospace companies, such as from the Intel Corporation, indicate the state has a general appeal to manufacturers.15 North Carolina The birthplace of aviation climbed 14 spots to rank as the fourth most attractive state in this year’s study. North Carolina had the fifth best Economy metrics, the sixth best Industry metrics, and above average Tax Policy (it has the lowest corporate income tax rate in the US). With respect to Infrastructure, the state benefits from deep-water seaports, an extensive rail network, and low electricity rates. In Industry, the state has strong aerospace sales, margins, and maturity and is considered to have the largest manufacturing workforce in the Southeast. The Economic Development Partnership of North Carolina notes the state has lower labor costs than traditional aerospace hubs, such as California and Washington, and the second lowest unionization rate in the US. A recent indication of the state’s appeal is that Los Angeles-based DAE Systems will be relocating to North Carolina, investing more than $6.8 million over the next three years.16 Virginia Virginia jumped into the top ten this year, placing fifth in the overall state rankings. The state ranked sixth in the Labor category because of the presence of skilled workers and higher education institutions. Langley holds one of the country’s largest populations of military personnel and its NASA research center provides highly skilled expertise in aeronautics. According to the Virginia Economic Development Partnership, the state is home to 287 aerospace firms and ranks first in the nation for US Department of Defense Prime Contracts. Recent news that Boeing’s venture capital arm will invest in an augmented reality software firm based in Virginia support the state’s upward movement in the rankings.17 New York New York jumped to tenth place this year, driven by a strong performance in the Labor, Industry, and Economy categories. The state 15 McKinnon, J., Greenwald, T., Ballhaus, R., “Intel Corp. Announces $7 Billion Investment in Arizona Plant,” The Wall Street Journal, February 28, 2017. 16 Business Facilities, “Aerospace Manufacturer Moving To North Carolina”, July 19, 2016. 17 Michael Hoffman, “New Boeing Venture Arm Invests in Virginia Augmented Reality Firm”, Tandem NSI, April 19, 2017.  PwC 2017 Aerospace Manufacturing Attractiveness Rankings 07 performed well in Labor and Economy as a result of its position as a global economic center. Also, New York has become more attractive to industry as a whole due to its role as a technology center. Recently, Magellan Aerospace acquired Ripak, an aerospace processing facility located on Long Island. Selected ranking declines Several states dropped out of the top ten including Washington, Indiana, Utah, and Missouri. Most interestingly, Washington fell back to thirteenth place. Although Boeing’s commercial aircraft business is headquartered there, the state does not perform well in the Cost and Infrastructure categories. Other states fell short on a variety of different measures in key categories. For example, Florida fell from second to seventh place this year because of lower rankings in the Cost and Labor categories. It is possible that after receiving substantial aerospace investment in recent years, the state is experiencing talent constraints, which is exerting upward pressure on wages. Additional detail on state rankings is provided in the appendix. Considerations for your business The category of education is critical not only for companies trying to meet today’s demands, but in ensuring tomorrow’s workforce can help build the next generation of more efficient, sustainable aircraft. An educated, technology-savvy, and diversified workforce is essential for maintaining US competitiveness in commercial aviation manufacturing. Some companies are actively participating in the process of preparing the future workforce. A good example is Utah, which announced the expansion of the Utah Aerospace Pathways program to a second school district. The program provides students in their last year of high school with the opportunity to begin training for an aerospace manufacturing certification. After students earn their certification, they can begin work with one of the program’s aerospace partners in Utah. Seven aerospace companies have been involved in developing the program. PwC 2017 Aerospace Manufacturing Attractiveness Rankings 08 Appendix Ranking Methodology Ranking calculations The 2017 country and state rankings were carefully determined through the simple addition of seven category ranks. The category ranks were all weighted evenly, although the measures used to determine category ranks were weighted to account for relevance and the availability of quantitative information. Measure weights were determined through a collaboration between client service professionals and the industry analyst at PwC and can be found in the “Measure Weights for Country and State Rankings” section. Measures with null values were given the lowest possible rank. The formulas below were used to compute the ranking calculations: Data resources Seven public and private independent data sources were used in calculating the 2017 country rankings. Paid-for subscriptions included IHS and S&P and public domain information was obtained from global associations such as Germanwatch and the World Economic Forum. PwC’s “Paying Taxes 2017” report provided thorough data for the Tax Policy category. Methodology changes The number of measures used to determine the 2017 country rankings increased by 200% compared to the previous year. The country rankings combined a total of 33 metrics into seven categories: Cost, Labor, Infrastructure, Industry, Geopolitical Risk, Economy, and Tax Policy. Provided: Measure Value Measure Weight Calculations: Rank Measure i = Rank [ Measure Value ] Score Measure i = Weight Measure i x Rank Measure i Rank Category n = Rank [ Score Measure 1 + Score Measure 2 + . . .+ Score Measure i ] Final Country Rank = Rank [ Rank Category 1 + Rank Category 2 +Rank Category n ] PwC 2017 Aerospace Manufacturing Attractiveness Rankings 09 Measures used in country rankings Measure selection The measures used in the 2017 Aerospace Manufacturing Attractiveness Rankings came from “Facility Location Selection for Global Manufacturing.”18 In cases in which we were unable to obtain detailed data for measures in the report, we used proxy measures. The following illustrations show the detailed breakouts of country and state rankings used in the 2017 rankings: 18 Kalantari, A.H. “Facility Location Selection for Global Manufacturing,” UWM Digital Commons at the University of Wisconsin Milwaukee, August 2013. Website: http://dc.uwm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1238&context=etd Labor Infrastructure Industry Economy Cost Tax Policy GeoPolitical Risk Labor Force Total country labor force Quality of Roads Quality of roads Industry Size Total aircraft and spacecraft sales GDP Real gross domestic product (GDP) Operating Expense Aerospace operating expenditures as a percent of sales Overall Tax Ranking Based on PwC’s overall tax ranking in their annual “Paying Taxes” publication Population Average annual population Basic Education Quantity of education Quality of Railroads Quality of railroad infrastructure Industry Maturity Total aircraft and spacecraft consumption GDP Growth Real GDP growth Capital Expense Aerospace capital expenditures as a percent of sales Population Growth Annual population growth Skilled Education Quality of math and science education Quality of Air Infrastructure Available airline seat kilometers per week FDI Net Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), net capital inflow Trend in Opex Annual change in aerospace operating expenditures Strategic Risk Overall strategic risk rating Advanced Education Availability of scientists and engineers Internet Usage International internet bandwidth, kb/s per user Internet Rates Interest rate policy Trend in Capex Annual change in aerospace capital expenditures Political Risk Overall political risk rating Union Flexibility Cooperation on labor employer relations Quality of Electric Supply Quality of electricity supply Debt Current account balance as a % of GDP Labor Cost Unit labor costs index Sovereign Risk Credit risk rating Quality of Port Infrastructure Quality of Port Infrastructure Inflation Aircraft and spacecraft depreciation Labor Productivity GDP-toemployed  labor force Climate Risk Climate risk index PwC 2017 Aerospace Manufacturing Attractiveness Rankings 10 Measures used in state rankings Labor Infrastructure Industry Economy Cost Tax Policy GeoPolitical Risk Labor Force Production workers annual hours for aerospace mfg. Quality of Roads Road condition by average roughness Market Size Total value of aerospace shipments & rcpts. GDP Real gross state product (GSP) Energy Cost Average Price of electricity to ultimate customers Individual Income Tax State individual income tax rate [ta] $75K Not Relevant at the State level Basic Education % of people over 25 who have completed high school Quality of Railroads Number of freight railroads by class Market Profit Margin Total value added in aerospace products and parts mfg. GDP Growth Real GSP growth Transportation Cost Transportation expenditures by State & Local Gov’ts Corporate Income Tax19 Maximum corporate income tax rate Skilled Education % of people over 25 who have completed a bachelor’s degree Quality of Air Infrastructure Public and private airports, heliports and seaplane bases Market Maturity Manufacturing share of total gross state product CPI Consumer Price Index Labor Cost Annual payroll for Aerospace product and parts mfg. State Sales Tax State sales tax Advanced Education % of people over 25 who have completed an advanced degree Internet Usage % of households with a broadband internet subscription Market Growth Growth in manufactured goods exports Government Subsidies Subsidies for durable goods manufacturing Labor Productivity Industrial production index for total manufacturing Local Sales Tax Average local sales tax Union Flexibility Union membership rates by state Quality of Electric Supply Number of major disturbances and unusual occurrences Number of Companies Number of aerospace and defense firms Manufacturing Output Total manufacturing output Construction Cost Total cost over created value of construction Gasoline Tax Total state gasoline tax rates Number of Suppliers Number of manufacturing firms Value of Exports Total value of manufactured goods exports Cost of Materials Total cost of materials for aerospace mfg. Property Tax Property taxes/ owner-occupied housing value 19 Nevada, Ohio, Texas, and Washington do not have corporate income tax but do have a gross receipts tax with rates not strictly comparable to corporate income tax rates. The ranking model assigns these four states with the state average corporate income tax rate of 6.85% to account for gross receipts. This methodology will be re-evaluated for next year’s report. PwC 2017 Aerospace Manufacturing Attractiveness Rankings 11 Appendix Category weights and reference metrics Country metrics Category Sub-Category Reference Metric Source Weight Category Sum Cost Opex/Sales (Aircraft & Spacecraft— Operating Expenditures)/ (Aircraft & Spacecraft—Sales) IHS Aircraft & Spacecraft Industry Outlook February 2017 17% 100% Capex/Sales (Aircraft & Spacecraft— Capital Expenditures)/ (Aircraft & Spacecraft—Sales) IHS Aircraft & Spacecraft Industry Outlook February 2017 17% Trend in Opex Aircraft & Spacecraft— Operating Expenditures Percent Change IHS Aircraft & Spacecraft Industry Outlook February 2017 17% Trend in Capex Aircraft & Spacecraft—Capital Expenditures Percent Change IHS Aircraft & Spacecraft Industry Outlook February 2017 17% Labor Cost Index: Unit Labor Costs, US$ basis IHS Global Economics February 15, 2017 9% Labor Productivity Labor Productivity: GDP-toEmployed Labor Force, US$ IHS Global Economics February 15, 2017 22% Labor Labor Force Labor Force IHS Global Economics February 15, 2017 16% 100% Basic Education Sum of Quantity of education WEF Global Competitiveness Index 2017 21% Skilled Education Sum of Quality of math and science education, 1-7 (best) WEF Global Competitiveness Index 2017 21% Advanced Education Sum of Availability of scientists and engineers, 1-7 (best) WEF Global Competitiveness Index 2017 21% Union Flexibility Sum of Cooperation in laboremployer relations, 1-7 (best) WEF Global Competitiveness Index 2017 21% Infrastructure Quality of Roads Sum of Quality of roads, 1-7 (best) WEF Global Competitiveness Index 2017 17% 100% Quality of Railroads Sum of Quality of railroad infrastructure, 1-7 (best) WEF Global Competitiveness Index 2017 17% Quality of Port Infrastructure Sum of Quality of port infrastructure, 1-7 (best) WEF Global Competitiveness Index 2017 17% Quality of Air Infrastructure Sum of Available airline seat km/week, millions *WEF Global Competitiveness Index 2017 17% Internet Usage Sum of Int’l Internet bandwidth, kb/s per user *WEF Global Competitiveness Index 2017 17% Quality of Electricity Supply Sum of Quality of electricity supply, 1-7 (best) WEF Global Competitiveness Index 2017 17% Industry Industry Size Aircraft & Spacecraft—Sales IHS Aircraft & Spacecraft Industry Outlook February 2017 50% 100% Industry Maturity Aircraft & Spacecraft— Consumption IHS Aircraft & Spacecraft Industry Outlook February 2017 50% PwC 2017 Aerospace Manufacturing Attractiveness Rankings 12 Category Sub-Category Reference Metric Source Weight Category Sum Geo Political Risk Population Population: Total IHS Global Economics February 15, 2017 17% 100% Population Growth Population: Growth Rate IHS Global Economics February 15, 2017 19% Strategic Risk Overall Strategic Risk IHS Country Risk Ratings February 15, 2017 20% Political Risk Overall Political Risk IHS Country Risk Ratings February 15, 2017 20% Sovereign Risk Credit Risk Rating S&P Capital IQ February 15, 2017 7% Climate Risk Climate Risk Index Germanwatch Climate Risk Index 2017 17% Economy Outside Investment BOP Direct Investment Balance or Net FDI (Net Capital Inflow), % of GDP IHS Global Economics February 15, 2017 15% 100% Interest Rates Interest Rate: Policy IHS Global Economics February 15, 2017 15% Debt/GDP Current Account Balance  as a % of GDP IHS Global Economics February 15, 2017 17% Inflation Aircraft & Spacecraft— Depreciation IHS Aircraft & Spacecraft Industry Outlook February 2017 8% GDP Real GDP (Gross Domestic Product), US$ IHS Global Economics February 15, 2017 23% GDP Growth Real GDP, Growth Rate, Year-on-Year IHS Global Economics February 15, 2017 22% Tax Policy Overall Tax Ranking Overall Tax Ranking PwC Paying Taxes 2017 100% 100% PwC 2017 Aerospace Manufacturing Attractiveness Rankings 13 State Category Sub-Category Reference Metric Source Weight Category Sum Cost Energy Cost Average Price of Electricity to Ultimate Customers by End-Use Sector, Industrial EIA Electric Power Monthly (January 2017 and 2016 Data) 25% 100% Transportation Cost Transportation Expenditures by State and Local Governments, Total DOT BTS State Transportation Statistics 5% Labor Cost Aerospace product and parts manufacturing—Annual Payroll US Census Bureau—American Fact Finder 25% Labor Productivity Industrial Production Index, Total Manufacturing IHS US Regional Economics 2017 25% Construction Cost NAICS 023 Construction—Total Costs/Total Value Created US Census Bureau—American Fact Finder 5% Cost of Materials Aerospace product and parts manufacturing—Total Cost of Materials US Census Bureau—American Fact Finder 15% Labor Labor Force Aerospace product and parts manufacturing—Production Workers Annual Hours US Census Bureau—American Fact Finder 10% 100% Basic Education Percent of people 25 years and over who have completed high school (includes equivalency) US Census Bureau—American Fact Finder 5% Skilled Education Percent of people 25 years and over who have completed a bachelor's degree US Census Bureau—American Fact Finder 40% Advanced Education Percent of people 25 years and over who have completed an advanced degree US Census Bureau—American Fact Finder 40% Union Flexibility Union Membership Rates by State Bureau of Labor Statistics— Data Finder 9.0 5% Infrastructure Quality of Roads Table 1-4: Road Condition DOT BTS State Transportation Statistics 25% 100% Quality of Railroads Table 1-13: Number of Freight Railroads by Class DOT BTS State Transportation Statistics 15% Quality of Air Infrastructure Table 1-10: Public and Private Airports, Heliports and Seaplane Bases DOT BTS State Transportation Statistics 20% Internet Usage Percent of Households with a Broadband Internet Subscription US Census Bureau—American Fact Finder 15% Quality of Electricity Supply Major Disturbances and Unusual Occurrences DOE Office of Electricity Delivery & Energy Reliability 25% PwC 2017 Aerospace Manufacturing Attractiveness Rankings 14 Category Sub-Category Reference Metric Source Weight Category Sum Industry Industry Size Aerospace product and parts manufacturing—Total value of shipments and receipts for services US Census Bureau—American Fact Finder 25% 100% Industry Profit Margin Aerospace product and parts manufacturing—Value added US Census Bureau—American Fact Finder 5% Industry Maturity Mfg share of total GSP (2014) NAM Manufacturing Data Table (2016) 5% Industry Growth Growth in Manufactured Goods Exports (2010-2015) NAM Manufacturing Data Table (2016) 25% Number of Companies Aerospace and Defense Firms Capital IQ Company Screening Report 20% Number of Suppliers Manufacturing Firms (2013) NAM Manufacturing Data Table (2016) 20% Economy GDP Real Gross State Product (GSP) IHS US Regional Economics 2017 10% 100% GDP Growth Real GSP Growth IHS US Regional Economics 2017 20% Consumer Price Index Consumer Price Index (CPI) IHS US Regional Economics 2017 5% Manufacturing Output Total Manufacturing Output IHS US Regional Economics 2017 30% Exports Manufactured Goods Exports NAM Manufacturing Data Table (2016) 30% Subsidies Subsidies, Durable Goods Manufacturing BEA—Regional Data 2017 5% Tax Policy Individual Income Tax State Individual Income Tax Rate [ta] $75K Tax Foundation "Facts & Figures 2017" 10% 100% Corporate Income Tax State Corporate income Tax Rate [ta] Max Tax Foundation "Facts & Figures 2017" 40% State Sales Tax State & Local Sales Tax Rate— State Sales Tax Tax Foundation "Facts & Figures 2017" 5% Average Local Sales Tax State & Local Sales Tax Rate— Average Local Sales Tax Tax Foundation "Facts & Figures 2017" 5% Gasoline Tax State Gasoline Tax Rates— Total Tax Foundation "Facts & Figures 2017" 20% Property Tax Property Taxes Paid as a percentage of OwnerOccupied Housing Value Tax Foundation "Facts & Figures 2017" 20% PwC 2017 Aerospace Manufacturing Attractiveness Rankings 15 Appendix Complete country rankings Country Overall Rank Cost Labor Infrastructure Industry Geopolitical  Risk Economy Tax Policy United States 1 11 2 6 1 2 16 36 Switzerland 2 18 9 11 18 5 7 18 United Kingdom 3 23 16 5 4 7 28 10 Australia 4 13 11 20 16 1 17 25 Canada 5 24 8 13 8 13 26 17 Taiwan 6 7 6 17 22 18 14 30 Hong Kong 7 16 18 1 18 39 20 3 Japan 8 8 3 10 6 10 12 70 Denmark 9 5 13 8 51 25 15 7 Germany 10 19 7 6 5 4 38 48 Singapore 11 43 1 2 11 31 33 8 Sweden 12 25 21 14 24 20 2 28 Netherlands 13 4 5 3 25 9 71 20 Ireland 14 27 17 19 17 43 27 5 New Zealand 15 41 12 24 39 12 18 11 Spain 16 10 30 12 15 24 32 37 Norway 17 6 10 21 30 15 58 26 France 18 12 27 4 2 6 53 63 Malaysia 19 50 22 22 13 8 8 61 Belgium 20 3 14 15 27 23 67 66 Austria 21 14 15 23 56 11 61 42 Qatar 22 32 25 50 34 70 25 1 China 23 22 26 33 2 30 1 131 Portugal 24 1 29 16 51 33 81 38 Czech Republic 25 38 46 37 32 27 21 53 Finland 26 28 4 9 46 42 114 13 Poland 26 40 43 41 35 37 13 47 South Korea 28 9 35 18 9 174 4 23 United Arab Emirates 29 46 19 34 29 123 24 1 Israel 30 15 20 29 23 96 10 96 Indonesia 31 47 34 56 26 22 9 104 Italy 32 2 41 28 14 28 65 126 Thailand 33 51 40 44 37 29 6 109 Chile 34 29 31 30 37 26 47 120 Mexico 34 34 61 48 12 17 34 114 Russia 36 30 39 51 7 119 40 45 Philippines 37 49 49 84 20 14 3 115 Luxembourg 38 80 54 25 76 16 88 16 South Africa 39 26 112 32 32 56 50 51 Romania 40 42 51 69 54 53 41 50 India 41 37 45 45 28 36 5 172 Slovakia 42 39 76 64 47 46 49 56 Slovenia 43 70 36 39 76 38 96 24 Hungary 44 48 67 61 44 34 56 77 Costa Rica 45 54 33 83 59 54 43 62 Vietnam 46 44 65 59 41 3 19 167 Peru 47 20 95 71 59 32 31 105 Turkey 48 21 58 36 21 122 30 128 Iceland 48 108 37 47 76 57 62 29 PwC 2017 Aerospace Manufacturing Attractiveness Rankings 16 Country Overall Rank Cost Labor Infrastructure Industry Geopolitical Risk Economy Tax Policy Croatia 50 84 68 38 76 55 48 49 Bulgaria 51 31 63 55 66 104 23 83 Saudi Arabia 52 63 28 26 43 156 46 69 Colombia 53 45 59 67 31 41 51 139 Lithuania 54 79 44 31 76 92 93 27 Estonia 55 78 24 42 76 87 115 21 Greece 56 17 32 35 49 133 128 64 Latvia 57 85 55 42 76 88 110 15 Cyprus 58 69 64 72 76 83 79 34 Bahrain 59 60 66 66 58 139 85 4 Pakistan 59 53 97 76 40 45 11 156 Panama 61 36 79 27 49 44 74 170 Morocco 62 66 81 40 64 131 59 41 Kenya 63 56 109 58 44 67 37 125 Mauritius 64 89 60 90 76 65 76 45 Ukraine 65 55 23 73 36 181 55 84 Iran 66 52 50 57 42 194 22 100 Oman 67 108 72 62 76 49 144 12 Brazil 68 35 91 79 10 64 64 181 Kazakhstan 69 87 53 63 76 85 102 60 Kuwait 70 71 113 86 57 172 29 6 Jordan 71 71 42 52 62 175 57 79 Argentina 72 33 74 78 48 48 89 178 Uruguay 73 64 106 60 72 35 103 113 Guatemala 74 108 75 109 76 52 45 93 Namibia 75 108 119 45 76 40 99 74 Sri Lanka 76 67 38 53 53 78 119 158 Azerbaijan 77 96 56 49 76 129 122 40 Bangladesh 78 71 80 96 69 63 39 151 Botswana 79 108 115 99 76 50 68 55 Mongolia 80 108 48 91 76 81 155 35 Macedonia 81 94 82 74 76 167 95 9 Georgia 82 100 98 54 76 153 105 22 Dominican Republic 82 108 96 101 76 21 77 129 Senegal 84 71 89 89 75 71 44 174 Ecuador 85 65 77 80 70 93 101 137 Zambia 85 108 116 111 76 72 82 58 Barbados 87 108 52 65 76 114 140 85 Ethiopia 88 108 124 88 76 94 66 90 Uganda 89 108 118 110 76 80 83 75 Honduras 90 68 84 114 73 99 63 152 Serbia 90 93 71 100 76 155 80 78 Cambodia 92 108 125 94 76 19 108 124 Ghana 93 108 70 105 76 95 84 122 Egypt 94 59 73 77 54 202 35 162 Albania 95 97 57 87 76 158 92 97 Jamaica 96 61 100 104 64 143 78 116 Montenegro 97 90 83 75 76 140 147 57 Bhutan 97 108 110 126 76 59 170 19 Cote d'Ivoire 99 108 107 68 76 103 36 175 Madagascar 100 108 92 118 76 51 112 117 Rwanda 101 108 99 121 76 62 154 59 Malta 102 108 69 85 76 142 175 33 Tunisia 103 58 108 69 61 188 104 106 Cameroon 104 71 90 122 74 116 42 180 PwC 2017 Aerospace Manufacturing Attractiveness Rankings 17 Country Overall Rank Cost Labor Infrastructure Industry Geopolitical  Risk Economy Tax Policy Nigeria 105 71 94 117 63 105 69 182 Tajikistan 106 104 62 97 76 136 87 140 Moldova 107 102 101 93 76 184 116 31 Brunei Darussalam 108 108 86 95 76 60 198 89 Armenia 108 99 47 82 76 203 117 88 Mozambique 110 108 137 112 76 66 118 112 Tanzania 111 108 132 102 76 86 72 154 Cape Verde 112 101 102 120 76 127 126 86 Paraguay 113 108 128 132 76 90 52 153 Venezuela 114 62 88 113 68 135 94 185 Algeria 115 91 85 81 76 201 60 155 El Salvador 116 98 114 103 76 89 106 166 Kosovo 117 88 146 139 76 128 134 43 Lebanon 118 108 78 125 76 193 113 67 Malawi 119 108 129 128 76 76 146 102 Mali 120 108 121 119 76 126 73 144 Trinidad and Tobago 121 108 87 92 76 166 97 145 Puerto Rico 122 81 144 139 76 97 100 135 Lao PDR 123 108 93 130 76 79 142 146 Belize 124 108 147 139 76 125 138 44 Bahamas 125 108 152 139 76 47 165 95 Bolivia 126 71 130 98 71 141 86 186 St. Lucia 127 108 152 139 76 84 161 65 Seychelles 128 108 152 139 76 134 148 32 Vanuatu 129 108 152 139 76 73 188 54 Bosnia & Herz. 130 86 105 106 76 163 127 133 Nicaragua 131 105 111 127 76 112 90 176 Myanmar (Burma) 132 108 152 139 76 68 136 119 Macau 133 108 152 139 76 61 75 190 Congo DR 134 108 120 131 76 146 54 177 Iraq 135 108 152 139 76 196 91 52 Solomon Islands 136 108 152 139 76 118 190 39 Angola 137 108 152 139 76 77 120 157 Uzbekistan 138 103 139 139 76 165 70 138 Kiribati 139 108 152 139 76 82 202 73 Nepal 140 108 126 133 76 124 124 142 Dominica 141 108 152 139 76 74 177 111 Grenada 142 108 152 139 76 100 133 132 Djibouti 143 108 152 139 76 115 145 106 Kyrgyz Republic 144 106 103 116 76 185 109 148 Micronesia 145 108 152 139 76 58 203 108 Benin 146 108 104 123 76 106 157 173 Papua New Guinea 147 108 152 139 76 109 173 94 Niger 148 108 140 139 76 69 158 165 Gabon 149 108 127 107 76 170 111 161 St. Vincent & Gren. 150 108 152 139 76 110 179 98 Zimbabwe 151 57 122 114 67 154 185 164 Tonga 151 108 152 139 76 113 195 80 Burkina Faso 153 108 152 139 76 108 132 150 Sierra Leone 153 108 134 135 76 151 174 87 Belarus 155 95 141 139 76 198 121 99 Antigua and Barbuda 156 108 152 139 76 98 137 160 Togo 156 108 152 139 76 91 135 169 South Sudan 158 108 152 139 76 157 172 68 Liberia 160 108 133 108 76 182 199 72 PwC 2017 Aerospace Manufacturing Attractiveness Rankings 18 Country Overall Rank Cost Labor Infrastructure Industry Geopolitical  Risk Economy Tax Policy Fiji 161 108 152 139 76 102 192 110 St. Kitts and Nevis 162 108 152 139 76 101 162 143 Lesotho 163 108 135 138 76 164 187 91 Yemen 164 108 136 137 76 199 156 92 Samoa 165 108 152 139 76 176 184 71 Sao Tome & Principe 166 108 149 139 76 183 125 127 Reunion 167 108 152 139 76 117 130 190 Swaziland 168 108 145 139 76 169 201 76 Eritrea 168 107 142 139 76 180 123 147 Burundi 170 108 131 134 76 138 205 123 Turkmenistan 171 92 143 139 76 178 98 190 Haiti 172 108 152 139 76 145 141 159 French Guiana 173 108 152 139 76 75 182 190 East Timor 174 108 152 139 76 144 176 130 Suriname 175 108 147 139 76 200 153 103 Afghanistan 175 108 152 139 76 107 181 163 Sudan 177 108 152 139 76 204 107 141 Marshall Islands 178 108 152 139 76 171 208 82 Palestinian Authority 179 108 152 139 76 205 163 101 Liechtenstein 180 108 152 139 76 120 160 190 Chad 180 108 138 136 76 130 168 189 Gambia 182 108 123 124 76 149 197 171 Maldives 183 108 152 139 76 162 180 134 Cayman Islands 184 108 152 139 76 121 166 190 Andorra 185 83 151 139 76 150 164 190 Congo 186 108 152 139 76 168 129 183 Anguilla 187 108 152 139 76 152 139 190 Bermuda 188 108 152 139 76 161 131 190 Guyana 188 108 152 139 76 187 159 136 Guinea-Bissau 190 108 152 139 76 186 149 149 Aruba 191 108 152 139 76 147 150 190 Syria 191 108 152 139 76 210 196 81 Mauritania 193 108 117 128 76 179 169 188 Comoros 194 108 152 139 76 173 151 168 Libya 195 108 152 139 76 209 167 121 Cuba 196 108 152 139 76 132 183 190 American Samoa 197 108 152 139 76 111 207 190 US Virgin Islands 198 82 150 139 76 148 200 190 Guinea 199 108 152 139 76 159 171 184 Guam 201 108 152 139 76 137 191 190 Central African Rep. 202 108 152 139 76 197 143 187 Sint Maarten (SXM) 203 108 152 139 76 207 152 190 Equatorial Guinea 203 108 152 139 76 192 178 179 Martinique 205 108 152 139 76 160 204 190 Tuvalu 206 108 152 139 76 189 189 190 Somalia 207 108 152 139 76 195 194 190 North Korea 208 108 152 139 76 206 186 190 Curacao 209 108 152 139 76 190 206 190 Curacao (CUW) 210 108 152 139 76 208 193 190 PwC 2017 Aerospace Manufacturing Attractiveness Rankings 19 Appendix Complete state rankings State Overall Rank Cost Labor Infrastructure Industry Economy Tax Policy Georgia 1 10 19 12 4 7 20 Michigan 2 7 28 4 11 3 25 Arizona 3 21 23 6 5 24 4 North Carolina 4 15 24 25 6 5 14 Virginia 5 23 6 13 23 20 12 Florida 6 20 30 9 12 10 18 Ohio 6 21 35 2 3 8 30 Colorado 8 35 3 7 28 30 2 Texas 8 28 33 11 1 5 27 New York 10 24 8 21 9 11 38 Tennessee 11 4 39 16 24 12 16 Oregon 12 6 18 18 22 13 36 Alabama 13 19 44 10 8 23 11 Washington 13 27 10 27 16 2 33 Minnesota 15 11 13 1 26 21 47 Illinois 16 26 12 28 7 4 44 South Carolina 17 8 36 36 15 26 5 Pennsylvania 18 29 21 3 10 14 50 California 19 39 14 26 2 1 46 Kansas 20 32 15 5 19 32 31 Indiana 21 16 43 32 14 9 22 Utah 22 18 17 37 33 25 9 Missouri 23 42 27 22 18 17 15 Kentucky 24 3 45 42 21 22 13 Nevada 25 5 47 14 20 36 26 Massachusetts 26 33 1 39 25 19 35 Oklahoma 27 17 46 33 13 38 7 Wyoming 28 12 37 20 36 51 1 Arkansas 28 13 49 23 27 28 17 New Jersey 30 33 9 24 29 15 52 Mississippi 31 14 51 30 38 27 3 New Mexico 32 9 32 42 31 44 8 Maryland 33 43 4 19 30 33 40 Idaho 34 2 41 15 42 37 34 New Hampshire 35 31 7 34 37 35 37 Montana 36 1 26 44 44 48 21 Connecticut 37 41 2 48 17 29 49 Wisconsin 38 45 34 17 34 16 43 Louisiana 39 37 48 29 35 18 23 Nebraska 40 25 29 31 32 34 41 Delaware 41 40 20 41 40 39 28 Iowa 42 36 42 8 41 31 51 District of Columbia 43 38 5 51 51 45 32 North Dakota 44 50 37 35 46 49 6 Hawaii 44 45 22 50 39 43 24 South Dakota 46 47 40 38 45 47 10 West Virginia 47 30 52 47 47 42 19 Rhode Island 47 44 16 49 43 46 39 Vermont 49 51 11 45 50 41 45 Alaska 50 49 31 40 48 50 29 Maine 51 48 25 46 48 40 42 Puerto Rico 52 52 50 52 52 52 48 About the PwC Aerospace & Defense practice Imagine the power of 223,000 people with a common purpose—building relationships that create value for you and your business. This is PwC. Our people work with clients in the Aerospace & Defense (A&D) industry to build the value they are looking for. Our A&D practice focuses on providing audit and assurance, tax and consulting services to many of the world’s most successful companies. We leverage our diverse knowledge, experience and solutions to help companies meet the challenges and opportunities of doing business in the US market, and beyond. The depth and focus of our industry-specific training, thought leadership, and professional global network demonstrates our commitment to the A&D industry in addressing complex issues that impact bottom-line performance. At PwC, our purpose is to build trust in society and solve important problems. Find out more and tell us what matters to you by visiting us at www.pwc.com/us. Scott Thompson Partner, US Aerospace & Defense Leader 703 918 1976 Contacts To have a deeper conversation about the aerospace manufacturing industry and the issues discussed in this paper, please contact one of the following: ©2017 PwC. All rights reserved. PwC refers to the US member firm or one of its subsidiaries or affiliates, and may sometimes refer to the PwC network. Each member firm is a separate legal entity. Please see www.pwc.com/structure for further details. PricewaterhouseCoopers has exercised reasonable care in the collecting, processing, and reporting of this information but has not independently verified, validated, or audited the data to verify the accuracy or completeness of the information. PricewaterhouseCoopers gives no express or implied warranties, including but not limited to any warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose or use and shall not be liable to any entity or person using this document, or have any liability with respect to this document. This report is for general purposes only, and is not a substitute for consultation with professional advisors. It is intended for internal use only by the recipient and should not be provided in writing or otherwise to any other third party without PricewaterhouseCoopers express written consent. 359296-2018 VC Juan Kopp Senior Manager, Analytic Insights 203 722 0074