Yes, not good news for the NC economy but may be good for the US boat industry. What Jacobs suggests makes sense if these boat brands are to survive into the future in the USA. The process of making the boats will have common steps across all brands, use common 3rd party components and the non-boat parts of business (accounting, HR, marketing, etc, etc) will be exactly the same. Consolidating factories will allow a smaller shared workforce, higher order quantities, and lower transport and rent costs. These long term savings will be much greater than the one-off cost of moving a factory.
Whenever I see a video on boat making I’m always amazed by how much manual labour is involved in the process – particularly the hulls. Roto-molding could be a major advantage in this area. US (and Australian) labour costs are very high compared to many other countries, and already some boat companies are starting to build their products in Asia to reduce labour costs. Consumers start off saying “I’d never buy a boat made in Asia” but that doesn’t last; they go where the price is lower and the quality acceptable...just think about where your outboard motor comes from.
Compared to other ways of building boats, the processes used to build a Triumph is really efficient, and if they can build enough Triumphs or adapt some of these processes to the other brands they may make enough money to keep building boats in the US. I suspect Jacobs is trying to solve the labour cost issue, not by going offshore for cheap labour, but by reducing the labour component in building his boats. This is smart business and good for the USA.
If this turns out to be the case, Jacobs, et al should be supported to do whatever is required to make money out of this venture or next we’ll be reading that Triumph, Ranger, et al is owned by (say) Suzuki and the factory is moving to Indonesia.
Apologies for the long winded economics lecture, and probably stating the obvious.


LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks



Reply With Quote

