ELEMENTOS
DE
LA
EDUCACIÓN
EMPRESARIAL


Before delving into the specifics of each state’s experiences, we want to give the reader at least a general idea of how the aerospace industry has developed over time in each state. Specifically, Figure 3.1 looks at the growth of traditional aerospace employment in each

of the three benchmark states, as well as, North Carolina during the twenty-year span between 1980 and 2000.14

The first result of note from Figure 3.1 is that Georgia’s aerospace industry, on the strength of its sizable manufacturing segment, was the largest among the four states as of the end of 2000. North Carolina’s industry, which began the highlighted period with the smallest total, increased more than six-fold during the twenty-year span. As for the other benchmark states, Virginia’s industry grew fairly steady between 1980 and 2000 as it tracked closely with North Carolina’s path. New Mexico, on the other hand, saw its industry total decrease lightly during the twenty-year period.

Figure 3.1 – Development Trajectories of the Benchmark States’ Traditional Aerospace Industry

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

14

The information presented in Figure 3.1 is not directly comparable with employment figures discussed anywhere else in the report because it uses SIC data. Using SIC data, instead of NAICS, was necessary in order to conduct a time-series analysis (NAICS began to phase out SIC as the official U.S. employment classification system starting in 1997). Specifically, the figure displays the annual aerospace industry employment total for each state which is comprised from the totals of SIC 372 (Aircraft and Parts Manufacturing) and SIC 458 (Airports, Flying Fields, and Airport Terminal Operation).

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 E m pl oym e n t

Georgia

The state of Georgia was selected specifically to examine how its extensive maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO) industry is working together with the state’s universities and military installations. As discussed previously, North Carolina is becoming quite active in the MRO sector and there is particular interest in coordinating that effort with the needs of the state’s military facilities. Accordingly, Georgia is a good benchmark to explore.

Aerospace development in Georgia is primarily handled through the state’s Aerospace Innovation Center (AIC) located in Warner Robins, Georgia. The AIC is responsible for coordinating the recruitment of new, complimentary aerospace companies, spearheading aerospace-related workforce development and K-12 programs, and working with companies and area universities on the development of new aerospace technologies. Georgia – the 8th largest aerospace state in the country – is home to a massive Lockheed Martin facility in Marietta that produces the F-22 Raptor and employs over 8,000 workers, as well as, Gulfstream Aviation in Savannah which produces the world’s most advanced business jets and provides the state with another 4,300 jobs. However, the crown jewel in Georgia’s aerospace crown is the Warner Robins Air Logistics Center. The logistics center is one of five such facilities in the country and is responsible for the worldwide maintenance, repair, and overhaul of three key pieces of the Air Force’s fleet, namely, the F-15 Eagle, the C-5 Galaxy, and the C-17 Globemaster. The center, which is located on Warner Robins Air Force Base, employs over 19,000 people in “every critical discipline from avionics, to structures, materials science to system engineering and program management” (Aerospace Innovation Center, 2007, par. 2). Accordingly, the AIC is particularly interested in making sure that, in the end, all of their efforts enhance the strategic value of the logistics center.

Acting director of the AIC, Nick Fuhrman, is especially interested in the longevity of Warner Robins. Fuhrman believes that the kind of maintenance, repair, and overhaul activity done at Warner Robins and elsewhere in the state is a big growth area in the overall aero/space industry. However, he says there are two challenges facing the growth of MRO in Georgia and throughout the country, namely, the increased demand of

obsolete parts for an aging fleet of aircraft, as well as, potential workforce shortages. Fuhrman goes on to say that the AIC is working hard to address both issues. In terms of the obsolete parts, Fuhrman says that the AIC is focused on leveraging the expertise of Georgia Tech’s aerospace engineering department in order to alleviate supply problems. Georgia Tech is actively working with Air Force officials at Warner Robins to not only produce replacement parts, but also to revamp out-of-date technologies with new solutions. Fuhrman hopes that this arrangement will also lead to numerous spinouts from the university and provide even more high-tech aero/space jobs for the state. Currently, he says there are five technologies being developed in conjunction with Warner Robins and even more are on the way. Additionally, the AIC encourages collaborations between the university and private aerospace firms in the state. For example, the Aerospace Innovation Center recently announced its first successful collaboration with a member company in March of 2005 when Greensboro’s own TIMCO partnered with Georgia Tech’s aerospace engineering department to infuse the principles of lean manufacturing into its maintenance, repair, and overhaul operations (N. Fuhrman, personal communication, January 31, 2007).

Fuhrman also notes that providing Warner Robins with the resources its needs only helps to further weave the base into the fabric of the community, hopefully shielding it from future rounds of BRAC closings and consolidations. In terms of the workforce, Fuhrman says the problem is two-fold. First, there is the issue of limited program availability at state technical and four-year institutions. He says that within the university system there are some related programs offered at a number of schools, but that Georgia Tech is really the main player in terms of producing the kind of technical professionals, i.e. engineers, demanded by the state’s various aero/space companies. Second, Fuhrman suggests there is an even more fundamental issue which is the ‘pipeline’ problem. He says that more needs to be done to encourage kids in K-12 to explore aero/space as a viable career path. Fuhrman believes that aero/space has kind of gotten lost in the shuffle amid a flurry of other high-tech careers and that there needs to be major effort in the state to advertise the diverse set opportunities available within the industry. Fuhrman says that aero/space is especially important because it has room for both “wires and pliers” guys, as well as engineers. He adds that most all the potential career paths in aero/space are well-paying

because of the industry’s tremendous quality requirements (N. Fuhrman, personal communication, January 31, 2007).