SCDATA | GCPS System

Boeing Supplier Selection Strategy for Narrow Body Aircraft Engines

Kejdi Lleshi

Supply Chain Analytics

Rutgers Business School

1

1/14

Boeing's Sourcing Requirements

Part 1

2

2/14

Boeing’s Narrow Body Engine Supplier Requirements

Boeing’s selection of narrow body aircraft engine suppliers must prioritize long term operational reliability, regulatory compliance, and financial stability due to the critical nature of propulsion systems in commercial aviation. The following criteria define Boeing’s supplier evaluation framework:

Certification and Regulatory Compliance
The supplier must demonstrate proven FAA and EASA certification capability and compliance history. Engine safety and airworthiness approvals are non negotiable.
Technological Capability and R and D Strength
Suppliers must maintain strong engineering expertise and continuous investment in propulsion technology, fuel efficiency, and emissions reduction.
Production Capacity and Delivery Reliability
The supplier must support high volume narrow body production schedules and maintain stable lead times to avoid aircraft delivery delays.
Financial Strength and Stability
Given long lifecycle engine programs, the supplier must demonstrate strong revenue scale, consistent profitability, and balance sheet stability to support long term contracts.
Lifecycle Support and Global Service Network
Suppliers must provide long term maintenance, repair, and overhaul support across Boeing’s global airline customer base.
Risk Diversification and Supply Continuity
Boeing should avoid excessive dependence on a single engine manufacturer and assess geopolitical and operational risks.
Cost Competitiveness and Total Cost of Ownership
Evaluation should consider not only acquisition cost but also fuel efficiency, maintenance cost, and long term operating economics for airline customers.

3

3/14

Market Intelligence

Part 2

4

4/14

Geographic Distribution of U.S. Aerospace & Defense Firms

5

The U.S. aerospace and defense industry exhibits regional clustering, with higher concentrations of enterprises in states such as Virginia, New York, and Kansas. These regions represent established aerospace hubs supported by defense contracting activity, manufacturing infrastructure, and skilled labor pools. The geographic concentration of aerospace firms suggests that supplier capabilities are regionally embedded, which may influence logistical efficiency, supply chain resilience, and access to specialized engineering talent relevant to Boeing’s engine sourcing strategy.

5/14

Revenue Concentration Among Leading U.S. Aerospace Firms

6

The U.S. aerospace and defense industry exhibits strong revenue concentration among a small number of dominant firms. RTX, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and General Dynamics represent the largest players by total revenue, with a sharp decline in firm size beyond the top tier. This concentration suggests limited large-scale alternatives in critical component categories such as aircraft engines. The presence of only a few financially dominant firms reinforces the high entry barriers and limited competitive landscape faced by Boeing when selecting propulsion system suppliers.

6/14

Operating Margin Distribution – U.S. Aerospace & Defense Industry

7

The operating margin distribution in the U.S. aerospace and defense industry shows that most firms maintain modest but positive margins, typically concentrated between 0% and 15%. This reflects the capital intensive and highly regulated nature of the industry, where profitability depends on scale, efficiency, and long term contracts. The limited presence of extreme outliers suggests that only a small number of large firms are able to achieve stable and sustainable profitability, reinforcing high entry barriers and competitive concentration.

7/14

Bargaining Power Analysis – Boeing and Engine Suppliers

Looking at this data, the aerospace industry is dominated by a small group of very large firms. The revenue ranking shows that companies like RTX and General Electric operate at a much larger scale than most other firms in the industry. After the top few companies, there is a sharp drop in size. This means Boeing does not have many equally large alternatives when sourcing critical components like narrow body aircraft engines.

The operating margin data also shows that most firms maintain positive and relatively stable profitability. This suggests the industry has high barriers to entry. It is expensive and difficult to enter this market because of certification requirements, engineering complexity, and long development timelines. New competitors cannot easily enter and compete at scale.

Even though Boeing is a very large buyer, it cannot easily switch engine suppliers. Certification takes years, engines are integrated deeply into aircraft design, and long-term service contracts lock in relationships. Because of this, supplier power is high, while Boeing’s buyer power is moderate.

Overall, the engine supplier market is concentrated, capital intensive, and difficult to enter, which strengthens supplier bargaining power.

8

8/14

Enterprise Comparison

Part 3

9

9/14

Supplier Financial Comparison – GE vs RTX 2024

10

10/14

Supplier Financial Comparison - GE vs RTX

Based on financial comparison, General Electric demonstrates stronger operating performance relative to RTX. GE shows higher operating margins and return on assets, indicating stronger profitability and more efficient asset utilization. This suggests that GE may have stronger operational control and pricing power in its aerospace segment.

In terms of scale, GE also appears to generate higher total revenue, reinforcing its position as one of the dominant players in the propulsion and aerospace systems market. Larger revenue scale can support long-term R&D investment, certification processes, and lifecycle service commitments.

RTX shows a strong asset base and comparable liability levels, indicating financial scale and long-term capital investment. However, GE’s stronger profitability metrics suggest slightly better financial resilience.

Overall, from a financial strength perspective, GE appears marginally stronger, though both firms are financially capable suppliers for Boeing’s narrow body engine programs

11

11/14

Supplier Performance Trends – GE vs RTX (2016–2024)

12

12/14

Supplier Analysis Summary - RTX VS GE

From 2016 to 2024, both GE and RTX experienced a sharp drop in operating margin in 2020 due to the COVID shock in aerospace demand. RTX recovered more steadily and maintained relatively stable margins post-2020. GE, on the other hand, showed weaker margins for several years before a sharp increase in 2024, likely reflecting restructuring and business portfolio adjustments.

In terms of revenue, GE shows a noticeable long-term decline across the period, while RTX demonstrates stronger post-pandemic recovery and revenue growth. This suggests RTX may offer greater long-term stability, while GE currently demonstrates strong profitability but higher historical volatility.

From a supplier risk perspective, Boeing would need to balance profitability strength with revenue stability when evaluating long-term engine or component partnerships.

13

13/14

My Recommendation for Boeing

After comparing GE and RTX, both companies are clearly strong enough to supply Boeing. They’re large, experienced aerospace firms with the financial strength to handle major contracts. The difference comes down to stability versus peak performance.

GE shows very strong operating margins in 2024, which means it’s currently running efficiently and controlling costs well. However, over the last several years, GE’s revenue has been declining and more volatile. That suggests the company has gone through restructuring and changes, which can add some long-term uncertainty.

RTX, on the other hand, shows more consistent revenue recovery after 2020 and more stable performance over time. Its margins are slightly lower than GE’s recent spike, but the company appears steadier and less volatile overall.

For Boeing, engine components are critical and high-risk. You do not want supply disruptions. Because of that, stability matters just as much as profitability.

My recommendation is that Boeing should use a dual sourcing strategy. RTX should be positioned as the primary long-term stability partner, while GE can remain a strong secondary supplier to maintain competition, innovation, and leverage in negotiations.

This approach reduces risk, protects supply continuity, and keeps pricing power balanced

14

14/14

Kejdi Lleshi - Week 11 - Sourcing Analysis(Boeing)

Boeing’s Narrow Body Engine Supplier Requirements

Primary Modal