PKE
#So I think we're going to decline to quantify it specifically, and I have to remind you that June is a five week month and July and August are four-week months, so we would always talk in weekly averages.
The month of July actually was a month in which that one-time sale occurred, $2.2 million so that pushed July up a little bit.
But I'm just looking at---+
Right, okay, so I'm looking at it in total because the aerospace is flat across the quarter except for that one-time sale.
Yes, I expected that question.
I think we're going to decline to quantify it by percentage or anything like that, but it's meaningful, it's significant.
You could look at the numbers without getting your pocket calculator out, and saying the month of August was not like the prior months, and particularly if you look at the Singapore line item, that's where you see it.
The rest of the lines are going sideways, maybe a little up, a little down, nothing to even speak about.
But that Singapore number actually dropped to some extent in July, and dropped further to August.
I think that it's similar to August.
September is trending with August.
Sure, so this is two answers to the question, I guess.
One is, yes, there's an ongoing trend, the Taiwanese and even some Japanese company comes in quite aggressively, and that's maybe a longer story.
If you want to look at the quarter, August and September, I think that's absolutely nothing to do with it at all.
The good news is, I think we have developed some pretty solid positions with these two leading Chinese OEMs, and they are very significant companies.
And like I said, two of the three largest electronics OEMs are now these two companies, and that's kind of a new development.
So actually that's going in the positive direction.
But I think that ---+ I don't know, my sense is that the Chinese economy is really not very happy right now, and obviously these companies, are not just supplying into China.
These are large companies, but I think they still are very much driven by the Chinese economy, not just in terms of the market, but also the psychological factors, which affects, I think, their way of looking at the markets.
As aerospace is kind of much more steady as you go, electronics companies are very reactive, and they turn on a dime, so the story for August-September, I don't believe, and Asia, I don't believe that's a market share story.
There's a longer-term trend where the lower end of our high performance product keeps getting picked off, and picked off, and picked off.
We basically sell very little non-high performance products, and almost none in Asia.
I don't remember the percentage, but 7% or something like that is very significant.
So it's being picked off, and the market share story is the lower end of high performance.
Our job, of course, is to push hard with our new products, because there's very little we can do to protect the lower end of our product line, even though it's high performance, other than getting in the mud with the Asians, and I think that's what is the expression ---+ like a one way ticket to Palookaville, that's a real, real bad strategy, if you asked us.
Just one of those companies asked us to do joint development project with them, so I don't want to say anything more about that.
But I feel, other than the fact that the market is really troubled, I think we are happy to be positioned well, we feel we're well-positioned in Asia.
These are the up and comers, the names that we've been talking about for the last 20 years.
I'm not saying they aren't a factor anymore, but these are the people that ---+ I mean these companies are very large also, so I don't know if up and comers is the right way to talk about it.
Maybe not as well known by western people, but I think these are the companies that we really want to be aligned with, for the future.
So I think that's a correct statement but you're comparing it to what I was hoping for, of course, and I was hoping for better.
But the reason that the electronics top line is what it is, is because of the adoption of the new products.
If we're just continuing to sell the legacy products it wouldn't be a good thing at all, not just in terms of the current P&L, but also in terms of our position strategically.
So you have to ask ---+ what you asked me really, because electronics moves so quickly, but ---+ and there are a lot of pretty hot issues we're working on.
However, in terms of new products, I have to be a little careful here because some of these things are highly confidential, and we are working with a large circuit board, a very large circuit board company and also OEMs on accelerated development work and commercialization of our new products, and that's something new.
Those are not just ongoing things that there's special activities, so it's not just more of the same.
We still have to make these things work.
We still have to bring home the bacon, if you will, so these things are not in the bank, but these activities are different.
They're significant, they are consuming, and they are not just showing the ongoing kind of development activities that we've been involved with, or commercialization activities we've been involved with for the last three to four years, with the new products.
This is, in the last three months I would say, the activity has become heightened.
Not interest, no, no.
It's a lot more than interest.
It's putting a lot of work and effort into being qualified on programs, and with large OEMs and customers.
Yes, it's not interest.
We're exhausted actually from how demanding this work is.
At least I am, and I'm old, so I get exhausted easily.
I think FY16, aerospace is a lot more predictable than electronics, of course.
I think that we should look for more or less flat over the first and second quarter, over the third and fourth quarter.
I mean, the opportunities are very palpable, present, but they don't have months involved with them, they have years and decades.
So I'm not aware of anything that would significantly impact up or down the aerospace situation in the short-term.
That's correct.
The big drivers for us with GE are the 747, which is kind of flat, and the real big driver is the A320neo with the LEAP engine.
Now, Comac, you mentioned, the bigger story for Park is C919, which has the LEAP engine, as well.
That's another big program for Park, but that's still a couple years out.
The ARJ which is CF34-10 A engine, that's our program, you're right, but it's smaller.
So the big drivers for at least GE, we're talking GE, 747, which doesn't seem to be much more than flat based upon the forecasts that we're receiving, and the big one is going to be ---+ that has a more immediate impact, will be the A320neo, the LEAP engine the C1919, like I said, is also a LEAP engine, but that's a little bit further in the future.
That also has some big potential revenue associated with it.
The forecast we talked about this, and like I said, aerospace doesn't change every three minutes like electronics does.
Let's talk calendar years, because that's where the forecast is structured.
It more of a jump in FY17 and FY18 than in FAY16.
The programs, there's also Embraer, they have a CF34-10E engine, and I believe that we haven't switched over to that program yet.
Once we do, then it will be our program, meaning that there might be legacy inventories being worked down.
I have got to be careful about saying too much there.
The other, we talked about both the Chinese programs, which are good programs to be on.
And then there's the Passport 20 program, and that's not only the thrust reversers and cowling to nacelles, but it's also some internal structure of the engine, which is an exciting thing for Park.
That's a new area for Park.
And we're working on a number of other engine platforms for GE and Boeing aircraft, for different parts of the aircraft which would not be ---+ sorry different parts of the engine, which would not be as significant as these numbers we're talking about, which are mostly for thrust reversers and cowlings and very large parts, but we're looking at other parts of the engine.
A number of them, and a number of different engine platforms.
But you're asking about big revenue drivers, that really hasn't changed.
The biggest one of all is going to be the A320neo, I think, and that's happening now, and then I would think the next big driver might be even the Comac 919 because that could be significant, if the Chinese are successful in introducing that aircraft.
That aircraft is a single aisle aircraft to compete against the single aisle Boeing and Airbus airplanes.
That's a lot different than the ARJ, which is a regional jet, which doesn't really go into Boeing and Airbus' turf so much.
Well, could you explain a little bit more what you're asking.
Oh, I see, yes.
India we do some aerospace work and electronic work already.
Pakistan, I don't think so.
What were the other countries, I forgot.
Yes, Russia, we have not been successful in Russia.
We tried in aerospace, haven't gotten anywhere, electronics, there was nothing there for us.
Brazil, oh, Mexico not too much.
So I think India's probably the only country on that list where we have some meaningful presence at this time.
Some of these are through like GE, may use contractors in these countries, but that's really not our work.
That's just being qualified on programs, so we can't really take too much credit for that.
We stopped disclosing that, but maybe <UNK> can take a look.
There was one.
TTM.
Our largest customer, I thought that what's <UNK> was going to say.
Of course TTM acquired Viasystems, so that's our largest customer, and I think we might have even told you our second largest customer is in our annual report, which is generally GE.
I think that there's a little benefit in the second quarter and I think the third quarter will be similar to the second quarter, in terms of the copper impact.
We are not talking about significant dollars here.
This is a sensitive topic because I think in our policies we passed these changes on to the customers, but there's some time a lag effect.
So again, a little benefit in Q2 as compared to Q1.
Q3 probably neutral of Q2 but little ---+ let's keep it in perspective, small.
Yes, I think that I tried to cover it, but obviously I didn't do a good job.
The answer is no, because it was really a one-time item.
These are 2015 accruals that we ---+ for bonuses and profit sharing, which had not been paid yet, but we could only do that once, obviously.
Now it's kind of late in the year.
FY15, in other words the year that ended February 2015, so it's getting kind of late, we need to pay these things.
So that's a one-time item.
It's a one-time adjustment.
We reduced our accrual, which actually has real impacts to the people at Park, in the Company in terms of their profit-sharing and bonuses, but it only can be done once for 2015.
And like I said, it has to be paid.
So it's not, that adjustment is not ---+ is a one-time thing, and it's not sustainable.
So it isn't really a true-up.
I guess you could say it's a true-up but it's a real adjustment in what we plan to pay.
The bonuses and profit-sharing, based upon the quarterly performance and other things.
Look, why don't we look at the first quarter's $5.8 million, looks like the fourth quarter is $5.6 million, the third quarter is 5.7 million.
I think we're talking about those kind of numbers.
And I can't give you that kind of resolution down to the last dollar, but we're probably talking more in the $5.5 million range I think, <UNK>, not the $5 million range.
Thank you.
This is <UNK> again.
Thank you, everybody, for listening in on our second-quarter call.
<UNK> and I are at the Melville office, so please feel free to give us a call if you have any follow-up questions.
Again, thank you and have a good day.
We'll talk to you soon.
Goodbye, now.
