I saw it straight away but was concerned about being called a Spelling Nazi in today's political climate, so I let it go. 

I think another benefit of the Kanban concept was you minimized inventory costs..from the carrying cost of maintaining a large inventory, to in the long term,  the cost of the  additional warehouse space.

This obviously wasn't the case at the time but we follow pattern bargaining with the big 3 in Canada. With the mothballing of a Stellantis and GM plant happening this month, Unifor will likely have to target one of those companies to try and save those two plants. We are set up for a pretty bad bargaining next year when our contract is up and I'm sure that the big 3 will be going after some pretty heft concessions with the current economic situation in Canada.

There's also supposed to be the E-REV versions of all 3 vehicles coming out in the future for those 3 models as well (with OAC taking the lead on Super Duty E-REV), but who knows what demand will be like for them...   Farley seems to mention it whenever he is interviewed that KTP is running at max capacity as well.   OAC Is only supposed to be opening on 1 production shift whenever we get going so it seems like we are purely an overflow plant at this point. It definitely gives Ford flexibility if Expedition and Navigator demand requires shifting some production of SDs at KTP.  

KTP is building close to 400k super duties annually not including Expy and Navi.

I still really wonder about this-from what I can see, Ford makes about 200K SD pickups between KTP and OAP and they want to increase production 50%? (300K) I also don't see Expy and Navi gaining that much either...maybe a 10-20% increase if they can build more?

It’s more about needing more SD and Expy/Navi capacity when Oakville opened up. I don’t think it had anything to do with UAW.  

First you identify the probability of a bad event, then you identify the potential losses and mitigation strategies.  Then you compare the potential loss against the cost of different mitigation options compared with probability.   E.g. If you have one supplier the probability of a disaster is a lot higher than if have two or more and the impact is greater.  But if the worst case scenario (we used to call it “smoking hole” as in there is nothing left of the data center but a smoking hole in the ground) means you lose X profits for 6 months then that’s what you compare to the cost of having multiple suppliers.  I’m sure the suppliers have given Ford their smoking hole recovery plans.  The added risk is if the recovery estimates are wrong and instead of 6 months it takes 18 months.      Sometimes it’s worth the risk depending on how much can be saved, even though it looks terrible while it’s happening.  Similar to me and extended warranties.  I don’t buy them and I’m probably $15K ahead over the last 10 vehicles.  Even if I had to spend $8K tomorrow I’m still $7k ahead, but most people would freak out that they had to pay $8K out of pocket even if they’re saving money overall.

Indeed, would love to hear your thoughts on risk management for this issue.   it’s like the chassis supply issue a few years ago, it’s not always possible/desirable to have a second supplier - that’s the cost of threat mitigation. Also like having extra production plants than needed- keeps union threats in check. Loads of examples where Ford takes immediate savings and hopes for no problems….   On aluminium supply, No doubt that  Ford is working with its supplier to do whatever it needs to get alternate supply of aluminium until the plant resumes production. Will be interesting if this is total loss or partial supply. could also be a great opportunity to work down inventory provided that the stock matches what customers want. Going into winter, SD fleet sales become more important, so watching thst too.    

the tariff situation didn't exist when this decision was made. It was also made right after the UAW strike happened.