1. Company Confidential 8/18/2015 Performance stream status EAQG performance benchmark York General Assembly Alain Bonnard Christian Buck October 22 nd 2010

2. Product and Services Quality and Delivery will have improved 20% per year throughout the product lifecycle Robust processes achieved throughout the Supply Chain (SCMH supplier maturity assesment level 3 or better) IAQG Quality management system certification program robust, recognised and valued 90% of the industry supply chain certified to IAQG Quality Management System Standards Performance stream supports IAQG 5 years vision development

3. Aerospace and Defense Performance Index A process consolidating, reporting and publishing the measurement of the whole aerospace and defense supply chain progresses toward the 20% improvement goal Based on observed and sampled On Time Deliveries – On Quality Deliveries Measurements based on standard “metrics definitions” A process allowing each supplier to find its position within the index and to set improvement objectives by itself or in the frame of a customer-supplier relationship

4. Performance Index Process Loop Suppliers & customers set improvement goals Each supplier is able to find its position in the index Suppliers OTD OQD IAQG members select a representative sample of suppliers data IAQG members provide data to Performance Agency (suppliers anonymous) IAQG members observe their suppliers performances IAQG publishes data (e.g. next slide) IAQG Council review to 20% improvement goal Performance Agency consolidates data (members anonymous) 4

5. 5 On Quality Performances 2007/2008 Evolution 2007 2008 Improvement Deterioration 2007: 443 ppm 2008: 392 ppm Item Escape Rates Distribution Sample of 138 suppliers 2007: 4000 ppm 2008: 3500 ppm 2007: 10 ppm 2008: 5 ppm Performance Index Possible Publication

6. EAQG Supply Chain Benchmarking Alain BONNARD EAQG Operations Manager IAQG General Assembly York, UK, October 22 nd, 2010

7. Benchmarking Project EAQG Initiative launched within the IAQG European Sector Project concept defined in 2009 Decision to proceed taken in September 2009 Considered as a Pilot Case Participation from EAQG Company Members based on a voluntary basis Data collection started in January 2010 EAQG Benchmarking Project 7 Goal: Get EAQG Supply Chain 2010 Performance level

8. Benchmarking Principles 2 Performance Metrics »Conformity (Item Escape rate in PPM) »Punctuality (On time Delivery in %) Suppliers Performance only »Average of EAQG Suppliers Performance for each Business Unit (if any, optional*) identified by EAQG participating companies (2 data / Per Business Unit) »Average of EAQG Suppliers Performance for each Technological Segment (Optional*) of each Business Unit (2 data / Per Business Unit / Per Technological Segments) 1. Benchmarking Principles (Optional*) : To be decided by EAQG participating Companies 8

9. Benchmarking Principles General results (All Technological Segments together = Average of Suppliers Performance for each Business Unit identified by EAQG Companies) –Graph / metric »Conformity (Item Escape rate in PPM) »Punctuality (On time Delivery in %) –Graph / metric per Technological Segment (for EAQG participating companies willing to have Technological segments) 1. Benchmarking Principles (Cont’d) Each EAQG Member is receiving the same General results 9

10. Benchmarking Principles Customized results (per company) –Graphs / Metric (Conformity & Punctuality) with identification of your company Business Units (Optional*) –Graphs / Metric per Technological Segment (Optional*) with identification of your company Business Unit (Optional*) : To be decided by EAQG participating Companies 1. Benchmarking Principles (Cont’d) Each EAQG Member is receiving the Graphs with its Business Units Company positions on the graph 10

11. Metrics Definition »Conformity: Escape – Non Conformity level after delivery to the customer  Item Escape Rate expressed in PPM (Definition in § 7.1.1 IER) »Punctuality: On Time Delivery of items to the customer  Delivered items expressed in % (Definition in § 8.1 OTD) According to Metrics definition made by EAQG Working Group Period of Measurement: 6 months rolling average or in exceptional case 12 months based on volume of parts Double click to open the document 2. Metrics Definition 11

12. Industry Segments Option to have the benchmarking results per Technological Segment 5 defined Technological Segments made by the dedicated Working Group after collection of identified segments made by each EAQG participating Member (See 5 Segments next slide) Benchmarking per Technological Segment 3. Technological Segments 12

13. Industry Segments 3. Technological Segments Definition EAQG segment id. EAQG segments keywords TS1 Details parts or machined parts or metal machining or manufactured parts or finished parts TS2 Systems or equipments or avionics or others sub systems suppliers TS3 Raw material or forging or casting or non metallic material or plastics parts suppliers TS4 Hardware or technical products or fasteners or wiring TS5Barrels, aerostructures, structures suppliers 13

14. EAQG Members 4. EAQG Company members Advanced Electronics Company AgustaWestland Airbus Airbus Military Alenia AVIO BAE Systems Cassidian Dassault Aviation EADS ASTRIUM Elbit Systems Eurocopter Fokker Aerospace GE Aviation Systems HEGAN (ITP) Hispano Suiza IAI Liebherr MBDA Meggitt Messier-Dowty MTU PFW RAFAEL Rolls-Royce SAAB SAFRAN SAGEM SNECMA SONACA SUKHOI THALES Turbomeca Volvo Aero. ZODIAC Aerospace 14

15. 5. Participating EAQG Company members EAQG Bench- marking 2010 Number of EAQG Members participating Number of EAQG Members NOT participating Total EAQG Company Members Partici- pation Rate 22133563 % Percentage of participation: / of Total EAQG Companies: 63 % Participating EAQG Members 15

16. Benchmarking Results Benchmarking 55184 All 16

17. TS1 15979 Benchmarking Results Benchmarking 17

18. Benchmarking Results Benchmarking TS2 130638 18

19. Benchmarking Results Benchmarking TS3 55081 19

20. Benchmarking Results Benchmarking TS4 46663 20

21. Benchmarking Results Benchmarking TS5 5209 21

22. Benchmarking Results All 69 % Benchmarking 22

23. Benchmarking Results Benchmarking TS1 77 % 23

24. Benchmarking Results Benchmarking TS2 68 % 24

25. Benchmarking Results Benchmarking TS3 80 % 25

26. Benchmarking Results Benchmarking TS4 79 % 26

27. Benchmarking Results Benchmarking TS5 67 % 27

28. Benchmarking Results Benchmarking Comparison with Automotive industries All 39355184 AutomotiveAerospace & Defence 28

29. Benchmarking Results Benchmarking Comparison with Automotive industries All 95 %69 % AutomotiveAerospace & Defence 29

30. Benchmarking Results Data TypeAve-rageTS1TS2TS3TS4TS5 Conformity (ppm) 55.18415.979130.63855.08146.6635.209 Punctuality (%) 697768807967 Comparison Aerospace & DefenceAutomotive Conformity (ppm) 55.184393 Punctuality (%) 6995 6. Benchmarking Results Benchmarking 30

31. Next Steps 7. Next Steps  Extend Performance Metrics initiative at IAQG level (IAQG Strategy Improvement stream – Performance) To be implemented early 2011 at International level 31

32. 32 Performance Index Development Whole Aerospace and Defense Supply Chain is estimated to : –14000 sites certified to 9100, 9110 or 9100 sites –8000 sites planning certified (rough order of magnitude) –Several thousands of other suppliers A representative sample of this supply chain is around 500 suppliers, Global development plan leads to first index publication in spring next year Any suppliers willing to join are welcome

33. 33 Questions?