RE: JLR forced to extend production shutdown
Monday 22nd September
JLR forced to extend production shutdown
As MPs attend to assess the fallout from its cyber attack, JLR concedes that its stoppage must continue.
And so JLR’s production freeze continues. The firm has today confirmed that it will not restart work at any of its factories until next month at the earliest. The announcement, made via a statement, coincided with a planned visit by MPs as the government faces pressure from trade unions to support a supply chain said to be close to collapse.
‘Today we have informed colleagues, suppliers and partners that we have extended the current pause in production until Wednesday 1 October 2025, following the cyber incident,’ JLR explained. ‘We have made this decision to give clarity for the coming week as we build the timeline for the phased restart of our operations and continue our investigation.’
Much as it has done before, the stoppage was extended by another week, though as we’ve previously noted - and corroborated here by the JLR’s choice of words - it will not simply be a matter of turning a switch when the time comes. Any restart of its software infrastructure will need to be carefully phased, and will not begin in any shape or form until JLR concludes that its previous vulnerabilities have been remedied.
This all takes considerable time and effort, and the suggestion - reported in numerous places by sources familiar with the matter - that the company might not resume anything like full production until November, still seems highly credible. Hence the understandable concern for workers external to JLR, but still very much reliant upon it. Accordingly, other companies in the supply chain will attend Tuesday’s meeting with government representatives to voice their frustration.
"We have two priorities, helping Jaguar Land Rover get back up and running as soon as possible and the long-term health of the supply chain,” said industry minister Chris McDonald in a statement. “We are acutely aware of the difficulties the stoppage is causing for those suppliers and their staff, many of whom are already taking a financial hit through no fault of their own - and we will do everything we can to reassure them that the government is on their side."
The trade union, Unite, has already insisted the government do more than listen, suggesting that a furlough scheme similar to those seen during Covid would be appropriate given the length of the shutdown. For now, JLR is understood to have taken the lead on supporting its supply chain, and again moved to reassure its wider operation. ‘Our focus remains on supporting our customers, suppliers, colleagues, and our retailers who remain open. We fully recognise this is a difficult time for all connected with JLR and we thank everyone for their continued support and patience.’
Discussion
No reason as to why JLR can't pay for furlough at the small firms that it is reliant upon to be able to return to manufacturing cars. Don't see why I should be paying. If JLR don't protect their suppliers then they can't turn the lights back on. And much cheaper for them to cover that cost than the cost of waiting for replacement suppliers. Unite can FRO and ale their £112m hotel fraud with them.
Twinair said:
Not really a focus on customers, not as far as this customer has experienced. Pretty deep hole, getting deeper by the looks of it
Same here. Even before this mess my L405 Range Rover was grounded for over 6 weeks due to delays in spare parts. No replacement, no rental car. got 5% discount on the repairs after sending strongly worded e-mails. The repair was 10k GBP and due to corrosion of the hydraulics. I am still driving the car and love it, and it's not even my only JLR product. However, customer retention looks differently, and my next daily driver will be something else.DonkeyApple said:
No reason as to why JLR can't pay for furlough at the small firms that it is reliant upon to be able to return to manufacturing cars. Don't see why I should be paying. If JLR don't protect their suppliers then they can't turn the lights back on. And much cheaper for them to cover that cost than the cost of waiting for replacement suppliers. Unite can FRO and ale their £112m hotel fraud with them.
Supply chain management is not their forte in my opinion. My JLR dealer offers me non-JLR spare parts as standard because of supply issues rather than costs. The cup holder of my L322 (BMW tech) was deliverable within 24h even though long long out of production. The hydraulics of my L405 took 6 weeks when JLR restructured their warehouse or whatever they did.Why should the tax payer be expected to foot the bill or keep them in business?
Ok that may be naïve in that unemployed workers may now not be able to afford the goods and services i or others provide through business, further, i understand that i personally will not be paying anyone. But we did not do this when M&S and CoOP were hit or any others that we never hear about. Sorry but this is a JLR issue and theirs alone.
Ok that may be naïve in that unemployed workers may now not be able to afford the goods and services i or others provide through business, further, i understand that i personally will not be paying anyone. But we did not do this when M&S and CoOP were hit or any others that we never hear about. Sorry but this is a JLR issue and theirs alone.
fantheman80 said:
RumbleOfThunder said:
The Russian (probably) state just taking one of Britain's most illustrious organisations to its knees, and there will be no push back.
Yep, bit like NATO, a strongly worded press conference in their direction and that will be itI'm not saying there are no bad actors or states that wouldn't like to see the UK damaged though we have our own homegrown individuals who are just as capable.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62z8k14kxxo.a...
DonkeyApple said:
No reason as to why JLR can't pay for furlough at the small firms that it is reliant upon to be able to return to manufacturing cars. Don't see why I should be paying. If JLR don't protect their suppliers then they can't turn the lights back on. And much cheaper for them to cover that cost than the cost of waiting for replacement suppliers. Unite can FRO and ale their £112m hotel fraud with them.
Agree. Why is the taxpayer always the first option. I'd expect them to have business interruption insurance to cover a large percentage of this too, although the Cyber element will likely be capped. It just feels like mismanagement, yet again. Certainly the inability to get going again. I have sympathy with the innocent workers affected of course.
I have it on pretty good authority that JLR were warned a number of months ago that their systems were very vulnerable to a cyber attack - apparently they ignored it as it was deemed the expense outweighed the risk
With decent profits it should be down to JLR to support their Tier 1 suppliers through this but the actions of many of these suppliers with regards to their staff has not exactly been fair or reasonable
With decent profits it should be down to JLR to support their Tier 1 suppliers through this but the actions of many of these suppliers with regards to their staff has not exactly been fair or reasonable
ST330 said:
fantheman80 said:
RumbleOfThunder said:
The Russian (probably) state just taking one of Britain's most illustrious organisations to its knees, and there will be no push back.
Yep, bit like NATO, a strongly worded press conference in their direction and that will be itI'm not saying there are no bad actors or states that wouldn't like to see the UK damaged though we have our own homegrown individuals who are just as capable.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62z8k14kxxo.a...
It's not a 'cyber incident', it is an attack - and more broadly it's an economic warfare attack on the country.
The rules are changing. We should have the testicular fortitude to adapt - and make it really f
king clear we are not a target you want to choose. Andy665 said:
I have it on pretty good authority that JLR were warned a number of months ago that their systems were very vulnerable to a cyber attack - apparently they ignored it as it was deemed the expense outweighed the risk
With decent profits it should be down to JLR to support their Tier 1 suppliers through this but the actions of many of these suppliers with regards to their staff has not exactly been fair or reasonable
If that is true and Tata Group know that I would guess once the mess is cleaned up some heads will roll.With decent profits it should be down to JLR to support their Tier 1 suppliers through this but the actions of many of these suppliers with regards to their staff has not exactly been fair or reasonable
Sway said:
ST330 said:
fantheman80 said:
RumbleOfThunder said:
The Russian (probably) state just taking one of Britain's most illustrious organisations to its knees, and there will be no push back.
Yep, bit like NATO, a strongly worded press conference in their direction and that will be itI'm not saying there are no bad actors or states that wouldn't like to see the UK damaged though we have our own homegrown individuals who are just as capable.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62z8k14kxxo.a...
It's not a 'cyber incident', it is an attack - and more broadly it's an economic warfare attack on the country.
The rules are changing. We should have the testicular fortitude to adapt - and make it really f
king clear we are not a target you want to choose. So is this a UK problem or an Indian one? If the bad actors are found to be of Chinese or Russian origin then it is as much a problem for them as well as us.
We have turned a blind eye long enough, the airports are currently having a tiny taste of what’s around the corner, when things get really bad we need to have been dishing some of this stuff in the other direction on a visible basis to de-incentivise any further disruption.
Edited by blue al to get back on track 18:45
Edited by blue al on Tuesday 23 September 18:47
Leftfootwonder said:
DonkeyApple said:
No reason as to why JLR can't pay for furlough at the small firms that it is reliant upon to be able to return to manufacturing cars. Don't see why I should be paying. If JLR don't protect their suppliers then they can't turn the lights back on. And much cheaper for them to cover that cost than the cost of waiting for replacement suppliers. Unite can FRO and ale their £112m hotel fraud with them.
Agree. Why is the taxpayer always the first option. I'd expect them to have business interruption insurance to cover a large percentage of this too, although the Cyber element will likely be capped. It just feels like mismanagement, yet again. Certainly the inability to get going again. I have sympathy with the innocent workers affected of course.
Cold said:
Leftfootwonder said:
DonkeyApple said:
No reason as to why JLR can't pay for furlough at the small firms that it is reliant upon to be able to return to manufacturing cars. Don't see why I should be paying. If JLR don't protect their suppliers then they can't turn the lights back on. And much cheaper for them to cover that cost than the cost of waiting for replacement suppliers. Unite can FRO and ale their £112m hotel fraud with them.
Agree. Why is the taxpayer always the first option. I'd expect them to have business interruption insurance to cover a large percentage of this too, although the Cyber element will likely be capped. It just feels like mismanagement, yet again. Certainly the inability to get going again. I have sympathy with the innocent workers affected of course.
We've become absolutely obsessed in the U.K. with wanting the State to cover every bill for everyone. This is a scenario where if JLR don't protect their suppliers then they can't manufacture any cars so there is no need for us to pay.
Simple solution is to just inform JLR that the taxpayer will cover a furlough scheme for their suppliers but then collect all the cost via an emergency corporation tax going forward on JLR. TATA know all too well that government furlough schemes get horribly abused and will be very keen to decline the taxpayer assistance and fund it themselves.
Taxpayer support is a method of last resort, not the first port of call.
DonkeyApple said:
Cold said:
Leftfootwonder said:
DonkeyApple said:
No reason as to why JLR can't pay for furlough at the small firms that it is reliant upon to be able to return to manufacturing cars. Don't see why I should be paying. If JLR don't protect their suppliers then they can't turn the lights back on. And much cheaper for them to cover that cost than the cost of waiting for replacement suppliers. Unite can FRO and ale their £112m hotel fraud with them.
Agree. Why is the taxpayer always the first option. I'd expect them to have business interruption insurance to cover a large percentage of this too, although the Cyber element will likely be capped. It just feels like mismanagement, yet again. Certainly the inability to get going again. I have sympathy with the innocent workers affected of course.
We've become absolutely obsessed in the U.K. with wanting the State to cover every bill for everyone. This is a scenario where if JLR don't protect their suppliers then they can't manufacture any cars so there is no need for us to pay.
Simple solution is to just inform JLR that the taxpayer will cover a furlough scheme for their suppliers but then collect all the cost via an emergency corporation tax going forward on JLR. TATA know all too well that government furlough schemes get horribly abused and will be very keen to decline the taxpayer assistance and fund it themselves.
Taxpayer support is a method of last resort, not the first port of call.
It's the unions who are.
Forums | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff