AMU Survey: Lead times hold firm as supply tightness persists and import pressures shift

Measured lead times in March did not increase across all categories. Instead, results varied by product.

Sheet

On average, sheet lead times moved modestly higher in March compared with February. The increase was driven by longer timelines in auto body sheet, as a decline in can sheet was mostly offset by an increase in common alloy sheet lead times.

Auto body sheet averaged about 10 weeks, increasing from February and recording the longest lead time of any subcategory since tracking began in July 2025. Common alloy sheet moved modestly higher to the mid-seven-week range, while can sheet average just over seven weeks.

However, the spread in can sheet responses widened notably. A higher-end cluster pulled the average upward, while other responses remained closer to the month-and-a-half to two-month range. That pattern suggests imported material lead times are lengthening relative to domestically supplied counterparts, even as overall measured can sheet lead times remain “stable” to slightly higher.

Extrusion

Extrusion lead times remained largely unchanged in March at six-and-a-half weeks.

The balance of responses between 6063 and 6061 mill-finished extrusion was more even than in February, when responses were skewed toward 6061. Despite that shift, reported lead times aligned across both products in March, with respondents indicating the same timelines for each.

That consistency suggests little product-level differentiation in extrusion lead times in the most recent month compared with February, when 6061 appeared to draw more respondent attention.

Primary

Primary lead times increased modestly in March to fresh highs around the seven-and-a-half-week mark, inching up past February’s levels.

That increase occurred even as billet and P1020 moved in different directions at the subcategory level.

Primary billet (6063 or 6061) lead times grew by over a week-and-a-half from February to seven-and-a-half weeks, while P1020 or high-purity ingot slipped nearly a week to a similar threshold over the same period.

That divergence in lead times aligns with differences in import exposure. The UAE, Bahrain, and Qatar account for most US billet imports, while those same countries account for a much smaller share of P1020 ingot imports.

With the Strait of Hormuz effectively closed, material tied to those supply chains faces disruption, while buyers shift to alternative sources. That dynamic would be expected to extend billet lead times relative to P1020.

Lead-time sentiment

March responses to the lead-time direction question were broadly consistent with February. The share of respondents selecting “extending” remained the dominant outcome, while only slight movement occurred between “stable” and “shrinking.”

A total of 53% of respondents reported lead times were extending, the same share as the prior month. “Stable” declined to 37% from 40%, while shrinking increased to 10% from 7%.

That stability follows a sharp shift in February, when extending moved above the 50% threshold. And “stable” fell below it for the first time since tracking began. March responses mostly held at that level.

By company role, the distribution was not uniform and showed some changes from February.

Producer responses shifted the most in terms of internal agreement. In February, producers aligned entirely with extending lead times. In March, that alignment broke, splitting between extending and “stable,” though no producers reported shrinking. The change does not reverse direction, but it does indicate less consistency within the group.

Distributors and traders moved in the opposite direction. In February their responses leaned toward “stable.” In March, a greater share shifted to extending, though not exclusively. This marked the clearest direction change among the major roles even as responses were spread across multiple end markets rather than clustered in one. In other words, it seems the reversal was more role driven, rather than end-market driven.

Manufacturers and assemblers showed less movement month over month. Responses continued to lean toward “extending,” but with “stable” and “shrinking” still represented. There was no clear shift in distribution relative to February.

Recyclers and scrap processors remained the least directional group. In March, responses split between “extending” and “stable”, following a more dispersed pattern in February that also included shrinking. Compared with other roles, recyclers continue to show less alignment with extending lead times.

Import competitiveness

Perceptions of import competitiveness reversed in March following a sharp shift in February. A total of 23% respondents reported imports were “more competitive,” down from 57% in February. About 69% reported “no change,” up from 43% over the same period. The share reporting imports as “less competitive” increased to 8% from 0%.

That marks a clear pullback from February, when imports were viewed as “more competitive” by a majority of respondents. And “less competitive” dropped out of the results entirely. Historically, responses to this question have most often centered around “no change” with “more competitive” rising episodically. February represented a break from that pattern, while March suggest that shift was not sustained.

By company role, responses remained uneven. Producers and distributors and traders were more likely to report imports as “more competitive,” while manufacturers and assemblers clustered more heavily around “no change.” Recyclers and scrap processors remained mixed.

End-market exposure also influenced responses. Companies serving the transportation market continued to skew toward “more competitive,” while those tied to machinery and industrial segments more often reported “no change.”

The shift in March aligns with responses to freight and container costs.

Responses to the container cost question shifted sharply in March. A total of 54% respondents reported “increasing” costs, while 38% reported “stable” costs and 8% reported “declining” costs.

That marks the highest share reporting “increasing” container costs in the historical series by a wide margin. The 54% reading exceeded the next-highest share by 37 basis points. At the same time, the share reporting “stable” costs fell to its lowest level since tracking began in February 2025. The share reporting “declining” costs remained limited at 8%. That was the third-lowest reading in the series, only slightly above the 7% recorded in December 2025 and the 6% recorded in March 2025.

A similar trend was seen in response to the question on freight costs. A total of 50% of respondents reported “increasing” freight costs, the highest ever recorded, and 33% reported “stable” costs, the lowest share ever recorded. A slightly higher share reported “declining” freight costs in comparison to container costs at 17% in March.

New US supply

Responses to whether new US supply is keeping pace with demand remained skewed toward “no.”

A total of 69% of respondents said supply is not keeping up, up from 67% in February. About 31% reported that supply is keeping pace, down from 33% month over month. For context, the average share reporting undersupply over the past 13 months is about 45%.  

This follows a step change in February when the share of respondents reporting undersupply increased from 53% in January to 67%. March extends that move, pushing the share reporting undersupply to a new high.

By company role, skepticism remained concentrated among distributors and traders as well as recyclers and scrap processors. Manufacturers and assemblers were more mixed.

By end market, companies serving transportation more often reported that supply is not keeping up. Those tied to machinery and industrial segments showed less concentration around that view.

Putting it together

March results describe a market defined by tight supply, limited relief mechanisms, and persistence rather than escalation.

The share of respondents reporting new US supply is not keeping up with demand increased only marginally month over month, but remains well above the historical average, reinforcing that constraints persist at the market level. A majority of respondents continue to report extending lead times, while import competitiveness declined and freight and container costs increased.

That combination infers the system is not loosening, but the mechanisms that would typically relieve pressure, particularly imports, are becoming less effective.

Underneath those perceptions, the measured data show a more segmented pattern. Lead times increased in billet and auto body sheet, while P1020 eased from prior highs, can sheet declined, and extrusions remained large stable.

Most of those trends tracked when segmenting responses by company role and end-market exposure. Distributors and traders, who are more exposed to import flows, shifted toward extending lead times, indicating tighter sourcing conditions. Producers and manufacturers showed more mixed responses.

By end market, companies serving transportation were more likely to report extending lead times, consistent with increases in auto body sheet and billet, while those tied to construction, packaging, and industrial segments remained more balanced.

Overall, the data indicates that constraints are being sustained at the aggregate level but are increasingly concentrated in specific products and supply chains rather than moving uniformly across the market.