TGI
#Yes a lot of moving parts, <UNK>.
Yes, we're still coming down on 747-8 and we expect to get down by the end of the year to the rate of one month which is what we're assuming we work through the end of our contract at.
As I just mentioned, we're pretty much at the bottom on A330 with some opportunity to see some improvement as we get close to the end of the year depending on what Airbus does there.
I would say the Gulfstream programs, we've seen year-over-year reductions there.
I would expect a level of flatness from where we are in the first quarter there.
And I think there's still some opportunity, we'll see some growth on the new Gulfstream programs specifically G650 as we progress through the year.
Keep in mind as we recover work scope that's being done by Gulfstream on those programs, our revenue increases.
So as we come up the curve and get Gulfstream out of the business of supporting that Wing program, our revenue will increase.
So as I look out through the balance of the year, I think the second half is a little bit lower than the first half, but not much from a revenue standpoint.
Our projections second half of 2017 we start getting recurring revenue.
We start getting recurring revenue on Global before E-Jets.
We also start getting some recurring revenue on the new Gulfstream programs.
And I alluded to it in my comments, we're also seeing a lot of nice new capture at a tier 2, tier 3 level within our fabrication and structures business.
That gets muted sometimes with the tier 1 stuff, but it has a nice cumulative affect as we look out in the out years.
Yes, Rick answered the question I think well.
We're going to continue to drive cost reduction with a lot of focus in Aerostructures.
And depending on the level of success of us getting cost out of that business, will drive a lot of what we think we can achieve from a run rate standpoint.
So a lot will depend on our successes this year.
A lot will then be dependent on the strategic actions we take within that business and what can we do from a consolidation footprint reduction organization structure, cost structure across Aerostructures.
Yes I definitely expect year-over-year margin expansion in Aerospace Systems.
And we talk a lot about focusing on Aerostructures but we're also focusing broadly across the Company as we look at cost structure.
So some of that ultimately occurs in Aerospace Systems.
And we also look for continued higher rate of capture from an aftermarket standpoint.
Much of that comes as we continue to see improvements in the GE acquisition that we completed last year and we get that fully up to where we think it should be.
So there's definitely margin expansion there as we look year-over-year 2015 to 2016.
And here again a lot will be dependent on our successes with both our tactical and strategic actions that we're taking.
I think that in the short term he's made some very good moves in the beginning.
When you look at that issue on a long-term basis, we're expecting a significant savings in the supply chain, but very difficult to project.
I think that some of it will happen in this year, but primarily over time, it'll hit probably FY17 more than it hits this year.
But we've seen significant savings in certain areas that he's already worked on.
And in addition to that, I think that we'll have a number of corporate initiatives that will lower our corporate costs, which is also necessary.
They're not really in the guidance at this point in time.
We feel confident about the savings that we'll get this year because some of the things that we've done corporately or in the supply chain area will contribute to the guidance that we've given and that's baked in.
But longer term it should be much greater than that in the supply chain area.
Well, you'd really have to ask the question of the Search Firm, but in my estimation, we are where we are and we've got to do what we've got to do for the betterment of the Company.
What the new person does when that person comes up, he's going to have what he has or she has and they can go forward from there.
We will keep candidates that are interviewed abreast of what we're doing and choose that candidate based upon what the Company is and what we feel has to be done.
If in fact that person disagrees with it, they may not want to make a transition and become CEO.
But I don't think that we have the luxury of ---+ or I don't have the luxury of being a placeholder and waiting until somebody else comes in.
We've got to make a lot of moves now rather than waiting to see what somebody else has to do, wants to do.
Well, I think first and foremost we're looking at companies or locations that are not performing up to speed to either take cost out vis-a-vis integration within the Company or divestiture.
I think that basically we're facing ---+ we're looking at an issue of performance.
We're not really ---+ we don't have any prejudice on who we might divest.
If they're not performing, we'll look at that.
If we can't find a fix internally, we have not focused on looking at whether they're proprietary products or nonproprietary.
It's a matter of performance and we've got to make some changes whether it be people wise or whether it be operationally or whether it be integration or divestiture.
We're going to look at all those without prejudiced as to what those companies are.
It's a performance issue plain and simple.
No, as I said before on the strategic end of the analysis, everything is really on the table when we look at how we can accomplish something that refurbishes the Company and makes us more successful.
If that means we spinoff a large company or a large group and that might be the way we have to go.
And that's obviously as you mentioned a little more transformational than the other things that we're talking about.
But what it means is at the end of the day, our Company is going to be more successful and have the ability to grow and be more successful for our shareholders.
That's the way we're looking at it.
Yes, <UNK>, when we recorded the forward loss in the third quarter, we incorporated all of the pricing bands that we have on 747 based on the assumptions of our rate would go to.
So the answer is, yes.
But it's already been incorporated as we think through the forward loss that we took in the third quarter of FY15.
No, since we incorporated in that forward loss calculation, as long as everything plays out in line with that, you wouldn't see either cum catches or positive or negative.
Obviously we're still working to figure out how we can drive improvement in that program and if we can get cost out and drive some margin, that would allow us to claw back some of that loss.
Well, obviously that's a mixed bag within our Company in the Aerospace Systems business.
As you know, those aftermarket sales are reported in the Aerospace Systems Group not to be Aftermarket Services Group.
And they've been relatively consistent over time.
I can't answer the question in every specific company within the Aerospace Systems Group.
But as you can see by their revenues and their margins, they've been relatively consistent and positive in nature.
Yes.
If you think of the big cash claimants, I generally would look at capital being relatively flat year-over-year.
We will continue to see a decline in spend on the development programs as we transition out of 2016 into 2017.
There's still some spend in 2017, but I think you see a similar dynamic where it's reducing year-over-year.
Pension obligation, we've talked of a $40 million contribution this year.
We've assumed that being flat.
It's always a hard one to predict depending on what happens with interest rates and other things within the calculation of funding status and pension.
And then I think the biggest driver is going to be the cost reduction initiatives and how much value we can get or cost we can get out of the business that you should have a full run rate of in FY17 versus a partial year in FY16.
So a lot will depend on the launching pad we create going into 2017.
Yes, we are seeing some nice improvement revenue wise on 67.
We were very pleased to see the FedEx order and we think 67 for us is one of those programs that has the potential to grow as we look in the out years.
<UNK>, nothing's prevented us from buying back shares in the first quarter.
It's really is our continued strategy of deploying capital judiciously and managing within targeted leverage ratios and debt to capital ratios.
Obviously we'll continue to be tactical as we execute against our share repurchase authorization.
But haven't laid out a specific amount or tactic as to how we'll approach it.
Well, what we're looking at is some changes in regards internally and how we go to market in regards to business development and program development and where we should be going after business.
Now a lot of this might not be real big programs because, as you know, there aren't any C-17s coming down the pike and there aren't any 747s being built.
So we have to go after, and Jeff mentioned it before, we've been very successful on a number of tier 2 and tier 3 wins which are smaller.
But on the ---+ what I'm referring to is that we have a couple of individuals corporately who are developing program analysis and programs that we should be on.
And we will also expand potentially our customer facing sales efforts.
We'll augment that with a leader in that area potentially to augment the people that we already have that are generally doing a very good job both in Europe and in the US.
So yes we are looking at that.
Talking about specific programs we're going to go after, we've identified some but I'd rather not talk about that.
But it's a good question.
