TDG
#The commercial transport growth, if you look at mid to high single-digit next year, the commercial transport growth we would expect to be higher, or higher than the average, same thing.
If you take the business jet, business jet, and I suspect the freighter, they will be a little bit of a down drag.
So take whatever number you want to use from mid to high single digits.
The commercial transport is probably on the upper end of that point and the others are down on the lower end.
I don't think so.
I think it's going to change versus the intrinsic demand, not just some trick in the comp.
Yes, I would say you can almost generally go through, now we do it unit by unit, product line by product line.
So it bounces around.
But the way I would think about it is almost take the growth in RPMs by region of the world and that will give you some pretty good idea.
I think it would be, I'm just doing here ---+
It's $650 million to 700 million.
Yes.
Well, the aftermarket shipments were sequentially up.
The bookings I don't, I just don't have a good, I'd say the same ---+ I can't say they're noticeably separated.
We're awfully close on the year, and I think the fourth quarter isn't much different.
I suspect that's a high number.
We underspent against our budget the previous year, and I expect that's a little high.
Our restricted payment is, we can go up to 7.25 net and 4.25 on secured debt capacity, for new debt, plus the including the target of that.
Are you after how much dividend can we pay out.
Is that what you're after.
At this point in time, we only have about $130 million remaining on it through the end of the year.
And we would have to get an amendment to do any more additional dividend.
Which, by the way, just so you know, almost every time we do this, you have to get an amendment.
Or the other point is if we get under six times net debt, we can pay a dividend up to that six times.
Oh, I think it would be, it's hard to say exactly what the point is when your concern gets to that.
It's a little bit of an art, rather than a science.
But clearly starting to see more announcement of turn down of rates in either predictions of turn downs in FY18 or even the beginning of FY19 would do it.
Now sometimes, you don't see the announcements.
No one announces it, but you all of a sudden see the orders are starting to slow down.
That's another thing that would do it.
And we'll just watch those as the year goes through.
We're quite, we're prepared, and as we've done in the past, we'll move quick to stay out ahead of this.
Oh, I think that is materially very close.
Why we hedge a little bit is there's no guarantee that if someone makes a change, they send us an e-mail and tell us they changed it.
But we have a pretty good bead on it.
Yes.
Like everyone in the industry, Boeing has been pressing on what they call this partnership for success, which is at least to roll into less contracts, I would say.
And we ended up about two or three years ago with a modified version of that, where the terms and conditions we agreed to generically and the rest of it is more product by product focused.
I don't know.
It was behind us two years ago, but the contract runs for five years, or maybe it was three years ago, or two years ago.
I can't remember now.
But the contract runs for five years, so you'll reengage again a couple years before the contract runs out.
No, we have not.
We have not.
As always, we hear talk about it periodically, but we haven't seen any significant activity, at least for any of the proprietary.
A very small percent of our business is non-proprietary, and that part of it, you see it.
It's not unusual to see it.
Primarily, we own the IP, and it is a very expensive switching process.
It's long and expensive.
The main way you protect yourself is deliver quality product, deliver it on time, and service the heck out of the account and fix it fast, if something comes up.
Because the math rarely works, because of the switching cost.
I doubt ---+ first, I have no idea, but that's not going to stop me from saying something, but I want to lead with that I have no idea ---+ I'd be surprised if it has much impact on worldwide revenue passenger miles.
But I guess you might see more defense spending, perhaps.
But I have no way to know how to handicap that at this point.
I would say they're more small to mid than large.
But I would also say that's almost always the case.
The bigger ones tend to, somebody decides to sell them and they come up and you've got to move pretty quick on them.
I would say the backlog doesn't look a lot different than it often looks.
Well, when I say the backlog of things we're looking at, if it's not proprietary and doesn't have a reasonable amount of aftermarket, it's not in our backlog.
Okay.
Well, yes, <UNK>, what I was trying to point out there is the bookings ran behind the revenues this year, FY16.
So what I was trying to point out is that I don't think that's indicative of FY17, because there were a few big orders placed in FY15 that were multi-year orders.
So they don't repeat each year, they repeat every other year or every third year, something like that.
I don't know if that's clear or not.
I was trying to point out what the rationale was for the bookings running behind.
It's more like they're long cycle programs.
I would say the only one that I would say that could is you pays your money and takes your choice on what the A400 shipping rate is going to be.
That was one of them.
And you know, there could well be up or down adjustments to that.
As you know, it's been running in fits and starts.
<UNK>, if the question is could it be higher.
Yes, it surely could.
And I would hope it would be.
But we have to take our best estimate based on what we get out of the product teams, what we see in our incoming booking rates, and forecast it out.
Now I would doubt we'd be very far off on the OEM programs, but what could easily move up or down ---+ I would hope up, not down ---+ is the aftermarket.
If you get more active or you just decide to restock, those things can move pretty quickly.
