Welcome. We're going to do a fireside chat. I'll open up for questions. Raise your hand, and we'll have a microphone for you at about the middle. I'll start with the big question, and it's, what kind of signals you're seeing from the commercial OEMs? In the case of Airbus, it appears that they'd like more, and hopefully, they'll be able to produce more aircraft. That will be a good thing. In the case of Boeing, we have a skyline, which also calls for more, although we're seeing in certain product lines some inventory correction, as I discussed in our last earnings call. We've fully taken account of that. It is a little bit more mixed in the case of Boeing. Generally, themes for other segments for our customers would be whether it be gas turbine business or oil and gas, it's more. Maybe commercial truck is the only segment we have where it's a little bit less. Those are the signals we're seeing. Perfect. When you think about those signals and increasing capacity, what kind of capital investments you have done and how, I do not know, 25 investments compares to last year's, and what should we expect going forward? We made a significant commitment in terms of capacity expansion in 2024, where we increased our capital expenditures about 50%. Our aim was to achieve those sort of investments because of the market opportunities that we had, while still converting our net income close to our goal, which is a long-term conversion of 90% of net income. I think we ended the year at 88%. I think we achieved something which I believe was good, if not extraordinary, in those changes, basically to allow the company to show further growth in the future. When I look at 2025, we've given guidance that CapEx would be at least 2024, and therefore, again, very elevated, if not more. Again, trying to make sure we capacitize for the growth in the commercial aerospace business. Also now, increasingly, in the gas turbine business, where we're seeing a lot of opportunity as well, which I've talked to in terms of gas turbines to buy more electricity essentially because of data center build-out for some of the hyperscalers. If anything, that market opportunity became bigger given the recent election and with new administration putting more emphasis on fossil fuels and less emphasis on renewables. That's another area of expansion. Currently, we were either increasing capacities and building out extensions or new plants. We have a couple of them in our commercial aerospace business. Now we're doing a similar program in our gas turbine business, where we're putting a new plant up and extending another one in parts of the world. How long are these CapEx cycles usually, and how do they compare the IGT ones to the commercial aero? In terms of build-out of capacity, it takes close to two years to bring something from conception all the way through to production. Therefore, we won't really see the benefits in the case of our commercial aerospace business, that capacity until the back end of 2025, going into 2026. Even with trying to accelerate everything on the gas turbine side, it's going to be, again, more future going into 2026 and into 2027. Perfect. How does the SPS fire affect this, both demand and supply? Can you capture some part of that demand, or do you need to make an investment to capture that opportunity? Of course, when we planned our year, we had no knowledge and no expectation of one of our competitors having such a fire. I do understand to some degree how devastating that can be because we in Howmet have had our own fire in a fastener plant. Of course, the capacities I have just talked to in our engine air force business or our gas turbine business had nothing to do with fasteners. Now we are faced with this situation. When we burnt down one bay of our fastener plant in France, from that instance through to delivery of parts from that plant when it was completely, that bay was rebuilt and recertified, it was three years. My thought in looking at the photographs and aerial images of the SPS plant, it looks very extensive, the damage. It will be an interesting thing to observe in terms of what are the plans to replace that plant, if any, and given its age, location, and indeed workforce. We are in the process of providing responses to our customers in terms of their requests for quotation to respond to that opportunity, or in their case, their need. The only thing in terms of, I'll say, where we have said we will not respond is where we've had distributors contact us to ask if we could supply them parts because it's just them wanting to rent the market and take the opportunity they've got inventory, which they can exact price for. We are trying to reserve what capacities we may have or can provide by way of increasing our employment and shift patterns and order materials for customers that will work with us and provide business on a long-term basis. It is based upon contracting for the long term because I have no interest in taking these costs on to only have to delete them later in the year. That does not make economic sense at all. It has to be business which has duration and obviously an economic return. Perfect. On the SPS plant, there were some sole-source parts. Have you seen any change in the customer's approach to sole source, given that an accident like this could cost years of inventory? I think it's too fresh in everybody's work plans at the moment. I think the task forces which have been set up at our customers, whether it's been Boeing or Airbus or whether it's been the engine manufacturers or landing gear manufacturers, so far, all of the energies have gone into how they can get parts availability and little to no thought about what does it mean for the future. I suspect that given the age of that plant, things which were there sometimes had drifted into a very old part, only that plant could make it, and therefore, limited effort into providing fresh capacities for something which is very old. I don't know it's going to change very much. I mean, the good news is we already have certifications for certain of the parts, but for certain others, should we be able to have the opportunity under the right circumstances to supply, then we will need certification for those parts that we don't have. Perfect. You mentioned the contracting and how you want this economic return when you do such an investment. How do you deal with contracting or customers to actually feel confident and comfortable to spend that CapEx and take that time, both in the commercial side, commercial aero and IGT? Of course, it's us that has to expend the capital. We have to be secure in the duration of the contract and also that we will see the volumes and also realize the price and profits. It's just normal course of business that will carry out. I suspect that it'll be a more involved case than just taking on a few people and ordering a bit more material. I think it'll be a bit more involved with that to be able to provide the capacity which maybe the industry requires to get through. Perfect. If I may touch base on Boeing, you have taken a conservative approach on how much you deliver to Boeing. How do you think about the future? The conservative approach has actually nothing to do with how much I think that Boeing will actually take or want because I do not think we know. What I have tried to do is to say we make an assumption which underpins our financials and therefore the guidance that we have given. If anybody feels more optimistic about the production of Boeing, then they would increment our revenues. If they felt more pessimistic, they would decrement them in some way. It is meant to give a financial guide only. I really do hope that Boeing achieve the skyline that they set their targets at, which is a rate 38 for the 737. It was meant to be at the end of March, I think rate 7 for the 787, but that has recently been delayed to now the second half of the year. Going back to 737, I think it's meant to get to rate 42, I've heard those numbers. Of course, we would vote for that if we had the ability to influence it. My expectation is that should Boeing produce at the higher rates, then we will support them and achieve the necessary production. The only thing we need is to make sure that where inventory is corrected is that we're to some degree level loaded because we won't be able to make little in one part of the year and a lot in another part of the year because it doesn't work like that in the industry. That apart, then I'm not sitting here worried about what the Boeing actually what their rate going to be. I would love it to be the highest number that they can possibly achieve because that would be good for us. Because I can work out very simply that the more aircraft that get produced, the more revenue we have. I like it. Perfect. Have you seen any meaningful changes since Kelly took the leadership of Boeing in terms of? I thought the fact that he relocated himself to Seattle was very meaningful. I think that was absolutely necessary to be more engaged in the day-to-day running of what's been the biggest, I think, I'll say, center of manufacturing for the company. Because without sorting out 737, then that was always going to be a huge problem for Boeing. The fact that he's there and you see pictures of him on the shop floor having a more hands-on approach, that's very welcome to see. I find that refreshing. How it turns out in terms of what the quantities of production will actually be, again, that's to be determined. It seems as though the current conditions where they do have, I think it's over 100, what they call good fuselages, which are in really good state for quality. We know they have a very healthy engine supply from the fact that engines were produced well. They were on strike last year and undergoing the additional training that they had. We read that their CFO is commenting publicly that their inventory is $87 billion. It is too high. Therefore, we know they have a lot of parts. Hopefully, they bring it all together and the aircraft will be assembled quickly and in higher volumes. If they were to ramp up to expectations, how quickly can you ramp up your volumes? What are the main constraints? It's labor, material? I'm convinced that we'll be able to respond because, first of all, we know we're carrying higher inventory than we would otherwise carry. That's one aspect. That gives us the surety that we will be able to recruit in time. If they went to rate 38 next week, I suspect we'd be supplying below that rate. I'm not thinking they're going to go to rate 38 next week because that would be in advance of their plans. Where they have reduced requirements because of excess inventory, that's going to give us some, I will say, some palpitations around the ability to ramp back up because the only way we can cope with it is if they are not able to level load, we will have to try to find the means to level load. Today, on a couple of product areas, we are producing at a higher rate of production than we believe they are. We are pumping parts into inventory to provide a level loading. We are smoothing production because I think that is going to be necessary on the anticipation that they are going to increase volumes and therefore to give. I think Howmet is going to be the last supplier that is going to cause them problems, I hope. You never know. We will have our moments, of course, as well. Perfect. Now switching gears a little bit to commercial engines. How do you think about the aftermarket demand? Even though you're agnostic in your product, what is the mix between plates that go to aftermarket versus OE? We have given numbers for the whole company. In 2019, about 11% of Howmet revenues were to the aftermarket, which essentially is the turbine blade business. Of course, saying 11% of the revenues of the company when there are obviously things in there like, let's say, commercial truck wheels or there are structural parts, it is not directly relevant. The most important thing is directionally, that 11% in 2019 now sits at 17%. If you take 17% of Howmet's revenues and let's call it $8 billion and apply that to the engine business, then clearly it is a much higher number of our engine business that goes to the aftermarket. You could bifurcate that between that which goes to the defense and IGT business compared to commercial aerospace. Essentially, if it's 17% last year, and I did give a future view, which is it's moving towards 20% of the company over the next couple of years because I believe that the aftermarket was going to grow quite healthily. Of course, it's always, I mean, should OE go up very rapidly, then it's sort of like, I'd like both to increase personally. I think we're still trending towards a 20% of the company. As a proportion of the business which is relevant, it's a much higher portion that goes into the aftermarket. Are you concerned at all from early retirement or a pickup on retirement? Not really because I ultimately think that would be good for the industry. At the moment, I suspect that some of the older planes, we're seeing additional demands because of additional visits to the MRO shops for refurbishment. Part of that is the fact that aircraft production has been relatively low and underneath the market demand by airlines. The backlog is so large. Part of me thinks that the whole industry would benefit from that backlog being addressed with a higher production. It does not mean to say that I think that our service sales will actually drop. My current thought is between the demand for the CFM56 range of engines or the V2500 engine, then those requirements are yet to peak. There's going to be another two or three years before those reach peak volume. I think the decay will be very modest over a decade or so. During that time, I think the frequency of shop visits for the LEAP range of engines and also for the geared turbofan engine are going to increase. I see those increases continuing to escalate through the next decade. My expectation is that every year for the next five, eight years, we're actually going to see an increase in service volumes, which is healthy. If that can be combined with higher OE production of aircraft, then that's really good because we'll have both service increasing and OE increasing. It's almost like, what could be better than that? Those would be really great conditions for Howmet to face. When I look across the whole portfolio, I see positive signs in the gas turbine business, which I can talk more about if you want. The only area which is that we are seeing demand degradation or have seen it is in the commercial truck business, which did reduce in the second half of last year. My previous public statement had been, I thought that would continue through to the summer of this year. Now it's like, I'm not really sure because what will be the effects of tariffs and what will be the overall economic impact. On the other hand, maybe I'll get a bit more optimistic about commercial aerospace production. Either which way, I think it's set well. How do you prepare for such an uncertainty on the transport business? Like how much you produce for, how much you hire for? We've adjusted both our employment levels and our materials intake. We are seeing low production. The task at hand has been how we could manage our decremental to our profit number. Assuming a long run average of about 40% on usually the same number for incrementals and decrementals. So far, I think we've done, I think, extremely well. In other words, our EBITDA margin has held up. It's about 27%, give or take. I think that's a really good outcome in the light of the demand reductions of, let's say, 20%. I can't remember quarter on quarter exactly, but I even feel that Q4 last year was probably up on Q3. In face with demand destruction to have that margin profile was really good and generating cash. On HPT blades, where are the next milestones we should be looking at? When is LEAP-1B going to be fully transitioned to the new blade? First of all, it's not in our direct control. We have made the transition for the mass production on the LEAP-1A that has already occurred. We will still continue to produce the former blade, but in much reduced volumes. It will still be a continuing feature of the business to service the LEAP-1A business. The LEAP-1B is not yet determined. My thought is that it's probably a 2026 item. I think it's at least a year away. That is dependent upon certification because that requires the FAA to be involved. Certifications tend to be a little bit longer. Should that be accelerated, if the new administration was to take a different view, our tooling capacity is not yet there. We would have to tool for it, and that takes lead time. I still think we're looking at a 2026 changeover for that, but without date certainty at all. In terms of the geared turbofan engine by Pratt & Whitney, the Advantage now has certification, which was good news. It was earlier than I thought would be the case. Again, tooling has to be, we have to increase substantially the tooling to be able to manufacture at rate because you can't change over for a few. We are producing a certain quantity of engine sets per month already. That's not enough to do a full transition for the OE build. I think everybody knows that the transition ideally would involve not only supplying the OE demand, but also supplying into the aftermarket and also doing a retrofit program to accelerate the, say, getting engines back on wing for all of that. There is a lot of demand increase that we are facing. Again, we're doing rate tooling right now. We have meetings this week to go through all of those plans to look at exactly the timing of dates of implementation, which will be in 2025, is my expectation. When you think about both engine types, how do those blades, the new blades, compare to the mature comparisons like CFM56 and V2500? Do you have an opportunity to keep upgrading these blades or having better airflows to increase time on wing from here? I think if you compare the graphs in, let's say, the 1970s to now, then I think the robustness level, so you have to be very careful of the words you use, but the robustness levels are as good, if not better, than they were at the introduction of the CFM engine 40 years ago or so. The maturity of the new engine designs is not at the level of the, I'll say, closing of the production of the CFM56 because that had 40 years' worth of learning and was a fundamentally simpler construction and the same for the V2500. With complexity, and complexity means increased airflow, produce additional cooling, and it means additional coring, that complexity leads itself to increased stress because of the temperature performance. I will say, performance yet of the more modern engine has not been the equivalent of the outgoing engine. Of course, there are these robustness improvements. That is why there is a next generation already of the Leap, which has been introduced, I said, on the Leap-1A. There is the advantage. Those upgrades have been more aimed towards robustness improvements than fuel efficiency at this instance, albeit I'm sure that everybody will return to the task of what's the next improvements we can make for fuel efficiency maybe three to five years from now. They will regenerate again to improve design. In the life of an engine, those turbine blades are probably changed four or five or six times to, again, further the fuel efficiency because everybody wants to have engines which are producing less by way of carbon emissions and improve fuel efficiency for economic purposes. There is always a lot of transition going on. Therefore, there is a lot of work that we know we are going to face not only to introduce the new levels of technology for today, but also for tomorrow as well. The same applies for military engines as well. We are already deep into improving the engine with our customer for the F-35 for the Block 4 upgrades, which normally are for 2028, even though it may be a bit longer. Again, for improving thrust, improving maneuverability, yet providing the power to provide increased power for weapon systems and the avionics. There's a lot going on, again, all requiring more efficiency from the engine and then more efficiency from the turbine and the high pressure part of it. When you think about F-35 or the F135, right, the fighter has been a prisoner of the politics, not only U.S. domestic politics, but also geopolitical. How do you think about demand to actually support and sustain and do maintenance on that engine? Are you concerned at all from the news headlines and that risk perspective? I think the fact that it is a superb aircraft with both maneuverability and stealth characteristics. I believe that the people who drive that aircraft or the pilots think it's an extraordinary aircraft. I'll say it's good. Lockheed have never really yet achieved their rate. Through COVID and beyond, it's been a little bit under in terms of production. Meanwhile, it does appear to have become the fighter of choice by many foreign air forces. Whether it's been the German Air Force or the Swiss or is it the Portuguese or is it the Lithuanian or is it the Slovenian, there have been so many countries which have ordered the plane. Five years ago, I thought that maybe we would begin to see production reductions in the second half of the decade. I don't think that's the case at all. I think we're going to see production static or increasing. Therefore, I'm very positive about the quantity of aircraft which have been ordered and approved by the US government. Now, of course, do I keep current with the news, which I believe today there's some articles saying Canada might rethink its F-35 purchase, or is it Portugal are going to rethink their F-35 purchase? I mean, of course, it's all possible. I don't know what they're going to buy. If they do decide to buy an alternative, if they can find one, then the question is, what capabilities will it have by comparison? They must have had a good reason to buy the F-35 in the first place. I can't put myself in the sense that, for example, if they were to buy the Rafale from Dassault, we, Howmet, supply that aircraft as well. It's very difficult to change production. These are very approximate numbers, so they're probably definitely wrong, but near enough is that, let's say, if there's 140 or 150 F-35s produced a year, maybe there's 20 Rafales produced. To increase that production from 20 to 25 or to 30 would be extraordinary. It would take many years. Should those countries believe they need to have, I'll say, substantive national defense, I don't see how they would change from their current plans. Given the stands of geopolitics at the moment, it seems as though the threats aren't diminished. Maybe what appears to be the express support that people can rely on from the U.S. may not be of the same order. Therefore, I still think that people are going to have to or want to buy what is, I think, the premier defense fighter in the world. I am quite a fan of the F-35. Will things change over the years? Will there be more drones? Yeah, for sure. Will there be more F-35s? Yes, for sure. Will we make more engine parts? Yes, for sure. Will we provide a lot more spare parts? Yes, for sure. That is why I stand on it. I'm not sure. I mean, I'll tell you what I think. I'm not sure if there's going to be many more competitors to that, like increasing demand. I don't know. I mean, and if they want to provide additional support back and re-engine or re-support the F-22, well, that's okay too because we supply that one. So I'm good. Perfect. Let's open up for questions. If someone has a question, please raise your hand. I think we have a quiet audience. I'll keep, have like five more minutes. On wide-bodies. Yes. What do you expect? When do you think the international crowd will actually recover? When do you think that Boeing can ramp up to seven, considering them, but an entire supply chain that was stopped under five? I think the fundamental demand and the order intake for the 787, which I think is a superb aircraft, has been really strong. The backlog, I think, has grown. When Boeing said they wanted to get to rate 10 in 2026, my belief is the market can stand that and more. I do not think it is a demand issue. I think the demand is really strong. I think it is also really strong for the A350 as well. Again, order intake has been really good, and production has not really increased. There are, I guess, reasons why that production of the 787 and A350 has not yet risen to what everybody would like. The good news is the demand has not gone away. It will be produced. It is a question of when. I keep thinking to myself, wideb ody did not really achieve its marks in 2024, and yet we at Howmet, we did okay. We believe that we have got the right zip code for the outcome for 2025. I am hoping that we are able to deliver the year that we think we can deliver. Should wideb ody, let's say, not get to rate 10 or rate 9 or whatever the number is later this year, that is okay because I think we will put up a respectable year and that demand will be there for 2026 and 2027. It keeps, so when you think about, what has really been occurring is I think we have been delivering solid outcomes for the company. Demand has been not eliminated, but deferred. I used to think 2022 or 2023, 2024 were going to be good years. As each year has gone by, I think the next three years are going to be good. Now I think 2025, or if not 2025, then 2026, 2027, 2028 are going to be good. It keeps getting pushed. That is okay because it is still there. The future volume is expected to be there. I think it is going to be there because the backlog is truly strong. If there were some form of disturbance, for example, recession as one possibility, I still think the age of the fleet of today's aircraft is such that replacements and production will occur because we need the fuel efficiency, we need the emissions, and the economics go with lower maintenance, where the age of the fleet has got significantly advanced during the last few years. Therefore, again, it's a good underpinning of what we think we're going to face. Again, it's only a forecast. It's a maybe. Given the strength of this demand, how do you think about the impact of tariffs? We spent a lot of time on tariffs in the last couple of months. We've prepared ourselves as best we can. Obviously, things have changed quite rapidly, sometimes from day to day. It's difficult for me to give you a clear and coherent answer on tariffs because I don't know. I feel that the one thing that I feel certain about is that whatever they turn out to be, we will address them in the normal course of doing business, which we've always done at Howmet. We just say those are the circumstances and we will deal with it. Same as today, if we are facing additional input costs of aluminum from Canada, which really centers on our commercial wheel business, then we'll pass those costs through with the current arrangements that we have with our customers. If it goes to more generalized inflation, which nobody yet knows, then we'll deal with it. Same as we dealt with it in 2022 when inflation went up substantially as a result of the invasion of Ukraine and the change of energy prices, which fed through to a very different picture of inflation, which is more like 8% in the U.S. and 12% in Europe, where energy costs became extraordinary. It is just another business fact. It will happen or it will not happen, and we'll deal with it should it happen. I am not going to get too fussed about it. I regret the fact that I have wasted time because I have been preparing for this way, then it changes. Therefore, it has not taken us forward, but it is just stuff you deal with. Perfect. My last question, because we're coming up on time, on IGT, what's the earliest you could see this demand in the U.S.? What plans are you supporting right now in the next couple of years? We've seen the demand already because the existing fleet of turbines is running harder, and therefore there's an increased spares demand. We also see that our OE customers want to build more turbines, and therefore we see that demand. We are doing our very best to increase our production by which way we can from the existing equipment. Meanwhile, we did lay in additional capacities by way of additional CapEx above normal in 2024, which will come to have some benefits later in 2025. We are investing again in 2025, which will again take time. We are addressing what we think will be a substantial increase in future OE bill, but also that's going to lead to additional spares demand as well. We are not sure that we've got it right yet. It is to some degree uncertain, but I'm trying to keep pace without getting crazy about the capacity we're adding. Perfect. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you, everyone.