Good morning, and thank you for joining us for RBC Bearings' Fiscal Second Quarter 2025 Earnings Call. I'm Rob Moffatt, Director of Corporate Development and Investor Relations, and with me on today's call are Dr. Michael Hartnett, Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer, Daniel Bergeron, Director, Vice President, and Chief Operating Officer, and Rob Sullivan, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. As a reminder, some of the statements made today may be forward-looking and are made under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Actual results may differ materially from those projected or implied due to a variety of factors. We refer you to RBC Bearings' recent filings with the SEC for a more detailed discussion of the risks that could impact the company's future operating results and financial condition. These factors are also listed in the press release along with the reconciliation between GAAP and non-GAAP financial information. With that, I'll now turn the call over to Dr. Hartnett. Hello, guys. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us. I'm going to start today's call with a quick review of our financial results, and I'll finish with some high-level thoughts on the industry and our outlook for the remainder of 2025. I'll then hand it over to Rob Sullivan for more detailed color and numbers. Second quarter net sales came in at $398 million, a 3.2% increase over last year, driven by continued strong performance in our A&D segment and what we believe was continued outperformance versus peers on the industrial side. Total A&D sales were up 12.5% year-over-year, with 17.3% growth on the defense side and 10.3% growth on the commercial aerospace. On the industrial side, the segment came down 1.4% year-over-year, with OEM down 2.5% and aftermarket sales down 0.9%. Before I go too deep into the quarterly results, I wanted to spend a minute or two on the strength we are currently seeing on the defense side of the business. Year-to-date sales stand at an impressive 26.7% organic growth versus last year. We are seeing exceptionally strong demand in our marine business, where there is multi-year backlog that can drive additional growth. We are also seeing continued strong and urgent demand for our fixed-wing and missile, guided munitions category. With the current geopolitical backdrop, we are planning for the continuation of this demand through the remainder of this year into next well beyond. During the period, we saw unexpected headwinds from Boeing's strike and the impact of Hurricane Helene. The latter resulted in a plant shutdown in Asheville, North Carolina, for over a week. These events impacted revenues by $4-$5 million in the period. Now summer's over, and we're moving to the performance during the period. Gross margin in the quarter came in at $173.8 million, or 43.7% of sales, a 55-point increase year-over-year. The biggest drivers of our margin expansion continue to be increased exhaustion of our aerospace defense capacity, ongoing synergies at Dodge, and a wide range of smaller projects on a plant-by-plant basis that we continue to identify through the RBC Ops management process. I'd like to acknowledge and thank our teams for this performance. They are the driving force behind the projects that deliver these results. They are the foundation of our culture of continuous improvement at RBC. Net income of $67 million was up 6% year-over-year, and that translated into an adjusted EPS of $2.29 per share compared to last year's $2.17 per share. Cash from operations came in at $43 million and compares to $53 million last year, with a timing and scope of cash tax payments as the biggest factor in year-over-year comparison. We use our cash to continue to deleverage the balance sheet with over $35 million of debt reduction in the quarter, taking our trailing net leverage to right approximately two times current. As a reminder, we are targeting a $275-$300 million debt reduction for the year, which should allow us to exit the year nicely below the 2X turn mark, leaving our balance sheet well positioned for further acquisition interests. Moving to our outlook, on the A&D side, demand remains very strong. As a result of recent events, Boeing is playing an increasingly smaller role in our revenues, and we expect this to continue over the balance of this quarter and into next. And consequently, we are planning our business accordingly. When their strike will end and how they plan to step up production of the 737 airplane is not at all clear to us at this time. Of course, the production of the 787 ship remains unaffected. We do know that their backlog for 737 is substantial. Their customers need the aircraft, some desperately. We stand in a perfect position to support any production rate set by management. We expect clarification in the next few weeks on these matters regarding production rates and are currently busy negotiating and inking contracts now that will support production for Boeing through 2030. Using these assumptions and with the strong results already delivered in the first half of the year, I believe our A&D business should be able to deliver low- to mid-teens growth for the full year. On the industrial side, I was pleased with the results we saw in the second quarter, including the continued strength in grain, food and beverage, and power generation. All of our weakness was concentrated into a few end markets, primarily oil and gas, as a result of inventory corrections during the period at two customers. I believe our industrial business can return to growth in the back half of the year and strive for some of these end markets to hold off, and our relentless focus on driving organic growth continues. Looking forward to next year, as we develop our operating budgets today, we see, number one, continued defense demand led by marine products and weapons, Boeing 737 build rates at the 38 rate, pushing towards 50 rate in 2027, strong and increasing demand for jet engine components and repairs, strengthening industrial demand, base products playing an increasingly significant role in our lineup of revenues, impactful synergies from Dodge acquisitions as we end the tooling and testing cycle and begin the reshoring of some products of the RBC plants, an important and incremental expansion of our statements of work for the European aerospace community. With that, I'll now turn the call over to Rob for more details on financial comments. Thank you, Mike. As Dr. Hartnett indicated, this was another strong quarter for RBC, despite the short-term and one-time challenges in the period. Net sales growth of 3.2% drove gross margin growth of 4.5% year-over-year, with 55 basis points of gross margin percentage expansion. This year-over-year margin expansion was primarily reflected in our industrial segment, where we continue to see strong execution and the benefits of Dodge synergies achieved. On the SG&A line, we continued our investments in our future growth. This includes investment in personnel costs for existing talent, as well as new resources such as Salesforce additions to support the international expansion that we previously highlighted. In addition, we continued our investment in back office support, including IT, and had incremental professional and travel fees during the period. This led to adjusted EBITDA of $123.4 million, up 1.1% year-over-year, and an adjusted EBITDA margin of 31%, which was down 66 basis points year-over-year against the tough comp, but still above 2024's full-year 30.9% margin. Interest expense in the quarter was $15.6 million. This was down 22% year-over-year, reflecting the ongoing repayment of our term loan revolver, lower rates on our variable-rate debt, and the benefits from our interest rate and cross-currency swaps. The tax rate in our adjusted EPS calculation was 22.1%, reasonably consistent with last year's rate of 22%. Altogether, this led to adjusted diluted EPS of $2.29, representing year-over-year growth of 5.5%, an impressive result given some of the short-term headwinds in the quarter. In terms of cash flow, through the first six months of fiscal 2025, we have generated $140.4 million in cash from operations, with free cash flow conversion of approximately 100% of net income. Our second quarter free cash flow was impacted by the timing of certain tax payments and the purchase of a building in Switzerland for approximately $8 million during the quarter, which was previously leased. A portion of this was financed with a 10-year mortgage at 2.2%. Our six-month free cash flow has increased 14.5% year-over-year, primarily driven by net income growth results during the period. As usual, we used a meaningful portion of the cash generated to continue to deleverage the balance sheet. We repaid over $35 million of debt during the quarter, with another large $32 million payment crossing the wire two days after the quarter's close. If you include that payment, that takes our total year-to-date debt reduction to $128.7 million. And in terms of our free cash flow generation going forward, the October 15 automatic conversion of our Series A Mandatory Convertible Preferred Stock has not only slightly accreted to EPS, but it also removes the cash dividend payment, reducing our future total cash outlays by approximately $23 million on an annualized basis. This is roughly 9.5% of fiscal 2024's total free cash flow. In the third quarter, when calculating EPS, we anticipate net income to be reduced by approximately $1 million of dividend costs and the diluted EPS to include approximately $1.8 million additional shares from the conversion. The full impact of the shares will be reflected in the fourth quarter when they are all outstanding for the full period. Looking into the third quarter, we expect revenues of $390-$400 million, representing year-over-year growth of 4.3%-7%. As a reminder, at many of our plants, our fiscal third quarter includes fewer selling days due to holidays and is typically our lightest quarter of the year. Our guidance is calling for flattish revenue trends as compared to Q2 fiscal 2025, despite the selling-day headwinds and despite the aerospace OEM headwinds that Dr. Hartnett pointed out earlier. This is driven primarily by ongoing strength in the broader market and industrial sales that should be comparable to that of Q2. On the gross margin side, we are projecting gross margins of 42.5%-43.5%, which would be an increase of roughly 70 basis points year-over-year at the midpoint. On the SG&A side, we expect SG&A as a percentage of sales to be in the 17%-17.5% range during the third quarter. In closing, this was another strong quarter for RBC. We remain focused on leveraging our core strengths in engineering, manufacturing, and product development to drive both organic and inorganic growth, continued margin excellence, and high levels of free cash flow conversion. With that, operator, please open the call for Q&A. Thank you, and at this time, we'll conduct our Q&A session. To ask a question, please press Star one on your telephone keypad. A confirmation tone will indicate that your line is in the question queue. You may press Star two if you would like to remove your question from the queue. For participants using speaker equipment, it may be necessary to pick up your handset before pressing the Star keys. Our first question comes from Michael Ciarmoli with Truist Securities. Please state your question. Hey, good morning, guys. Thanks for taking the question. Hey, just, I guess, the strike combination of the strike implications, the hurricane. I think you called out the revenue impact. Any way to quantify the impact that may have had on gross margins? Yeah, I mean, it's obviously, there's a way to do that, but I can't do it here and now. If you just look at the consolidated gross margin, it's kind of reflective of those parts of those products. So I've I've been just using the consolidated gross margin against the yardstick for contribution, what that would have contributed to EPS. I think that's fair. Okay, okay, okay. Fair enough. And then, Mike, I think you said the exposure to Boeing was down even further now. I mean, does that incorporate Spirit as well? And are you at a position now? I know you guys always like to build strategic inventory and ship out of that strategic inventory. Are you, have you built too much? Is there going to be a destock period? I know the lead times are are definitely still elongated for some of your products, but any color in terms of once maybe. I mean, I guess Boeing first has to get this sort of rate cap lifted. But any thoughts on if there's a destock headwind once they start ramping again? I don't see it. I mean, we've we've, we're sort of down at the nadir of what we've been supplying that whole food chain in terms of, in terms of products. So you know I think, I think once they, once they get back into production and start heading towards that 38 number, I think they're going to pull a big vacuum on the system. Okay. Okay. Got it. That's helpful. And then I think just the last one. I mean, urgent demand for fixed-wing munitions. You know, I mean, I guess just any more detail you could provide there if you're, you know, seeing more from Europe and NATO recapitalizing? Is it just all flowing through kind of the domestic prime contractors and maybe even what the pipeline looks like for some of these newer programs? I mean, we keep seeing a lot of new development platforms across a lot of different domains. You know, any detail there? You know, I think the detail there is that, you know, there's just a lot of these guided weapons and shoulder-mounted weapons use bearings, precision bearings, and many of them are miniature bearings. And because they're U.S.-made defense products, those miniature bearings have to be U.S.-made defense bearings, you know, U.S.-made bearings. And there's there's, that particular supply chain has atrophied over the last generation. And now there's not sufficient production capacity for miniature bearings to service the demand. And I mean, I'm not telling any secrets out of school here, but I mean, the Defense Department's offering special incentives to increase miniature bearing production. And we know about it. We're not participating in it for other reasons, but we're not, but we are we are aware of it. Thank you. And our next question comes from Pete Skibitski with Alembic Global. Please state your question. Hey, good morning, guys. Sorry if I missed it, but I know you quantified the Asheville impact at, I guess, industrial. Can you quantify how much the Boeing IAM strike negatively impacted the second quarter and, you know, maybe give us a sense of how we should think about the back half of the year, the kind of lingering impact? Well yeah, I think, you know, for the back half of our year, our assumption is based on the Boeing being in production and the supply chain having the requirements for one month out of three. And, is that the right number? I don't know. It seemed, it seemed to be conservative when we made it. This is, this is now November, and the strike looms, although maybe it'll make progress today as I read the journal. Yeah, what's boiled into our numbers is operating one month out of three. Okay. So you're assuming sequentially your commercial aero revenue should be down in the third quarter? Yes. Okay. And then, just, I mean, you had some nice backlog increase sequentially, I think about 4.6%. Was a lot of that commercial aerospace? And I don't know, maybe it was wide-body orders? A lot of that would have been on the defense side. Certainly, aerospace defense segment heavy, but it would have been a lot of the defense side of our business. Okay. Got it. Well, heading into my last question then, we've got this continuing resolution ongoing, right, for DOD, which is your third quarter. Have you seen sort of quarter-to-date as we sit here in November, any slowdown in in defense bookings that we can maybe surmise results from the CR? Yeah. I'm trying to think if we are seeing that. You know, our defense bookings are, for the most part, the significant part of those are with OEMs. So they're not, they're not with the Department of Defense. So you know, the bookings are, you know, firm contracts or purchase orders that are extended over often many years. And and I think what's reflected in our backlog is it's still 12 months. It's a full. Okay. So yeah, no, we're we're we're not seeing it. We're not feeling it. Okay. Got it. It's helpful. Thanks so much, guys. Yep. Our next question comes from Tim Thein with Raymond James. Please state your question. Thank you. Good morning. Just the first one was on on Rob's commentary there at the end, in terms of the outlook for the third quarter. I thought I heard Rob, you say that you expected industrial to be flat with the second quarter. Did I hear that correct, or? I think yeah. Sequentially, it should look a lot like Q2 plus or minus. That's what we're looking at right now. Okay. So all right. So then then you're seeing if that were the case, and not to hold you to the penny, but that's calling for year-over-year growth. Correct. Yeah. Okay. Got it. And I guess I'm interested in, and maybe this ties back into the outperformance that I believe you saw in terms of we haven't seen or heard from every one of your industrial peers, but I suspect that down less than a point is probably better than what you'll see from others. And I'm just curious, you know, as you look to your fiscal third quarter, the commentary from the, at least from the public bearing distributors, they're not calling for much by way of improvement. So I'm just curious in terms of what you guys are seeing. Is this some of the benefits from Dodge paying off? Is it maybe you're gaining a higher share of wallet with the distributors? Maybe you can just give some color in terms of what's driving this outperformance on the industrial side. Outperformance relative to our peers? Yeah. I mean, if you did, yeah. Exactly. Yep. Okay. Because I don't think it's outperformance relative to our plan. Got it. You know, I mean, I'd have to know more about why our peers are falling behind than, you know, we're a little behind our plan. So, I didn't think it was outperformance would be a good description of where we are, but I think that fits us. It fits us. I don't know what their problem is. It wasn't necessarily flattering. I mean, I don't think others are talking about, you know, industrial revenues down a point or less. That was all, so. And I'm not, you know, asking to speak for your peers. I'm just maybe just in terms of to the extent you're, you are seeing, you know, improvement. And again, maybe it's lagging your expectations, but I suspect it's better than what you'll see from others. So it was just if you had any commentary around with what you've seen internally and where you're some of the initiatives you put forth and how those are progressing. Well I mean, you know there's, there's, I would say that Dodge's performance is showing an improvement year over year because last year in these quarters, our first and second quarter, we were still fighting with the tail of supply chain problems. And that second quarter was the end of that tail, so which effectively made those quarters last year a little bit stronger than they should have been because of products that needed to be shipped but couldn't be shipped because we didn't have all the parts that we needed to finish various various assemblies. So so now we don't have that difficult quarter-to-quarter comp. And so now it's more a pure operating performance relative to market demand. Got it. Okay. And then just on the last quarter, you'd commented that the full-year margin improvement may be closer to 100 basis points on the gross margin side. Is that still the forecast today? Yes. Yes. Okay. Got it. Okay. And last one, and I'll move on. You highlighted within A&D the marine segment. I think you've been calling on that for some time. I don't know if it's something for competitive reasons. Maybe you're precluded from divulging it, but any context in terms of, you know, within that total company backlog, the size of the, you know, even if it's just qualitatively, the the size of that marine backlog as you sit here today? Yeah. I mean, it's a meaningful part of that backlog to the tune of, you know, $200 million. Got it. Okay. Thanks a lot. Thank you, and a reminder to everyone to ask a question, press Star one on your telephone keypad. To remove yourself from the queue, press Star two. Once again, to queue up for a question, press Star one on your telephone keypad. Our next question comes from Ross Sparenblek with William Blair. Please state your question. Hey. Good morning, guys. Morning, Ross. Hey. Maybe just starting with Dodge, thinking through kind of the longer-term growth outlook. The business has been stable. It'd be great to hear where you stand on the R&D strategy and how we should be thinking about the timing of getting that new product muscle working. Yeah. Well, we have several new product initiatives moving through from R&D into production. And, and so, you know, I think this year, some of the first will probably generate a few million dollars over the full-year period. I mean, it's a normal start for a new product. So I would say that new products out of Dodge on an annualized basis, you know, next year, $5-10 million. Okay, so you feel like you're getting buy-in from the workforce, and this is really starting to potentially snowball in the next couple of years? Yeah. Well, I think, you know, if we have identified the market demand well enough, and I think we have some pretty sharp people working that end of, that end of the equation, yeah, I think those should be meaningful contributors. That's great to hear and maybe just think about Dodge's warehousing business. It's been a tougher couple of years, but it's seen signs that greenfield activity is picking up, so anything you should call on that performance and then maybe anything around project activity that you might be hearing from your customers? You know, I think that that side of the business showed some, showed some positive effects here in this last quarter. So it's it's coming back slowly. You know, we're looking seriously at that at that market and are probably going to develop a new product line to address it, which will probably take a few years in the development, but should should allow us to be a more significant player. Okay. I don't want you to give away any of your strategy there, but is it still conveyor-oriented? I can ask? Yes. Perfect. All right, and then just one last one here. What else do you want me to give away, Ross? The keys to your car. On the 787 and 777X ramp, phone was kind of breaking up, but thinking about the second half margin progression for aerospace, that was previously in the cards. Conversations may still be in the works with Boeing on that. Just any expectations there, maybe second half or even fiscal next year? Well you know, I think, I think next year we should be beyond these troubles and into production and moving moving into that 38 per month ship build rate. That's our expectation. And that's in terms of what we're rolling together for operating budgets that will sort of be the basis of our operating budget next year. You know clearly, Boeing, you know, had published an objective of moving into the 50s before they had the problems that they had last year. They certainly need to do that. At one point, they they had an objective of 60 ships per month. They really need to reboot that objective given their backlog and the need of their customers and the needs of their supply chain. I mean, the supply chains are are in pretty tough shape. A lot of them are, if you survey exactly the financial health of a lot of Boeing and Airbus's suppliers, it's not good. And we know that because we sell them products, and we try to collect our receivables based upon what we sold them. So we know who's having a tough time. Got it. Anything to call out there, I guess, on maybe your willingness to look for incremental market share gains with Boeing? Feels like diversification might be the better angle at this juncture. Can you say that again, Ross? I mean, I know that you guys want to maybe diversify away from Boeing a bit, but if you saw low-hanging fruit on potential market share opportunities, I mean, would you move in that direction? Yeah. There's there's there's a lot of low-hanging fruit. I mean, Boeing is going to be a survivor. There's only two of these guys in the whole world right now that are, you know, practical producers. And you know, we like both of them. And we have projects, big projects in the breach with both companies. And some are, some are, yo know, reaching harvest. Let's put it that way. Got it. Very helpful. Thank you, guys. Yep. Our next question comes from Ron Epstein with Bank of America. Please state your question. Yeah. Hey, good morning, guys. What are you seeing out there in sort of the M&A world? How are properties priced? Is there anything on the market? Does the stress that the Boeing strike has maybe caused some suppliers, has that opened up some opportunities? Yeah. We see things coming to market on the M&A world all the time, and particularly in the A&D side of the business. And we try to understand whether or not we should participate in the auction. And sometimes we do, and sometimes we don't. What we're seeing is a hungry and competitive private equity interest in aerospace companies, if you can believe that. So the competitive nature of these of these businesses that are, you know, attractive to us it has been difficult. And some of these, some of these businesses come with with big problems to solve. So whoever gets involved with any one of these acquisitions, in many cases, needs to have a big toolbox because a lot of tools need to be deployed to fix them. Yeah. That makes sense. And then maybe another question, maybe along sort of similar lines but different. I think it became very evident yesterday when Huntington Ingalls reported that they're having all kinds of issues. Are there opportunities specifically for you guys in kind of the naval supply chain to help? I mean, it seems like that end market in particular is really struggling to execute. And I don't know, for a company that's a good executor, is there an opportunity there for you guys to do something, pick up share either organically or inorganically because of all the troubles that are happening in that naval supply chain? Well we certainly looked at it, Ron. I'd say right now our focus is on executing our current order book and trying to bring up our production rate. Actually, we have to double our production rate as quickly as possible to to meet the objectives that the Navy has and the rest of the industry has for our products. So we've been really busy doing that. We have talked to some of the people that have complained that the industrial base isn't big enough or strong enough to support the build-out. And we've offered to build a plant on the waterfront in Connecticut and barge things over to Groton and, you know, equip it with the appropriate machinery and so on and so forth. You know, we could do it, but there wasn't a lot of interest expressed. That's unfortunate. Yeah. All right. Well, thank you. Yep. Thank you. And our next question comes from Joe Ritchie with Goldman Sachs. Please state your question. Hi. This is Vivek Srivastava calling for Joe. Thank you for the question. My first question is on the industrial end market. You talked about industrial sales next quarter comparable to 2Q. This would imply about 3%-4% organic growth. So just trying to understand, number one, what is driving that confidence? And do you expect both original equipment and aftermarket to return to positive growth next quarter? So just to understand your question, kind of the end markets that we're seeing good activity on is mining, multi-industrial, food and beverage, warehousing, both for all of them on the OEM side and the MRO side. And we're still seeing softness on on some of the mining side of the business and on aggregate and those end markets. So it's a mixed bag now. Oil and gas, we're expecting we should see that starting to come back maybe in our fourth quarter or first quarter. Same with semiconductor, which is starting to show signs that we could see some positive movement in Q4, Q1. But it's just our different markets on the MRO side that are actually driving some of our growth. Very helpful. Moving on to pricing, just trying to understand how much of your list pricing you put on in January and how you're thinking about that. And then you've talked about contracts in aerospace and defense. Any color on contracts coming up for renewal, and what's the view on pricing there? Well I would say this as it relates to aircraft and defense, a lot of the contracts that we have with various people were were signed in 2019, 2020, and between 2020 and today, the Producer Price Index is up 32%, and so these new contracts that we're negotiating reflect that change. The old contracts that we have where the prices were set years ago, don't have, many of them don't have the adjustment needed in order to reflect the change in the PPI, but the new ones do, and new prices have been readjusted. That's very helpful. Just last question quickly on your backlog within industrial. Any color on how your industrial backlog is trending maybe compared to 2019 levels? And do you see some risk of that backlog still normalizing, or do you think backlog in industrial is now more normalized? You know, the big takeaway I would tell you on the industrial backlog that's worth considering in regard to 2019 was just that during the supply chain crisis, Dodge carried a much heavier backlog than they do today, so Dodge has gone back to a much more normalized, lower backlog. It's really not an overly meaningful part of our backlog today, which really reflects their normal book and turn type of business, which you would expect, and that's also reflected on the classic RBC, so on the industrial side. The market's behaving the same way. A lot of in-and-out business in the quarter. Very helpful. Thank you. Thank you. And our next question comes from Steve Barger with KeyBanc Capital Markets. Please state your question. Thanks. Good morning. On the industrial side, the 4-ish% growth you expect for industrial in 3Q certainly seems positive. The comp in 4Q is similar. So is that a reasonable year-over-year run rate from here, meaning you think the inflection has happened in industrial for your business and you're back to consistent growth? So I just want to be clear. So what I said was that sequentially, it could look a lot like Q2 plus or minus. So with a fewer days, that could mean down ever so slightly. So we didn't say 4% next quarter. I just want to say that we do think it will grow, though. Dollars. You don't mean dollars. You mean growth rate. Yeah. We do expect sequential growth, but we didn't say 4%. Sequential growth in growth rate, not dollars. In industrial. In industrial. I understand, but you're not saying sequential growth in dollars. You're saying sequential as the growth rate gets better. No, sir. Got it. Just wanted to make sure everybody understood. Okay. Yep. What percentage of the portfolio do you classify as defense now across the two segments? And what percentage of the portfolio, Mike, would you consider as exceptionally strong, maybe running 20% plus? We were looking up that number for you just a second. Okay. Just within aerospace and defense segment, defense is about a third of the total in that segment. A third in aerospace. Okay. But you have some defense and industrial as well? No. No. We have it all in aerospace and defense. Defense is all? Okay. Got it. Okay. And Mike, for the second part of that question, you had talked about some of the lines of business being exceptionally strong right now. What percentage of the overall portfolio would you consider exceptionally strong? It's a big majority. It's it's it's RBC, traditional RBC plus industrial. Yeah. Traditional RBC is A&D, which was used to be 60% of revenues before we acquired Dodge. So it's 30% of total revenues is exceptionally strong. 30%. Got it. That's great. And just one last one. I heard you say $4 million-$5 million related to the weather impact in the one plant. You were able to mitigate the strike impact with strong demand from other customers. What would revenue have been in 3Q's strike? At what build rate? Yeah. At At what build rate? I guess the build rate that was occurring prior to the strike. Steve, this is Rob Moffatt. I don't think we're going to get into hypotheticals on the third quarter, especially since it's forward-looking. I was actually looking for 2Q, what it would have been, because you only lost a couple of weeks of production in 2Q. But you made up. But even then, you had two impacts on the Boeing side, right? You had the original impact from the January door plug blowout. Then you had the strike itself. Then you had the hurricane. There's just too many variables to really narrow that down and answer at a high-level concept. Gotcha. That's okay. Thanks. Thank you. And we have now reached the end of the question and answer session. And I will now turn the call over to Dr. Hartnett for closing remarks. Okay. Well, thank you. And this concludes our conference call for the second quarter. I appreciate everybody's participation and all the good questions. And look forward to talking to you again in in early February. Good day. Thank you. And all parties may now disconnect. Have a good day.