Okay, good afternoon, and welcome to the 2nd day of JP Morgan's 52nd annual tech conference. My name is Bill Peterson, U.S. clean tech analyst, and really pleased to have Mark Mesler, the CFO of Archer, with us this afternoon. We are webcasting this, so if you have any questions, you know, feel free to ask, but please use the microphone. Mark, just maybe as just sort of an intro, perhaps you can just start off by introducing yourself, the company, and Archer's position within the urban air mobility space, and how you stack up relative to the competition, I guess, in the U.S. as well as globally.
Yeah, sure, and thanks for having me out here, Bill. So Mark Mesler, CFO at Archer Aviation, been with the company for about two and a half years now, and during that time, we've actually made a lot of progress. With respect to how we're positioned, I think it gets back to Archer's overarching strategy since the beginning is to create the most expeditious path to market for our eVTOL aircraft. When we founded the company, it felt like there wasn't a lot of conviction to getting to market. There were some science projects out there. So our founders were really focused on creating a path to get to commercialization. What does commercialization mean?
So clearly, commercialization is generating revenue from customers, being able to manufacture the aircraft, getting through the certification process, and actually aligning with some partners to help us along the way. So if we were just to look across those vectors, clearly the technology needs to work, and we're right now flying our Midnight aircraft in our Salinas test facility, going through an expanded flight envelope. Midnight, you could go out if you haven't seen it fly or if you haven't seen it, there are some really, really cool videos out on YouTube that you can go and see what the aircraft looks like and going through the, a lot of the test envelopes that we're going through. So the technology is working, not just for Archer, but for the industry.
This is a clear and present industry that's going to get to market. With respect to the certification process, we're working very well with the FAA, as well as other jurisdictions around the world, to get the aircraft certified for safety of flight. With respect to that, we are actually pivoting into what's called the implementation mode, where we're gonna start flying aircraft this fall. We've discussed that, we're gonna be making our first piloted flight of a conforming aircraft later this fall. A conforming aircraft is an aircraft that is manufactured under a quality management system that has been approved by the FAA and has all of the parts that are intended to be used and certified with the FAA on it.
So that'll be a big milestone for the company as well as the industry, I believe. You have to be able to manufacture them as well, right? In order to fly them, you have to be able to manufacture them. We've made tremendous strides in our manufacturing processes and our ability to manufacture at scale. We've got a great partnership with Stellantis, which is the third-largest auto manufacturer in the world by revenue. They're helping us stand up a facility in Covington, Georgia. So it's a 350,000 sq ft facility, has the capacity to produce up to 650 aircraft per year, and that is where we'll be doing our scale manufacturing.
And Stellantis is helping us think through how to move our, you know, our product from R&D stage into the manufacturing stage. So, we also have a manufacturing facility in California. It's right around the corner from our HQ, so we can have our engineers in there helping us build the aircraft that will be used for conforming flights later this year. So we are building there six conforming aircraft, of which we're manufacturing three right now. And then finally, if you think about what's the final thing you need, where are you gonna fly them? So we have a really good go-to-market strategy, where it's a little bit of a hybrid approach, where we're selling aircraft, much like an OEM.
We call that Archer Direct, but we're also going to be operating these. And primarily, we're bifurcating those between sort of domestic operations, which will primarily be us operating them or operating them in conjunction with a partner. United Airlines is a big partner of ours from a commercial standpoint and operating standpoint. We've announced routes with them to operate from City Center in Manhattan, 34th Street helipad, to Newark Liberty International Airport, and our goal is to try to get behind the TSA there, so you can fly from Manhattan to Terminal C. We've also announced routes in Chicago. So that's our domestic strategy, and then internationally, we clearly aren't experts in all of the markets that want this technology, so we've established some really good partnerships internationally in the UAE and India, et cetera.
So if you step back with respect to what does all that mean, we are threading the needle to get to commercialization as early as 2025, which we've gone, which we've talked about on record, which is next year, and, those are the, those are the primary vectors that we continue to work to, to get us there.
Yeah. And you spoke to it, so I guess the direct model might be more overseas and maybe operate here in the U.S., but I guess, how should we think about the economics, the unit economics for the different strategies between a sale versus an operate model?
Yeah, it's a good question 'cause, I find that investors are starting to really dig into the unit-level economics over the past year. And so, the simplest form is when we're selling the aircraft, it is just like a direct sale. You sell the aircraft, and you have some repair and overhaul that you can sell after that. But we've been targeting the economics to show that we can get about a 50% gross margin on the sale of the aircraft. That's assuming an ASP of around $5 million, which is what our agreement with United and a couple of the other operators are. So a $5 million ASP, 50% gross margin is the target on that. When you're operating them, clearly, it's a little bit more of a complex system.
you have, it's, it really starts looking like ride-sharing economics at that point. You've got a cost per seat or potentially a cost per seat mile, however you choose to look at it, and then there's operating costs that you have to incur as well. So at a high level, our models show that we can get to around a 40% gross margin operating these in networks. So picture a network in New York City or in Miami or somewhere else where you're charging, like, ride-share. Now, clearly, we want to charge to what the market will bear, but we don't want this to be sort of a wealthy person's mode of transportation. We want this to be very ubiquitous and have folks who are inter...
are used to using ride-share, can use Archer as an aerial ride-share. So, you know, initially, if you look at ride-sharing, if you take a cab, and this is crazy, I just took a cab from Manhattan to Newark. It was a fixed $130 fare, and then you had tolls on top of that, another $30, so you're already at, like, $160. You throw a tip, you're like... You're approaching Blade's $195 price point, which you could take a helicopter. So if you do the math on, like, a $180 or, like, a $200 flight, that's about $20 per seat mile, which is way above, you know, what a typical ride-share would be.
So I share that with you so you can understand, when you start getting to unit-level economics, you know, that $6-$8 a seat mile is your typical ride-share, if you take an Uber, et cetera, and we should be able to make money. My goal is to make money, you know, below that, but, you know, translating that into what does that cost per passenger? Recall that we have a, the aircraft is a four-passenger plus a pilot aircraft, so at $6 a seat mile on a 20-mile trip, you're looking at, like, $120 per seat. Honestly, in New York, L.A., other areas, that's probably a minimum cost. I think folks would, you know, would pay a lot more than that. You layer on... So that's the top line.
In thinking through the unit-level economics, you've got pilot cost, you've got the amortization of the aircraft, you've got, landing fees, insurance, et cetera. So the economics are very different because, one, it's a more complex system. You're operating them, you have more cost to operate them versus just a direct sale.
Yeah. Thanks for that. I mean, as this is a tech conference, I guess, you know, how, how is Archer planning to you know, develop its customer interface, using tech to enable fair pricing, passenger pooling, accessibility, and, I mean, how does your sort of customer-facing tech look like?
Yeah, so we, we hired early on some smart folks and data scientists from Uber Pool, and they've helped us think through a couple of things around the, the, the go-to-market. One is just, what do these networks look like? And we're able to model what these networks look like using their data. But two is, is putting together an app, to, to do just what you just said. There's an Archer App that we're actually starting to test internally right now, which customers keep on their, their phone. You could also, with our partners, you think about United, this could be integrated with United app.
So if you're a United customer or, you know, a Global Services or a 1K and you wanna book an Archer on top of your regular flight, there's gonna. We're trying to work with them to have that type of interface as well. So try to make it seamless, and as part of the customer's daily lives as we can.
Look forward to that in a few years.
Hopefully sooner.
... from New York. So, well, maybe to that point, let's move to certification. So, you know, over the last maybe few months or quarters, you know, Archer and others, frankly, have talked about the importance of the UAE as a launch market, perhaps in 2025, as you said. You know, there seems like there's some good financial incentives, and as well as a parallel pathway to type certification, which is the key milestone you need, especially from the FAA. But I guess, how have the conversations gone with the UAE certifying body, the GCAA, and how has that been supportive of a 2025 potential launch?
Yeah, so what we've observed is that outside the U.S., there is an increasing amount of interest in the tech, primarily because some jurisdictions or some countries don't have the, you know, don't have the infrastructure that we have with respect to terrestrial transportation, and specifically in the UAE, is one of them. The UAE has leaned into this space. We've also, as I said, we have deals in India, so it's a global phenomenon. UAE, though, has identified eVTOL as a strategic industry for them, and they have leaned in to providing a number of support systems to commercialize eVTOL within the UAE. I mean, we've struck deals with two operators there.
One is called Falcon Aviation, the other one's called Air Chateau. These are operators within the ecosystem there. ADIO, the Abu Dhabi Investment Office, has, two weeks ago, we announced a multi-hundred million dollar investment by them to help set up this ecosystem there. So, I look at that as a ready-made investment for vertiports, for training, for R&O facility, repair and overhaul facilities, that they're willing to invest in. And then, and then finally, we announced yesterday a training, a pilot training program with, with Etihad in, in. So, they've really forward leaned, and, you know, 2025 for them is a, a clear and present path that we could potentially-
Yeah
... take advantage of.
Investors may ask, like, you know, how or what enables this GCAA to certify an aircraft ahead of the FAA?
... Yeah, it's a good question. I think that, regulatory bodies around the world—federal regulatory bodies around the world are trying to align their pace of certification operations with the pace that the industry is moving. We're seeing that with, federal regulators that we're talking to outside the U.S. You're also seeing it with the FAA itself. The recent reauthorization of the FAA Act called for an establishment of a steering committee to ensure that the U.S. maintains its global leadership in, in advanced air mobility, or AAM. So I think that there is a motivation amongst all parties to move at pace.
Then the next level down is just to level set, that what we're certifying is not a complex system, like a narrow body or wide body jet airliner, right? This is a, this is an order of magnitude, a lot simpler of a product than a jetliner. We are sourcing close to 80% of our components and parts from the existing aerospace supply base, and that supply base has certification heritage, meaning that it has parts and/or companies have gone through the certification process with regulators before. So I think that's a good setup to then look at what is the internal, you know, what is the internal capability of the regulatory agency to get through the certification process.
The GCAA, which is the General Civil Aviation Authority, in UAE, has a well-established track record of certification. They're nimble, and they have, they're well-staffed to do this. So I think, I think they've set themselves up pretty well to potentially, get through a 2025 certification.
Yeah. Maybe coming back to an earlier thread you just mentioned. So you've chosen to primarily source components and systems from the supply chain, from the established aerospace supply chain, to minimize risks. What are the benefits? We already spoke to one benefit, but what are the benefits or trade-offs of pursuing this approach?
Yeah, we feel the benefits are many. So the 2 big ones are using an existing aerospace supply base that has certification heritage, we think, de-risks our path through the certification process with the FAA and other regulatory bodies. So if I have a flight computer that I'm sourcing from Safran out of France, the FAA has seen those before. So it's not like they have to relearn the technology or look at it and dig through every nook and cranny. They've seen this before. And so Garmin, you know, Garmin navigation, actuators from Honeywell, sidesticks from Crouzet, all of these have prior certification heritage.
So we feel that, you know, on that overarching strategy that I discussed in the beginning, to create the most expeditious path to market, that strategy, we think, enables that with the FAA. We chose to integrate with what we call key differentiating technologies, which, for us, would be powertrain. We think the key differentiator, you know, is how your electric engines and your battery packs operate together. And so we chose to develop those internally. So using that supply base to help us get through the cert process, we think de-risks our path. The second key benefit to that is that I don't have to make investments in those subsystems to develop them internally, either from an R&D standpoint or from a future manufacturing standpoint.
So you think about production hell. If right now my manufacturing processes are essentially gonna be an assembly and test process. We've got a battery pack line. We've got an electric engine line, which we are manufacturing. But Covington, Georgia, is essentially bringing all those components that are sourced from the existing aerospace supply base together and assembling them into an aircraft. So that we feel that that's gonna de-risk scale. It's gonna de-risk our ability to get to market. But also, from a capital standpoint, it is a capital-light strategy, because I don't have to make investments in capacity to manufacture those components in the future. I don't have to make investments in the people to manufacture those, and I don't have to make investments in the R&D folks to manufacture those.
For instance, our sidesticks, you know, these are. These have been used on the sidesticks are the two sticks that we use to fly the aircraft. One's for altitude, one's for, you know, altitude gain and loss, and one's for forward motion, et cetera. And those are sourced by a company called Crouzet. Crouzet has over 4,000 employees. I might be able to afford to put five 10, 20 people on that. Might take me three to five years to develop that. I'm able to develop in a really short timeline with Crouzet. So I think the strategy has largely paid off for us, and if you think about it, it's really just becomes a make versus buy decision once you get to market. You know, and that's a decision that I make as a CFO every day.
I get to market, I'm manufacturing. If I can just pecking order go down my supply base and decide whether I want to manufacture those in-house or externally. But the key thing, again, is to get to market. Once you get to market, you got a completely different valuation, you got a completely different ballgame.
Just to sum up here, where do you view your core IP? I mean, you kind of mentioned, you know, electric motor and things like that, but maybe just what do you view as your core IP and your core value add?
It's an interesting question because I think you have to look at the use cases for the aircraft. We specifically designed our Midnight aircraft for the 20mi-50mi mission. And so every design decision that we made with respect to battery charging time, the battery packs, the size of the engines, et cetera, are idiosyncratic to that use case. We've got 12 propellers across the fixed wing, and the front six tilt forward into forward flight. There's six battery packs in the wing. We think that that's, that is an optimum-...
That's an optimum configuration for to fly safely, to perform the 20mi-50mi use case, to charge in a 10-minute charge time to get ready for the gondola, like, 20mi missions, which we'll do maybe 20mi-25mi of those a day. So that is the use case that we designed it for. I do believe that our core IP is in our powertrain. So we early on identified it as a key differentiating technology, so our electric engines and our battery packs. So the batteries come from a company called Molicel, that have been manufacturing these in the millions and millions for a number of years. It's a cylindrical cell.
But we assemble those into a battery pack, and that battery pack has to be able to contain what's called thermal runaway. It has to operate at, you know, at our operating parameters. And the electric engines are sized for our specific aircraft. The weight, the torque, and everything is sized for our aircraft. We were able to develop those because we're right in the heart of Silicon Valley. You know, we got a bunch of smart folks that came from Tesla, Apple Special Projects Group, the Lucids of the world that really designed an elegant electric engine for us. It's seven moving parts, and it works perfectly for us.
So if you held a gun to my head, I would say that is our core IP, but I also think that the whole configuration for the aircraft is very idiosyncratic to our use case, and, you know, others may not have that same type of use case.
Yep. Coming back to certification, and we think about the balance of the year, what sort of milestones should we, you know, investors be monitoring? You know, when should we think about piloted flight, transition to the full wing-borne flight, when are these expected to happen?
So first off, we'll be getting what's called our G1, which is our basis of certification. That has largely been done for two years with the FAA. We're just waiting for that final paper to be issued. It's already been out for public opinion. It's been approved. Competitor Joby got theirs, I think, about a month ago. So ours is imminent. We talked about it on our earnings call. So that'd be the, probably one of the first things that you'd see. Probably another technical milestone, not necessarily related to the cert process, is Midnight, the Midnight that we're flying now will be performing its first full transition flight this summer, meaning the front six propellers will be locked into horizontal position, and lift will be generated by the wing.
Very efficient form of flight, which is why we, you know, believe the fixed wing is the right, right approach for eVTOL. From a certification standpoint, we are building six conforming aircraft, the three of which are being built right now. Those six conforming aircraft will be going through all of the tests that we're agreeing right now with the FAA. So there's subject-specific certification plans that you would expect us to finalize with the FAA. Those subject-specific certification plans will be executed with our six conforming aircraft. We're building three right now. The first off the line, T1, we call it, Test Aircraft One, will perform a piloted flight of a conforming aircraft later this fall. I think I talked about that in my opening remarks.
But that'll be a pretty big deal because it'll be, there will be a pilot in the aircraft, and it'll be flying a conforming aircraft, which is a big, I think it's a big milestone for us, as I said, and, and most likely for the industry. Those will be the big things for the rest of the year.
So there's, there's been, I mean, for lack of a better word, uncertainty around the FAA and the timing. So what is your latest thoughts around that? I guess this is gonna be, when the U.S. truly can start, right? When you get type certification. I guess, how much of the remaining certification process is dependent on what you know, you guys do in your own testing versus the FAA? And how should investors think about type cert at this point?
Yeah, I mean, type cert, as I said, I think the, the FAA is moving... they're moving at pace, but still remaining, you know, to have the public be safe with an aircraft they're gonna be flying. We work with the, the FAA daily, weekly on, on a number of, number of issues you could imagine. The finalization of the certification plans is will have thousands of tests that are being performed. There's work both on our part as well as the FAA's part during the certification process. It is very collaborative. Once we get into the FAA's certification testing regimen, we will go through the test, and the FAA will be on-site validating the test.
So, I would say it's probably equal parts in terms of work done on both sides to get through the certification process. The goal is clearly to do that next year. I think that Archer will. I think our goal is, and we have a good shot of, at least current course and speed, that we'll have a safe aircraft that's ready to fly next year, and our goal is for hopefully, that the FAA is right there alongside us, getting that certified as well.
Mm-hmm. Supposing you can, you can actually fly in the UAE even sooner, how should we think about your ability, you know, to supply? What does, what does the near-term ramp look like over the next few years? How many could be in operation if you look out one to two years?
You know, I think the industry will be supply-constrained versus demand-constrained. If you look at the orders that we've booked, you know, I've got up to 700 aircraft from operating partners in India, which would be InterGlobe. I've got operating partner Air Chateau, I've got United, and you could imagine we're gonna be booking additional business between now and next year, around the globe, as well as here in the U.S. So I don't think it's gonna be demand-constrained. The question is, what is the pace with which we would be willing to expand capacity? And I think a couple of points there. One, with our factory in Georgia, we will have capacity to manufacture up to 650 aircraft per year. That won't be out of the gate.
You know, I suspect that's a couple years out when we would do that. We also do have the opportunity with Stellantis. Stellantis is our manufacturing partner, and they desire, and we desire for them to become our contract manufacturer. That has a number of benefits for us, right? One, I wouldn't have to invest in incremental capacity, either to get to 650 or beyond that 650, because in Georgia, I do have an option to increase capacity to 550,000 sq ft per year in a phase II, which would be up to 2,300 aircraft per year. I may not have to do that if I have this partnership with Stellantis. So I think Stellantis actually helps us unlock scale there as well. And they build 500,000-600,000 cars per month.
Our aircraft is not too different from a manufacturing—from an automotive manufacturing process. You've got carbon, you've got battery packs, you've got electric engines, you've got wiring harnesses. It's not a big aerospace supplier. The key thing is you have to be able to manufacture it according to a quality management system that the FAA has approved. That's a production certificate which we'll be getting. So I give you all that as a backdrop to answer your specific question is, what does the ramp look like? You know, it's difficult to say. I think the...
And I think we will have capacity to do hundreds per year within, you know, a very short time, but it's just a matter of how fast do we want to ramp that up, 'cause it will be driven by our operating partners and how much they would be willing to build out their networks, how much they're able to do that in either India, UAE, or other areas in here domestically. So, it will be demand-driven.
Yeah. I'm gonna pause and see if there's any questions from the audience. Does anyone have any questions? Okay, let's talk about the DoD. You know, this last year, this was kind of actually a pretty exciting announcement, but can you share more around the contract with the DoD? You know, what does the current level of engagement look like, and where do you see this partnership moving, you know, over the longer term?
Yeah. Yeah, the DoD is interesting because it's, I mean, it could be, if they, if the DoD got conviction around this technology, it could be a generational type, like, Black Hawk-type opportunity, right? So we're actually working with them to help them think through the use cases for this. Generally, they would be non-kinetic use cases. These things are, you know, they're carbon fiber, so you can't really strap a weapon or anything on this. It's, it's, it's very light.
Might be a little bit too much.
Yeah. I'm sure the payload would be and ammo would be too much for this, but it's generally for non-kinetic use cases. Think logistics, think base-to-base logistics. The paradigm for, you know, the DoD, when they think about base configurations going forward, they're thinking about their bases being less centralized and more distributed, you know, to minimize impact of, you know, bad actors on the airspace or on the bases themselves. So the eVTOL could be a really good use case to move between the inter-base operability, search, rescue. So there's a number of really high-quality use cases. It's only $5 million ASP. Think about, like, some of the current Black Hawk use cases are moving, you know, moving a laptop out to some forward base.
You know, that's cost tens of thousands of dollars an hour to operate a Black Hawk. Costs hundreds of dollars an hour to operate a Midnight aircraft. So what we've been working with the DoD on, it was a $142 million contract. The first couple of years were really training of pilots, getting simulators to them, identifying use cases, writing reports. Eventually, we will deliver an aircraft to them as well. It's gonna be budget-driven, which, you know, the DoD budget will drive that. So it's a really interesting opportunity for us, and, you know, our current...
You know, if you think about our current plan of record, it doesn't contemplate a large DoD order, but if that would be fantastic if we were to eventually be able to deploy some type of generational contract into the DoD.
Great, thanks for that. So, you know, one of the things that investors often ask about is infrastructure, and you talked in the past, you also, coming back to technology as well, you have this, Prime Radiant. So can you help us think about how to how Prime Radiant is used or other tools are used more broadly to identify, you know, launch routes, you know, help with quick turnaround times, demand aggregation, and, you know, to drive the unit economics you spoke to earlier?
Yeah. So, I do want to say that our, when we're looking at identifying routes globally as well as within the U.S., it is non-random. So we have an application that was developed by the Uber Pool gentleman that we had hired when we first started the company. The application's called Prime Radiant. That application models in a constrained optimization format what a network within a major city could look like. So if I pick New York City, we can put in, we're going to deploy 50 planes across 15 nodes, which would be like vertiports, and what does that spit out in terms of what is the demand on those routes? What is the throughput? How many aircraft could each route support, et cetera?
So it's a really valuable tool to help, and it'll tell you exactly where to place the vertiports. So that's why I said it's non-random in how we pick these out. You could imagine that generally, you enter into a big city, where are the largest throughput routes? They are city center to airports. You know, there's tens of millions of trips per year from Manhattan to one of the airports. And so those are clearly, if you think about entering a market, that's called a trunk route. We enter the market with a trunk route, and then from there, you can build branch routes. So then you have city center to Greenwich or Greenwich over to Long Island, or city center to Westchester, somewhere in New Jersey.
And so that node, that nodal network somewhat, you know, starts to becoming like a 12- to 15-node market. And so the infrastructure that you need, initially, we don't think it's a significant amount of infrastructure. We think the first two, three, four, even five years, there's enough existing infrastructure for general aviation assets like heliports and/or just municipal airports that can support that. All you have to do is invest in the charging infrastructure, which is like putting a Tesla Supercharger on site. It's not terribly expensive to do. That's the—I think that's the capital light way the industry will approach the go-to-market. I think there will be selective investments in sort of flagship vertiports, and we've modeled, and we have models of, you know, what does a flagship vertiport look like? It's modular.
You have, you know, a café room, you have a, you know, an ingress, egress room, you have a waiting room where you can see your aircraft, its biometric scans as you walk in. I mean, that is where I, you know... That's where I think that is, that that's future state, but we don't have to make those investments initially. So I think the infrastructure, both domestically as well as internationally, can follow this continuum, where you start off with using existing aviation assets but then slowly grow as this industry matures, as more capital is acquired. And I also think it doesn't have to be us, the operators and developers, that are gonna fund that. I think partners will fund that. We've already announced a partnership with Atlantic Aviation.
They're an FBO operator. They want to put charging infrastructure through FBOs. I could see a really nice business being developed that would support this industry, just operating vertiports around the country and potentially the world.
Yeah. Well, will you use the microphone, please? Yeah.
What are the airspace issues that you need to work through or that we need to think about short term, intermediate term?
So short term, this is... These aircraft are going to be operating under general aviation rules. I've heard in talking to some folks, like, for example, New York could absorb, you know, up to 100-150 eVTOL aircraft without having to change its current paradigm of operation. I think as clearly as you start to blacken the skies with eVTOL, there's gonna be a different air management or deconfliction-type paradigm that will have to be deployed. NASA has done a lot of work on that for eVTOL and has issued a white paper or two with respect to that, and I think that the work they've done could be adopted into the space.
But initially, for the first couple of years, there's not much that has to really change with respect to the local airspace management and air traffic systems. I think as we're going into an airport like Newark, clearly, there'll have to be some type. Maybe it's not a regulation, but there have to be some governance around that just because you're having, you know, wide-body, narrow-body aircraft landing. But for your general rank and file, you know, Greenwich to New York City, there's no real. Nothing has to change there.
Thanks for that. Last question: how should we think about your use of cash over the next, you know, one to two years? And, you know, I guess, how much runway do you have before a potential cap raise, and are there preferred means to raise capital from here?
Yeah, we discussed on our last earnings call, we've got $530 million liquidity, which is made up of roughly $406 million-$407 million of cash on my balance sheet, plus access to various mechanisms I have with Stellantis and some loans, et cetera, for my factory in Georgia. So we're pretty comfortable with our capitalization through commercialization. You can imagine, your specific question, what are we gonna use? We're investing in parts for our six conforming aircraft. We're investing still in our supply base. In terms of... I think the industry itself will have to look at capitalization from a growth standpoint 'cause it's clearly not capitalized for to grow the industry.
I think we're all capitalized to get through commercialization, to get through the certification process, and then we'll have to look at mechanisms. For us, I think the mechanism will be very similar to things we've done in the past: strategic investments, forward equity purchase agreements, et cetera.
Great. Well, Mark, thanks for sharing the insights, and we'll look forward to watching your progress. Thanks for joining the tech conference.
Good. Thank you. Thanks, everyone.