Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to Barclays America's Select Conference, Day One. I think this might be the last fireside chat session, and then we have drinks afterwards. For those of you joining us on the webcast, I'm Brandon Oginski, Airline and Transport Analyst, and we're very happy to host FTAI Aviation Next. With us from the company, Joe Adams, CEO. You guys are running a very unique MRE and aviation leasing business. I figured I'd just give you maybe a couple minutes to maybe introduce the business to those that don't know, and then we definitely have a lot of questions.
Yes, thanks very much, Brandon. Thanks for having us. Very happy to be here today. We do have an increasing amount of interest in Europe from a number of investors. Good to be invited and included, and look forward to doing this in the future. FTAI Aviation is an outsourced provider of engine maintenance in the aftermarket for primarily two engines, the CFM56 and the V2500, which happen to be the engines that fly all 737 NGs and A320ceo aircraft, which is the largest part of the world's commercial aircraft fleet. We focus on those two engines. What we do as a business is we acquire engines that are run out or have limits on how continued flying.
We rebuild those engines through our own network and our own facilities, and then we go to market, to the airlines or lessors with a product where we either sell that engine, exchange it for a runout engine, or lease the engine to them. It allows the owner, the owner or the airline to not have to do their own engine maintenance on those engines. In the aftermarket, that becomes an increasingly complex process, higher prices today. We can provide a tremendous amount of flexibility and cost savings directly to the customer. It's a product that we introduced, you know, really going back three, four years, and has been widely accepted. We now have over 100 customers who've endorsed it and a growing number.
Last year, we estimated about a $22 billion annual spend on maintenance for those two engines. We generated about $1 billion in revenue, so under 5%. Our goal over the next several years is to grow that to approximately 25% market share. We think that is achievable given the direct cost savings that customers and owners received, as well as the new Strategic Capital Initiative that we launched earlier this year, whereby through a partnership, we'll end up owning, being the direct owner of those 737 NGs and A320ceo s that are on lease. As part of that arrangement, that partnership will contract to do all the engine maintenance and exchanges directly with FTAI Aviation.
An immediate conversion of that business over to our FTAI Aviation model, as well as a growth and commitment and visibility for future engine shop visits, which will have a virtuous effect of, you know, giving us increased visibility and planning, as well as allowing us to increase the efficiency and our ability to produce those rebuild engines.
Joe, I appreciate that. Maybe just as context, for those again, aren't that new to the story or are new to the story, you know, when you IPO'd this business, it was really more focused on the aviation side, leasing aircraft and leasing engines. Can you talk about the evolution of how you got into the products business in the first place?
Yes, it started years ago. We started directly as an engine leasing business and then realized the biggest expenditure you make, owning an engine, is on the maintenance that you need to do to restore hours and cycles. Approximately every five years, you have to take apart that engine and rebuild it. It's a very complicated and expensive process in the aftermarket. At that time, we discovered PMA as an alternative to OEM parts. PMA is, as I call it, the generic drug equivalent for aviation, where you can go to the FAA and, if you can prove you can make a part equal to or better than the OEM part, you get a license to make it. That was a company called Chromalloy. We had a great experience with PMA and the CFM56 engine.
Then we realized the same opportunity was available for CFM56 engines. That was, you know, about 2018. We realized that's the largest engine market in the world. It is a market that was maturing. Most of the engines were moving off of power by the hour programs with OEMs into aftermarket. We could take that competitive advantage, proprietary product, and really create a tremendous business model for that engine. We decided to go all in on CFM56. As part of that, we wanted to vertically integrate and be able to do our own, in addition to parts manufacturing, do our own engine shop visits, do our own teardown activity, and do our own piece part repair business.
We have done all of that to wring out as much cost as possible, which makes us the best, you know, the best, most capable, most efficient provider of aftermarket maintenance for that engine in the world.
I guess the evolution of that now has led to this SCI, Strategic Capital Initiative, where you want to grow lease portfolio off balance sheet. That is that right?
Yes. As part of that, we mentioned, you know, customers can be airlines and owners, owners being a lessor. We started seeing that by delivering a rebuild engine, you can eliminate a lot of the negative experiences lessors have with either cost overruns, delays getting engines in, or managing the process themselves. As part of that, we realized that benefit that we can provide by doing these pre-build engine exchanges, we might as well confer that on a partnership that we could run and manage. It was a part of the market that we had not really focused on necessarily before that because it is very capital intensive. About a year ago, we started thinking about that as a big opportunity to invest in owning these.
We can do it in an off balance sheet way with, Strategic Capital is our, you know, the name of the entity, Strategic Capital Initiative. Our first partnership was concluded at the beginning of this year. Our objective is to be able to invest $4 billion through that partnership, which effectively translates into owning about 250 aircraft. As part of the arrangement, FTAI Aviation will do all engine maintenance required for those aircraft in that partnership through engine exchanges. If you think about the math of that, 250 aircraft comprises about 500 engines. Roughly 20% of those are due for a performance restoration or shop visit every year. That's 100.
If we do an engine exchange, and each one of those generates roughly today for us about $2.5 million of EBITDA, that's $250 million of EBITDA from the new partnership that goes directly to FTAI Aviation. In addition, we'll get paid a management fee for running the partnership, being the general partner, and we'll own 20% of it. That allows us to build a, you know, a customer that is 100% committed to engine exchanges and to accelerate our, capture of market share, via that method and to do, potentially do, you know, a new partnership every year so that the, the cumulative effect of that will be, you know, very major and make us the largest owner of narrow body aircraft in, in the, in the world.
Joe, on that first partnership, I think the first capital closed in late March. Is that correct?
Yes. The first aircraft were closed in late March. We actually had equity capital committed at the end of December of last year. We then arranged debt financing, which was committed in mid-February. The debt financing was available to fund at the end of the last week of March. The first aircraft, which was four aircraft that were sold from our balance sheet, FTAI Aviation, into seed that portfolio closed in March. Also as part of that, there were a number of, we've now got 98 aircraft in the SCI lined up under letters of intent, of which today approximately 30 have closed. A lot of those were in the works for the first few months of this year, would need immediate engines to replace engines that were run out.
We had a sale lease back with an airline that had a number of engines that were run out of time, so they needed immediate engines as part of the deal. As part of that, we sold $100 million of engines from the aerospace products business to SCI in the first quarter, which represented about 30% of the total activity in this aerospace product segment for the quarter. We've indicated that that was a little bit high compared to what we expect the run rate to be. We expect for the full year to be about 20%. As mentioned, there was some stacking of requirements from the lease portfolio and a sale lease back from an airline that made that number slightly elevated.
All of that came together and, you know, happened in the first quarter, which we view as a, you know, a huge positive and a huge accomplishment to put all that together and get that done, early this year. We see that as a, you know, a major driver of, both the, activity level in aerospace products as well as the, the visibility in terms of future pipeline. The more you know about what your engine requirements are going to be, the more you can plan, the more efficient you become, and the better your margins are over time.
I think specific to that $100 million, there was a footnote in your earnings release that it maybe caused a little bit of confusion last week. Definitely some volatility in the stock. Effectively, this was associated with those other 26 aircraft being closed into the portfolio. Is that right?
Yes. Yes. You know, we view that as we had lots of alternatives to what we could do with those engines. The market is extremely strong, but we prioritized those engines for the Strategic Capital Initiative because we want to grow that business. We want that business to be very successful. It was both a commitment and a, you know, financial goal to grow that and make that very successful.
I guess it's almost a validation of why you did the SCI. Is that right?
Yes.
I guess along those lines, margins in the business have been what, north of 35%, right? Recently, you guys have been talking about targets that maybe could reach close to 50%.
Yes.
There's been some discussion. Why is your margin so much higher than maybe a primary MRO competitor that's generating 10%-15% margins?
Yeah. I mean, we combine a number of activities. As I mentioned, our business model is unique in that we both do the maintenance and we own the engine. We view the margin as a combination of three different components. First of all, the act of repairing and repairing something for someone else tends to, as a third party MRO, would generate typically 15% margin. The second part is we have the ability by virtue of owning inventory and by having our maintenance capability, the ability to optimize green time. We showed an example in our February slide deck where we took three engines that we acquired in a real life example, performed maintenance, recombined them, and created $6 million of value on a $10 million total investment.
That's a real optimization solution that we can bring to the table because of the extent of our ownership of assets and our maintenance facilities, and then the third part of the margin comes from parts where we acquire and repair a lot of used serviceable material, which we recycle in our own shop visits. We also generate a lot of used serviceable material from our own inventory that we tear down. The growth opportunity will come from the addition of PMA, which we think will contribute a significant amount of potentially 5-10 percentage points of additional margin once the full portfolio of PMA products is available.
Can we talk about the economies of scale you get by owning the engine fleet as opposed to just a traditional MRO shop visit where it's one engine, one owner and billable hours?
Yeah, that's a great question. I mean, we run our shops very differently in that we only do our maintenance and restorations on engines we own. We have no third party engines, owned by others in the shop. What that allows you to do is two things. One is you can specialize. Each one of those engines can be managed by a fan, a core, and a low pressure turbine and recombined at the end of the process. You don't have to track whether those are part of someone else's fleet or not. The second thing you can do is you don't have to track someone else's parts. You can have parts inventory available. You can operate it like a machine, an assembly line.
As an engine comes down the line, you take whatever parts are available, you put it together at the end of the shop visit, you have a fully built engine. Those efficiencies, the specialization and the efficiency of not having to track other people's parts, you know, creates very, very faster turnaround times and lower cost for refurbishing engines.
This is effectively what a large airline like Delta will do with their own tech ops facility. Is that right?
Exactly. When we think about our business model, it is more similar to what the major airlines who own their own maintenance facilities do internally. If you think about if you own, you know, 400 aircraft and you have your own maintenance facility, your operation is very similar to the way we operate. Or you could argue we copied that model. Of the 600 owners of CFM56 engines in the world, there are only five that effectively have that ability. The 595 other airlines that operate, we can provide that functionality to them on an outsource basis, save them money, and make great margins for ourselves at the same time. That product was never really available, because the major airlines who do it for their own fleet, they don' t provide that function to other airlines.
What's been the response from your customer base?
It's been great. I mean, we now, we announced we have over 100 customers. We've had very, very high level of repeat usage. Our pitch is almost always like if, you know, just try it and use it once. If you don't like it, then don't do it again. We've always found that people were like, wow, this is amazing. I save so much time and money and I eliminate the use, the potential cost overrun of having an engine be inducted into a third party MRO shop. We haven't had anybody that hasn't wanted to use it again or said anything about like, they love it. They love the product. We see the adoption, you know, growing and increasing throughout the entire industry, really. I don't see, I've never had anybody say there's something wrong with it.
If you can provide the same engine to someone for a lower cost with no other associated expenses, why wouldn't people do it?
Okay. Can you talk about physical capacity in your network to reach your EBITDA targets? I think this year's $1.1 billion, or $1.1 billion-$1.4 billion by next year.
Yep. Yeah. We have, today we have the capacity, physical capacity to do about 300 shop visits in Montreal, 150 in Miami. Closing this quarter is a, investment in a facility in Rome, which will add another 150 engines. That adds up to about 600 shop visits of physical capacity per annum. We are increasing our, our production rates in Montreal the most this year. That is ramping up. We will bring on Rome this summer. We' ve made a substantial investment in, in advance in parts. You saw in the cash flow statement, we called out, you know, $200 million investment in the first half of this year in parts inventory, which is in anticipation of that. The only remaining piece of that is mechanics. You have to have people to do that.
We are adding mechanics in Montreal as we speak this quarter. We've invested a substantial amount in that in the first quarter. We will ramp up Rome the latter part of this year, the second half. We believe that what we have today in place will be more than enough capacity to hit those targets.
Okay. I think some fair concerns around your margin profile has been, look, the aftermarket's been really hot in aerospace, especially with the GTF groundings, especially with max delivery delays and just overall aggregate OEM challenges. Once we finally get that worked out, maybe in the next two or three years, if asset values decline, especially on the CFM56 platform, won't your margins be impacted by that?
Yes. We view our business as more of a spread business in that we buy, as I said at the very beginning, we buy runout engines, we rebuild them, and then we go to market. The cost of shop visits is not cyclical because it is driven mostly by parts prices, which only go one way. They always go up. When you think about, you know, an engine, its replacement cost is driven off of what it would cost you to rebuild it. As long as you continue flying and you have to do shop visits, you are going to have to do that. That is going to be your benchmark for comparisons. The only thing that, you know, cyclical, what can drive engine prices in the secondary market is if you have a downturn or you have a lot of excess equipment available.
The engine market is the best self-correcting market for supply and demand of any market in that if you have to do 20% of your engines are due for a shop visit in any one year, if you have a cyclical downturn like we had in COVID or other times, people stop or reduce the amount of shop visits they're going to do, which means that if you stopped all shop visits, 10% of the, you know, the fleet, you know, you'd retire that in a half a year. It tends to be self-correcting and self-regulating in terms of the price. The price is really set off of the OEM's parts prices.
You can see temporary disruptions, but we view ourselves as that would also give us an opportunity to buy, you know, cheaper and rebuild and still, still earn the same margin.
And by the way, if there's Q&A in here, I think we have a mic if you guys want. But, Joe, I guess along those lines, as we think about competition, why is another MRO provider not doing this? And won't your margins entice more competition or maybe a reaction from the OEMs as well?
Yes. We think about that all the time. I think, you know, you're right. The MRO industry, third party MROs have the capability to do what we do. The key, as I mentioned in the beginning, is our business model is to combine ownership of assets with maintenance. If you're a third party MRO today, I'm not aware of any third party MRO that owns a significant amount of their own engines. They mostly are going out and pitching airlines and other customers to give them third party, to do third party work on those engines. Step one would be, you know, acquire a bunch of engines, get a bunch of capital from somewhere, buy the engines. Most third party MROs have more than one engine they do. You'd have to select one.
We, seven or eight years ago, we said, we're just going to do CFM56. We sort of did the opposite of what most people do is we were anti-diversification. We went all in to concentrate on one engine. Somehow the MROs would have to say, okay, I want just to do this engine. You have to take some of your capacity, which right now is very full with LEAP and GTF work that's been promised to third parties and promised third party, you know, turnaround times. You'd have to allocate that somehow to your own engines. There's a lot of reorganizing that people would have to do. I'm not saying it's impossible. The other impediment people have is that we don't have OEM ties restricting us from using PMA.
Many other people do and many other, you know, customers wouldn' t necessarily embrace PMA. You reduce some of the, you know, cost savings opportunity available. I think there are a lot of things that people have to overcome. At the same time, those businesses are doing quite well given the amount of GTF and LEAP business they have. I am not sure they have necessarily the incentive to do all that.
Okay. Can we talk about cash flow? Because I think that's another concern, especially last year, just didn't see a lot of cash from operations, but there were a lot of things moving underneath the surface there, especially the buildup in inventories, because you do have two different accounting treatments for your lease portfolio versus your aviation products portfolio. Maybe you can speak to that.
Sure. Last in 2024, we had, you know, three great strategic initiatives to, you know, grow the business, which we capitalized on. One was acquiring the Montreal facility for $150 million. The second was the V2500 deal we did with Pratt & Whitney involved over 100 shop visits. We increased the size of our own fleet of V2500s up to 150 engines. The third was buying out the management contract from Fortress. None of those are, you know, repeating cash flows. We go into 2025 and we showed, you know, $650 million of cash from operations this year. The first half of the year has the Strategic Capital Initiative transactions in there, which we broke out in detail where we're selling 46 aircraft from the balance sheet of FTAI Aviation to seed the SCI portfolio.
We're investing $300 million in replacement CapEx, which is to replace some of the engines that moved with those aircraft up from the balance sheet of FTAI into the, to acquire in the secondary market, which we've largely done this year. The third part was, you know, really on building up the parts inventory in anticipation of a ramp. All told, we're, you know, we're saying $650 million of free cash flow this year. As EBITDA ramps up, you know, that should only increase.
Okay. On the SCI, can you talk about the economics? I think you guys are committed to 20% of the equity. Is that right?
That's correct. We are estimating if a $4 billion invested this year, roughly 70% of that will be debt financing, which has been committed and is being provided by Apollo and Deutsche Bank. The balance would be equity of $1.2 billion. Our 20% would be $240 million of that, of which the first half of this year will be roughly $100 million, the second half, $140 million. That is our, you know, that is the structure. We are a limited partner investor for 20%. We are also the general partner where we receive a fee for managing the partnership on total assets. Also, all of that FTAI Aviation engine exchange business from the partnership is committed to go to FTAI Aviation, which is, that is the 250 or that is the 100 engines a year we estimate that will be done through engine exchanges once the partnership is fully ramped up.
There is a tremendous amount of benefits for all parties. FTAI Aviation benefits for those three reasons, the fees, the equity investment, plus the engine exchanges and the partnership benefits because the economics of those engine exchanges are fixed and optimized so that the objective for the partnership is to generate higher returns with lower risk. We think it is a win-win on every side. It is something that we intend to continue to advocate for growing that over the next coming years.
And traditional lessor would be pushing out the maintenance onto the airline. Is that right?
Yeah. The typical structure of a, if you have a five-year lease with an airline and an engine is due for a shop visit, the lease would require maintenance reserves to be paid to the lessor. The airline does the engine shop visit, however they might decide whether it's a third party MRO, and then they would withdraw those maintenance reserves to pay for that shop visit. What we do is we've ended up doing exchanges so that the outflow from that engine exchange is less than it would be if you were doing it the traditional way. Secondarily, the residual value would be less because that engine is targeted to have the number of hours and cycles needed to complete the lease. You reduce the investment, you increase the cash flow, which reduces the risk and increases the returns.
Okay. On the, the 45 or 46 aircraft that you've committed to the SCI, I know you've delivered a few already, but I think you're guiding to about $500 million of leasing EBITDA this year, which is similar to what you did last year. Is that going to be made up by those $300 million of incremental purchases?
Yeah, it's several parts of it. We think it'll exceed the original EBITDA from gain on sale of those 46 aircraft, the 20% ownership of EBITDA that we pick up from the partnership, from the partnership, the SCI partnership that flows into the leasing business, and then the EBITDA from the $300 million of replacement CapEx, those three, and the management fee, the combination of those items would exceed the EBITDA from the prior year.
Okay. On the aerospace products side, $600 million to $650 million is the guidance this year for EBITDA. Is that right?
Correct.
And again, what's the targeted mix coming from the SCI deal?
20% roughly for the year.
Okay. Pretty interesting outside.
Yeah. Background noise.
On the $1.4 billion of EBITDA target for next year, have you guys provided any indication of where you'd like to see your leasing versus the aerospace products business?
Yes, it's $550 million of leasing EBITDA and the balance was aerospace products.
Okay. I guess longer term, another concern investors have though is like, this is a great business. It's clearly working. They can understand that this is economies of scale for a small airline. That's why you're getting, the demand you are. But ultimately, this is a platform that's out of production. How do you put, you know, a long-term value on the business?
Two things. First of all, I think that the platform for the CFM56 and the V2500 is basically, from what way we looked at, is we're going to have locked-in growth for 10 years. That's where you, that's a starting point. Secondly, our expectation is starting in 2028, 2029, we will begin investing in the next generation engines, which would be the LEAP and the GTF. At that point, you'll have enough engines coming off OEM Power by the Hour programs. You'll have a stable platform. Most likely there'll be some announcement of another engine coming, which has a tendency to depress, you know, secondary market prices. You can buy, you know, at better prices. Our expectation is that starting towards the end of this decade, we will begin moving into the next engines.
Okay. On the PMA side, I know you've had this JV with Chromalloy now, I think since 2018.
Yep.
I think you have two parts approved and for sale on the market. Is that right?
Yes.
I guess I've been covering you guys a long time. We've always been waiting on the third and fourth and fifth part. Any update on timelines there?
Yeah. What I've said is excellent progress being made. You know, we're nearing the home stretch and it is, you know, very close for the next part to be approved, which is the most significant part. The 80% of the savings will come from the first three parts in the program.
Okay. Maybe on the used serviceable material side, how does that work? Because you have a partnership with AAR. Is that correct?
Yes. We decided years ago that the, as part of our, you know, acquiring engines and harvesting, when we split them into modules, a fan, a core, an LPT, sometimes it's better a strategy to part out one of the modules. We did not want to build our own parts distribution business. What we did is we went to AAR and said, when we have an engine tear down or module tear down, for the parts that we don't recall for our own engine build, we will sell them through your network for a fee. AAR manages the repair process on those parts and then gets paid a distribution fee when they sell those parts. These are parts that we're not looking to be using in our own engines.
It allows us to be able to optimize again the waste nothing aspect of our business, which is to harvest, you know, the value from each part of those, every part of that engine in the most efficient way.
Okay. I want to come back to a concern just around the idea that once, well, if they can ever figure out the GTF fix and get those airplanes in the air, and Boeing is obviously ramping up production at some point, we'll get a better utilization of the newer narrow body technology. Doesn't that just depress MRO activity and engine overhauls in aggregate in the sector that you're in?
The most recent estimates from Cerium were that the total $22 billion a year spend for maintenance on the V and the CFM was just extended out to 2030 to be at roughly $22 billion a year. No decline in that number for the next five years. It starts to taper off after that. Very stable, you know, spend. You've had a huge shortfall in both deliveries and availability of everything in the narrow body market for the last three to four years. There's a big hole that has to be filled before you're going to have anything excess of what the world, of what airlines need. The combination of those two is creating a very, very strong environment over the next five years.
The question always is, what is the rate of decline on the CFM56 and V2500 after that? My experience with other engines in previous generation equipment has been, it lasts a lot longer than people realize. There are 757s that are almost 40 years old that are still being utilized and 767s. You know, even CFM56 3C1s are still flying. There is a long life to these assets because second, third tier operators, cargo carriers, they care a lot about capital cost. To buy a new 737 MAX or A320neo in 2030 could be $60 -$70 million. If you look at that and you say, I could buy a 737 NG for $12 million or $14 million, there's going to be a lot of people that are going to do that.
I'm not saying that this is going to be anything, you know, that's outside the norm. I'm just saying I think there's more upside for these assets flying longer than people realize.
In discussing, discussing your margin profile and why you can generate better margins than your competitors, you did talk about, you know, owning the MRO capacity, but that's not necessarily the case on the V2500 program that you guys have. Can you talk to the size of that fleet and the arrangement that you have with Pratt?
Yeah. We expect, we signed up for 100 shop visits with Pratt. We still can do our own engines outside of that Pratt agreement. To the extent we want to do builds with using other used serviceable material or advanced repairs, we can still do that. We're focused on between 25 and 30 engines this year for the V. and it's a very good relationship. It's not, you know, when that agreement ends in terms of the rebuild, we'll then have to have another conversation of like, do we do it, which way do we go? Which is the conversation we've had always, you know, we have a choice. We can either, you know, we can go one way or another.
It is up to, you know, sort of the, you know, the math for both parties to figure out what is the optimal, what is the optimal answer to that. The key is always to have options.
Okay. I think we're coming towards the close here, but can you give us just your expectations on how fast the SCI closes on that $4 billion target?
We think we'll be fully invested by the end of the year on the $4 billion.
Is there any concern that, you know, in the marketplace, everyone knows that now you're looking for 737 NGs or A320 ceos? Does that impact the pricing or the availability of those assets?
No, I think that we've seen a very, it's a big, big market. If you think about, there's roughly 14,000 aircraft in operation, 20-50% of those are owned by lessors. If you just take the turnover, a typical 20% turnover from just lessors selling, you're talking about a $25 -$30 billion a year investment opportunity. On top of that, you have airlines who are looking at keep, they decided, you know, recently in the last few years that they're going to keep those 737 NGs and ceos flying longer. They didn't necessarily, you know, do the engine maintenance to allow that to happen. There's a lot of aircraft that are coming up where engine maintenance events are needed. As part of the sale lease pack that we deliver, we can deliver replacement engines.
It solves a huge problem for an airline. No one else can provide that function in the market.
It's almost like FTAI on that. It's looking good, Joe.
I don't know what's going on out there.
That is an advantage when you're in the sale lease pack market competing with other lessors, right?
Correct. Because if you're a typical lessor does not own a maintenance facility. If there's a portfolio of aircraft that are presented and you have, say, for example, 10 engine shop visits you need to do in the next two years, that is a very scary proposition if you don't control a maintenance facility because you have to find somebody to do that. It's a very tight market. Turnaround times are increasing. Parts prices are increasing. There's a lot of risk for that if you're purely a financial provider. You know, we have much, much less competition for those types of deals where you're basically providing engine availability as part of the solution.
Maybe a last question because I think we're about out of time. Joe, can you just talk about the capital required to sustain this business looking forward, especially when you get beyond seeding the SCI?
Yeah. If you go back originally, what we said to run our business the way we want to run it, we felt like we needed to own in the system about 450-500 CFM56 engines and then 150-200 V2500 engines. We are basically at those levels now. We feel we can deliver the engine certainty that customers need to be sure that we can always provide that engine to them. That is part of, you know, what the commitment is. We commit to do the engine exchanges and always have an engine availability. The airliner or the lessor commits to doing engine exchanges with us. We feel that we have achieved that level. When you look at the cash flows going forward, we will run our business with 450-500 CFM56s and 150-200 V2500s.
Everything else should be free cash flow.
Joe, thank you very much. I know it's been volatile for your stock, but it's been a good run the last few years and I think a lot more to come.
Thanks for the support.
Thank you.
Yep.