Airbus SE (AIR) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Thanks for making the time to join us today despite the short notice imposed by market regulation. Here with me are Guillaume Faury, our CEO; and Thomas Toepfer, our CFO. Today, we will be referring to the press release published earlier this afternoon. This call is planned to last around 1 hour. This includes Q&A, which we will conduct after the presentation. This call is also webcast. It can be accessed via our homepage, where we have set a special banner. Playback of this call will be accessible on Airbus website, but there is no dedicated phone replay service. The presentation was published on our website earlier, and now we will take you through. Throughout this call, we will be making forward-looking statements. I invite you to refer to our safe harbor statement that appears in the presentation slides, which applies to this call as well. Please read it carefully. I would like to hand it over to Guillaume.

Thank you, Helene, and hello, everyone on the call, and thank you for joining us on short notice. We are here actually in Paris with Thomas to update you on new developments related to our space activities on the one hand, and our commercial air traffic business on the other hand. The impact of these 2 distinct elements is leading the company to update its guidance. We informed you in February when -- coming to space. We informed you in February that we put in place a new management team, new space system as part of our action plan following 2023. The new team was commissioned among others to further review our programs. The extensive technical reviews that they did, results in an increased financial exposure on certain programs, which will lead to charges of around EUR 0.9 billion. And these charges will be recorded in the second quarter. With respect to commercial aircraft, I told you in Q1 that the operating environment remained complex, and I used the words that it was not showing any signs of improvement. It has actually degraded recently against the backdrop of geopolitical tensions and even more on specific supply chain challenges. So the company now intends to deliver around 770 commercial aircraft in 2024 and continues to ramp up towards the rate 75 aircraft a month but -- which is now expected in 2027. Before introducing the updated guidance, let me give you more color on these recent developments. And I'll start with Space Systems. So again, following the difficulties faced last year, the new team, the newly appointed management team has run an extensive technical review of the space programs, leading to revised assumptions in terms of product schedules, workload, suppliers and integration costs make or buy implications and also commercial risk. As a result, we have updated the so-called estimates at completion, mainly on telecommunication, navigation and observation programs. As we are on long-term contracts, we have revised the past, present and future profitability. Consequently, we will recognize around EUR 0.5 billion additional charges that will affect the earnings in the second quarter. The charge only has a partial cash impact in 2024. So because these are, again, multiyear long-term programs, and we have to update for their lifetime. In order to address this situation, we have taken several actions. It includes scheduled rebaselining and taking the necessary time to mature some technologies, program restructuring and optimization of our processes, notably by implementing an end-to-end integrated product team organization. That's something we do in other businesses as well. In light of the challenges faced last year, we have also implemented a highly selective bid/no-bid strategy, including the need for an increased technological maturity threshold prior to any firm proceedings which we will continue to pursue. Space is inherently a complex and competitive business dealing with sophisticated products and long-term programs. Against this backdrop, we're also evaluating all strategic options for Space business, such as potential restructuring, cooperation models, portfolio review and potential merger and acquisition options. Moving on to commercial. The demand, as you know, remains strong, and the issue we are facing is the gap between demand and our ability and the ability of the supply chain to deliver. Actually, the supply chain is ramping up, but not simultaneously and not at the pace we need or we would need. This is particularly visible on the level of missing parts we are still observing. Airbus is facing at the moment persistent and specific supply chain issues namely the situation on the engine side remains challenging, is challenging, also pressured by MRO needs and we recently observed some shortfalls in volumes compared to the agreed plans with several engine makers. There are other areas of tensions such as cabin and equipments, disrupting the industrial workflow. And let me also mention here the situation of Spirit AeroSystems and the ongoing discussions to protect the sourcing of our programs and define a more sustainable way forward. Spirit is also one of the critical suppliers in this picture. Our Aerostructures business is also affected by the supply chain issues and therefore, not immune to existing tensions and performance issues. Consequently, this leads us today to reduce the delivery target for 2024 and to adjust the trajectory of the A320 family ramp-up as we progress towards the monthly production rate of 75, that remains at ease and remain our target, but is now expected in 2027. Our team's efforts are devoted to quality, safety, execution with dedicated internal task force and joint improvement plans with our critical suppliers fully in motion. In addition, efficiency remains a key focus for us. The critical onboarding and qualification of skilled workforce to prepare the ramp-up results in a temporary overstaffing. That's something you know. In order to mitigate this, we continue to focus on what matters most with a sense of priority while actively monitoring our cost base. And let's now look at the updated guidance as the result of those 2 topics. So against the backdrop of the developments in Space Systems and Commercial aircraft, the company updates its guidance as the basis for its 2024 guidance, the company assumes no additional disruptions to the world economy, air traffic, the supply chain, the company's internal operations and its ability to deliver products and services. There's no change compared to previously announced. Now the company's 2024 guidance is before M&A., consequently before potential outcomes of the ongoing discussions with the Spirit AeroSystems. It's before anything happening with Spirit AeroSystems. And on that basis, the company now targets to achieve in 2024 around 770 commercial aircraft deliveries and EBIT adjusted of around EUR 5.5 billion and the free cash flow before customer financing of around EUR 3.5 billion. That's it for me, Thomas and myself now stand ready to take your questions.

[Operator Instructions] So Sharon, please go ahead and explain the procedure for the participants.

[Operator Instructions] And your first question comes from the line of Ian Douglas-Pennant from UBS.

Maybe we could start with Space and then I've got a question on Commercial. Space, I understand why you might have challenges in the telecoms business. Why are these problems stretching out of telecoms and into navigation and observation, please? It's not obvious to me why the industry troubles would bleed across into those different end markets? Then the second question is the broad range of supply challenges that you highlight suggest this is not a specific, but a broad-based problem. Many of your suppliers have got challenges that they're finding life hard. I put it to you that they are overleveraged off the COVID and so they're struggling to fund the working capital needed to ramp up. If this is true, do you need to go through a large-scale price resetting exercise with them? I mean this would damage margins near term, but it would set you in a better position for the longer term.

So thank you for your questions. I will take the first one. And maybe, Thomas, I don't know if you want to take the second one. So on the first one, well, it's not spreading from telecom to navigation and observation, it was -- it is and it was primarily in business line that we call telecom and navigation. That's where we have our issues and these are programs of similar nature and using similar resources, similar supply chain or suppliers. We have some crossover to the other activities and namely observation due to similar bottlenecks in the test facilities and similar -- and some interdependencies between the different businesses. But this is primarily telecom navigation as it was before, and it remains the case. These are the long-term programs we have in this business line and that have long-term cost risk assessment, schedule assumptions and that the team has fully revised bottom-up with a quite impressive risk assessments, business assessments that leads to the rebaselining or to the update that we're giving today for the lifetime of those programs, again, that's really what is really important to understand. When it comes to Commercial, well, in a sense, you're right. We have a general supply chain situation that needs to be well understood and carefully taken care of. And that's something we believe we have done previously, and we keep doing. Now the update of today is mainly triggered by specific situations, which have an impact on our 2024 ability to ramp up and some consequential impact as well on '25, '26 moving forward. But again, that's important to understand. And to your question, on the need to, if I understand correctly, resetting pricing, actually, we have a lot of different situations. There is no general situation that would need to go through a general repricing. We have specific areas where most of the suppliers are struggling because of the nature of their activities. I think we can certainly say that aerostructure is one of those activities where we see a lot of suppliers struggling. But we don't want to be accepting or agreeing on change of terms and conditions when it is not justified and where there's no competitive situation being handled by the suppliers. So again, we are here and there, managing some specific situation. Predominantly, on their ability to ramp up linked to resources, linked to their own supply chain, linked to recruitment, to skills, to those kind of things. And in some cases, linked to specific profitability issues that we believe have to be dealt with the suppliers but that's not the majority of the cases that these are specific individual cases when justified, we look at them and we sit down with suppliers, and we try to address them in a fair way for both sides. Anything you would add now, Thomas?

No. I think I mean just in terms of price resetting, just to cite a couple of examples. I think it's quite obvious that the situation of the engine manufacturers with respect to pricing is completely different from what we see in other parts of the supply chain. And then if you look at Spirit, that again, it's a very specific situation that has to do with the circumstances of the company that we're trying to dealing with. So therefore, I can only underline what Guillaume said, it's not a general pricing issue, but very specific topics that we are dealing with as a company and where needed, we're helping our suppliers to solve the issue. In most of the cases, it's not a financial topic.

And your next question comes from the line of George Zhao from Bernstein. Hello, George. Is your line muted? Hello, George? Due to no response, I will go to the next question. One moment, please. And your next question comes from the line of Ken Herbert from RBC Capital Markets.

Yes, Ken Herbert with RBC. Two questions, if I could. First, I'm just wondering, Guillaume, if you can provide any more granularity on your supply chain discussion. It clearly sounds like segments of the supply chain have deteriorated. It's not even so much maybe the pace of improvement isn't what you thought, but some aspects of the supply chain have worsened in the last 3 months from the initial guide, if you can provide more granularity on where you're seeing that and what gives you confidence that we'll start to see a recovery in that into the back half of the year or next year? And then secondly, just to confirm, it sounds like most of the reduction, obviously, in the guidance on deliveries is centered on the A320 family, but any clarification on 320 relative to 220 would be helpful.

Yes. Thank you. So on the granularity of the situation and looking at what has degraded or not improved as we were expecting. That's probably the better way of putting it together, maybe with the exception of engines, which is degrading in the short term. So first, and I think it's important to save engines that were not -- that have not been an issue in 2023 and not at the beginning of '24 are again becoming a significant issue, and that's something quite recent, quite new, but we are trying to better understand and address with our engine suppliers and it's coming on the A320, both from Pratt and CFM at the same time, which makes our life much more complex than the previous situations we had seen where we had one or the other, but not the two at the same time. We continue to observe very difficult situation on interiors. And it's also something that is critical because it's -- I don't know if I can say, in competition with, but it's in conjunction with a very difficult aftermarket situation for those suppliers that are facing a strong demand from us on the OEMs, but as well a very strong demand from airlines as the airlines are going for -- spin more of their older airplanes and leading to more refurbishments to more upgrades of their older airplanes due to the lack of new airplane in the market and that's a demand that is creating additional complexity for them and challenges for us. We have as well a high level of missing parts this time coming from a broader number of suppliers, but mainly impacting our Aerostructure companies. So Airbus Aerostructure and Airbus Atlantic leading to a more tense situation when it comes to the ramp-up on Aerostructures, we then -- the one we are procuring. Spirit is an example, are the ones we are manufacturing ourselves. So it's not to be understood as a general situation of the supply chain. The general situation of the supply chain is difficult and is something that we are managing as such, but we have specific situations to deal with this quarter, probably next quarter as well that have an impact on '24 and are also leading to a slower ramp-up on the A320 that we have to recognize with risk moving forward. And that's why we're projecting as well on the production planning for next year and the year after and anticipating now crossing the rate 75 in 2027. So -- now on the A320 versus the 220. So we have as well risk on the A220. We have as well risk on the wide bodies, and this is factored into the around 770 going down from around 800. It's not just the A320. It's a lot the A320 unfortunately, but it's not just the A320.

And your next question comes from the line of Ben Heelan, Bank of America.

The first question is a bit on the EBIT guide. Can you help me understand a little bit. Does the EUR 5.5 billion of EBIT include the EUR 900 million of charges. I'm not quite sure it's not very clear?

So a very clear answer. It does include the EUR 900 million or EUR 0.9 billion of charges, yes.

It's included in the new guidance.

Okay. And so we should assume that EUR 900 million comes in Q2?

Yes, correct.

Okay. And then this EUR 900 million is an enormous number, right, after a year where you had EUR 600 million of charges. And the commentary at the full year and at 1Q was that you guys have done the review, you've been through the stage portfolio. So why are we seeing this creep of fairly material charges? I'm not sure I really understand what has changed in the last 3, 4 months?

Yes, Ben, it's a very important question. So first, we are dealing with programs which are multiyear programs. I mean some of them will go beyond the beginning of next decade. The programs which are in difficulty and that we are looking much deeper in details are loss-making programs. So we have to fully account for every single additional dollar that will come in the future into the current quarter where we come to the conclusion on this update. We have a team that has come with a lot of skills and the task to do a full bottom-up assessment and risk assessment of those programs for the future because we want to have a much better assessment of the schedule of the time it will take, of the quantity of resources we will need in the future. We have to take into account the updated cost assumptions in terms of inflation and so on. And we had a couple and we had a number of risks that were identified last year as risks that have materialized beginning of this year and are materializing now, which leads to degradation and also to knock on effects of some program to others as we have some critical bottleneck resources like test equipment or test chambers for the validation of technologies and satellites. So we are -- they are putting their arms around that situation. But as we are looking at what it will cost over the life of the program, we're speaking about multiyear cost impact that are recorded in 1 quarter, but will obviously occur over those many years. That's why also the impact on cash in 2024 will be significantly smaller. I mean much smaller than the EBIT impact we are recording this year. Just to be very clear again, those costs will materialize, most probably as the program are being executed over the next years and in most of the cases, it's 4, 5, 6, 7 years. That's why this number is very big because it's a forward-looking view and assessment of how much time, money, effort, buffers we need to make sure we can execute the programs in the future. And that's why it comes also to us being very clear initially as a shocking number. But then when you dig into the assumptions, what it means, what are the programs that are impacted and the time on which they are rolling out, it's at the end a very big number.

Okay. Okay. Very clear. And then, Guillaume, from your perspective, I mean, how do these issues in Space that are recurring or seems to have been recurring over the last 18 months change your view around allocating capital to that division? Is it worth heading for these very large multiyear contract if the risk is just so great from a profitability perspective?

Yes. I mean, several programs and contracts have been taken at a certain period of time in the past with delivery dates which are coming quite together in the same time frame that are requiring specific resources that are not available in those -- in the right quantity and quality, plus a lot of assumptions made on the make or buy, relying on suppliers that are not delivering as they should have delivered with unclear situation, and the team has also decided recently to reinforce some of the activities to regain control and certainty on the time and the effort it takes to deliver on the programs to be sure of what we do. But obviously, when we do this, this has a cost impact that needs to be recognized. And this has also an impact on the allocation of internal resources to get the things done ourselves versus what had been subcontracted to suppliers. I think there's a lot of business that has been taken with ambition and challenges on the technologies to be developed and the assumption that have been made on the ability of the organization to deliver on those challenges on several programs at the same time, leads to this accumulation of difficulties to get things done. As we look at the recently signed contracts and launch programs, with a much better risk -- not risk assessment with much lower level of risk and a much better management of what needs to be delivered. So we think -- and we are quite sure that what has been recently contracted is in a much better place. I would have said immune from difficulties. It's never completely immune but it's in a much safer state of business and with much more ability to deliver on the contracted commitments. So we have to digest this. As I said, these are multiyear programs, so it will take time and will be painful, but we want to be facing the reality today, biting the bullet of what it means to get those programs down. We are maybe not completely at the end because the team is a new team. They've done an incredible job. They are unveiling what they think is the time it will take and the difficulties we are in. But I trust that's something we will be controlling, putting behind us and moving forward that doesn't speak for Space being a bad business or everything in space at Airbus being in difficulties. There are few programs, but important programs. And that's basically the situation we're in. So I don't know if it answers your question, but I tried my best for this very good question, Ben.

And the question comes from the line of Tristan Sanson from BNP Paribas.

Tristan from BNP Paribas. The first one is on Space. I'm afraid after series of warnings on the topic, the market is likely to see a bit as a new A400M type of situation. When do you think the program phasing will allow to see a significant reduction of the risk in that portfolio, in which year do you think you have gone far enough to say, okay, these one are really under control and the rest is now margin, and we can look at it with comfort. That's the first question. The second is on supply chain management. I think after the 2022 rephrasing of the guidance already, you have significantly strengthened the supply chain supervision. Is there anything you can do today to go further and make sure that the revision that you have to do today doesn't happen again at a pertinent time in the future?

Thank you, Tristan. No, I think we're not in an A400M scenario because actually these are more confined and much smaller contract or program than the A400M. And I think you raised a very relevant question on when do we get clarity on the assumptions? I would say for most of those programs, it's this year. Not for all of them, there's one that is more a long-term program of development and satellites. But I would say, for the bulk of it, we will have clarity on the maturity of the technologies that are entering into those programs this year. So that's a very different situation than the A400M. When it comes to supply chain management, well, it helps to hear you speaking about 2022 because that's -- that was a difficult one in terms of controlling the supply chain indeed. Well, probably the difference with 2022 is that we are dealing with suppliers today that were on our list that didn't come as a surprise. But unfortunately, that are not delivering as they had told us they would or which are coming with new problems. So I think our ability to anticipate, to adapt early enough, and that's what we are doing today. I mean, we are updating the guidance, but we're also updating our production planning. We're also informing the supply chain. We're also communicating with our suppliers to keep everybody with us at the right pace. We can't be in control of the supply chain completely, they have to deliver on their own obligations and commitments. And I have to confess the overall economical and geopolitical landscape is not an easy one and is contributing to some of the challenges that we see here and there. So we need to keep going in the hard way and facing the reality as good as we can, debottlenecking the suppliers, which are creating those new bottlenecks and we will keep working on the overall supply chain management because this situation doesn't mean that the overall supply chain is not performing. I mean we have a lot of recovery plans that are working. We have a majority of suppliers which are on their ramp up. They will have to adapt according to the weak ones. And that's the unfortunate situation of this quite unstable overall economical and industrial environments. And I think that's the reality we're in for some time. The geopolitical tensions I was mentioning before, it's more than geopolitical. It's geopolitical and economical unstable environment is probably here to stay for some time.

Your next question comes from the line of David Perry from JPMorgan.

Yes. I've got 2 questions, please. One is on short-term facts and the other a bit more philosophical. First one, just Spirit, you said the new guidance is for Spirit. I realize you're still in a negotiation. But should we assume maybe that the guidance has to be lowered when you consolidate Spirit? Is that the way to think about it? Or maybe you could just give us some qualitative help? The second question may be a bit more philosophical, but I'm just wondering how you came up with 75 a month will now be in 2027. Because why not 2028 or 2029, because these problems are clearly pretty deep. They keep seems to be happening every 6 months to a year. So just -- are you confident of 75 a month in 2027?

So maybe, David, let me take the first question. The way we would look at it is, as you know or as you can probably guess, we are in discussions with Spirit and ongoing on a solution that is beneficial for all parties involved. I think the current situation probably is not ideal. So we're looking for a solution. And I would say, as we speak, we are confident that we're moving into the right direction. So that's a good thing. Now with respect to the guidance, if you think 1 comes to a conclusion. Obviously, such a deal will not close before I would say, Q4 albeit at the very end even of the year. So I would say the pure financial impact on the guidance should be not that huge, if you assume that. On the other hand, what is important from our perspective is that we create clarity about the supply chain situation, make sure that the supply for the Section 15, for the 350 and for the wings of the A220 is clarified. And therefore, my view is if we come to a conclusion that will be good news for everybody involved. And if you think about, well, then at some point, we have to deal with it. I think it's rather beneficial for Airbus if the work packages at some point in time where under our control. So therefore, I don't see it as a risk to the guidance currently. I wouldn't look at it this way.

Thank you, Thomas. When it comes to the rate 75 and when we're going to reach that rate 75. We faced a difficult situation in 2022, that was reminded before, I think, by Tristan. We updated at that time, our hamper plans after a lot of work with the supply chain and the most critical part of the supply chain. And then we had a rather good or decent consistent 2023 execution and even beginning of 2024. We're facing now a number of specific cases that we have to deal with. We have asked the supply chain to invest for the rate 75 and they are doing so. And most of the suppliers are interested in getting to the rate 75 now that they're investing, that they're hiring, that they're doing the right things. They are looking for the rate 75 to happen as soon as reasonably possible, which is also what we need at Airbus because we have this very strong demand and customers waiting for airplanes that they have ordered already. So we are trying to find what I call last year or beginning of this year, the sweet spot of being as fast as we can, but not too fast. Unfortunately, we're facing headwinds right now. We have to bite the bullet also and just face the reality we're in, but we are not giving up on the ramp-up. And as we can reaccelerate as it was planned before, with most of the suppliers having done the job in the meantime. We hope to be able to reach that rate 75 as soon as reasonably possible, which we see now unfortunately, in '27, moving from '26 to '27, but I'm not willing, I'm not ready. I don't want to be giving up on the ability to do it as soon as reasonably possible.

Okay. Could you just say a little bit more about the 2 engine companies LEAP and GTF? I mean, is one more to blame than the other? I mean, it seems to be -- because you've consistently said the engine companies have not been a problem, quite consistent in other things -- is a very abrupt change.

Yes. So it was the case till recently, and we are facing a situation where both CFM and Pratt are not delivering as per their commitments. There are different reasons for those 2 companies. They are linked to their own supply issue, quality issues, ramp-up situation, allocation of engines. So that's not a lost case, neither for Pratt nor for CFM, but it has a very negative impact in this quarter. We will -- and we are producing gliders, and we will have planes being produced without engines. And given the fact that it is on both configurations in a quite tense overall environment, we won't be able to fully recover by the end of this year because of engines. So it is new engine. That's a new situation that we were not expecting, that we have to face and deal with both CFM and GTF to put it behind us, but it will not be without consequences for '24 and beyond.

And lastly...

It's not the case. Before, it was the case.

Will you be seeking compensation from them?

What? Sorry.

Compensation.

Well, they will have to face the consequences of those delays, yes. They will be kept accountable for what they did.

And your next question comes from the line of Charles Armitage from Citi.

Two questions. First of all, if we just walk through 30 planes less EUR 15 million each, EUR 450 million, EUR 900 million from Space. Plus, you've got a bit of what you presumably got a bit more overstaffing costs as well. To me, that sounds closer to EUR 1.5 billion reduction than EUR 1 billion. So if we look at your guidance move from EUR 6.5 billion to EUR 7 billion, down to EUR 5.5 billion, that either means internally, you were closer to the EUR 7 billion beforehand or that EUR 5.5 billion is still at risk. So which one of those is it? And the second question is just -- I'm still slightly struggling on the supply chain and the communication because I don't understand it, you give your schedule -- your expected schedule to the suppliers. And for several years, you've been saying we want to go to rate 75 in 2026. So -- is it that they just haven't invested or is it they didn't believe that you would get there? I'm still slightly wondering whether this is a miscommunication or incompetence on their side, and that's sort of the observing rather than doing, and I understand it's a lot more complicated than I've just made out.

So maybe to your first question, the way I would look at it is, I mean, the EUR 900 million or EUR 0.9 billion is a pretty clear number. On the aircraft calculation, you did 30x15. As Guillaume said, it's not all 320. There's also some other aircraft in there, namely also the 220, which is at risk. So I think you should not apply the same margin maybe to all of them. And secondly, I think my only comment would be, obviously, in such a situation, we're not putting out a guidance that we're seeing immediately at risk. So therefore, we feel very confident that the EUR 5.5 billion is giving a very fair view of what we can achieve this year.

And your next question comes from the line of Olivier Brochet from Redburn Atlantic.

Yes. Two quick ones, please. On the engine makers, both of them, do you have today commitments for the -- from both Pratt and CFM for 2027? And if not, when do you think you will get that? And second, can you confirm that Rolls-Royce is not part of the problems -- particularly parts of the problems today, please.

Yes. Maybe starting with the latter. Rolls-Royce is marginally part of the difficulties as we have supply issues with the Trent 7000 on the 330. But not on the 350 as far as I am aware of. So that's why we are mainly focusing on the impact of the delays of CFM and Pratt at the moment, impacting the 320 and to a lesser extent, the 220. And when it comes to the 2025 volumes, we have what we need in terms of commitments from the engine makers. It doesn't mean that we are fully in agreement for the final volumes that we will retain, but we have what we need to be supported for the ramp-up in '25. And that's what matters to me.

I was asking the question actually on '27.

Ah, for '27. Well, the way the contracts are structured, giving us the contractual comfort and commitments that they have to be where we want them to be at the horizon of -- at this horizon.

And that is set a year ahead or 1.5 years?

There's a mechanism with corridors, time to firm up and then final volumes being frozen in the last 18 months before deliveries. So there's a full mechanism to give us the confidence we need to get the volumes that will be required when coming to this horizon from the engine makers.

Your next question comes from the line of George Zhao from Bernstein.

Hopefully, you can hear me this time around. First question, you talked about one of the implications being temporary overstaffing. I guess how temporary will this be given the slower ramp up? And what does that do for your margins until you get to rate 75? And do you plan on further slowing down the rate of hiring in the meantime? And second question, a quick one. For Defence and Space, if you take up the EUR 900 million of charges, is the target for solidly mid-single-digit margin target for this year. Is that still valid?

Yes. Let me maybe start with the second question on Airbus Defence and Space. I think first of all, it's important to note that the EUR 900 million, obviously are hitting 2024. But as Guillaume very clearly explained, they relate to a multiple-year period, which is the lifetime of those projects. And therefore, when you adjust for the number in order to come to something clean from 2024. Directionally, it would be right to say 1/3 of it belongs probably into this year and 2/3 of that number belong into other periods. And the same, by the way, is true for the cash flow. And therefore, as we -- as also Guillaume said, only a fraction of the EUR 900 million, i.e., 1/3 of it or so is going to hit us in terms of cash flow this year. Now with respect to our margin target, which is a mid- to high single-digit number, that still holds true. But of course, it will take longer to achieve it because the charges that we now had in 2024 will also then have in the subsequent years, a negative impact and the ramp-up to achieve the mid- to high single digit will take slightly longer. But fundamentally, we're on the way to achieve it, specifically with our way to only embark contracts in the space business since already a couple of years that are much more balanced. So we're really now suffering the consequences of contracts that were incurred in the years 2018 to '21, I would say. With respect to the overstaffing, yes, I mean, the situation is slightly aggravated to the fact that our deliveries in 2024 will be lower. But what we will do exactly, as you said, is we will further adjust the pace of our hiring and therefore, it should not significantly impact the margin in 2024 and 2025 because we can steer against it.

Helen, I think we need to come to conclusion. I'm really sorry about it, but we have a time constraint, short.

We take the last one and then we will stop.

Thank you. We will now take our final question for today. And your final question comes from the line of Phil Buller from Berenberg.

On the topic of the supply chain, from the outside, rate 75 has felt ambitious for a while, but given the shift to the right, I was hoping you could share what the current rate or the plan for '25 or '26 might be? I guess it would just be helpful to understand from the outset that the revised plan isn't hockey stick and offers risk? And just 1 very small follow-up on the provision topic, if I may. I appreciate that's the best assessment today and a one-off. But how far are we through the review process for D&S, please? Is it 100% complete? Or how far through are we now, please?

Yes, that's a good question. And unfortunately, it's not 100% complete, but I would say sort of 70% or 75% is complete. There's 1 major program out of the few which are under review, which remains to be fully completed. And as long as it is not completely done, I think we need to remain quite prudent, but it has been nevertheless included in the EUR 900 million as I would say as a first -- or not the first, but as I try to be reasonably fair in terms of balance between what we might find and the fact that we are not completely there. So it's well advanced, but it's not completely done.

And if I may just add 1 thing because we said review process in ADS. It's not ADS as a whole. It's very specific in space. So let's not get confused about it. It's not the entire division that is affected but a very specific business segment.

Yes. And on top, it's more telecom and navigation and the rest, less.

Thank you.

When it comes to your previous question on the supply chain, Well, we are not communicating on rates as we move forward. You see that we are struggling in Q2 this year. So if we would look at the Q2 rate that would give a false indication of the yearly rate. So we try to be reasonably linear and always substantiates the plan, the production plans by what we get from the supply chain and not only what they tell us, but what we are observing ourselves and the assessment we are making of the most critical suppliers. So it comes with an acceleration in '25, given the situation we face in '24, with a smaller acceleration that when we had planned so far because we recognize the fact that this difficult situation will not go away with the most difficult suppliers as fast as what we were expecting before. So we have recognized the difficulties that some of the suppliers are in and try to take them as much as possible into account in the new production planning that we will be sharing with the supply chain or that we are sharing as we speak with the supply chain for them to update their own plans and be successful on the ramp-up. And now, Helene, I'm really sorry, but we can -- very, very late compared to the time we have given to ourselves and we need to move.

Yes. So thank you, Guillaume. Thank you, Thomas. This closes our conference call for today. If you have any further questions, please send an email to Philippe, Olivier or myself, and we will get back to you as soon as possible. Thank you again, and speak to you soon.

Yes. Thank you for having made yourself available on short notice. And sorry for that. Thank you.