Alliance Aviation Services Limited (AQZ) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Thank you for standing by, and welcome to the Alliance Aviation 2026 Half Year Results. [Operator Instructions] And finally, I would like to advise all participants that this call is being recorded. I'd now like to welcome James Jackson, Chairman, to begin the conference. James, over to you.

Thank you, and good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us today on this call. My name is James Jackson. I am the Chairman of Alliance Aviation Services, and I'll begin with some brief opening remarks before handing over to Stewart Tully and to Simon Vertullo to take you through the detail of the half year results. But in the first instance, I wish to say that today's results are clearly disappointing. The Board does recognize that the financial outcome we are reporting does not meet our expectation and nor does it meet the expectation of our shareholders. We have been very deliberate in ensuring that today's presentation is direct, transparent and focused on the actions underway to address the issues that have emerged. As shareholders would be aware, over recent months, the Board and management team have been working through a number of complex and interrelated challenges in the business. These include a commercially unviable wet lease arrangement with a major customer, higher-than-expected maintenance and inventory costs and the need to reassess the carrying value of parts of our fleet in light of updated operating and cash flow assumptions. While these matters have had a significant impact on reported earnings, statutory earnings and the net asset value in this half, it's important to distinguish between these short-term financial pressures and the underlying operational performance of the business. Alliance continues to operate safely and reliably with excellent on-time performance and a contracted customer base that remains critical to the regional resources and aviation transport infrastructure across Australia. The Board has taken decisive action during the half. This includes recognizing impairments and inventory write-downs, ceasing aircraft trading activities, commencing a comprehensive review of capital allocation and maintenance practices and engaging constructively with our customers to improve our contract quality and returns. Now I'll take you briefly through the agenda for today. So if we move on to Slide 3, there's the agenda. We'll be addressing the key messages, then the financial performance, our strategy and outlook, and then there'll be a Q&A session. Also in the package, you'll see there is an appendix. Before handing over to Stewart Tully, who is our Managing Director, and also to Simon Vertullo, our Chief Financial Officer, I'd like to note that the Board has strong confidence in both Stewart and Simon and in the broad leadership team to stabilize the business and execute the turnaround actions already underway. I'd also like to note that we've had significant input from one of our directors acting in an executive capacity, who is an aviation expert, Mr. Simon Lange, and he's been contributing in a significant manner also to our turnaround planning. I'll now hand over to Mr. Stewart Tully, our Managing Director.

Thank you, James, and good morning, everyone. This is my first opportunity to address you as Managing Director, and I wanted to start by acknowledging the obvious. The financial performance in the half is not where it needs to be. That is something the management team and I are very focused on addressing. Importantly, safety, reliability and operational performance remains strong across the business. The issues we are addressing are about capital discipline, cost control and contract quality. These are all areas we have already taken action on. Operationally, Alliance continues to perform well. Our core contracted fly-in fly-out business remains resilient, underpinned by long-term customer relationships, strong safety outcomes and consistently high on-time performance. We continue to operate one of the largest regional aviation networks in the country, providing essential services to the resources sector, regional communities and major airline partners. The most significant drag on group performance in the half has been a major wet lease arrangement that is commercially unviable and cash flow negative under its current terms. We flagged this challenge at the AGM, and I'll provide more details in a few slides. During the half, we also made the decision to cease aircraft trading activities. While this business contributed to revenue in prior periods, it introduced earnings volatility and working capital risk that is not aligned with our focus on simplifying the business and improving free cash flow. Another significant step taken in the half was the impairment of parts of the Fokker fleet and associated assets, which I'll touch on in more detail shortly. At December 31, the NTA of $2.22 per share is a discount to the independent fleet valuation. Now moving on to the key financials on Slide 6 and the first half '26 underlying results. I'll start with the headline numbers for the half, then I'll focus on what sits behind them operationally. Simon will take you through the financial drivers in detail shortly. On an underlying basis, revenue for the half was $368.8 million, reflecting record flight hours of just over 59,000. That activity level highlights the continued strength of our operating platform and the resilience of the core business. That said, earnings outcomes were materially lower than the prior corresponding period: underlying EBITDA of $87.4 million, profit before tax of $14.6 million and underlying NPAT of $11.9 million. These results are clearly disappointing and reflect a combination of margin pressure in the wet lease business, higher maintenance and inventory costs and increased depreciation and financing costs. Operating cash flow before aircraft purchases for inventory was $8.2 million. As you would expect from the numbers, cash conversion in the half was weaker than we would like, and this is an area of intense focus from the management team. Net debt at the end of the period was $433.4 million with a fleet of 81 aircraft. While the balance sheet remains covenant compliant, improving cash flow and reducing leverage are key priorities as we move forward. I don't want to go over the detail of the financial movements on this slide, as Simon will cover that comprehensively in the next section. What I do want to emphasize is these numbers reflect issues around cost, capital discipline and contract structure, not safety, reliability or demand for our services. With that context, I'll now step back from the numbers and talk about what has driven this outcome and more importantly, what are we doing to address it. Slide 7. As I mentioned earlier, a key driver of the financial outcome for the half has been margin pressure in a major wet lease arrangement. This slide summarizes where we are at with the review of that contract, why it has been commercially challenging and how we're approaching the review of this arrangement. While this contract delivers important regional connectivity, the pricing structure has not kept pace with industry cost inflation, particularly in maintenance, labor and parts. As a result, margins have eroded materially. The Board and management are engaged in good faith negotiations with this customer. Our objective is to achieve a commercial outcome that reflects the real cost of operating these aircraft and delivers an acceptable return. If that cannot be achieved, we are actively assessing alternative options. Importantly, we are not pursuing growth for growth's sake. Contract quality and cash generation now take priority. Moving on to the impairment decision preannounced last week on Slide 8. The revised outlook for earnings and cash flows meant it was appropriate to reassess the book value of parts of the fleet and associated assets. As a result, the group has recognized a series of impairments and write-downs. These include $144.6 million impairment to the Fokker 70 and 100 aircraft and engines, $7.2 million impairment on right-of-use assets and a $12.9 million write-down on the Fokker spare parts and inventory. It is important to emphasize that these are noncash accounting adjustments. They do not impact Alliance's day-to-day operations, safety outcomes or current cash position. What they do provide is a more realistic and conservative asset base that better reflects current market conditions and expected future returns. This reset also allows us to take a clearer and more disciplined approach to fleet planning. The Fokker aircraft will be progressively retired and replaced over the next 4 to 5 years. We currently have a long-term fleet renewal planning process underway, and we are considering a range of options, including leasing, purchasing or the redeployment of aircraft, where appropriate. The intent here is not simply to recognize an impairment, but align the fleet, capital allocation and operating model with a sustainable cash-generative business over the medium term. Simon will cover the financial and balance sheet impacts of these adjustments in more detail shortly. Having addressed the key issues impacting in the half -- impacting performance in the half and the steps taken to reset the asset base, I now want to turn to what we were doing operationally to improve outcomes. Moving to Slide 9. This slide outlines the operational turnaround that is underway and the areas we are focused on to stabilize the business and build a platform for sustainable growth. The operational turnaround is anchored around 3 priorities: improving capital allocation, improving free cash flow, and improving contract quality and customer management. First, capital allocation. We are taking a more disciplined approach to how capital is deployed across the fleet. A revised fleet plan is underway with a focus on utilization and returns rather than scale. We have identified surplus and noncore assets for sale, including surplus aircraft, hangars, engine cores and excess parts inventory. These actions are intended to simplify the business, reduce capital intensity and support balance sheet repair. On free cash flow, the key focus for our management is converting earnings into cash more consistently. We have implemented tighter maintenance capital expenditure controls, established a planned engine procurement strategy with a strong focus on cost efficiency and reviewed heavy maintenance programs to deliver cost reductions. Today, we will commence consultation of an organization-wide staffing review to ensure alignment with operational requirements, alongside a broader review of operating costs and expense management. On sales and customer management, we are sharpening our focus on contract quality and revenue discipline. This includes reviewing customer contracts to identify arrangements that do not meet required return thresholds, renegotiating or exiting underperforming contracts and embedding stronger commercial terms in new and renewed contracts. At the same time, we will continue to pursue targeted growth opportunities that align with our return and cash flow objectives. Taken together, these actions represent a more disciplined and focused approach to running the business. The objective is not short-term fixes, but a sustainable operating model that delivers reliable cash generation and appropriate returns over time. I'll now hand over to Simon to take you through the financial performance in more detail. Thank you. Simon?

Thank you, Stewart, and good morning, everyone. This is my first investor briefing as CFO, and I look forward to clearly explaining the financial outcomes for the half and the drivers behind them. Moving to Slide 11. This details the composition of our revenue base and how the business generates this revenue. It's important for framing, understanding the resilience in parts of the business and where the pressure has emerged during the half year. A key point to emphasize at the outset is that Alliance operates a highly contracted business model. In the first half, 98% of flights were operated under long-term contracts. This provides a high degree of revenue visibility and underpins the stability of the business. Starting with contracted FIFO. This remains a resilient and stable revenue stream. We serve 15 major FIFO clients, predominantly in the resources sector, with flying largely undertaken with Fokker aircraft. Revenue performance in this segment has been steady, supported by long-term customer relationships and our strong regional operating footprint. Turning to wet lease. This is where a significant portion of flying activity sits. In the half, wet lease accounted for approximately 3/4 of flight hours, but disproportionately, wet lease only represents just under half of the group revenue. Operational performance remained strong with continued high on-time performance and safety outcomes. However, as Stewart has outlined, margins in this segment have been impacted by non-pass-through cost growth under a major contract, which is why negotiation is a critical focus for the business. Finally, aviation services and other revenue. During FY '26, aircraft trading activity is ceasing. While this activity contributed to revenue in prior periods, it introduced earnings volatility and working capital demands. Going forward, aviation services will be focused exclusively on supporting the Alliance fleet, which aligns better with the core operating model and improves transparency. Taken together, this slide highlights that while the majority of our activity is contracted and operationally stable, the financial outcome for the half has been influenced by margin pressure in a specific part of the revenue base rather than a deterioration in demand or utilization. With that context, I'll now step through the financial performance for the half in more detail and explain the key drivers behind the movements you've seen. Moving to Slide 12, underlying income statement. Revenue for the half increased to $368.8 million, supported by full deployment of the wet lease fleet and a modest increase in flight hours. Contracted FIFO revenue remained resilient and overall activity levels were strong. I won't spend more time on revenue as it's not where the trading pressure has emerged. Turning to operating expenses. This is the most significant driver of the year-on-year change in earnings. Operating costs increased materially and ran well ahead of CPI in the half. This reflects several factors, including the impact of enterprise agreement outcomes for flight crew and engineers, higher repairs and maintenance costs across the fleet and costs associated with inventory and maintenance processes, including AVIAN, where the benefits of this arrangement have yet to be fully realized. As a result, underlying EBITDA declined to $87.4 million from $101.2 million in the prior corresponding period. Below EBITDA, depreciation and amortization increased significantly. This was driven by higher cost replacement engines, increased heavy maintenance activities and changes in fleet maintenance profiles. As Stewart outlined earlier, this is an issue within the broader context of the asset review being undertaken during the half. Finance costs also increased, reflecting the higher debt balance following the debt-funded fleet growth program over the last number of years. While the business remains covenant-compliant, higher interest expense has been a further drag on profitability in the period. Taken together, these factors resulted in profit before tax of $14.6 million and an underlying NPAT of $11.9 million, both materially lower than the prior period. Moving to Slide 13, an EBITDA bridge. This waterfall shows the key movements in EBITDA from the prior period to the current half. While revenue increased, that uplift was not sufficient to offset higher repairs and maintenance costs and increased labor costs, which together more than absorbed the benefit of higher activity. This is the key driver of underlying EBITDA declining from $101 million to $87 million for the half. Turning to the balance sheet, Slide 14. Following the impairment and inventory write-downs, net tangible assets at 31 December were $2.22 per share. This is a material reduction from June. It reflects a more conservative and realistic assessment of asset values under the revised operating outlook. Please note that we have changed the methodology for NTA slightly and have excluded both the intangibles associated with leases being the right-of-use assets and the lease liabilities. It's also worth noting that independent valuation work continues to support the value of the Embraer fleet with the valuation exceeding the written-down value of those assets by approximately $67 million. Turning to debt. Net debt at the end of the half was $433.5 million. This includes $23 million of newly drawn debt during the period, partially offset by mandatory repayments of $5.8 million. While leverage has increased, the group remains fully compliant with all banking covenants. Liquidity remains adequate with cash of $58.4 million at period end and no near-term covenant pressure. Not declaring an interim dividend reflects our disciplined approach to preserving capital and prioritizing balance sheet strength and repair during this reset period. Finally, net assets decreased to $357.8 million, down 24% on 30 June. This movement is principally driven by the impairment recognized in the half. The key point from this slide is that while the balance sheet has been impacted by the accounting reset, the business remains covenant-compliant and operationally funded. The actions Stewart outlined earlier are focused on improving cash generation and progressively reducing leverage over time. With that context on the balance sheet, I'll now step through the cash flow impacts for the first half. Slide 15, capital expenditure. Maintenance CapEx was elevated in the half due to its scheduled activity while also increasing in part due to cost inflation with improvement required in demand management through more advanced purchasing. While growth CapEx reduced with the final aircraft delivery into service, tightening maintenance CapEx discipline is a key priority going forward. Slide 16, cash flow. This bridges EBITDA to cash and shows what has driven cash movement in the half. The key point is that cash conversion was materially impacted by outsized maintenance capital expenditure and inventory movements. While EBITDA for the half was $87 million, that earnings level did not translate into cash due primarily to elevated maintenance CapEx and aircraft-related inventory investment. This is not a revenue issue. It reflects the timing and scale of maintenance activity in the period, which we are actively addressing through tighter planning, inventory discipline and capital controls, as Stewart outlined earlier. With that, I will hand back over to James.

Thank you, Simon, for that comprehensive review. And I hope some shareholders and those listening appreciate the transparency in those numbers and the EBITDA and cash flow. Now moving on to Slide 18, which is our full year 2026 earnings guidance. As it's been outlined on the slide, we have updated and simplified our full year '26 earnings guidance on an underlying basis, excluding impairment impacts and aircraft trading activity, which has essentially ceased anyway. The revised guidance reflects the operating and cost pressures discussed today, particularly in the wet lease services. The Board believes it is appropriate to take a more conservative approach at this point. While a number of actions are underway to improve performance, there remains uncertainty around the timing and outcome of several factors, including negotiations with a major wet lease customer, the execution of asset divestments and the delivery of our forecast cost efficiencies, which are in the process of being implemented. At the same time, the Board has adopted a more disciplined approach to our capital expenditure. We have tightened our CapEx expectations for the remainder of the year with a clear focus on essential maintenance and limited growth spend. This reflects both the actions already underway to improve capital discipline and our priority on cash generation and balance sheet strength. Accordingly, full year underlying profit before tax is now expected to be in the range of $35 million to $40 million, subject to these outcomes. We consider this guidance, including the tighter CapEx settings to be a more realistic reflection of the current operating environment and one that provides a clearer and more transparent basis for shareholders as we work through the remainder of the year. So moving on to Slide -- the end, I'd like to finish off here with a brief summary and to really just let shareholders know where we are. Our immediate focus as a Board and management team and the entire company is on navigating our near-term challenges. A turnaround plan and a turnaround is underway with clear priorities around capital allocation, free cash flow generation and expense management. Negotiations with a major wet lease customer are ongoing. And while that remains unresolved, it is being actively managed. Importantly, operational performance remains strong in the business with safety, customer service and on-time performance maintained, and the balance sheet at this point remains covenant-compliant. The Board has also taken deliberate steps to preserve capital, including not declaring an interim dividend. At the same time, the long-term fundamentals of the business remain intact. Alliance is one of Australia's largest commercial aviation operators, providing critical regional transport infrastructure with long-standing relationships across the resources, corporate and government sectors. We have a strong operational culture, deep aviation capability and assets that continue to be supported by independent valuation. The Board and management are focused on stabilizing the business after what has been a somewhat turbulent period, restoring cash generation and positioning Alliance for sustainable performance over time. We do appreciate the continued support of our shareholders, and we look forward to keeping the market updated as we make progress. So on that basis, and with that, I thank you for your time today. Thank you, Stewart and Simon, and we will now take questions.

[Operator Instructions] And your first question today comes from the line of James Ferrier of Canaccord Genuity.

Can I ask you a question around the operating business, first of all? On Slide 12, I'm looking at the other revenue line. That line has been tracking at around $7 million for a few halves. That's all the dry lease revenue. What's the additional $7 million or $8 million of revenue that's included in that line in the first half '26 result?

Simon here. It's mostly minor revenue items that's associated with providing services -- maintenance-type services to other airlines.

Okay. And what sort of profit margin applies to that sort of -- what sort of contribution is that making through the P&L?

Listen, it does better than cost, but it's not a huge driver. So it's sort of well managed. Internally, it uses our existing sort of engineering teams and maintenance crew and then probably -- it has a small margin over cost for that service.

Yes. Okay. And then on a related topic, so in the appendix where you split out the difference between statutory and underlying, I get the impairment component to that adjustment. But can you explain the adjustment that runs through operating expenses, that $14.1 million, what does that relate to?

That's related -- that's the write-down components. So if you take those 2 elements together, the impairment and the -- what's called the operating expenses there, that adds up to sort of $165 million, which is the total of the impairment and the write-down between the fleet and the inventory and some other intangible assets. It's just an accounting description between impairment and write-down.

And your next question comes from the line of Wayne Arthur of Monaro Superannuation Fund.

I wanted to ask you about the wet lease negotiations with Qantas. This has been going on for quite a long time. It was raised at the Annual General Meeting. You've had many, many months. What are you doing to resolve it? And are you escalating it to a Chairman to Chairman level between the 2 companies?

Wayne, James Jackson speaking. This process is a commercially sensitive and commercially in-confidence negotiation. It has the attention of the senior management of Qantas and senior management being the senior leadership team. We are engaged in a process, and that process itself just takes time to work through and taking into account that we did have, from the AGM to now, probably a month where people weren't working that hard on either side because of Christmas, New Year. But you can be assured we are well advanced in our negotiations there.

And when do you expect to conclude it or resolve it, one way or the other?

Well, I don't think I can prejudice myself or others in saying that. But I can say that we, as a Board -- and we have communicated this to the counterparty, and that is, this is a very urgent matter, and we are working through it. So I guess as soon as possible.

Okay. Now I want to ask one other question about the events last November and October where the company had a trading halt and a suspension of quotation. Now, to me, that was completely unnecessary. It just dramatized what was something that ought to have been the subject of a trading update. And when we finally got the figures, it turned out to be related to maintenance and depreciation. Now those aren't complicated issues. If the maintenance was $1 million a month more, you could just extrapolate that forward to make it $12 million, which is what you actually did. And in terms of depreciation, depreciation is a pretty well-known concept. It depends on the underlying -- the value of the asset and depreciation figures. So those things are not complicated. They could all be done on the back of an envelope. It didn't take a trading halt and a suspension of quotation and a week of nontrading to work those out. So the question is, did anyone lose their job over that debacle?

Well, are you aware of the management update and changes that have taken place subsequent to that and subsequent to the end of the year?

Yes. I follow the company quite closely but you didn't need to do a suspension of quotation. And just to point out, last week, you did a large depreciation write-down. That's the sort of thing that you do on a trading update. It doesn't require the sheet trading to be stopped for a week. Trading updates are quite routine. Companies do them all the time.

Yes. I think the issue that we had was that when those actual figures came to light, they were so far out of expectation and budget that, as a Board, we took advice as to how we actually recast guidance. And we wanted to do some quite detailed analysis, given the numbers were so far away from what our budget was, to make sure there weren't any anomalies in those numbers. So I understand what you're saying, on one hand, but we felt and we took advice that the numbers where they were at the time when they were actually confirmed to what they were, we actually decided that, that was a material issue that required a trading halt. We then spent that time verifying what would be the guidance going forward. And we wanted to make sure that we had as much information as possible. And as you probably know, a trading halt only allows you 48 hours or 2 trading days, and it took us an extra 2 days for the Board to feel comfortable in being able to make a public statement to the market about what our revised guidance would be. And as you would recall, the guidance change was actually quite a significant change. It wasn't a fact that it was down 15%. So in essence, given the magnitude or materiality of that, the Board wanted to actually make sure it got right to the bottom of those numbers, and we felt comfortable in forecasting forward.

And your next question comes from the line of Craig Baker of Baker Superannuation.

Gents, just an operational-style question. Have you -- has the business considered looking at Embraer support or/and engine support to establish some comprehensive baselines to working out the cost because obviously, you've got a few problems with that? And does some of the deals that have been transacted in some of the big spare parts sales mean it's difficult to take on board those programs?

In part 1 of the question, Craig, yes, we do engage the OEMs, whether it be Embraer or GE. We do have support programs with those OEMs today, and we're in constant dialogue with them as a huge part of our business. So yes, that does take place. We do all sorts of analysis. So yes, that happens. It's happened in the past and will continue to happen.

So how come you've got into so much trouble?

On the cost side, on the maintenance side, it's more -- I think it's around more of our planning and execution process, our purchasing spare parts. I think there's some easy quick wins that we've already made in that space and the maintenance. But it's not related to the OEM. Of course, we challenge the OEM on their processes all the time as all operators do, and work with all operators as well, attending operator conferences to get the best out of our fleet. But the challenges we see are challenges that are more within our control, which we're working through today very quickly.

Right. Because I understand there is an Embraer support program that's very comprehensive. Maybe I've got that wrong. But having come out of the aviation industry, there are some -- usually, you can find your way to some pretty bulletproof support programs. And I trust you guys haven't built yourself into some situations that you can't take those sort of things on.

Yes. As I said, we are working very closely with Embraer, and we'll continue that.

Right. And that -- so you don't have too many obligations out of some of those big parts sales that you've done in the past? I mean I came out of the industry, so I understand how some of those things work. When you make a big parts sales, sometimes you'll have to buy back at significantly higher than maybe market in order to make the thing go around. And that's just one of my observations looking as an outsider from the industry.

Yes. Look, I acknowledge your comments there. Our parts supply has been adequate. We have part of that aircraft. We did sell parts to AVIAN as part of a transaction last year. And we're working through that now to maximize the benefits from that transaction.

And your next question comes from the line of Ellis Taylor at Cirium.

Gents, I just wanted to pick up on, I guess, the triggering of the Fokker fleet write-down. It sort of seemed to be, from the presentation, I might be just picking up the wrong end of the fish here, that it was the wet lease issue that sort of triggered, I guess, a wider thing. And I wanted to understand as well why was the carrying value of those aircraft so high, given that they're all well past the depreciated residual life?

Thanks, Ellis. It's Simon Vertullo here. Listen, the wet lease agreement, that was a contributing factor. But in the background, quite simply, the business doesn't make as much money as it should. So the wet lease performance went into the calculations for when you were switching in a technical accounting sense from value in use to fair value with respect to impairment. So yes, wet lease was a contributor, but it's against a business model that doesn't make enough money for the revenue and the capital that's being deployed. I'm sorry, what was the second part of that question, Ellis?

I was just interested to understand how the carrying value of the Fokker fleet was so high, given that they're all 30-plus year old aircraft.

Well, I think that Simon can add more to this, but historically and potentially, unfortunately, there's been a lot more of the maintenance expenditure capitalized into those aircraft. And therefore, the Board has taken a far more conservative, realistic and market-based view of those aircraft. And we've actually accepted what we believe is the real value of those aircraft, as opposed to what may have been the value which actually had some accumulated capitalized maintenance in their valuations.

Listen, it also reflects that fleet renewal plan. So those aircraft will -- not today, but progressively start rolling out of our fleet and need to be sold. So when you're doing that, obviously, you want to be carrying those aircraft at a value that more aligns with their fair value and market value that we think we can achieve from the sale of the aircraft as they come out of the fleet.

Am I right in understanding then that the full value has been written down for the [indiscernible] sitting at 0?

No, no, no. They've just come down, but fairly dramatically, indeed.

Just one quick additional question just on the dry lease aircraft. Are they now considered as some of those surplus assets that might be up for sale?

No, those dry lease aircraft are on lease to a third party, but they're not part of the surplus asset.

But they could well be part of -- and we're still working through our future fleet planning and potentially, they offer the ability for us to use them. We're still working through that fleet plan at the moment, which is obviously going to be implemented over the next 4 or 5 years, and they'll be coming off contract in...

2029, 2030.

2029, 2030.

And is there a time line for when that fleet plan is going to be finalized and announced to the market?

I don't know if we would be announcing all of the details to the market, but we will be giving progressive updates as we move through that, and the actions taken will be reported upon. And as an example, we may, in theory, as an example, choose to retire 2 Fokkers in a period. We'll report on that, and we'll be reporting on what will be our means to replace those aircraft.

So there'll be more operational updates coming through?

Yes.

And your next question comes from the line of Tom Russell of Supercruise Capital.

I just have a question regarding the wet lease arrangement. So obviously, we're dealing with probably [indiscernible] on the ASX. What's sort of stopping them from just enforcing the contract in full? Like, what sort of leverage does Alliance have here to try and persuade Qantas to renegotiate in good terms?

I feel as though at this point, we are in commercial negotiations with our wet lease customer. And I would not like to expand on that any further. Those conversations and negotiations are confidential. But -- so I'm sorry, I can't really give you any more detail on that.

Okay. Sure. Just one follow-up as well. I've noted that, that wet lease customer is acquiring some Embraer 190s towards the end of the year. Does that have anything to do with some of the surplus assets we've got listed for sale?

Sorry, can you repeat that question? It just broke up.

I just noticed that the wet lease customer is acquiring some Embraer 190s later this year. Does that have anything to do with some of the aircraft we've got listed for sale?

No.

No.

[Operator Instructions] And you do have a follow-up question from James Ferrier of Canaccord Genuity.

Gents, can we talk about your capital commitments and available liquidity over the next 6 months? So specifically, what, if any, commitments do you have outstanding to settle on Embraer 190 aircraft purchases that have been committed to previously? And what is your expectation for full year existing fleet CapEx? Previous FY '26 guidance was $138 million. We can just start there.

Yes. So thanks for that question, James. With respect to those -- the last of those Embraer aircraft, for everyone's benefit, we're referring to the last 6 aircraft in the 30 aircraft purchase agreement with AerCap. So our plan with those is to basically sort of purchase -- complete the purchase and then, immediately on, sell the aircraft. So those aircraft are currently being marketed on a worldwide basis through an agent. With respect to the full year CapEx, I can't give you a number on that. That's going to be incorporated within our turnaround plan that we're currently formulating. I will say though, James, there's a sort of material effort underway to reduce that CapEx and reduce the inventory costs. An example around that is with respect to heavy maintenance scheduling and sort of looking to sort of reduce and not sort of gold plate some of those heavy maintenance requirements. There's also a benefit, James, from the decision with respect to the Fokker fleet. So some of those maintenance checks aren't required for the next however many years because, over time, those aircraft will be swapped out.

Okay. Understood. And so based on those commitments that you do have and sort of what visibility you have of CapEx, et cetera, what liquidity does the business have available to it in terms of facilities and cash?

So we had a closing cash balance at December, I think, to $58 million. So very comfortable with respect to the cash and the liquidity in the business and that we can sort of manage that liquidity and stay compliant with our banking covenants, especially in the context of that capital discipline that we've all been talking about on this call.

And what headroom do you have in your debt facilities based on what was drawn at 31 December?

Okay. Those facilities are fully drawn. We just -- we've got -- we had $60 million in the bank.

And you have a follow-up question from Wayne Arthur of Monaro Superannuation Fund.

This is more a comment than a question. I don't expect you to actually respond. In relation to the Qantas negotiations, it wasn't so long ago that the CEO of Qantas grounded the entire fleet worldwide in order to improve the company's negotiating position with the unions. So the reality is Qantas need you and they need you very badly. So you might want to factor that into your negotiations. You don't need to respond.

And this does conclude our Q&A session. I would like to thank our speakers for today's presentation, and thank you all for joining us. This now concludes today's conference call. You may now disconnect.