“But we see the -- we don't see any real changes in the mix throughout the year.”

In context

“you on the spot with the mental math. But last year -- or last quarter, you talked about the G700 profit contribution being around 25%. So when we think about the Q1 performance, it was actually really good relative to our number of 12.1% margin. It would imply you see a deceleration in the underlying business for Aerospace just given G700 comes in at 50 units. So I guess, how do we think about the mix movement throughout the year for Aerospace? Phebe Novakovic: Well, let's talk about the first predicate in that question. I don't believe we've ever disclosed any margin on a particular airplane, and we haven't there. I think we can't -- it can't take and discern revenue and earnings in any given quarter as attributable to one airplane. So I think you need to think about it holistically. But we see the -- we don't see any real changes in the mix throughout the year. And we'll do a detailed bottom-up review in Q2. But for right now, we're sticking with both our mix, our earnings, our margin and revenue expectations. So we're off to a pretty good start, I'd say. And we're very encouraged at how the outlook looks for the rest of the year. Sheila Kahyaoglu: Can we assume that G700 is accretive to the 15% full year guidance? Phebe Novakovic: So think about it this way. This is ultimately going to be a very profitable program. But as I explained in my remarks, the first lot of 20 or so carries with it additional cost. We'll see those in -- largely in Q2. So think about Q2 as an increase in revenue of about $1 billion to $1.1 billion and in earnings of about $100 million to $110 million, and then progress nicely thereafter. And again, that's all impacted”