The four - month trial showed phenomenal accuracy at long ranges, as well
as uncertainty reductions of the P90 / P50 ratio by between 1 percent to 2 percent, therefore proving the technology's ability to significantly lower the LCOE offshore.
Not exact matches
Important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those reflected in such forward - looking statements and that should be considered in evaluating our outlook include, but are not limited to, the following: 1) our ability to continue to grow our business and execute our growth strategy, including the timing, execution, and profitability of new and maturing programs; 2) our ability to perform our obligations under our new and maturing commercial, business aircraft, and military development programs, and the related recurring production; 3) our ability to accurately estimate and manage performance, cost, and revenue under our contracts, including our ability to achieve certain cost
reductions with respect to the B787 program; 4) margin pressures and the potential for additional forward losses on new and maturing programs; 5) our ability to accommodate, and the cost of accommodating, announced increases in the build rates of certain aircraft; 6) the effect on aircraft demand and build rates of changing customer preferences for business aircraft, including the effect of global economic conditions on the business aircraft market and expanding conflicts or political unrest in the Middle East or Asia; 7) customer cancellations or deferrals
as a result of global economic
uncertainty or otherwise; 8) the effect of economic conditions in the industries and markets in which we operate in the U.S. and globally and any changes therein, including fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates; 9) the success and timely execution of key milestones such
as the receipt of necessary regulatory approvals, including our ability to obtain in a timely fashion any required regulatory or other third party approvals for the consummation of our announced acquisition of Asco, and customer adherence to their announced schedules; 10) our ability to successfully negotiate, or re-negotiate, future pricing under our supply agreements with Boeing and our other customers; 11) our ability to enter into profitable supply arrangements with additional customers; 12) the ability of all parties to satisfy their performance requirements under existing supply contracts with our two major customers, Boeing and Airbus, and other customers, and the risk of nonpayment by such customers; 13) any adverse impact on Boeing's and Airbus» production of aircraft resulting from cancellations, deferrals, or reduced orders by their customers or from labor disputes, domestic or international hostilities, or acts of terrorism; 14) any adverse impact on the demand for air travel or our operations from the outbreak of diseases or epidemic or pandemic outbreaks; 15) our ability to avoid or recover from cyber-based or other security attacks, information technology failures, or other disruptions; 16) returns on pension plan assets and the impact of future discount rate changes on pension obligations; 17) our ability to borrow additional funds or refinance debt, including our ability to obtain the debt to finance the purchase price for our announced acquisition of Asco on favorable terms or at all; 18) competition from commercial aerospace original equipment manufacturers and other aerostructures suppliers; 19) the effect of governmental laws, such
as U.S. export control laws and U.S. and foreign anti-bribery laws such
as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the United Kingdom Bribery Act, and environmental laws and agency regulations, both in the U.S. and abroad; 20) the effect of changes in tax law, such
as the effect of The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the «TCJA») that was enacted on December 22, 2017, and changes to the interpretations of or guidance related thereto, and the Company's ability to accurately calculate and estimate the effect of such changes; 21) any
reduction in our credit ratings; 22) our dependence on our suppliers,
as well
as the cost and availability of raw materials and purchased components; 23) our ability to recruit and retain a critical mass of highly - skilled employees and our relationships with the unions representing many of our employees; 24) spending by the U.S. and other governments on defense; 25) the possibility that our cash flows and our credit facility may not be adequate for our additional capital needs or for payment of interest on, and principal of, our indebtedness; 26) our exposure under our revolving credit facility to higher interest payments should interest rates increase substantially; 27) the effectiveness of any interest rate hedging programs; 28) the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting; 29) the outcome or impact of ongoing or future litigation, claims, and regulatory actions; 30) exposure to potential product liability and warranty claims; 31) our ability to effectively assess, manage and integrate acquisitions that we pursue, including our ability to successfully integrate the Asco business and generate synergies and other cost savings; 32) our ability to consummate our announced acquisition of Asco in a timely matter while avoiding any unexpected costs, charges, expenses, adverse changes to business relationships and other business disruptions for ourselves and Asco
as a result of the acquisition; 33) our ability to continue selling certain receivables through our supplier financing program; 34) the risks of doing business internationally, including fluctuations in foreign current exchange rates, impositions of tariffs or embargoes, compliance with foreign laws, and domestic and foreign government policies; and 35) our ability to complete the proposed accelerated stock repurchase plan, among other things.
The
uncertainty around whether the Trump administration will continue these payments — known
as cost - sharing -
reduction payments — has left insurers jittery and contemplating leaving the individual insurance exchanges created by the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare.
The
uncertainty Trump is sowing over the payments — known
as cost - sharing -
reduction payments — has left insurers jittery and contemplating leaving the individual insurance exchanges created by the ACA, the healthcare law better known
as Obamacare.
Such risks,
uncertainties and other factors include, without limitation: (1) the effect of economic conditions in the industries and markets in which United Technologies and Rockwell Collins operate in the U.S. and globally and any changes therein, including financial market conditions, fluctuations in commodity prices, interest rates and foreign currency exchange rates, levels of end market demand in construction and in both the commercial and defense segments of the aerospace industry, levels of air travel, financial condition of commercial airlines, the impact of weather conditions and natural disasters and the financial condition of our customers and suppliers; (2) challenges in the development, production, delivery, support, performance and realization of the anticipated benefits of advanced technologies and new products and services; (3) the scope, nature, impact or timing of acquisition and divestiture or restructuring activity, including the pending acquisition of Rockwell Collins, including among other things integration of acquired businesses into United Technologies» existing businesses and realization of synergies and opportunities for growth and innovation; (4) future timing and levels of indebtedness, including indebtedness expected to be incurred by United Technologies in connection with the pending Rockwell Collins acquisition, and capital spending and research and development spending, including in connection with the pending Rockwell Collins acquisition; (5) future availability of credit and factors that may affect such availability, including credit market conditions and our capital structure; (6) the timing and scope of future repurchases of United Technologies» common stock, which may be suspended at any time due to various factors, including market conditions and the level of other investing activities and uses of cash, including in connection with the proposed acquisition of Rockwell; (7) delays and disruption in delivery of materials and services from suppliers; (8) company and customer - directed cost
reduction efforts and restructuring costs and savings and other consequences thereof; (9) new business and investment opportunities; (10) our ability to realize the intended benefits of organizational changes; (11) the anticipated benefits of diversification and balance of operations across product lines, regions and industries; (12) the outcome of legal proceedings, investigations and other contingencies; (13) pension plan assumptions and future contributions; (14) the impact of the negotiation of collective bargaining agreements and labor disputes; (15) the effect of changes in political conditions in the U.S. and other countries in which United Technologies and Rockwell Collins operate, including the effect of changes in U.S. trade policies or the U.K.'s pending withdrawal from the EU, on general market conditions, global trade policies and currency exchange rates in the near term and beyond; (16) the effect of changes in tax (including U.S. tax reform enacted on December 22, 2017, which is commonly referred to
as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017), environmental, regulatory (including among other things import / export) and other laws and regulations in the U.S. and other countries in which United Technologies and Rockwell Collins operate; (17) the ability of United Technologies and Rockwell Collins to receive the required regulatory approvals (and the risk that such approvals may result in the imposition of conditions that could adversely affect the combined company or the expected benefits of the merger) and to satisfy the other conditions to the closing of the pending acquisition on a timely basis or at all; (18) the occurrence of events that may give rise to a right of one or both of United Technologies or Rockwell Collins to terminate the merger agreement, including in circumstances that might require Rockwell Collins to pay a termination fee of $ 695 million to United Technologies or $ 50 million of expense reimbursement; (19) negative effects of the announcement or the completion of the merger on the market price of United Technologies» and / or Rockwell Collins» common stock and / or on their respective financial performance; (20) risks related to Rockwell Collins and United Technologies being restricted in their operation of their businesses while the merger agreement is in effect; (21) risks relating to the value of the United Technologies» shares to be issued in connection with the pending Rockwell acquisition, significant merger costs and / or unknown liabilities; (22) risks associated with third party contracts containing consent and / or other provisions that may be triggered by the Rockwell merger agreement; (23) risks associated with merger - related litigation or appraisal proceedings; and (24) the ability of United Technologies and Rockwell Collins, or the combined company, to retain and hire key personnel.
As global economic conditions continue to be volatile or economic
uncertainty remains, trends in consumer discretionary spending also remain unpredictable and subject to
reductions.
Examples of these risks,
uncertainties and other factors include, but are not limited to the impact of: adverse general economic and related factors, such
as fluctuating or increasing levels of unemployment, underemployment and the volatility of fuel prices, declines in the securities and real estate markets, and perceptions of these conditions that decrease the level of disposable income of consumers or consumer confidence; adverse events impacting the security of travel, such
as terrorist acts, armed conflict and threats thereof, acts of piracy, and other international events; the risks and increased costs associated with operating internationally; our expansion into and investments in new markets; breaches in data security or other disturbances to our information technology and other networks; the spread of epidemics and viral outbreaks; adverse incidents involving cruise ships; changes in fuel prices and / or other cruise operating costs; any impairment of our tradenames or goodwill; our hedging strategies; our inability to obtain adequate insurance coverage; our substantial indebtedness, including the ability to raise additional capital to fund our operations, and to generate the necessary amount of cash to service our existing debt; restrictions in the agreements governing our indebtedness that limit our flexibility in operating our business; the significant portion of our assets pledged
as collateral under our existing debt agreements and the ability of our creditors to accelerate the repayment of our indebtedness; volatility and disruptions in the global credit and financial markets, which may adversely affect our ability to borrow and could increase our counterparty credit risks, including those under our credit facilities, derivatives, contingent obligations, insurance contracts and new ship progress payment guarantees; fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates; overcapacity in key markets or globally; our inability to recruit or retain qualified personnel or the loss of key personnel; future changes relating to how external distribution channels sell and market our cruises; our reliance on third parties to provide hotel management services to certain ships and certain other services; delays in our shipbuilding program and ship repairs, maintenance and refurbishments; future increases in the price of, or major changes or
reduction in, commercial airline services; seasonal variations in passenger fare rates and occupancy levels at different times of the year; our ability to keep pace with developments in technology; amendments to our collective bargaining agreements for crew members and other employee relation issues; the continued availability of attractive port destinations; pending or threatened litigation, investigations and enforcement actions; changes involving the tax and environmental regulatory regimes in which we operate; and other factors set forth under «Risk Factors» in our most recently filed Annual Report on Form 10 - K and subsequent filings by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The study findings confirm that the frequency of use of
uncertainty reduction strategies is predicted by three sets of online dating concerns — personal security, misrepresentation, and recognition —
as well
as selfefficacy in online dating.
The
uncertainty reduction theory, also known
as initial interaction theory, developed in 1975 by Charles Berger and Richard Calabrese, is a communication Home Page Featured Story Intercultural Marriage: Making It Work by Josh Noem,.
The
uncertainty reduction theory, also known
as initial interaction theory, developed in 1975 by Charles Berger and Richard Calabrese, is a communication
So, while this introduces a certain element of
uncertainty to the group
as a whole, the
reduction in cost — due to the reduced need for capital and reserves — makes it a viable competitor to the annuity.»
That's fine
as long
as this
reduction can be shown to be meaningful (beyond
uncertainty) and at reasonable cost compared to the expected results.
To me these relatively recent studies allow us to assign much - needed probabilities to different emissions pathways — something that should be seen
as a welcome
reduction in predictive
uncertainty).
The opponents of climate change policies have largely succeeded in opposing proposed climate change law and policy by claiming that government action on climate change should be opposed because: (1) it will impose unacceptable costs on national economics or specific industries and destroy jobs, (2) there is too much scientific
uncertainty to warrant government action, or (3) it would be unfair and ineffective for nations like the United States to adopt expensive climate policies
as long
as China or India fail to adopt serious greenhouse gas emissions
reductions policies.
The opponents of climate change policies have succeeded in opposing proposed climate change law and policy by claiming that government action on climate change should be opposed because: (1) it will impose unacceptable costs on national economics or specific industries and destroy jobs, (2) there is too much scientific
uncertainty to warrant government action, or (3) it would be unfair and ineffective for nations like the United States to adopt expensive climate policies
as long
as China or India fail to adopt serious greenhouse gas emissions
reductions policies.
These questions are organized according to the most frequent arguments made against climate change policies which are claims that climate change policies: (a) will impose unacceptable costs on a national economy or specific industries or prevent nations from pursuing other national priorities, (b) should not be adopted because of scientific
uncertainty about climate change impacts, or (c) are both unfair and ineffective
as long
as high emitting nations such
as China or India do not adopt meaningful ghg emissions
reduction policies.
This is an additional ethical reason why scientific
uncertainty can not now be used by nations
as an excuse for refusing to make
reductions to their fair share of safe global emissions.
Striking examples are those of the UK, TS 2050 (Fig. 3), with up to 50 % of
uncertainty in the risk
reduction, and other examples in the Supplement, such
as for Belgium (TS 2020), Denmark (TS 2050), Estonia (TS 2020), Hungary (TS 2050), Luxemburg (TS 2080) and Netherlands (TS 2080).
Perhaps all measures would be better put on hold for an iteration and an agreed programme of
uncertainty reduction taken
as a matter of urgency.
This is expressed in the
reduction of the
uncertainty range for the aerosol forcing
as shown in the leaked AR5 SOD.
Hence, they are likely to be minimum
uncertainties,
as they do not take into account other sources of error not apparent in the calibration period, such
as any
reduction in the statistical robustness of the proxy series in earlier times (Briffa and Osborn, 1999; Esper et al., 2002; Bradley et al., 2003b; Osborn and Briffa, 2006).
Several papers illustrate methodological advances in dealing with
uncertainties with practical applications related to major global and regional challenges such
as food security, greenhouse gas emission
reductions and moving towards green economy.
Whatever deficit
reduction might be realized by taking a carving knife to the MID would come at an intolerably steep price: trillions of dollars in wealth destruction and a new
uncertainty in what has long been recognized
as a bedrock of our economy.