GE Aerospace CEO sees supply chain improvements, despite tariff hit
May 28 (Reuters) - GE Aerospace's CEO said on Wednesday he is seeing supply chain improvements that will support a 15% to 20% increase in deliveries this year of jet engines used on popular narrowbody aircraft, after snags challenged deliveries in 2024.
CEO Larry Culp also told the Bernstein Strategic Decisions conference that the engine maker pledged to be 'completely in sync' with customer Boeing (BA.N), opens new tab, as the U.S. planemaker gradually grows production of its strong-selling 737 MAX to a monthly rate of 38 and possibly above this year. GE Aerospace, however, is still expecting a hit of more than $500 million from tariffs due to a U.S.-led trade war.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
39 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Selling your home? Don't forget to stage your GARDEN: From a neat trick with paint to whether metal or wood is better, how to add value for less
If you're poised to put your home on the market, you're likely to have given it a declutter and deep clean, as well as refreshed any tired paintwork. But you may not have given the garden as much attention as you should –which experts say is a big mistake.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Loan plan in Republican bill could worsen doctor shortage, experts warn
Doctors' associations, medical schools and student advocates warn that a proposal in the Republican-led budget bill being considered by Congress restricts graduate federal student loans and could worsen a national shortage of doctors. The new Republican proposal would limit federal student loans for 'professional programs' – such as medical school – to $150,000, eliminate a federal graduate loan program and put limits on loan forgiveness. Medical students rely heavily on federal student loans to finance lengthy and expensive educations, particularly since 2006, when Congress broadly lifted caps on borrowing limits to allow for the full cost of tuition and living expenses. 'Our organization is very concerned about this,' said Dave Bergman, a spokesperson for the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine (AACOM). He said about four in five students who attend osteopathic medical schools, which grant the doctor of osteopathy or 'DO' designation, use Grad Plus loans and many depend on student loan forgiveness. The changes are part of the 1,100-page Republican-led reconciliation bill dubbed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that Donald Trump sees as core to his second term in office. The legislation passed the House last week and is now being considered by the US Senate. 'When there is a stated goal from these policymakers to increase the physician workforce, to increase the number of primary care physicians and expand access in rural and underserved areas – these policies just don't align with those priorities,' said Bergman. 'It's a really bad workforce decision.' The Association of American Medical Colleges estimates the US will face a shortage of between 37,800 and 124,000 physicians by 2034, with specialties such as primary care, psychiatry and geriatrics especially affected. Advocates warn the curtailing or eliminating federal student loan programs could drive low-income students away from pursuing medicine as a career, make loans harder to repay, or push students into the arms of expensive private lenders, advocates told the Guardian. In turn, these changes could also worsen the flight of doctors from lower paid specialties, especially family medicine, primary care and pediatrics, which tend to have lower match rates than higher paid specialties such as cardiology, experts said. 'I, along with many others, worry that these changes will make medical school unaffordable, turn loan repayment into a pipe dream for residents, and worsen physician shortages – especially in primary care and underserved areas,' wrote recent medical school graduate Kaley Parchinski in a Stat editorial. An analysis by the Urban Institute, which studied the proposal when it was first introduced by Republican North Carolina representative Virginia Foxx in 2024, found the limits could affect more than 60% of students pursuing medicine and other health professions. 'At a time when our country urgently needs more doctors – especially in underserved areas – this bill would create new financial and logistical barriers that disproportionately harm low-income students,' said Dr Shannon Udovic-Constant, president of the California Medical Association, in a statement. The limits on graduate education would join limits on student loans seeking four-year degrees in a way that critics warn could make completing college more difficult for low-income students. Sara Partridge of the Center for American Progress said the changes risk 'creating or exacerbating [shortages] in essential and medical and healthcare fields, and reducing pathways to high-paying, in-demand career fields for students in underrepresented backgrounds'. The federal government has guaranteed student loans as a form of financial aid since 1965, part of a program called the Federal Family Education Loan program. These loans are a major payor for American medical schools, whose tuition costs have increased dramatically in cost since the mid-20th century, in line with other forms of higher education. Because of the long training requirements for doctors, aspiring physicians often graduate with large debt burdens, and how to decrease that burden has been a subject of bipartisan debate. The median indebtedness of a medical student who carried loans was $205,000 in 2023 according to the AAMC – or more than $50,000 short of the limit placed by congressional Republicans. House Republicans argue that uncapped student loan access has driven up the cost for expensive professional degrees, and that limiting federal loans would help drive down the cost of tuition. Dually, Republicans have argued that if students need more financing they can go to the private market. 'It is extremely costly to get a medical degree,' said Sara Robertson, spokesperson for Republicans on the House committee on education and workforce, which drove the proposal. 'Reforms in the bill will help put downward pressure on prices at medical schools so that future medical students can pay lower tuition costs, thereby making medical school more accessible to individuals from all backgrounds.' Robertson argued that, although the bill would limit how students can earn credits toward loan forgiveness during residency, it would allow them to defer interest and that private student loans would become available. 'For borrowers who do need to borrow more than the bill's loan limits, private student loans – particularly for medical students – will be widely available and often have interest rates,' said Robertson. However, because of relatively high earnings, medical students are also among some of the least likely students to default – limiting government risk. An average of 8.15% of all student loan debt is in default at any time, according to the Education Data Initiative, while just over 1% of osteopathic medical students miss loan payments, according to AACOM. Further, economists who have studied the issue – including those whose work Republicans have cited – warned there could be unintended consequences to altering these programs. 'The private loan market looks very different than it did in the years before Grad Plus,' in 2006, said Lesley Turner, an economist and associate professor at the University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy. Turner and her co-authors wrote a paper which found that graduate loans, unlike loans for four-year degrees, likely raise the cost of graduate tuition. Robertson cited the paper to Axios. Turner said the Republican bill proposes a far lower limit for federal student loans than in 2006, the time before the Grad Plus program was created. Aggregate loan limits adjusted for inflation and for health-related programs, such as medical degrees, were 'almost $300,000 … so almost double the limit the House proposed.' 'This isn't going back to where we were in 2006, this is going back to that and then cutting it in half,' Turner said. 'It's not clear that the private student loan market would fill in that gap.' Turner's co-author, labor economist Jeff Denning at the University of Notre Dame, said he had 'mixed feelings' about the proposal. 'Uncapped borrowing is probably not a great policy,' said Denning, 'but capping it might have these unintended consequences particularly for high tuition programs including medicine.'
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Why Trump is really going after Harvard
In mortarboards and crimson-fringed gowns, thousands of students were joined by smiling families for the centuries-old ritual of graduation day. But this year was different. Alan Garber, the president of Harvard University, received a standing ovation and welcomed graduates 'from down the street, across the country and around the world', drawing applause for the last words: 'Around the world – just as it should be.' It was a nod, subtle but firm, to the international students who are part of the lifeblood of Harvard but now a target for Donald Trump: his administration is seeking to revoke Harvard's ability to enroll students from overseas. It is just one front in an escalating battle between a US president with authoritarian ambitions and the county's oldest, wealthiest and most prestigious university. Since taking office more than four months ago, Trump has used executive power to take aim at Congress, law firms, media organisations, cultural institutions and leading universities. Some have resisted but many have capitulated. In Harvard, the man who urged his supporters to 'fight, fight, fight' faces a resilient foe unlike any he has taken on before. Its emergence as a bulwark of the opposition to Trump was summed up by this year's Class Day speaker at Harvard, the former basketball star Kareem Abdul-Jabbar: 'After seeing so many cowering billionaires, media moguls, law firms, politicians and other universities bend their knee to an administration that is systematically strip-mining the US constitution, it is inspiring to me to see Harvard University take a stand for freedom.' Harvard was founded in Cambridge, Massachusetts, in 1636, a century-and-a-half before the nation itself. Its alumni include former presidents John F Kennedy and Barack Obama, supreme court justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan, tech entrepreneurs Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg, actors Matt Damon and Natalie Portman and writer Margaret Atwood. Now it is in Trump's crosshairs. The administration claims its actions are aimed at tackling issues such as antisemitism on campus, discrimination – particularly against white, Asian, male and straight individuals - foreign influence from China, and perceived 'woke' or 'leftist' ideology in academia. The administration launched its offensive in April, sending a letter to Harvard demanding that it make far-reaching changes in how it operates. The list included external audits of campus viewpoints, achieving 'viewpoint diversity' as determined by the government and potentially terminating certain programmes. Garber publicly rejected the demands, stating they amounted to ceding control of the university to the government and were an unconstitutional attack on academic freedom. Within hours, the Trump administration announced it was freezing more than $2bn in federal contracts and grants with Harvard, which mostly fund scientific and medical research. This has since risen to a total of $3bn. Harvard is fighting the funding cuts in court. In May, Trump turned the screws further. He said he is considering taking previously awarded grant money for scientific and engineering research away and giving it to trade schools. The White House urged federal agencies to cancel any remaining contracts with Harvard, worth an estimated $100m. The administration also announced that it would revoke Harvard's ability to enroll international students and force current foreign students to transfer to other schools or lose their legal immigration status. In a chilling statement, Kristi Noem, the homeland security secretary, said: 'Let this serve as a warning to all universities and academic institutions across the country.' More than a quarter of Harvard's students come from outside the US and serve as a vital revenue source at the Ivy League school. Critics warned that Trump's actions would represent a spectacular own goal, driving the world's best talents away from the US and into the arms of its competitors. Michael McFaul, a former US ambassador to Russia, wrote on Substack: 'Had Trump's anti-foreign student policies been in place decades ago, Oxford grad Elon Musk would have built Tesla in the United Kingdom, Tsinghua University alum Jensen Huang would have built Nvidia in the People's Republic of China or Taiwan, and Moscow State University grad Sergei Brin would have built Google in Russia.' Harvard sued the administration and won an emergency block on the action. This week, a judge said she would extend the order as the two sides continue to thrash it out in court. Trump is also using the tax system as a cudgel. Most universities, including Harvard, are exempt from federal income tax because they are deemed to be charitable organisations operated exclusively for public educational purposes. The administration is now threatening Harvard's tax-exempt status, which experts say saves the school hundreds of millions of dollars each year. Trump's massive spending bill before Congress would drastically hike taxes that Harvard and other elite schools pay on the profits their massive endowment investments make. Critics say that would weaken the ability of Harvard and other rich schools to provide generous financial aid packages to poorer students. What are the White House's motives? Some observers detect the hand of JD Vance and the deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller. In 2022, Vance told Vanity Fair magazine: 'I tend to think that we should seize the institutions of the left and turn them against the left. We need like a de-Baathification programme, a de-woke-ification programme.' And on Thursday, Miller told Fox News: 'Harvard has engaged in decades of invidious, unlawful and illegal race-based discrimination against American citizens ... The Democrat party's philosophy right now is for foreigners, everything – for Americans, nothing.' Jason Johnson, a political scientist at Morgan State University in Baltimore, Maryland, said: 'Their goal is to intimidate and break down institutions of higher learning in America because that is where most of the resistance to their authoritarian tendencies is going to come from. 'They figure, if we can bankrupt Harvard, if we can embarrass Harvard, if we can put Harvard in a position of weakness or at least get them to bend the knee, then all the other institutions in America will follow. That's why they're doing this.' Johnson warned: 'Trump is not going to meet his match because he has the entire resources of the federal government at his disposal. Regardless of what Harvard does, there will be other universities who simply see the attack and comply in advance, and that ultimately would still be a victory for the Trump administration.' Other commentators detect an element of class warfare. Trump won election last November with a base drawing largely on non-college-educated white men. Now he is stoking hostility towards the ivory towers of the US's most elite university. Brendan Boyle, a Democratic representative who graduated from Harvard in 2005, said: 'Part of Trump's political skill is figuring out how to portray himself as this working man's populist hero even though he's a billionaire who pisses in gold toilets. 'Beating up on Harvard will probably help him among some in his base, but I do think most Americans recognize this for what it is: an attempted government takeover of higher education. That's something that should actually worry all of us.' The onslaught against Harvard is typical of an administration that, in its opening weeks, sought to overwhelm opponents with shock and awe. Columbia University made sweeping concessions, hoping to claw back $400m of withdrawn federal grants. But Harvard's substantial $53bn endowment provides it with greater capacity to withstand pressure and engage in legal battles compared with less well-endowed institutions. It has refused to buckle to Trump's demands. Instead, it has challenged the administration's actions in court and achieved some temporary victories. Boyle, who spoke with Harvard's Garber recently, said: 'I personally expressed to him how proud I am to see Harvard standing up and not backing down from this fight the way, unfortunately, some other universities had backed down. In standing up to this administration, Harvard is waging a battle not just for the future of Harvard but for the future of American higher education.' Asked whether he is confident that Harvard will win, Boyle replied: 'Harvard has been around for hundreds of years before Donald Trump and it will be around for hundreds of years after Donald Trump.' Trump has long styled himself as a fighter. He waged legal battles during his business career. He has feuded with celebrities ranging from Rosie O'Donnell to Taylor Swift to Bruce Springsteen. He has railed against media outlets such as CNN and the New York Times. In the political arena, he took on the entire Republican party establishment and won. He also waged bitter campaigns against Democrats such as Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. But both Trump's first and second presidential terms have run afoul of a robust judiciary finding many of his actions unconstitutional. This week, a federal court blocked him from imposing sweeping tariffs on imports under an emergency-powers law. He won a temporary reprieve from an appeals court a day later but his signature set of economic policies remains in doubt. Academics at Harvard trust that the rule of law will prevail in their own case. Laurence Tribe, a professor of constitutional law emeritus, said: 'I think we're going to win the battle in the courts. These are open-and-shut cases. 'In fact, in the federal courts in the month of May, there were a lot of battles involving Trump against various individuals and institutions, and you know what his record was? He lost 96% of them. The percentage that he lost was not very different depending on which president appointed the judge, because these are easy legal questions.' Holding firm is crucial, Tribe believes, because Trump is trying to pick off universities one by one, just as he did with law firms. At stake is a stand against authoritarianism and the hope that courage will be contagious. 'If they can't control the university, they want to disband it because the first thought of a tyrant is to suppress the power of reason and the citadel of freedom,' Tribe said. 'That is the university. It's been true since the Middle Ages. Harvard has an emblematic significance that makes it stick in Donald Trump's craw. Its motto 'veritas' must irritate the hell out of him because truth is his enemy.'
