Rolls-Royce shrugs off tariff pressures as profits soar
The FTSE 100 firm said the results showed continued success in the long-term transformation plan first laid out by the company in 2023.
On Thursday, the engineering giant revealed that underlying operating profits jumped by 50% to £1.7 billion for the first half of 2025.
Rolls-Royce raised its financial forecasts for 2025 as a result, predicting underlying operating profits between £3.1 billion and £3.2 billion this year.
It represents a significant upgrade after previously pointing towards profits between £2.7 billion and £2.9 billion.
Rolls-Royce, which makes engines used in large Boeing and Airbus planes, said it was supported by a 'strong' performance in its large engines business, as well as margin improvements on contracts.
The company said underlying revenues in its civil aerospace arm grew by 17%, with growth of 20% in its power systems division.
The London-listed business cheered the 'strong' performance in the face of 'an uncertain external environment, including continued supply chain challenges and tariffs'.
It said Rolls-Royce is expecting to fully offset the impact of announced US tariffs through mitigating actions and is also monitoring the potential indirect impact of weaker economic growth and trade tensions.
Rolls-Royce also highlighted 'some improvement' in its supply chain, resulting in improvement availability for finished parts, but recorded inflationary pressure in product costs.
Tufan Erginbilgic, chief executive of the company said: 'Our multi-year transformation continues to deliver.
Our actions led to strong first half year results, despite the challenges of the supply chain and tariffs.
'We are continuing to expand the earnings and cash potential of Rolls-Royce.
'A strong start to the year gives us confidence to raise our guidance for 2025.'
Rolls-Royce shares were 9% higher at 1,077p on Thursday morning.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
14 minutes ago
- The Independent
What you need to know about Heathrow Airport's £21bn expansion plans
Heathrow Airport has submitted plans for a third runway, with the runway and airfield estimated to cost £21 billion, and the overall project £49 billion. The proposed expansion aims to significantly increase annual flight capacity to 756,000 and passenger numbers to 150 million, necessitating a new 3,500-metre runway and the tunnelling of the M25 motorway. Heathrow anticipates securing planning consent by 2029, with the new runway becoming operational within a decade of approval. Proponents, including Chancellor Rachel Reeves and easyJet, argue the expansion will boost investment, trade, create jobs, and potentially lead to lower airfares. The Mayor of London, Sir Sadiq Khan, and environmental organisations like Friends of the Earth oppose the plans, citing concerns over noise, air pollution, and the UK 's climate change commitments.
South Wales Guardian
33 minutes ago
- South Wales Guardian
We're backing Scotland with billions in investment, says Reeves ahead of visit
Rachel Reeves said Labour is 'seizing the huge potential and opportunities that Scotland has to offer' in defence and energy. She will visit RAF Lossiemouth in Moray and the St Fergus gas plant in Aberdeenshire on Friday, exactly a week after she toured the Rolls-Royce factory near Glasgow Airport. The Chancellor will meet 200 Boeing staff at the military site where three new E-7 Wedgetail aircraft are being made. The UK Government said its plans to increase defence spending to 2.6% will raise Britain's GDP by around 0.3%, while adding 26,100 jobs to the Scottish economy. It also pointed to its £200 million investment for Aberdeenshire's Acorn carbon capture project, which could create 15,000 new jobs while safeguarding 18,000 more. A final investment decision for the project is yet to be made. Ms Reeves said: 'We're seizing the huge potential and opportunities that Scotland has on offer. 'Whether it's in defence to keep the UK safe, or clean energy to power all corners of the country, this Government is backing Scotland with billions of pounds of investment to grow the economy and create jobs.' Scottish Secretary Ian Murray said the Government is investing in defence to 'ensure Britain's security and deter our adversaries and drive economic growth'. He added: 'This investment is a massive jobs opportunity for Scotland – this 'defence dividend' is good news for Scotland, where it will help create skilled jobs, drive economic growth, and help tackle the critical skills gaps facing the country in sectors such as nuclear, construction, maritime and project management.' Maria Laine, Boeing's UK president, said: 'Boeing has a long-standing presence in Scotland including at RAF Lossiemouth, the home to the UK's P-8 Poseidon fleet and where the E-7 Wedgetail will be based when it enters service. 'As a key partner of the UK Armed Forces, Boeing welcomes the defence spending increase and has seen first-hand how defence infrastructure investments, such as the £100 million Atlantic Building and new E-7 facilities at RAF Lossiemouth, can deliver for local jobs, suppliers and UK national security.' Michelle Ferguson, director of CBI Scotland, added: 'Scotland's energy and defence sectors are vital to our economy, driving investment and supporting thousands of skilled jobs. 'The Chancellor's announcement of £200 million for the Acorn energy project is very encouraging, but businesses are eager for final approval to unlock its full potential and secure North Sea jobs. 'Increased defence spending will further boost Scotland's skilled workforce and create growth opportunities across key supply-chain. 'Close collaboration between the Scottish and UK governments will be essential to fully realise these benefits, driving forward national security and Scotland's transition to a resilient, low-carbon economy.' Aberdeen & Grampian Chamber of Commerce urged the Chancellor to drop the energy profits levy (EPL), the so-called 'windfall tax' on oil and gas companies, which has a headline rate of 78%. Chief executive Russell Borthwick said: 'If we stick to course on the accelerated decline of the North Sea, then we'll only have a few short years and not prosperous decades of future oil and gas from our own waters. 'Instead, we'll import more, pay more and suffer further consequences of jobs and businesses lost, just at the time we need them to support the energy transition. 'We know the Chancellor needs to find growth from somewhere within the UK economy. With oil and gas, there's no need to start from scratch or build out a nascent industry. 'Simply by removing the confiscatory EPL, letting investment flow into projects and stimulating activity in a sector which has been hammered by policy for too long, we can unlock significant growth in the UK economy.'
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Are Labour's plans to offset Heathrow expansion emissions all pie in the sky?
Expanding Heathrow would result in increased carbon dioxide emissions and could put the UK further off track on its climate goals, but the government is claiming it can offset that by investing in research on new low-carbon fuels for aircraft and on electric planes. However, any such technology is still decades away, if it ever reaches commercial scale, making it certain that any new runway in the near future would be used by the same kerosene-fuelled, high-carbon aircraft that we have today. The Climate Change Committee, the government's statutory adviser on net zero, has warned repeatedly that airport expansion would breach the UK's carbon budgets, which are set years in advance on a pathway to meet the goal of net zero emissions by 2050. While the CCC cannot prescribe government policy, especially in the case of specific decisions, it has noted that any expansion of airports would be possible within the UK's carbon budgets only if far steeper cuts in greenhouse gas emissions are made elsewhere within the economy. In its most recent report to parliament, the committee said: 'Any plan to increase airport capacity needs to be based on realistic projections of future demand. These demand projections need to be consistent with climate change targets and take account of the costs to the sector of getting aviation to net zero emissions.' Campaigners do not believe it is possible for an expanded Heathrow to operate within the UK's carbon budgets. Alethea Warrington, the head of aviation at the climate charity Possible, said: 'It is unlikely that this expansion can be done within the current carbon budget as a new runway would bring additional flights, with a huge chunk of additional emissions, with no way of removing them.' Doug Parr, the policy director of Greenpeace UK, said: 'Anyone who is serious about tackling climate change would be very cautious about making that problem even bigger without a coherent plan for dealing with it. Wishful thinking about future technological advances and cost reductions are not a coherent plan, and certainly not a plausible basis to allow the huge increase in emissions from a third runway at Heathrow. This policy amounts to announcing infrastructure now and kicking the carbon cost down the road for a future government to deal with.' Yet there could be alternatives if the government is brave enough to grasp them. The CCC has advised that the aviation sector should be forced to 'pay for permanent engineered removals to balance out all remaining emissions'. That would be expensive – ways of permanently removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, such as capturing the gas and storing it, are still under development. Simpler than that, why not substitute train journeys for flying? In 2021, there were more than 3m flights within the UK between July to September alone and there are 15 flights a day to Brussels, which is just over two hours away by train from London. Sign up to Down to Earth The planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essential after newsletter promotion But flights are often cheaper than trains, even over short distances – flying is in effect subsidised, through the tax system. To encourage people on to trains instead of domestic flights, the government would need to make rail journeys cheaper or flights more expensive. The former would require investment, and the latter would annoy some middle-class voters. Therefore neither seems likely.
