hOMSaR wrote:

wrongwayup wrote:

Amiga500 wrote:

No, no, no.

This won't be new frames, these will be the old off-lease frames. Same as for other charter ops.

Ok, fair enough. High six-figure monthly rental cost for a ~12y/o A380 instead of seven-figures for a new one. Same outcome.

What monthly rental cost? Amedeo owns the plane and, presumably, is foreseeing a circumstance where they have no other use for it (no other airline wanting to lease it). So, for them, the plane is essentially free.

This is the Sunk Cost Fallacy. Commercial aircraft (the A380 and its' 9-figure price tag) are rarely purchased with cash, so ignoring the initial value and ongoing payment obligations (debt service, rental, whatever) is a one-way ticket to insolvency. You are just postponing the inevitable.

A lessor starting its own airline made me think of this old saying:
"What is the easiest way to become a millionaire? Start with a billion and launch an airline"

Just sayin'
-Dash9

toxtethogrady wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

Lapidus believes that the air transport industry is ripe for disruption

I think that's what Emirates is all about.

Are we about to see Dublin redevelop itself into an A380 hub?

I can't access the original article but I don't think this is what they're talking about. Sounds more to me like private label flying, where they would operate the aircraft but some other non-airline brand would visible face of the organization and manage sales. This has been tried before, to limited success. Think New Leaf or Hooters Air. I think the challenge is that margins are too thin for two companies to take a cut. Privat Air does this successfully on behalf of Lufthansa, SAS and Saudia but those are all business class flights and a bit of a niche offering.

It has been thought that disruptive technology might emerge that would challenge the airlines -- Google has been working in this area. Then as with Amazon and parcels, the new company would sell the tickets and a proper airline would fly the metal. Maybe that's what they mean.

Okay, trying to think about this. Maybe, like the An-225, you sometimes need major lift because there is a major profit opportunity. It doesn't justify buying an A380 fleet. But it may justify hiring a wet lease provider for 6 months.

I just can't think of any opportunities like that. Many airlines don't have the flexibility to hire a wet lease provider anyway (could Delta?)

wrongwayup wrote:

This is the Sunk Cost Fallacy. Commercial aircraft (the A380 and its' 9-figure price tag) are rarely purchased with cash, so ignoring the initial value and ongoing payment obligations (debt service, rental, whatever) is a one-way ticket to insolvency. You are just postponing the inevitable.

To be honest, what you are saying sounds more like bankers bull to me - why try to complicate something when it doesn't need to be?


If Amedeo have the plane sitting there gathering dust, and have no continued obligation*, then why not use it?


*who cares if they paid for it years ago in cash, or took out loans that have been paid by the lease, or bonds that have been paid by profit off the lease. Fact is, aircraft is paid for. Even if they have a continued obligation, if scrapping it now pays less than short term rents, why would they scrap it?

Flighty wrote:

Okay, trying to think about this. Maybe, like the An-225, you sometimes need major lift because there is a major profit opportunity. It doesn't justify buying an A380 fleet. But it may justify hiring a wet lease provider for 6 months.

Think more like a week or two and that'd be along my thought-train.

wrongwayup wrote:

hOMSaR wrote:

wrongwayup wrote:

Ok, fair enough. High six-figure monthly rental cost for a ~12y/o A380 instead of seven-figures for a new one. Same outcome.

What monthly rental cost? Amedeo owns the plane and, presumably, is foreseeing a circumstance where they have no other use for it (no other airline wanting to lease it). So, for them, the plane is essentially free.

This is the Sunk Cost Fallacy. Commercial aircraft (the A380 and its' 9-figure price tag) are rarely purchased with cash, so ignoring the initial value and ongoing payment obligations (debt service, rental, whatever) is a one-way ticket to insolvency. You are just postponing the inevitable.

My assumption (unless there is information that suggests otherwise) is that these ownership/possession costs will exist regardless of whether the plane sits at an airport rusting away or gets used on charters or gets leased out to another airline. Whether they paid for it already or are still paying for it, just parking it and doing nothing with it doesn't change that.

Usual twaddle I see.....

If Amedeo work it right, they have the ability to step into a market void left by the likes of Air Atlanta Europe with their 500+ seat 742s. The company still does a bit for the likes of SV.

The ACMI market is hugely profitable. Having the ability to shift a lot of people at excellent CASM, and do it at short notice, is the Holy Grail for many operators who have big planes that break down. On the other side, new entrants like AirTanker are doing well and there has been talk of an A330NEO order recently. Titan find plenty of short-notice and contract flying for their 763 and are apparently trying to source an A330.

Remember Air Ops and all those TriStars? The ACMI market needs short and medium term availability and often size really does matter, such as Hajj and the summer flying to Florida. There is a gap in the market at the moment, which can be filled by someone who can finance their equipment and offer proactive brokering of the capacity.

Polot wrote:

Amiga500 wrote:

wrongwayup wrote:

I'm not buying it - especially for the charter market. You're looking at covering a seven-figure rental for a new A380, versus (say) next to nothing for a 747-400. At the low utilization a charter outfit runs, that ownership cost outweighs any savings in operating cost very quickly.

No, no, no.

This won't be new frames, these will be the old off-lease frames. Same as for other charter ops.

Well that would depend on whether Amedeo takes delivery of their 20 A380s they technically have on order for this venture.

You do realize that 12 of those 20 could be replacements for the 12 Emirates planes coming off lease. and the 12 old one used for this venture.

I distinctly recall Avatar having a very similar message/theme except with 747s. Hats off to them if they can actually develop that scam's ideas into a real airline.

hOMSaR wrote:

wrongwayup wrote:

hOMSaR wrote:

What monthly rental cost? Amedeo owns the plane and, presumably, is foreseeing a circumstance where they have no other use for it (no other airline wanting to lease it). So, for them, the plane is essentially free.

This is the Sunk Cost Fallacy. Commercial aircraft (the A380 and its' 9-figure price tag) are rarely purchased with cash, so ignoring the initial value and ongoing payment obligations (debt service, rental, whatever) is a one-way ticket to insolvency. You are just postponing the inevitable.

My assumption (unless there is information that suggests otherwise) is that these ownership/possession costs will exist regardless of whether the plane sits at an airport rusting away or gets used on charters or gets leased out to another airline. Whether they paid for it already or are still paying for it, just parking it and doing nothing with it doesn't change that.

While there are always ownership/possession cost... They dramatically reduce once the air-frame is paid for (freely owned) as there are no more lease or debt payments. In Amerdeo's case; they will freely own fully paid off airframes; and with decent interiors as well as a standard lease agreement for factory new air-frames is that they get returned with a good interior and all key maintenance up to date (subsequent lease agreements may not contain such language - especially if an air-frame is approaching end of usable life).

The only ownership cost is just the cost of preventing further deterioration and routine maintenance to support whatever operations they are using them for. For years people have discussed on this forum the advantage Delta and a few other airlines have with their ability to park and store owned aircraft during slow periods and bring them back for peaks - due to these reduced ownership/possession cost.

In this case Amedeo has an advantage with returned A380's as the initial lease fully paid for the cost of the air-frames; and they freely own them with no further debt. Now, can that finanical advantage be realistically used for the returned A380's; and for more than a few air-frames? That is the question here.

Have a great day,

interesting but see a huge conflict of interest.

eg. Airline X currently leases an A380 from Amedeo.

A multinational tour operator wants to charter a wide body aircraft with minimum 300 seats (B744/763/772/773, A330/340)
for approx. 135 hours a month for 2 months in peak season, when they can't get enough seats from a combination of airlines they use in non-peak season, at the right price.

Amedeo offers them an A380 to fly a route the same or very similar to a route that airline X flies with an A380. Airline X hits the roof, as presumably something is written in the fine print of their leasing contract, excluding issues just like this.

Why do I think this ?

Know of an exact case, as above, where tour operator was looking over 12 months ahead & found a few operators, who said it was possible until the exact route was discussed & then not possible.

USAOZ wrote:

interesting but see a huge conflict of interest.

eg. Airline X currently leases an A380 from Amedeo.

A multinational tour operator wants to charter a wide body aircraft with minimum 300 seats (B744/763/772/773, A330/340)
for approx. 135 hours a month for 2 months in peak season, when they can't get enough seats from a combination of airlines they use in non-peak season, at the right price.

Amedeo offers them an A380 to fly a route the same or very similar to a route that airline X flies with an A380. Airline X hits the roof, as presumably something is written in the fine print of their leasing contract, excluding issues just like this.

Why do I think this ?

Know of an exact case, as above, where tour operator was looking over 12 months ahead & found a few operators, who said it was possible until the exact route was discussed & then not possible.

Airline X can extend (if) any existing Amedeo leases and lease 20 more Amedeo has on order. Or take a hike.

No airline can prove route A-C has an impact on route A-B-C.

I think there are now big opportunities for short term leases of very big aircraft such as the A380 for the following reasons:
- You now have big volumes of traffic from markets like China, India, and the Muslim world. These markets feature big bumps of traffic for religious and other matters.
- Because of political instability and some new travel patterns, every year there are some new "hot spot" where everyone wants to go. It's difficult to predict for an airline and to take the full advantage of that.
- There are many operators with small A380 fleets who have some issues each time an A380 leaves the fleet for maintenance.
- Asia is increasingly experiencing massive delays between the top airports and because load factors are so high and operations so tight recovery plans are not as effective as before. In particular on the high demand routes. We need to have more short notice solutions to clean up disrupted operations. The aircraft has to be big to pay off for the complexity of putting things in place.

The link that the Topic Author provided (from Financial Times - FT) requires a subscription. Here's another "free one":

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/news/ ... ody-wants/

Note that the white tailed frame in this article's photo is SQ's first-ever 380 delivered thru Doric GmbH, which is now returned the its lessor. A second to be returned one from SQ is in the pipeline.

mafaky wrote:

A second to be returned one from SQ is in the pipeline.

The remaining three A380s owned by Dr. Peters Group will be transferred to Tarbes for storage in January, April and June 2018.
From this parallel thread: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1372061

Maybe, just maybe, it could work.. but it seems a huge leap of faith..

Not sure that the A380 is the ideal aircraft as it is restricted to the number of airports it can use. Also the economics don’t stack up for short haul flights, plus the turnaround times will be longer.. also finding available slots at busy airports.

However.. there is a market out there...
Holiday peak travel, Chinese new year, Thanksgiving, Festivals, Carnivals, Sports Events, Cruise ships, Christmas & New Year...

With todays technology and big data crunching, airlines, travel operators and booking engines can predict peaks and troughs in demand.

Years ago coach tour operators in Europe used to sell empty seats on their buses via Magic Bus.. great for backpackers.. maybe something similar where spare seats are sold via eBay, Amazon or an online bidding system.

Maybe Amedeo have developed some sort of App or teamed up with a tech company to offer a new way of offering seats..

Someone like Skyscanner sells its data to travel companies.. includes number of searches for routes that currently are not served by direct flights.. also dates where demand peaks... a whole new world https://partners.skyscanner.net/insight ... -analysis/

As we know the quickest way to make a small fortune in the airline business is to start off with a large fortune...

Behind paywall, if anyone has access to whole article :

Amedeo: with no airlines to take its 20 Airbus A380s on order, the lessor will operate them itself

Lessor and asset management firm Amedeo's order for 20 Airbus A380s is the second biggest outstanding order for the type, and by far the biggest without airline operators identified. After struggling to secure airline lessees since making the order in 2014, Amedeo has said that it wants to use the aircraft to offer capacity to existing airlines or new disruptive operators, under ACMI/wet lease agreements from 2022. It plans to apply for an air operator's licence in 2018.

Airbus has struggled with new orders for the A380, although another order from Emirates may still be in the near term pipeline. Moreover, for several years Airbus has not widened the customer base beyond a fairly small number of operators. Amedeo has little choice but to try a new approach, but there will be challenges.

This CAPA Premium Analysis article is 2,179 words.
https://centreforaviation.com/insights/analysis/amedeo-with-no-airlines-to-take-its-20-airbus-a380s-on-order-the-lessor-will-operate-them-itself-386728

LAXintl wrote:

Dublin based Amedeo, with 12 A380 aircraft with under management and a further 20 on order plans to apply for an air operator’s license next year in order to offer ACMI charter leasing to airlines from 2022 onwards

The only joke I could come up with is Bryanair. Anyone has a better one?

I still believe Amedeo will never take delivery of any of their outstanding order as even if the plan to operate their lease-return A380s works out for them, they should have enough frames coming from future lease returns to provide them the frames they need.

Looks like Amedeo and getting into bed with AirBnb !

Maybe they will be using the A380’s as flying hotels..
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/23/a380-pl ... -firm.html

flyingphil wrote:

Looks like Amedeo and getting into bed with AirBnb!

Sounds like they might be working on a combined tour operation where the A380 would be used for popular vacation spots and passengers would then stay via AirBnb.

Mark Lapidus is very good at talking about ideas what to do with "his" A380s, he has done so for the last 4 years. But in this business actions speak louder then words. This talk about creating an airline is not in any way a story like "the fastest to become a millionaire is to start an airline as a billionaire". It's a guy has just set up a couple of public traded funds financing some A380s. Wriggling his way into good grace with Airbus so he could place an order for new A380s. After the order this guy just talked along with every single idea anyone came up with for the A380, it just never turned into something solid for Amedeo. If Airbus knew that there was some actual money behind Amedeo they would have treated Mark Lapidus like they treated Skymark and would cancel this deal in a second and go after the assets of this "leasing company".

rbavfan wrote:

Polot wrote:

Amiga500 wrote:

No, no, no.

This won't be new frames, these will be the old off-lease frames. Same as for other charter ops.

Well that would depend on whether Amedeo takes delivery of their 20 A380s they technically have on order for this venture.

You do realize that 12 of those 20 could be replacements for the 12 Emirates planes coming off lease. and the 12 old one used for this venture.

You will have to tell EK that. EK prefers ordering the planes themselves then doing sale-lease-back deals (that is how Amedeo got their current A380s out on lease- they were not originally ordered by Amedeo). As of now Amedeo has yet to place any of the 20 A380 it has on order.

flyingphil wrote:

Looks like Amedeo and getting into bed with AirBnb !

Maybe they will be using the A380’s as flying hotels..
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/23/a380-pl ... -firm.html

Have to give them credit for thinking outside the box. They clearly have a problem and are searching for solutions outside the normal ways of the airline business. Can't fault them for exploring any option that would put these birds to good use rather than collecting sand in the desert. Will it work? My guess is probably not, but it certainly is worth a try

It appears that no-one on this thread remembers the original conditions of Amedeo's "order" of 20 A380s. At the time there was much skepticism, and in the various press releases there was an almost-concealed statement by Airbus which said, in effect, that Airbus would NOT hold Amedeo to its commitment if Amedeo could not find any takers for its 20 aircraft. This prompted some on a.net at the time to ***(correctly)*** call the Amedeo order simply a PR exercise generated probably by Airbus to create the *impression* of greater momentum for the A380 than actually existed.

The relevance to this thread is that Amedeo is in no way talking about starting its "airline" with the 20 new birds; rather, it's just talking about the existing aircraft which will be coming off lease in the next few years.

== J

Planesmart - for my own curiosity, why is the junior debt denominated in GBP for an aircraft asset which is likely valued and generates cashflows (i.e. lease payments and final balloon payment) in USD?

Nice post Cloudboy.
With (now) three players potentially entering this new lease/charter/operator 380 market then its fair to say there is/will be 'a' market.The question in my mind is 'how big will that market be?
Find it hard to imagine it will support all 3 players.I sort of get it for Amedeo.Depending on terms we cannot know they may be 'paid for' aircraft even if only minimal profit.So I can see it makes sense.Additional this issue will not go away for them as additional a/c come off lease.
But Malaysia?Refitting all these aircraft and setting up an entirely new company?Just when they have plenty to concentrate on with their real business.
It may be a case of cat and mouse with IAG.But does not appear so.But there is still a year where things might change here imho.

Most pilot contracts don’t allow for any “outsourcing “ of “mainline “ jobs the a380 only can work in a few markets. Like DEL to LHR is it still baned in India ? There are many issues with a380 and 747 it’s just too big for most routes

QF93 wrote:

Planesmart - for my own curiosity, why is the junior debt denominated in GBP for an aircraft asset which is likely valued and generates cashflows (i.e. lease payments and final balloon payment) in USD?

A number of Emirates' airframes are owned by subsidiaries of Nimrod LLC (Doric Nimrod I, II, III, etc.) and are domiciled in Guernsey, which is a Crown dependency and whose currency is the (British) Pound Sterling. In addition, their shares are traded on the London Stock Exchange and are denominated in GBP. So I am assuming their debt would be denominated in GBP for this reason.

COSPN wrote:

Most pilot contracts don’t allow for any “outsourcing “ of “mainline “ jobs the a380 only can work in a few markets. Like DEL to LHR is it still banned in India ?

These strange scope clauses in work contracts: isn't that an exclusive US problem?
The Indian _Government_ had banned A380. ( LH uses 748

But GoI reconsidered in 2014, 3 years ago.
Though interest from Emirates and LH seems to have been lackluster.

COSPN wrote:

There are many issues with a380 and 747 it’s just too big for most routes

yeah!, sure!, blah!

WIederling wrote:

COSPN wrote:

Most pilot contracts don’t allow for any “outsourcing “ of “mainline “ jobs the a380 only can work in a few markets. Like DEL to LHR is it still banned in India ?

These strange scope clauses in work contracts: isn't that an exclusive US problem?

Nope. Look at the issues at AF/KLM, LH, etc faced when they wanted to expand low cost operations and the hoops they had to jump through.

Stitch wrote:

QF93 wrote:

Planesmart - for my own curiosity, why is the junior debt denominated in GBP for an aircraft asset which is likely valued and generates cashflows (i.e. lease payments and final balloon payment) in USD?

A number of Emirates' airframes are owned by subsidiaries of Nimrod LLC (Doric Nimrod I, II, III, etc.) and are domiciled in Guernsey, which is a Crown dependency and whose currency is the (British) Pound Sterling. In addition, their shares are traded on the London Stock Exchange and are denominated in GBP. So I am assuming their debt would be denominated in GBP for this reason.

Junior debt, known as subordinate debt, is secured over the aircraft, but is deemed higher risk. Like a second mortgage on a house, except usually interest only for the term of the lease.

The junior loan may not represent a currency exposure. The aircraft, in anticipation of such a transaction, may have been part paid for in GBP.

The biggest market for subordinate aviation (and shipping) debt in the World is the UK. Historical. Deductions - tax and depreciation. Rules - protect all parties, differ for debt denominated in GBP (local) versus other currencies. Cost - appetite for, and understanding of the risks, so considerable competition to participate, and therefore finer margins. Knowledge base - ready access to tax, legal and accounting expertise.

Junior debt is not the projected residual value of the aircraft at the end of the lease. All final balloon payments need to be deducted, and other credits offset, to arrive at this figure.

Given how many airports can take the 747 but not the A380, I would wonder if the market limitations would cause issues, especially given that Hi Fly or Hi Fly Malta intends to enter the A380 ACMI business soon...likely flying hajj charters with them. I would wonder if Airbus or a third party might try to create an A380 convertible, so that it could carry freight and passengers or all cargo or all passengers.

Polot wrote:

WIederling wrote:

COSPN wrote:

Most pilot contracts don’t allow for any “outsourcing “ of “mainline “ jobs the a380 only can work in a few markets. Like DEL to LHR is it still banned in India ?

These strange scope clauses in work contracts: isn't that an exclusive US problem?

Nope. Look at the issues at AF/KLM, LH, etc faced when they wanted to expand low cost operations and the hoops they had to jump through.

Quite the different thing. LH is about "Tarifvertrag" ( you are paid by qualification and seniority.)

WIederling wrote:

Polot wrote:

WIederling wrote:

These strange scope clauses in work contracts: isn't that an exclusive US problem?

Nope. Look at the issues at AF/KLM, LH, etc faced when they wanted to expand low cost operations and the hoops they had to jump through.

Quite the different thing. LH is about "Tarifvertrag" ( you are paid by qualification and seniority.)

So are most US airlines. What your pay is based on has nothing to do with willingness to have flying outsourced to lower cost options. Everything needs to be agreed upon by the pilots (there was a reason all of LH “Jump’s” planes were in Star livery).

Polot wrote:

WIederling wrote:

Polot wrote:

Nope. Look at the issues at AF/KLM, LH, etc faced when they wanted to expand low cost operations and the hoops they had to jump through.

Quite the different thing. LH is about "Tarifvertrag" ( you are paid by qualification and seniority.)

So are most US airlines. What your pay is based on has nothing to do with willingness to have flying outsourced to lower cost options. Everything needs to be agreed upon by the pilots (there was a reason all of LH “Jump’s” planes were in Star livery).

You are making a mess of the causalities?
LH pilots would have flown for the LCC sibbling _at their rate_ as set in the "LH Tarifvertrag"..
( one illness the AB succumbed to: expensive crews.)

In no way can LH pilots tell LH what planes they are allowed to have in the fleet
or that subsidiaries may only fly frames with up to nn seats.

WIederling wrote:

LH pilots would have flown for the LCC sibbling _at their rate_ as set in the "LH Tarifvertrag"..

Then why all the negotiations, strikes,more strikes, and hey even more strikes? LH pilots will just fly at any rate set by LH, or LH will gladly accept any pay rate as set by "LH Tarifvertrag"

You are living in la la land when it comes to European pilot-management relations.

WIederling wrote:

In no way can LH pilots tell LH what planes they are allowed to have in the fleet

You are right, LH pilots can't tell LH what planes they are allowed in the fleet. Of course wetleasing from Amedeo/whoever is not a plane in LH's fleet so that doesn't apply here....

WIederling wrote:

or that subsidiaries may only fly frames with up to nn seats.

They can, however, get fleet caps in place, and/or restrict how wet leased capacity is used (again wetleasing from Amedeo/whoever is not a LH subsidiary).

Polot wrote:

WIederling wrote:

LH pilots would have flown for the LCC sibbling _at their rate_ as set in the "LH Tarifvertrag"..

Then why all the negotiations, strikes,more strikes, and hey even more strikes? LH pilots will just fly at any rate set by LH, or LH will gladly accept any pay rate as set by "LH Tarifvertrag"

You are living in la la land when it comes to European pilot-management relations.

WIederling wrote:

In no way can LH pilots tell LH what planes they are allowed to have in the fleet

You are right, LH pilots can't tell LH what planes they are allowed in the fleet. Of course wetleasing from Amedeo/whoever is not a plane in LH's fleet so that doesn't apply here....

WIederling wrote:

or that subsidiaries may only fly frames with up to nn seats.

They can, however, get fleet caps in place, and/or restrict how wet leased capacity is used (again wetleasing from Amedeo/whoever is not a LH subsidiary).

Polot - all correct.

M. Wlederling has no idea what he/she is talking about.

The idea that any major airline pilot group will not intervene to protect the jobs/advancement prospects of their members is delusional.

More to the point, it is just standard anti-American trolling from Wlederling. Try to answer with facts or logic - just feeds it

cheers
Billy