Highlights:

Ex SQ Aircraft.

No buyer after negotiations with BA, Iran Air and Hifly

Engines are still fine and will be sold back to RR.

Work will be done at Tarbes, France.

http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-eco/2018/0 ... achees.php

Regards.

B8887

It'd be interesting to see what sort of pricing they get for these (early?) birds. If operators were on the negotiating table then it appears that pricing for further operators and spares isn't that far off. I'd bet EK's lessors are looking for any Intel on this transaction as their first A380s start coming off lease.

N14AZ wrote:

According to aero.de the decision has been made: MSN 003 and 005 will be parted out, subject to approval by the investors at the end of June 2018.
Parting out will take two years and would be done by VAS Aero Services.

Source: http://www.aero.de/news-29316/A380-werd ... kauft.html

As per the report, the investors will get 45 millon EUR for each airframe, which - according to Dr. Peters' CEO - will lead to an excellent result for the investors.

Source: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1372061&p=20458689#p20458651

I am sure this won't stop the haters but can the record show that these birds have a different electrical system to the later machines (like, after the first six frames is it?), and are a few tonnes heavier. So their appeal is extremely limited. While the future of the A380 is hard to read, and I'm not super optimistic, that these early-build frames are being scrapped is not a good, bad, or indifferent sign for the A380. Google "red herring".

cedarjet wrote:

I am sure this won't stop the haters but can the record show that these birds have a different electrical system to the later machines (like, after the first six frames is it?), and are a few tonnes heavier. So their appeal is extremely limited. While the future of the A380 is hard to read, and I'm not super optimistic, that these early-build frames are being scrapped is not a good, bad, or indifferent sign for the A380. Google "red herring".

It is a bad sign for the A380 that its value proposition is so marginal that it can't overcome the weight and maintenance issues the early birds have.

They're 12 year old birds!

This won't stop the fanboys from proclaiming that if you build a plane big enough the market will have no choice but embrace it.

Revelation wrote:

cedarjet wrote:

I am sure this won't stop the haters but can the record show that these birds have a different electrical system to the later machines (like, after the first six frames is it?), and are a few tonnes heavier. So their appeal is extremely limited. While the future of the A380 is hard to read, and I'm not super optimistic, that these early-build frames are being scrapped is not a good, bad, or indifferent sign for the A380. Google "red herring".

It is a bad sign for the A380 that its value proposition is so marginal that it can't overcome the weight and maintenance issues the early birds have.

They're 12 year old birds!

This won't stop the fanboys from proclaiming that if you build a plane big enough the market will have no choice but embrace it.

12 year old planes should have netted $60 to 80m for the investors. As you imply, the highest value for an airframe should be flying and buying new parts!

This is an A318 or 736 where CASK is out of alignment with the market, or is it?

This is prior to significant A35K deliveries and 779 EIS. That does not bode well.

To others:
The growth is in Asia. New hubs or growing hubs won't be ready for A380 size aircraft (nor A35K or 779). But we will see Navi Mumbai, new IST, new Beijing, new runway at Jakarta, and new airports and runways. If existing airports are too constrained, of course the bilaterals will insist on equal access to slots; this means some constrained regions will not get new bilaterals and new hubs will do the job.

I wouldn't expect TK or ET to buy high CASK aircraft with limited freight capacity. They might buy 777X though...

Personally, I believe we are in the post ME3 era where they will be bypassed for higher O&D hubs. This limits A380 sales prospects. Ironically, a new runway at LHR would boost A380 demand (more connections to fill the big plane).

The A380 requires a high level of connections on at least one end. But it is an old airframe with prior generation economics in a widebody glut. The reality is the 787, 777X, and A350 are all having to sell at prices lower than the initial business case. That really hurts the A380 and reduced the 748 to freight only (which the 778F will kill off... eventually).

The A380 was envisioned in an era when bridge hubbing was competitive.

Lightsaber

res 'haters'. Just about everyone thinks the 380 is a great plane, and would choose to fly on it if possible. But from the very beginning Zvesda (sp?) and others have said the business case was not there. A number of our respected a-netters (as well as a-nutters) were insistent that a business case would emerge (or more fantastically that it had emerged).

Business case has not emerged. That does not make one a hater.

MIflyer12 wrote:

cedarjet wrote:

I am sure this won't stop the haters but can the record show that these birds have a different electrical system to the later machines (like, after the first six frames is it?), and are a few tonnes heavier. So their appeal is extremely limited.

Extremely limited? What kind of discount to market do you think a non-current electrical system and a few tons of weight deserve?

Every kg discounts an airframe about $500 when new, so maybe $300,000 per ton for used. The non standard wiring is serviced every 12 years, so about $7 million plus or minus and forces expected economic life down to 12 more years; for that another $10 million discount or so as it cannot be viable in 2030 to put an early A380 through a full heavy maintenance cycle. But that is future (cheap) money.

It is not surprising these are to be scrapped, but it also sets an expectation of used airframe pricing. The CATIA botch added many tons of weight, killed off the A380F orders, and killed sales during a boom time prior to EIS due to a multi year delay.

But a bigger issue is customer preference for direct flights, airport expansion limiting need for VLAs, and A35K or 779 economics. In particular on high cargo routes.

Lightsaber

N14AZ wrote:

As per the report, the investors will get 45 millon EUR for each airframe, which - according to Dr. Peters' CEO - will lead to an excellent result for the investors.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Doing the housewife's calculations, those two A380s lost 90% of their value over 12 years, having a listprice of US$ 445,6 M. (Source: Airbus, http://www.airbus.com/content/dam/corpo ... s-2018.pdf )

US$ 33,38 M / year
US$ 90411,- / day

Going a bit deeper in those numbers, those planes should have earned revenues for more than 90% of their listprice, US$ 400,6 M to break even:

- the cost of buying them in the first place
- scheduled maintenance
- unscheduled maintenance
- logistics
- crew training and payroll
- fuel
- others

But I can't summarize those costs because I'm not in the industry.

Does someone have those numbers?
A depriciation of 90% over 12 years impresses me - but maybe it's ok?

FatCat wrote:

[Doing the housewife's calculations, those two A380s lost 90% of their value over 12 years, having a listprice of US$ 445,6 M. (Source: Airbus, http://www.airbus.com/content/dam/corpo ... s-2018.pdf )

List price at the time the frames were ordered was around $250 million and the frames in question were sold to Doric Asset Finance for just under $199 million each.

@ FatCat: I am in a hurry and cannot find the relevant Information that quickly but the price Dr. Peters paid (to SQ IIRC, it was a sale-lease-back-deal) is availble somewhere, I think it was somewhere in the 200 million US$s. Most probably someone else*) can provide the figure...

Edit: *) ha! I knew Stitch would provide us with the correct figure. I simply should have waited a little bit

Stitch wrote:

FatCat wrote:

[Doing the housewife's calculations, those two A380s lost 90% of their value over 12 years, having a listprice of US$ 445,6 M. (Source: Airbus, http://www.airbus.com/content/dam/corpo ... s-2018.pdf )

List price at the time the frames were ordered was around $250 million and the frames in question were sold to Doric Asset Finance for just under $199 million each.

AFAIK Doric collected 21.1 million dollars of lease payments per year for each SQ A380, so including the money from the part out. That's an IRR of... 4.5%, not counting fees, yikes, given how risky a portfolio of Aircraft can be as financial assets an investor should expect 10+% IRR at minimum...

JustSomeDood wrote:

[AFAIK Doric collected 21.1 million dollars of lease payments per year for each SQ A380, so including the money from the part out. That's an IRR of... 4.5%, not counting fees, yikes, given how risky a portfolio of Aircraft can be as financial assets an investor should expect 10+% IRR at minimum...

$1.7 million a month per sources reported by FlightGlobal so $20.4 million a year. There will also be down payments and balloon payments worth another $30-35 million (based on data I have for EK lease-backs).

Thanks guys, I appreciate your contributions

cedarjet wrote:

I am sure this won't stop the haters but can the record show that these birds have a different electrical system to the later machines (like, after the first six frames is it?), and are a few tonnes heavier. So their appeal is extremely limited. While the future of the A380 is hard to read, and I'm not super optimistic, that these early-build frames are being scrapped is not a good, bad, or indifferent sign for the A380. Google "red herring".

Yes this isn't all that different to the first batch of 787s either. It's not until we get some standard production versions on the market we're going to get a true idea of what they are worth..... Oddball aircraft never sell well. Look at Ansett's 3 crew 767-200s back in the day... they basically had to install new cockpits and even then half of them only ended up scrap. This is part of the risk of being in the initial batch of launch customers. You get attractive discounts but you also have to help sort out the problems.

Lufthansa wrote:

Yes this isn't all that different to the first batch of 787s either. It's not until we get some standard production versions on the market we're going to get a true idea of what they are worth..... Oddball aircraft never sell well. Look at Ansett's 3 crew 767-200s back in the day... they basically had to install new cockpits and even then half of them only ended up scrap. This is part of the risk of being in the initial batch of launch customers. You get attractive discounts but you also have to help sort out the problems.

Oddball? I understand they may weigh more than later A380s, but the idea that the A380 is such a superlative design doesn't hold up if you can't sell 2 for less than the price of a Gulfstream G650 to operators who would never afford the new aircraft is absurd. If the plane was really the incredible market success the fanboys suggest, why would it be that you can't sell it to any operator for $40 Million? A few pounds of extra weight shouldn't matter that much. If you actually need or can use an A380, a few extra pounds for such a cheap price should be passable.

I can understand existing A380 operators not being interested in them due to the customization. The first 25 frames affected by this went to SQ, EK and QF and SQ and EK rotate their frames out around 12 years and QF is not interested in adding any more at this time.

So that leaves new operators. HiFly announced their intention to take (these?) two frames, but have now backed out. And no other potential new operator has show up. So with no market, DP has no choice but to keep shopping (and losing money) or part them out for what the market will currently pay.

SKB and SKC are still listed as operated by HiFly on planespotters.

So, which ones are going to be broken up? SKA? SKD?

Stitch wrote:

I can understand existing A380 operators not being interested in them due to the customization. The first 25 frames affected by this went to SQ, EK and QF and SQ and EK rotate their frames out around 12 years and QF is not interested in adding any more at this time.

So that leaves new operators. HiFly announced their intention to take (these?) two frames, but have now backed out. And no other potential new operator has show up. So with no market, DP has no choice but to keep shopping (and losing money) or part them out for what the market will currently pay.

Don't forget that *precisely* the same thing happened with a recent 787. They couldn't find a buyer for the plane, and AFAIK, it's been scrapped. Again, same issues. Extra weight, beginning of the production run.

BA was looking at taking these and refurbishing them but, once again, they realized it was so expensive to refurbish them that it made more sense just to buy new ones (which I believe they are not doing because they're displeased with Airbus about A320neo delivery delays).

There was a thread here just a few days ago where some part-out specialists were sceptical about the A380. Then this happens. Too bad Aviation Week and it's affiliates so often get it wrong on the A380. Wonder why.

Also from Reuters:

Dr Peters said the deal would yield a positive return for investors in funds used to finance the jets

workhorse wrote:

SKB and SKC are still listed as operated by HiFly on planespotters.

So, which ones are going to be broken up? SKA? SKD?

Don't take information on planespotters as 100% true. They are the best source online but they are not perfect.

Most likely 9V-SKA and SKB will be scrapped, as they already stored in France engineless, whereas 9V-SKC and SKD are still in SIN, with test flights done within the past month.

EChid wrote:

Stitch wrote:

I can understand existing A380 operators not being interested in them due to the customization. The first 25 frames affected by this went to SQ, EK and QF and SQ and EK rotate their frames out around 12 years and QF is not interested in adding any more at this time.

So that leaves new operators. HiFly announced their intention to take (these?) two frames, but have now backed out. And no other potential new operator has show up. So with no market, DP has no choice but to keep shopping (and losing money) or part them out for what the market will currently pay.

Don't forget that *precisely* the same thing happened with a recent 787. They couldn't find a buyer for the plane, and AFAIK, it's been scrapped. Again, same issues. Extra weight, beginning of the production run.

BA was looking at taking these and refurbishing them but, once again, they realized it was so expensive to refurbish them that it made more sense just to buy new ones (which I believe they are not doing because they're displeased with Airbus about A320neo delivery delays).

Nope, the 787 was scrapped not because they couldn't find a buyer, but because the cost of reworking to standard is more than the value of the frame itself. Boeing decided to take a charge on the 2 frames, LN 4 and LN5, instead of selling them.

This news is a double edge sword.

On one side it sets negative scrapping value on the frame which likely will only get lower on subsequent specimens.

On the other side, the good news is that it removes two frames from the 2nd hand market and gives other frames better chance of finding homes while keeping values up.

Of course the entire business case for the A380 has not changed, just pushed a potential valuation crisis out some.

workhorse wrote:

SKB and SKC are still listed as operated by HiFly on planespotters.

So, which ones are going to be broken up? SKA? SKD?

Above we read "MSN 003 and 005 will be parted out" so 9V-SKA and 9V-SKB.

HiFly has MSN 006.

EChid wrote:

Don't forget that *precisely* the same thing happened with a recent 787. They couldn't find a buyer for the plane, and AFAIK, it's been scrapped. Again, same issues. Extra weight, beginning of the production run.

BA was looking at taking these and refurbishing them but, once again, they realized it was so expensive to refurbish them that it made more sense just to buy new ones (which I believe they are not doing because they're displeased with Airbus about A320neo delivery delays).

Not precisely. The 787s being broken up never went into service and didn't have an interior like the SQ A380s do.

jeffrey0032j wrote:

workhorse wrote:

SKB and SKC are still listed as operated by HiFly on planespotters.

So, which ones are going to be broken up? SKA? SKD?

Don't take information on planespotters as 100% true. They are the best source online but they are not perfect.

Most likely 9V-SKA and SKB will be scrapped, as they already stored in France engineless, whereas 9V-SKC and SKD are still in SIN, with test flights done within the past month.

You are correct, the two A380s to be parted out are MSN003, ex 9V-SKA and MSN005, ex 9V-SKB, both already in Tarbes.
Source: Dr. Peters via http://www.aero.de/news-29316/A380-werd ... kauft.html

See also viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1372061

As mentioned above, HiFly will take over MSN006, ex 9V-SKC.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

res 'haters'. Just about everyone thinks the 380 is a great plane, and would choose to fly on it if possible. But from the very beginning Zvesda (sp?) and others have said the business case was not there. A number of our respected a-netters (as well as a-nutters) were insistent that a business case would emerge (or more fantastically that it had emerged).

Business case has not emerged. That does not make one a hater.

Agreed. Stating the business case does not and did not exist for the A380 is not hating....it is simply a fact. At the time Airbus gave the go ahead for the A380 they claimed a market existed for 1500 VLA. At the exactly the same time Boeing said the market was 500 frames. As of now the A380 and 748 have sold 331 and 150 frames each....right at Boeing's projection.

Based on each respective market analysis I think it is fair to say Boeing got it right and Airbus massively wrong. But hey....Boeing gave the go ahead to save the 717 so these things can happen. It is a shame because from a passenger perspective the A380 is loved, but the business case was really never there except for a niche carrier like EK.

ElroyJetson wrote:

At the time Airbus gave the go ahead for the A380 they claimed a market existed for 1500 VLA. At the exactly the same time Boeing said the market was 500 frames.

Are you sure about Boeing‘s figure of 500? It’s true that Boeing was less enthusiastic and we all know this but I don’t think the difference between both OEMs was 3 : 1 „at exactly the same time“. Later on they kept reducing their VLA-forecast, IIRC.

ElroyJetson wrote:

At the time Airbus gave the go ahead for the A380 they claimed a market existed for 1500 VLA. At the exactly the same time Boeing said the market was 500 frames.

N14AZ wrote:

Are you sure about Boeing‘s figure of 500? It’s true that Boeing was less enthusiastic and we all know this but I don’t think the difference between both OEMs was 3 : 1 „at exactly the same time“. Later on they kept reducing their VLA-forecast, IIRC.

Both OEM's 20 Year Market Outlooks were quite bullish on the prospects of VLAs (450+ seats) for most of the 2000's. Once the decade ticked over, Boeing started to become a bit more conservative, but they still projected a fair number of sales.

Stitch wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

At the time Airbus gave the go ahead for the A380 they claimed a market existed for 1500 VLA. At the exactly the same time Boeing said the market was 500 frames.

N14AZ wrote:

Are you sure about Boeing‘s figure of 500? It’s true that Boeing was less enthusiastic and we all know this but I don’t think the difference between both OEMs was 3 : 1 „at exactly the same time“. Later on they kept reducing their VLA-forecast, IIRC.

Both OEM's 20 Year Market Outlooks were quite bullish on the prospects of VLAs (450+ seats) for most of the 2000's. Once the decade ticked over, Boeing started to become a bit more conservative, but they still projected a fair number of sales.

Boeing's 2000 forecast predicted demand for 330 500+ seat planes through 2019, Airbus's 2000 forecast predicted demand for 1235 500+ seat planes over the same period of time.

Boeing: "The market for very large airplanes is small... Within this size category, about two-fifths of the requirement — or approximately 410 passenger jets — is for
airplanes of the size of the 747-400...The projected requirement for airplanes of 500 seats or greater,however, is estimated at only 330 passenger jets over the study period." http://www.as777.com/data/manufacturer/ ... g_2000.pdf

Airbus: "Despite the fact that Airbus forecasters have reduced their projections of long-term passenger traffic growth by one-tenth of a percentage point, the 575 500-seaters, 404 600-seaters, 223 800-seaters and 33 1,000-seaters for which a need is forecast in twenty years' time represent a slight increase compared with last year's"
GMF." http://www.as777.com/data/manufacturer/ ... s_2000.pdf

frmrCapCadet wrote:

res 'haters'. Just about everyone thinks the 380 is a great plane, and would choose to fly on it if possible. But from the very beginning Zvesda (sp?) and others have said the business case was not there. A number of our respected a-netters (as well as a-nutters) were insistent that a business case would emerge (or more fantastically that it had emerged).

Business case has not emerged. That does not make one a hater.

What makes the A380 such a great plane? I never understood what the appeal is apart from being big. Long boarding and exiting times, crowded gate areas, seat pitch the same as other planes, so where is the greatness? Apart from EK, it has done poorly and would have been dropped from the AB line up. It still has a dismal future with very few orders and the large twins are more practical as they can service more routes, weather slow travel times and still turn a profit and fly to more airports. Having a choice, I prefer the Twins.

cheapgreek wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

res 'haters'. Just about everyone thinks the 380 is a great plane, and would choose to fly on it if possible. But from the very beginning Zvesda (sp?) and others have said the business case was not there. A number of our respected a-netters (as well as a-nutters) were insistent that a business case would emerge (or more fantastically that it had emerged).

Business case has not emerged. That does not make one a hater.

What makes the A380 such a great plane? I never understood what the appeal is apart from being big. Long boarding and exiting times, crowded gate areas, seat pitch the same as other planes, so where is the greatness? Apart from EK, it has done poorly and would have been dropped from the AB line up. It still has a dismal future with very few orders and the large twins are more practical as they can service more routes, weather slow travel times and still turn a profit and fly to more airports. Having a choice, I prefer the Twins.

I've never ridden the thing and even I can point to some things:

1. Spacious
2. Quiet
3. Wider seats (than 777/787)

I love the A380 but its too expensive.Maybe Airbus should do a deal like what they did with Eastern Airlines back in the day to crack the US market by giving a no money down lease and great rates on top that might spark more interest.

cheapgreek wrote:

What makes the A380 such a great plane? I never understood what the appeal is apart from being big. Long boarding and exiting times, crowded gate areas, seat pitch the same as other planes, so where is the greatness? Apart from EK, it has done poorly and would have been dropped from the AB line up. It still has a dismal future with very few orders and the large twins are more practical as they can service more routes, weather slow travel times and still turn a profit and fly to more airports. Having a choice, I prefer the Twins.

Have you ever flown on an A380 ?

I don't remember any special problem with the loading times (it's always long with a wide body international flight) Very smooth quiet flight.

beeweel15 wrote:

I love the A380 but its too expensive.Maybe Airbus should do a deal like what they did with Eastern Airlines back in the day to crack the US market by giving a no money down lease and great rates on top that might spark more interest.

As unbelievable as it may seem, there are other countries than the US in the world. Really. I'm not kidding you. I've even been to some.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

cheapgreek wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

res 'haters'. Just about everyone thinks the 380 is a great plane, and would choose to fly on it if possible. But from the very beginning Zvesda (sp?) and others have said the business case was not there. A number of our respected a-netters (as well as a-nutters) were insistent that a business case would emerge (or more fantastically that it had emerged).

Business case has not emerged. That does not make one a hater.

What makes the A380 such a great plane? I never understood what the appeal is apart from being big. Long boarding and exiting times, crowded gate areas, seat pitch the same as other planes, so where is the greatness? Apart from EK, it has done poorly and would have been dropped from the AB line up. It still has a dismal future with very few orders and the large twins are more practical as they can service more routes, weather slow travel times and still turn a profit and fly to more airports. Having a choice, I prefer the Twins.

I've never ridden the thing and even I can point to some things:

1. Spacious
2. Quiet
3. Wider seats (than 777/787)

Spacious, the last time I saw a spacious wide body was in the promo ads from Boeing when the 747 debuted with the piano bar and plenty of room to stand around drinking cocktails. How much wider can the seats be? I prefer more seat pitch but that will never happen. People hear that they are going to fly on the largest airliner and get goose bumps. The market for the A380 is too small and when one looks at the sales of the twins, its evident they are the future.
The next step in air travel should be higher cruise speeds that have not changed since the 60's. The OEM's are making ULR planes with 17-20 hours in a coach seat, no thanks, I would rather connect with time to walk around the airport and get my circulation back.

Stitch wrote:

JustSomeDood wrote:

[AFAIK Doric collected 21.1 million dollars of lease payments per year for each SQ A380, so including the money from the part out. That's an IRR of... 4.5%, not counting fees, yikes, given how risky a portfolio of Aircraft can be as financial assets an investor should expect 10+% IRR at minimum...

$1.7 million a month per sources reported by FlightGlobal so $20.4 million a year. There will also be down payments and balloon payments worth another $30-35 million (based on data I have for EK lease-backs).

Plus previous compensation for weight and delay. Acquisition price included legitimate cost capitalisation. Airbus buyback. Tax treatment.

JustSomeDood wrote:

Stitch wrote:

FatCat wrote:

[Doing the housewife's calculations, those two A380s lost 90% of their value over 12 years, having a listprice of US$ 445,6 M. (Source: Airbus, http://www.airbus.com/content/dam/corpo ... s-2018.pdf )

List price at the time the frames were ordered was around $250 million and the frames in question were sold to Doric Asset Finance for just under $199 million each.

AFAIK Doric collected 21.1 million dollars of lease payments per year for each SQ A380, so including the money from the part out. That's an IRR of... 4.5%, not counting fees, yikes, given how risky a portfolio of Aircraft can be as financial assets an investor should expect 10+% IRR at minimum...

Yet A & B lease funding syndicates continue to be well, and even over subscribed. Think you are missing some of the financial attraction equation.

workhorse wrote:

beeweel15 wrote:

I love the A380 but its too expensive.Maybe Airbus should do a deal like what they did with Eastern Airlines back in the day to crack the US market by giving a no money down lease and great rates on top that might spark more interest.

As unbelievable as it may seem, there are other countries than the US in the world. Really. I'm not kidding you. I've even been to some.

Really, that wasn't necessary.
Its apparent to me that beeweel15 was simply reflecting that adoption by US carriers would go a long way towards ensuring the future of the aircraft. You don't have to love the US3, or even the US itself, but its silly to deny that 4 of the largest buyers of aircraft in the world are in the US.


But beeweel15 - that horse has long ago left the barn with the US3 and VLA's. US3 would not even operate the A380 if they were free.
Its just not in their money-making model, at all. US3 generally want the *smallest* plane they can gain the highest profits upon. For AA, that's every 787 they can buy, for DL, that mostly A330, and a pretty small fleet of A350, for UA - who knows, they seem dysfunctional with their plans. All of them angst over how to replace their 767. Regardless, no 777X , and certainly no high trip cost, quad engined, gate constraining double-deckers.

But if Dick (aehm, Mr Anderson) at Delta told us he could buy used 777´s for 10MIO, what´s wrong with scrapping an A380 for 45 mio……??

What is the other A388 headed to 5M then? 9V-SKD? I can get why the first 5 would be undesirable to anyone.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

What is the other A388 headed to 5M then? 9V-SKD? I can get why the first 5 would be undesirable to anyone.

This question has been answered three times above in this thread, e.g. by Relevation... anyhow: MSN 006, future ex-9V-SKC, SQ #3 (I say „future ex“ because she is still wearing its original registration before delivery to HiFly).

Planesmart wrote:

JustSomeDood wrote:

Stitch wrote:

List price at the time the frames were ordered was around $250 million and the frames in question were sold to Doric Asset Finance for just under $199 million each.

AFAIK Doric collected 21.1 million dollars of lease payments per year for each SQ A380, so including the money from the part out. That's an IRR of... 4.5%, not counting fees, yikes, given how risky a portfolio of Aircraft can be as financial assets an investor should expect 10+% IRR at minimum...

Yet A & B lease funding syndicates continue to be well, and even over subscribed. Think you are missing some of the financial attraction equation.

Yes, for sure, as I wrote in my post.
That's what intrigues me.
It's my everyday job, but on completely different products.

FatCat wrote:

Planesmart wrote:

JustSomeDood wrote:

AFAIK Doric collected 21.1 million dollars of lease payments per year for each SQ A380, so including the money from the part out. That's an IRR of... 4.5%, not counting fees, yikes, given how risky a portfolio of Aircraft can be as financial assets an investor should expect 10+% IRR at minimum...

Yet A & B lease funding syndicates continue to be well, and even over subscribed. Think you are missing some of the financial attraction equation.

Yes, for sure, as I wrote in my post.
That's what intrigues me.
It's my everyday job, but on completely different products.

Unfortunately, unless you gain firsthand experience in the commercial aviation finance and legal arenas (not in the US, where funding is far from cutting edge), you will continue to be intrigued.

Engine OEM's push the technical envelope. High value commercial aviation funding (along with the maritime equivalent), is the pointy end of the finance and leasing worlds, where players create proprietary products and vehicles to minimise funding costs / maximise returns, customised for participants.

FatCat wrote:

N14AZ wrote:

According to aero.de the decision has been made: MSN 003 and 005 will be parted out, subject to approval by the investors at the end of June 2018.
Parting out will take two years and would be done by VAS Aero Services.

Source: http://www.aero.de/news-29316/A380-werd ... kauft.html

As per the report, the investors will get 45 millon EUR for each airframe, which - according to Dr. Peters' CEO - will lead to an excellent result for the investors.

Source: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1372061&p=20458689#p20458651

Just out of curiousity, is anybody able to give us a rough break-down of these 45 million EUR? I am sure the MLG for example is worth several million EUR but what about the rest?

Planesmart wrote:

Unfortunately, unless you gain firsthand experience in the commercial aviation finance and legal arenas (not in the US, where funding is far from cutting edge), you will continue to be intrigued.

Engine OEM's push the technical envelope. High value commercial aviation funding (along with the maritime equivalent), is the pointy end of the finance and leasing worlds, where players create proprietary products and vehicles to minimise funding costs / maximise returns, customised for participants.

Who knows, maybe one day...