Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
"Dreamliner" For Whom, Airlines Or Lessors?  
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8941 posts, RR: 40
Posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2417 times:

I'm sure GECAS/ILFC etc. will look at the extra profit potential of the aircraft and hike it's leasing costs. How much will that take the spotlight away from the efficiency of the aircraft? Will the 787 turn into a leasing company cash-cow, and not for the airlines? How much will that super efficiency be passed down to the airlines?

It seems this will be a plane you should own, and not lease. Maybe that's the reason why no leasing companies have orderd the plane yet? Big "oops" it seems. The technological aspects may be wonderful, but this...

BTW, I'm a big fan of the aircraft and hope Boeing sells 1000s of them.

Thoughts?

Cheers,
PPVRA

[Edited 2005-05-14 21:37:10]


"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
7 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineAMSSpotter From Netherlands, joined Feb 2005, 271 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2395 times:

I guess the free market will sove this "problem" and I'm sure Boeing will keep selling a lot of Dreamliners (either to the lease companies or to airlines).

User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3476 posts, RR: 67
Reply 2, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2383 times:

None of leasing companies have bought a 787 to date.


Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlinePlaneSmart From New Zealand, joined Dec 2004, 871 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2322 times:

The cost of leasing an aircraft is based on the price (and that is determined by what is included in the price - some customers will try and add non-capital components for tax and/or liquidity reasons), cost of funds, customer risk profile, use profile (projected cycles & hours), term (length of lease), projected market/value at end of lease, and tax.

In the good old days, leasing companies and financiers would place 'block' orders, first to get a good price (partly for their bottom line and partly to pass on to customers) and second to influence the market (leasing companies would often sell delivery positions at a profit).

In 2005 the market is very different, and leasing companies are somewhat pre-occupied with protecting US airline exposures, and assisting with the re-structure of that industry.

Leasing business arises in different ways in 2005. Larger airlines negotiate aircraft purchases direct with the manufacturer, and then in parallel (or later if delivery is well into the future) arrange funding. Some will use negotiating expertise from a financier or leasing company to assist in this process. Later, the airline decides whether to lease or buy the airframes, engines, simulators and other equipment.

Smaller, less financial airlines may use the buying power of the financier or leasing company to acquire the aircraft for them, either to lease or purchase.

If an airline orders 10 aircraft, they may lease 5, purchase 5, yet purchase or lease all the engines. It's simply a case of the best deal, with the best overall cost.

Tax can play a big part. There are sometimes advantages loading early aircraft deliveries with high levels of non-capex costs, some airlines operate their own lease companies (often based overseas), others lease overseas, while others may appear to borrow overseas. Big capital items - big mirrors.

So leasing companies are really driven by customers. No customers wanting to lease - no lease company orders.

Finally two points. All current 787 orders and most A38 orders to-date are what financiers would call options. They are supported only by miniscule payments to the manufacturers, which are refundable, transferrable & deferrable, so in virtually all cases, finance is yet to be arranged, although negotiations are well underway for the A38 (care not to double count previously announced airline orders and later lease company orders for the same aircraft).

Second, the A38 is regarded as a medium-high risk (size for A, some technology, project magnitude) and 787 is high risk (technology, manufacturing, degree of risk-sharing) projects, and so financiers and leasors have very much preferred to take a wait and see approach.


User currently offlineTrappedInMKG From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 4 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2296 times:

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 2):
None of leasing companies have bought a 787 to date.

Au contraire. ILFC has purchased 20. Seeing as how GE is the main engine supplier, I would suspect GECAS isn't far behind.


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8941 posts, RR: 40
Reply 5, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2259 times:

Quoting PlaneSmart (Reply 3):
In 2005 the market is very different, and leasing companies are somewhat pre-occupied with protecting US airline exposures, and assisting with the re-structure of that industry.

Ok, I can see that. But what about the other costumers? As you said, leasing costs are decided in the individual basis, if so, how much will it rise after U.S. airlines recuperate? And what about the others, currently profitable and financially sound airlines?



Quoting PlaneSmart (Reply 3):
The cost of leasing an aircraft is based on the price (and that is determined by what is included in the price - some customers will try and add non-capital components for tax and/or liquidity reasons), cost of funds, customer risk profile, use profile (projected cycles & hours), term (length of lease), projected market/value at end of lease, and tax.

But don't you think the lessors would want a share on the extra revenue the aircraft is bringing in for the airlines? I can't see them being nice and passing on all the benefits of such an evolutionary aircraft.

Cheers,
PPVRA



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlinePANAM_DC10 From Australia, joined Aug 2000, 4115 posts, RR: 90
Reply 6, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2243 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
COMMUNITY MANAGER

Quoting TrappedInMKG (Reply 4):
Au contraire. ILFC has purchased 20

No they have not. Mr Udvar-Hazy has expressed an interest to purchase around 20-25 in addition to the same amount of A350s. AWAS have been reported to be evaluating purchasing 10 787s though even then not for some time.

OldAeroGuy is correct. No Leasing firm has yet ordered the 787

Regards



Ask the impossible to achieve the best possible
User currently offlinePlaneSmart From New Zealand, joined Dec 2004, 871 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2225 times:

PPVRA

'As you said, leasing costs are decided in the individual basis, if so, how much will it rise after U.S. airlines recuperate? And what about the others, currently profitable and financially sound airlines?'

'But don't you think the lessors would want a share on the extra revenue the aircraft is bringing in for the airlines? I can't see them being nice and passing on all the benefits of such an evolutionary aircraft.'

It's a competitive market, so if leasing companies push up margins, then more customers will opt to purchase.

Many believe an airline will lease if it's credit isn't good enough to borrow. Not so. Credit assessment is identical for lease v purchase.

Thankfully there are financially sound airlines around, because together with financiers and leasors, they are helping to subsidise the current poor performers, although concessions granted to poor performing USA-based airlines have spilled over to better performing ones in the USA and overseas.

787 alone won't improve airline profitability. When the industry recovers, current concessions will disappear, but the level of profitability enjoyed by those providing funding in the 70's & 80's will never return. As for putting a premium on the 787, it's more likely B would do that, but that would improve the cost-effectiveness & economics of competing A products.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Highest Fare Or "least Value For Money" posted Thu May 11 2006 19:08:54 by Zbrox
Allegiant Air, "Flying Where Big Airlines Aren’t " posted Thu Sep 21 2006 15:46:31 by STT757
"New" 747 For Iran Air posted Mon Sep 18 2006 21:54:37 by NA
"OASiSHONGKONG" Ready For Oct Launch. posted Mon Sep 4 2006 19:24:57 by N754PR
Flying Blue Mileage For AF "Z" Class posted Thu Aug 31 2006 11:24:27 by Marcus380
Bogus "security" Reason For Limiting Front Lav Use posted Sat Aug 5 2006 19:19:06 by Tugger
Youths Oppose MUC Runway: "Prayer For Resistance" posted Sat Jun 10 2006 13:15:57 by PlaneHunter
$2 Mil. To "exercise" Train For MIA In Japan posted Wed Apr 26 2006 17:40:05 by Eksath
2006 The "Break Out" Year For TVC? posted Wed Mar 29 2006 07:56:24 by Maiznblu_757
JAL "Blue Samurai" 744 For World Cup posted Mon Jan 30 2006 07:17:02 by Centrair