The A380 from a Part-Out perspective.

mffoda · Wed May 30, 2018 4:01 pm

Here's a piece form MRO-Network.com regarding the A380's aftermarket opportunities.

Article title: "Part-Out Specialists Lukewarm On Second Hand A380s"

So A380 lovers beware... :talktothehand:

My first thought when seeing the article title, I was a bit surprised. I would have thought that being one of the first to part-out an A380 would be a good and profitable venture. (little competition/parts availability/higher margins, etc.)

http://www.mro-network.com/airlines/par ... c3f94a3031

A few highlights:

"asset management specialists see little opportunity in taking the aircraft off the hands of operators for teardown purposes, an ap&m summit panel heard."

"Component Solutions Group at GA Telesis, says the company has already been offered two second hand A380s to part-out in recent times but declined the opportunity to do so."

Werner Aero Services: “They were offered to us at what I consider to be teardown pricing and definitely not as flyers but instead to be taken out of service,” he says. “The aircraft are serviceable but the owners are so eager to sell them that prices are reduced, however for us it remains still too risky even at the lower price.”

"when a Boeing 777 goes down with maintenance problems, it can simply be replaced with another of the aircraft. But should one A380 go down, two aircraft are needed to replace it in the fleet due to its size which becomes very challenging and operators are realizing this isn’t an incentive to extend leases.”

Let's try and keep this on topic... That would be Tear-Down and aftermarket opportunities.

Polot · Wed May 30, 2018 5:06 pm

Basically they are saying the market demand for A380 parts is not large enough to justify the current tear down prices.

c933103 · Wed May 30, 2018 5:12 pm

So A380 is too large compared to the next largest available aircraft in the world and thus does not fit into airlines fleet which caused certain airlines trying to discard them?

TXspotter · Wed May 30, 2018 5:58 pm

In the same market at GA and Werner mentioned above. There is still a major gap between how much a company will pay to part out the A380 vs how low some owners can go. A sale of even the oldest AC at $20MM would have a much bigger effect on all values.

Important to note. RR engines are $0 value to aftermarket companies. As RR engines have no aftermarket value. Another big factor to consider when thinking of the gap someone can pay for only the airframe vs the book value of a frame with 4 RR engines.

2175301 · Wed May 30, 2018 6:03 pm

Polot wrote:
Basically they are saying the market demand for A380 parts is not large enough to justify the current tear down prices.

Bingo. That's totally it.

It's also quite a statement about the real value of an used A380.

Have a great day,

Strato2 · Wed May 30, 2018 6:20 pm

What is the news? Majority of the A380 fleet is very young so no surprise it doesn't need million parts to keep it in the air. I see this is another Aviation Week story. Keeping the home crowd happy it seems.

Polot · Wed May 30, 2018 6:25 pm

The fact that part demand is weak is not super surprising, but that 4-6 planes were offered for parts (one company got offered 2, another 4 but that might have included 2 planes offered to other company) and were still turned down is somewhat surprising. That suggests the perceived value (by owners/operators) of essentially scrap A380s may be inflated, which can have further effects on the secondary market.

I’m guessing the planes offered were the SQ early builds.

Matt6461 · Wed May 30, 2018 6:53 pm

So bad new product tends to be bad used product as well.

For now there's still the plausible excuse that these are the hand-wired, overweight early birds. It'll be interesting to see what happens in a couple years when mature production frames start being available. For that matter, I'd expect many of these are already being shopped. The article quotes an MRO executive as saying that a major European airline has already concluded against extending lease options. Those frames wouldn't be super-early birds.

Planesmart · Wed May 30, 2018 8:46 pm

TXspotter wrote:
Important to note. RR engines are $0 value to aftermarket companies. As RR engines have no aftermarket value. Another big factor to consider when thinking of the gap someone can pay for only the airframe vs the book value of a frame with 4 RR engines.

Maybe $0 as a complete, fly again engine, but not for parts.

The former is because of the way RR price and manage PBTH / maintenance contracts. GE are following, and now even PW reputed to mimic. Same trend is being replicated with NB engines.

And culture shock for the parting industry, where increasingly aircraft ownership is fragmented (air frame v engines). Then throw in lifetime maintenance T&C's into the mix.

rufusmi · Wed May 30, 2018 9:37 pm

Matt6461 wrote:
So bad new product tends to be bad used product as well.

For now there's still the plausible excuse that these are the hand-wired, overweight early birds. It'll be interesting to see what happens in a couple years when mature production frames start being available. For that matter, I'd expect many of these are already being shopped. The article quotes an MRO executive as saying that a major European airline has already concluded against extending lease options. Those frames wouldn't be super-early birds.

I’m guessing it’s Air France. Their first birds were some of the earlier ones I had thought?

kitplane01 · Thu May 31, 2018 8:05 am

2175301 wrote:
Polot wrote:
Basically they are saying the market demand for A380 parts is not large enough to justify the current tear down prices.

Bingo. That's totally it.

It's also quite a statement about the real value of an used A380.

Have a great day,

Or their saying that the cost of the airframe plus the cost of the labor is to high. It could be that A380s are harder to tear down.

It could also be that the used parts market is under developed.

Polot · Thu May 31, 2018 1:30 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
2175301 wrote:
Polot wrote:
Basically they are saying the market demand for A380 parts is not large enough to justify the current tear down prices.

Bingo. That's totally it.

It's also quite a statement about the real value of an used A380.

Have a great day,

Or their saying that the cost of the airframe plus the cost of the labor is to high. It could be that A380s are harder to tear down.

It could also be that the used parts market is under developed.

That is a round about way of saying exactly what we were saying. The market demand for A380 parts is too low to justify the current tear down prices.

The cost of an airframe is too high if the sellers are able to resell it to someone else not a scrapper. If a scrapper doesn’t want the plane at the price offered, and nobody else does either, then that means the asking price is too high and you have an inflated view of the value of the plane.

TXspotter · Thu May 31, 2018 1:38 pm

Planesmart wrote:
TXspotter wrote:
Important to note. RR engines are $0 value to aftermarket companies. As RR engines have no aftermarket value. Another big factor to consider when thinking of the gap someone can pay for only the airframe vs the book value of a frame with 4 RR engines.

Maybe $0 as a complete, fly again engine, but not for parts.

The former is because of the way RR price and manage PBTH / maintenance contracts. GE are following, and now even PW reputed to mimic. Same trend is being replicated with NB engines.

And culture shock for the parting industry, where increasingly aircraft ownership is fragmented (air frame v engines). Then throw in lifetime maintenance T&C's into the mix.

I disagree. RR engine part out values are near $0 due to the PBTH contracts. Why would a part out company buy a RR engine if they cannot sell to an operator? The operator is contracted to only buy from RR due to the PBTH. As a part out company, the only option to sell a RR engine is directly back to RR to supply their PBTH programs.

frmrCapCadet · Thu May 31, 2018 1:41 pm

EK 380 fleet is big enough to cope with a down for maintenance plane. Most of the other users aren't. A simple (or simplistic?) solution would be for the other users and Airbus to have generic 380s spotted around the globe as spares - somewhere between 2 and 5 would likely be enough. Those not very good early models would seem to be good enough. What are the reasons it is not practical?

O530CarrisPT · Thu May 31, 2018 1:47 pm

Revelation wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
Or their saying that the cost of the airframe plus the cost of the labor is to high. It could be that A380s are harder to tear down.

It could also be that the used parts market is under developed.

It won't be too long till the first one gets scrapped.

Even desert storage has a cost, and if there's no airliner or freight after market, all that's left to do is harvest re-useable parts and scrap metal.

I also expect that the first A380 to be scrapped soon, because of the high costs of desert storage for such airplane, and because there's no aftermarket demand (apart from the tentative HiFly deal for some of them) for that kind of used airplanes.

mmo · Thu May 31, 2018 1:55 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:
EK 380 fleet is big enough to cope with a down for maintenance plane. Most of the other users aren't. A simple (or simplistic?) solution would be for the other users and Airbus to have generic 380s spotted around the globe as spares - somewhere between 2 and 5 would likely be enough. Those not very good early models would seem to be good enough. What are the reasons it is not practical?

Simply put, Insurance! Who owns the aircraft, who pays for it, who does maintenance. The list goes on and on.

Polot · Thu May 31, 2018 1:57 pm

O530CarrisPT wrote:
Revelation wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
Or their saying that the cost of the airframe plus the cost of the labor is to high. It could be that A380s are harder to tear down.

It could also be that the used parts market is under developed.

It won't be too long till the first one gets scrapped.

Even desert storage has a cost, and if there's no airliner or freight after market, all that's left to do is harvest re-useable parts and scrap metal.

I also expect that the first A380 to be declared as scrapped soon, because of the high costs of desert storage for such airplane, and because there's no aftermarket demand (apart from the tentative HiFly deal for some of them) for that kind of used airplanes.

The owner first has to agree to a price to sell it to a scrapper though (or another deal like split any profits from the scrapping). That seems to be the sticking point at the moment as owners appear to still want too much money for the plane. Planes don’t scrap themselves and scrappers won’t touch a plane they don’t own.

This is a critical moment because right now the actual 2nd hand value of A380s is largely unknown. Owners don’t want to price too low because that sets a low value which has financial implications for other A380s in service that they may also own or potentially finance (ie EK).

O530CarrisPT · Thu May 31, 2018 2:00 pm

Polot wrote:
The owner first has to agree to a price to sell it to a scrapper though (or another deal like split any profits from the scrapping). That seems to be the sticking point at the moment as owners appear to still want too much money for the plane. Planes don’t scrap themselves and scrappers won’t touch a plane they don’t own.

This is a critical moment because right now the actual 2nd hand value of A380s is largely unknown. Owners don’t want to price too low because that sets a low value which has financial implications for other A380s in service that they may also own or potentially finance (ie EK).

Okay. Thanks for the explanation. So, these older A380s are indeed in a very complicated situation, because we still don't know the right value of those 2nd hand A380s. That makes both possibilities (either aftermarket use or scrap) very problematic for those airplanes.

Channex757 · Thu May 31, 2018 2:18 pm

mmo wrote:
frmrCapCadet wrote:
EK 380 fleet is big enough to cope with a down for maintenance plane. Most of the other users aren't. A simple (or simplistic?) solution would be for the other users and Airbus to have generic 380s spotted around the globe as spares - somewhere between 2 and 5 would likely be enough. Those not very good early models would seem to be good enough. What are the reasons it is not practical?

Simply put, Insurance! Who owns the aircraft, who pays for it, who does maintenance. The list goes on and on.

It's called ACMI leasing. Funnily enough, one of the experts in ACMI is Hi-Fly......

Revelation · Thu May 31, 2018 2:45 pm

Polot wrote:
This is a critical moment because right now the actual 2nd hand value of A380s is largely unknown. Owners don’t want to price too low because that sets a low value which has financial implications for other A380s in service that they may also own or potentially finance (ie EK).

Quite true. However all the delaying tactics are doomed.

I think there's a solid percentage of A380s that right now still offer the airlines a solid value proposition, i.e. 77W-like CASM at a larger volume suitable to trunk routes.

However there's a large percentage of A380s where that value proposition is not good enough for their operators due to lack of high volume routes so smaller and more efficient widebodies are more appropriate especially for those who can walk away from leases.

The owners will have little choice to but to send them on to secondary markets which we see are not clamoring for more A380s.

It's inevitable that the A380 2nd hand value will be established and it will be at a lower value than owners would like.

A380 doesn't offer a great value proposition because route structure did not develop the way Airbus bet it would, and because A380 was given unused capabilities to target even larger volume routes that also never developed.

ScottB · Thu May 31, 2018 2:49 pm

Polot wrote:
The fact that part demand is weak is not super surprising, but that 4-6 planes were offered for parts (one company got offered 2, another 4 but that might have included 2 planes offered to other company) and were still turned down is somewhat surprising. That suggests the perceived value (by owners/operators) of essentially scrap A380s may be inflated, which can have further effects on the secondary market.

It also sounds like the potential difficulty in placing used A380s with new operators (due to the high cost of cabin refurbishment) may also have a knock-on effect for the parts market; if a large portion of the worldwide fleet ends up being parked at lease expiration, there may be limited demand for the spare parts obtained by scrapping these aircraft.

I will say that one of the scrappers quoted in the article didn't seem to think the prices being asked were unreasonable:

“They were offered to us at what I consider to be teardown pricing and definitely not as flyers but instead to be taken out of service”

Rather, the level of risk in the market for A380 spares seems to be more the issue and the prices would probably have to come down to compensate for the risk.

TXspotter · Thu May 31, 2018 7:07 pm

Another point. Airbus has an interested in making sure these planes are not sold below a certain price point - especially while trying to secure new orders. I would expect Airbus to get involved in a plane marketed for scrapping. Airbus would prefer to buy themselves and keep in storage in exchange for securing a new orders.

Last thing airbus wants is knowledge of an A380 being sold at extremely low price which would drive down price of new A380's as well. Other airlines too would push Airbus to buy and store vs let competitor operator sell to part out. They want their A380 book values to remain steady vs drop if other A380 was sold too cheap.

First A380 for part out will be interesting. FWIW I saw the first SIA birds' RFPs and have yet to see others.

lightsaber · Thu May 31, 2018 7:25 pm

Cost to store in the desert is far less than write off costs...

No scrapping creates a very poor market. Sigh...

2175301 wrote:
Polot wrote:
Basically they are saying the market demand for A380 parts is not large enough to justify the current tear down prices.

Bingo. That's totally it.

It's also quite a statement about the real value of an used A380.

Have a great day,

That sums it up. I believe the engine maintenance contracts significantly reduce their value. Nothing has zero value, but the engines on a quad should be 60%+ of the aircraft value. Since there isn't (yet?) an aftermath, the rest of the airframe would have to be very cheap.

Also, most airframes ate on parts contracts with Airbus.

Now LH owns A380s and LH always insists on being able to do their own service. But perhaps the engine contracts are too rigid.

Lightsaber

bigjku · Thu May 31, 2018 8:07 pm

TXspotter wrote:
Another point. Airbus has an interested in making sure these planes are not sold below a certain price point - especially while trying to secure new orders. I would expect Airbus to get involved in a plane marketed for scrapping. Airbus would prefer to buy themselves and keep in storage in exchange for securing a new orders.

Last thing airbus wants is knowledge of an A380 being sold at extremely low price which would drive down price of new A380's as well. Other airlines too would push Airbus to buy and store vs let competitor operator sell to part out. They want their A380 book values to remain steady vs drop if other A380 was sold too cheap.

First A380 for part out will be interesting. FWIW I saw the first SIA birds' RFPs and have yet to see others.

So your suggestion is summarized as follows.

Airbus should spend money to defend the current price on the A380 so it can sell more airframes which it produces at a loss. They should do so by overpaying for used airframes on which there is no other bidder.

Is that accurate? How does that help them at all?

SC430 · Thu May 31, 2018 8:20 pm

TXspotter wrote:
Another point. Airbus has an interested in making sure these planes are not sold below a certain price point - especially while trying to secure new orders. I would expect Airbus to get involved in a plane marketed for scrapping. Airbus would prefer to buy themselves and keep in storage in exchange for securing a new orders.

Last thing airbus wants is knowledge of an A380 being sold at extremely low price which would drive down price of new A380's as well. Other airlines too would push Airbus to buy and store vs let competitor operator sell to part out. They want their A380 book values to remain steady vs drop if other A380 was sold too cheap.

First A380 for part out will be interesting. FWIW I saw the first SIA birds' RFPs and have yet to see others.

Airbus didn't lose enough money building the plane, now you want them to buy up old frames? Truly crazy.

hivue · Thu May 31, 2018 8:33 pm

mffoda wrote:
"when a Boeing 777 goes down with maintenance problems, it can simply be replaced with another of the aircraft. But should one A380 go down, two aircraft are needed to replace it in the fleet due to its size which becomes very challenging and operators are realizing this isn’t an incentive to extend leases.”

I assume that what's being said here is that a 777 that's down can likely be replaced on short notice with another 777, but there aren't enough A380s in service for most operators to replace an AOG A380 with another A380 from their fleet. Sound right? Is this another reason to say that the A380 is just too big to have ever been a success?

Planesmart · Thu May 31, 2018 8:52 pm

TXspotter wrote:
Planesmart wrote:
TXspotter wrote:
Important to note. RR engines are $0 value to aftermarket companies. As RR engines have no aftermarket value. Another big factor to consider when thinking of the gap someone can pay for only the airframe vs the book value of a frame with 4 RR engines.

Maybe $0 as a complete, fly again engine, but not for parts.

The former is because of the way RR price and manage PBTH / maintenance contracts. GE are following, and now even PW reputed to mimic. Same trend is being replicated with NB engines.

And culture shock for the parting industry, where increasingly aircraft ownership is fragmented (air frame v engines). Then throw in lifetime maintenance T&C's into the mix.

I disagree. RR engine part out values are near $0 due to the PBTH contracts. Why would a part out company buy a RR engine if they cannot sell to an operator? The operator is contracted to only buy from RR due to the PBTH. As a part out company, the only option to sell a RR engine is directly back to RR to supply their PBTH programs.

Isn't that what IO said.

PBTH is a lifetime commitment, even if the contract is for a fixed period

Even when stored and no hours, there's a monthly fee. If you drop out of the plan and then then rejoin, you have to buy back in (front end charge). Parts prices and hourly rates are higher if you opt out.

RR was first cab off the rank, but they have all followed, and now extending to NB.

Most financiers and all leasors make WB PBTH mandatory, except for the very largest operators, and increasingly too for NB.

Planesmart · Thu May 31, 2018 8:54 pm

Planesmart wrote:
TXspotter wrote:
Planesmart wrote:
Maybe $0 as a complete, fly again engine, but not for parts.

The former is because of the way RR price and manage PBTH / maintenance contracts. GE are following, and now even PW reputed to mimic. Same trend is being replicated with NB engines.

And culture shock for the parting industry, where increasingly aircraft ownership is fragmented (air frame v engines). Then throw in lifetime maintenance T&C's into the mix.

I disagree. RR engine part out values are near $0 due to the PBTH contracts. Why would a part out company buy a RR engine if they cannot sell to an operator? The operator is contracted to only buy from RR due to the PBTH. As a part out company, the only option to sell a RR engine is directly back to RR to supply their PBTH programs.

Isn't that what I said.

PBTH is a lifetime commitment, even if the contract is for a fixed period

Even when stored and no hours, there's a monthly fee. If you drop out of the plan and then rejoin, you have to buy back in (front end charge). Parts prices and hourly rates are higher if you opt out and stay out.

RR was first cab off the rank, but the others have followed, and now extending to NB.

Most financiers and all leasors make WB PBTH mandatory, except for the very largest operators, and increasingly too for NB.

TXspotter · Thu May 31, 2018 9:33 pm

bigjku wrote:
TXspotter wrote:
Another point. Airbus has an interested in making sure these planes are not sold below a certain price point - especially while trying to secure new orders. I would expect Airbus to get involved in a plane marketed for scrapping. Airbus would prefer to buy themselves and keep in storage in exchange for securing a new orders.

Last thing airbus wants is knowledge of an A380 being sold at extremely low price which would drive down price of new A380's as well. Other airlines too would push Airbus to buy and store vs let competitor operator sell to part out. They want their A380 book values to remain steady vs drop if other A380 was sold too cheap.

First A380 for part out will be interesting. FWIW I saw the first SIA birds' RFPs and have yet to see others.

So your suggestion is summarized as follows.

Airbus should spend money to defend the current price on the A380 so it can sell more airframes which it produces at a loss. They should do so by overpaying for used airframes on which there is no other bidder.

Is that accurate? How does that help them at all?

Should they? Not my call haha. But the argument I've heard is a short term loss (buying an A380 to park it) is worth the long term gains (securing an order with the airline). While I wouldn't say its common it has been done before by both Airbus and Boeing.

Example scenario: British airways wants to get rid of their A380s and buy A350's. BA tries to sell A380s on open market - all offers come back too low vs what they have on books - not good. BA then approaches Airbus saying "We will commit to 30X Airbus A350-1000 orders if you buy each A380 at a guaranteed price of $XXMM. Airbus agrees. Pays for used A380's spends ($100MM) and secures orders for A350's - $500MM

*using $$ values as example, not trying to suggest thats buy or sell prices for AB

TXspotter · Thu May 31, 2018 9:37 pm

Planesmart wrote:
TXspotter wrote:
Planesmart wrote:
Maybe $0 as a complete, fly again engine, but not for parts.

The former is because of the way RR price and manage PBTH / maintenance contracts. GE are following, and now even PW reputed to mimic. Same trend is being replicated with NB engines.

And culture shock for the parting industry, where increasingly aircraft ownership is fragmented (air frame v engines). Then throw in lifetime maintenance T&C's into the mix.

I disagree. RR engine part out values are near $0 due to the PBTH contracts. Why would a part out company buy a RR engine if they cannot sell to an operator? The operator is contracted to only buy from RR due to the PBTH. As a part out company, the only option to sell a RR engine is directly back to RR to supply their PBTH programs.

Isn't that what IO said.

PBTH is a lifetime commitment, even if the contract is for a fixed period

Even when stored and no hours, there's a monthly fee. If you drop out of the plan and then then rejoin, you have to buy back in (front end charge). Parts prices and hourly rates are higher if you opt out.

RR was first cab off the rank, but they have all followed, and now extending to NB.

Most financiers and all leasors make WB PBTH mandatory, except for the very largest operators, and increasingly too for NB.

I interpreted your response as saying you can only sell RR engines by parting them out. If so, your only customer would be RR. And using Trent 500 and Trent 800's as an example I have not heard of any company in the industry selling T500 or T800 parts back to RR. I would be interested to hear stories of companies who have been successful on a large scale selling back to RR

kitplane01 · Fri Jun 01, 2018 5:38 am

O530CarrisPT wrote:
I also expect that the first A380 to be scrapped soon, because of the high costs of desert storage for such airplane, and because there's no aftermarket demand (apart from the tentative HiFly deal for some of them) for that kind of used airplanes.

I give. Why would the boneyards charge much more for storing an A380 over a 747/a340? I was at two boneyards this week, and neither was near full.

kitplane01 · Fri Jun 01, 2018 5:44 am

TXspotter wrote:
Another point. Airbus has an interested in making sure these planes are not sold below a certain price point - especially while trying to secure new orders. I would expect Airbus to get involved in a plane marketed for scrapping. Airbus would prefer to buy themselves and keep in storage in exchange for securing a new orders.

Last thing airbus wants is knowledge of an A380 being sold at extremely low price which would drive down price of new A380's as well. Other airlines too would push Airbus to buy and store vs let competitor operator sell to part out. They want their A380 book values to remain steady vs drop if other A380 was sold too cheap.

First A380 for part out will be interesting. FWIW I saw the first SIA birds' RFPs and have yet to see others.

I don't know that true. Maybe ...

Consider the A340. Airbus will never sell another one. Future Airbus profits on the A340 will come from support contracts, and extending the lifetime of existing airframes. Suppose Airbus believes it will not sell another A380. Then extending the life of existing frames to maximize support contract revenue, and the used part market might be a part of that.

Dalmd88 · Fri Jun 01, 2018 1:39 pm

I think another factor is the current operators of the type. A large part of the Fleet owners an notorious for not keeping planes for long careers. If these discarded and relatively young aircraft don't find secondary homes there is very little demand for partout parts. The fleet is just now aging into a cycle of increasing need for major components.

Take landing gear sets for example. Just read the first ship set changes have just happened. Most of these will be repairable, but once in a while a gear will not be. That becomes a opportunity for a used repairable gear sale. If an operator remove the airframe from it's fleet before that gear change limit and there is no secondary operator, well then there is no secondary component market.

The used partout market depends on a fleet having either a long life with the first operator ( ie, MD80 at AA and DL) or a robust secondary owner market ( ie, 737,747 )

mffoda · Tue Jun 05, 2018 4:24 pm

The Part-out process has already began.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/05/a-decad ... en-up.html

The A380 from a Part-Out perspective.

The A380 from a Part-Out perspective.

Re: The A380 from a Part-Out perspective.

Re: The A380 from a Part-Out perspective.

Re: The A380 from a Part-Out perspective.

Re: The A380 from a Part-Out perspective.

Re: The A380 from a Part-Out perspective.

Re: The A380 from a Part-Out perspective.

Re: The A380 from a Part-Out perspective.

Re: The A380 from a Part-Out perspective.

Re: The A380 from a Part-Out perspective.

Re: The A380 from a Part-Out perspective.

Re: The A380 from a Part-Out perspective.

Re: The A380 from a Part-Out perspective.

Re: The A380 from a Part-Out perspective.

Re: The A380 from a Part-Out perspective.

Re: The A380 from a Part-Out perspective.

Re: The A380 from a Part-Out perspective.

Re: The A380 from a Part-Out perspective.

Re: The A380 from a Part-Out perspective.

Re: The A380 from a Part-Out perspective.

Re: The A380 from a Part-Out perspective.

Re: The A380 from a Part-Out perspective.

Re: The A380 from a Part-Out perspective.

Re: The A380 from a Part-Out perspective.

Re: The A380 from a Part-Out perspective.

Re: The A380 from a Part-Out perspective.

Re: The A380 from a Part-Out perspective.

Re: The A380 from a Part-Out perspective.

Re: The A380 from a Part-Out perspective.

Re: The A380 from a Part-Out perspective.

Re: The A380 from a Part-Out perspective.

Re: The A380 from a Part-Out perspective.

Re: The A380 from a Part-Out perspective.

Re: The A380 from a Part-Out perspective.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net