And so it begins...

Dr. Peters has begun disassembly scrapping of two ex-SIA A380s into parts at Tarmac Aerosave in Tarbes France.
The Dortmund-based financial company predicts proceeds of approximately USD $45 million for the parts.



https://www.aerotelegraph.com/jetzt-wer ... 80-zerlegt

=

Chop chop.

Two of many more to come. Folks at Tarbes will be busy with A380s in coming years.

These are early builds though that have bespoke wiring and corrections so not as per mainstream builds? Making them less attractive in terms of maintaining etc?

I’d love to know the cost of these worked out over per flight.

Kind of makes me sad. $600 million turnes into $45 million of scrap. Hopefully the resale/leasing market will be kinder to later, more capable frames. EK has some frames coming up on lease end, so I guess we will see.

Who paid $600 million for them ?

Very interesting to compare the photo of the OP with Google maps. The two A380s already show on the Google maps photo, and there is a third white-tail A380 at the southern end of the tarmac.

incitatus wrote:

Very interesting to compare the photo of the OP with Google maps. The two A380s already show on the Google maps photo, and there is a third white-tail A380 at the southern end of the tarmac.

Article says they have four.
2 in storage and 2 to dismantle.

incitatus wrote:

Very interesting to compare the photo of the OP with Google maps. The two A380s already show on the Google maps photo, and there is a third white-tail A380 at the southern end of the tarmac.

Google Translate of TFA says:

There are already four Airbus A380s parked at the Aéroport de Tarbes-Lourdes-Pyrénées.

and:

Two of the giant planes were mothballed by Tarmac Aerosave so that they can fly again at any time. Two others are certain death.

So it seems you might want to look for one more?

It seems we have the initial outcome of the first five SQ A380s: 1 to HiFly, 2 to mothballs, 2 to scrap.

They could not be remarketed successfully as they were way too nonstandard. Individual certificates were needed for them, and that makes insurance costs alone scary.

Just like those 787 prototypes. Insurers look on nonstandard fixtures and fittings as additional risk. That's before contemplating the overweight issue.

Dr Peters won't be losing any money on them. Tax writeoffs and a completed lease should have nicely covered their costs together with a healthy discount from Airbus.

Btblue wrote:

These are early builds though that have bespoke wiring and corrections so not as per mainstream builds? Making them less attractive in terms of maintaining etc?

I’d love to know the cost of these worked out over per flight.

I think that Mahan Air or Iran Air would be happy to puchase these aircraft.

zeke wrote:

Who paid $600 million for them ?

When SQ bought them, they listed for something like $325 million. Don't know how much SQ paid for each frame, but it was just an estimate.

I see blubber is making a return to industry.

Channex757 wrote:

Dr Peters won't be losing any money on them.

Too bad Airbus can't say the same thing.

Revelation wrote:

Channex757 wrote:

Dr Peters won't be losing any money on them.

Too bad Airbus can't say the same thing.

Touche.

If you think about it, those two A380s were probably the bargain of the century. Dr Peters would have taken a nice discount off the list price, and those first A380s were way above list price to build.

Anyone hazard a guess? I reckon upwards of a billion euros for the two. All that additional work and the costs of the first off the line must be a healthy lump of cash.

Sancho99504 wrote:

zeke wrote:

Who paid $600 million for them ?

When SQ bought them, they listed for something like $325 million. Don't know how much SQ paid for each frame, but it was just an estimate.

They were leased.

Iran Air could have used these planes

Sancho99504 wrote:

When SQ bought them, they listed for something like $325 million. Don't know how much SQ paid for each frame, but it was just an estimate.

These aircraft were owned by the Dr Peters Group hence the reason they were returned to Dr Peters group end of lease.

I don’t remember the price DS Fund No. 129 etc paid for each A380, however it was not 300-600 million. The perspective should still be available online.

They expect to get 45 million for the airframe parts, I heard the engine were leased back to RR and still generating revenue for the fund. When sold they should bring in about 5 million each.

zeke wrote:

Sancho99504 wrote:

When SQ bought them, they listed for something like $325 million. Don't know how much SQ paid for each frame, but it was just an estimate.

These aircraft were owned by the Dr Peters Group hence the reason they were returned to Dr Peters group end of lease.

I don’t remember the price DS Fund No. 129 etc paid for each A380, however it was not 300-600 million. The perspective should still be available online.

They expect to get 45 million for the airframe parts, I heard the engine were leased back to RR and still generating revenue for the fund. When sold they should bring in about 5 million each.

Thanks for the info. For some reason, I thought they did a sale/lease back with Dr Peters.

Airbus was leasing 9V-SKA direct to SQ, but sold them to Doric Asset Finance for $198.6 million each in January 2008 per media reports at the time. Equity distribution was with Dr Peters. A similar structure was done for 9V-SKB and 9V-SKC.

Sancho99504 wrote:

Thanks for the info. For some reason, I thought they did a sale/lease back with Dr Peters.

This document says they paid 154 and 156 million respectively for the aircraft.

https://www.nuertingen.versicherung/eh- ... -DS140.pdf

Should get 45 million for the airframe and 20 million for the engines.

Dr. Peters Group expects an overall return of 145 to 155 per cent for investors in DS funds 129 and 130 after that.

Slash787 wrote:

Iran Air could have used these planes

What market does Iran Air have that can sell 600, 700 or 800 seats ? None I can think of, Iran Air would also have a huge y cabin and small J cabin. An A380 is too big and too complicated for Iran Air, does Tehran even have any A380 capable gates ? There are few if any good airlines for used A380's, it works well for airlines with large J class cabins but dogs when those J seats are replaced with Y seats and the seat count goes to 700 or more.

zeke wrote:

Sancho99504 wrote:

Thanks for the info. For some reason, I thought they did a sale/lease back with Dr Peters.

This document says they paid 154 and 156 million respectively for the aircraft.

https://www.nuertingen.versicherung/eh- ... -DS140.pdf

Should get 45 million for the airframe and 20 million for the engines.

Dr. Peters Group expects an overall return of 145 to 155 per cent for investors in DS funds 129 and 130 after that.

The transactions of the air frames could be separate to the transaction for the engines.

Considering the issues with these particular aircraft, there could have been contract conditions where Airbus guaranteed the value of the air frames.

Like most contracts, commercial terms can ultimately dictate the value of assets.

Does anyone know hours and cycles on the two aircraft being scrapped?

jfk777 wrote:

Slash787 wrote:

Iran Air could have used these planes

What market does Iran Air have that can sell 600, 700 or 800 seats ? None I can think of, Iran Air would also have a huge y cabin and small J cabin. An A380 is too big and too complicated for Iran Air, does Tehran even have any A380 capable gates ? There are few if any good airlines for used A380's, it works well for airlines with large J class cabins but dogs when those J seats are replaced with Y seats and the seat count goes to 700 or more.

To Saudi Arabia for religious flights? I know Malaysian flies large widebodies there. But I might have heard of some political issues between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Not surprising. There is just no market for four engine aircraft.

In a few years, Mahan Air will have to replace its 747-300

Channex757 wrote:

They could not be remarketed successfully as they were way too nonstandard. Individual certificates were needed for them, and that makes insurance costs alone scary.

Just like those 787 prototypes. Insurers look on nonstandard fixtures and fittings as additional risk. That's before contemplating the overweight issue.

Dr Peters won't be losing any money on them. Tax writeoffs and a completed lease should have nicely covered their costs together with a healthy discount from Airbus.

I'm interested in how you are certain that Dr Peters used a residual value less than $45 million for the pair, and an interest rate that exceeded its cost of capital for the lease period.

I wonder how much revenue SQ earned from these aircraft during their tenure with SQ?

vhtje wrote:

I wonder how much revenue SQ earned from these aircraft during their tenure with SQ?

More apt question is what potential profit ?

Not exactly easy to consistently fill with suitable yields.

Considering weak earnings at SQ recent years not sure how beneficial type was for them.

It appears that 9V-SKA (line #3) has 43,469 hours and 5340 cycles so it had a good half life. It had a far better life of service than lines #1, #2, and #4 which never saw commercial service.

zeke wrote:

Dr. Peters Group expects an overall return of 145 to 155 per cent for investors in DS funds 129 and 130 after that.

Total return over 13 years? That is only 2.5-3% CAGR.

That link I posted above I think said 7.5% PA, it is more like 2% now with just the engine lease.

SQ probably paid an amount to Dr Peters on return for maintenance and refurb. This amount could be added to the value of the funds.

travelhound wrote:

SQ probably paid an amount to Dr Peters on return for maintenance and refurb. This amount could be added to the value of the funds.

There would be a significant balloon payment falling due at end of lease, payable by SQ. If the intention is to part out, the leasor retains that payment, and applies against the residual debt.

We don't know the compensation paid by Airbus for late delivery, most likely received as a credit, and partly / fully transferred to the leasor. Neither do we know the extent of residual protection in the form of a guaranteed Airbus buyback in recognition of the non-standard production configuration.

LAXintl wrote:

And so it begins...

Dr. Peters has begun disassembly scrapping of two ex-SIA A380s into parts at Tarmac Aerosave in Tarbes France.
The Dortmund-based financial company predicts proceeds of approximately USD $45 million for the parts.



https://www.aerotelegraph.com/jetzt-wer ... 80-zerlegt

=

Any idea what Dr. Peters is a doctor of?

zeke wrote:

That link I posted above I think said 7.5% PA, it is more like 2% now with just the engine lease.

Upon researching, they used aprox. 50% equity in those funds. So the RoE may have been a bit better than the RoC, even though I am not sure what the conditions on those loans were.

You know, this is kind of sad. This comes from a Boeing guy. A second hand A380 I thought it could have made itself profitable on low yield tourist routes at low frequency to destinations like MCO in a sardine can config. With relatively low acquisition cost, could potentially work for a new type of airline based in MCO or LAS flying 2x weekly frequencies to gateways around the world mainly targeting vacation goers.

I mean MCO-Gatwick sees a B772, B744, and an B788 daily.

It could be the case that scrapping these two aircraft will allow for a more liquidity supply of replacement parts making it easier for second tier airlines tomoperate the type.

If we go back to when QANTAS starting operating the A380 they were reporting A380 specific start-up costs of $50-80 million per year for the first couple of years.

The cost of the aircraft is one thing. Operating them and keeping them in a airworthy condition is another!

Flew in and out of this airport about 6 weeks ago.What struck me was the rows and rows of Airbus - all quads - all the different shapes and sizes ( inc 380).Such an odd decision to continue developing them over and over again.Their first ( hairdryer) model yup ok there was fair logic ( and enough-just- sales).But beyond this? The writing was there for all to see.
The A300/310/330/NEO have been a magnificent family of aircaft.But how much better might they have been had they poured their considerable resources into this WB twin concept which ironically Airbus pioneered in the first place.Somewhat perverse imho.

parapente wrote:

Flew in and out of this airport about 6 weeks ago.What struck me was the rows and rows of Airbus - all quads - all the different shapes and sizes ( inc 380).Such an odd decision to continue developing them over and over again.Their first ( hairdryer) model yup ok there was fair logic ( and enough-just- sales).But beyond this? The writing was there for all to see.
The A300/310/330/NEO have been a magnificent family of aircaft.But how much better might they have been had they poured their considerable resources into this WB twin concept which ironically Airbus pioneered in the first place.Somewhat perverse imho.

Perhaps Airbus wanted a bigger A333, but the only available engine was a “Boeing only”.

parapente wrote:

Flew in and out of this airport about 6 weeks ago.What struck me was the rows and rows of Airbus - all quads - all the different shapes and sizes ( inc 380).Such an odd decision to continue developing them over and over again.Their first ( hairdryer) model yup ok there was fair logic ( and enough-just- sales).But beyond this? The writing was there for all to see.
The A300/310/330/NEO have been a magnificent family of aircaft.But how much better might they have been had they poured their considerable resources into this WB twin concept which ironically Airbus pioneered in the first place.Somewhat perverse imho.

At the time of the A380 launch, I was working the A305, a very 787 like plane, but less range as it was advanced aluminum instead of CFRP and an A320 re-engine for TATL range on the A321.

Obviously the A380 camp won.

At least Airbus didn't offer the same resale guarantee they offered against the A340!

They'd be shipping money if they did!

OMAA

lightsaber wrote:

parapente wrote:

Flew in and out of this airport about 6 weeks ago.What struck me was the rows and rows of Airbus - all quads - all the different shapes and sizes ( inc 380).Such an odd decision to continue developing them over and over again.Their first ( hairdryer) model yup ok there was fair logic ( and enough-just- sales).But beyond this? The writing was there for all to see.
The A300/310/330/NEO have been a magnificent family of aircaft.But how much better might they have been had they poured their considerable resources into this WB twin concept which ironically Airbus pioneered in the first place.Somewhat perverse imho.

At the time of the A380 launch, I was working the A305, a very 787 like plane, but less range as it was advanced aluminum instead of CFRP and an A320 re-engine for TATL range on the A321.

Obviously the A380 camp won.

Wow!

Your revelation amplifies the consequences of the 380 debacle. Actually debacle doesn’t quite do it justice.

Goes to show that new product development is such a garbage in- garbage out process. No matter how great the product is, if it is the wrong product nothing else matters.

The whole story, little as we know know about it is sad.

I was once told by a commercial pilot that he was told ( yes I know!) that Airbus had severe reservations about 'one engine out' performance at take off for giant twins.Not enough rudder authority.Whether this is true or not who knows.I also thought I read here somewhere at GE did indeed offer them the GE90 but again could be wrong.

But the Trent 900 is/was a powerful engine.Enough room to power a dash 900 380 if necessary.They might have considered building a larger 330 variant around that engine,no? Would have matched up nicely with the 380 which was going to be built whether he'll froze over or not!
Would have been a damn slight better than any 345/6 imho even if a little smaller.

But it's all history now - they are all at Tarbes!At least they have built the 350-9/10 and could squeeze an 11 although the market really isn't looking for larger aircaft it seems ( at the moment anyway).

parapente wrote:

I was once told by a commercial pilot that he was told ( yes I know!) that Airbus had severe reservations about 'one engine out' performance at take off for giant twins.Not enough rudder authority.Whether this is true or not who knows.

Similar rumors said that a large airline customer, presumably LH, preferred quads over twins for long range, and that was influential in deciding to do A380.

I also thought I read here somewhere at GE did indeed offer them the GE90 but again could be wrong.

Yes, Leahy's post retirement interview on leeham.net said that GE offered to pay the cost of integrating GE90 on A330 and Airbus said no.

GE, he says, would have paid for the development of putting the GE 90 on an A330. I can remember [Airbus] just rolling their eyes, saying ‘no, why would we want to do that?

Ref: viewtopic.php?t=1381101

Wonder how much one of those frames would cost. Would make quite a fancy bar/restaurent or condor

How about a 'Cruise Ship' version, going around the world with one and two day stopovers, with hotels and for crew rests. I might spring for one such extravagant vacation. Always east bound with the wind. Economy Comfort for us plebeians, varying routes, north and south of the equator, choose a route whose stops appeal to you.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

How about a 'Cruise Ship' version, going around the world with one and two day stopovers, with hotels and for crew rests. I might spring for one such extravagant vacation. Always east bound with the wind. Economy Comfort for us plebeians, varying routes, north and south of the equator, choose a route whose stops appeal to you.

Nice, very creative.

The Google Maps satellite view shows the 2 in the photograph in the original post as well as a third, parked elsewhere. The picture includes many other aircraft, almost all Airbuses. One stand has an A350 and a 777-200, both without engines...

747-600X wrote:

The Google Maps satellite view shows the 2 in the photograph in the original post as well as a third, parked elsewhere. The picture includes many other aircraft, almost all Airbuses. One stand has an A350 and a 777-200, both without engines...

https://twitter.com/a350blog/status/863529035095212041 says the A350 is MSN 4 and has been there since Feb 2016.

A photo taken in August:



Caption says:

Awaiting to be demolished at LDE