The profits being secured by the lessors continues to be between 15-20 percent thus underlining the continued relative attraction of aircraft leasing compared other asset classes such as shipping and real estate.
The leasing of aircraft continues to increase despite as yet proven speculation that low interest rates may increase the amount of aircraft being bought directly by airlines. As a proportion of the fleet, the number of leased aircraft continues to increase. The lessors regularly trade blocks of aircraft between one another as a means of generating revenue; to meet objectives of retaining an average aircraft age; to increase the portfolio; to avoid waiting for new aircraft deliveries. Typically, lessors re-lease 10 percent of their portfolio each year. The lessors are involved in buying aircraft from lessees and other lessors and therefore have considerable knowledge, perhaps more so than the appraisal community.
The returns being reported by the lessors are based on relatively stable lease rentals though some older widebody rentals are facing weakness as they transition to new lessees. However, a move to a second tier lessee can see a rise in rental due to a shorter term and/or weaker credit. Given the strength of most of the market, renegotiation of lease rentals is a relatively rare event with the preference being to take back the aircraft and place with another lessee. The effect of Cape Town on repossession has been limited thus far.
Aircastle, in presenting its 2016 results, noted that investor demand for aircraft remains strong such that some 30 of its aircraft were sold during the year resulting in a net gain of $39.1 million with $24.2 million of the gain being secured in the final quarter. The portfolio of Aircastle was seen as improving by the sale or three freighters and seven widebodies. Moreover, three A330s that are due to come off lease in 2017 have been placed though another A330 has yet to be placed as has one freighter. As a result the fleet of Aircastle had 99 percent utilization for the year. The lease rental yield was 12.4 percent for the final quarter of 2016.
As the number of aircraft traded on a standalone basis diminishes, aircraft values are increasingly needing to assess the value of the attached lease – the Lease Encumbered Current Market Value (LECMV) or Securitized Value (SV).
The number and more importantly, the proportion of aircraft being leased has been increasing over the last 20 years has experienced a continual upward trend such that they will soon represent the majority, particularly in the narrowbody segment of the market. In contrast to other asset classes such as Real Estate, there is no transparency of transaction data. This is largely because relatively few of the approximate 24,000 aircraft in service are traded on a standalone basis. Instead, the operating lease has come much more to the fore as the method of trading – and investment – which in turn has created a need for an additional method of asset valuation. The value of the attached lease is increasingly being calculated as an addition to the current market value.
With the rise of the lease there has been a growing imperative to include the value of the attached lease. Most appraisers use the definitions defined by ISTAT. “Securitized Value or Lease-Encumbered Value is the Appraiser’s opinion of the value of an aircraft, under lease, given a specified lease payment stream (rents and term), and estimated future residual value at lease termination, and an appropriate discount rate. Comment: The Securitized Value or Lease-Encumbered Value may be more or less than the Appraiser’s opinion of Current Market Value.” (ISTAT). To an extent, valuing the attached lease by means of the above ISTAT definition is a simple arithmetic exercise and does not need the input of the appraiser given that all appraisers using such definition would see the same premium – or deduction – to the market value. Apart from the probable base value to which the “value” of the lease stream is added, the ISTAT definition of the value of the attached lease is a statement of fact rather than an expression of opinion. However, some appraisers may use alternative market relevant methods to assess the LECMV such as taking the difference between the actual lease and the market lease over the remaining term of the lease and adding to the current market value. Also other appraisers may take into account the financial standing of the lessee as well as whether the lease is the result of a sale and leaseback.
While there is a need to assess the “value” of the attached lease there also exists a concern that a simple arithmetic solution may be more relevant to financial engineering rather than an assessment of market attraction particularly if base values are used. Seeking to add a premium – which is likely to be purpose of such a calculation – to the standalone asset value also has more relevance to some parties than others.
The regulatory authorities overseeing the financial standing of the banks have made considerable demands for asset values to be more realistic. The exclusive application of a premium to the asset value as a means of expressing the value could negate this pursuit of prudence should the aircraft need to then be sold without the attached lease. The resulting disposal could then result in a significantly lower figure than the LECMV, particularly if used without reference to standalone market values. In the event a number of deals involving the sole use of a LECMV resulted in distressed sales, the losses could lead to contagion and aversion to future aircraft financing. The use of only LECMVs as the book value for investors and lessors could also lead to difficulties both in terms of the market and regulators.
The difficulty of applying the ISTAT arithmetic calculation is further compounded by the use of lease rentals resulting from a sale and leaseback transaction (SLB) which would distort the lease element. Such SLBs usually see a premium already being applied due to a higher purchase price of the aircraft. In this instance, the lease calculation could be significantly above that of a standard operating lease even though the market value used is the same in either case. The SLB lease premium applied in this method seems to takes no account of the premium paid for the aircraft, again perhaps reflecting financial engineering imperatives than the assessment of risk.
The use of the LECMV is indeed relevant though perhaps complementary to asset values. The method used to calculate the value of the attached lease may need to be indicated (this is not an Intellectual Property issue given the simplicity of the calculation) as well as being provided as a separate amount such that users can clearly see the asset risk and the financial engineering element.
The table is published on an annual basis and complements the quarterly updates to specific aircraft categories. The table encompasses both current and future lease rentals. The methodology involved in calculating lease rentals differs from that of values. Lease rentals display greater volatility. Rentals are calculated individually and are not directly linked to values.
The listing of current and future lease rates is based on the year of build. However, unlike values, the relevance of the year of build is less significant. The essential assumption is that the aircraft are being leased as a single unit and between a willing lessor and willing lessee on a dry operating lease basis. Maintenance reserves are assumed to be payable in addition to the quoted rates.
The assumed rentals period ranges between seven years for modern narrowbodies to nine years for the larger widebodies. Aircraft out of production will likely involve shorter terms. The assumed rental period will change depending on the then prevailing market conditions. Weak market conditions will usually result in shorter terms while stronger conditions will likely result in lessors seeking to lock lessees at higher rentals for the longer term.
The high and low figures for October 2016 lease rentals represent adjustments for length of lease, the financial standing of the lessee and the return conditions. A longer lease to a stronger credit will likely result in lower rentals. These are not absolutes and sale and leaseback transactions may fall outside the figures indicated. Some transactions involving renegotiations on less popular aircraft may be considered exceptional and can fall outside the rental ranges. As aircraft age there may be less reliance on dry operating leases and greater emphasis on wet leasing or power by the hour agreements.
The rentals quoted below were prepared in late October 2016 in the context of a still stable but increasingly vulnerable market. The lease rentals listed below are Market Rates not theoretical Base Rentals. In addition to the commentary and lease rentals an indication of the Mid Case Lease Rate Factor (LRF), which expresses the current monthly rental as a percentage of the value, is also provided together with the relevant age of aircraft.
The quoted future rental, expressed in thousands of dollars per month are Market not Base Rates and attempt to predict cyclic trends when supply will exceed demand and vice versa. Rentals may therefore experience a rise as well as a fall in any projected year. The future rentals – three and seven years from 2016 – are expressed in thousands of current dollars having been adjusted for inflation and are based on only the Mid Case projection rentals. The figures are for guidance only. M/R = Maintenance reserves are excluded and return conditions assume half-life.
The data has been extracted from the October 31st 2017 semi-annual Aircraft Value Reference 2016-2036, priced $1,475.00, by courtesy of The Aircraft Value Analysis Company.
|YEAR||October 2016$’000 per month excl. M/R||FUTURE LEASE RATE|
|A300F4-200 (Converted). LRF 1980 = 2.8A good if faded freighter. The lease rates have more turned to power by the hour (a form of leasing created by Rolls-Royce) where the operator pays for each hour of operation over and above a set minimum number of hours. For a freighter utilization is not high.|
|A300-600. LRF 1990 = 4.5The -600 has long since past its sell by date which is no surprise. Rates are perhaps at levels that make then suited to the needs of operators on the fringes who need aircraft for a limited number of hours. The aircraft was at one time a prime candidate for freighter conversion but market conditions meant that the -600R became more favored. As a passenger aircraft, the -600 had as much charisma as the B767-300.|
|A300-600R. LRF 1992 = 1.9Newer types such as the A330 have been more favored for more than a decade leaving the lease rentals of the -600R languishing for too long. The type though does have good capacity for regional routes and with such low rentals a profit can be made.|
|A300-600RF. LRF 2000 = 1.0Boeing has managed to keep the B767-300ERF production line going while that of the -600F ended many years ago in favor of the A330-200F which is itself only ticking over. The -600F has failed to capture the market and lease rentals have tumbled as indeed have most other freighters and the fall continues.|
|A310-300LGW. 153t. CF6. LRF 1990 = 3.1While there are very few in service, the type still has some utility. The aircraft is however, facing pressure as a result of age and replacements. The lease rentals are at levels that make good sense for lessees but less so for lessors such as they are. A small widebody generates considerable drag due to its wider fuselage but perhaps if a wider single aisle that allows passengers to pass one another can be designed that may provide a solution.|
|A310-300SF. 157t CF6. LRF 1990 = 1.9The freighter sector remains very fragile even with slightly improved market conditions. The rates for the freighter version do not generate the type of premium that would be expected for a freighter. The aircraft is finding the market tough when competing against the likes of the B757.|
|A318. LRF 2004 = 1.1The A318 is not a niche aircraft but rather a marginalized aircraft. Rates are low and are expected to remain under pressure but lessors may be able to extend leases at reasonable rates. In common with the B737-600 the aircraft could not capitalize on the success of the B737-200ADV nor the B737-500. The aircraft is too small for the majors and too large for the regional operators. Lease rates may hold up given its scarcity.|
|A319HGW. LRF 2001 = 1.0At one time the lease rentals for the A319 seemed to be heading ever lower but there is a measure of attraction for some smaller operators. Bangkok Airways for example operates some 12 A319s from lessors such as AerCap, BBAM and CIT. The reasonable rates allow the smaller capacity aircraft to be filled with good yielding traffic on less mainstream routes as such as between Bangkok and Da Nang, one of the fastest growing destinations in IndoChina.|
|A320-200HGW. 77 tonne CFM56. LRF 1998 = 1.3The depth and breadth of the operator base of the A320 ensures that there is always demand for quality A320s. The very large number of A320s that are leased however, means that there can be competition, particularly from newer market entrants placing greater emphasis on portfolio utilization than rentals. The A320ceo is now defined by three categories CATI, CATII, CATIII with each representing a period of build. The oldest A320s are fortunate to see rentals of $50,000 per month. The high gross weight examples with sharklets and latest engines are still the most favored.|
|A320neo. LRF 2015 = 0.80The rates for the A320neo are holding firm despite initial suggestions that the premium was less than $10,000 per month compared to the more realistic $30,000. The rental differential is therefore notable. As all leases will have been negotiated months if not years ago, to suggest that that rentals for the A320neo have fallen fails to take account of no leasing availability until next year at least – ALC has placed all its A320 for 2017.|
|A321-100LGW. LRF 1999 = 1.5A good aircraft – for the few. The rentals of the -100 remain low because of the lack of interest in the aircraft. There is little attraction to the -100 and lessors will be keen to extend leases with existing lessees as this will provide the least stress!|
|A321-200LGW. LRF 2001 = 1.1For once it is an Airbus product that has forced Boeing to respond as the US manufacturer has to consider a larger B737 capable of undertaking longer sectors. There remains some question mark over the B737-10 regarding range and the landing gear extension. The early examples may be facing downward pressures but the later higher gross weight aircraft are much more popular. The longer range of the latest sharklet equipped aircraft is a bonus. Rates are good but operators can expect to generate revenue without having to resort to adding extra aircraft.|
|A321neo. LRF 2016 = 0.8A great aircraft that will represent a significant portion of deliveries in the coming years, somethng that cannot be said of the B737-10 when considering the B737MAX. Yet, there has to be a sense of realism when considering the relative premium over the A320ceo. The different doors can cause some confusion at present as can SpaceFlex versus CabinFlex.|
|A330-200. LRF 2001 = 1.1The rates of early -200s are continuing to face downward pressure. There will be some difficulty in securing rates of more than $800,000 for a new aircraft except as a sale and leaseback. Lessors will be mindful of the fall in values and therefore the need to generate profit via rentals. The A330-200 is leased in relatively large numbers and lessors may therefore find remarketing more difficult. The newer 242 tonne version adds to the range – and attraction.|
|A330-300HGW. LRF 2000 = 1.3The MLA (Mid Life Aircraft) are still facing weakness as the type ages and new models act as displacement rather than growth capacity. For new aircraft rentals of more than $900,000 now seem out of sync with the market. The North Atlantic is seeing problems in terms of traffic and yields and this is a sector in which the A330 excels. The rentals for the -300 are therefore falling but placements are still taking place with a minority not being in a position to be leased or leased at lower rates. The weight is an important consideration.|
|A340-200. LRF 1996 = 1.9The aircraft continues to fall even with the lower price of fuel. Lessors include Airbus themselves as well as GMT Holdings. The type may still be viewed as a stop gap measure until the arrival of new types. ETOPs is not an issue for four engined aircraft.|
|A340-300ER 275t. LRF 2002 = 1.5The leasing market continues to experience problems and while the placement of the aircraft remains possible, the ball is clearly in the court of the lessee. AerCap has a number on lease and GECAS is also a lessor. The aircraft has not benefitted from the lower price of fuel in the sense of higher lease rentals.|
|A340-500I. LRF 2004 = 1.5The aircraft is facing downward pressure again and rates should be high but the lack of appetite is all too apparent. The interest in non stop flights was strong but eventually the aircraft needed to be filled with mostly business passengers. Ultra long haul direct flights limits origin and destination points and constrains scheduling flexibility. Homes are being found but at much more attractive rentals. The flexible engine support programs on the Trent are playing their part.|
|A340-600I. LRF 2004 = 1.4Again the market for the -600 is fragile, very fragile. Lease extensions will be more difficult to secure unless they are at lower rates. Capacity is being enhanced and this is enabling the operating economics to be improved.|
|A350-900. LRF 2014 = 0.8The -900 continues to be very much a popular widebody with in service experience with the dedicated Rolls engines being positive. Though passengers may still be identiy a B787 over a A350, the rates for the Airbus aircraft are stable. The lease rental however, have little opportunity to move higher except in the event interest rates rise.|
|A380LGW. LRF 2007= 0.9The market for the A380 is deteriorating in the context of no new orders for some time. The market is facing uphill pressures in terms of placing aircraft at rentals that would be attractive to lessees. Lease extensions are likely to be much lower. Sale and leasebacks are still seeing higher rentals.|
|A380HGW. LRF 2013=0.8The 575 tonne version offers operators greater versatility particularly in the context of filling the lower hold with cargo as more passengers use the overhead bins for luggage. Still the US operators resist using the aircraft despite high profile advertising and ever more non-US carrier flights.|
|B717-200. LRF 2001 = 1.5The rates are remaining stable as the market for the aircraft remains strong. Yet, the aircraft is now of advancing age and the arrival of newer types will continue to place pressure on the type. There is always a danger in assuming that the wider market matches the appetite of a single lessee.|
|B727-200HADV. LRF 1978 = 26.0The B727 is still in service with a myriad of operators of which a number are leased. The aircraft remains viable though the attraction remains with the operator rather than the wider market. Lower utilization will keep the aircraft flying for a few more years.|
|B727-200FHADV. LRF 1978 = 18.8The freighter still has considerable utility for many operators. There are just too many out there to ignore. The type will be good for leasing for many more years though power by the hour arrangements will be preferable for some.|
|B737-200HADV. LRF 1978 = 17.7The rates are at levels that make it difficult for lessors to consider going lower. Leases of any reasonable duration become more difficult to achieve.|
|B737-300HGW EFIS. LRF 1992 = 2.7The aircraft refuses to exit the market despite advancing age, inferior fuel efficiency, and increasing maintenance costs. The leasing of the aircraft can be very difficult for those in lesser condition. Rates are more or less holding steady – having fallen so far.|
|B737-300SF. LRF 1992 = 1.6The -300SF – and the -400SF particularly – are in demand and rates are strong and stable. The development of the -800SF will have consequences in the medium term but not at the moment.|
|B737-700HGW. LRF 2002 = 1.0In common with the A319, the B737-700 has its supporters in terms of the used market. Southwest continues to acquire used aircraft, the latest being an ex Aerolineas example from AerCap. AerCap will probably be expecting to scrap the aircraft after this latest lease. Approximately 50 percent of the fleet resides with Southwest and the operator is soaking up any that come onto the market.|
|B737-400HGW EFIS. LRF 1996 = 2.2Rates for the -400 have some stability given the cost of alternatives. In terms of rentals these are actually on a par to older A320s. The issue of age limits is a factor for some operators who may have been interested. The lower price of fuel has some relevance to those contemplating lease extensions.|
|B737-400SF. LRF 1996 = 2.1The -400SF continues to experience considerable demand and this has allowed rentals to remain stable and have even drifted higher.|
|B737-800HGW. LRF 2002 = 1.1The -800 continues to be held in in the highest regard though there is some suggestion that rates for the A320 and B737-800 are now more or less identical but this is perhaps based on very few data points. The information coming from the lessors may portray a different picture. Even the arrival of the MAX8 is not denting enthusiasm at least not yet. The lower escalation being applied to new deliveries will provide some greater lease rental flexibility in return for longer lease terms.|
|B737-500HGW EFIS. LRF 1996 = 1.7The market for the -500 is facing continued downward pressures. The regional jets in the form of the E190/E195 easily fill this segment.|
|B737-600LGW. LRF 2002 = 1.1The -600 is failing to meet the demands of the market, just as it failed to do so in the past. The type straddles two market segments and fails to meet the needs of either. As both the -600 and A318 are not part of the respective MAX and neo families, this provides a clue to how much the market has transitioned to newer and larger types.|
|B737-900. LRF 2004 = 0.9The -900 remains very much an isolated type liked by a few operators – but not that many. The -900 is not one of the Boeings success stories. Any lessor would do well to ensure that the aircraft remains with existing lessors for as long as possible to reduce the need for lengthy and costly remarketing.|
|B737-900ER. LRF 2007= 0.9The type has some achieved modest success but as a proportion of the B737NG deliveries remains a much lesser fraction when compared to the A321. Rates are reasonable but as more come onto the market, there may be greater resistance to paying such rates.|
|B747-200B. JT9D LRF 1979 = 15.0The market for the -200B is nonexistent. Rates reflect the lack of attraction.|
|B747-200SF. JT9D/PW4000 LGW LRF 1984 = 5.1There were some that were converted in the last decade, few of which are likely to have paid their way since. The aircraft is still of some use as a backup and for its engines but that is about all.|
|B747-300. LRF 1987 = 7.4Finding one that is actually in revenue service is difficult.|
|B747-400. CF6 LRF 1993 = 1.5The size and original cost of the aircraft should elicit higher rentals but the replacement with much more efficient twins and the A380 means that the market for the type is limited even with second tier carriers. Leasing the aircraft has never been popular anyway as the majority were acquired by the major airlines through a finance deal.|
|B747-400M. LRF 1993 = 1.2With freighter conversion no longer a realistic prospect the -400M has lost much of its attraction. The lease rentals of the type are falling and offer only a modest premium over the passenger version.|
|B747-400F. LRF 1998 = 1.4The -400F is leased in surprising numbers but placement can take time – and money. The type does change hands. Rates for the younger -400Fs are under particular pressure and can be expected to continue to decline. The considerable age range ensures that there exists lease rental convergence with fewer operators willing to pay such a premium for newer examples which offers similar the same capacity and performance. Rates are falling which may also be partly a response to the -8F.|
|B747-8I. LRF 2012 = 0.9Rates can be expected to continue to decline even for new examples. The -8 program manages to stagger on as Boeing attracts new custom. But the market for the -8 passenger aircraft remains very limited and rentals have to reflect this. Some sale and leasebacks have taken place but lessors will now have to be very conscious of making sure that a remarketing plan is in place well ahead of lease expiration.|
|B747-8F. LRF 2011 = 1.0The -8F is being acquired more seemingly through barter arrangements than straight sales and rentals can be hard to discern through the fog of side letters. Lease rentals are relatively high at least in terms of the lease rental factor. The -8F has something of a monopoly which would be good if airfreight was achieving the same level of growth as the passenger market.|
|B757-200 (220,000lbs RB211). LRF 1990 = 1.8The B757 struggles on but demand is not what it once was and lease rentals can sometimes be lower than might be expected. The aircraft is facing new pressures as the A321neo emerges and takes over the routes served by the B757.|
|B757-200ER (250,000lbs RB211). LRF 1994 = 1.6Whatever the negatives the -200ER is still the aircraft that can fly across the Atlantic and to Hawaii. The A321-200 is being used for Hawaii flights and the A321neo will offer more flexibility in terms of seating capacity and range albeit with extra fuel tanks and therefore lesser cargo/baggage.|
|B757-200SF. LRF 1992 = 1.2The freighter version is still very much relevant and will remain so for a considerable period of time. The rentals ate therefore remaining stable but for the younger examples can be expected to fall.|
|B757-300LGW. LRF 2001 = 1.1A stretch too far for most operators but there can be some variation in rates depending on the needs of the lessor and lessee. A wider aisle is needed should a single aisle be present on the new MoM aircraft being contemplated by Boeing at long last. The B737-10 offers only a temporary solution.|
|B767-200. LRF 1986 = 4.5The B767-200 is a useful though not essential asset and rates have been at low levels for many years. The type provided the foundation for the much more popular -300ER. The rates for the -200 are perhaps the lowest they can be.|
|B767-200ER HGW. LRF 1990 = 2.3The range of the -200ER provided operators with proof of concept for longer range of operators for twins (notwithstanding the A300 and A310). The rentals of the type have failed to provide much solace for the few lessors that participated in leasing but then the credit standing of the lessee was seen as the more important.|
|B767-300. LRF 1992 = 1.7The aircraft is far from ideal and was always expected to be displaced. Like the A300-600R the rates offer good value and rates are at levels that makes further falls unlikely in the short term.|
|B767-300ER HGW. LRF 1999 = 1.3The potential for securing rates at the top end of the indicated ranges is low as the market increasingly moves to alternative equipment. Yet, the appetite for the aircraft should not be underestimated as it provides a good service in a relatively low cost fuel environment. Very few have been delivered in the last decade making the majority of the fleet rather old.|
|B767-300F. LRF 2003 = 0.9A good aircraft that has suffered as a result of the airfreight issues. The demand for more next day deliveries will continue and the B767 is well placed to take advatange of the increase.|
|B767-400. LRF 2000 = 1.3The -400 operates in the wings of the market given that few were built. Lease rentals are low for such a size of aircraft but then demand is also limited.|
|B777-200. LRF 2001 = 1.4Rates for the -200 are remaining under pressure as the type has been forced to trade under its own merits rather than those of the -200ER. The -200 allowed some lessors on the periphery to lease a widebody but the aircraft needs an experienced lessor to manage the risk.|
|B777-200ER. LRF 2001 = 1.3The rates for the -200ER are far from fragile but the aircraft is not operating in a strong market. The type is being moved onto to second tier operators and this process will continue apace as the B787-9 and B787-10 take hold. The lower price of fuel has been an incentive but operators have other considerations than operating costs – IFE and reliability for example.|
|B777F. LRF 2008 = 0.9Boeing is now struggling to secure fresh orders for the B777F which is understanable given the number of orders placed to date. The aircraft provides very good economics on those routes which have dense high value loads. The rates for the -200F are still reasonable and will continue to provide good returns for lessors.|
|B777-300. LRF 2003 = 1.2The -300 has the capacity which allows the type to be used on regional services by a handful of carriers. To some extent freighter conversion will pass the type by as the focus will be on the -300ER. Rates are still falling.|
|B777-300ER. LRF 2004 = 1.0The reduction in production rates is not a surprise and nor is the reduction in lease rentals for the older aircraft. The decline is rates going forward will be ever more noticeable. The first -300ERs are being released and demand on the used market may not be as strong as some envisage. The arrival of the B777X is now not too far distant.|
|B787-8. LRF 2011= 0.8The rates for the B787-8 – even for newer examples on sale and leasebacks – are not what they once were. The type has now been in service for a number of years and the secondary market will be upon us in the not too distant future. There may be a need to be more realistic going forward. The backlog of the -8 is falling in favor of the -9.|
|B787-9. LRF 2014 = 0.8The -9 is now seen as the preferred example and rates are holding strong. Longer lease terms – 10-12 years – to good credits can easily see rentals of less than $1m per month. Rates are expected to remain stable with the B787-10 likely to see rates in excess of $1.3 million though 10-12 leases will see lower rates.|
|BAe146-200. LRF 1989 = 5.9The -200 is being replaced by ever more capable aircraft but the lease rentals of the BAe146 are already at very low levels such that the lessors cannot really afford to accept anything lower.|
|BAe146-300. LRF 1989 = 6.1The -300 is undertaking a rearguard action against newer types and losing. The aircraft still has some utility not least because of its capacity. But lease rentals are low with nowhere else to go.|
|Avro RJ85. LRF 1998 = 1.7A good versatile aircraft that provided and continues to provide good service for a range of operators. Availability is an issue and rentals are virtually the same as for the -200. The RJ85 is now all but two generations away from the competition and this is causing rentals to be slightly weaker. The four engines may seem to belong to a previous era but the performance is such that it can be used at a number of otherwise inaccessible airports. Four engines also means that it can climb out of terrain affected airports.|
|Avro RJ100. LRF 1998 = 1.8The type has considerable capacity. Rates are dependent on the lessee and the term of the lease. Compared to the new offerings of similar capacity the rentals on the RJ100 are a bargain.|
|Canadair CRJ200ER. LRF 2001 = 1.9The 50 seat market continues to face pressure but the CRJ200ER can be placed with rates experiencing considerable variance. While values still have the ability to fall further, the same cannot be said of rentals.|
|Canadair CRJ700ER. LRF 2002 = 1.3Production of 70 seaters remains in name only as the market has moved to larger aircraft. The scope clauses in the US are still having an impact. On the one hand the EPA is damning the car manufacturers but on the other hand scope clauses are failing to allow the use of larger and newer aircraft offering much lower emissions – emissions however have now seemingly been dismissed by the U.S. as an issue.|
|Canadair CRJ900ER. LRF 2002 = 1.3The CRJ900NG continues to be made in small numbers. Inevitably, Bombardier is under pressure to sell more aircraft and with no amortized development costs associated with this model, the selling price has been reduced which in turn has had an impact on rentals. The rentals for the type are expected to experience further declines in the near future.|
|Canadair CRJ1000. LRF 2011 = 0.9The lack of demand for the CRJ1000 is all too notable and rates are falling and will decline at even faster rates in the next future as the type transitions to second tier operators.|
|CS300. LRF =|
|ERJ145ER. LRF 2001 = 1.9The rates for the ERJ145 are no better than those for the CRJ200ER as supply continues to exceed demand. The rates are lower with around $40,000 per month being the minimum that will be practical for lessors. There is no upside for the type.|
|Embraer 170. LRF 2005 = 1.1The E175 is much more favored these days than the E170 such that lease rentals of the latter continue to falter with rates falling even for the newer examples. The development of the E2 underlines the fact that the ERJ170 is not part of the new line-up though the offering from MRJ is waiting in the wings.|
|Embraer 175. Aircraft Rating = The E175 is the more preferred aircraft with the US market being forced to acquire the type because of scope clauses. The Enhanced version has been in service for a few years but will now not be replaced any time soon because of the scope clauses not being sufficiently relaxed.|
|Embraer E190. LRF 2006 = 1.1The E190 is successful but the used market still requires work to ensure placement at reasonable rates. The age profile of the variant is now of an age that increases the possibility of used equipment entering the market. Indeed there is a concern that a surplus may be emerging which indeed will have a negative impact on rentals.|
|Embraer E195. LRF 2008 = 0.9The size of the E195 stimulated a reasonable number of additional orders but in this segment of the market the extra capacity can be difficult to fill particularly during off peak flights. With the E2 the capacity is increased further. Rentals are down slightly as would be expected for a decade old aircraft though much in line with expectations. Lessors include GECAS, GOAL, ICBC, HKAC, Aircastle all of who underline the fact that leasing the regional jets is an activity for mainstream lessors though ALC has notably changed direction since being formed given its sale of its ATR aircraft.|
|FD328JET. LRF 2001 = 1.8The FD328JET is to be developed by Turkey but in its current guise, the market for the type has been less than inspiring with tepid lease rentals to boot.|
|Fokker 70. LRF 1995 = 1.9The Fokker 70 has had its day and lease rentals reflect the lack of attractive except to a few operators. The aircraft is still being moved but such are values that it is more common for a cash sale to be achieved. Lease extensions will be at discounted levels.|
|Fokker 100LGW. LRF 1992 = 2.7The Fokker 100 is now some 30 years of age and lease rentals reflect such vintages with further weakness all too evident. Yet the Fokker 100 is still in operation with a range of operators and has some utility.|
|MD82. LRF 1986 = 5.6Lessees are able to dictate rates rather than the lessors and power by the hour arrangements are likely to dominate.|
|MD83. LRF 1988 = 5.0The number of operators is still high considering that the type is not perceived to be popular. Rentals reflect the very limited appeal.|
|MD88. LRF 1992 = 5.1The digital cockpit is of relevance to a few operators but the type is not mainstream and lease rentals depend more on the lessee.|
|MD90. LRF 1997 = 2.8The MD90 still has considerable merit but the aircraft is facing pressures from which there is no escape. Lease rentals can be higher for some lessees but are simply marginal compared to newer types.|
|MD11P. LRF The aircraft is no longer of relevance and hasn’t been for a decade. Rates are largely irrelevant.|
|MD11SF. LRF 1996 = 1.7The MD11 freighter is still in active service with FedEx and UPS as well as Lufthansa. But the operator base is much less diverse than it used to be and partly because of the lack of demand for airfreight, rates have inevitably declined again.|
|SUPERJET. LRF 2009 = 0.9The Superjet is set for service in Europe and is still a force to be reckoned with in some markets. The size of the aircraft dwarfs that of the CRJ900 and offeres a manline type interior.|