1. User Survey 2013 November, 2013 Prepared for Prepared by: Ian McShane, J. 4766

2. 2 ● International Registry of Mobile Assets launched March 2006. ● Once established, it was decided to conduct a User Establishment Survey during May 2007, the objectives of which were:  To understand how different features and usability levels were rated, and relative importance of each.  To understand Users’ priorities for updating the Registry features.  To understand what the perception was as to the cost of usage versus its worth to their organisation.  To initiate a repeatable annual benchmark survey. ● Having addressed the key issues emerging from the 2007 exercise, decided to repeat the survey in 2008 and again in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 with a view to assessing the state of play year on year. Background And Objectives

3. 3 ● Online survey of Registry users, by way of structured questionnaire. ● Potential respondents initially contacted by Aviareto, with survey rationale explained. ● Questionnaire mailed to total contact sample of 2,468 users. ● Total achieved sample of 349 users (402 users in 2011, 356 users in 2010, 371 in 2009, 308 in 2008; 339 in 2007), representing a response rate of 14% - at the upper end of response rates for a survey of this nature. ● The interviews were completed in English, Spanish and French. ● Fieldwork took place between 24th Oct - 12th November. Incentive offered for the first time in 2009 (3 x draws for $250 Amazon voucher), and each year since then. ● N.B., in 2012, “Montreal Helpdesk Staff” attributes were amended to read simply “Helpdesk Staff” in all instances. Methodology

4. 4 Sample Profile 2013 GENDER AGE % Male Female 55yrs+ 18-34 yrs 45-55 yrs35-44 yrs 201220112010200920082007 26%24%27%28%29%17% 21%18%19% 23%32% 20%23%21%19%17% 8%10% 13%14%18% 13%12%8%11%9%7% 11%12%13%8% 1% 2% n/a The demographic and organisation type profile of the Registry user in 2013 is very similar to that prevailing in previous years.

5. 5 Sample Profile 2013 2007200820092010201120122013 Gender%%%% Male 63444750 48 Female 37555350 52 Age%%%% 18-34 13171920 1920 35-44 22242928 30 45-55 3932 31 29 55+ 26 2122 21 With users evenly split by gender, and spread across all age groups from 18-34 yrs to 55 yrs+.

6. 6 Sample Profile 2013 % 2012 30% 14% 19% 13% 1% 23% 2013 Marginally more lawyers emerge in the user base this year (18%) compared with last year (14%).

7. 7 Sample Profile 2013 Social Media Usage 2013 TotalGenderAge 20132012MaleFemale18-4445-5455+ Base: 345349 16617917310072 %%%% Facebook 57 52 5162715231 Linkedin 48 43 5442534835 Twitter 18 16 1718251110 Other 4 4 43264 None 27 32 2726182647 Any Facebook/Linkedin7066 70 806949 Any Facebook/Linkedin/ Twitter 7368 7374827453 Three quarters of all users now use social media of any type, a practice which is most prevalent amongst users aged up to their mid-fifties.

8. 8 Sample Profile 2013 Social Media Usage Total OrganisationRole in the organisation AirlinePrivateOwner Lease company Fin inst.Prof firm Senior manager/ partner Law Finance professio nal General Base: 349 5227634159103921055890 % %%%%% Facebook 5765524856585947636654 Linkedin 48523348514450 515934 Twitter 181971617122515251713 Other 4242-572624 None 272537273924213021 33 The use of social media is higher within the legal and financial sector, and amongst airline registry users.

9. 9 Sample Profile 2013 COUNTRY US STATES Base: USA respondents - 185 % % 2012 % 63 3 4 4 1 2 2 1 0 1 0 1 2 - 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 2012 % 19 8 5 6 3 4 4 3 3 1 3 2 2 1 1 3 3 2 3 0 0 1 1 3 2 2 0 1 1 1 - - 1 0 3 1 0 - 0 - 1 0 The proportion of users based in the USA has dropped from 63% to 54% year-on-year, with users in Canada rising from 3% to 9%.

10. Key Service Aspects: Relative Contribution Towards Worth Of Registry To Business (Pearson’s Correlations) 2012 201220112010200920082007 0.81 0.760.780.830.8n/a 0.73 0.640.730.67 0.71 0.65 0.390.510.560.480.47 0.64 0.60.690.740.70.67 0.56 0.550.510.380.520.55.47 0.50.640.580.520.59 0.56 0.420.530.450.590.49 0.66 0.450.590.56 0.57 0.64 0.470.450.440.530.48 0.52 0.470.620.480.560.52 0.62 0.550.620.570.520.56 0.58 0.440.610.490.60.58 0.49 0.470.40.360.470.49 0.6 0.420.440.360.350.36 0.49 0.370.450.50.420.37 0.64 0.470.34 0.450.51 0.43 0.380.270.340.32n/a * NB 2011-2009 refers to Registry Officials in Dublin **N.B. 2011-2009 refers to Montreal Helpdesk staff The fit of Registry functionality with business functionality remains the single most important definer of the perceived worth of the Register, followed by its Ease of Use and Fee Charged. Aspects which have declined notably in importance include Speed of Registry, Speed of Approval of New Users, Technical Reliability and Ease of Use.

11. 11 Overall Weighted Registry Experience Rating (+.67) (+.83) (+.26) (+.34) (+.09) (+.27) Historical data trends would suggest that the overall experience rating has reached, or has all but reached, its peak.

12. 12 Overall Satisfaction with the Registry - Summary *New question 2012 With an overall satisfaction rating of 8.0 extremely difficult to reach on any such survey.

13. 13 Overall worth of registry to business: Ten point Rating Scale Last year it was noted that the perceived worth to business rating is likely to settle in at close to 7.7, and the indications are that there is very limited scope for further significant improvements in future years.

14. 14 Mean Performance Rating 2013201220112010 2009 The degree to which the functionality of the Registry fits with the way your business functions. 7.467.187.126.76.42 Overall ease of use of the Registry.7.266.897.016.646.52 Level of fee charged.7.156.796.645.516.18 *Availability of Registry Officials8.388.028.087.647.41 Quality of information sent to you from the Registry Officials 8.47 8.298.328.117.93 Technical knowledge of Registry Officials regarding the Registry 8.57 8.388.408.207.86 Efficiency of resolution of queries by Registry Officials 8.44 8.238.067.827.61 Speed of refunds8.177.748.147.016.69 Reliability of technical aspects of the Registry. 7.79 7.897.307.22 **Efficiency of resolution of queries by help desk staff 8.41 8.047.347.016.23 Speed of Registry during use. 7.90 7.597.737.177.10 **Technical knowledge of help desk staff regarding the Registry 8.42 8.107.627.126.27 Efficiency of credit card transactions. 8.77 8.328.488.228.28 **Availability of help desk staff 8.41 8.167.627.467.08 Registry Officials’ language skills 8.95 8.918.968.768.73 Speed of approval for new Administrators/Users 8.36 8.178.278.097.92 **Helpdesk language skills 8.89 8.878.548.367.98 *NB 2011-2009 refers to Registry Officials in Dublin **N.B. 2011-2009 refers to Montreal Helpdesk staff Significant increase: 2011-2012 Significant increase: 2010-2011 Significant increase: 2009-2010 Significant increase: 2008-2009 Key Service Aspects: Overall Performance Rating (10 Point Scale) Significant increase: 2012-2013

15. MOST IMPORTANT LEAST IMPORTANT Mean Performance Rating% Scoring 1-2% Scoring 9-10% of No Opinion YOY CHANGE 2013 vs 2012 2013201220112010 20092008 2013201220112010 20092008 2013201220112010 20092008 2013201220112010 20092008 Fit of Registry and business functionality 7.467.187.126.76.425.48 4 77111324 38 36332928 3 32466 0.28 Overall ease of use of the Registry 7.266.897.016.646.525.8 4 9612 20 37 3327 19 0 11214 0.37 Level of fee charged7.156.796.645.516.185.68 5 8861119 32 2524252018 6 967710 0.36 *Availability of Registry Officials 8.388.028.087.647.416.61 2 223510 43 3841353225 24 2217232223 0.36 Quality of information sent to you by the Registry Officials 8.478.298.328.117.937.36 2 21137 54 53504837 8 65669 0.18 Technical knowledge of Registry Officials regarding the Registry 8.578.388.48.27.867.32 0 21237 46 4546413731 24 2114242523 0.19 Efficiency of resolution of queries by Registry Officials 8.448.238.067.827.616.84 2 23310 46 4744401531 20 1611174819 0.21 Speed of refunds8.177.748.147.016.695.03 1 21337 18 192112134 65 6061666768 0.43 Reliability of technical aspects of the Registry 7.79 7.897.37.226.11 2 526514 43 39333022 8 97121516 = **Efficiency of resolution of queries by help desk staff 8.418.047.347.016.235.02 1 2461018 52 4619201512 8 1149 4844 0.37 Speed of registry during use7.97.597.737.177.16.15 2 527715 49 4143343225 1 222344 0.31 **Technical knowledge of help desk staff regarding the Registry 8.428.17.627.126.275.11 1 333915 51 4419201610 1452544947 0.32 Efficiency of credit card transactions 8.778.328.488.228.287.52 0 31215 59 4953504941 11 13101215 0.45 **Availability of helpdesk staff 8.418.167.627.467.085.92 2 1222410 54 4521201813 8 1152364944 0.25 Registry Officials language skills 8.958.918.968.768.738.36 0 10112 52 62555146 27 26142021 0.04 Speed of approval for new Administrators/Users 8.368.178.278.097.926.81 2 322410 49 4546 31 15 11 121412 0.19 **Helpdesk language skills8.898.878.548.367.987.35 0 10114 58 5428272223 15 2255 5448 0.02 *NB 2011-2009 refers to Registry Officials in Dublin **N.B. 2011-2009 refers to Montreal Helpdesk staff Key Service Aspects: Overall Performance Rating (10 Point Scale) Five of the ten most important service aspects have registered ratings improvements of.3 or more on a ten point scale, with Speed of Refunds improving from 7.74 to 8.17

16. 16 Technical knowledge of R.O. Quality of Info sent by RO Efficiency of resolution of queries RO Speed of approval Speed of registry during use Reliability of technical aspects Fit of Registry and business Overall ease of use of Registry Level of fee charged Key Service Aspects: Overall Performance Rating (Ten Point Scale) Satisfaction with 9 of the 10 most important aspects has in fact improved to at least some degree since last year.

17. 17 R.O. language skills Helpdesk language skills Efficiency of credit card Technical knowledge of R.O. Availability of helpdesk staff Availability of the Reg Officials Efficiency of resolution of queries by help desk staff Speed of refunds Key Service Aspects: Overall Performance Rating (Ten Point Scale) With solid improvements in satisfaction on most ‘second tier’ aspects also.

18. 18 Satisfaction With The Registry X Key User Groupings: Ten Point Rating Scale TotalGenderAgeOrganisation MaleFemale18-4445-54 yrs55 yrs +AirlinePrivateOwnerLease company Fin inst.Prof firm Fit of Registry and business functionality 7.467.107.807.377.747.287.146.647.467.507.677.68 Overall ease of use of the Registry. 7.267.047.487.327.396.966.926.447.137.327.547.56 Level of fee charged. 7.156.687.637.067.167.356.907.287.246.457.297.40 Availability of the Registry Officials 8.388.258.528.458.198.498.267.958.148.908.248.58 Quality of information sent to you by the Registry Officials 8.478.208.728.638.268.388.468.128.398.438.578.56 Technical knowledge of Registry Officials regarding the Registry 8.578.438.728.538.498.818.548.118.558.858.628.60 Efficiency of resolution of queries by Registry Officials 8.448.258.638.418.408.58 8.158.418.858.538.23 Speed of refunds 8.177.898.408.228.108.138.00 8.248.338.638.02 Reliability of technical aspects of the Registry. 7.797.617.977.727.947.777.677.807.798.267.767.68 Efficiency of resolution of queries by help desk staff 8.418.248.568.378.348.578.618.408.348.638.568.15 Speed of Registry during use. 7.907.708.087.808.207.737.847.787.828.178.057.81 Technical knowledge of help desk staff regarding the Registry 8.428.318.538.288.498.648.518.448.458.828.498.15 Efficiency of credit card transactions. 8.778.658.888.868.668.688.858.368.718.618.88 Availability of help desk staff 8.418.358.468.438.258.568.498.298.178.658.488.38 Registry Officials’ language skills 8.958.639.298.958.809.218.658.639.008.938.959.20 Speed of approval for new Administrators/Users 8.368.008.688.298.398.498.458.708.308.678.478.07 Helpdesk language skills 8.898.599.188.908.809.008.728.358.969.188.889.00

19. 19 High contribution towards worth to business Low contribution towards worth to business Low Performance High Performance Critical Improvement Areas Leverage and Enhance IGNORE MONITOR Aviareto: Strategic Performance Matrix 2013 Base: All users There is still some latitude for marginal improvements in terms of fees charged and ease of use of Registry.

20. 20 High contribution towards worth to business Low contribution towards worth to business Low Performance Aviareto: Strategic Performance Matrix 2012 vs 2011 Base: All users High Performance Critical Improvement Areas Leverage and Enhance IGNORE MONITOR 2013 2012 Although as scores on Ease of Use and Fees Charged improve yet again, users become less exercised by them.

21. 21 Changes Or Improvements Should Be Made To The Functionality, Service or Support Of The Registry To Make It Easier To Use 2013 Base: All respondents % 201220112010200920082007 17 11--- 8 568-- 3 5---- 3 ----- 6 613--- - ----- 3 ----- 2 3681612 - ----- - ----- - ----- 28 1218--- Users continue to request a more user-friendly/intuitive website, and improvements to the Help Desk function.

22. 22 Changes Or Improvements Should Be Made To The Functionality, Service or Support Of The Registry To Make It Easier To Use 2013 Base: All respondents Total GenderAgeOrganisation MaleFemale18-4445-54 yrs55 yrs +AirlinePrivateOwnerLease company Fin inst.Prof firm UNWTD345166179173100725227634159103 %%%%%% More user-friendly website, better interface 24282124 33 21291920 Improve help desk - response time/ knowledge, 24/7, contact person, Montreal office inefficient 131412 141542216101415 Improve search function -multiple searches, search by owner, remove expired certs, download to PDF 8412 544435717 Consistently improve compatibility with internet browsers/computer software 8106897 1910783 Don’t limit access to only one computer 76777612413235 Simplify log in procedure564636443277 Payment flexibility, include visa, Mastercard, TT, cumulative/better invoicing 4445244--1234 Speed up web response time - authorisations, approvals, searches 32553-4-2274 Renewals- speed up, simplify, longer notification 222141-45-22 Reduce fees12121-4--5-1 Other555491642-310 None272330212936271938243717

23. 23 Overall Satisfaction Ratings with the Registry TOTAL 2013 GENDERAGEORGANISATION MaleFemale18-4445-5455+ Airline Private Aircraft Owner Other Aircraft Owner Leasing Company Fin. Inst Prof Services Firm 345 166179173100725227634159103 %%%%%% Completely Satisfied 10 1 Completely dissatisfied 9 8 7 6 Top 2 Score (9-10) 443749384655344544325148 Mid (5-8) 515646564936604148633949 Low (1-4) 7856596158293 Mean score 7.83 7.638.02 7.837.867.79 7.777.267.578.038.077.96

24. 24 *NB 2011-2009 refers to Registry Officials in Dublin **N.B. 2011-2009 refers to Montreal Helpdesk staff 20092010201120122013 USAOtherUSAOtherUSAOtherUSAOtherUSAOther The degree to which the functionality of the register fits with the way your business functions 6.27.076.626.917.077.217.296.997.467.45 Overall ease of use of the Registry 6.56.626.566.866.847.2876.697.227.32 Level of fee charged 6.16.536.466.646.76.547.116.237.376.89 *Availability of Registry Officials 7.27.867.448.118.177.958.097.918.358.43 Quality of information sent to you by the Registry Officials 7.98.098.18.158.388.228.468.018.568.36 **Technical knowledge of registry staff regarding the Registry 7.97.878.258.058.558.168.548.118.558.61 **Efficiency of resolution queries by Registry officials 7.57.897.827.88.17.998.3788.44 Speed of refunds 6.76.727.0178.138.157.997.38.228.09 Reliability of technical aspects of the Registry 7.27.19 7.587.937.838.057.337.97.67 Efficiency of resolution queries by help desk staff 66.986.787.657.247.528.17.968.378.45 Speed of registry during use 7.17.167.17.347.797.637.87.227.917.89 Technical knowledge of helpdesk staff regarding the Registry 67.186.867.817.657.558.177.988.438.41 Efficiency of credit card transactions 8.28.498.38.028.598.38.567.938.828.71 **Availability of helpdesk staff 7.17.177.218.127.67.668.28.18.328.5 Registry official’s language skills 8.68.998.88.659.018.8898.769.118.77 Speed of approval for new administrators/users 7.88.1588.318.378.128.317.958.448.27 **Helpdesk staff language skills7.98.178.278.68.538.568.938.779.018.76 Overall worth of the registry to my organisation/business 6.27.296.527.316.947.587.447.567.657.86 USA Versus Other Regions: Comparative Analysis

25. Summary

26. 26 Summary ● The demographic and organisation type profile of the Registry user in 2013 is very similar to that prevailing in previous years. ● With users evenly split by gender, and spread across all age groups from 18-34 yrs to 55 yrs+. ● Marginally more lawyers emerge in the user base this year (18%) compared with last year (14%). ● Three quarters of all users now use social media of any type, a practice which is most prevalent amongst users aged up to their mid-fifties. ● The use of social media is higher within the legal and financial sector, and amongst airline registry users. ● The proportion of users based in the USA has dropped from 63% to 54% year-on-year, with users in Canada rising from 3% to 9%. ● The fit of Registry functionality with business functionality remains the single most important definer of the perceived worth of the Register, followed by its Ease of Use and Fee Charged. Aspects which have declined notably in importance include Speed of Registry, Speed of Approval of New Users, Technical Reliability and Ease of Use.

27. 27 Summary ● Historical data trends would suggest that the overall experience rating has reached, or has all but reached, its peak. ● With an overall satisfaction rating of 8.0 extremely difficult to reach on any such survey. ● Last year it was noted that the perceived worth to business rating is likely to settle in at close to 7.7, and the indications are that there is very limited scope for further significant improvements in future years. ● Five of the ten most important service aspects have registered ratings improvements of.3 or more on a ten point scale, with Speed of Refunds improving from 7.74 to 8.17. ● Satisfaction with 9 of the 10 most important aspects has in fact improved to at least some degree since last year. ● With solid improvements in satisfaction on most ‘second tier’ aspects also. ● There is still some latitude for marginal improvements in terms of fees charged and ease of use of Registry. ● Although as scores on Ease of Use and Fees Charged improve yet again, users become less exercised by them. ● Users continue to request a more user-friendly/intuitive website, and improvements to the Help Desk function.