1. User Survey 2014 November, 2014 Prepared for Prepared by: Ian McShane J. 5925 Confidential

2. 2 ● The International Registry of Mobile Assets was launched in 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, it was decided to repeat the survey in 2008 and again in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 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 2,470 users. ● Total achieved sample of 352 users (345 users in 2013, 349 users in 2012, 402 users in 2011, 356 users in 2010, 371 in 2009, 308 in 2008; 339 in 2007), representing a response rate of 14.25% - 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 8 th October – 3 rd November, 2014. Incentive offered for the first time in 2009 (3 x draws for $250 Amazon voucher), and each year since then. ● NB: Prior to 2012, the Helpdesk was referred to as the Montreal Helpdesk and the Registry Officials were referred to as Registry Officials in Dublin. From 2012, the Montreal Helpdesk was replaced with a Helpdesk in Ireland. For simplicity all related questions now refer to Registry Officials and the Helpdesk, ignoring geography. Methodology

4. 4 Sample Profile 2014 GENDER AGE % Male Female 55yrs+ 18-34 yrs 45-55 yrs 35-44 yrs 2013201220112010200920082007 30% 26%24%27%28%29%17% 21%18%19% 23%32% 17% 20%23%21%19%17% 8% 10% 13%14%18% 15% 13%12%8%11%9%7% 12% 11%12%13%8% 2% 1% 2% n/a The demographic and organisation type profile of the Registry user in 2014 is closely in line with that prevailing in previous years.

5. 5 Sample Profile 2014 20072008200920102011201220132014 Gender%%%% Male 63444750 4850 Female 37555350 5250 Age%%%% 18-34 13171920 192023 35-44 22242928 30 27 45-55 3932 31 29 26 55+ 26 2122 2124 With users evenly split by gender, and spread across all age groups from 18-34 yrs to 55 yrs+.

6. 6 Sample Profile 2014 % 2013 27% 18% 17% 12% 0% 26% 2014 Marginally more senior managers/partners emerge in the user base this year with fewer general administrative staff.

7. 7 Sample Profile 2014 Social Media Usage 2014 TotalGenderAge 201420132012MaleFemale18-4445-5455+ Base: 352345349 176 1779085 %%%% Facebook 5457 52 4464674833 Linkedin 5348 43 555257 42 Twitter 1618 16 141821147 Other 64 4 39745 None 2427 32 2919152444 Any Facebook/Linkedin 737066 6977827353 Any Facebook/Linkedin/ Twitter 767368 7181857656 The growth of the use of Facebook and Twitter has plateaued this year, with use of Linkedin growing to a majority (53%) of users.

8. 8 Sample Profile 2014 Social Media Usage Total OrganisationRole in the organisation AirlinePrivateOwner Lease company Fin inst. Prof firm Senior manager /partner Law Finance professi onal General Base: 352 43307241631031041116374 % %%%%% Facebook 5460435156525648594661 Linkedin 53 305071495861595136 Twitter 162371915131714211116 Other 627610576827 None 2421372815292023173031 Use of Linkedin is particularly high in lease companies and amongst senior partner and legal users.

9. 9 Sample Profile 2014 COUNTRY US STATES Base: USA respondents - 182 % % 2013 % 54 9 6 6 0 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 - 0 1 2013 % 16 5 6 7 4 2 4 4 2 3 4 3 1 1 2 - 3 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 - 1 2 1 1 1 - 2 1 1 1 1 2 - 2 - 2 - The proportion of users based in the USA is now just over half of the total user base at 52%, with users in Canada rising to 10%.

10. Key Service Aspects: Relative Contribution Towards Worth Of Registry To Business (Pearson’s Correlations) 2014 2013201220112010200920082007 0.750.810.760.780.830.8n/a 0.640.730.640.730.67 0.71 0.630.650.60.690.740.70.67 0.540.620.450.590.56 0.57 0.560.640.50.640.580.520.59 0.480.640.420.530.450.590.49 0.570.560.440.610.490.60.58 0.570.470.50.640.580.520.59 0.560.550.620.570.520.56 0.50.490.370.450.50.420.37 0.60.640.550.510.380.520.55 0.570.660.390.510.560.480.47 0.49 0.420.440.360.350.36 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. The relative importance of all other factors remains reasonably consistent year-on-year.

11. 11 Overall Weighted Registry Experience Rating (+.67) (+.83) (+.26) (+.34) (+.09) (+.27) It was noted last year that historical data trends indicated that the overall experience rating had reached, or had all but reached, its peak. This analysis has come to pass, with a modest improvement in overall satisfaction, to a noteworthy high of 8.24 (+.10)

12. 12 Overall Satisfaction with the Registry - Summary 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 over and above this year’s 7.95 in future years.

14. 14 Mean Performance Rating 20142013201220112010 2009 The degree to which the functionality of the Registry fits with the way your business functions. 7.757.467.187.126.76.42 Overall ease of use of the Registry. 7.437.266.897.01 6.646.52 Level of fee charged. 7.317.156.796.64 5.516.18 Speed of Registry during use. 8.167.97.597.73 7.177.1 Reliability of technical aspects of the Registry. 8.287.79 7.89 7.37.22 Speed of approval for new Administrators/Users 8.428.368.178.27 8.097.92 Efficiency of resolution of queries by Registry Officials 8.638.448.238.06 7.827.61 Technical knowledge of Registry Officials regarding the Registry 8.698.578.388.4 8.27.86 Quality of information sent to you from the Registry Officials 8.728.478.298.32 8.117.93 Efficiency of credit card transactions. 8.918.778.328.48 8.228.28 Availability of Registry Officials 8.578.388.028.08 7.647.41 Speed of refunds 8.398.177.748.14 7.016.69 Registry Officials’ language skills 9.048.958.918.96 8.768.73 Efficiency of resolution of queries by help desk staff n/a8.418.047.34 7.016.23 Technical knowledge of help desk staff regarding the Registry n/a8.428.107.62 7.126.27 Availability of help desk staff n/a8.41 8.16 7.62 7.467.08 Helpdesk language skills n/a8.898.878.54 8.367.98 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 Significant increase: 2013-2014

15. MOST IMPORTANT LEAST IMPORTANT Mean Performance Rating% Scoring 1-2% Scoring 9-10% of No Opinion YOY CHANGE 2014 vs 2013 20142013201220112010 20092008 20142013201220112010 20092008 20142013201220112010 20092008 20142013201220112010 20092008 Fit of Registry and business functionality 7.75 7.467.187.126.76.425.48 3 477111324 41 3836332928 5 332466 0.29 Overall ease of use of the Registry 7.43 7.266.897.016.646.525.8 5 49612 20 37 3327 19 1 011214 0.17 Level of fee charged 7.31 7.156.796.645.516.185.68 5 58861119 33 322524252018 5 6967710 0.16 Speed of registry during use 8.16 7.97.597.737.177.16.15 2 2527715 48 494143343225 2 1222344 0.26 Reliability of technical aspects of the Registry 8.28 7.79 7.897.37.226.11 1 2526514 45 43 39333022 12 897 1516 0.49 Speed of approval for new Administrators/Users 8.42 8.368.178.278.097.926.81 2 2322410 50 49 4546 31 14 1511 121412 0.06 Efficiency of resolution of queries by Registry Officials 8.63 8.448.238.067.827.616.84 2 223310 59 464744401531 6 201611174819 0.19 Technical knowledge of Registry Officials regarding the Registry 8.69 8.578.388.48.27.867.32 1 021237 58 464546413731 11 242114242523 0.12 Quality of information sent to you by the Registry Officials 8.72 8.478.298.328.117.937.36 1 221137 61 54 53504837 5 865669 0.25 Efficiency of credit card transactions 8.91 8.778.328.488.228.287.52 1 031215 64 594953504941 9 1113101215 0.14 Availability of Registry Officials 8.57 8.388.028.087.647.416.61 1 2223510 58 433841353225 7 242217232223 0.19 Speed of refunds 8.39 8.177.748.147.016.695.03 1 121337 19 18192112134 64 656061666768 0.22 Registry Officials language skills 9.04 8.958.918.968.768.738.36 0 010112 66 52 62555146 11 2726142021 0.09 Key Service Aspects: Overall Performance Rating (10 Point Scale) Just one service aspect has registered a significant year-on-year improvement – reliability of technical aspects.

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

17. 17 R.O. language skills Availability of the Reg Officials Speed of refunds Key Service Aspects: Overall Performance Rating (Ten Point Scale) – Bottom 3 With slight 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 Overall worth of the Registry to my organisation/business. 7.957.398.518.237.937.367.955.867.478.427.768.81 The degree to which the functionality of the Registry fits with the way your business functions. 7.757.488.017.887.897.317.766.677.577.927.448.25 Overall ease of use of the Registry. 7.437.077.787.67.566.927.35.937.067.517.398.15 Level of fee charged.7.317.137.497.357.447.1 7.247.617.446.647.55 Speed of Registry during use. 8.167.968.358.198.367.868.057.58.018.248.118.48 Reliability of technical aspects of the Registry. 8.288.168.48.268.398.28.4987.838.598.148.55 Speed of approval for new Administrators/Users 8.428.098.778.528.518.18.358.088.028.48.278.92 Efficiency of resolution of queries by Registry Officials 8.638.378.888.818.44 8.738.158.578.598.159.07 Technical knowledge of Registry Officials regarding the Registry 8.698.568.828.698.68.88.568.048.668.768.429.05 Quality of information sent to you by the Registry Officials 8.728.458.988.758.88.578.938.558.568.588.439.02 Efficiency of credit card transactions. 8.918.739.098.9598.78.378.888.878.948.719.26 Availability of the Registry Officials 8.578.48.738.748.458.338.658.468.218.668.28.99 Speed of refunds8.398.088.688.418.558.128.759.338.237.937.438.86 Registry Officials’ language skills 9.048.979.1199.129.048.669.369.089.148.829.19

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 2014 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 High Performance Critical Improvement Areas Leverage and Enhance IGNORE MONITOR Aviareto: Strategic Performance Matrix 2014 vs 2013 Base: All users Notwithstanding the general improvements across the board. 2013 2014

21. 21 Changes Or Improvements Should Be Made To The Functionality, Service or Support Of The Registry To Make It Easier To Use 2014 Base: All respondents % 2013201220112010200920082007 2417 11--- 83 5---- -- ----- 138 568-- -- ----- 32 3681612 1- ----- -- ----- -- ----- 83 ----- -- ----- 5- ----- 43 ----- -- ----- 2- ----- -- ----- 5- ----- 2728 1218--- Users continue to request a more user-friendly/intuitive website, and improvements to the search function.

22. 22 Changes Or Improvements Should Be Made To The Functionality, Service or Support Of The Registry To Make It Easier To Use 2014 Base: All users Total GenderAgeOrganisation MaleFemale18-4445-54 yrs55 yrs +AirlinePrivateOwnerLease company Fin inst.Prof firm Base: 352176 17790854330724163103 %%%%%% More user-friendly website, better interface 252823 32263726292122 Improve search function -multiple searches, search by owner, remove expired certs, download to PDF 9711124757410517 Don’t limit access to only 1 computer88710371238-137 Improve help desk - response time/ knowledge, 24/7, contact person, Montreal office inefficient 77877827101239 Allow multiple registrations/authorisations/revocati ons simultaneously 5275719-6282 Speed up web response time - authorisations, approvals, searches 453524-34-85 Reduce fees352218-7312-3 E-mails should contain more relevant information 3323145-3224 On-line user guide, tutorials, webinar, training course in far east 323331--4532 Consistently improve compatibility with internet browsers/computer software 332321-37-22 Simplify PUE process requesting, granting or revoking authorisations 21323-2---33 Simplify log in procedure231221-34-3- Payment flexibility, include visa, Mastercard, TT, cumulative/better invoicing 1213-----522 Faster registration of new entities, faster turnaround of registration requests 1112-1--1-22 Renewals- speed up, simplify, longer notification 12121---32-1 Allow more time for consent1112--2----2 Other5555747-4557 None, no comment, n/a,302831234033353332342924

23. 23 Overall Satisfaction Ratings with the Registry TOTAL 2014 GENDERAGEORGANISATION MaleFemale18-4445-5455+ Airline Private Aircraft Owner Other Aircraft Owner Leasing Company Fin. Inst Prof Services Firm 352 176 1779085 4330724163103 %%%%%% Completely Satisfied 10 1 Completely dissatisfied 9 8 7 6 Top 2 Score (9-10) 53 4758 544753 522650584267 Mid (5-8) 34 3832 374021 443033274728 Low (1-4) 6 93 4113 0305262 Mean score 8.23 7.818.66 8.358.447.74 8.395.888.148.677.958.86

24. 24 Reasons for Score Base: All respondents scoring 9 to 10 n - 184 % Those particularly enamoured with the Registry cite its ease and efficiency of use, and its helpful/friendly staff as key drivers of satisfaction.

25. 25 Reasons for Score Base: All respondents scoring 7 to 8 n - 88 % Those scoring the Registry at a more modest 7-8 identify difficulties with use/navigation as a negative (23%), and also refer to the fact that they are obliged to use it as a reason for their muted response to it.

26. 26 Reasons for Score Base: All respondents scoring 1 to 6 n - 52 % Those rating the Registry at just 1-6 fail to recognise its value for the fee charged, and can also describe it as cumbersome to use.

27. 27 200920102011201220132014 USAOtherUSAOtherUSAOtherUSAOtherUSAOtherUSAOther The degree to which the functionality of the register fits with the way your business functions 6.27.076.626.917.077.217.296.997.467.457.597.89 Overall ease of use of the Registry 6.56.626.566.866.847.2876.697.227.327.287.56 Level of fee charged 6.16.536.466.646.76.547.116.237.376.897.487.15 Speed of registry during use 7.17.167.17.347.797.637.87.227.917.898.188.13 Reliability of technical aspects of the Registry 7.27.19 7.587.937.838.057.337.97.678.248.33 Speed of approval for new administrators/users 7.88.1588.318.378.128.317.958.448.278.338.50 Efficiency of resolution queries by Registry officials 7.57.897.827.88.17.998.3788.44 8.548.71 Technical knowledge of registry staff regarding the Registry 7.97.878.258.058.558.168.548.118.558.618.778.61 Quality of information sent to you by the Registry Officials 7.98.098.18.158.388.228.468.018.568.368.788.66 Efficiency of credit card transactions 8.28.498.38.028.598.38.567.938.828.719.008.83 Availability of Registry Officials 7.27.867.448.118.177.958.097.918.358.438.548.59 Speed of refunds 6.76.727.0178.138.157.997.38.228.098.378.40 Registry official’s language skills 8.68.998.88.659.018.8898.769.118.779.108.97 Efficiency of resolution queries by help desk staff 66.986.787.657.247.528.17.968.378.45n/a Technical knowledge of helpdesk staff regarding the Registry 67.186.867.817.657.558.177.988.438.41n/a Availability of helpdesk staff 7.17.177.218.127.67.668.28.18.328.5n/a Helpdesk staff language skills7.98.178.278.68.538.568.938.779.018.76n/a Overall worth of the registry to my organisation/business 6.27.296.527.316.947.587.447.567.657.867.718.17 USA Versus Other Regions: Comparative Analysis

28. Summary

29. 29 Summary ● The demographic and organisation type profile of the Registry user in 2014 is closely in line with 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 senior managers/partners emerge in the user base this year with fewer general administrative staff. ● The growth of the use of Facebook and Twitter has plateaued this year, with use of Linkedin growing to a majority (53%) of users. ● Use of Linkedin is particularly high in lease companies and amongst senior partner and legal users. ● The proportion of users based in the USA is now just over half of the total user base at 52%, with users in Canada rising to 10%. ● 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. The relative importance of all other factors remains reasonably consistent year-on-year.

30. 30 Summary ● It was noted last year that historical data trends indicated that the overall experience rating had reached, or had all but reached, its peak. This analysis has come to pass, with a modest improvement in overall satisfaction, to a noteworthy high of 8.24. ● 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 over and above this year’s 7.95 in future years. ● Just one service aspect has registered a significant year-on-year improvement – reliability of technical aspects. ● Satisfaction with all ten most important aspects has in fact improved to at least some degree since last year. ● With slight 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. ● Notwithstanding the general improvements across the board.

31. 31 Summary ● Users continue to request a more user-friendly/intuitive website, and improvements to the search function. ● Those particularly enamoured with the Registry cite its ease and efficiency of use, and its helpful/friendly staff as key drivers of satisfaction. ● Those scoring the Registry at a more modest 7-8 identify difficulties with use/navigation as a negative (23%), and also refer to the fact that they are obliged to use it as a reason for their muted response to it. ● Those rating the Registry at just 1-6 fail to recognise its value for the fee charged, and can also describe it as cumbersome to use.