Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and thank you for standing by. Welcome to the Fortress Transportation and Infrastructure Investors LLC third quarter 2022 earnings conference call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. After the speaker's presentation, there will be a question-and-answer session. To ask a question during the session, you will need to press star one one on your telephone keypad. At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to your host, Mr. Alan Andreini. Sir, please begin.
Thank you, Howard. I would like to welcome you all to the Fortress Transportation and Infrastructure Investors third quarter 2022 earnings call. Joining me here today are Joe Adams, the CEO of FTAI, and Angela Nam, the CFO of FTAI. We have posted an investor presentation and our press release on our website, which we encourage you to download if you have not already done so. Also, please note that this call is open to the public in listen-only mode and is being webcast. In addition, we will be discussing some non-GAAP financial measures during the call today, including EBITDA. The reconciliation of those measures to the most directly comparable GAAP measures can be found in the earnings supplement. Before I turn the call over to Joe, I would like to point out that certain statements made today will be forward-looking statements, including regarding future earnings.
These statements, by their nature, are uncertain and may differ materially from actual results. We encourage you to review the disclaimers in our press release and investor presentation regarding non-GAAP financial measures and forward-looking statements, and to review the risk factors contained in our quarterly report filed with the SEC. Now I would like to turn the call over to Joe.
Thanks, Alan, and I'm pleased to announce our 30th dividend as a public company and our 45th consecutive dividend since inception. The dividend of $0.30 per share will be paid on November 28th, based on a shareholder record date of November 14th. Also, please note FTAI successfully completed the spin-off of its infrastructure business on the first of August of this year. Historical financial condition and the results of operations related to the infrastructure business prior to the spin-off date have been disclosed under discontinued operations within the consolidated financial statements. Now let's turn to the numbers. The key metric for us is Adjusted EBITDA. Adjusted EBITDA was $108.9 million, down 24% compared to $143.7 million in Q2 2022, and up 25% compared to $87.2 million in Q3 2021.
The above numbers are for consolidated FTAI, which includes both leasing and aerospace products. Starting this quarter, we will be presenting leasing and aerospace products as separate segments going forward. Let's start with leasing. Leasing had a good quarter, posting approximately $96 million of EBITDA. The pure leasing component of the $96 million of EBITDA came in at $75 million for Q3, down from $87 million in Q2 as expected. The principal reason for the decline was due to the sale of approximately $145 million of book value of assets in Q2 and Q3 attributed to our cargo campaign sales, in which we sold five aircraft and 30 engines. With very strong demand for assets and the addition of some new acquisitions, which we'll talk about later, we expect Q4 will rebound.
Next year, 2023, we're very confident in leasing EBITDA of $350 million-$400 million for the year, excluding gains on asset sales. Part of the $96 million in EBITDA for leasing came from gains on asset sales, which also performed as expected. We sold $64.9 million book value of assets for a gain of $20.6 million. We have more asset sales coming in Q4 to recycle capital invested in some of 2021's larger acquisitions. In addition, we'll continue to make freighter sales to capitalize on the continuing robust freighter market. We're very comfortable assuming gains on asset sales continuing at approximately $25 million per quarter or $100 million for all of 2023. Aerospace products had another solid quarter with $19 million of EBITDA.
We started these activities only a little over a year ago, and in the last four quarters have booked approximately $70 million in EBITDA without any contribution from PMA. We see tremendous potential and feel good about generating $20 million-$30 million in quarterly EBITDA and think $100 million+ in 2023 EBITDA to be very doable. We feel confident about this number because we're seeing a rapidly expanding backlog of aerospace products business with other leasing companies, MROs or maintenance repair organizations, and airlines. With respect to Q4, we have begun closing the sale of $200 million in assets and have signed letters of intent to purchase $300 million in new assets also in Q4.
The net pickup in leasing EBITDA from the new investments minus the give up from the sales, we estimate to be $40 million per annum or $10 million per quarter. Importantly, two of these asset sales involve FTAI retaining the engine services contract on behalf of the buyer, which should generate $1 million per annum per aircraft, or $10 million total per annum of aerospace EBITDA over the remaining lease term of approximately eight years. After three years of macro trade headwinds, we now have macro factors that are greatly helping us. First, OEMs have instituted mostly double-digit percent price increases for parts effective this quarter, and parts price increases creates more opportunity for our cost saving products to increase market share for us. Since service shop visits costs are predominantly parts, the replacement value of our engines goes up correspondingly.
Second, many airlines are trying to reduce expensive full engine restorations and instead increase module swaps and light shop visits that do not require disassembly, which plays right to our strengths and into our products. Thirdly, delays in new aircraft deliveries are creating scarcity of 737 NGs and A320 CEOs, which will drive strong demand for 737 NGs, A320 CEOs, and importantly, CFM56 engines for many years to come. Fourth, industry demand for travel has returned to almost pre-COVID levels. Regarding PMA or Parts Manufacturer Approval, there's no change in our planning, which includes a full complement of airfoil parts becoming available throughout next year. In summary, it feels like we are finally operating in an environment with strong tailwinds. We managed through the COVID disruptions followed by Russia, Ukraine, and we'll have our portfolio optimized by this year end.
With demand for air travel surging globally, combined with proprietary cost savings aerospace products, 2023 is shaping up to be an outstanding year. With that, let me turn the call back to Alan.
Thank you, Joe. Howard, you may now open the call to Q&A.
Ladies and gentlemen, if you have a question or comment at this time, please press star one one on your telephone keypad. Again, if you have a question or comment at this time, please press star one one on your telephone keypad. Please stand by while we compile the Q&A roster. Our first question or comment comes from the line of Giuliano Bologna from Compass Point. Mr. Bologna, your line is open.
Hello. Good morning and, congrats on another quarter. Been a great quarter. I'd be curious, when I'm looking at some of the numbers that you just mapped out around asset sales and, redeploying the capital into new assets that are happening during Q4. You know, you're selling a lot, a fair amount more assets than you sold the last two quarters, and you've been able to, you know, recognize pretty impressive gains on sale, that, you know, were above the range during one of those quarters of the $20 million-$30 million range. Is it fair to assume that the combination of, you know, the large asset sales that could, you know, move you towards the higher end of that $20 million -$30 million range in Q4?
Then kind of as an add-on to that, with the EBITDA pickup and probably some lease up demand in the portfolio, is it also fair to assume that you can get back within the call it $90 million-$100 million run rate during 4Q for core leasing?
Yes. I would say on the gains, yes, it's fair to assume that some of the asset sales currently targeted for Q3 got delayed and are pushed into Q4. I do think there's upside over the sort of guided range we have in Q4 just because of that, you know, the sequencing and the timing. It's shaping up to be, you know, a pretty good quarter from an asset sales point of view. On the leasing side, as indicated, we're very comfortable next year hitting the, you know, sort of $90 million-$100 million per quarter. The Q4 will really be a function of the timing of closings and when those occur.
I think that it's possible that we could get there. You know, in today's world, it seems like there's more delays than accelerations. Sort of every time you turn around, there's something, you know, about a part not available or a maintenance shop can't get something delivered. I'm a little hesitant to promise on that just because we're in a world.
Thanks, Joe.
Hopefully, the call may have cut out. Hopefully it wasn't on my side. If the other's still there and it's still, we're still working. I'd be curious. I realize it's imperfect science, but with the vote coming up on the merger that would effectively convert, you know, and remove the K-1. One of the topics that's come up in some discussions is, you know, index inclusion and how that could, you know, impact, you know, your shareholder base.
I'm curious if you've done any analysis around kind of the low end and the high end of the range of what, you know, index buying, you know, may need to happen, you know, on the back of converting into a C-Corp.
Joe, are you there? I think we.
Hi, it's Joe. Could you hear me?
Yeah, we can hear you now. Sorry.
Yeah.
Did you hear Giuliano's question?
I did, yes. I gave a long answer, which unfortunately sounds like you didn't hear it. I'll... In terms of asset sales, you know, we have pushed some of the deals we expected to close in Q3, you know, got delayed and will end up closing in Q4. We think there is upside to the sort of typical run rate of what we've been expecting on gain on sales. I think that you're right, we should be, you know, at the high end of that number or potentially even above it, just given the sequence and closing deals is taking a little bit longer than we expect.
In terms of the leasing EBITDA, I said we're very comfortable with next year being in that $90 million-$100 million per quarter range. It's really a function of the timing of the closing of some of these, the new acquisitions and in today's world everything seems to take a little bit longer than expected. It's either a delay in a part or a delay in a maintenance shop, so I'm a little hesitant to be able to predict Q4 yet, given that item. Now, ultimately, these supply chain disruptions are good for us because we, you know, we have available equipment and engines that other people don't.
It is a reality of today's world that everything seems to be taking a little bit longer to get done. I feel good about the total run rate once we get all the assets deployed. Q4 is a little bit variable. Definitely will be up. The question is whether we get to $90 million or not for the quarter.
Joe, did you happen to hear Giuliano's second question relating the indexes? Giuliano, if Joe didn't hear that, can you repeat it, please?
Yeah. I think it was when we lost you, so I'll just, you know, rehash the question quickly. One of the questions that I was curious about was with the vote approaching on November ninth for, you know, the reverse merger that will effectively change the corporate structure and remove the K-1 and convert you guys to C-Corp. I realize it's, you know, it's imperfect science, but one of the topics that's come up is index inclusion and what that could mean just from, you know, FTAI from a, from an index ownership perspective over time.
I'm curious if you've done any analysis or you have any sense of what kind of the low end or high end range is for kind of the impact of potential index buying from kind of a need to buy perspective as a percentage of the outstanding shares.
Yes. We have done some analysis, and we have a list of some potential funds and that might, you know, we might get included in. I think the historically, you know, I was involved with Aircastle, which Aircastle was very successful at getting included and has a very similar corporate structure to what we're adopting. That would bode well. But there is a qualitative element in all these applications, so we're not totally sure. I would say the range is probably between 10% and 30% of our total stock market capitalization should end up in passive funds.
That's great. Thank you. I'll jump back in the queue.
Thank you. Our next question or comment comes from the line of Hillary Cacanando from Deutsche Bank.
for taking my questions. In terms of the insurance recovery, previously you had mentioned that you're expecting partial recovery from your insurance claims this year. I just wanted to understand, like, is that still the case? If so, how much of the recovery relates to assets in Ukraine that actually may have been destroyed versus how much of the recovery would be for planes that are still operational and still operating in Russia?
Yes. To have these on the insurance. Just to recap, we have about $290 million of insurance claims on our $125 million of book value of assets that we've filed. It really is, I mentioned before, we've broken it into three buckets of, you know, the different strategies with each one. The first one is sort of, I think that would be the most, the first to pay is the contingent insurance coverage that we have, and that's about $90 million. It's covered mostly engines. The second is Ukraine, which is about $75 million. The third is Russian assets airplanes, mostly airplanes that are lost in Russia, about $125 million.
I would say we've made progress on two of those three categories, namely the contingent coverage and the Ukrainian assets. Progress means that we've had a good dialogue, and we have a framework of a plan. We don't have enough of a definition and plan for me to give you a definitive timeline. Although I am optimistic that, you know, that could, you know, those two buckets could resolve in the next three-six months, is my hope. The Ukrainian assets, that we were, you know, thinking were destroyed, may not be, and they may be in good shape as far as we can tell.
We now have people on the ground, and so we're working on various strategies with respect to those assets as either, you know, with insurance or without insurance that we can, you know, monetize. Clearly those are, you know, that's a priority for us to focus and work on those. The Russian assets is a bit frustrating. It's frustrating for the whole industry, in that the insurance companies just refuse to engage. I think you saw AerCap and DAE have filed lawsuits. Ultimately, the good news is that none of the participants are talking again about, you know, well, we canceled the policy, and we don't have coverage, or it's not a loss.
It's all about, you know, sanctions and obfuscation that I think ultimately will, they'll run out of excuses and room, and litigation forces the issue. I think that will pay, as I've said from the very beginning, but I think it may take the longest of the three.
Okay. Got it. My second question is, you know, obviously we're seeing all these supply chain issues affecting the OEMs, and you know, you also mentioned the increase in, I guess, price and cost escalation. I was wondering if you could talk a little bit about the cost escalation that you're seeing on the engine side, and if we could actually see an impact, maybe like a benefit from the maintenance side of the business, that you could actually, like, point to in terms of quantifying the benefit.
Yes. All of our engine maintenance reserve payments are indexed to shop visit costs. Shop visit costs are 90% parts. If the parts prices just went up 10%, effectively you're getting a 10% increase in our maintenance reserve payments.
Mm-hmm.
That for the CFM GE Safran fleet goes into effect November one. We had a feeling that was coming, so we've been, you know, looking to acquire more engines this summer and add as much as we can. I think we're well positioned in that. You know, that should translate, that will translate into additional EBITDA for us starting November.
Got it. Okay, great. Thank you so much.
Thank you.
Thank you. Our next question or comment comes from the line of Josh Sullivan from The Benchmark Company. Mr. Sullivan, your line is open.
Joe, Angela, Alan. You know, just kind of following up on that question. You know, as far as the process where FTAI retains the maintenance streams in some of these aircraft sales, you know, which aircraft or customer types are most drawn to that arrangement? Or where should we see, you know, that process really gain some traction?
It's all older CFM56 engines. The way we're positioning ourselves in the market is, you know, our view is for CFM56 engines, the first 10-12 years is covered by the OEM under Power by the Hour maintenance agreements for the most part. Though we're not going after that business, it's not really available. Once the engine is past, you know, maybe the second shop visit or looking at second shop visit about year 12-14, a lot of those maintenance contracts are up for bid and us to acquire. What we wanna do is use our products and our services to be effectively the OEM for the second half of the life of that engine.
That's the way we position ourselves with airlines and MRO shops, is that we can take over your maintenance activity, much like GE does on the front end. We can save you money, and we can totally de-risk it for you, because you won't have any negative surprise events. You won't have any overruns or surprise expenses to deal with. In the case of airlines that are looking to phase out the fleet, we can buy the fleet and then provide you a new engine whenever you want it. We'll provide you liquidity, flexibility, and cost savings. We're finding a very broad appeal for that pitch. It resonates with people, particularly accelerated by the fact that the prices just went up, are going up 10%.
Airlines are experiencing cost inflation, and they are looking for every, you know, potential way to do it. I think it is resonating, and I think all of that we're able to do before any incremental savings that might come from PMA, which we expect next year will.
Got it. No, that's helpful. Maybe, Joe, could you just give us some, you know, general thoughts on the current leasing environment, you know, by maybe by geography? You know, or what are you seeing as far as duration or some of the other features on leases that might be changing in this environment?
Yeah. A lot of airlines are now coming saying that they have new orders. They've built their fleet plan around receiving NEOs and MAX aircraft over the next couple of years, and they're seeing those delayed. We're seeing airlines come saying, you know, "Show me anything you have that in the NG and the CEO range, where I could add capacity in meaningful numbers." It's a very, very strong environment, and they're willing to. Typically, those leases are five-six years in duration. You do from one D check to another. The term of the agreement is attractive, and the quantity that people are looking to get is very broad-based.
I'd say, obviously, the only market that is still relatively closed or constrained is China, but that's they're an outlier. Every other region of the world is really robust. Latin America, as I mentioned previously, we've done a lot of business in Latin America. It's above average growth rates. Middle East, Southeast Asia, very strong. Western Europe was probably the latest to recover because of Omicron, but its capacity is coming back and being added there now again as well. So I think it's a very strong market environment. Obviously, you know, Russia's gone forever, which is about 5% of the market, so it's not that material. But very good global dynamic.
Great. Appreciate the time. Thank you.
Yep.
Thank you. Our next question or comment comes from the line of Brandon Oglenski from Barclays. Mr. Oglenski, your line is open.
Hey. Good morning, Joe, Angela, and Alan. Thanks for taking the question. Joe, appreciate the outlook here. Could you just run us through the expected asset sales and net additions to the portfolio, you know, closing out the year? Then I guess the bigger question we're having, I mean, the outlook here is pretty good, but your cash balance is a little bit low. How do you expect to manage through liquidity here the next few quarters?
Yeah. I think we had about $70 million in cash at the end of Q3. When you look at the various asset sales and asset purchases, I think we should end up the year potentially with sort of 50-ish million drawn on the revolver. We have a $225 million revolver that is undrawn at the moment. It's fully available. That's how we're gonna manage liquidity as we have done in the past. You know, mostly the pluses and minuses with adding $300 million of assets and effectively cash flows we'll receive from the operations as well as the asset sales, it's pretty much close to a wash.
We expect to end the year, you know, with most of the revolver, if not all of it, available going into next year.
I guess longer term, where do you wanna see leverage on the portfolio? Especially, you know, has that changed at all with higher interest rates as well?
Not so much the higher interest rates. What we've communicated to the rating agencies is that A, we wanna be double B, and B, we want to manage debt to EBITDA under five times. If you look at our pro forma, you know, if we do $550 million-$600 million of EBITDA next year, we'll be under four times. I think both agencies, Moody's, S&P, and Fitch, have all indicated if we do that, we would be either upgraded or sort of we'd be in the double B range, and that's kind of consistent with where we wanna be. I don't think it's necessarily interest rate driven. We have some opportunities now.
I think next year we would look to, as a priority, to repay some debt with excess cash flows. Bring that net debt balance down and get even lower in terms of the debt to EBITDA and higher in terms of rating. I think that's where we're leaning at the moment. I think part of the program of selling assets and buying assets is to manage so that we're not necessarily adding a lot of capital at this point. We're recycling and picking up EBITDA.
Okay. Appreciate that. On, you know, the greater than half a billion in EBITDA targets for next year, which I think you've reiterated here, what type of portfolio utilization level do you think you need to achieve to get there?
The aircraft, I think generally we've been over 90%, which I think we will be. We still have some assets that we've repositioned from Russia and Ukraine that are either to be sold or to be leased. We added some aircraft, like 737-800s this summer, which we bought at a very attractive price off lease. All of those are going on lease this month in October, two in October, one in November. Those types of. When I say the portfolio will be optimized by the end of the year, everything we're doing is to get assets redeployed from Russia, Ukraine, or cargo assets that we were targeting for sale, get those sold. I think by the end of the year, utilization should be for aircraft 90%+ . Engines is always.
You know, we've always targeted 50%-75%. Effectively, the utilization isn't really what drives it. It's the number of hours flown and the total amount of the portfolio. For instance, the last two quarters, we've acquired quite a lot of CFM56 engines that are off lease. Utilization hasn't really gone up in spite of a strong market environment, because we've been adding to the denominator, and we will keep doing that because we could see there was a price increase coming, and we also think the economics of those engines are extremely attractive, so we would add as many of those as we can. I think that, you know, the target range is still the same, 50%-75% on engine utilization. That's not what.
We don't really manage to that. We manage to sort of having the total EBITDA of the portfolio optimized.
Okay. Appreciate it, Joe. Thank you.
Yep.
Thank you. Our next question or comment comes from the line of Brian McKenna from JMP Securities. Mr. McKenna, your line is now open.
Great. Thanks. Good morning, everyone. The business has clearly navigated some unexpected headwinds over the past couple of years. I'm curious, though, the backdrop today seems like it couldn't be better, but with the potential for, you know, recession next year and maybe some pullback in related activity, would you think about accelerating asset sales in the near term or slowing the pace of new investments in order to de-lever the business even more, that way you have more liquidity and excess capital to be more offensive in any slowdown?
Well, we've been doing that this year. I mean, with the cargo sales, we consciously decided early this year that we felt like the cargo market is maybe as good as it gets, and we decided that it was better to be early than late. I think that was a good decision. You know, we've sold probably $400 million of cargo assets to generate capital. On the flip side, just sitting with cash, given the attractive environment in the CFM56 engine and the substantial competitive advantage we have, that didn't seem like a good idea either. I think from our point of view, it feels like we already had recessions. You know, we had two of them.
The potential economic recession will have less impact on CFM56, you know, demand than than COVID did, for example. We feel that, you know, there's even if there is an economic slowdown globally, the demand for those assets and the travel recovery is sort of a bigger driver than the global economy.
Helpful. Thanks. Then I appreciate the color on the insurance claims, but if you were to see some windfall from these claims over the next couple of quarters, I guess what's your number one priority for that capital? Is it paying down some incremental debt? And if so, which maturities would you look to pay down first? Would you even maybe dividend some of it back to shareholders, or, you know, would you put some of it into incremental asset purchases? Just curious how you're thinking about that.
I think probably repayment of debt, and we'll look at all the various issues. I mean, we've debated as part of the dividend from the infrastructure, we paid the 2025s, which is the next maturity due. We brought that down to $650. We could do more of that. The other, you know, attractive investment would be the more expensive debt, which you can also. You know, that has more. It's more accretive when you pay down the highest cost debt. I think those would be the two choices, but I think our focus would be repay debt.
Yep. Great. Thanks, Joe.
Thanks.
Thank you. Our next question or comment comes from the line of Frank Galanti from Stifel. Stand by. Mr. Galanti, your line is now open.
Yeah. Hi, this is Frank. Can you hear me?
Yep.
Great. Thanks for taking my questions. I wanted to start on the Module Factory, and around the competitive landscape there. I guess first, can you just sort of talk high level what the business provides from a customer's perspective? Like, is it sort of a two-year kick down the road from a maintenance visit? And sort of how does that compare to a Quick Engine Change? Just trying to think through where people find value in the Module Factory. I guess secondarily, who does this? Who do you see as your big competitors that you're going up against? Obviously with the PMA parts and the Used Serviceable Material, there's gonna be a cost advantage, but that's only minimal at this point with the PMA approval progress so far.
I just sort of wanted to dig in on that business specifically.
Sure. The customers to the Module Factory, I think, you would sort of divide them into two different categories of how they see the benefit. One would be optimizing. You might have an LPT that needs a shop visit, but the rest of the engine doesn't. If you can do a module swap and optimize the numbers of hours and cycle hours and cycles, and match up that with the other parts of that engine, you can significantly reduce your maintenance cost because you don't have to put the whole engine through for a shop visit.
That was similar, you know, there's a cost savings and a benefit for that was illustrated in the WestJet deal that we won with Lufthansa. That's one customer would be optimizing. The second is avoiding that shop visit by doing module exchanges totally. Lots of airlines today, particularly as they look at their CFM56 fleet, are saying, "What can I do to avoid a full restoration?" Meaning you have to induct the whole engine into an MRO shop, disassemble it. Then every part in that engine gets looked at, and it often ends up in a, you know, significant increase in total cost.
A module swap would allow you to exchange, you know, the fan or the LPT and put a new core in and keep the fan and the LPT and not have to touch those. That's the target market for that product, and it's substantial. I mean, it's. We've met with many airlines over the last three to six months, and it's their stated goal is to try to reduce the number of, you know, full restorations they do, and modules fit perfectly into being able for them to sort of achieve that objective. The question is, who does that? If you look at in the industry today, the big airlines that have their own MRO shop do this internally. It could be a Delta, United, American.
They manage module exchanges right now in terms of their own fleet, because they have enough airplanes and they have an MRO shop. The market that doesn't have that access to that is all other airlines, of which there are hundreds. If you went out today and said, "Who can I buy a fan from or who can I buy an LPT from?" It's no one but us. We're the first to sort of create this storefront where people can do that. It's very powerful for a lot of these airlines. They're just learning about, you know, the opportunity. We're seeing airlines start with one or two modules, leasing companies that are trying to do it to minimize return compensation, and maintenance shops who are trying to win business.
The entire ecosystem is open to this. Today, there's no one else offering this product. We think it's very beneficial to the airlines, very beneficial to the maintenance shops, beneficial to the whole industry, and opens everybody up to have that capability.
Okay, great. Yeah, that's super helpful. Appreciate that. For a second question, I wanted to dig in on the PMA parts. I apologize, you may have gone through this in the beginning of the call. I've got sick kids, so I was a little bit late at getting on. Can you sort of reiterate the timeline on the remaining parts approval? Specifically around the second part, obviously that's been delayed. What's changed from when you first kind of contemplated getting approval on that part relative today? Like, sort of walk us through why that's been so delayed.
Yeah, I think, as I mentioned previously, there's two things going on.
Stand by. Ladies and gentlemen, please stand by. We lost connection. Everyone, please stand by. Go ahead, Mr. Adams.
Hi. Can you hear me again?
Yes, sir.
All right. Sorry. Where did I drop off?
Just sort of the beginning of the PMA question.
Okay. There's a natural process in all of these, where designs are tweaked and test results come in, and there's modifications made. That's part of the process that occurs in every one of these. That's part of the delay. The second is FAA responsiveness and turnaround time. The FAA has been unusually slow in terms of getting back to people with answers, responding, having the right people in the meeting. They have personnel vacancies that have not been filled. That part of it is out of our control and unusual. It's never happened that way before. All of those, you know. Those are the two reasons for delays. As I mentioned, all the parts and process are proceeding. They're doing very well.
It's expected that all the remaining parts that are under development will be submitted for approval next year in 2023.
Okay. That's helpful. I got another question, if I could, around Chromalloy. Veritas is looking or is going to be buying that company. I just wanted to confirm that it's got no effect on FTAI from an operations perspective. Then sort of second around that, and this is maybe a bit premature, but given where we stand in or you guys stand in the PMA approval process. Can you sort of talk about the sort of duration of the competitive advantage with the PMA business? Right. 'Cause if the PMA business only is for the CFM56-7B/5B engine, what can FTAI do from a competitive advantage perspective, kind of in the out years?
Yes. I can confirm that there's no effect on the Chromalloy joint venture. There is no change in control provision, no termination right in the agreement. We look forward to working with Veritas Capital. I think it's a very significant positive for Chromalloy. It was a quite robust auction and price, which I think reflects very well on the quality of the management team and the future opportunities. I think it's a positive from our point of view that the transaction happens, and we look forward to that. In terms of duration, you know. You know, we are focused on the CFM56 engine really exclusively. We started working with Chromalloy on the CF6-80 engine. We've had a great partnership on that.
We've been reducing our exposure in the CF6-80 engine. That is becoming more mature. The sweet spot of the CFM56 engine from a number of shop visits point of view really runs from probably 2023 to a minimum of 2030. It might have been extended, I think, by these new delivery delays as well that are coming out. Also, the total maintenance cost of some of these new technologies is still an unknown. We feel very good about at least the next six-seven years, you know, having 3,000+ shop visits a year, which is a huge market opportunity. After 2030, I'm not quite sure yet. I feel like we have a lot of time to come up with some new ideas.
We already have some ideas on the drawing board for next year in terms.
Please stand by.
Did I lose you?
Oh, you're there, sir. Go ahead.
Oh.
Yeah. Not sure if you had any additional. You said you had something on the drawing board, but that sort of answers my question enough. I appreciate the taking the question. Thanks very much.
All right, I'm back. Can you hear me?
Yeah, sorry. We can hear you. You had said something about we have things on the drawing board.
Yes. We have some ideas about other maintenance-related products that we're developing for next year. I think it's not gonna be static. We're not gonna sit and wait till 2030 and do nothing.
Great. That's all I had. Really appreciate it. Thank you.
Thanks.
Thank you. We have time for one more question. Our last question for the day will come from the line of Mr. Gregory Lewis from BTIG. Mr. Lewis, your line is now open.
Thanks, good morning, everybody. Joe, I just had one question. You know, realizing that it's still early days, we gotta get you know, the C-Corp conversion. I guess as we think about this bigger picture, like, you know, right now, you know, FTAI is clearly trading at a nice discount to its peers. You know, I heard a lot about, you know, continuing to deploy cash for assets. You know, you did touch on the dividend. I mean, at a certain point, do we need to start thinking about buying back the stock?
Sure. I think, you know, when we have the decision, you know, with excess cash flow, I think we're gonna look at all three alternatives, which is pay down debt, increase the dividend or buy back stock. I don't have any, you know, preset answer to that. It'll be a function of, you know, what the outlook is, what the opportunities are, where the various securities are trading. We'll take a look at all of that.
Okay. Super helpful. Thank you very much.
Thanks.
Thank you. At this time, I'd like to turn the conference back over to Mr. Andreini for any closing remarks.
Thank you, Howard. Thank you all for participating in today's conference call. We look forward to updating you after Q4. Thank you.
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for participating in today's conference. This concludes the program. You may now disconnect. Everyone, have a wonderful day. Speakers stand by.