articles Ratings /ratings/en/research/articles/250312-eetc-ratings-flying-higher-for-north-american-airlines-13441801 content esgSubNav
In This List
COMMENTS

EETC Ratings Flying Higher For North American Airlines

COMMENTS

North American Airlines Patient Ahead Of Looming Debt Maturities

COMMENTS

Instant Insights: Key Takeaways From Our Research

COMMENTS

Sector Review: China's Steelmakers Face 15%-20% Tariff-Driven Slump In Exports

COMMENTS

Table Of Contents: S&P Global Ratings Corporate And Infrastructure Finance Criteria


EETC Ratings Flying Higher For North American Airlines

While the market for EETCs, a specialized form of aircraft-backed debt, is well established, issuances in the past two years have been few and far between. United Airlines Holdings Inc. (BB/Stable/--) is the only airline to have issued publicly rated EETCs over the past two years: $1.3 billion (Class A) in 2023 and about $1.35 billion (Classes AA and A) in 2024. We can't predict the future for EETC financing, but we expect it to remain a component of future airline financing as new aircraft deliveries increase in 2025 and thereafter.

The modest pace of EETC issuances over the past two years can be explained by a two key factors. First, airline credit profiles for the most seasoned issuers--namely U.S. network carriers and Air Canada-–have improved in recent years, with a strategic focus that includes steady debt reduction. Improvement in earnings and cash flow has contributed to free cash flow generation, affording certain airlines the ability to self-fund aircraft purchases. Second, lower-than-expected aircraft deliveries have resulted in uncertainty and reduced the availability of new aircraft collateral that otherwise would have been potentially financeable.

However, larger airlines face looming debt maturities that we believe will be addressed in part with new debt (see "North American Airlines Patient Ahead Of Looming Debt Maturities", published March 12, 2025, on RatingsDirect). We believe EETCs could account for a portion of new debt funding within the sector.

We summarize below some of our key observations related to EETC issues and answer frequently asked questions on these debt instruments.

EETC Overview: Ratings Have Climbed Higher

  • EETC ratings range from AA to CCC+ in North America.
  • American hold the most rated EETCs (20), from B+ (2013-1A due 2025) to AA- (2016-1AA, 2016-2AA, 2016-3AA, 2019-1AA).
  • United (2015-1AA, 2024-1AA) and Delta (2020-1AA) represent the three EETCs rated at AA.
  • Air Canada (2018-1, 2020-2) account for 2 Class B ratings at A+; Spirit Airlines (2017-1B) accounts for the CCC+ rating (company currently in creditor protection).

Chart 1

image

There is a wide range of EETC ratings relative to the underlying airline issuer credit rating:

  • Delta EETCs notched up by 3-6 notches
  • United EETCs notched up by 6-9 notches
  • American EETCs notched up by 0-10 notches
  • Air Canada EETCs notched up by 0-8 notches
  • Alaska Air EETCs notched up by 6-7 notches
  • Hawaiian Airlines EETCs notched up by 1 notch (1 EETC)
  • Spirit Airlines notched up by 2-8 notches (ratings pending emergence from creditor protection)
EETC issuances have lagged, but upgrades have been widespread since 2023.
  • Delta, United, American, and Air Canada upgrades have underpinned higher EETC ratings since 2023.
  • However, higher collateral credit was also a key contributor to the positive trend in EETC ratings.
  • United was the only airline to issue new, rated EETCs in 2023 and 2024 and maintains a significant cash position.
Higher aircraft valuations have led to stronger collateral credit.
  • Stable/higher aircraft valuations led to collateral coverage that is strengthening beyond our expectations.
  • Higher collateral credit resulted from lower loan to values (LTVs) as collateral assessments were generally unchanged.
  • Base values are relatively stable amid steady debt amortization, although the current market value is much higher.
Valuation strength is widespread across EETCs.
  • New aircraft delivery constraints and engine reliability issues will take time to address.
  • There are no signs that aggregate narrowbody and widebody demand is slowing.
  • An increased demand for older aircraft (due to new aircraft delays and well-documented engine issues) has led to relatively favorable valuations.
  • Recent aircraft monetization and deferrals by certain rated issuers is not related to any expected softening in demand. Instead, it's linked mainly to lower planned capacity.
  • United included seasoned, unencumbered aircraft in its 2024-1 EETC collateral.
EETC rating momentum is positive.
  • Issuer credit ratings are the starting point for EETC ratings.
  • Lower LTVs have led to higher collateral credit for several EETCs.
  • Solid collateral valuations have led to steady principal amortization, ultimately lifting EETC ratings.
  • Higher collateral credit is a key contributor to EETC upgrades.
  • Sustained aircraft value strength adds potential upside to certain EETC ratings.

Table 1

Recent EETC upgrades
American United Delta
Month-year No. of EETC upgrades Reason Month-year No. of EETC upgrades Reason Month-year No. of EETC upgrades Reason
May-24 4 Lower LTVs Nov-24 5 Higher issuer credit rating Dec-24 1 Lower LTVs*
Jul-23 4 Lower LTVs* Apr-24 2 Lower LTVs Aug-23 2 Higher issuer credit rating
Jul-23 6 Lower LTVs Mar-23 4 Lower LTVs*
EETC ratings range: B+ to AA- EETC ratings range: A- to AA EETC ratings range: A- to AA
*In addition to other EETC upgrades that resulted from raising the issuer credit rating.
Collateral valuations benefitted from OEM delays.
  • Narrowbody and widebody demand remains strong. Boeing 737 MAX deliveries are trending up.
  • Boeing is now producing MAX aircrafts at about low-20s per month, with a target of 38 per month in the second half of 2025.
  • MAX aircrafts saw a post-production overhaul following a fuselage panel blow-out and a strike in late 2024.
  • Airbus averaged 50 A320 deliveries per month in 2024. The company pushed its 75 per month target back to 2027 due to supply chain constraints.
  • Widebody production remains under pressure amid supply chain constraints.
  • Airbus holds the lead in narrowbody backlog, while Boeing holds the lead in widebody.

Chart 2

image

Chart 3

image

Aircraft valuations are resilient.
  • Base collateral appraisals for rated Delta, United, and American EETCs have been relatively stable since 2023. We typically observe steady annual depreciation.
  • Current market values (CMV) are much higher, but typically only applied to airlines with 'B-' issuer credit ratings when deriving LTVs for EETCs.
  • Steady debt amortization and generally stable base values reduce LTVs and, in several cases, led to higher collateral credit/EETC ratings.
  • We believe there is currently limited downside to EETC ratings, barring a substantial decline in aircraft values or an airline downgrade.
  • We expect EETC debt held by the Big 3 (on average) to decline 20% cumulatively by year-end 2025, excluding debt maturing this year.
  • Year-to-date 2025 base values have declined less than 5% on average since 2023. This has lowered LTVs for many EETCs held by the Big 3 (as well as Air Canada and Alaska Air Group) since 2023.
  • Lower LTVs have contributed to higher collateral credit that, in several (but not all) instances, led to EETC rating upgrades.
  • The longer collateral values remain steady, the greater downside cushion (and potential upside) there is to EETC ratings amid continuing debt amortization.

Chart 4

image

Affirmation Credit Observations

  • Most EETC ratings in North America are notched up from the airline issuer credit rating, with affirmation credit and collateral credit component scores
  • Affirmation credit is effectively our assessment of the likelihood for airlines to affirm the EETC after a bankruptcy filing (or similar event)
  • Affirmation credit is usually (91%) '4' for Class AA (senior-most tranche) and '3' for Class A that are subordinate to Class AA within the same EETC
  • Affirmation credit is lowest for Class B/C due to subordination, but also very high LTVs or less desirable aircraft in collateral (in our view)
  • 41% of Class A tranches that we rate have '4' collateral credit. They would be higher if not for senior-ranking Class AA tranches in the same EETC
  • Average affirmation credit: 3.9 (Class AA); 3.1 (Class A); 1.7 (Class B/C) – relatively stable since 2023

Chart 5

image

Chart 6

image

Collateral Credit Observations

  • Collateral credit provides the most potential upside to EETC ratings (up to 7 notches are possible)
  • Collateral credit is highly sensitive to LTV and collateral assessment (technological risk, resale liquidity, diversification of collateral)
  • Class AA tends to have the highest collateral credit (since subordinated tranches of the same EETC have higher LTVs)
  • Collateral credit on average has migrated higher over the past two years: 64% of Class AA at '6' (vs. 20% in 2023); 34% of Class A at '4' (vs. 22% in 2023)
  • Average Collateral Credit: 5.5 (Class AA); 3.2 (Class A); 2.9 (Class B/C)

Chart 7

image

Chart 8

image

Appendix: Frequently Asked Questions

What is the maximum rating that an EETC can achieve?
  • We cap ratings at 10 notches above the issuer credit rating for an airline.
  • Other rating caps that can apply (i.e., sovereign considerations/legal regime assessment outside of U.S./Canada, threshold ratings, liquidity provider ratings).
  • We rate 3 EETCs at 'AA', the highest issue rating among our rated EETCs. United Airlines has 2 and Delta Air Lines has 1.
Are EETCs basically guaranteed to be rated multiple notches above an issuer credit rating?
  • No. We rate 2 EETCs equal to the underlying issuer credit rating (no notches) and 2 EETCs 1 notch above the underlying issuer credit rating.
  • These issues are characterized by high LTVs & our view of low likelihood for affirmation in bankruptcy/restructuring (older aircraft).
  • On average, S&P Global Ratings-rated EETCs are 6 notches above airline issuer credit ratings--most for Class AA, least for Class B/C.
How does S&P Global Ratings view the potential substitution of collateral within an EETC?
  • Provisions within certain EETC indentures afford issuers the ability to substitute aircraft collateral for a like-value of comparable aircraft.
  • While it is not explicit in our criteria, substitution has not affected ratings. Ability to substitute collateral is contingent on rating agency's confirmation of no ratings impact.
  • However, we acknowledge that substituted aircraft (if a different number, model, age, etc.) could lead to future divergence in value, collateral assessment, and importance to the airline, for example, relative to the outgoing aircraft. However, this risk would be considered at the time that substitution is proposed.
The collateral in United Airlines' 2024-1AA EETC includes older aircraft. Did this hurt the EETC rating in any way?
  • There is no negative impact from the inclusion of older aircraft (Boeing 737-900ER: average age of 12 years; Boeing 737-800: average age of about 13.5 years)
  • The majority of these aircraft exit the pool in 2031 (the year of estimated peak LTV, which is used to derive collateral credit for new ratings).
  • Collateral credit was '6' (at the stronger end of the 45%-50% LTV range).
  • None of the aircraft exceeded 15 years of age at deal inception (and account for less than 50% of the total EETC collateral value)--hence, no collateral assessment penalty.
When should we expect new EETC issuances?

It's difficult to say, but several factors lend support for potential new issuances this year:

  • Unencumbered asset values are significant/growing.
  • Aircraft deliveries are likely to increase as OEM constraints likely ease. Sources for available collateral will presumably grow.
  • Aircraft valuations are widely appraised and easily discoverable compared to certain other collateral types.
  • Ratings that are multiple notches above an issuer credit rating can translate into relatively lower funding costs.
  • A material share of short-term debt maturities are likely to be refinanced with new debt (and several EETCs mature in 2025 and 2026).
  • There are several inbound inquiries on existing/potential EETCs.

However, the Big 3 (the largest EETC issuers collectively) can all finance new aircraft capex internally at least through 2025, which affords high funding flexibility and patience. Additionally, there are numerous debt types available (i.e., notes, term loans, loyalty financing, SGR financing, mortgages, leases, etc.). Deleveraging also remains a key strategic focus, and most North American airlines have retained large cash positions.

Appendix: EETC Ratings Construct

Chart 9 

image

This report does not constitute a rating action.

Primary Credit Analyst:Jarrett Bilous, Toronto + 1 (416) 507 2593;
jarrett.bilous@spglobal.com
Secondary Contacts:Lisa Chang, San Francisco + 1 (415) 371 5015;
lisa.chang@spglobal.com
Alessio Di Francesco, CFA, Toronto + 1 (416) 507 2573;
alessio.di.francesco@spglobal.com

No content (including ratings, credit-related analyses and data, valuations, model, software, or other application or output therefrom) or any part thereof (Content) may be modified, reverse engineered, reproduced, or distributed in any form by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC or its affiliates (collectively, S&P). The Content shall not be used for any unlawful or unauthorized purposes. S&P and any third-party providers, as well as their directors, officers, shareholders, employees, or agents (collectively S&P Parties) do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or availability of the Content. S&P Parties are not responsible for any errors or omissions (negligent or otherwise), regardless of the cause, for the results obtained from the use of the Content, or for the security or maintenance of any data input by the user. The Content is provided on an “as is” basis. S&P PARTIES DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE, FREEDOM FROM BUGS, SOFTWARE ERRORS OR DEFECTS, THAT THE CONTENT’S FUNCTIONING WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED, OR THAT THE CONTENT WILL OPERATE WITH ANY SOFTWARE OR HARDWARE CONFIGURATION. In no event shall S&P Parties be liable to any party for any direct, indirect, incidental, exemplary, compensatory, punitive, special or consequential damages, costs, expenses, legal fees, or losses (including, without limitation, lost income or lost profits and opportunity costs or losses caused by negligence) in connection with any use of the Content even if advised of the possibility of such damages.

Credit-related and other analyses, including ratings, and statements in the Content are statements of opinion as of the date they are expressed and not statements of fact. S&P’s opinions, analyses, and rating acknowledgment decisions (described below) are not recommendations to purchase, hold, or sell any securities or to make any investment decisions, and do not address the suitability of any security. S&P assumes no obligation to update the Content following publication in any form or format. The Content should not be relied on and is not a substitute for the skill, judgment, and experience of the user, its management, employees, advisors, and/or clients when making investment and other business decisions. S&P does not act as a fiduciary or an investment advisor except where registered as such. While S&P has obtained information from sources it believes to be reliable, S&P does not perform an audit and undertakes no duty of due diligence or independent verification of any information it receives. Rating-related publications may be published for a variety of reasons that are not necessarily dependent on action by rating committees, including, but not limited to, the publication of a periodic update on a credit rating and related analyses.

To the extent that regulatory authorities allow a rating agency to acknowledge in one jurisdiction a rating issued in another jurisdiction for certain regulatory purposes, S&P reserves the right to assign, withdraw, or suspend such acknowledgement at any time and in its sole discretion. S&P Parties disclaim any duty whatsoever arising out of the assignment, withdrawal, or suspension of an acknowledgment as well as any liability for any damage alleged to have been suffered on account thereof.

S&P keeps certain activities of its business units separate from each other in order to preserve the independence and objectivity of their respective activities. As a result, certain business units of S&P may have information that is not available to other S&P business units. S&P has established policies and procedures to maintain the confidentiality of certain nonpublic information received in connection with each analytical process.

S&P may receive compensation for its ratings and certain analyses, normally from issuers or underwriters of securities or from obligors. S&P reserves the right to disseminate its opinions and analyses. S&P's public ratings and analyses are made available on its Web sites, www.spglobal.com/ratings (free of charge), and www.ratingsdirect.com (subscription), and may be distributed through other means, including via S&P publications and third-party redistributors. Additional information about our ratings fees is available at www.spglobal.com/usratingsfees.

 

Create a free account to unlock the article.

Gain access to exclusive research, events and more.

Already have an account?    Sign in