WHEELTUG SYSTEM, SAVINGS & BUSINESS OVERVIEW

WHEELTUG SYSTEM, SAVINGS & BUSINESS OVERVIEW 25 November 2013 Contact: Isaiah Cox +44 (0)207 993 4293 +1 410 419 0082 exec@wheeltug.gi

Net Value of Technologies/Ac/Yaer WheelTug: Attractive and Viable Bob Crandall Dramatically improve airline margins with no capital expenditure $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 + Twist NEO/MAX WheelTug $-

The WheelTug System

Wheels: Head to Head

Conventional Taxi vs. WheelTug Without WheelTug With WheelTug Taxi In Engine active from landing to terminal Taxi In WheelTug active from landing to terminal Tug required for pushback from gate WheelTug to/from gate No tug required Engine active from terminal to takeoff WheelTug active from terminal until warmup Taxi Out Taxi Out Engine active from warmup to takeoff (WheelTug can continue operations during engine start)

Engines/APUs On Engine & APU Usage Cumulative Time Engines/APUs On Cumulative Time Engines/APUs On Cumulative Time The average US narrowbody taxis for 21 min/cycle Engine warm-up & cool-down requires 2-3 minutes each Single-engine taxi keeps the APU on to avoid cross-bleed starts Dual-Engine Taxi Single-Engine Taxi WheelTug Taxi 2 50 2 50 2 50 40 40 40 1 30 20 1 30 20 1 30 20 10 10 10 0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 Taxi Minutes 0 0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 Taxi Minutes 0 0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 Taxi Minutes 0 Engine Time/Min APU Time/Min Engine Time/Min APU Time/Min Engine Time/Min APU Time/Min Total Engine Time Total APU Time Total Engine Time Total APU Time Total Engine Time Total APU Time

Key WheelTug Features Rapid retrofit - installable using just overnights + 2 shifts for the landing gear swap Easily Uninstalled removes in 2 shifts, so not a permanent feature Fits into existing wheel well space Power from the APU Minimal (read-only) connection to aircraft data Master Minimum Equipment List (MMEL) system does not need to function for aircraft dispatch Cockpit, wire harness, software and ICE Box are zero maintenance items, unless flagged Wheel Package will be inspected with tire changes Wheels and subcomponents will be replaced when inspections merit it

WheelTug on Display An in-the-wheel, APU-powered, WheelTug system was operated in Prague in 2012 and can be viewed at media.wheeltug.com Snow and ice operation was demonstrated in 2010

A320 Turning Traction Because there is twice as much weight on half of the wheel area, the traction is the same Breakaway Torque 2012 Prague tests demonstrated that when turning sharply, only 50% of the straight-line torque was required

A WheelTug Pushback 2 ground crew, using existing approved powered pushback procedures, visually (and/or with comms) guiding pilot Boeing Simulator Management Services has been developing crew training: 45 minutes on CBT WheelTug is also working with Prague Airport and Czech Air Navigation Services. Ongoing constructive discussions with ADP, Schiphol, Swedavia, ACI, Eurocontrol, ICAO and IATA Ground Handling (In the future, optional use of ground camera systems (already approved and available for 737s and A320s) can enhance pilot situational awareness)

Lbs of Fuel Used Cost of Fuel ($3.00/g) Cost to Carry 100lbs Tankering rule: 4 lbs of fuel used/100lbs carried/hour 40 30 20 10 Avg Narrow- Body Stage Length $15.00 $10.00 $5.00 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Stage Length (hours) $-

net weight of WheelTug (lbs) net carry cost of WheelTug 1500 1000 500 0-500 Fuel Margin Savings vs. dual engine taxi 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 Minutes of taxi fuel margin $60 $50 $40 $30 $20 $10 $- $(10) $(20) If taxi time is perfectly known, the average cost to carry WheelTug is <$20 per cycle (for more information on taxi fuel margin, see Appendix slides on flight weight

SAVINGS ANALYSIS

Fuel/Min (lbs) Cumulative Fuel (lbs) Fuel/Min (lbs) Cumulative Fuel (lbs) Fuel/Min (lbs) Cumulative Fuel (lbs) Fuel Savings The average U.S. Boeing 737 taxis for 21 min/cycle Fuel savings include cool-down and warm-up time as well as APU fuel Total savings are 300 lbs. vs. dual-engine taxi and 200 lbs. vs. single-engine taxi 30 Dual-Engine Taxi APU 700 30 Single-Engine Taxi Dual Engine Cool-down/Warmup 700 30 WheelTug Taxi Dual Engine Cool-down/Warmup 700 Single-Engine+APU 20 10 Gate 350 20 10 Gate 350 20 10 Gate APU 350 0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 Taxi Minutes 0 0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 Taxi Minutes 0 0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 Taxi Minutes 0 Per-minute Fuel Total Fuel Per-minute Fuel Total Fuel Per-minute Fuel Total Fuel Idle fuel from ICAO Engine Databank

Savings Per Cycle Savings/Year Fuel Savings/Cycle $2,500 $4,500,000 $200 $4,000,000 $2,000 $3,500,000 $150 $100 $1,500 $1,000 Twist ($1670) $3,000,000 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $50 Other ($60) $1,500,000 $0 vs. Dual Engine vs. Single Engine Fuel-Savings Only $500 $0 Time ($390) Pushback ($100) Fuel ($100) Total Savings/Cycle vs. Single-Engine Taxi Engine ($40) $1,000,000 $500,000 $0

Savings Per Cycle Pushback Savings Pushback Savings/Cycle WheelTug eliminates pushback tugs, removing pushback costs & associated risks $2,500 $4,500,000 Pushback costs typically include capital, personnel, maintenance, fuel, & incident insurance (such as below) $2,000 $4,000,000 $3,500,000 Pushback costs are typically >$100/cycle $1,500 Twist ($1670) $3,000,000 $2,500,000 $1,000 $2,000,000 Other ($60) $1,500,000 $500 $0 Time ($390) Pushback ($100) Fuel ($100) Total Savings/Cycle vs. Single-Engine Taxi Engine ($40) $1,000,000 $500,000 $0

FOD & Engine Wear Environmental engine wear & FOD leads to damaged blades

Engine Maintenance Expense Lessors calculate maintenance reserves based on airports of operation This is because most particulates and debris damage the engine on the ground Maintenance costs are $175/block hour/engine^ Engine Environmental Distress Map (Aircraft Monitor) WheelTug saves: $21/cycle vs. single-engine taxi and $43/cycle vs. dual engine taxi ^ Source: Analysis of Aircraft Commerce Owner s & Operator s Guide: 737NG Family

Efficiency Loss Fuel Efficiency Improvement Typical fuel efficiency loss is 4% over 8 years 80% of this loss is attributable to taxi Annually 0.4% in efficiency is lost due to taxi Annual Cost of Efficiency Loss Each year of taxi use costs $14,400/engine/year in lost fuel efficiency (w/fuel cost of $7.2M/yr/aircraft) Cost per Minute At a 8% discount rate and average of 4 years until overhaul, each year of taxi costs $51,500 in future fuel efficiency. Average aircraft taxi for 35,910 minutes/year (1700 cycles * 21 minutes), so each minute is worth $1.43 in fuel efficiency improvement. WheelTug saves: $20/cycle vs. single-engine taxi and $42/cycle vs. dual engine taxi

Savings Per Cycle Savings/Year Engine Savings/Cycle $2,500 $4,500,000 $90 $4,000,000 $80 $70 $2,000 $3,500,000 $60 $50 $1,500 Twist ($1670) $3,000,000 $2,500,000 $40 $30 $20 $1,000 Other ($60) $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $10 $0 vs. Dual Engine vs. Single Engine Engine-Savings Only $500 $0 Time ($390) Pushback ($100) Fuel ($100) Total Savings/Cycle vs. Single-Engine Taxi Engine ($40) $1,000,000 $500,000 $0

Taxi-in/Out Time Savings No waiting for a pushback tractor No need to disconnect from a towbar or lift tug For gateless operations, engines can be started during taxi out On arrival, ground crews do not need to wait for engines to spool down Turnaround Delays (seconds) Stage Gateless Gate/Towbar Gate/Lift Tug WheelTug Est. average delays (for tractor/marshalling or disconnect) 135 130 60 Tug-disconnect & engine start 150 130 0 Engine start & checklist (gateless) 200 0 Wait on taxi-in 15 15 15 0 Total 215 300 285 60

Why Aircraft Nose In Today Jet Blast!

Imagine the dangers.

But with Engines off..wheeltug Twist

But with Engines off..wheeltug Twist

WheelTug Twist 2. Rotate Aircraft

WheelTug Twist Reduce ground clutter Eliminate vehicles Speed turnarounds Independent departure

WheelTug Twist 5. Exit Terminal 4. Rotate Aircraft

WheelTug Twist

Magnitude of Time Savings Two-door operation (using jetbridges) is in use by Southwest at Albany United s TED subsidiary operated similarly in Denver (until the bridge damaged the wing). They saved 12.5 minutes every turn for an A320 aircraft!

Minutes Time Savings WheelTug Twist WheelTug Pushback Gat eless Lift Tug Towbar Tug Turnaround Time including average delays 30 35 40 45 50 55 Doors-Open to Doors-Closed Wait f or Pushback/ Marshalling Engine St art & Checklist Minut es Engine Spin Down on arrival Tug/ Towbar Disconnect Time & Checklist 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Time Savings/Cycle vs. lift tug WheelTug Pushback WheelTug Twist

Value of Extra Flight Time Use of Extra Flight Time By making additional time available WheelTug can: Enable new shorter cycles Enable usage of existing spare time that is currently too short to add a full cycle Enable longer routes in place of shorter ones Value of Extra Flights New cycles in the same operating day do not generally require additional staff or fixed aircraft costs Revenues and costs vary widely by airline, but each additional cycle is worth $4,700 using: Average revenue of $15,200 Variable flight costs of $10,500 And staff/fixed aircraft expense of $4,500 Value of Extra Flight Minutes Using a block + turn time of 152 minutes, we can see a value for time of $31/min

Value of Faster Turnarounds Impact of Time on Fares Passengers, especially business passengers, are sensitive to time lost With WheelTug pushback, an airline can offer much faster pushbacks and starting rolls With the Twist, an airline can offer: double-fast boarding (much less waiting), sit-and-go (much less waiting for pushback), stop-and-go (much faster deboarding, particularly for those in back). Value of Time Professor Silke Forbes compared fares at LaGuardia after delays caused by the AIR21 Act in 2000 with fares prior to the act and with fares at unaffected airports. It was found that: A minimum delay cost of $0.77/min/passenger ($0.83 in 2013 dollars) for connecting passengers A maximum delay cost of $2.44/min/passenger for direct passenger on competitive routes The FAA uses a value of $0.54 to $0.81/min/passenger ^ when CPI adjusted to 2013 dollars WheelTug uses a value of $0.77/passenger/min to calculate the impact of faster turnarounds on fares Values will be higher for more competitive business routes For a typical load of 115 passengers, the total impact on fares is $88.55/minute Combining extra flight time and fare impacts, time is worth $119/minute ^ Economic Values for FAA Investment and Regulatory Decisions

Time Savings/Cycle Savings Per Cycle Savings/Year $2,500 $2,500 $4,500,000 $4,000,000 $2,000 $2,000 $3,500,000 $1,500 $1,500 Twist ($1670) $3,000,000 $2,500,000 $1,000 $1,000 $2,000,000 $500 $0 WheelTug Pushback WheelTug Twist Time Savings Only vs. lift tug $500 $0 Other ($60) Time ($390) Pushback ($100) Fuel ($100) Total Savings/Cycle vs. Single-Engine Taxi Engine ($40) $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $0

Implementing the Twist WheelTug sees the Twist as a conditional benefit not like pushback or fuel savings. The Twist will require: Regulatory approval Procedure changes Airport approval Where could the Twist be done? The Twist fits in a wide-body gate, and at narrow gates with extra room. But jet bridges would require change At some narrowbody gates, the Twist could be done now, with existing jet bridges if there are two available adjacent gates WheelTug estimates that, assuming airport and regulatory approvals are granted, the Twist could be used in 30% of situations immediately, and 30% more within two years

SFO

Cologne

Personal Injury With WheelTug, no ground personnel need to approach the nose gear at all No towbar connection No comms linkup required No NLG safety pins to remove or install Ramp Worker Injuries and Costs (source: Flight Safety Foundation) 9 injuries per 1000 departures 10 injuries per 100 FTEs per year (Coal mining has 3.6/100 FTEs per year) Personal injury costs of $350,000/year/aircraft We estimate a 15% reduction in injuries, providing savings of $52,000/year and $31/cycle

Other Savings: Brakes Pilots ride the brakes today to counteract constant engine thrust Carbon brakes wear poorly when cold Industry measures taxi out brake wear at 79%, and landing at only 19% http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sg4aw5bujeu WheelTug should reduce brake wear by at least 40%. Brakes would only be counteracting engine thrust at the end of the taxi, when engines are started Carbon Brake Savings Carbon brake replacement cost $144,000 Replacement timeline 18 months Cost/year $96,000 Wear attributed to braking against engines ~40% Savings/Year (4.5 cycles) $38,400

Other Savings: Emissions Emissions reductions can improve an airline s image with: Customers Airports Regulators Environmental groups & media Emissions/Cycle Prague Airport won IATA s Eagle Award for Most Deserving Airport in the world crediting support for WheelTug development! WheelTug has just won the 2013 ATW Eco-Technology of the Year Award! Emissions Credit Value Kg emissions/lb of fuel 1.62 lbs fuel saved vs. single-engine taxi/cycle 245 Value/1000 kg of emissions (point carbon) $7.82 Value/cycle $3.12 Value/Year (4.5 cycles) $5,050

Heating (Stamina) WheelTug will generate heat during operation, although our motor technology has a much higher heat tolerance than do most other motor technologies The system does NOT require any cooling lines, or use any fans and we have no brake heating to worry about. But there are thermal limits, set, for example, by the wheel WheelTug is designing for 95% availability, with airline concurrence (since bulk of savings are early in each cycle) In the event that engines need to start sooner (because of temperature), the impact on savings is marginal. There is no operational downside

OTHER (NON-QUANTIFIED) BENEFITS ANALYSIS

Landing Gear Wear Towbar tractors have their own inertial mass, and exert nonlinear damage on aircraft nose gear WheelTug is built into the Wheel, and thrust is smoothly applied

Increased Throughput Without disconnects or engine warm-ups, jets move forward as soon as they finish taxiing back. This means ramps are not blocked by immobile aircraft

Increased Throughput Due to elimination of jet blast, engine noise & ingestion risk

Increased Throughput Due to elimination of jet blast, engine noise & ingestion risk Higher gate throughput Service vehicles, passengers and personnel can operate around aircraft as soon as the airplane comes to a stop Higher Airport throughput Safety margins in taxi can be reduced allowing more vehicles in the same space Pushback time savings means aircraft don t block the taxiway for others especially in cramped ramp areas

Increased Throughput Eliminating jet blast enables simultaneous backups at adjacent gates X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Without WheelTug With WheelTug

Air Quality Smog chamber experiments indicate that photo-oxidation of aircraft emissions produces significant amounts of secondary PM, which, under typical summertime conditions, exceed the primary emissions within minutes of the exhaust leaving the engine. Therefore, secondary PM must be considered when evaluating the influence of aircraft emissions on local and regional air quality.

Air Quality Without WheelTug Air Conditioning Intake With WheelTug With WheelTug, cabin air quality improves under certain conditions Pilots complain of as many as five fume events per week and sometimes pursue legal action

New Slot Creation In airports with morning noise curfews, engines can t start until curfew lifts With WheelTug, loaded aircraft can taxi to the runway prior to curfew This can add 5-10 additional daily morning take-off slots per runway First-morning flights are the most valuable for business travelers Premium slots sell for $3 million or more Aircraft Positions when curfew is lifted WheelTug Aircraft Non-WheelTug Aircraft

BUSINESS REVIEW

Delivery Slots Reserved

Technical Achievement 14 12 Technical Progression Traction on Oil 10 8 APU Power In-Wheel Demo 6 4 Traction on Snow 2 Motor Technology 0 Arizona 2005 Prague 2010 Prague 2012

Part nerships 16 Partnerships 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Total Net Savings/ Year Total Airline Value $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 WheelTug Twist $1,000,000 Time $500,000 $0 Fuel Pushback Fuel Pushback Engine Wear Engine Wear Time Estimated Net NEO/Max Savings Twist

WheelTug s Competitive Advantages 1. Unique Technology 2. Simpler Solution, Faster to Market 3. Patent Protection It s not easy to package the elephant in the nose wheel. Until WheelTug did it, everyone knew it could not be done! Competitors are focused on the main gear WheelTug nose gear location eliminates brake complexity and heat interference; enables faster certification. EIS 2014 Safran/Honeywell EIS 2016-2017 L3/Crane EIS 2016-2017 OUT DLR designed a demonstrator using fuel cells Airbus continues to examine mainwheel approach 85+ WheelTug patents pending or issued, + international coverage In 2009, WheelTug s parent company met and won a patent challenge

Comparing E-Taxi Solutions Main Landing Gear vs. Nose Landing Gear Fleet Retrofit Advantage? Nose Landing Gear A main landing gear E-taxi solution must work around brakes, sensors and other equipment. It is also further from the cockpit and E&E bay, requiring longer wire runs. A main landing gear system will be hard to integrate into the production line and even harder to retrofit on existing aircraft. As a simple retrofit, WheelTug is easy to remove, enabling customers to be compatible with lessor requirements. Commercial Value Advantage? Nose Landing Gear The nose landing gear won t heat the brakes. This enables the Twist, saving 15-20 minutes of taxi time. A main landing gear solution will be more expensive to install and harder to remove, creating commercial costs with its implementation. Safety & Certification Advantage? Nose Landing Gear A drive system on the nose landing gear won t heat brakes or produce EMI that can confuse anti-skid sensors. It is very hard to prove that an ipad can never interfere with aircraft navigational equipment. It will be far more challenging to prove that a powerful EMI source next to flight critical sensors will never have a safety impact. What about traction? We ve demonstrated traction in rain, on oil, and through snow.

Partners Every supplier and partner for the entire system is in place and working now Partners include: Recognized experts in landing gear design and analysis Safety critical embedded software include FADECs for Rolls-Royce engines on A400M, A380, and A350XWB Newport Aeronautical Landing Gear & Integration Software Cockpit Panel Certification Engineers and supplies cockpit control panels for all Airbus and Boeing aircraft Outstanding track record of successfully managing complex certification programs for the world's largest aerospace firms Parker Aerospace wheel and brake systems are used by virtually all of the world s leading business and general aviation aircraft manufacturers, as well as producers of regional aviation aircraft, military and commercial helicopters, trainers, and unmanned aerial vehicles

Risk-Sharing Partnerships WheelTug s partnerships are all on a risk-sharing basis Partners and subcontractors are experienced and ISO9001/AS9100 compliant for facilitating FAA acceptance of quality systems in issuance of PMA Risk-sharing partners accept responsibility for their specific component development and certification Note that WheelTug will be relying on bilateral agreements to obtain certification with other worldwide regulatory authorities (EASA, JCAB, Transport Canada, etc.)

Partner Snapshot Mechanical

WheelTug s EIS: Q2 2015

Summary WheelTug: Significantly cuts costs while simplifying operations Saves airlines money from Day One WheelTug has: Strong patent protection A world-class group of risk-sharing partners The simplest and most realistic E-Taxi product Airlines can use slot reservations as a low-risk way to secure WheelTug benefits Lease terms, based on principle of splitting savings, will be negotiated 6 months prior to system delivery

Appendix Slides Flight Weight

Flight Weight WheelTug adds 300 pounds in dry weight But that is not the complete story

Taxi Time Distribution Atlanta, March 2008 Expected Taxi Time Margin Taxi Time Occasional Taxi Time

Taxi Time Distribution Example Taxi Time (min) Expected 15 Occasional 30 Margin 15

Translating Time Fuel + 25 lbs/min 4 lbs/min

Taxi Fuel Distribution (To Meet Minimums @ Take-off) Expected Taxi Fuel Margin Taxi Fuel Not Normally Used Carry Cost Occasional Taxi Fuel

Minimum Fuel @ Take-Off FAR Section 121.639 No person may dispatch or take off an airplane unless it has enough fuel a) To fly to the airport to which it is dispatched; b) Thereafter, to fly to and land at the most distant alternate airport (where required) for the airport to which dispatched; and c) Thereafter, to fly for 45 minutes at normal cruising fuel consumption or, for certificate holders who are authorized to conduct day VFR operations in their operations specifications and who are operating nontransport category airplanes type certificated after December 31, 1964, to fly for 30 minutes at normal cruising fuel consumption for day VFR operations. When the airplane is fueled at the gate, potential fuel requirements during taxi (without dipping below the minimum) must be loaded!

Example Taxi Fuel Distribution (To Meet Minimums @ Take-off) + Taxi Time (min) Fuel @ 25 lbs/min Fuel @ 4 lbs/min Expected 15 375 60 Occasional 30 750 120 Margin 15 375 60 Margin Savings: 315 lbs (375 60)

Flight Weight Breakeven Fuel Plan Conventional With WheelTug Planned Fuel 25875 25560 Minimum Fuel 25000 25000 Margin Taxi Fuel 375 60 WheelTug reduces flight weight @ 15 min of dual-engine taxi margin fuel Other Fuel 500 500

Flight Weight Savings

Next-Gen Cockpit Panel