CAT medium helicopter operational costs
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
From: Europe
CAT medium helicopter operational costs
As a professional pilot, luckily I've always been paid to fly, and not having been a manager I just have a rough idea of the operational cost of a helicopter used for CAT.
I could compare different types for their performance, flying quality, etc... from a pilot's point of view, but I don't know which type is the most profitable for a company to transport passengers.
For instance, let's say in the O&G related services, is it worth to operate an S92 that can carry a certain number of pax and cargo or is an AH175 more efficient although smaller? Or what's the cost of an hour in a AW189 compared to the AW139?
Anyone wants to share some data?
Thank you
I could compare different types for their performance, flying quality, etc... from a pilot's point of view, but I don't know which type is the most profitable for a company to transport passengers.
For instance, let's say in the O&G related services, is it worth to operate an S92 that can carry a certain number of pax and cargo or is an AH175 more efficient although smaller? Or what's the cost of an hour in a AW189 compared to the AW139?
Anyone wants to share some data?
Thank you
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 595
Likes: 58
From: UK
As a professional pilot, luckily I've always been paid to fly, and not having been a manager I just have a rough idea of the operational cost of a helicopter used for CAT.
I could compare different types for their performance, flying quality, etc... from a pilot's point of view, but I don't know which type is the most profitable for a company to transport passengers.
For instance, let's say in the O&G related services, is it worth to operate an S92 that can carry a certain number of pax and cargo or is an AH175 more efficient although smaller? Or what's the cost of an hour in a AW189 compared to the AW139?
Anyone wants to share some data?
Thank you
I could compare different types for their performance, flying quality, etc... from a pilot's point of view, but I don't know which type is the most profitable for a company to transport passengers.
For instance, let's say in the O&G related services, is it worth to operate an S92 that can carry a certain number of pax and cargo or is an AH175 more efficient although smaller? Or what's the cost of an hour in a AW189 compared to the AW139?
Anyone wants to share some data?
Thank you
To name a few:
lease cost agreement of said aircraft
aircraft owned outright by operator
Maintenance agreements
charging by the seat or the hour
prepaid flying hours / service charge
Charging from rotors or taxi
Operational costs
Client requirements on currency / qualifications of crew
The list is literally endless.. and all goes into the cost of the aircraft to run to a customer.
Depending on the customer the aircraft to customer x could be 1 and the exact same flight to customer y could be 2...
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 268
Likes: 0
From: Florida
Theres no straight forward answer to this, theres numerous factors that come into play.
To name a few:
lease cost agreement of said aircraft
aircraft owned outright by operator
Maintenance agreements
charging by the seat or the hour
prepaid flying hours / service charge
Charging from rotors or taxi
Operational costs
Client requirements on currency / qualifications of crew
The list is literally endless.. and all goes into the cost of the aircraft to run to a customer.
Depending on the customer the aircraft to customer x could be 1 and the exact same flight to customer y could be 2...
To name a few:
lease cost agreement of said aircraft
aircraft owned outright by operator
Maintenance agreements
charging by the seat or the hour
prepaid flying hours / service charge
Charging from rotors or taxi
Operational costs
Client requirements on currency / qualifications of crew
The list is literally endless.. and all goes into the cost of the aircraft to run to a customer.
Depending on the customer the aircraft to customer x could be 1 and the exact same flight to customer y could be 2...
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
From: Europe
I understand there isn't a simple answer.
let's try to make it easier.
The helicopters would be owned by the operator, in Europe, already paid. The route/customer they'll fly would be the same. Hangar or airport fees the same. Personnel costs should be quite similar (salaries, training,...)
So basically I'm thinking about maintenance costs, fuel eficiency, insurance, and maybe something else I'm missing.
let's try to make it easier.
The helicopters would be owned by the operator, in Europe, already paid. The route/customer they'll fly would be the same. Hangar or airport fees the same. Personnel costs should be quite similar (salaries, training,...)
So basically I'm thinking about maintenance costs, fuel eficiency, insurance, and maybe something else I'm missing.
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,330
Likes: 74
From: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Do not let the operator own the aircraft - they should be owned by a separate company then leased to the operator. This would be for liability purposes.
The magic number to break even is around 500 revenue hours per year.
This may help you establish a breakeven point:
In looking at costs per type you need to be looking into things like costs per seat mile.
Also, most important:
There is no such thing as a cheap helicopter!
Which applies to maintenance as well; if you save money one year, expect to spend it the next, in which case, be wary of buying machines with low hours - very often the maintenance will not have been kept up to date and it will be easier to buy a new engine.
The magic number to break even is around 500 revenue hours per year.
This may help you establish a breakeven point:
In looking at costs per type you need to be looking into things like costs per seat mile.
Also, most important:
There is no such thing as a cheap helicopter!
Which applies to maintenance as well; if you save money one year, expect to spend it the next, in which case, be wary of buying machines with low hours - very often the maintenance will not have been kept up to date and it will be easier to buy a new engine.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 1,358
Likes: 3
From: NEW YORK
Do not let the operator own the aircraft - they should be owned by a separate company then leased to the operator. This would be for liability purposes.
The magic number to break even is around 500 revenue hours per year.
This may help you establish a breakeven point:
In looking at costs per type you need to be looking into things like costs per seat mile.
Also, most important:
There is no such thing as a cheap helicopter!
Which applies to maintenance as well; if you save money one year, expect to spend it the next, in which case, be wary of buying machines with low hours - very often the maintenance will not have been kept up to date and it will be easier to buy a new engine.
The magic number to break even is around 500 revenue hours per year.
This may help you establish a breakeven point:
In looking at costs per type you need to be looking into things like costs per seat mile.
Also, most important:
There is no such thing as a cheap helicopter!
Which applies to maintenance as well; if you save money one year, expect to spend it the next, in which case, be wary of buying machines with low hours - very often the maintenance will not have been kept up to date and it will be easier to buy a new engine.
I'd think 500 is more the right number.
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 927
Likes: 12
From: Germany
Well, it all depends...
I.e. insurance - if you have to insure, so that you can get a replacement helicopter after a crash - that will cost you some money
If you only have to insure third party damages - you can save a lot of money.
I know an operator (with a good maintenance facility), who can buy a helicopter every two to three years from the money saved on insurance, as long, as there isn't a total write off in that time.
(he is running more than one helicopter so)
I.e. insurance - if you have to insure, so that you can get a replacement helicopter after a crash - that will cost you some money
If you only have to insure third party damages - you can save a lot of money.
I know an operator (with a good maintenance facility), who can buy a helicopter every two to three years from the money saved on insurance, as long, as there isn't a total write off in that time.
(he is running more than one helicopter so)
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
From: Europe
Ok. Let's put it this way.
I want to go from A to B, distanced.... 60 NM, in a helicopter and carry the most pax I can in the most efficient (cheap) way. Which one would you choose?
I could carry 57 pax in a 189 in 3 trip, the same in an S92. I could carry 60 in a 139 but in 4 trips.
So, what do you think?
I want to go from A to B, distanced.... 60 NM, in a helicopter and carry the most pax I can in the most efficient (cheap) way. Which one would you choose?
I could carry 57 pax in a 189 in 3 trip, the same in an S92. I could carry 60 in a 139 but in 4 trips.
So, what do you think?
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 876
Likes: 0
From: Inside the Industry
Milo
Even with an owned aircraft, its important to charge an internal lease rate for replacement provision. Otherwise, one is confusing revenue with profit. PM me with your email, I have some recent OEM info which will solve your conundrum.
The helicopters would be owned by the operator, in Europe, already paid. The route/customer they'll fly would be the same. Hangar or airport fees the same. Personnel costs should be quite similar (salaries, training,...)
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 518
Likes: 50
From: London/Atlanta
Ok. Let's put it this way.
I want to go from A to B, distanced.... 60 NM, in a helicopter and carry the most pax I can in the most efficient (cheap) way. Which one would you choose?
I could carry 57 pax in a 189 in 3 trip, the same in an S92. I could carry 60 in a 139 but in 4 trips.
So, what do you think?
I want to go from A to B, distanced.... 60 NM, in a helicopter and carry the most pax I can in the most efficient (cheap) way. Which one would you choose?
I could carry 57 pax in a 189 in 3 trip, the same in an S92. I could carry 60 in a 139 but in 4 trips.
So, what do you think?
Sorry to be negative 😳
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
From: Europe
Thank you all for your replies, guys.
I might have been misunderstood. I'm not really trying to set an operation. I wish I could invest any money into something. I feel happy I can still pay my bills.
I'm just trying to know which helicopter of the ones currently seen around, is more cost effective.
But thanks again
I might have been misunderstood. I'm not really trying to set an operation. I wish I could invest any money into something. I feel happy I can still pay my bills.
I'm just trying to know which helicopter of the ones currently seen around, is more cost effective.
But thanks again
Joined: Feb 2001
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 448
Likes: 7
From: Sometimes here, sometimes there
I totally get what you are asking, but I would also suggest you are approaching the equation initially from the wrong direction. The starting point should be "how many passengers do I need to move?".
If you want to move 36, then a 139/189/175 will need three trips. An S92/225 would only require two and therefore wins
If you want to move 32, then the financially equation swings in favour of the 189/175.
The numbers to answer your real question are obviously known by some, but here isn't where you will find them as they are commercially sensitive
For "public domain" info, do a search for Conklin & de Decker, then get hold of a credit card
If you want to move 36, then a 139/189/175 will need three trips. An S92/225 would only require two and therefore wins
If you want to move 32, then the financially equation swings in favour of the 189/175.
The numbers to answer your real question are obviously known by some, but here isn't where you will find them as they are commercially sensitive
For "public domain" info, do a search for Conklin & de Decker, then get hold of a credit card
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,330
Likes: 74
From: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
The picture above is just a representation, and how to do the calculation - it does not mean that you will necessarily break even at 150 hours....
Don't forget that with too many flights in a day, hotel bills might be important.
Don't forget that with too many flights in a day, hotel bills might be important.
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
From: Europe
This is not trivial, because there are also differences in purchasing price and operating costs.
American Helicopters (Bell, Sikorsky): Very High purchasing price and high maintenance cost
Airbus: High purchasing price and low maintenance cost
Leonardo: Low purchasing price and very high maintenance cost.
So if you fly many hours per year, then an Airbus would be better, when you fly few hours, then Leonardo is better.
But then there is also the quality of service, availability of replacment parts, unsceduled down times, specifics about the size and shape of the cabin,...
There is a service conklin & decker, that makes comparable cost calculations (900$ per year)
American Helicopters (Bell, Sikorsky): Very High purchasing price and high maintenance cost
Airbus: High purchasing price and low maintenance cost
Leonardo: Low purchasing price and very high maintenance cost.
So if you fly many hours per year, then an Airbus would be better, when you fly few hours, then Leonardo is better.
But then there is also the quality of service, availability of replacment parts, unsceduled down times, specifics about the size and shape of the cabin,...
There is a service conklin & decker, that makes comparable cost calculations (900$ per year)
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
From: Europe
This is not trivial, because there are also differences in purchasing price and operating costs.
American Helicopters (Bell, Sikorsky): Very High purchasing price and high maintenance cost
Airbus: High purchasing price and low maintenance cost
Leonardo: Low purchasing price and very high maintenance cost.
So if you fly many hours per year, then an Airbus would be better, when you fly few hours, then Leonardo is better.
But then there is also the quality of service, availability of replacment parts, unsceduled down times, specifics about the size and shape of the cabin,...
There is a service conklin & decker, that makes comparable cost calculations (900$ per year)
American Helicopters (Bell, Sikorsky): Very High purchasing price and high maintenance cost
Airbus: High purchasing price and low maintenance cost
Leonardo: Low purchasing price and very high maintenance cost.
So if you fly many hours per year, then an Airbus would be better, when you fly few hours, then Leonardo is better.
But then there is also the quality of service, availability of replacment parts, unsceduled down times, specifics about the size and shape of the cabin,...
There is a service conklin & decker, that makes comparable cost calculations (900$ per year)
Very interesting.
Thanks