PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Rotorheads (https://www.pprune.org/rotorheads-23/)
-   -   UK Coastguard SAR - Bristow out?? (https://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/196958-uk-coastguard-sar-bristow-out.html)

Tokunbo 11th Dec 2005 20:45

Congratulations to CHC. I hope they will do as good a job as Bristow has over the years. I'm sure many of the crews will move over anyway and every one of them will do a thoroughly professional job.
Years ago when Bristow first started flying Coastguard contracts there were concerns as to whether civil crews could do the job that had been the exclusive domain (in UK) of the military for so long. There had also been concerns about the S61 (blade spindles and various other matters), but over the years both Bristow and the S61 proved themselves up to the demanding task. There will surely be some pitfalls along the way, but I'm sure that CHC and the S92 will eventually prove to be, not only up to the job, but show that a new era in SAR is starting. Fortune favours the brave, so good luck to all in a brave new venture :ok:

SASless 11th Dec 2005 20:48

The PR blitz that was done against the Chinook had nothing to do with the crash at all. The PR blitz did poison a lot of minds about the aircraft prior to the crash. It is interesting to note a couple of people survived that crash and none survived similar catastrophic failures of 61's in Norwegian waters and they still fly today. Key there....no axe job had been done on the 61.

There were good valid reasons the Old Man did not want to invest lots of money in the Chinook and that was part of the motivation for dissing the aircraft.

In the current case....who knows what is going on?

I was always taught the worst sales pitch is demeaning your competition and their product and the better pitch is in selling your services, product, and ability to service your client/customer.

For sure....if your competition is doing the latter and you are not...they will be successful to your detriment.

Free and open competition is the key to a healthy industry....seems the losers have to sharpen up their tools in order to remain competitive.

Snarlie 12th Dec 2005 15:28

The PR blitz against the Chinook is surely a figment of SASLess` very fertile imagination. Bristow conducted an in depth study of the Chinook as it did with the Super Puma. It was felt that, whilst the range and payload were impressive, it would create problems for oil installations having that number of passengers descend on them at one go and numerous installations would have to upgrade their helidecks to take the beast. In addition, the attractions of so called new technology and improved safety features of the AS 332 scored over the BV 234.

At the end of the day, the deciding factor was cost and Aerospatiale, as they were in those days, offered a huge discount for the 35 machines ordered.

In practice, the decision was justified on many levels. Not only did the BV 234 not live up to its performance specifications through mechanical shortcomings but it proved hugely unpopular with the bears. Anyone who witnessed passengers boarding would compare it to the most undignified rush for Ryanair or Easyjet in order to avoid certain seats. The levels of vibration were unacceptably high for public transport sectors. As part of a trial, some pilots were invited to fly with rectal thermometers in place to assess body core temperature as a result of excess vibration.

The point is that the BV 234 did itself in without any help from anyone else.

As regards the point of the thread, I am at a loss to understand why anyone would think that the S92 would not cut it as an SAR platform or, indeed, the AB 139. What performance problems could the 139 possibly have?

HeliComparator 12th Dec 2005 17:36

This is how I see it.

The 92 and 139 are probably both going to be good aircraft once some teething problems are ironed out - on the 92 at any rate, the 139 is too new to know what the teething problems will be. I think the point at issue here is the progression from a crew-change type aircraft to a SAR one.

For example, do the 92 and 139 have tried and tested auto-trans down / hover? No doubt its in the sales brochure but does it actually exist in a certified flying state yet? And does it work reliably? Do they have dual hoist installations in service now?

I am not saying the answers to these questions is "no" but it seems likely that if you are the first to fit the high tech options, there are bound to be problems. Therefore it is rightly considered by some to be a fairly high technical risk to go this way.

Especially if you are the one floating about in the water waiting to be rescued in fog etc!

Of course to remain with existing technology ad infinitum is ludditism, but surely the compromise is to ensure that the kit will do what it says on the label before committing to using it in anger. In other words, if I were the MCA I would have commissioned a trial on the kit before going firm on its use (a bit like BP did with Jigsaw). Effective SAR requires the combination of well-sorted kit and well-sorted crews, and that takes time to develop with new kit, new crews and new (to them) procedures.

By the way Snarlie, the performance issue with the 139 is its range / endurance not its OEI lifting capability - the latter being tremendous (Oh dear that's bound to set Nick off on another one of his rants.......)

HC

SASless 12th Dec 2005 20:26

Snarlie,

I was around during the times the Chinook was coming on line with Brand X, and I recall reading plenty of news articles about them and why they were being considered unsuitable.

I do not disagree with the basic underlying economics of the decision....and the Old Man as usual was proven right. They are very expensive...and by sheer size dictate limited ways of utilization in order to be successful.

This is an article that was done by FI on the 25th Anniversiary of Bristow....and now slightly over 25 years later since the article was written....it makes for an interesting bit of reading. Some of the issues he discusses have come to pass and others he was flat wrong on.

The one thing he was right on....Bristow did not have a fleet of Chinooks to get rid of when the need for them went away...and the competitors did.

As I recall even the Tiger had performance issues....something about pulling too much pitch and wearing out main transmissions at a heck of a rate until the cruise power settings were reduced. That kind of problem is not limited to the Chinook. How long is the Chinook destined to be in service with the RAF and US Army....till 2050 is it? Where are all the Pumas?

Columbia has made a fortune operating them so we cannot say they are unsafe nor economically viable machines.

http://209.196.171.35/article_flight25.htm

arm the floats 13th Dec 2005 09:19

CHC awarded UK search and rescue contract
VANCOUVER, Dec. 13 /CNW/ - CHC Helicopter Corporation ("CHC")
(TSX: FLY.SV.A and FLY.MV.B; NYSE: FLI) confirmed today it has been awarded a
five-year contract by the United Kingdom Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA)
to provide commercial Search and Rescue helicopter services from four bases in
the UK commencing July 1, 2007.
The aircraft to be deployed on the contract are the Sikorsky S-92 and the
Agusta Bell AB139. CHC's European Operating Division will operate two S-92s at
Stornoway, two S-92s at Sumburgh, two AB139s at Lee-on-Solent and one AB139 at
Portland. The service will operate on a 24/7 basis at Sumburgh, Stornoway and
Lee-on-Solent, and on a day-time basis at Portland, in line with current
cover.
The introduction of new S-92 and AB139 aircraft will increase the
Coastguard's operating range and speed. In addition a new range of
technological equipment will be added to maximise effectiveness in search and
rescue work.
CHC currently provides search and rescue and emergency helicopter
services in Ireland, Africa, Australia and Norway. This new contract will
further strengthen CHC's position as world leader in civilian offshore search
and rescue helicopter services and enhance its reputation for providing
expert, cost-effective alternatives to government-run Coast Guard services.
CHC Helicopter Corporation is the world's largest provider of helicopter
services to the global offshore oil and gas industry, with aircraft operating
in more than 30 countries around the world.

Snarlie 13th Dec 2005 10:32

SASLess

I was also around at the time the BV 234 was introduced by Brand X and, as I recall, many of the articles to which you refer appeared in that well known bugle of the offshore worker, the Press and Journal, prompted by passenger reaction.

The Tiger did indeed suffer from over-hyped Gallic marketing and the reduction in collective pitch setting did affect the cruise speed by some 10 knots but only after the BV 234 had had a precautionary limit of 120 knots placed on it following a series of gearbox problems. I distinctly remember an official complaint by a Brand X crew that a Tiger had deliberately overtaken them on the outbound leg and lowered the gear as it passed in salute!

SASless obviously feels as protective towards the BV 234 as I did towards the S61N but even he would have to admit that as a lifter and shifter it is beyond comparison but as a passenger transport it was not a success. The fact that the oil companies dumped it so quickly, largely on passenger feedback emphasises the view,

Columbia are using them in their primary role which is lifting and shifting.

HeliComparator need not worry too much about exposure to glitches in new technology in the S92 and AB 139 in the SAR role. As has been the case for some time now, there exists a fully operational tried and tested SAR machine available 24 hours a day in the shape of the EH 101 Merlin. In the unlikely event of the S92 or AB 139 not producing the goods the MCA could just call in the Navy!

rjsquirrel 13th Dec 2005 16:57

Helicomparitor,

I remember reading those "rants" between you two guys and IIRC, you said that the size of the windows is more important than the crashworthiness of the fuel system, fuselage and seats. Nice logic, except to your passengers! Combined with the opinions in your above post, it is little wonder why you and that grandfathered old 225 lost this contract!

Now you will get to watch those S-92's fly past your Bristow windows, I guess.

SARowl 13th Dec 2005 17:37

A quote from 'running in' from the Military forum about SAR, the S92 and AB139.

"I agree that the S92 is a contender for harmonization, but not the current S92A.

In 4 years time a civil S92B will be a spin off from the Canadian Cyclone S92. For a good SAR machine the S92 will need some more power, so the CT7-8C not the current -8A. It will need more payload, the basic S92 is very heavy and so a weight increase above the current 26,500 lb will be needed - so perhaps a new gearbox as well?

The proposed fly by wire version will be nice and improve handling qualities. Also a 5 bladed head to reduce the vibration.

So, the S92B will be a contender but it won't be around for a few years yet.

vecvechookattack

When you hang a hoist (or two), a FLIR & Skyshout off the side..fill up the back with SAR kit, the fast and agile AB 139 will be a bit more sluggish. You can't squeeze a quart into a pint pot!

RI"

HeliComparator 13th Dec 2005 18:07

RJ

Actually the rant I was referring to was the one about the tradeoff between OEI power and cruise fuel consumption, and IIRC Nick and I pretty much agreed on that one - I just didn't really want to hear it all again.

As to your snipe about the 225 (which I don't recall anyone talking about in this thread) as far as I am aware no-one tendered the 225 on this contract. The 92 will not be passing Bristow's windows because they will not be at Bristow bases.

So overall I would say that everything in your post is incorrect. Maybe you should consider sticking to what the USA does best, such as indefinitely detaining without charge and torturing of foreign citizens, refusing to take any interest in trying to limit climate change whilst being the biggest culprit, dumping heavily subsidised cotton onto the global market resulting in starvation in Africa, and most outrageous of all, the blind belief that good-old-USA-home-grown-products are the best (one only has to compare European cars to USA ones to see how laughable that concept is!) which of course stems from a complete lack of appreciation that anything exists outside their country's border

HC

ps - will I get a row for bringing xenophobic politics into it.....?

SASless 13th Dec 2005 18:39


So overall I would say that everything in your post is incorrect. Maybe you should consider sticking to what the USA does best, such as indefinitely detaining without charge and torturing of foreign citizens, refusing to take any interest in trying to limit climate change whilst being the biggest culprit, dumping heavily subsidised cotton onto the global market resulting in starvation in Africa, and most outrageous of all, the blind belief that good-old-USA-home-grown-products are the best (one only has to compare European cars to USA ones to see how laughable that concept is!) which of course stems from a complete lack of appreciation that anything exists outside their country's border
Just what was said by RJ that promted these comments?

Wife being a bit coy lately or something?

Let's compare British cars to European cars shall we....or to Japanese cars.

rotor-rooter 13th Dec 2005 19:09

I think HeliComparator's greater problem may be that there is nothing flying by his window.

His contribution to the outcome may be in a very different way to that being discussed, but his participation in this once great company may be directly related to the outcome - hence his bitterness! Can anyone say early retirement?

Mind you, if past experience is anything to be considered, he will probably be working for the competition in short order, the same as some of the other past senior management who have either retired or otherwise gone away.

Then he will be cheerfully extolling the virtues of the selected types. ;)

HeliComparator 13th Dec 2005 19:10

SAS (who, having spent many years in Europe and Africa, I concede has probably worked out that there is something beyond USA's border)


Just what was said by RJ that promted these comments?
His post was an irrelevant snipe which I treated with the contempt it deserved


Wife being a bit coy lately or something?
Not married


Let's compare British cars to European cars shall we....or to Japanese cars.
Why? I though the comparison was with European and American helis, not British. Anyway, do we make cars? I didn't think so. But if we do, the Brits are not stupid enough to buy them. That's the difference.

HC

rjsquirrel 13th Dec 2005 22:21

SARowl,

I don't know who "running in" is but he has it pretty wrong. I hear the Canadian Cyclone S-92 helo is an S-92A in its entire drive train, including engines. The fuselage has the tail fold, too.

The FBW will be a significant difference, but not because it makes the aircraft handle "better." I once flew a Commanche simulator at Ft. Rucker, fly by wire makes the aircraft able to be hand hovered in zero zero conditions. This should be available in the civil version, I will bet, once pilots see what it does.

In its ability to perform a SAR mission, the S-92A outperforms the EH-101 and Sea King in every measure of SAR fitness, including hover performance, tail rotor authority, Hoist suitability, payload, range and speed. Wait for the S-92B if you'd like, you can stand next to helicomparitor and look out that window to watch the S-92A's fly by in the mean time.

And helicomparitor, slap Americans around if you want, but I seem to remember some of your lot pissing around a bit, eh?

My Dad was based in England during the War, but maybe next time, we just might hold back and let the bad guys cross the channel and teach you a new language. It might do you some good, look what mean things you say with the old one!

212man 14th Dec 2005 05:06

Leaving the cotton subsidies and the future harmonisation of Europe to one side, for a moment, I'm puzzled (not difficult!) as to why the two England SAR contracts are not part of this change? I had (obviously erroneously) thought that the status quo would remain until about 2010 when the whole SAR situation would change and the existing Military operations would probably become civilian or part civilian.

Is the MCA going to have two separate contractors providing their SAR cover, what likelyhood would there be of BHL retaining Lee and Portland when those contracts come up and are they due at different times? :confused:

212man 14th Dec 2005 07:03

I guess this answers my own questions, but probably raises a few more!

https://mcanet.mcga.gov.uk/public/c4...h=12&year=2005

JKnife 14th Dec 2005 08:52

What I'd like to know is how CHC plan to make any money out of this contract? £100million for seven new helicopters plus all the spares support and all the other add-ons? Then there are the start-up costs, salaries, insurance, etc, etc. Surely this must be a lost-lead contract in the hope that they will get more in 2012? A brave move, especially if it goes wrong!

I see that the start date is 1 July 2007, but hasn't Bristow already been told that they will be extended to 2008? Why is that if CHC are to start in 2007?

running in 14th Dec 2005 09:52

rjsquirrel

Some info for you:
http://www.airforce-technology.com/p...awk/index.html

Apart from the Statue of Liberty, the brief French occupation of the USA seems to have given you their arrogance gene and a chip off both shoulders.

Did I see you in the film Deliverance?

RI

NickLappos 14th Dec 2005 11:11

running in,

That article describes the basic S-92 military version, and virtually all the data is also true for the civil S-92A (except for the fold, FBW and avionic equipment). The -8C engine is available for the military version, but the Canadian Cyclone has the 8A, which fills the transmission up to about 8,000 feet. The 8C is for ambients even higher. The article is basically correct, but the Canadian engine is not clearly specified, I do understand your confusion. (It is a marketer's delight, have many brand names for one product, and mix and match them as you wish - Cyclone, S-92A, Super Hawk, etc.)

I have no idea why helicomparitor is turning this into a "hate this country" thread, seems kind of small minded. Squirrel isn't helping, I must admit.

HeliComparator 14th Dec 2005 12:28

OK I need to correct my vitreolic posting: my remarks only apply to americans whose names include all the following letters:

l e r r i u q s j r

Apologies to any other americans I have offended (even though you did vote for Bush TWICE)

HC

SARowl 14th Dec 2005 16:41

212man et al,

Call me a cynic, but one of the reasons I believe CHC/Scotia have won the contract is to trial the S92. The contenders for the 2012 harmonisation contract are; S92, EC225, EH101 and NH90.

Bristow/BP have tested the EC225/AS332L2. The military have tested the EH101 and now at great expense to themselves CHC/Scotia are going to trial the S92.

Any bids for the NH90 anybody?

Decks 14th Dec 2005 17:12

Folks,
I think its much simpler than all of the above. HMCG got new techology at the best price. The loctaions will be the same and the crews will be very similar as CHC are a good outfit to work for. Yes the aircraft is new and yes it will have teething problems but I have NO doubt whatsoever that in time it 'll prove itself just fine now that its being given the chance.....
Just my tuppence....

SASless 14th Dec 2005 17:36

Are teething problems on par with maintenance problems with ageing airframes?

BHL did lose a 61 a while back....how does that situation stand up against the teething problems?

Please....am not suggesting anything beyond asking a comparison of "new" problems versus "old" problems.

Night Watchman 14th Dec 2005 19:45

HMCG got new techology at the best price.

I think they did better than that.

They got 7 brand new aircraft for a bargain basement price of £100 million for 5 years. Taking into account the 30 pilots, 30 aircrewmen and 30 engineers required and the maintenance plus running costs I'd say that CHC are now very kindly subsidising the UK Coastguard!!! Good for them!

CHC pay the best rates in the business, are constantly undercutting other companies on contracts and seem to slowly buying up every other operator in the world.

The only thing that would concern me about this is are CHC accepting loss leaders elsewhere on other contracts and where, eventually, is the money going to come from to pay for it all? Alternatively they could be the most efficient company in the world!

The other question I would ask is are ‘teething problems’ acceptable on a 24/7 SAR unit based in a remote part of Scotland? Discuss!

zebedee 14th Dec 2005 20:35

Apart from a recent rant, I tend to make quite boring responses - and this is likely to be no exception.
Take away the protectionism of previous comments and look at what CHC has done in civil SAR around the world.
Have there been ANY major problems?
Have they DONE THE JOB any worse than their military predecessors in the same environment?
Have they been successful in renewing miltary contracts?
Nick - were CHC (then Lloyd, or maybe BOND) the first users of auto-hover for civil SAR in the S-76 more than fifteen years ago?
Were they one of the first to use NVG in civil SAR missions?
Can anyone else smell the coffee?
Zeb.

Variable Load 15th Dec 2005 02:23

CHC are now very kindly subsidising the UK Coastguard
 
Night Watchmen

You seem very sure that this is the case, but I'm not convinced. Some quick sums on the back of a fag packet for you, accompanied by a health warning that these are purely my assumptions and I have NO inside knowledge at all:

Purchase price for aircraft 65 mln.
10% per year Return on Investment = 6.5 mln

DOCs assuming 500-600 hrs/yr/aircraft (this figure may be too high?) = 4 mln

Staff costs using your numbers = 7 mln


Adding them all up and multiplying by 5 years gives a total of 87.5 mln.

That leaves a reasonable margin for overheads, insurance, mobilisation, base costs, etc.

It certainly won't be the most profitable contract ever signed, but I doubt it won't generate any profit at all unlike some other contracts in the past e.g. old Bond's BP contract.


HC, thanks for this :

even though you did vote for Bush TWICE

It really made my day :ok:

[email protected] 15th Dec 2005 07:44

Let's hope this new contract forms the basis for the 2012 one - CHC are at least looking to the future, the prospect of providing total UK SAR cover with the government footing the bill must be very attractive.
Since the RAF SARF is in tatters with serviceability problems, imminent contractorisation of engineering (with no visible contractor so far), an unneccesary move to Valley for the HQs and OCU and patchy and incoherent funding and support from IPTs, the sooner something definite (other than 'it'll be OK, we'll keep the Sea King limping along until 2017') is decided the better.

splodge 15th Dec 2005 08:19

CHC Places Order
 
FROM ROTORHUB....

"
Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation has signed a contract to provide four S-92™ helicopters to CHC Helicopter Corporation to perform commercial search-and-rescue (SAR) missions for the United Kingdom Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) beginning July 1, 2007. Sikorsky is part of United Technologies Corporation.

Under the five-year contract with the MCA, CHC will operate its S-92 fleet around-the-clock from coastal bases in Sumburgh, and Stornoway.

This marks the first time that the S-92, the world’s newest medium-lift helicopter, has been selected for a dedicated SAR mission. “The S-92’s modern technology, performance, and industry-leading safety standards make it superbly equipped for SAR,” said Jeffrey Pino, Sikorsky’s senior vice president for corporate strategy, marketing, and commercial programs.

Company founder Igor Sikorsky was inspired to build helicopters because he believed in their life-saving capabilities. Within the past year alone Sikorsky-built helicopters rescued thousands during the aftermaths of the Asian tsunami, Hurricane Katrina, and the earthquake in Pakistan. “Sikorsky helicopters have been saving lives for more than 60 years. We are proud that CHC has selected the S-92 to build upon this legacy,” Pino said.

CHC’s S-92s will be equipped with duals hoists, autopilot, coupled hover capability, and the new Rotor Ice Protection System (RIPS), which meets the Federal Aviation Administration’s latest and most stringent all-weather flight safety standards. RIPS allows the S-92 to launch into known icing conditions that might otherwise delay or cancel flight operations. The RIPS determines the temperature and moisture content of the surrounding environment and applies heat to the main and tail rotor blades to remove any ice buildup.

The S-92 is the first helicopter in the world certified by the European Aviation Safety Agency/ Joint Aviation Authorities (EASA/JAA) to the latest and most rigorous safety standards. The S-92 was also the first helicopter certified by the FAA to FAR Part 29 Transport Rotorcraft, Amendment 47, the latest U.S. safety regulations, which mirror the European standards.

The HH-92, a military variant of the S-92, is Sikorsky’s candidate in the United States Air Force’s Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR-X) replacement program. The HH-92 advanced weapons system offers the best combination of survivability, performance, interoperability, safety and cost for the vital CSAR-X mission.

The Canadian government has contracted for 28 MH-92 helicopters, designated the CH-148 Cyclone, to fulfill a variety of military maritime missions in support of support of North American and international security, including search-and-rescue, surveillance, passenger and cargo transfer, medical evacuations and tactical transport.

Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, based in Stratford, Conn., is a world leader in helicopter design, manufacturing and service. United Technologies Corporation, based in Hartford, Conn., provides a broad range of high-technology products and support services to the aerospace and building systems industries.

CHC Helicopter Corporation is the world's largest provider of helicopter services to the global offshore oil and gas industry, with aircraft operating in more than 30 countries around the world. CHC currently provides search and rescue and emergency helicopter services in Ireland, Africa, Australia and Norway.
"

I bet the BHL SAR crews are looking forward to getting their hands on these...... ;)

SARowl 15th Dec 2005 10:10

The S92 is only half the problem. Lee on Solent and Portland will be equiped with the smaller AB139. With a reduced load capacity, no place for a second hoist, parasite drag from the hoist/FLIR, is this the correct aircraft?

Yesterday, the crews at Lee did an excellent job rescuing a fisherman from the capsized hull of his vessel, then lifting 5 divers and 800lb of kit. How would the undersized AB139 have coped with that little lot?

GeneralMelchet 15th Dec 2005 10:48

As simply a keen observer and hopefully a non user of the SAR service can I ask a question?

Will there be an overlap in the Bristows and CHC contracts to allow crews to work up the new equipment while there still being the backup from the S61's in case of unforseen problems?

As I understand it the S-92A has never been used in the SAR role yet and the CHC helicopters will be the first with the SAR equipment fit - so there will be lots of scope for bugs that need ironed out in the early days. ( this is by no means a critisism - all new complex systems have bugs). Will CHC have a chance to iron out the bugs outwith the critical SAR mission?

P.S. Have the RAF/RN evaluated the Merlin for the SAr mission to replace the Seakings?

Night Watchman 15th Dec 2005 11:41

Variable Load

I don't disagree with your figures up to the 87.5 mln but that only leaves 12.5 mln .

You divide that figure by 5 thats 2.5 mln a year and divide it it by 4 bases thats 625,000 a year per base for overheads, insurance, mobilisation, base costs, etc.

I think you'd be lucky to get the insurance for 2.5mln a year for 7 aircraft operating SAR!

finalchecksplease 15th Dec 2005 14:18

It does not take a degree in economics to realise CHC Scotia have bid for this contract as a “loss leader” to be well placed to get the whole cake in 2012.
The sums don’t add up to a profitable contract, especially knowing Bristow bid was around £ 60 million with their paid for S61’s for the same period.
The future will tell if it was a worthwhile gamble for CHC and I bet the gloves are off between those two for future contracts.
At least it’s a “good cause” and not a multi billion oil company profiting from this battle over contracts this time.

feet dry 15th Dec 2005 16:10

Evening all,

Do not forget that the ABs will not be the only SAR helicopters on the south coast. The Belgians and the French are routinely used (as required) by HMCG, also the Seakings still at Wattisham and Culdrose. The S61 is/was a marvellous workhorse though.

feet dry sends.

boomerangben 15th Dec 2005 16:19

Where have all these numbers come from? £100 million, £60 million? I haven't seen the number quoted in any press release and I doubt either company is banding about what they tendered. And who's to say that CHC was cheaper than Bristow's? Maybe the DfT are happy to pay more for new technology? Maybe they are happy to pay more so that they get experience with another contractor? Maybe CHC have a really nice deal with suppliers for being lead customer for the SAR 92's/139's?

Night Watchman 15th Dec 2005 16:46

Boomerangben,

The £100 milion came from an MCA press release but I'm not sure where the £60 million came from.

Your point about getting experience of another operator in my humble opinion is very close to the mark particulary in the run up to harmonisation.

JKnife 15th Dec 2005 16:47

boomerangben

Not sure of the £60m quote for the BHL bid, but the £100m was stated in this news item from the BBC website (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...et/4524702.stm):

New £100m coastguard helicopters

The new helicopters will operate from July 2007
A deal worth more than £100m, will see the Coastguard replace its fleet of seven helicopters with faster aircraft.
The Maritime and Coastguard Agency will lease seven aircraft from a Canadian operator to provide coverage for the south coast of England and in Scotland.

The new aircraft will replace the seven helicopters operating from Scotland's Stornoway and Sumburgh Lee-on Solent, Hants, and Portland in Dorset.

The current Search and Rescue (SAR) fleet of S61Ns was designed in 1961.

The MCA said it has signed a five-year interim contract with Canadian helicopter operator CHC Scotia to lease four Sikorsky S92 helicopters and three Agusta Bell AB139s to provide coverage from July 2007 to 2012.

At some point there has to be a departure from existing aircraft otherwise we will end up with machines flying around on search and rescue that will be 60 or 70 years old

John Astbury, chief coastguard

Two S92s will be based at Stornoway, another two at Sumburgh, while two AB139s will be based at Lee-on Solent and one at Portland.

John Astbury, chief coastguard and director of maritime operations, said the deal was worth more than £100m.

He added: "The new aircraft are faster and will have greater endurance and this demonstrates the UK Government's commitment to search and rescue in the UK.

"The S61N, as the name indicates, were born in 1961, so they are approaching more than 40 years old at the moment. Although they are efficient aircraft they are very old machines.

"At some point there has to be a departure from existing aircraft otherwise we will end up with machines flying around on search and rescue that will be 60 or 70 years old and I think that it's entirely unacceptable to members of the public."

Angus MacNeil, Scottish National Party MP for Na h-Eileanan An Iar (The Western Isles), raised concerns about the suitability of the Sikorsky.

He said: "It is a shame that there was no opportunity for parliament to scrutinise the effectiveness and the suitability of the new S92 helicopters as this has a direct effect on safety and wellbeing around our coasts."

NickLappos 15th Dec 2005 17:39

The economics of this deal do not seem very harsh, to me. I think we are all ingrained with typical military thinking, where everything costs lots and lots:

In order:

7 aircraft use for 5 years each. Typical dry lease arrangements would be less than 1M per year per aircraft to place them on station, buy them, and set up hangar/shop kits. That is $35M for the fleet

Typical need would be 5 pilots per aircraft and 5 mechanics? Plus maybe 3 more admin/shop/schedule per aircraft? Call that 13 people per aircraft, full time. 13 x 7 x 5 = 455 man years. At about $150,000 per manyear ($75 per hour, including all benefits) that is $68 million.

If one assumes 250 hours per year, fuel is at $4 per gallon, that is $900 per hour, plus $1000 per hour for maintenance (atan assumed power by the hour rate) you gat 1900 x 250 x 7 = $3.3 Million
Assume insurance at 4% per hull value per year = $19 million X .04 X 7 x 5 = 26.6 Million

I don't know if the hangar is provided, or is paid for, lets assume each aircraft costs $50 K per year to hangar = 50K x 7 x 5 = $1.75 Million

Totals 35 + 68 + 3.3 + 26.6 + 1.75 = $135 million

Add 20% profit = 1.2 x 135 = $161 million
Convert to British pounds = 161/1.76 = 92 million pounds.

Buy a hedge for the dollar vs pound at 2 Million, and laugh all the way to the bank, with 7 million pounds for incidentals and unplanned expenses.

PS I did not assume the AB-139 was cheaper, but it should be about 70% of the S-92 costs all the way around, making the above calculations conservative, by far.

Rotorbike 15th Dec 2005 17:51

8 pilots, 8 crewmen and 8 engineers required for a CHC SAR roster.

NickLappos 15th Dec 2005 17:57

Rotorbike, thanks, I will amend the estimate, what about the pay rates? Can you tell me what the typical annula salary is for the pilots, crewman and engineer?

I assumed everything else on the list, feel free to comment.

Dave_Jackson 15th Dec 2005 18:07

Financial information
 
CHC taking on more debt to finance new aircraft, personnel


All times are GMT. The time now is 21:29.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.