Is there a future for the offshore version of the Leonardo (Agusta) AW101?
 

With the EC / H225 down ( and out... ) and FLNG's being positioned on the seas, could there be an requirement for the offshore version of the AW101 ?

In a word, no.

I believe Hilife has it right - too expensive to certify, too expensive to operate/buy and not enough demand.

IT is too expensive with the present barrel price. The AW 189 and the H 175 will pick up what the H 225 left or the S 92 can not deliver. Operators and their clients also want to spread out the risk, not only having one model for most of the work.

Not sure when Airbus Helicopters will come up with a replacement for the 225, could be 2020-2022?

The thing is that as soon as the oilprice starts moving above 55-60$ then the fracking starts again where it is not doable today. That will keep the price down for the years to come.

IMHO the 101 is the best option (in artic areas) with a distance to the rigs of more than 1:40-2:00 hrs, but that is not going to happen unless the price goes above 150$/barrel.

It is also quite heavy. As far as I remember, most of the decks on the platforms I've frequented in the Danish sector is limited to 10500kg. I don't know if this is the hard limit or they just certified it for that.

212man, the AW101 is civil certified. Tokyo Police were the only buyer of the civil variant though (as far as I am aware).

Since then there have been numerous updates to the frame, so it would probably need some areas re-certified.

But yes, it is ridiculously expensive. If they could get the price point down, perhaps they would sell some civil models???

Fairly specialised too - as mentioned Arctic etc. but these environments are rather priced out currently. The AW139 etc are somewhat smaller/lighter than the Pumas so will probably be used where possible and the S92s where 19 up over range is needed.

Looking at the news of the Norway AW101 launch it seems it is quite a package. Does anyone know what a basic AW101 costs without all the whistles and bells?

Yes, I'm aware of that but only to FAR 29 amdt 30 (and BCARs), so recertifying to amdt 47 will be the costly bit.

I had experience flying this in the Military and left with low hours because of it. Fantastic airframe... when it is working. Performance wise it would certainly fill the gap the EC225 has left behind and if backed up by a good, well stocked stores package should do the job nicely.


However, surely the rumoured increase in MAUM of the S92 will be a potential improvement to the situation??

Escalating a baseline price from a few years back, it's IRO 37 M€ ($42 Mil). A figure of $55 Mil was mentioned in relation to Indonesia's aborted attempt to buy a VIP AW101, but this was almost certainly with all the bells and whistles.

HeliValue$ says that this compares to 22 M€ ($25 Mil) for a 225 and $31 Mil for a 92, though the former sounds excessively low.

I/C

I picked up a 92 from SK a couple of years ago and it was nowhere near 31 million closer to 26 as I recall.

Agreed, the HeliValue$ number for the S-92 is way too high. The actual base price in 2014 was $26 Mil, so maybe $27.5 Mil today. The 225 figure is probably closer to $27 Mil.

I/C

Would have liked to get the points for 26 million on my credit card LOL

Could be a niche player in some markets. Newfoundland is an example. A 6 seat S-92A to Flemish Pass is not sustainable beyond drilling.

FAR29 is at Amendment 55 but being European the certification basis would be CS-29. Just sayin.

...although the going rate for a 225 may have dropped somewhat...

I met with AW about 18 months ago and discussed exactly this. Going rate per ac was openly talked about for about $50m in O&G fit so those of you quoting that - bingo.

I view the 101 in the same way I view the Antonov 124, never going to be a big seller but less than 10 of them will probably be in full time employment for years doing runs into the Barents towards the Arctic (once Russia decides to stop being a d!ck on the global stage and the $ makes sense).

The O&G industry rarely ask questions the military haven't asked before so for ultra long range insertion, it's 101, CH53 or CH47, or tilt rotor. Once wells start being 250nm+ offshore (which they will do when the oil price justifies it), it will be looked at seriously. Until then, I can't see 101 happening, the economics don't justify it. A lease payment on a $50m ac would be about $400k a month, maybe a bit more. That's double what an S92 costs and 3.5x a Super Medium. If no one needs that extra 100nm offshore/ 5 people per movement, it's a pointless capability at the moment.

The DOC was also eye-watering last time I reviewed it against EC225/S92. Seem to recall it being more than double.

Shell fly their executives in three engined Dassault 7Xs. Surely they wouldn't skimp a few bucks on their guys for the extra redundancy, the super roomy cabin and a proper loss of oil capability?

Warning: the above post may contain sarcasm.

Rather an unfortunate turn of phrase when referring to a company that is getting rid of 12,500 staff! (Said without sarcasm!)