View Full Version: Heli operating cost

Military Nuts > General Discussion > Heli operating cost


Title: Heli operating cost


kotay - May 30, 2007 11:21 AM (GMT)
Something I'm lifting from another forum


Light helicopters

UH-1H: $835 per flight hour (1)

Huey II: $535 per flight hour (2)

S-76: $1,178 per flight hour (based on 2003 exchange rate of 7.7 $HK / USD) (6)

EC 155 Dauphin: $1,157 per flight hour (based on 2003 exchange rate of 7.7 $HK / USD) (7)



Medium-lift helicopters

UH-60 Blackhawk: $2,199 per flight hour (3)

Mi-17: $2,850 per flight hour (4) (based on Croatian currency)

AS 332 Super Puma: $1,883 per flight hour (based on 2003 exchange rate of 7.7 $HK / USD) (8)

CH-47D Chinook: $2,403 - $2,723 per flight hour (11)



Heavy-lift helicopters

CH-53E Super Stallion: $20,000 per flight hour (5)



Attack helicopters

AH-64 Apache: $3,851 per flight hour (9)

AH-1S Cobra: $1,569 - $1,757 per flight hour (10)

Callsign 24 Seira - May 30, 2007 02:21 PM (GMT)
Anybody have a clue whether this operating cost includes total cost of ownership (TCO) or amortisation of hardware and supporting infrastructure...... ?

Iowa_BB61 - May 31, 2007 04:28 AM (GMT)


QUOTE (Callsign 24 Seira @ 30 MAY 2007)

Anybody have a clue whether this operating cost includes total cost of ownership (TCO) or amortisation of hardware and supporting infrastructure... ?


From This.

QUOTE (Using A Helicopter @ Helis.Com (Helicopter History Site))

Calculating Operating Costs (Helicopters).

    The best way of doing this is to convert all costs into a proportion related to each hour of flight, which can in turn be calculated as a cost per mile. Such a formula can readily be adapted to local conditions, considering skills, maintenance practices, prices and accounting methods.

    There are two basic costs directly related to all aircraft: fixed and hourly costs. It is important when comparing such costs to make like- with-like comparisons. For example, some operators apportion crew costs as direct hourly rather than fixed costs; others will ignore unscheduled maintenance on a new machine, bearing in mind the warranty cover and good first year serviceability. Some company accountants prefer not to include overhaul reserves, on the assumption that the aircraft will be sold before reaching those hours.


Fixed Costs...

- These are usually calculated as annual costs, and are irrespective of the number of hours flown. They include items such as depreciation, insurance, taxes, crew costs, overheads, interest and capital equipment. This last figure will include facility, tooling, equipment and major components. The final figure will naturally vary with the type of helicopter and method of operation.

Hourly Costs...

- These are the costs that vary directly with the number of hours flown, and are considered under the following headings:
  • Fuel and Oil
  • Scheduled Maintenance Labour
  • Unscheduled Maintenance Labour

  • Engine Overhaul
  • Airframe Overhaul
  • Airframe Lifted Items

    Once you have calculated your fixed costs, the total cost per flight hour can be determined by combining them with hourly direct costs. This in turn may be converted into a cost per mile, which incidentally has been compared - using a pre-owned single turbine helicopter - to about the same as that charged by a London black cab.

    From the above you can see that total operating costs reduce as flying hours increase; that the fixed costs on a new machine are a large part of total costs (but may be reduced by using the lower capital cost of a used machine), and that direct costs for fuel play a large part. This is particularly true if a piston engined helicopter is envisaged - fuel is more than double that used in jet engines.


Iowa_BB61 - May 31, 2007 04:38 AM (GMT)


Taken from GAO Report: GAO/NSIAD-00-165 (HyperLink), dated August 2000.

user posted image

kotay - May 31, 2007 08:03 AM (GMT)
There is an aspect of the cost comparison table that I "copy & paste" that requires commenting ...

The table represents a merging of cost figures from 3 different agencies from 3 different countries. This will tend to distort the comparison as

i) Different Agencies may have different methods of deriving the cost and possibly also different economies of scale (or lack of) due to fleet size.
ii) Different Countries have different cost base such as different man-hour cost.

A more accurate way of structuring the table would have been NOT to merge the 3 different data sets together. So ...

Philippines
(figures from National Defense Magazine)

UH-1H: $835 per flight hour

Huey II: $535 per flight hour

UH-60 Blackhawk: $2,199 per flight hour



HK SAR
(Figures from Government Flying Service Report))
(based on 2003 exchange rate of 7.7 $HK / USD)

S-76: $1,178 per flight hour

Black Hawk: $1,662 per flight hour

EC 155 Dauphin: $1,157 per flight hour

AS 332 Super Puma: $1,883 per flight hour


US
(Figures from CEAC)

AH-1S Cobra: $1,569 - $1,757 per flight hour

AH-64A Apache: $3,454 - $3,756 per flight hour

CH-47D Chinook: $2,403 - $2,723 per flight hour

OH-58A/C Kiowa: $434 - $594 per flight hour

OH-58D Kiowa Warrior: $1,399 - $1,622 per flight hour

UH-1H Iroquois: $651 - $833 per flight hour

UH-60A Blackhawk: $2,419 - $2,668 per flight hour

UH-60L Blackhawk: $1,742 - $1,964 per flight hour


Using a common platform, the Blackhawk, it can be seen that the costs across countries varies significantly;

Philippines Blackhawk: $2,199 per flight hour
HK SAR Blackhawk: $1,662 per flight hour
US UH-60A Blackhawk: $2,419 - $2,668 per flight hour
US UH-60L Blackhawk: $1,742 - $1,964 per flight hour

kotay - May 31, 2007 08:15 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Iowa_BB61 @ May 31 2007, 12:28 PM)
From This

That's a very good outline of the primary differences between Cost per flight hour and Total Cost per flight hour. Thanks for the link.

BUT, in reply to Callsign's question of whether the figures posted above "includes total cost of ownership (TCO) or amortisation of hardware and supporting infrastructure", the answer is "No, they don't". They only cover Fuel and Maintenance costs.

The footnotes for the HK SAR Government Flying Service clarifies that ....

QUOTE
In 2001 and 2002, the recurrent cost per hour flown included maintenance and fuel costs and administrative overheads. From 2003 onwards, the recurrent cost per hour flown only refers to the direct operating cost which comprises maintenance and fuel costs to tie in with the general practice in the aviation industry.


Given that the HK figures do not include fixed cost and that the HK figures seem to lie in the general region of the other data sets. It is safe to assume that the figures above are all exclusive of TCO data.

In any case, TCO data is only relevant to the parent organisation as the biggest influence, platform price and depreciation schedule, is unique to each host entity.

Callsign 24 Seira - May 31, 2007 02:04 PM (GMT)
Hi Kotay & Iowa,
Thanks for the clarification....so basically the numbers are good indicators on operating costs of those named choppers (Fuel and Maintenance costs).



hmm....AH-64A Apache: US $3,454 - $3,756 per flight hour (Figures from CEAC)

exp <_<

xtemujin - July 28, 2010 01:06 AM (GMT)
Chinooks not returning to Canada after Afghan mission

Updated: Thu Jul. 22 2010 05:03:44

The Canadian Press

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan — Six aging Canadian Chinook helicopters that have become the pride of the air force in Afghanistan may not be headed to the scrap heap when the mission is over but they are not coming home either.

The CH-47D Chinooks, purchased from the United States with a price tag of $292 million a couple of years ago, have done yeoman's service since they began flying here early last year.

But with a plan to purchase 15 brand new CH-47F Chinooks there will be no need to bring home the aging fleet.

"Believe me, the value of those aircraft cannot be diminished. They will not be scrapped," explained Defence Minister Peter MacKay as he wrapped up a three-day visit to Afghanistan.

"We will turn them over. Most likely they'll go back to the company (Boeing) for resale. Possible consideration could be given for the purchase of the new F models that we will receive," he added.

The purchase of the new Chinooks will cost $2 billion plus an estimated contract value of $2.7 billion for 20 years of in-service support.

"We are, as you know, contracted to buy new Chinook aircraft so we'll be swapping them out but it is yet to be determined the fate of those particular aircraft. They will not come back to Canada," said MacKay.

MacKay couldn't say if Canada would receive credit from Boeing to offset the nearly $5 billion cost of the new Chinooks. He said there is little doubt that the current Chinooks will find a new home.

"There's still discussion on what the specific outcome of these discussions with Boeing will be" he said.

"There could be consideration given for new ones or there may be another country interested - in fact I'm led to believe there are a number of countries who are interested ... in buying those particular aircraft."

Gen. Walter Natynczyk, the chief of defence staff, said the 47-D models are fine right now but would create a host of problems if Canada tried to return them home.

"They have been invaluable. And while we're here we have the priority in terms of all the spare parts," he said.

"The moment those aircraft leave this theatre they will no longer have that kind of priority for spare parts. So maintaining them to the high level that we have here would be very difficult."

MacKay and Natynczyk kept a remarkably low profile during their visit to Kandahar and a number of outposts in the province.

MacKay said he is always impressed with the job that Canadian soldiers are doing in Afghanistan but he said there is no thought being given to any change in current plans to wrap up the mission.

"Let me be crystal clear - we will live and respect the parliamentary motion which calls for an end to them military mission in 2011, a ceasing of combat in July of 2011 and a complete withdrawal from Kandahar province in December of that same year," said MacKay.

"While I absolutely respect and admire what our soldiers have done in the mission, I am also duty bound as is the government to respect Parliament. We're here fighting for the preservation and promotion of democracy. We have to respect the democracy of our own country."

http://calgary.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTV...hub=CalgaryHome




Hosted for free by InvisionFree