Contracts announced for five additional air tankers

Brings the number of USFS air tankers on exclusive use contracts up to 18

Air Tanker 163, an RJ85
Air Tanker 163, an RJ 85, at Rapid City December 12, 2017.

The U.S. Forest Service announced on October 27 they intend to sign contracts with three companies to add five Next Generation large air tankers (LATs) to its fleet of firefighting fixed wing aircraft. If everything goes as they hope, the FS would have 18 LATs on exclusive use (EU) contracts beginning in 2021.

This contracting process for what the FS calls Next Generation 3.0 began November 19, 2018. The first attempt to award the five LAT contracts on March 26, 2020 was protested, so now seven months later they are trying again. The vendors who did not receive these new contracts will be debriefed, allowing them to ask why they were not selected. Then, if no additional protests are filed within 10 days of the October 27 announcement, actual contracts can be signed with the three contract recipients.

The companies selected for this Next Generation 3.0 contract:

  • Coulson Aviation: one B-737, Tanker #137.
  • Aero Flite: two RJ85s.
  • Erickson Aero Tanker: two MD-87s, two of these three: Tankers 102, 103, or 107

The companies will be given only a one year guaranteed contract, with the possibility of up to four more years at the discretion of the FS.

In a press release the FS claimed to have “met its goal to convert to a fully Next Generation Airtanker fleet with up to 35 airtankers .” The simple math is, there are 13 now on EU contracts, so adding five brings it up to 18. They can bring on additional LATs on Call When Needed arrangements if they are available, but in 2017 the average daily rate for large federal CWN air tankers was 54 percent higher than aircraft on EU contracts. During this COVID year when the FS needed to boost the number of LATs, they gave about seven companies hybrid CWN contracts for a total of 11 LATs that were basically EU, but for 90 days, rather than the typical 160-day EU Mandatory Availability Period. The rates they negotiated were generally less than the typical CWN rates. For a while they also activated four additional LATs on a true CWN basis, with no guarantee of days worked.

In addition to temporarily adding to the fleet by using CWN aircraft, the FS can under certain conditions use up to eight military C-130 aircraft that have been outfitted with a slip-in 3,000-gallon retardant tank, a Modular FireFighting System (MAFFS). A few more tankers have been borrowed from Canada, for example Convair 580s, Tanker 471 manufactured in 1958, and Tanker 474 manufactured in 1955.

Our opinion

The last year for the six air tankers on the Next Gen 1.0 contract will be 2022, according to my calculations. Since it takes the FS about two years to award an LAT contract, the agency should begin the process for Next Gen 4.0 immediately. If they don’t get it done, there will only be 12 LATs on EU contracts.

Next Gen 1.0 and Next Gen 2.0 were for five guaranteed years with up to five more at the discretion of the FS. The trend of the FS only issuing one year guaranteed contracts is disturbing. Last week in an interview with Fire Aviation, Dan Snyder, Senior Vice-President of Neptune Aviation, was asked about the one-year contracts:

“If that becomes the new USFS contacting model, I believe it will create a barrier to entry for other vendors due to the risks involved,” Mr. Snyder said. “It will also make long-term planning for aircraft acquisition, maintenance, training and hiring of staff, difficult even for the established vendors in aerial firefighting.”

If multiple large air tankers and helicopters could attack new fires within 20 to 30 minutes we would have fewer huge fires.

Fighting wildfires is a Homeland Security issue

The US Navy has 11 large nuclear-powered aircraft carriers that each cost $13 billion to build and carry 64 to 130 fighter jets.

Protecting our citizens and forests from wildfires is more important than sending our soldiers and trillions of dollars to fight wars in places that many people could not find on a map. Suppressing wildfires and managing federal forests to reduce the threat to our citizens is a Homeland Security issue and should be adequately funded. Firefighters need to be paid a living wage. You can’t fight fires on the cheap.

50 Type 1 Helicopters

Several years ago the largest helicopters on EU contracts, Type 1, were cut from 34 to 28. This number needs to be increased to 50.

40 Large Air Tankers

Congress needs to appropriate enough funding to have 40 large air tankers on exclusive use 10-year guaranteed contracts, not one-year contracts.

We often say, “air tankers don’t put out fires”. Under ideal conditions they can slow the spread which allows firefighters on the ground the opportunity to move in and suppress the fire in that area. If firefighters are not nearby, in most cases the flames will eventually burn through or around the retardant. During these unprecedented circumstances brought on by the pandemic, we rely more on aerial firefighting than in the past. And there must be an adequate number of firefighters available to supplement the work done from the air. It must go both ways. Firefighters in the air and on the ground supporting each other.


This article was first published at Fire Aviation.

Typos, let us know HERE, and specify which article. Please read the commenting rules before you post a comment.

Author: Bill Gabbert

After working full time in wildland fire for 33 years, he continues to learn, and strives to be a Student of Fire.

12 thoughts on “Contracts announced for five additional air tankers”

  1. The one year guarantee with a four year optional use period has absolutely nothing to do with airtankers. That is now the model (and will be for a long time) how the USFS handles contracts for a lot of things. From airtankers to national caterers and showers to fire business applications. This of course is not in the best interest of the private companies but it IS in the best interest for the taxpayer. These companies will provide the very best product/service with excellent results or it will be off to the chopping block as there is a lot more competition in the private industry for pretty much everything now.

    0
    0
    1. I have to disagree Jason. Your comment is the concern that all the operators of any type of heavy equipment worry most about – that our government contracting friends don’t fundamentally understand economics beyond a one-dimensional lens and the risk that your “off to the chopping block” mentality poses to not only them, but every citizen that is threatened by wildfires in this country. Its akin to protesters in Portland thinking its “ok to loot and destroy small businesses up and down the street because the insurance companies can pay for it”. That’s correct, until none of the insurance companies decide to provide insurance b/c of the destruction from the original destruction is a signal that it will likely happen again. That leads to neighborhood blight and a eventually a higher level of crime and a drop off in taxes generated by those stores in the future. Was this not taught in government procurement class 101? If this is the future of the contracting model, then there will be less and less competition providing these services and the current operators will wither and die off, or skimp on safety, maintenance and training to try and stay in business leading to other tragedies, all the while having less and less tankers than we do now. If I’m buying $600 showers or $2,000 ovens to cook in to rent and sell to the government than sure, the financial and operational risk is much lower. But when you’re spending between $3.5M and $50M for an airplane that may or may not work on year two (while the asset can work for 20-30 years) because an option is not renewed, you’re not going to be able to convince any bank or private investor, or yourself when you write your own check to invest in the asset to do so. Does this math not compute?

      0
      0
  2. I disagree Ted. Sure SEATS can get off the ground a little quicker maybe, but they are slow, only carry 700ish gallons and many SEAT pilots don’t have the years of aerial firefighting experience LAT drivers do. There are a lot of SEATS already in the country. They are definitely a useful tool, but bagging on LATS/VLATS is a non starter. Talk to the BLM, you guys have your own issues w them.
    Both agencies are being managed by some real ding dongs.

    0
    0
    1. Not sure if Ted is bagging on LATs/VLATs….think his issue, as well as mine with this write-up, is that it pushes the narrative of LATS/VLATS being IA aircraft and that we need more of those, in doing so, bagging on all of the IA assets that already exist….while I agree we do need more of those a/c, why not more effectively use the 100+ wheeled SEATs and 20 or so Fire Bosses, in concert with Type 3 and 2 helos, to be spread out early, before fires break out (easy to do at a fraction of the EU costs of LATs/VLATs/Type 1 helos and MUCH less Covid 19 footprint from a human support perspective) and have these a/c attack fires at the first detection with ground troops following and keep these fires small, as much as they can. When that effort fails, which will happen 10-20% of the time, you send in the much more limited number of LATs/VLATs to help battle back those fires that are harder to contain….asset utilization exercises like this conducted by private industry on their own accord, to achieve the greatest fire suppression costs at the minimal cost, would NEVER look the way the FS/BLM and state agencies actually use them…lastly, think you’re out of line throwing SEAT pilots out as inexperienced…what the SEAT industry is experiencing is a number of accidents/incidents brought on by the fact that at that end of the industry the contracting degradation began 7-8 years ago and the BLM/BIA, by driving costs continually down, are reaping the rewards and damages of these short term, CWN contracts. Knowing many a SEAT and LAT pilot, I would classify both groups as highly professional, with a few bad apples in every bunch….same goes for helo pilots as well…

      0
      0
  3. There the USFS goes again; putting under contract more LATS, and no SEATS. This agency does not listen, and act as if they do not care about what’s really needed to fight fires from the air with quick responses. But, why am I not surprised when they really want more “managed wildfires over the long run” as recently declared by a Zoom presentation. SEATS get to fires rapidly compared to LATS or VLATS and that goes against the agency’s long range desire for “more fire in our ecosystems.” And, then, given the aircraft investments by private firms, to not have a minimum contract of 5 years, is pure nonsense and demonstrates a complete insensitivity, or arrogance, to what private firms have to invest, not just for purchase of the aircraft, but on-going maintenance and pilot recruitment and training. Short of Congressional intervention, I do not know how this incompetent trend can be reversed.

    0
    0
  4. How much of the one year contracts is about politics from above? I could’ve sworn that I saw a comment from the cabinet secretary who oversees the forest service that defended the use of non-exclusive contracts during fire season, with a slant towards keeping costs lower.

    0
    0
  5. Outstanding article and comments. As “Follow the Black Edge” said, “The Forest Service is broken”. Very true, and very sad. There is no leadership at the national level, and very little at the regional levels. Local units struggle to get people hired, and to get any decisions approved. It seems as though the Wildland Agencies have adopted the FEMA model of managing from the “top down”, rather than from the “Ground up”. Such a shame—-so many fires this year did NOT have to become the long term messes that we saw. The agency mentions “Risk Management” and “Natural Role of Fire” in their decisions, yet in reality they are increasing the Risks due to extended periods of exposure, and the Natural Role of fire is NOT to to nuke out Ponderosa Pine forests. Fire suppression decisions used to occur in the Dispatch office, and by the IA folks. Now they are determined by “management” after spending precious time to do calculations and guesstimates. The first few minutes of IA are crucial to grabbing a fire before it gets established. And heaven forbid that we actually let the firefighters work through the first night and hook the fire by the next day—no, we pull them off the fire line just as they are starting to make progress because of the 16 hour rule. The ole “Double Lunch and Hook It” days are gone……

    0
    0
    1. As a hotshot Captain that’s been doing this job for over 15 years i have to respectfully disagree. It’s easy to say whats broken and what needs to be fixed from the outside looking in. We have great leadership at the National and Regional level. What do you the FS to do when Congress keep cutting the budget every single year.
      Second point all fires are not accessible during the IA period. There no way you can corral a lightning bust with over 100 new starts(impossible). Suppression decisions are directly driven by the public tax payer period. If management had the power more fires would be used for resource benefit. Im not aware of no 16hr rule during initial attack, if my crew is on the initial attack we bust our ass until resources relief us, no matter how many hours that is.

      0
      0
      1. Lol you drank the koolaid, dude. Local-level leadership is about the only leadership worth its stripes in the USFS. Everyone else is counting down until retirement or pushing papers for their GS fantastic checks. If you think for once that the agency as a whole cares about the boots, you are respectfully wrong.

        0
        0
  6. The Forest Service is broken. Their contracting system is broken. Their HR is broken. The only thing that keeps it above water is the sacrifice normal everyday women and men perform in service to their country. Tanker pilots don’t make enough, helicopter pilots don’t make enough, “forestry technicians” don’t make enough. As Bill alluded too and many have started to say over and over (really since WW2 when Japan sent incendiary balloons across the Pacific) that security of forests is national security. Whether you are left and preservationist bent or right and resource driven, these forests are important for American interests, the water we drink, the wood we derive, the joy we get in hiking, the sanctity for wildlife, the carbon storage. Modernizing and paying the forces that protect them is critical, whether its a fully funded fuels program or a technologically adept suppression force complete with the best the world has to offer in aviation, mapping, gear, or real time intel. Wake up, this costs money. You can pay it up front for a reduced amount or pay it latter for the destruction high severity fires cause. Write your congressman, write your senator. Demand change. The more they hear the more they will listen.

    0
    0
  7. Surprised that once again 10Tanker was left off the NG3.0 list!? 4 DC-10s that have been working all season doing great work and they don’t end up receiving any of the so called “security” provided by 5 one-year contracts? That’s almost criminal. Did someone at 10Tanker kick sand in the face of the FS? Seems like it, yet 10Tanker continues to do INCREDIBLE work for the FS every year. Where did the USFS contracting officers get their training? Burger King Happy Meals? Building on the Neptune interview from last week…not only does the sophomoric version of contracting make it harder for new entrants to get in to the game, it will slowly, but surely kill off the remaining players as these “5 year” option contracts give no comfort or confidence to the lenders and equity investors behind the current group of operators that there will be business even next year. These kind of contracts will once again lead to a bad accident in the LAT/VLAT world (like we have seen in the SEAT world this year as the BLM has made all of its decisions on which operator to use first based on lowest price while giving short shrift to the quality of a the SEAT operators training, maintenance capability, history of operating safely or the quality of the pilots/people – memo the BLM contracting officers, you’re not buying toilet seats that if they fail, you fall to teh ground, you’re procuring aviation services!) and once again will lead to everyone stating how sad the tragedy was and likely blame the operator and/or pilot for the accident, forgetting that what likely lead to the tragedy was a poor contracting structure that didn’t allow the operator to continue to secure on-going financing to effectively continue to modernize and maintain their fleet and attract, retain and train their pilots to their best abilities. Three cheers for Bill for stating that we need to think about our aerial fire fighting fleet like we think about the military fleet in the U.S. This is a war that we are currently asking aerial firefighting operators to fight with one arm behind their back….so many of them are getting the crap kicked out of them they won’t be back in the fight in the near future….

    0
    0
    1. Well stated, Bubba. The gov’t response is likely “we can’t do a commitment like that for more than one year.” And, why is that one might ask? Because gov’t hasn’t gone to bat for changing the contracting rules so that they make sense in the private enterprise World. They’ve done it for timber sale contracting (which they’ll reply “that’s different”) so with some effort, they can do it for contracting as well.

      As for “Love Hotshotting’s” comments. Think smokejumpers. They are trained and readily available to hit those remote or otherwise inaccessible lightning fires, and we have dozens of smokejumpers ready at all times to do just that.

      0
      0

Comments are closed.