Air Tanker 914, a DC-10, drops retardant on the Central Fire, June 20, 2020. Photo by JDH Images.Slate online magazine just published an article by Aaron Mak about air tankers and the size of the fleet. Most of the piece is about DC-10s and why there are not more of them. When I was interviewed by Mr. Mak most of his questions were about the DC-10. I explained that it is a great air tanker but the fleet needs a variety in the tool box.
You can read the entire article, but here is the section where I was quoted:
“Commissioning more DC-10s isn’t the only way to expand the country’s fleet of air tankers. Bill Gabbert, who runs the Fire Aviation and Wildfire Today blogs, contends that it might be a mistake to focus solely on the massive jets, since other smaller crafts tend to be more useful for different terrains, like narrow canyons, and it’s never a good idea to rely on only one model due to potential mechanical defects. He points out that there’s an overall shortage of air tankers in the U.S. There used to be a fleet of 44 large air tankers on exclusive use contracts in 2002, which were mostly constructed out of World War II bombers. However, two of those tankers crashed that year, which resulted in many others being taken out of commission. Since then, private companies like 10 Tanker have been trying to retrofit newer planes to build the nation’s fleet back up, but there are still only 18 under exclusive use contracts as of this year.
“But no matter what type of air tankers it chooses, Gabbert said, the government will probably have to rethink its approach to contracting if it wants a bigger fleet. He thinks the solution is for Congress to appropriate funds for 10-year exclusive use contracts, which would allow manufacturers to more easily get the millions of dollars in loans they need from a bank to build more tankers and the associated support systems. “If they can get a guaranteed 10-year contract, they can see in advance that they can make the investment pay off, and the bank will be happy to lend them money,” Gabbert said. “Congress just does not understand the severity of the issue.” ”
7 Comments
This is one of those subjects where there is no right answer. Some years, you need more, some years less. One solution may be to have a 180 day EU contract for a number of tankers (say, 20), and even 5 years would be helpful to the contractors. Then, CWN the rest. Realistically, despite global warming, each region has basically a 2 month season where it’s very active (CA, maybe 3 mo.) Yes, there are fires year around, but that doesn’t mean it’s a year round “season”. Sometimes, in the winter, CA will have large fires, doesn’t mean you need to keep a bunch of air tankers on contract. I like the idea of one or two 360 day contracts for type 1 helicopters, move them around. Heck, you could do that with a few LATs also. Keep the CWNs around for the busy years, but EU is more cost effective when there’s less activity. Contractors will adapt if you have a long term plan.
Jeff….
Question – do you work for government or private industry?
You’re right to an extent, but if you go with what you’re suggesting (50% EU/ 50% CWN split vs leaning more heavily towards EU and some CWN), you’re right, operators will adapt…they’ll have to. They’ll start mothballing aircraft due to the inability to take any comfort in future contracts or the aircraft will start being moved to other countries in the northern hemisphere that will support these operators with longer term contracts and more realistic pricing. Your answer to my question above will probably dictate your answer.
Unbeknownst to the FS/CalFire, many operators were approached last winter by numerous European countries (Spain, France, Greece, Turkey, Portugal) to bring their assets to the EU for the U.S. fire season. ALL of the operators said no thank you primarily because of the logistics hassle of doing so, but also due to the belief that someday, maybe someday, the FS contracting office(s) and Congress “will get it” as Bill G states above. There is also some patriotic commitment to the U.S. as the operators know there are so few of these aircraft available to even the U.S (22 out of 29 available to the FS this summer – it’s already happening). That loyalty can only last so long.
What Bill suggests above is the best path forward for the country. Maybe not for “risk loving” LPTA mindset of the FS and BLM (hoping to get as many aircraft as possible for as little money as possible and no long term commitment = future accidents and deaths for pilots in the industry), but for taxpayers who will ultimately be the losers if things don’t change soon. All of this silliness, regardless of the choices operators will ultimately have to make will lead to less A/C 5 years from. The “cost” of going to a mostly EU contract base for the fleet is SHORT money compared to what we have seen in the larger fires this year and recent years past.
Right on Bubba….
I have been in fire for over 40 years, both as a government(seasonal firefighter) and as a contractor( 17 years).
Cwn is a tough gig…real tough to employ anyone if you are a small operator…..who knows when/ if you will get the work. In my line, It’s specialized equipment, so It’s not like I can put it to work elsewhere.
Then there’s the attitude of the government employees….a lot of them are downright ignorant and could care less when it comes to understanding what it takes to run a business. Many seem to be 2nd and 3rd generation government employment. The only paycheck they have seen come thru the door in multiple generations has uncle sam written on it..
So naturally, it should come as no surprise when what should be fairly straight forward business transactions turn into to goat ropes and clown shows….
I’ll get off my soap box now…..
As an aside…last night I read a comprehensive write up (in the new yorker)on the fraud that went on in contracting in afghanistan..pretty much left me speechless….the U.S. spent 2 trillion in Afghanistan and another 2 trillion in iraq…
Factor that into your next bid fellas…..
To Vean Noble – can you point me to the NYer article about the fraud in Afghanistan? Was it in a particular issue, or just on their web site, or ??? Thanks
Dan K
“The bidding war” March 7th, 2016 issue, by Mattieu Aikins
I assumed this was a recent article! I’ll try to track this down.
Thanks again.
It will pop up with a quick Google search….also , what popped up was that the DOJ settled with the contractor in 2019 for 25 million..
Good investigative journalists could probably spend a whole career digging up this dirt…The government is not going to come clean with it..
Comments are closed for this article!