Cost of Flight

[ThreeHoler]

The Air Force provided Wheeler with cost-per-flight-hour for dozens of aircraft.

Here’s a sample of what it costs to keep these Air Force aircraft airborne for one hour last year (the so-called “ownership” cost-per-flight-hour, which includes modifications):

http://nation.time.com/2013/04/02/costly-flight-hours/

Very interestink.

[matmacwc]

Very inflated according to the math I've seen around here

[StoleIt]

No KC-135?

D'oh!

Edit: And the C-20 costing more than a C-17? I call bullshit on that one...

Edited April 4, 2013 by StoleIt

[HeloDude]

I really wonder what gets factord into those reported costs...and how are they factoring in 'cost of upgrades'?

...and I also know that that the Huey and HH-60G aren't anything close to that cost.

Edited April 4, 2013 by HeloDude

[Buddy Spike]

Very inflated according to the math I've seen around here

2

I did this analysis a couple years ago for the Viper for a sim justification. Unless things have gotten way more expensive, those numbers aren't right.

[Fuzz]

This is funny considering the new OG/CC here at KTCM just came from TRANSCOM and stated the DoD really has no idea how much money anything really costs for instance how much does it cost to move a tank from JBLM to Bagram? no one knows exactly.

[Claybird]

No KC-135?

D'oh!

Edit: And the C-20 costing more than a C-17? I call bullshit on that one...

Or C-20 almost as much as an AWACS? And I may have had 6-9 adult beverages tonight, but I did some looking through that spreadsheet and see nothing regarding the cost of actually putting a weapon on a tactical jet and deploying it to a bad guy's head, vs. what it costs to operate, say, a 757 that has a 2 hour flight and embarks 125 passengers that pay $200 apiece? I'm more or less making those numbers up, but just trying to put it in perspective that flying hours are costly whether you are operating a stealth fighter or a Sopwith Camel. But good old Robert McNamara was right, I see in that spreadsheet that it cost $0 to operate the F-111F. We should have built a million of those things and equipped everybody with them.

[Wolf424]

Way inflated (either that or I need to adjust my OPR)

[zmoney]

If they're inflated, then the AF gave the wrong numbers. The author of the article actually attached the Excel spreadsheet...

http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/afcap-data-for-2008-2012.xlsx

[moosepileit]

C-17 burns the better part 3000 gallons/hour for it's lifetime. That is most all of the OPR-type "cost" that I've seen, and wondered where the markup was for the labor involved keeping the lights on back home. I know what gets charged to the customers, it is no where near the number in the article. I assume someone took base budgets, divided by airframe type and flying hours, and came up with some palatable number- which makes us laugh. Not as much as the new Vance SUPT patch, but it was nice to laugh twice in the same browse of BODN.

[afnav]

Depending on 'the point' of a project like this, it sure sounds like over-simplistic thinking to me. The only real purpose for this is to justify cuts to certain systems.

[Hueypilot]

It appears they took the cost of an entire program (development, operating costs, etc) and then divided it up by flying hours. For example, the C-130E was listed at $18,000 in 2008 but by 2012 the cost per hour went to $89,000. I'm not the smartest guy in the room but as far as I know fuel costs didn't rise THAT much...however total C-130E flying hours plummeted due to retirements.

Unfortunately, these figures are being sold to the public as "it costs $89,000 to keep a C-130E airborne", yet it factors in everything related to the program, including non-flying related costs.

[JS]

I like how the C-141 had a -$60K operating cost in 2010. So, in other words, the taxpayers made money when the C-141 flew in 2010. It must have been dropping cash out the doors or something. And the C-130E example brought up above is equally outrageous.

Stupidest fucking spreadsheet/article I have seen in a while. Stats like this can be spun so out of control the most idiots who are bad at math will not only start to believe these numbers, but they will actually repeat and quote them as if they were true.

Lie, damn lies, and statistics.

[Dupe]

There's some legitimacy to it. Guys on the line don't understand the massive costs of back shops, phase inspections, and all the depot infrastructure. It illustrates why things like the C-27J program need to die quickly.

[JS]

Sure, there is some legitimacy to it - depending on which point you want to prove and which idiots you want to fool. Like I ranted about in other posts, I can debunk, plant enough doubt to the veracity of, or greatly alter nearly every statistic that anyone can put out. It's just a fools game.

This study, for example, basically puts out "operational costs" as listed in that spreadhseet and divides that number by the number of hours and the number of planes, to come up with a "cost to keep this plane airborne per hour." Where the fuck do the "operational costs" come from, and what do they include? Like I said, depends on which idiot I want to pull the wool over on.

In attempting to rally up the liberal freaks who think we should spend more money on California pensions than the military, here is what I would say:

Operational costs have to take into account everything it takes to fly and maintain a plane like the C-130E, of which there are only about 15 left in the inventory.

The total operational costs include the cost of all of the crewmembers, MX folks, ATC folks, and scores of other support people who simply would not be employed by the government if these C-130Es were not flying. One must take into account annual salaries, benefits, medical costs, family support, and retirement costs of these thousands of personnel ($50M). Furthermore, the cost to build and maintain the runways, hangars, and hundreds of buildings to support this fleet must also be taken into account ($100M), because without these planes, there would be no need for those facilities. Finally, the cost of training, fuel, modifications, and MX are also counted ($100M).

This makes the total cost of operating the fleet nearly $250M per year. Given that these 15 planes flew only 2500 hours last year, it thus takes $100,000 per flight hour to maintain a "typical" cargo plane like this for the DoD.

Here is what I would say at a VFW meeting:

We do more with less in the Air Force. Take the 15 remaining C-130Es. All of the acquisition, modification, R&D, and infrastructure costs are already sunk costs that have already been paid - we can't change that. All of the personnel who support these planes get paid no matter what, and they will support multiple missions and multiple aircraft over their careers. In other words, the salaries and benefits of the personnel involved are also costs that would be incurred whether or not these 15 C-130Es flew.

So in summary, it only takes the cost of fuel to get the C-130E airborne, because all of the other costs have already been paid for. This plane burns about 1000 gallons per hour, or about $4000 per hour in DoD fuel rates, and this is the total operational rate per hour of this old workhorse. That's great value for your money!

Edited April 5, 2013 by JS

[SundevilHelos]

I'm considering doing a research paper on the costs of an aircraft. What do you guys think would be a better way to measure how much an airframe actually costs?

Based on my limited knowledge I would include all Operational costs (anything it costs to keep the aircraft operational, such as MX, phase etc.) as well as fuel costs. All of these costs divided by the amount of hours the aircraft flown gives you some number. Whatever that number is, is where opinion enters and you ask yourself, is that aircraft's mission worth that? I would also want to examine R&D costs

I'm assuming the total operational costs are the one listed in that spreadsheet as the ownership (with mods) costs? Also what are PAA and TAI?

Thanks for any help guys.

[JS]

Like I mentioned above - depends on who you want to convince. Statistics were invented to spin numbers in favor of one argument or another.

Remember, statistically speaking, the majority of all people who guess at the outcome of a coin flip are total losers, and stand to lose much if they were to bet on such outcomes.

On a totally different note, a study revealed that nearly half of all people who engage in coin betting come out ahead and wind up winning big.

[BB Stacker]

Also what are PAA and TAI?

This will be from a mx perspective because it's what I'm most familiar with but the principles should largely be the same for ops.

PAA - Primary Aircraft Authorized. This is the number of aircraft that you are assigned on paper for the execution of your mission. This is what you get manning, equipment, and money against. Think of it as a "UMD" for aircraft.

BAA - Backup Aircraft Authorized. This is the number of aircraft that you are assigned on paper to help plug in the holes that will inevitably exist in your PAA because of stuff like phase/ISO, depot, etc. Again, this is an authorization so it's a number on paper, not iron.

PAI - Primary Aircraft Inventory. This is the number of aircraft you've got on the ramp up to your PAA (your PAI can never exceed your PAA).

BAI - Backup Aircraft Inventory. This is the number of any aircraft you have on the ramp above and beyond your PAA up to your BAA (similar to above, your BAI cannot exceed your BAA).

AR - Attrition Reserve. This is the number of aircraft, AF wide, that the AF determines it needs to procure above and beyond the PAA and BAA numbers to deal with expected attrition over the lifespan of the MDS. When a new MDS first comes online there won't be any AR, since they will be filling all the PAA and BAA authorizations. However, as the PAA and BAA becomes full, AR tails will start being distributed to bases AF wide. Not all MDS's will have an AR.

TAI - Total Active Inventory. Your PAI + BAI + AR (if any); the total amount of iron your unit possesses.

If I screwed any of that up, anyone feel free to jump in and correct me. AFI 16-402 is the relevant pub on the subject. Also with this subject you start to get into PPI codes...I'm not going to discuss those because that's a topic worthy of a BQZip powerpoint or a nsplayer dissertation, but AFI 21-103 is the relevant pub there if you want to get into it.

As for the rest of it, I'll just echo JS and bring up a couple of quick examples to hopefully hammer home the point...you talk about including "operational costs," and list mx and phase as examples of this. So that covers flightline maintainers and one backshop function, but what about the rest of the MXG? How do you factor in the costs of the other backshops? If I'm at a base with multiple MDS's, how do I divide up the cost of, say, AGE? None of the aircraft at that base can function without it, but what's a fair share distribution? Of course AGE flight is going to gain manning and equipment based on the PAA of the various MDS's, but there's several different ways you can twist that data. Step outside the MXG for a second to a favorite (sarcasm) subject of mine...supply. Maintenance would eventually come to a grinding halt if we had zero supply support for an extended period of time...so they should probably be included in the "operational costs" section right next to mx, right? But who gets included? Just the folks like COSO and MSL who work directly with the MXG? Do we take the amount of people/money/equipment that LRS Supply gains as a result of the PAA for that MDS that are assigned to that base? But can we stop at just the base? When I go MICAP, there's an entire worldwide network that is working to get (or not) me the part in a timely (or not so timely) fashion. How is that divided up across multiple MDS's?

Bottom line is that you have to draw a line somewhere, and where that line is drawn will influence the final results of your study.

[PropWash]

Does the Charlotte guard know they have J models?

[Dupe]

Here is what I would say at a VFW meeting:

We do more with less in the Air Force. Take the 15 remaining C-130Es. All of the acquisition, modification, R&D, and infrastructure costs are already sunk costs that have already been paid - we can't change that. All of the personnel who support these planes get paid no matter what, and they will support multiple missions and multiple aircraft over their careers. In other words, the salaries and benefits of the personnel involved are also costs that would be incurred whether or not these 15 C-130Es flew.

So in summary, it only takes the cost of fuel to get the C-130E airborne, because all of the other costs have already been paid for. This plane burns about 1000 gallons per hour, or about $4000 per hour in DoD fuel rates, and this is the total operational rate per hour of this old workhorse. That's great value for your money!

I would tell the same VFW crowd that a MDS that has only 15 total aircraft had better have a national-asset level of capability to justify the entire infrastructure that exists to support it. Heck, we have more B-2s than that.

It takes much much more than 1K of gas to fly this airplane for an hour: it takes the continued existence of a program office, a depot, and a MICAP supply system. At the tail end of an airframe's life, there also needs to be increased spending combating fatigue, contracts let to replace OEM parts, and the study of how many airframes that need to go to AMARC to keep the rest flying. All that crap needs to be funded every year that the airframe remains in the inventory.

The C-130E did great work for America, but she's now the old mare in the barn.

Edited April 6, 2013 by Dupe

[Majestik Møøse]

Looks like the KC-10 continues to do more with less. Kick ass!

[afnav]

Looks like the KC-10 continues to do more with less. Kick ass!

When I worked on them in the late 80s, the things never broke. I spent most of my days driving around in the bread truck.

We were a little concerned when they wanted them to haul more cargo to take the burden off of the -141s, but I don't think it ever happened.

[Hueypilot]

Dupe, the point is, there's a lot of duplication in those overall costs. Yes, there is a depot system, MICAP, engineering, and so on. But those people and systems support multiple airframes, and the "ownership costs" should not be promoted as if they are hourly operating costs.

Compare it to a car...lets say you own a BMW...someone might ask how much it costs you to commute to work for a week. A reasonable answer might include gas, insurance, and preventative/unscheduled mx.

If you came up with costs like the article mentions, you'd include the annual cost of gas, the money BMW spends on supporting their mx/parts distribution, the manpower spent by the insurance company, the cost of maintaining and operating the gas stations you fill up at...

My point is, your BMW went from costing $200 or so a week to thousands of dollars a week...but it's not a realistic cost because those other costs are spread out over other people's cars as well.

[JS]

Dupe, the point is, there's a lot of duplication in those overall costs. Yes, there is a depot system, MICAP, engineering, and so on. But those people and systems support multiple airframes, and the "ownership costs" should not be promoted as if they are hourly operating costs.

Compare it to a car...lets say you own a BMW...someone might ask how much it costs you to commute to work for a week. A reasonable answer might include gas, insurance, and preventative/unscheduled mx.

If you came up with costs like the article mentions, you'd include the annual cost of gas, the money BMW spends on supporting their mx/parts distribution, the manpower spent by the insurance company, the cost of maintaining and operating the gas stations you fill up at...

My point is, your BMW went from costing $200 or so a week to thousands of dollars a week...but it's not a realistic cost because those other costs are spread out over other people's cars as well.

Yup. Back to my original point. If you are trying to convice the wife that you need a BMW to impress your friends, you are going to tell her how "cheap" it is - only $200 per week due to the great gas mileage compared to, say, an SUV. If you are trying to talk her out of wasting money on such a car, you would explain to her how expensive MX is on the car, how much higher insurance is because it's a sports car, and all the other stuff you mention. In other words, the same car can be made to seem expensive, depending on who you are trying to convince.

Like was mentioned on the last page - this whole game is deciding where to draw the line in terms of what's being included in "operational costs" of airplanes.

[JS]

Another example of drawing the line of cost - this time in the civilian world:

A friend of mine is the "ops superintendent" at a private hangar flying a large business jet for a rich guy. I think it was like a Hawker 800 or something. He basically runs the whole joint. We were chatting about numbers, and I mentioned an ancient article I read ways back about how I saw that the C-130 "cost" about $6-$8K per hour to operate, with a fuel flow of about 1000 gallons per hour (so about $4K in gas and twice that in hourly MX). I don't think that was accurate, and he totally laughed at those numbers. He basically runs his entire "operation," which includes renting the hangar, employing 3 pilots (two on duty and one spare), one A&P, and an avionics guy who doubles at the IT manager for the site as well as the janitor. He said the "rich guy" flies about 6-8 hours per week, on average, so about 350 hours per year. His hourly cost to fly the Hawker was about $12K, he was telling me, despite the fact that the Hawker website quotes about $1600 hourly "total variable cost."

So, in this example, the "cost" line is pretty clearly draw outside his hangar and before you hit the taxiway at the local international airport. He pays for the above direct costs, but everyone came to the job with prior education and experience - either by self-paying (like his A&P and spare pilot) or from the military (like him and the other pilot). Part of the annual costs does include annual sim refresher, which costs him I think around $20K per pilot - needed for insurance on the pilots. When he orders fuel, the FBO truck drives over and gives him fuel for $5/gallon - which presumably pays for the upkeep of the FBO, fuel distribution, salaries, etc. But, in the end, he is not directly paying for the taxiway, runway, ATC, NAVAIDS, field maintenance, etc. So his direct costs are much lower.

Of course, in actuality, he is actually paying for those things through taxes, but his $12K/hour figure is much more precise than a lot of these Air Force numbers we are looking at. Just food for thought.