Advertisement
LOGIN | Welcome, Guest.
  ABOUT US   |   CONTACT US   |   SUBSCRIPTION CENTRE   |   ADVERTISE   |   SITEMAP   |   
Ken Armstrong Win a Battle, Lose a War
Helicopter companies continuously wage a relentless financial war against each other that ravages profits and creates a host of collateral damage. Minimal revenues result in old helicopters battling on with their increasingly high maintenance costs because operators can’t afford new, efficient machines. Eroding profit margins have a tendency to lead to less maintenance accomplished, ‘fudged’ flying hours and really hightime components proving not overly reliable. You only have to pay the deductible once on a subsequent accident to realize the ‘false economy’ associated with faulty maintenance practices.

The pilot/engineer shortage facing the industry results from cut-rate charter quotes that leave little revenue for pay increases. When I left the military in 1972 with the rank of captain, on flight pay level three, my annual salary was $12,650 – good money in those days. My first civilian year with Canwest Aviation in Calgary totalled $16,100 based on 600 revenue hours, monthly salary and a winter retainer. Nice raise! In the early 70s my remuneration with companies like Canwest, Alpine and Liftair exceeded any of the other employees in the camp environments that hosted me. After all, the skill requirements to fly a helicopter and the risks essentially justified this rewarding pay scale. By the mid-nineties virtually all of the blue-collar workers in camp boasted larger cheques – this in the midst of a growing pilot shortage that should have justified increasing pay to attract aviators. However, operators will tell you the money just isn’t there to pay pilots and engineers an adequate wage to keep them in the industry. Since the purchasing power of our deflating dollar requires at least seven times as much money to buy commodities now, compared to the start of the 70s, one would expect a salary of $112,700. That’s not happening!

Historically, helicopter rates for a Bell 206 in the early seventies were in the $250 range compared to today’s tariffs of $1,000 hourly. This represents a four-fold increase in income during a period when most costs have climbed at least seven-fold! If charter fees had kept pace with inflation, a 206B would rent for $1,750. Higher remuneration would not only attract new aviators but also retain many of the highly experienced drivers and maintainers. Incidentally, my equivalent military pay would now be $84,780 (March 2005 rates) – an increase of almost seven-fold since 1972.

More income from higher tariffs would provide operators the ability to provide additional flight training, maintenance funding and cash flow to stock more spare parts. These actions yield numerous benefits such as reduced accident rates and in time would knock down our high insurance premiums. Spare parts and improved maintenance usually reduce down time, thereby increasing revenues. Moreover, better maintained helicopters contribute to lower accident rates. These are increasingly more important considerations because Transport Canada embarked on a new safety program whereby the Director General of Civil Aviation warned us (actually threatened) at the Ottawa HAC convention that we reduce our accident rate or face new regulations. (TC hasn’t learned that you can’t push a rope uphill, or that it can’t effectively wage war on an industry it is mandated to support; and its program doesn’t seem to have yielded positive results.) After all, none of us wants to see our mates or machines smeared on the terra firma. Most of us are doing the best we can to ensure the skids or wheels are the first part of the helicopter to touch down, but, quite frankly, unless more revenue becomes available to sort out the aforementioned problems, we are likely doomed to repeat the annual statistics. Reducing accidents through more skilled pilots and better maintenance would naturally reduce accident rates and reduce insurance premiums.

What can be done? Actually, the solution is rather elementary. Operators have got to agree to a truce of sorts on the tariff front. Stop taking pot shots at each other with predatory rates and undermining your adversary’s rates. After all, your rates should be predicated on the value of your service, not how much less you can charge compared to local “flaky” companies with questionable pilots and mediocre maintenance. I am aware of charter operators with higher than standard rates and they are not begging for business. Essentially, their clients appreciate the value of fair pricing for quality service.

What do you think? Is it time to cease hostilities and bump up the rates 5% or so during this excellent economy or would your rather continue to be a warrior taking and receiving “shots” from your competition? Let’s raise the rate as an industry and allow ourselves the ability to provide the level of service that creates respect from our clients and regulator.