Alberta advertises for a large air tanker

Alberta govermentThe government of Alberta is advertising for proposals for one large air tanker and a bird dog aircraft. An interesting feature of the contract is that it will cover ten years with options for an additional 10 years. The length of the contract should make aircraft operators more comfortable than they are with much shorter periods offered by the federal agencies in the United States. A 10 to 20 year contract makes it easier to plan investments of millions of dollars on hardware, insurance, loans, and personnel.

The specifications for the air tanker include two turbine engines and a 2,882 US gallon constant flow retardant tank. The bird dog must also have two turbine engines, a minimum 270 knot (310 mph) cruise speed, and a “Forward Looking Infrared Radar (FLIR) unit”. (The “Radar” is probably a mistake; it is generally referred to as “Forward Looking Infrared”. There is no radar involved.) A cruise speed was not specified for the air tanker.

One problem the U.S. Forest Service had when they tried to award contracts for “next-generation” air tankers was that some of the aircraft were not converted and certified until about year after the intended start date. In fact, one of the seven has still not met the requirements. This was partially due to the very short lead time between the contract award and the beginning of the mandatory availability period. Alberta is providing 6.5 months between the closing date of the bid announcement and the start date of May 15, 2015 (and ending September 14, 2015). Of course if there is a lengthy delay in awarding the contract, that time buffer could be short. Some potential vendors would probably like to have even one or two years between the contract award and the start date.

Thanks and a tip of the hat go out to Chris.

Typos, let us know, and please keep in mind the commenting ground rules before you post a comment.

11 thoughts on “Alberta advertises for a large air tanker”

  1. Chris Mattews
    is 10 years the standard in the US?
    Long term contracts ( 7 years minimum) is the only way you can have companies able to invest in good equipment and provide some potential for careers.
    Long term contract = stability = quality = safety & efficiency

  2. Well Chris

    That explains it clearly then….

    The US LMA contract system is well……

    Bluntly.

    Pretty well is need of an overhaul. 10 years out to be standard in the US by now.

    Especially wither the costs associated with “Next Gen” aircraft.

    God, that Next Gen moniker has to GO…….Next Gen is on words for those who never hung around the airport long enough to that these aircraft hauled stuff faster than recip engines

  3. Leo: all of the Canadian airtanker contracts (new or renewals) are completed with that turnaround time. It’s nothing out of the ordinary.
    Jerome: same thing for the timeframe (10 years). 10 years is standard, and has been for several term cycles. It allows companies to make long-term fleet development plans.
    Snoopy: The proposal states a 3-hour fuel endurance, so I believe the Next-Gens can easily compete. Whether they can do so on price remains to be seen.

    1. CM – just for clarification the tender actually states –

      “it shall be equipped with a fuel capacity to enable a flight duration capability of 3.5 hours, not including reserve, while carrying a full load of retardant slurry”

      It does not specify if that if that is an IFR or a VFR reserve.
      Regardless, the very minimum fuel it would need to carry is 4 hours and a full load of retardant.

      1. I have been informed there is a change to the fuel clause
        It now states 3.0 ( where it said 3.5 before)
        So still a minimum of 3.5 hours counting VFR reserves

  4. All of the heavy tankers in Canada meet these specs already. It will be interesting to see if the “next gen” aircraft under development can compete. The one item that will be interesting to see is if the “next gen’ aircraft can meet the full loading/fuel endurance specs.

  5. If Canada gets gets it done in 6.5 months

    Then the US has some ‘splaining to do

    The fact that maybe Transport Canada has more to say than their LMA’s do, might be a game changer also…..

Comments are closed.