Royal New Zealand Air Force

[Volkodav]

Don't those figures take into account everything proportionally from salaries (of everyone involved in operation incl support staff) to fuel to maintanence to upgrades etc therefore are also somewhat dictated by the end user and their operation of?

We don't know what they include and that's exactly the point.

Those appear to be legitimate USAF figures that you would assume are an apples for apples comparison between types, better in fact than the often completely unrelated numbers people usually pull out. You are beginning to sound like a denialist.

 

[t68]

There's a Boeing media release today saying there are still five C-17s available.
Buy two and plug into the enhanced support system being developed at Amberley.

2x RAAF and should be 3x for RNZAF. Main reason RAAF keep buying them is workload and when we only had the 4 the aircraft had to go to US for heavy maintenance, it all depends on your projected useage

Really if you only opt for 2x airframes I think you would be better of with additional A400 and screw Airbus on price for C295

 

[Todjaeger]

Rubbish.

Care to elaborate? The last B757 had production complete October 28th, 2004. This puts the youngest model at a decade old. The oldest possible B757 would be around 34 years old. Not exactly what would be considered 'new'.

Further, given that the design originated from work in the 70's, many of the current aircraft innovations which can increase efficiency and/or reduce operating cost are either not present, or not quite as effective if retrofitted.

Winglets (like on the C-17 for instance) can increase fuel efficiency, yet a stock B757 does not have them.

Same goes for a number of other developments. Also given the length of time the design has been out of production, some of the maintenance and support activities are going to be more expensive. That is one of many reasons why a B-52 would have such a high operating cost. The last B-52 (an -H model) was produced in 1962, and despite how many SLEP and kit modernizations and upgrades, any combat aircraft that is still on active duty after 50+ years is going to be expensive to operate. The amount of resources required to ensure that the airframe alone is not suffering from a dangerous degree of metal fatigue would be significant. Nevermind that the engines and fuel burn rate would not be as high as possible with a more modern design due to materials, placement, and overall aircraft design. After all, the design originated from some discussions in 1948, about a possible new design to replace the B-47, which while it entered service in 1951 had initial design work start mid-war during WWII.

If people are really expecting a 1950's era heavy/strategic bomber (which is enormous BTW) to be efficient/inexpensive to operate...

 

[ngatimozart]

Rubbish.

You reckon it's rubbish prove your point then And us being Def Pros want reputable verifiable sources.

 

[htbrst]

You reckon it's rubbish prove your point then And us being Def Pros want reputable verifiable sources.

I think that's a bit harsh, even non-Def Pros can see this data has a reasonable degree of dodginess - this kind of data is always pretty bad no matter who it comes from.

I took it as read that you had to take the link with a grain of salt, but it did at least come from one initial source that contained most of the relevant aircraft - as opposed to even hairier data obtained from different sources and providers where you could not really tell what was and was not included

 

[Zero Alpha]

I thought I read on here that the RNZAF Herc's were $40,000 NZD an hour. The reason for the comparison I think was a comparison made against the Seasprites which I think everyone hashed out in the end that the Seasprites were being thrashed and the harsh environment. That being several years ago.

So I think USAF fleet size would be strongly contributing to those figures.

Feel free to download the VfM report. The NZ figures were based on RNZAF costs, not USAF.

 

[Todjaeger]

I think that's a bit harsh, even non-Def Pros can see this data has a reasonable degree of dodginess - this kind of data is always pretty bad no matter who it comes from.

I took it as read that you had to take the link with a grain of salt, but it did at least come from one initial source that contained most of the relevant aircraft - as opposed to even hairier data obtained from different sources and providers where you could not really tell what was and was not included

No one is stating the information is 100% accurate, however to just state the info is "rubbish" without further explanation is very much problematic. And as another member pointed out a violation of forums rules regarding one-liner replies, nevermind one-word replies. They add nothing to the discussion.

Further, regarding the accuracy of the figures, if they are involving USAF aircraft operations, and sourced from USAF and DOD documents, then an apples to apples comparison of operating costs is much easier and more likely accurate than comparing costs between different operator nations. AFAIK the three biggest drivers in cost variations for the same piece of kit between different nations involve (1) currency and currency conversion, (2) methodology in calculating costs, and lastly (3) the support package a particular nation will opt for.

If the USAF/DOD is the operator of all the aircraft being listed for operating costs, and the underlying source for the data, then differences in currency do not exist nor is there a need for currency conversion between differing aircraft. Similarly, with the aircraft being operated by the same US service, the methodology behind calculating the operating costs will be the same for different aircraft. The support package for different aircraft could of course be different, with some aircraft requiring more support because they are just being stood up for service, or because they have been in service for so long that they require more support to sustain operations. Of course, that is one of the reasons to have a service compare different aircraft (or other pieces of kit) that are in their OrBat, to get a better sense of how much is required to operate a particular piece of kit vs. other pieces, some of whiçh might be suitable replacements for the high overall costing kit.

 

[t68]

In regards to C17 and the maintenance requirments, I have been trying to dig up some infomation but so far have came up squat in regards to heavy maintence.

Anyone know how many flight hours are for each maintenance cycle and how long the aircraft would be unavalible whilst it is in the US undergoing heavy maintenance?

 

[Volkodav]

I think that's a bit harsh, even non-Def Pros can see this data has a reasonable degree of dodginess - this kind of data is always pretty bad no matter who it comes from.

I took it as read that you had to take the link with a grain of salt, but it did at least come from one initial source that contained most of the relevant aircraft - as opposed to even hairier data obtained from different sources and providers where you could not really tell what was and was not included

Read my post he quoted when he responded with "rubbish" as I honestly doubt he did, which is, in part, why he is coping it now. The main reason his post is being criticised is that it was one word on a site that prohibits one line responses.

I stand by what I posted but am perfectly happy to discuss differing points of view, what this poster did was label what I had written as rubbish with no explanation or elaboration. Yes he was abrupt, perhaps even rude, but who really gives a toss, the issue is he told us what he thought but did not explain why he thought it, which on this site is unacceptable.

 

[swerve]

....
If the USAF/DOD is the operator of all the aircraft being listed for operating costs, and the underlying source for the data, then differences in currency do not exist nor is there a need for currency conversion between differing aircraft. Similarly, with the aircraft being operated by the same US service, the methodology behind calculating the operating costs will be the same for different aircraft. The support package for different aircraft could of course be different, with some aircraft requiring more support because they are just being stood up for service, or because they have been in service for so long that they require more support to sustain operations. ....

If you look at published British figures for operating costs of various aircraft, then you will realise that under some methodologies, costs dependent on the point in their operating cycle can account for more of the 'operating' costs than all other factors combined. Something about to be retired can look crazily expensive because phase-out costs are loaded on it; something entering service can have start-up costs for new aircraft apportioned across a much smaller number actually operating; & periodic costs can blow out a single years costs.

So, for a true figure you need to know the methodology & the breakdown, not just that they're all calculated according to the same methodology.

 

[Volkodav]

If you look at published British figures for operating costs of various aircraft, then you will realise that under some methodologies, costs dependent on the point in their operating cycle can account for more of the 'operating' costs than all other factors combined. Something about to be retired can look crazily expensive because phase-out costs are loaded on it; something entering service can have start-up costs for new aircraft apportioned across a much smaller number actually operating; & periodic costs can blow out a single years costs.

So, for a true figure you need to know the methodology & the breakdown, not just that they're all calculated according to the same methodology.

True, although I was very surprised to discover that the costs for the RAN FAA Sea Kings for instance had, for accounting purposes, been flat-lined i.e. assumed that it would cost the same to operate indefinitely. The truth was very different and increasing maintenance requirements of the aging aircraft resulted in spiralling cost variances that were never factored into the anticipated future costs.

I really don't know what the operating costs of the 757 verses the C-17 are and to be honest I had assumed if anything the C-17 would have had the higher per hour cost but when others put the figures up I put some thought about how this could be. Like I said earlier I am happy to discuss my thinking but if someone thinks its appropriate to label it "rubbish" without any actual discussion or explanation I will call them out as they are either a troll or a sook.

 

[KiwiRob]

757 is an aging platform, long out of production, used in extremely limited numbers by militaries and in this region. C-17 is a couple of generations newer, still in production, in service in large numbers and is subject to a comprehensive multi-user maintenance program, introducing significant economies of scale. The 757 is nearing the end of its life and has already been retired by many airlines in favour of more modern and economic types. These figures are believable.

That is complete poppycock.

The 757 is in high demand, especially on transatlantic flights, to date there is no aircraft available from either Boeing or Airbus that can fly the routes a 757 can. The closest being the A321 LR NEO which isn't in service yet, it's still a paper plane. American carriers will snap up any 757 they can get, Delta just bought 5 giving them a fleet of 127 757's.

Many airlines regret not ordering it and I'm sue if Boeing could build new ones they would.

 

[John Fedup]

That is complete poppycock.

The 757 is in high demand, especially on transatlantic flights, to date there is no aircraft available from either Boeing or Airbus that can fly the routes a 757 can. The closest being the A321 LR NEO which isn't in service yet, it's still a paper plane. American carriers will snap up any 757 they can get, Delta just bought 5 giving them a fleet of 127 757's.

Many airlines regret not ordering it and I'm sue if Boeing could build new ones they would.

The 757 was good aircraft for its day. Many of the newer commercial jet families overlap the 757 capability. The 757, as others have already mentioned is 1970s tech, and is getting more expensive to operate. No re-engine option will get it anywhere near the cost performance of recent clean-sheet designs.

Boeing could design a clean-sheet replacement for the 757 but decided against it because they believe the market is not big enough considering that the 737MAX and the small version of the 787 are reasonable alternatives (as are some Airbus models) for most 757 operators. Apparently there are over 100 757s in storage in the desert so if some airlines really wanted more they are available.

 

[Volkodav]

That is complete poppycock.

The 757 is in high demand, especially on transatlantic flights, to date there is no aircraft available from either Boeing or Airbus that can fly the routes a 757 can. The closest being the A321 LR NEO which isn't in service yet, it's still a paper plane. American carriers will snap up any 757 they can get, Delta just bought 5 giving them a fleet of 127 757's.

Many airlines regret not ordering it and I'm sue if Boeing could build new ones they would.

And another one comes out of the wood work.

Is the 757 still in production?

Is it an old design and an aging platform?

Are maintenance costs increasing?

Are newer designs more efficient and capable?

Are a number of designs being developed to replace the 757 capability?

Also;

Is the type in commercial service in Australasia?

Is the type in service with many different air forces?

Now, assuming you have answered these questions honestly (and accurately), it should be quite clear to any reasonable person that my post is neither"rubbish" or "poppycock".

 

[Todjaeger]

If you look at published British figures for operating costs of various aircraft, then you will realise that under some methodologies, costs dependent on the point in their operating cycle can account for more of the 'operating' costs than all other factors combined. Something about to be retired can look crazily expensive because phase-out costs are loaded on it; something entering service can have start-up costs for new aircraft apportioned across a much smaller number actually operating; & periodic costs can blow out a single years costs.

So, for a true figure you need to know the methodology & the breakdown, not just that they're all calculated according to the same methodology.

If you are looking for the true figure, yes. However if the objective is have a point of cost comparison for dissimilar aircraft being operated by the same service, then barring the service utilizing dissimilar methodologies for differing aircraft it should work, at least for a broad brush comparison.

As noted in the operating cost for the C-27, it is quite possible that the operating costs listed could also include initial costs to establish a capability which are for the most part 'one-tine' costs, and likely the same for when a capability is being retired as well.

As has been seen when comparing aircraft purchases by different nations, some nations will list the flyaway cost of the aircraft, and have a separate list of costs for spares, training, etc. while other nation's costs will be for everything purchased. Depending on what one is trying to determine from the numbers (and the source of the numbers themselves) that will drive whether knowledge of the methodology is important, or if just knowing the methodology is the same is sufficient.

 

[KiwiRob]

The 757 was good aircraft for its day. Many of the newer commercial jet families overlap the 757 capability. The 757, as others have already mentioned is 1970s tech, and is getting more expensive to operate. No re-engine option will get it anywhere near the cost performance of recent clean-sheet designs.

Boeing could design a clean-sheet replacement for the 757 but decided against it because they believe the market is not big enough considering that the 737MAX and the small version of the 787 are reasonable alternatives (as are some Airbus models) for most 757 operators. Apparently there are over 100 757s in storage in the desert so if some airlines really wanted more they are available.

The 757 is still unmartched today, that's a fact, there is no narrow body twin with the ability to fly all the missions airlines use 757's for today. 737MAX doesn't come anywhere near the 757, the A321 NEO LR does get close, not it's still not quite there. The 787-3 was dropped, the 787-8 is too much aircraft for some of the 757 routes. There is not aircraft currently planed which can do what the 757 can do.

 

[KiwiRob]

And another one comes out of the wood work.

Is the 757 still in production? NO

Is it an old design and an aging platform? YES, yet the USAF flies equipment built in the 1950's.

Are maintenance costs increasing? no idea

Are newer designs more efficient and capable? NO

Are a number of designs being developed to replace the 757 capability? NO

Also;

Is the type in commercial service in Australasia? NO

Is the type in service with many different air forces? USAF

Now, assuming you have answered these questions honestly (and accurately), it should be quite clear to any reasonable person that my post is neither"rubbish" or "poppycock".

Yup it's still poppycock, there is no replacement for the 757.

 

[John Fedup]

The 757 is still unmartched today, that's a fact, there is no narrow body twin with the ability to fly all the missions airlines use 757's for today. 737MAX doesn't come anywhere near the 757, the A321 NEO LR does get close, not it's still not quite there. The 787-3 was dropped, the 787-8 is too much aircraft for some of the 757 routes. There is not aircraft currently planed which can do what the 757 can do.

Perhaps you should ask yourself why Boeing has rejected a replacement for the 757 and Airbus is only mulling over a A321 NEO LR as a cheap stop-gap for this market? Clearly Boeing has done their market research and has determined that most of the capabilities of 757 required by current users can be met by alternative modern jets already flying. About 15% of the 757 production is stored in the desert so there are close to 900 still flying. Of those flying, most could be replaced by current jets leaving a pretty small replacement market. Why spend the time and resources on a jet that might only see 100-200 units when they already have so much on their plate? Perhaps when they do a clean-sheet replacement for the 737, they can consider a stretched long range version for the few customers that really need it. The same applies to Airbus. Mind you, with all the "NEO" jet orders, it could be a long time before either company starts a new clean-sheet narrow body replacement.

 

[aussienscale]

Yup it's still poppycock, there is no replacement for the 757.

Who is talking about replacements for the 757 ? Volk is talking about maint and running costs not about capabilities.

 

[Volkodav]

Who is talking about replacements for the 757 ? Volk is talking about maint and running costs not about capabilities.

Exactly, thanks aussie.

This is going no where, it is no longer a worthwhile discussion, rather nit picking one upmanship, and I really have better things to do with my time than waste it on a clown who seems intent on arguing about the irrelevant. The truly sad thing is there are far too many people like you Rob, people who derail discussions through condescending snipes that serve no real purpose and appear more about asserting yourself and putting others down than actually contributing.

The topic is the RNZAF and their possible acquisition of a pair of C-17 strategic transports. If the operating costs of the 757 are higher than those of the C-17 then it probably explains the NZ governments interest in the acquisition as it would see a massive increase in capability and a potential saving in through life costs. I hope this works out for them as it would lift their capabilities in a whole raft of areas in that they will more easily be able to move their other assets to where they are needed.