Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2011
Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	3. Commitments and Contingencies Commitments — In 2010, we executed a contract to acquire ten new medium aircraft for aggregate acquisition costs of approximately $127.0 million, related to our new contract with a major customer, two of which were delivered in December 2010. The purchase price of these two aircraft was financed through our revolving credit facility. The third aircraft was delivered in June 2011 at a purchase price of $12.0 million and was also financed through our revolving credit facility. The remaining seven are scheduled for delivery in 2011 and through late 2012, with an aggregate acquisition cost of approximately $85.6 million. We have traded in two aircraft in exchange for a credit of approximately $20.3 million towards these acquisition costs, of which a credit of $16.8 million remained as of June 30, 2011. During the second quarter of 2011, we entered into a contract to acquire six new heavy transport aircraft for an aggregate purchase price of approximately $148.0 million. In June 2011, we took initial delivery of the first two baseline aircraft and title passed to PHI. The aircraft will be finally delivered in November 2011 when completion services are finished. In conjunction with the initial delivery of the baseline aircraft, we obtained short-term financing for the $45.8 million initial delivery payment. We intend to fund the total purchase price with an operating lease with a commercial bank at final delivery in November for both aircraft. The amount financed was recorded in other current liabilities. Two of the remaining aircraft have a delivery date in late 2011, and the balance of the deliveries will occur in 2012. These aircraft will be utilized in our Oil and Gas segment. Total aircraft deposits of $23.2 million are included in Other Assets. This amount represents deposits for the medium and heavy transport aircraft contracts. We may finance some of the remaining acquisition costs for the medium and heavy transport aircraft with net proceeds from our 8.625% Senior Notes due 2018, and expect to finance the balance through some combination of cash on hand or cash flow generated from operations, operating leases and borrowings under our revolving credit facility. Environmental Matters — We have recorded an aggregate estimated probable liability of $0.2 million as of June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 for environmental response costs. The Company has conducted environmental surveys of its former Lafayette facility located at the Lafayette Regional Airport, which it vacated in 2001, and has determined that limited soil and groundwater contamination exists at the facility. The Company has installed groundwater monitoring wells at the facility and periodically monitors and reports on the contamination to the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (“LDEQ”). The Company previously submitted a Risk Evaluation/Corrective Action Plan Standard Site Assessment Report to the LDEQ fully delineating the extent and type of contamination and updated the Report to include additional analytical data in April 2006. LDEQ reviewed the Assessment Report and requested an Action Plan (the “Plan”) from the Company. LDEQ approved the Corrective Action Plan (“CAP”) for the remediation of the former PHI Plant I location on August 23, 2010. All Louisiana Department of Natural Resources (“DNR”) approvals were received and the project began on May 16, 2011. Based upon the May 2003 Site Assessment Report, the April 2006 update and ongoing monitoring and the August 2010 Corrective Action Plan, the Company believes the ultimate remediation costs for the former Lafayette facility will not be material to its consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. Legal Matters — The Company is named as a defendant in various legal actions that have arisen in the ordinary course of business and have not been finally adjudicated. In the opinion of management, the amount of the ultimate liability with respect to these actions will not have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. Superior Offshore International Inc. v. Bristow Group Inc., ERA Helicopters, LLC, Seacor Holdings Inc., ERA Group Inc., ERA Aviation, Inc., and PHI, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:09-cv-00438 on the docket of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. This purported class action was filed on June 12, 2009, on behalf of a class defined to include all direct purchasers of offshore helicopter services in the Gulf of Mexico from the defendants at any time from January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2005. The suit alleged that the defendants acted jointly to fix, maintain, or stabilize prices for offshore helicopter services during the above time frame in violation of the federal antitrust laws. The plaintiff sought unspecified treble damages, injunctive relief, costs, and attorneys’ fees. On September 14, 2010, the Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss (filed on September 4, 2009) and dismissed the complaint. On November 30, 2010, the court granted plaintiff leave to amend the complaint, limited discovery to the new allegations, and established a schedule for briefing dispositive motions. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on February 11, 2011. On June 23, 2011, the court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, entered final judgment in favor of the defendants, and dismissed all of the plaintiff’s claims. On July 22, 2011, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. As previously reported, the Company has been involved in Federal Court litigation in the Western District of Louisiana and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals with the Office and Professional Employees International Union (“OPEIU”), the union representing the Company’s domestic pilots. This litigation involves claims of bad faith bargaining, compensation of striking pilots both at the time of the strike and upon their return to work under both the Railway Labor Act (“RLA”) and Louisiana state law, and the terms of employment for the Company’s pilots since the strike ended including non-payment of retention bonuses. After approximately two years of bargaining between the Company and OPEIU for a second collective bargaining agreement, including negotiations mediated by the National Mediation Board, both parties entered a self-help period as defined by the applicable labor law, the RLA. At that time the pilots commenced a strike in September 2006 and immediately prior to that strike the Company implemented its own terms and conditions of employment for the pilots. The strike ended in November 2006 and a court-approved return to work process began in January 2007 for those pilots who had not already returned to work or left the Company’s employment. This process was essentially completed in April 2007. The Company’s pilots continue to work under the terms and conditions of employment determined by the Company since the strike began. By Order dated July 9, 2010, the Court dismissed both the Company’s and OPEIU’s claims that the other had violated the RLA by bargaining in bad faith before exercising self-help. By Order dated July 30, 2010, the Court dismissed all claims that the Company violated the RLA in the manner in which it returned pilots to work following the strike. Also, the Court dismissed all but claims by 47 pilots under Louisiana state law. On August 27, 2010, the OPEIU and the individual pilot plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Then, by Order entered September 27, 2010, the district court dismissed the Louisiana-law claims of the remaining 47 individual pilots. On October 22, 2010, the unions and the individual pilots filed a second notice of appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, by which they appeal the district court’s dismissal of all their RLA and Louisiana-law wage payment claims against PHI. On November 5, 2010, PHI filed a cross-appeal of the district court’s dismissal of PHI’s bad-faith bargaining claim against the unions. On December 31, 2009, the OPEIU filed another case against the Company in the Western District of Louisiana in which the OPEIU asserts that its acceptance in 2009 of the terms and conditions of employment for the Company’s pilots initially implemented by the Company prior to the strike has created a binding collective bargaining agreement and that the Company has inappropriately made unilateral revisions to those terms including failing to pay a retention bonus. The Court administratively stayed this case pending the completion of appellate briefing in the consolidated cases, which briefing concluded on April 15, 2011. The Court has administratively stayed this case pending the appellate court’s decision in the consolidated cases described above, which cases are scheduled for oral argument on August 31, 2011. Management does not expect the outcome of this litigation to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Operating Leases — We lease certain aircraft, facilities, and equipment used in our operations. The related lease agreements, which include both non-cancelable and month-to-month terms, generally provide for fixed monthly rentals, and certain real estate leases also include renewal options. We generally pay all insurance, taxes, and maintenance expenses associated with these leases. Some of the facility leases contain renewal options. Aircraft leases contain purchase options exercisable at certain dates in the lease agreements. At June 30, 2011, we had approximately $153.4 million in aggregate commitments under operating leases of which approximately $13.7 million is payable through December 31, 2011, and a total of $27.1 million is payable over the twelve months ending June 30, 2012. The total lease commitments include $138.1 million for aircraft and $15.3 million for facility lease commitments. As of June 30, 2011, we had options to purchase aircraft under lease becoming exercisable in 2011 through 2014 for the following aggregate purchase prices, respectively: $27.7 million, $51.0 million, $38.8 million and $114.4 million. Subject to market conditions, we intend to exercise these options as they become exercisable, and intend to finance some of these acquisition costs with the net proceeds of our 8.625% Senior Notes. On July 5, 2011, we exercised an option to acquire one medium aircraft for $6.9 million, funded with our revolving credit facility, leaving $20.8 million in lease purchase options eligible to be exercised in the remainder of 2011.

3. Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments — In 2010, we executed a contract to acquire ten new medium aircraft for aggregate acquisition costs of approximately $127.0 million, related to our new contract with a major customer, two of which were delivered in December 2010. The purchase price of these two aircraft was financed through our revolving credit facility. The third aircraft was delivered in June 2011 at a purchase price of $12.0 million and was also financed through our revolving credit facility. The remaining seven are scheduled for delivery in 2011 and through late 2012, with an aggregate acquisition cost of approximately $85.6 million. We have traded in two aircraft in exchange for a credit of approximately $20.3 million towards these acquisition costs, of which a credit of $16.8 million remained as of June 30, 2011.

During the second quarter of 2011, we entered into a contract to acquire six new heavy transport aircraft for an aggregate purchase price of approximately $148.0 million. In June 2011, we took initial delivery of the first two baseline aircraft and title passed to PHI. The aircraft will be finally delivered in November 2011 when completion services are finished. In conjunction with the initial delivery of the baseline aircraft, we obtained short-term financing for the $45.8 million initial delivery payment. We intend to fund the total purchase price with an operating lease with a commercial bank at final delivery in November for both aircraft. The amount financed was recorded in other current liabilities. Two of the remaining aircraft have a delivery date in late 2011, and the balance of the deliveries will occur in 2012. These aircraft will be utilized in our Oil and Gas segment.

Total aircraft deposits of $23.2 million are included in Other Assets. This amount represents deposits for the medium and heavy transport aircraft contracts.

We may finance some of the remaining acquisition costs for the medium and heavy transport aircraft with net proceeds from our 8.625% Senior Notes due 2018, and expect to finance the balance through some combination of cash on hand or cash flow generated from operations, operating leases and borrowings under our revolving credit facility.

Environmental Matters — We have recorded an aggregate estimated probable liability of $0.2 million as of June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 for environmental response costs. The Company has conducted environmental surveys of its former Lafayette facility located at the Lafayette Regional Airport, which it vacated in 2001, and has determined that limited soil and groundwater contamination exists at the facility. The Company has installed groundwater monitoring wells at the facility and periodically monitors and reports on the contamination to the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (“LDEQ”). The Company previously submitted a Risk Evaluation/Corrective Action Plan Standard Site Assessment Report to the LDEQ fully delineating the extent and type of contamination and updated the Report to include additional analytical data in April 2006. LDEQ reviewed the Assessment Report and requested an Action Plan (the “Plan”) from the Company. LDEQ approved the Corrective Action Plan (“CAP”) for the remediation of the former PHI Plant I location on August 23, 2010. All Louisiana Department of Natural Resources (“DNR”) approvals were received and the project began on May 16, 2011. Based upon the May 2003 Site Assessment Report, the April 2006 update and ongoing monitoring and the August 2010 Corrective Action Plan, the Company believes the ultimate remediation costs for the former Lafayette facility will not be material to its consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

Legal Matters — The Company is named as a defendant in various legal actions that have arisen in the ordinary course of business and have not been finally adjudicated. In the opinion of management, the amount of the ultimate liability with respect to these actions will not have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

Superior Offshore International Inc. v. Bristow Group Inc., ERA Helicopters, LLC, Seacor Holdings Inc., ERA Group Inc., ERA Aviation, Inc., and PHI, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:09-cv-00438 on the docket of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. This purported class action was filed on June 12, 2009, on behalf of a class defined to include all direct purchasers of offshore helicopter services in the Gulf of Mexico from the defendants at any time from January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2005. The suit alleged that the defendants acted jointly to fix, maintain, or stabilize prices for offshore helicopter services during the above time frame in violation of the federal antitrust laws. The plaintiff sought unspecified treble damages, injunctive relief, costs, and attorneys’ fees. On September 14, 2010, the Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss (filed on September 4, 2009) and dismissed the complaint. On November 30, 2010, the court granted plaintiff leave to amend the complaint, limited discovery to the new allegations, and established a schedule for briefing dispositive motions. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on February 11, 2011. On June 23, 2011, the court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, entered final judgment in favor of the defendants, and dismissed all of the plaintiff’s claims. On July 22, 2011, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

As previously reported, the Company has been involved in Federal Court litigation in the Western District of Louisiana and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals with the Office and Professional Employees International Union (“OPEIU”), the union representing the Company’s domestic pilots. This litigation involves claims of bad faith bargaining, compensation of striking pilots both at the time of the strike and upon their return to work under both the Railway Labor Act (“RLA”) and Louisiana state law, and the terms of employment for the Company’s pilots since the strike ended including non-payment of retention bonuses. After approximately two years of bargaining between the Company and OPEIU for a second collective bargaining agreement, including negotiations mediated by the National Mediation Board, both parties entered a self-help period as defined by the applicable labor law, the RLA. At that time the pilots commenced a strike in September 2006 and immediately prior to that strike the Company implemented its own terms and conditions of employment for the pilots. The strike ended in November 2006 and a court-approved return to work process began in January 2007 for those pilots who had not already returned to work or left the Company’s employment. This process was essentially completed in April 2007. The Company’s pilots continue to work under the terms and conditions of employment determined by the Company since the strike began. By Order dated July 9, 2010, the Court dismissed both the Company’s and OPEIU’s claims that the other had violated the RLA by bargaining in bad faith before exercising self-help. By Order dated July 30, 2010, the Court dismissed all claims that the Company violated the RLA in the manner in which it returned pilots to work following the strike. Also, the Court dismissed all but claims by 47 pilots under Louisiana state law. On August 27, 2010, the OPEIU and the individual pilot plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Then, by Order entered September 27, 2010, the district court dismissed the Louisiana-law claims of the remaining 47 individual pilots. On October 22, 2010, the unions and the individual pilots filed a second notice of appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, by which they appeal the district court’s dismissal of all their RLA and Louisiana-law wage payment claims against PHI. On November 5, 2010, PHI filed a cross-appeal of the district court’s dismissal of PHI’s bad-faith bargaining claim against the unions.

On December 31, 2009, the OPEIU filed another case against the Company in the Western District of Louisiana in which the OPEIU asserts that its acceptance in 2009 of the terms and conditions of employment for the Company’s pilots initially implemented by the Company prior to the strike has created a binding collective bargaining agreement and that the Company has inappropriately made unilateral revisions to those terms including failing to pay a retention bonus. The Court administratively stayed this case pending the completion of appellate briefing in the consolidated cases, which briefing concluded on April 15, 2011. The Court has administratively stayed this case pending the appellate court’s decision in the consolidated cases described above, which cases are scheduled for oral argument on August 31, 2011. Management does not expect the outcome of this litigation to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Operating Leases — We lease certain aircraft, facilities, and equipment used in our operations. The related lease agreements, which include both non-cancelable and month-to-month terms, generally provide for fixed monthly rentals, and certain real estate leases also include renewal options. We generally pay all insurance, taxes, and maintenance expenses associated with these leases. Some of the facility leases contain renewal options. Aircraft leases contain purchase options exercisable at certain dates in the lease agreements.

At June 30, 2011, we had approximately $153.4 million in aggregate commitments under operating leases of which approximately $13.7 million is payable through December 31, 2011, and a total of $27.1 million is payable over the twelve months ending June 30, 2012. The total lease commitments include $138.1 million for aircraft and $15.3 million for facility lease commitments.

As of June 30, 2011, we had options to purchase aircraft under lease becoming exercisable in 2011 through 2014 for the following aggregate purchase prices, respectively: $27.7 million, $51.0 million, $38.8 million and $114.4 million. Subject to market conditions, we intend to exercise these options as they become exercisable, and intend to finance some of these acquisition costs with the net proceeds of our 8.625% Senior Notes. On July 5, 2011, we exercised an option to acquire one medium aircraft for $6.9 million, funded with our revolving credit facility, leaving $20.8 million in lease purchase options eligible to be exercised in the remainder of 2011.