CHC worried about major contract loss
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Aberdeen, UK
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chopperpunter,
While it’s nice to hear your old war stories from the 70’s it’s now the 00’s and things have moved on and ‘Safety Cases’ are the issue of the day. I don’t think there are many North Sea Pilots who would disagree with me when I say that flying the North Sea is more restricted than ever before. Scotia or Bristow can’t bid for contracts on a ‘Anything thing you can fly – I can fly lower’ or ‘I’ll fly in fog if you give it to me’ basis. There are rules and regulations which have to be followed which not set by the helicopter companies but by the CAA – it is as simple as that. If ‘innovation in the helicopter world’ means to you lower the safety limits then we will never agree and I hope you never fly with, by your definition, an innovative helicopter company.
You quoted an example of a electricity company developing a device to assist in tip changes. Well I think that’s great but totally irrelevant to the argument because you always seem to miss the point – if there is no money there is no innovation! You seem to think that more competition on the North Sea will promote a better service. Well go back 7 years. Three companies struggling to survive, one loses all its contracts but gets bought out by CHC which then merges it with another and the other major player nearly goes bust and gets bought by the Yanks. The pilots and engineers seeing the disarray in the industry start leaving, aircraft are sold, supply lines reduced, major maintenance problems etc. etc. Next, big upturn, oil companies start screaming for aircraft and pilots and guess what - there’s not enough of either. So if Bond come back I predict more of the same. This sort of pattern doesn’t just apply to the helicopter world either. If the oil companies want a steady continuous service from any of their contractors then they must show some degree of responsibility to them otherwise you will always have this boom or bust culture.
You seem to suggest that helicopter companies just sit on there arses and do nothing new which, and I mean this respectfully, shows your complete ignorance on the subject. Large helicopter companies are and have always been involved in all sorts of new design and third party work for years and perhaps the reason why you have never heard of it is because it isn’t just specific to the oil industry. Bond/Scotia were/are actively involved in bringing new types on to the North Sea and have options on other new types. Bristow are at the forefront of developing and testing new SAR technology by working with the Coastguard/BP and have sold their expertise in this area for years.
You said : -
“Don't tell me when you go out to buy a car you worry about making sure the dealer makes a nice profit out of you. You will do everything you can to get "the best deal". Oil companies are no different.”
No but I know that if I pay £400 for a car I’m going to get an old banger in poor condition.
While it’s nice to hear your old war stories from the 70’s it’s now the 00’s and things have moved on and ‘Safety Cases’ are the issue of the day. I don’t think there are many North Sea Pilots who would disagree with me when I say that flying the North Sea is more restricted than ever before. Scotia or Bristow can’t bid for contracts on a ‘Anything thing you can fly – I can fly lower’ or ‘I’ll fly in fog if you give it to me’ basis. There are rules and regulations which have to be followed which not set by the helicopter companies but by the CAA – it is as simple as that. If ‘innovation in the helicopter world’ means to you lower the safety limits then we will never agree and I hope you never fly with, by your definition, an innovative helicopter company.
You quoted an example of a electricity company developing a device to assist in tip changes. Well I think that’s great but totally irrelevant to the argument because you always seem to miss the point – if there is no money there is no innovation! You seem to think that more competition on the North Sea will promote a better service. Well go back 7 years. Three companies struggling to survive, one loses all its contracts but gets bought out by CHC which then merges it with another and the other major player nearly goes bust and gets bought by the Yanks. The pilots and engineers seeing the disarray in the industry start leaving, aircraft are sold, supply lines reduced, major maintenance problems etc. etc. Next, big upturn, oil companies start screaming for aircraft and pilots and guess what - there’s not enough of either. So if Bond come back I predict more of the same. This sort of pattern doesn’t just apply to the helicopter world either. If the oil companies want a steady continuous service from any of their contractors then they must show some degree of responsibility to them otherwise you will always have this boom or bust culture.
You seem to suggest that helicopter companies just sit on there arses and do nothing new which, and I mean this respectfully, shows your complete ignorance on the subject. Large helicopter companies are and have always been involved in all sorts of new design and third party work for years and perhaps the reason why you have never heard of it is because it isn’t just specific to the oil industry. Bond/Scotia were/are actively involved in bringing new types on to the North Sea and have options on other new types. Bristow are at the forefront of developing and testing new SAR technology by working with the Coastguard/BP and have sold their expertise in this area for years.
You said : -
“Don't tell me when you go out to buy a car you worry about making sure the dealer makes a nice profit out of you. You will do everything you can to get "the best deal". Oil companies are no different.”
No but I know that if I pay £400 for a car I’m going to get an old banger in poor condition.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: North Sea and elsewhere
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CHC unsuccessful in renewing contract
CHC announced today that its United Kingdom operating subsidiary, CHC Scotia Limited, was unsuccessful in its efforts to renew a contract to supply helicopter services to bp in the Northern North Sea. The current contract with bp, which produced revenues of $51.5 million in fiscal 2002, expires on July 31, 2004. This represents approximately 8% of CHC's revenues but less than 4% of EBITDA. CHC will continue to service bp under other contracts in the Southern North Sea, Angola, Norway, and Azerbaijan.
Bond Offshore Services is the lucky recipient of this contract award.
Bond Offshore Services is the lucky recipient of this contract award.
Well surprise surprise. Maybe CHC Corporate will now realise they picked the wrong management team when they had the choice between Brintel and Bond when they merged the two companies. God only knows why they backed a three legged horse which had been left standing by the opposition.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I heard that the guy responsible for ensuring that Bond received the long term contract with Hamilton Brothers in Liverpool Bay is now doing the same job with BP - or am I well out of date/order?
