Bristow buys S92, Helicomparator has a Bad day

[rjsquirrel]

Looks like helicomparator's home office didn't read the stuff he has been posting:

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/060614/sikorsky_united_technologies.html?.v=1

[SASless]

RJ,

Perhaps since Bristow...once part of OLOG but still only a subsidiary but Trade Name for that group...and thus bound by US Trade laws....has to forsake the backhanders, dash, incentives, and such....and make business decisions based upon comparative merit nowadays unlike in the past.

After all....there has been a significant change in their management during the past year.

Or is it simply a matter of keeping up with the neighbors since CHC has gone with the S-92?

[rotor-rooter]

The fact that Bristow were going to buy the 92 was about the worst kept secret in the industry, other than the actual announcement, as they have been quite openly discussing it at all levels of management. Of course, they already know what they are getting through the Norsk operation!

From the reports from the various operators, it seems to be an excellent choice of machinery, and even in the latest incarnation of the Puma, (and the EC-225 is a very nice aircraft), the S-92 is leagues ahead in terms of cabin space and passenger comfort.

And just think, they never did buy any :mad: EH-101's even after flying them around for years and getting paid for it!:uhoh:

[212man]

Maybe the options on the 13 are forward planning for the 2012 coast guard contract??

The firm order for 2 will be snapped up by a client without trouble, I'm sure.

[Overt Auk]

Don't forget that the Bristow name now covers all of OLOGs operations as well as the traditional stamping grounds in the North Sea. I have seen nothing which suggests that Helicomparitor is going to change which foot he presses on aplication of power in the near future.
OA

[HeliComparator]

Wow - I think I must have made it big now - I get a thread including my name! So now I can retire.....OK maybe not!

Bristow Group (OLOG as was) were always going to buy the S92. Since they are USA based you can hardly find that surprising. It was bound to get into their fleet eventually. I have posted this many times.

As far as I know, the 2 mentioned are not destined for the UK, but I don't doubt that at some point we will get some. The main reason is that they are cheap and available, unlike the EC product which is expensive and not very available. There will always be a market for the cheaper option, some (most!)oil companies are primarily driven by cost and if both aircraft fit the bill on paper, why not go for the cheaper one?

But at the moment in the UK by early next year its 6 EC225s plus 2 for CHC, zero S92s. We Brits always did have an eye for quality...

From the passenger's point of view there is not much to choose between them - you can either have the slightly larger-cabined but vibratory 92 or the slightly smaller but smoother 225. But I know that the Norwegian offshore wokers unions have repeatedly complained about vibration levels on the 92 - I suspect they would prefer the 225 if they tried it.

From the oil companies point of view, unless you need the extra range / payload of the 225 for long trips, the 92 does the job cheaper than the 225.

But as I have always said, from the pilot's point of view there is no contest... So I remain very glad that I get to fly the best (civil) pilots' helicopter in the world. The detractors are welcome to their 92s - they are speaking in ignorance because they have never flown the 225 and don't know what they are missing.

HC

[steve_oc]

Slight correction

CHC has an S92 on the UK reg (currently in Bergen) which will be operating out of Aberdeen next month - so not quite "zero S92s".

[HeliComparator]

My apologies Steve

I had understood that 1 92 was destined for Aberdeen but there being no sign of it, I had assumed that they had all ended up in Norway - wrong again!

HC

[SARBallast]

I have heard in the company that the first batch of 92's is indeed for the North sea. Will be intersting to see how things shape up.

SB

[Road Warrior]

[quote=HeliComparator]
From the passenger's point of view there is not much to choose between them - you can either have the slightly larger-cabined but vibratory 92 or the slightly smaller but smoother 225. But I know that the Norwegian offshore wokers unions have repeatedly complained about vibration levels on the 92 - I suspect they would prefer the 225 if they tried it.


Now that I am officially out of the rotorcraft industry, I can finally post on the “vibration issues” with the S-92. In my former position I had the opportunity to go around the world to help customers put the S-92 in service. During that time, I have had the opportunity to ride on customer 92s in the Gulf, the North Sea and Newfoundland. Barring some maintenance issues, all of the 92s I have flown on have been within limits. And there in lies the problem. While the limits on the 92 are acceptable on a military aircraft they are not acceptable in the civil market. It is my experience that some of the operators do just enough track and balance work to get the ship within limits. If you want to feel what a well tuned 92 feels like you need to take a trip to Newfoundland. Their 92 is the smoothest customer aircraft that I have flown in. A well tuned 92 is every bit as good as a Super Puma (which I have also had the opportunity to fly in.)

Road Warrior

[Hippolite]

Road Warrior

I heard that you had left Sikorsky. Is it true you are moving East to the city starting with a B?