The commercials of aviation have forever been odd. You have huge costs of capital, huge ongoing costs in terms of training, maintenance and the fulfilment of regulation but despite all of that as has been already highlighted there are those that are happy to give customers the effective free option. Whereby the investor takes all that long term risk to provide the customer with a low cost service the business case for which is only valid with high utilisation. It would seem that can be made to work with airlines operating for the masses. It seems it is at best marginal in the environment Bristow operate.
The 225 issues are interesting because anecdotally it does seem that beyond the physical availability of the aircraft how do you quantify the huge damage done to reputation and perception of risk? After all of the UK based 225 and derivatives issues when the rotor departs company in Norway I'm not sure talk of increasing investment in that area would be entirely welcome. The time frame and procedures (including information flow) that are common to such investigations maybe understood and accepted for those simply interested in the aviation element but it will be unbelievable to the person investing or put another way the person allowing the entire endeavour to exist.
If the drag on the business from the 225 is at all material to the Bristow group then I would find it impossible to believe that information upon the causal effect on failures that have blighted the type since when 2009? have been disclosed fully or been made available to investors. Whilst aviators may often take a purist view and be entirely comfortable to "wait for final report" I do not think it is a huge leap of imagination that delays (or perhaps the timely release of) could well be due to pressure / objections around language that prevents (or reduces) the possibility of legal action due to any misdirection.