Originally Posted by
helicrazi
New airfield to set up???
That comment alone goes to show you havent a clue what you are typing.
His whole post, bar one comment, sounds like it was written by an 11 year old. The only comment getting close to anything in the real world was the issue of TUPE. TUPE is something of a legal minefield and I'm still surprised that Babcock decided at the 11th hour that they would accept TUPE applies. As for the comment regarding salaries, they had no way of knowing when bidding which staff were based in Scatsta, let alone what pay points the individuals would be on or what allowances, etc they were entitled to. There is no legal way of establishing that due to GDPR, etc.
Archie Bithell's comments regarding the O&G part of Babcock were made before the Consortium and Total wins, so they were not related to these contracts. Big Babcock have written off a substantial amount of assett value and debt that would have been hampering the ability to bid competatively. This is no different really to what Bristow and CHC have done with their CHapter 11 filings, just not as clean and tidy from a business perspective. Perhaps it was this moving of debt that has enabled Babcock to be more competative over the last few months and win some work?
Rumour has it that the CHC boss admitted yesterday in a staff briefing that they bid with no profit margin (at a loss?) and still lost the work. So who was trying to undermine the market? A simlar comment was made during the UK SAR bid that Bristow won and CHC was excluded from on price. Bristow must have bid at a loss!! Or are CHCs overhead costs still way too high?