I must agree with TeeS, starting your operation with a brand new type is risky. That aside there was no way that Bond would have been able to aquire the aircraft and get them delivered by July this year anyway. In the end it is not the operators decision which type of helicopter is purchased but the clients. If you can't find a customer willing to pay higher rates for a more advanced helicopter then there is no point getting them. The other two operators in Aberdeen are only looking at the S92 and the EC225 because the upcoming Shell contract will require a helicopter able to carry good payloads a long way (East Shetland Basin) in any wind conditions. The L2 is not a bad option for the Northern North Sea and probably a good compromise between payload, range and cost for most destinations. Yes it is a 15 year old design but I don't think that this is "old" in helicopter terms - I would say it has just matured and got rid of it's teething problems......
The two SAR helicopters are a different story. I don't know much about SAR so can't really comment on the L2's capability. Payload and range won't be much of a problem looking at the localities involved so it all depends on it's SAR suitability. I thought that was the reason BP paid Bristows to conduct the trial and find out. It would be very interesting to get comments from the pilots involved but it obviously must be suitable for SAR as it is now used for this purpose in the Netherlands. I am just speculating here but what if Bristows had won the Jigsaw contract? Would they not have used the L2?
A quick note on the gearbox issue. Even though the L2 has no dry run cabability in it's civil version I have heard it roumored that the Dutch military version is certified for 30min? Can anyone confirm this?
Woolf