I tend to agree with all that has been said so far and particularly that this will not be resolved by a change in regulations. With quarterly profits declared in the last week from each of the big three in the order of $6 Billion, I cannot agree with Gomer about the knock-on effect of re-equipment.
This appears to be a uniquely GOM issue with no parallel in the other oil provinces. That the present policy is defended by the very pilots who operate there appears to indicate that it will take a great deal of effort to inculcate in them an appropriate safety culture.
I well remember the comment to the oil company when a BO105 ditched following an engine failure that "they were prevented from operating with OEI cruise performance by the FAA". This was one reason why that particular oil company immediately initiated moves to introduce a more modern light twin fleet for inshore operations and insert the requirement for a minimum performance standard into their contract.
Slgrossman is correct that the liability line has now crossed the re-equipment line for the majors, making the investment decision for the accountants a simple matter. The work that has been done on that calculation is a tribute to a number of responsible members of the very oil companies that we continue to criticise.
That this thread has taken several days to reach 5 posts indicates that this is less of an issue to most pilots than say "VAT on flight training" and belies the claim that this is a professional forum; either that or we have become inured to a situation that exposes passengers to unacceptable risk.