[email protected] said:
I think I speak for crabette as well when I say that I hope that the CHC provision of SAR will be far better than Bristows, and if so could well be due to the amount of involvement the RAF had in the process. Hopefully CHC management will have a much more long-term view and not spend their time trying to squeeze the last pound of profit from the contract by wheedling around clauses and sub-clauses with their lawyers.
Well, all I can say is that both of you are very blinkered in your view. ALL commercial companies are in to make a profit. CHC management at the end of the day is no different to Bristow, or Bond come to that. They want the best return on their investments. CHC's only long term view at the moment is to be in with a chance of winning the contract in 2012. In fact they have said before that they want to be a "lo-cost operator" (smacks of Ryanair and easyJet there). They may be bringing in new equipment (good on them) but they have to pay the vast new costs for these machines and their infrastructures. That money has to come from somewhere, and if you think they will act in the same way that you have been used to in military SAR, then you are very much mistaken.
As for your comment about the Sumburgh incident, perhaps you have forgotten that the RAF has had similar incidents and even dropped winchmen on a couple of occasions. SAR is a risky business and incidents do happen. Don't try and come over all high and mighty as no-one is that squeaky clean!
Maybe one of these days you will wake up and smell the coffee!