helicomparitor said, "it was thanks to Sikorsky raising the bar that EC developed the crashworthy floor and seats for the 225."
Actually, that is only partly true. The somewhat strengthened floor and seats (still not JAR compliant) were introduced after Offshore Logistics rejected Bristow's request to buy the 225. This purchase request was made by Bristow (you?) even knowing full well that the seats, fuel cells, cabin strength, etc were not as safe as the modern standard. An impassioned French sales team descended on Lafayette HQ for Offshore Logistics, and put the full court press to have the sale go through. I have a copy of the powerpoint pitch they gave.
O Log rejected the sale, and the French then designed the new seats and floors.
So, yes, it was Sikorsky's better safety design that forced the French to design somewhat stronger seats, but Bristow was quite willing to just roll over and let their passengers sit in 30 year old design seats. It was O Log managemment that forced Bristow to buy the stronger seats.
The fight for better equipment is made harder when folks like you make apologies for sub-standard designs. Sub-standard means literally not meeting the current standard, see the reversions and exemptions on the Type Sheet for the EC225 to see what I mean.