I have watched this and other wage debates with interest over the years and I think the key word here is context...these figures need to be taken in context to the economic conditions at the time and the industry in which these offshore guys operate. Things are hardly winding down in WA at the moment, are they?!?
Comments regarding pay rates in this area have previously drawn debate from different quarters, so I am not going to try and reinvent another set of fresh debates. Remember recent arguments of cleaners/bed makers/kitchen hands earning more then some pilots? Even after this latest increase, you will still find such employment streams offering higher incomes then flying roles. You will most likely find that these operators are no different to the rest of us in the aviation game and were seeking a competitive pay increase that accounted for the usual CPI and a little on top of that that would ultimately lift the overall package to a level at which it should be at.
In any case, I am sure there would have been trade offs for such a payrise and when you also remember that these negotiated pay rates have come on the end of a low starting base, 30% and then 19% over a 5-6 year period, whilst sounding large, is not unreasonable considering these increases were necessary to provide some form of competitive remuneration. Furthermore, such increases ultimately benefit almost all the industry as the bench mark is thus set for competitive remuneration for all pilots across the board.
Operators like Bristow and CHC are large and professional organisations providing what is a professional, safe and reliable service to the oil and gas industry. It is appropriate that, for the service they provide, the people providing it are remunerated accordingly. I also believe that both of these organisations have recently passed very similar negotiated rate increases.