Cyclic
I may have misinterpreted your tone, but you seem to think this is a somewhat clever move by the client involved?
Yes, you did misinterpret. I am not trying to express an opinion, I am trying to show you that this is serious for the helicopter industry in that some clients are terminating EC225s. Other clients are paying a % where they are being given an alternative. I see this fom both sides.
In some cases, the helicopter operators are expecting it both ways, ie. to continue to be paid for the EC225s and to charge higher rates for the replacement product based on "demand" as per Mark Duncan's statement from Bristow during their Q3 earnings call.
to support us by continuing to pay some of the MSC charges. As we bring in additional aircraft into the market to supplement the lack of EC225 capacity, the supply-demand situation in that regard is providing higher rates for those replacement aircraft and you can see that reflected in the quarter's results
Where this happens, you will see clients doing what they can to mitigate their costs, fact.
You seem to portray a very limited knowledge of business in that customers are your lifeblood but you also have to look after your suppliers at the same time - without them you have nothing.
I disagree, no company will continue to pay for aircraft they cannot use AND for substitute aircraft. Looking after suppliers does not mean abandoning all sense of commercial reality.
The aviation costs are such a miniscule part of the overall oil and gas budget
I would never say this to a customer. There are much better ways to "sell" products and services. Any organisation must manage costs no matter how "miniscule".