Good morning to you VP.
I'm not sure what part of my post you think your emails from EC contradicts?
As I said the communication is inconsistent in 2013 you had a situation where Bristows Bill Chiles was on record with an earnings call whose remarks were dismissed as press spinning a story at a HSSG meeting. You had the CAA slap Eurocopter down after comments from their now ex-CEO. There was even a rediculous situation where operators had a document detailing the pathway for return to service whilst weeks later EADS/Eurocopter and Bristow executives going on record saying they could not comment on the return to service of the 225.
Now maybe if you spanner these things you get a smug feeling getting some forward detail but that misses the point on several levels.
Of course the masses (be that passengers, family, investors, owners, executives) don't need to know every last engineering detail but it helps if everyone can agree on the basics.
Anyway that's my view. What's yours? There was a view suggested by someone that they knew why CHC pushed to get their 225's but the post got deleted after the accident on Friday. Anyone that hasn't grasped the notion that the future of the 225 in this region is as much about good
PR as it is solid engineering is oblivious. To that end I do feel the co-ordination between operators returning these things to service has been poor.