Sorry - I can't believe anything has changed at all. Perhaps you could indicate when either Westlands GKN/W or A/W have ever 'stepped in' without it costing 10 times the price in the long run, if you can I might change my mind. In my experience, I can't think of a single case (that was not caused by them in the first place)!
“10 times the price” sounds like uninformed scuttlebutt, and ignores MoD costing practices which companies have little or no say in. Even if you could offer such an example, my comment related to the many times that an aircraft, or associated equipment programme, would never have been delivered to you in the first place without Westland stepping in. Before about 2000, Puma Nav Update was the obvious one. After that? Sea King ASaC would have been another Chinook Mk3 without them, sitting in a hangar unable to be certified for 10 years.
I don't want it to sound rude or for it to be a 'mines bigger than yours' but possibly in your 131 projects did you ever have to sign for and then strap one to your backside, take off and try to do your job? I did, for about for about 7000 (military) hours worth, on quite a few types. If you seriously have not heard a complaint then go sit in any crew room for about 5 minutes - that should be enough!
I am not aircrew. But yes, I did have to sign at every configuration milestone to say that the equipment and aircraft were safe and met contracted specifications. However, like most MoD trainees, I was used in younger days to having to fly in aircraft I’d just finished maintaining; the main incentive we were “offered” to do our job correctly. Westland, unlike numerous companies (and MoD departments), never once offered me anything to sign for and accept knowing it did not meet these specifications.
They do made a point of ignoring the MoD rule that equipment or aircraft need NOT be functionally safe – so of course I concede that component would be seen as an “extra” cost to MoD. But it is not something that most aircrew I know are aware of. They expect nothing less and just assume MoD demand it. They don’t. Westland do.
They also happen to be the only company who offered me money back because they had been efficient and made too much profit. You will be familiar with Trial and Proof Installations. MoD rules require a company to be paid for both; then for the full production quantity. If they get one or both of the TI/PI right first time, then that is pure profit. Companies always strive for that, many achieve it; only one has offered the money back and encouraged me to spend it at another company.
I am sure you can offer examples which have upset aircrew. They do not prove me wrong; they are, like mine, personal experiences. But I’m pretty certain that most of what you blame on Westland will have its roots in, for example, Service Modifications which Westland are not required to certify as functionally safe or functional. They’re just left to pick up the pieces.
Finally, I have sat in many crewrooms and invited complaint. It is a
mandated airworthiness regulation that this opportunity is offered at least once a year to both operators and maintainers at Typed Air Stations, at separate times. It is how Front Line influence acquisition. The practice was formally stopped (in my experience) in 1993, following the “savings at the expense of safety” reiterated by Haddon-Cave. Thereafter, some of us continued with it, concealing the nature of the visit from beancounters and SOs. The regulation requires the Design Authority to be present, so it was the opportunity to say it to their face. I never heard a single complaint about Westland. Again, I’m sure you can tell me otherwise, but that doesn’t make me wrong.
I think any difference between our experiences will have roots in implementation of MoD regulations. Companies, not just Westland, have much to endure when dealing with an MoD organisation which is inherently inefficient when it comes to specifying requirements and managing delivery. Westland know far more about the process than MoD, and I would not hesitate to give them a "GOCO" type contract on rotary wing.