This is a Rumour Network.
It is not a place for logical, knowledgeable and pragmatic reasoning!
I enjoyed your first post and is the main reason I continue to look at this website as, sometimes (actually, more often than not to be honest) I learn something different about the industry we are in.
One of the things I have learnt is that companies will say and do anything to 'cover ar5e'.
For purely personal reasons I regard CHC (the company and culture) as a despicable company - and yet all employees I have met have been hard-working and professional.
To employ a
PR company to provide a vague polish/spin on such a matter is also despicable and lacks credibility - much like when another company described a crash as a 'water landing'!
I guess what I am trying to say is - the speculation on this site is more credible than anything I have heard uttered from the OEM and Operator thus far. The 'manoeuvring' has been contemptible and no doubt confused/elongated the process.
The 'sludge' theory which was deemed one of the root causees for REDL was addressed by redesign - is someone suggesting that that was a 'red herring/window dressing' or maybe the re-introduction was rushed last time - when the airframes were desperately required?