CHC LLC purchases Babcock

[KiwiNedNZ]

Heard from couple of reliable sources that Babock have purchased CHC in the UK. Nothing official out there though,

[helicrazi]

They really are going after the 'start with a large fortune' motto...

[bigglesbutler]

What happened to getting out of oil and gas?

[[email protected]]

Could well be positioning for UKSAR2G bid

[SNI]

Could well be positioning for UKSAR2G bid

Why would you buy a company that's only bidding but hasn't actually won anything yet? They'd be better off buying CHC Norway, but they didn't and bailed out completely from Norway. This rumour makes no sense whatsoever, especially not considering Babcock's multiple negative statements regarding offshore.

Besides, as far as I know, CHC UK isn't a seperate business unit, but part of a larger European business unit. They'd have to break that up first before they could sell the UK. But who knows, maybe Brexit more or less done this for them already.. Anything goes afterall in this dog eat dog world of O&G. Time will tell if this crazy rumour is true but I find it rather unlikely.

[212man]

Besides, as far as I know, CHC UK isn't a seperate business unit, but part of a larger European business unit

Well it will be a stand alone AOC, and CHC Scotia LTD is a distinct UK Legal entity.

[roundwego]

Why would CHC sell the only part of their operation which generates a significant amount of cash flow? Much of what CHCUK makes is syphoned off to pay for “Corporate”. CHCUK will never make a taxable profit, “Corporate” will make sure of that.

[tu154]

Why would CHC sell the only part of their operation which generates a significant amount of cash flow? Much of what CHCUK makes is syphoned off to pay for “Corporate”. CHCUK will never make a taxable profit, “Corporate” will make sure of that.

Not the only one to do that...

[jimf671]

Could well be positioning for UKSAR2G bid

Certainly Babcock is a device for relieving government of their money and UK SAR has been shown to be a reliable revenue source for Bristow through hard times in other quarters. However, both Babcock and CHC are already members of 'the usual suspects' having both done some SAR in the UK SRR. We also live in an age where 'parent company guarantee' is proven to be not worth the paper it's not written on, so sheer size doesn't cut it. I shall be interested to see what this turns into.

[nowherespecial]

Roundwego - CHC UK would be sold because the investors have had enough of pouring money into the overall entity and want some of their money back. If they would rather sell off the money making bit and take that cash then shut down the rest of the loss making operations, isn't that better for them? No one will pay for a major loss making business. People will pay for a profitable one. I heard the story has legs from my sources.

[SNI]

Roundwego - CHC UK would be sold because the investors have had enough of pouring money into the overall entity and want some of their money back. If they would rather sell off the money making bit and take that cash then shut down the rest of the loss making operations, isn't that better for them? No one will pay for a major loss making business. People will pay for a profitable one. I heard the story has legs from my sources.

Which sources and where? Pilots? Engineers? Or actual managers/shareholders involved in either Babcock or CHC, cause otherwise all these "sources" don't really hold any credit with all due respect. If all these "sources" were correct, CHC'd be merged with Bristow for 1,5 years now...

[HeliMannUK]

https://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/623618-brs-chc-merger.html

I thought CHC had already merged.

;)

[nowherespecial]

SNI, it's not pilots or engineers. My sources are solid but there is a lot more complexity than a simple buy/ sell transaction.

[SNI]

SNI, it's not pilots or engineers. My sources are solid but there is a lot more complexity than a simple buy/ sell transaction.

Those are some serious sources then very close to the fire... Either that or the top managers and anyone below are very good at portraying a different picture in recent briefings and communications in both CHC and Babcock. There's zero rumours or whistles on the ground here in the UK with regards to a Babcock take over of CHC UK. You and Kiwi are the only ones in the know apparently...

[Medevac999]

Heard from couple of reliable sources that Babock have purchased CHC in the UK. Nothing official out there though,

Ned you are very well connected in the industry, would you care to elaborate.

[Self loading bear]

Perhaps a reverse take over makes sense?

[Cyclic Hotline]

https://devencore.com/main-property-detail/4740-Agar-Drive4740 AGAR DRIVE (javascript:void(0))RICHMOND (https://devencore.com/properties/sale-lease/lease&keyword=Richmond,British%20Columbia), BRITISH COLUMBIA V7B 1A3FOR LEASEABOUT THE PROPERTY

Opportunity to lease 9,019 to 18,705 square feet of A-Class office space at Vancouver International Airport (YVR). This two storey building has exceptional improvements built-out with multiple offices, boardrooms, kitchen facilities, and open plan areas. 9,019 square feet on the main floor and 9,686 square feet on the second floor. Furniture is available. Mountain and river views. Located next to a bus station stop and 12 minutes from Bridgeport SkyTrain Station. Ample parking included.

[malabo]

That’s the East Building. Used to be Corporate before that all got moved to Dallas 7-8 years ago. They’ve been trying to lease it out ever since - nothing new.

[jimf671]

.... If anything, I would think it would be the other way where CHC Group would buy Babcock MCS U.K especially given Babcock’s statements about getting out of the market last year. ... ... ... ..

I can see where you're coming from with that. Looking back across the last few years I can sort of imagine a conversation at Babcock "Whose idea was it get into aviation anyway? We're Babcock. We say 'jump' and the government asks 'How high?'. Now we have all those flying types telling us we can't do this and we can't do that."

[LesPretend]

I can only speculate from the ‘client’ side of things but having asked both there appears to be nothing in this at all at this time.

The 3 main ‘legacy’ NS operators meet more often at high level that us plebs would be aware of and as they all talk constantly about consolidating its inevitable that rumour and speculation will abound.....no doubt that all 3 have probably sounded one another out. CHC and Bristow did, that’s common knowledge....

.... however an interesting snippet did reach my ear from a normally impeccable source that a large current NS contract up for renewal was potentially being awarded on a split basis between the two aforementioned in this thread and indeed inferred it could be viewed as a JV which would obviously lead to a bit of 2+2. I’ve heard nothing confirmed tho and for the avoidance of doubt, this is a rumour network!!

[helicrazi]

I can only speculate from the ‘client’ side of things but having asked both there appears to be nothing in this at all at this time.

The 3 main ‘legacy’ NS operators meet more often at high level that us plebs would be aware of and as they all talk constantly about consolidating its inevitable that rumour and speculation will abound.....no doubt that all 3 have probably sounded one another out. CHC and Bristow did, that’s common knowledge....

.... however an interesting snippet did reach my ear from a normally impeccable source that a large current NS contract up for renewal was potentially being awarded on a split basis between the two aforementioned in this thread and indeed inferred it could be viewed as a JV which would obviously lead to a bit of 2+2. I’ve heard nothing confirmed tho and for the avoidance of doubt, this is a rumour network!!

I heard the same, but the split was between one of these companies and another one not mentioned...

[Medevac999]

I don’t think this is on the scrap heap. Interesting to see if there are any announcements in the coming weeks. Obviously the top of the heap now knows the rumour mill has picked up on the story.

[Variable Load]

I don’t think this is on the scrap heap. Interesting to see if there are any announcements in the coming weeks. Obviously the top of the heap now knows the rumour mill has picked up on the story.

There have been questions raised locally in both companies. Both are saying there is nothing in the rumour, but that shouldn't come as a surprise. These kind of business deals are done at the highest levels in organisations, with local management deliberately kept in the dark.

It still seems improbably, but not impossible,

[LesPretend]

I’m told the announcement of the Repsol contract renewal is this coming Friday (although it’s been put back at least once that I know of)

While it might not shed much light on the original rumour, some folks I’ve spoken to recently seem to think it will have major implications for potential consolidation over the next year if it goes the way it’s being rumoured.

[Variable Load]

The announcement of Repsol will have zero impact on Babcock. I'm not sure what that does with regard to the rumour though :E

[helicrazi]

The announcement of Repsol will have zero impact on Babcock. I'm not sure what that does with regard to the rumour though :E

They cant cope with the contracts they already have :ugh:

[Variable Load]

Yeah, Babcock in 2021 have managed to drag themselves down to the low bar set by CHC.

[Medevac999]

Heard from couple of reliable sources that Babock have purchased CHC in the UK. Nothing official out there though,

Any update from your sources Ned?

[999driver]

There's another contract in the SNS that's up for renewal soon as well. Plenty of rumours and conjecture flying about over that one as to who will keep/lose/gain it

[Fareastdriver]

How are the mighty fallen

Ten years ago Bristow Aberdeen were flying a minimum of 65 flights a day; sometimes up to 75.

Today there were 13; tomorrow 17, being Friday.

[Twist & Shout]

How are the mighty fallen

Ten years ago Bristow Aberdeen were flying a minimum of 65 flights a day; sometimes up to 75.

Today there were 13; tomorrow 17, being Friday.

In Australia:
None today. None tomorrow.
Their hanger in Karratha is looking very unloved.... :(

[Evil Twin]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Twist & Shout View Post (https://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/638834-babcock-purchases-chc-uk.html#post11002044)
In Australia:
None today. None tomorrow.
Their hanger in Karratha is looking very unloved.... https://www.pprune.org/images/smilies/sowee.gif
139 and 189 flying as normal within CHC Karratha today I see.


I think he may have been referring to the Bristow Ivory Tower Hangar in Karratha.

[Twist & Shout]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Twist & Shout View Post (https://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/638834-babcock-purchases-chc-uk.html#post11002044)
In Australia:
None today. None tomorrow.
Their hanger in Karratha is looking very unloved.... https://www.pprune.org/images/smilies/sowee.gif
139 and 189 flying as normal within CHC Karratha today I see.


I think he may have been referring to the Bristow Ivory Tower Hangar in Karratha.

Correct.
A reference to the “Bristow in Aberdeen” update.

CHC are doing their best to follow, but are still running at this stage.
I hear from those with the relevant experience, that CHC management seem to be mirroring Bristow's management while in their death throws.
Sad.

[KiwiNedNZ]

Mitchaa - Couldnt really care what you think about me or who I do or don't know. Yes I am "only" a magazine publisher - but you know what I have been in this industry for about 30 years and in that time got to know a LOT of people in this industry - even over there in the UK. The world isn't really THAT small mate. And who said I know all the Ins and outs of the UK market - that has nothing to do with what I was told.

"To be fair, he should have been a lot more careful with what appears to be baseless rumours as there are hundreds of employees that could potentially be affected by this “rumour”." - Hmmm let me see - this place is called PPRUNE - notice the R in the word. My post is not the only rumour that's been posted here and not the only rumour that will be proven right or wrong. Don't like it - that's not my problem. Feel free to have a shot at every other person who posts a rumour here because every one of them effects someone somewhere according to your logic. What are these guys going to do - quit their job and go and find another one based on a rumour - sorry dont think so.

I am posting something I was told - it is what it is. I know and trust the people who have told me this and the are batting four for four on rumours they have filled me in on. You and others don't believe it - hey that's all cool - that's your and their choices. And how someone is affected by a "rumour" makes me laugh - mate its a RUMOUR. If and when its made a FACT then anyone involved in either company can do what they need to.

Have a great day and I stick by what I was told.

[Medevac999]

Thanks Ned for the reply

[Northernstar]

How are the mighty fallen

Ten years ago Bristow Aberdeen were flying a minimum of 65 flights a day; sometimes up to 75.

Today there were 13; tomorrow 17, being Friday.


Yet I bet their management still think they should be “#proudtobebristow.....’ Mind blowing.

[havick]

Mitchaa - Couldnt really care what you think about me or who I do or don't know. Yes I am "only" a magazine publisher - but you know what I have been in this industry for about 30 years and in that time got to know a LOT of people in this industry - even over there in the UK. The world isn't really THAT small mate. And who said I know all the Ins and outs of the UK market - that has nothing to do with what I was told.

"To be fair, he should have been a lot more careful with what appears to be baseless rumours as there are hundreds of employees that could potentially be affected by this “rumour”." - Hmmm let me see - this place is called PPRUNE - notice the R in the word. My post is not the only rumour that's been posted here and not the only rumour that will be proven right or wrong. Don't like it - that's not my problem. Feel free to have a shot at every other person who posts a rumour here because every one of them effects someone somewhere according to your logic. What are these guys going to do - quit their job and go and find another one based on a rumour - sorry dont think so.

I am posting something I was told - it is what it is. I know and trust the people who have told me this and the are batting four for four on rumours they have filled me in on. You and others don't believe it - hey that's all cool - that's your and their choices. And how someone is affected by a "rumour" makes me laugh - mate its a RUMOUR. If and when its made a FACT then anyone involved in either company can do what they need to.

Have a great day and I stick by what I was told.

Reminds me of this video;

Do you know who I am?

[malabo]

Jeez Ned, that is a funny video, and I know you’re thick skinned enough to enjoy it. Yeah, Songkhla.

CHC and Bristow were 1&2 on “highest cost to operate a helicopter”. Anyone with lower costs could bid accordingly and still make a profit for the shareholders. Tough luck for their employees, but blame it on a bloated bureaucracy for the sake of market valuation appearances.

Forgot about the silent Dutch partner siphoning off whatever meagre profit crumbs were left over in Europe. There’s your motivation for a shake up.

[Northernstar]

Silent partner? As in within CHC or an oil company intermediary as such?

[Variable Load]

Perhaps the shareholders are getting nervous about ownership rules post-Brexit. There is a 12 month grace period so that the rules can be agreed between the EU and UK. I think whatever is decided upon will have to be on a reciprocal basis, and I would be surprised if the EU would accept 100% UK ownership of an EU airline. So assuming reciprocity is maintained, then the current situation where 100% of CHC Scotia is EU owned will not be allowed. Could this be the driver to get Babcock involved, with say a 51% ownership deal?

[SNI]

Here's your answer

https://www.thisworldthesedays.com/chc-babcock-merger1.html

[Zombywoof]

Here's your answerYou dirty dog.

[dustycraphopper]

Wonder if any Dutch consortium involves any of the ex Schreiner influence , didn't Schreiner become CHC Netherlands ?

[SNI]

I highly doubt that Babcock as a whole, who's in financial dire straits themselves, has the cash or interest to buy another company that also isn't making any money (so they say):

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/babcock-in-retreat-after-shot-across-its-bow-from-barclays-hsvnd2c0t

[helitr]

EAA Helicopter group (parent of CHC HS, HN, Scotia and IRE) is no longer dutch owned. The old dutch owner, the brenninkmeijer family, sold their shares some time ago to Ivan Levy. Google him.

EAA is 51% (or majority) owned by him and the rest by 'CHC'. The reason these 4 AOC's did not go into chapter 11 back in the day.

[Blesshuey]

Ned you need to check the reliability of your reliable sources ;-)

[KiwiNedNZ]

Yeah Nah - Spoke to them again the other day as well as a couple of others and I stick by what I said. Lets see how it plays out.

[jimf671]

gov.uk

CHC SCOTIA LIMITED
Company number 00936569
1 active person with significant control / 0 active statements

Mr. Ivan Clive Levy - ACTIVE
Correspondence address: Lnselhofstrasse, 3, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland
Notified on: 15 December 2017
Date of birth: April 1957
Nationality: Swiss
Nature of control: Ownership of shares – More than 50% but less than 75%
==========================

https://www.linkedin.com/in/keepitsimple/?originalSubdomain=ch

[Banzai-blades]

Babcock took a £5.2million hit for “loss-making contracts” for its North Sea helicopter business in the 2020 financial year.

The sum was disclosed in accounts for Babcock Mission Critical Services Offshore, its dedicated subsidiary for helicopter operations in the UK oil industry.

That business, which has bases in Aberdeen, Blackpool and Sumburgh, saw pre-tax losses surge to £21.8million for the 12 months ending March 31, 2020, more than seven-times the previous year’s deficit of £2.8m.

Underlying operating losses were £6million, compared to profits of £5.7m in 2019, while revenues dropped 23% from £133.7m to £102m.

Ian Cooke, director of Babcock MCS Offshore, said the company’s core business faced “continued commercial pressures with reduced activity, despite a stabilised oil price”.

The loss-making contract impairments come as rivals have accused Babcock of bidding for contracts below breakeven price, termed a “race to the bottom (https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/north-sea/258334/nhv-babcock-total/)”.

Babcock said the £5.2m impairment “was recognised for loss-making contracts where unavoidable costs of meeting the obligations under these contracts exceeded the associated expected future net benefits”.

Babcock MCS Offshore has dropped its headcount (https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/04278474/filing-history) from 432 in 2019 to 363 in 2020.

The business did not comment on whether contract losses in 2019, with BP, Perenco and Spirit Energy, were associated with the reduction.

The drop in revenues, meanwhile, was due to reduced activity and the loss of a major contract, it said.

Mr Cooke said: “There has still been a continuing need for companies operating in the UK oil and gas market to lower operating costs while maintaining service delivery and ensuring the highest level of safety within the industry for its customers and passengers”.

Nevertheless, the firm said it is “confident about future trading prospects”, pointing to “two major contract wins” post-year end of 2020.

Babcock won separate five-year deals with Total in the UK and Denmark in August, which will also see it open a new base in the latter country.

Mr Cook added: “The business remains optimistic on the future and there remains significant long and short-term opportunities both at a tactical and strategic level.”

Last month Steffen Bay, CEO of rival firm NHV said he hoped the recent oil price resurgence would help the beleaguered helicopter market to a “more sustainable situation (https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/north-sea/298516/nhv-ceo-helicopter-market-oil/)“.

[212man]

Heard from couple of reliable sources that Babock have purchased CHC in the UK. Nothing official out there though,
are you sure it’s not meant to be the other way round?

[SNI]

are you sure it’s not meant to be the other way round?

Seems so... Apparently Total CEO was on one of their rigs and told everyone CHC has bought Babcock....

[helicrazi]

Seems so... Apparently Total CEO was on one of their rigs and told everyone CHC has bought Babcock....

Given Babcocks current financial issues as a group, rights issues and accounting investigations initiated by the new chief, analysts are giving the stock a 'steer clear' for now, their share price is back at 2006 pricing and down 2% today as I write this... maybe chc have bought the entire group :}

[Medevac999]

Seems so... Apparently Total CEO was on one of their rigs and told everyone CHC has bought Babcock....

Well thats a change of direction!

[dustycraphopper]

Didn't Babcock only buy the original Avincis/Bond set up for the Air Ambulance element and end up with Oil and Gas division ?

CHC entering into the UK 135/145 air ambulance market ??:hmm:

[PPI Zulu]

Seems so... Apparently Total CEO was on one of their rigs and told everyone CHC has bought Babcock....

He was probably recounting a PPRUNE thread he read and just remembered it incorrectly like most people do when they are spinning a second/third/fourth* (*delete as applicable) hand dit.

Total b:}ll:}cks...just like the original post.

[KiwiNedNZ]

Total bhttps://www.pprune.org/images/smilies/badteeth.gifllhttps://www.pprune.org/images/smilies/badteeth.gifcks...just like the original post.

Its not like I really give a ****e what you think :D

[KiwiNedNZ]

Just had some updated intel and seems its more along the lines of CHC buying Babcock - not the other way around - My Bad. :}

Maybe the Telephone call in that is happening tonight with the Babcock crews might shed some more light on it.

[rotorfish72]

otherway around shipmate.

[industry insider]

seems its more along the lines of CHC buying Babcock Wow, its going to need a huge debt to finance that kind of deal.

All will be revealed very soon it seems.

[helicrazi]

Wow, its going to need a huge debt to finance that kind of deal.

All will be revealed very soon it seems.

What exactly has the value? Profitable contracts? Owned aircraft? Assets? I guess they would be buying the debt and getting rid of a competitor...

They would however get back the Total work they just lost... :}

[PPI Zulu]

Its not like I really give a ****e what you think :D

Yes Ned. I apologise. I was half a bottle in and a mite trigger happy with the submit button. What I should have said was that...'...it's total b:}ll:}cks like the conjecture postulated in the original post.'

You have to understand that those in the NNS helicopter industry are very bruised by six or seven years of austerity caused by OPEC's attempt to put the fracking industry out of business and prevent the USA from becoming petrochemical self-sufficient. They have all faced multiple rounds of redundancy. They have all faced slashing of their Ts&Cs. They have all faced the stark realisation that the kids' education, the mortgage, the car, the comfortable pension after retirement and everything else might disappear up in smoke because, despite the rise in wholesale oil prices and the price at the pumps going up, the oil companies are not telegraphing the margins on to any of their suppliers. Some have been made redundant and have never recovered. The oil companies continue to favour the markets and the shareholders and the dividends over investment. Topics like this that postulate yet another train wreck of jobs in Aberdeen with nothing more than a 'I heard it in the pub' basis are like drinking another cup of cold sick.

[KiwiNedNZ]

FYI I wasnt in any Pub in the Uk and didnt hear it from a fly on the wall. Like I said in my original post it is a RUMOUR that I was told by FOUR different people in various differing segments of the industry. I never said it was a FACT and that people were going to lose their jobs - I made a post - like many many others have done before and will continue to do so, of something that I was told. Is it 100% correct - who knows - time will tell. I have friends flying in the North Sea and I dont wish ill will on any of them including the ones I dont know. Anyway I posted what I was told - with the ok of those with whom I spoke. Lets see what plays out.

[rotorfish72]

UK Offshore, Denmark and Australia.......all going to CHC. Announced this morning.

[TwoStep]

From Babcock

Babcock International Group PLC (Babcock or the Group)



Conditional sale of Oil and Gas aviation business

Babcock, the aerospace and defence company, has entered into a conditional agreement for the sale of its Oil and Gas aviation business to CHC Group, LLC (CHC).

The Oil and Gas business, which is part of the Group’s Aviation sector, provides offshore oil and gas crew transportation services in the UK, Denmark and Australia. It is headquartered in Aberdeen, UK, and employs over 500 people and operates around 30 aircraft across its three locations.

The deal is expected to complete in the second calendar quarter of 2021, subject to the satisfaction of the relevant third party conditions. It is intended that CHC will seek clearance for the transaction from antitrust authorities in the UK and Australia, but completion is not conditional upon such clearances being received.

Further information will be provided upon completion of the deal.

[Medevac999]

WoW! How about Babcock’s assets in Italy and Spain?

[SNI]

Indeed might wanna check your sources, Ned.

It's official, CHC is buying Babcock offshore including UK, Denmark and Australia.

https://www.babcockinternational.com/news/conditional-sale-of-oil-and-gas-aviation-business/

[PPI Zulu]

FYI I wasnt in any Pub in the Uk and didnt hear it from a fly on the wall. Like I said in my original post it is a RUMOUR that I was told by FOUR different people in various differing segments of the industry. I never said it was a FACT and that people were going to lose their jobs - I made a post - like many many others have done before and will continue to do so, of something that I was told. Is it 100% correct - who knows - time will tell. I have friends flying in the North Sea and I dont wish ill will on any of them including the ones I dont know. Anyway I posted what I was told - with the ok of those with whom I spoke. Lets see what plays out.

Well Ned. All hands up: you called it. It's true (subject to due dilligence of course).

[KiwiNedNZ]

PPI Zulu - I dont care if I was right or wrong, just hope that CHC do the right thing by everyone. I have heard they are leaving everything in place as is so hope they stick to that. Lot of good people out there in both companies.

[KiwiNedNZ]

Medevac999 - I think their assets in Spain and Italy are more HEMS and SAR operations not O&G - but might be wrong

[PPI Zulu]

Medevac999 - I think their assets in Spain and Italy are more HEMS and SAR operations not O&G - but might be wrong

Yep. Ned is right. Babcock want SAR, HEMS, Police, Air Ambulance and Fire Fighting. That's why they bought Avincis in the first place. That bit is defo not for sale.

[Medevac999]

Medevac999 - I think their assets in Spain and Italy are more HEMS and SAR operations not O&G - but might be wrong

Thanks Ned. I thought they had some contracts in Africa

[KiwiNedNZ]

And if you go back even further right at the beginning it was Helicsa in Spain that had the ems, SAR and fire fighting before they kept getting gobbled up by even bigger companies.

[PPI Zulu]

PPI Zulu - I dont care if I was right or wrong, just hope that CHC do the right thing by everyone. I have heard they are leaving everything in place as is so hope they stick to that. Lot of good people out there in both companies.

Unfortunately there will always be some casualties. Senior management, finance, HR will be in the firing line immediately. Unless, as you say, they intend to run BMCS as a separate entity. Can't see that myself though.

[rotorfish72]

You're not a fluffy white dessert. Only O&G.......as was promised last year.

[KiwiNedNZ]

Can't see that myself though. - considering not many people saw this coming then maybe they might actually leave most of it alone.

[SimonK]

Wow. Never saw that one coming. Good luck to all.

[helitr]

Next stop PHI for CHC? Time for some consolidation in the market.

[finalchecksplease]

And hopefully the “new CHC” grabs TOTAL by the balls and significantly increases their pricing and gets the market heading back in the right direction again.

Is that the same CHC that just took the Apache contract from Bristow (mid term) by offering them cheaper rates, with probably very small, no or negative profit margin on it?

[nbl]

Is that the same CHC that just took the Apache contract from Bristow (mid term) by offering them cheaper rates, with probably very small, no or negative profit margin on it?
Where did you read that.?

[212man]

Where did you read that.?
probably wasn't read anywhere - more likely a conversation inbound on the ABN 056 radial while drinking and eating rig coffee and stickies, based on all the up to date inside information on company financials and contract status that line pilots are fully briefed on.

[helicrazi]

probably wasn't read anywhere - more likely a conversation inbound on the ABN 056 radial while drinking and eating rig coffee and stickies, based on all the up to date inside information on company financials and contract status that line pilots are fully briefed on.

So Apache havent given Bristow notice of termination? :oh:

[212man]

So Apache havent given Bristow notice of termination? :oh:
I was referring to the loss making side of it

[Rigga]

As said quite some while ago - Oil & Gas is far too volatile an industry for Babcock. When crises happen, the oil industry generally plummets and AA, SAR, Police and MOD assets are at least stable and often fully supported in their ops.

[PlasticCabDriver]

As said quite some while ago - Oil & Gas is far too volatile an industry for Babcock. When crises happen, the oil industry generally plummets and AA, SAR, Police and MOD assets are at least stable and often fully supported in their ops.

and with good margins, a steady supply of government money, not overly onerous contract monitoring and when money gets a bit tight, the option to simply ask for more.

[finalchecksplease]

probably wasn't read anywhere - more likely a conversation inbound on the ABN 056 radial while drinking and eating rig coffee and stickies, based on all the up to date inside information on company financials and contract status that line pilots are fully briefed on.

Never said I was briefed on that stuff or that they are making a loss but what I did learn out of Babcock last financial briefing is that they declared a £5.2m impairment for loss-making contracts. Bet they aren't the only company that have loss-making contracts on their books but might be wrong on that.

[jimf671]

So, presumably, these
European Search and Rescue (SAR) Competition Bonanza: Northern Norway SAR, Netherlands SARHC, Ireland SAR Aviation and UK's UKSAR2G - Aerossurance (http://aerossurance.com/helicopters/european-sar-competitions/)
remain the domain of Babcock Public Sector Parasite plc?

[LesPretend]

It’s NOT the full picture to say Bristow just lost Apache on cost. There were other factors .... ... apparently.

As someone else pointed out CHC have taken the opportunity to outsource and cut costs. Just before covid came along Bristow were about to be forensically taken apart by ‘streamlining specialists’ from the US. That’s not a rumour, it was stated by senior managers at events this time last year. Needless to say I hear this is yet to happen.

This is the third big contract in a row that has not been renewed and that should have alarm bells ringing in Houston. Repsol are still pontificating and have been for months presumably after this news they will think it strengthens their hand for a further reduction on renewal.

The new CEO basically lost a whole year while others were making themselves more competitive.

Anyone dealing with Bristow from the exterior who are used to the current O&G trends for ‘synergising’ can’t help but wonder how bloated some parts of the business are and how antiquated some of the processes the outside world sees seem. No point blaming the BD guys if what they are selling is a quarter more expensive than anyone else because their costs are higher.

Fingers crossed that job losses from all 3 operators can be kept to a minimum.

[dustycraphopper]

Will CHC get the Babcock "Onshore" windfarm work out of Barrow in Furness and the Kinsale Gas Field work out of Cork ? Currently utilising EC135s ?????

[rotor-rooter]

Is there any connection with the timing of the AerCap/GECAS deal and the CHC/Babcock deal with the Milestone involvement with all these companies? Is this all the consolidation left in the marketplace, or are there more stragglers out there?

[tu154]

Will CHC get the Babcock "Onshore" windfarm work out of Barrow in Furness and the Kinsale Gas Field work out of Cork ? Currently utilising EC135s ?????

Babcock Onshore is unaffected so no change there. Kinsale is moving to decommissioning so not long left for that anyway.

[tu154]

I guess the Babcock staff will become CHC staff under TUPE but what happens if there are a lot of duplications?

HR/Finance/Senior Managers etc? Does everyone from both companies that have duplications go into a potential redundancy pool or only those incoming from the other company? With the way the companies are set up (Legally to run an AOC) then there’s going to be a hell of a lot of duplication? I wonder what then happens with Pay agreements if one set of employees (CHC) are paid differently to the other set (Babcock)

This isn’t going to happen overnight clearly.

Does TUPE apply when you buy a company?

[TTFD]

CHC taking over Apache was confirmed to staff by Bristow management on Tuesday night. CHC take over on 8 July with rumoured two S-92s. Apache evidently played the 120-day termination of contract game as CHC were cheaper.

[212man]

Does TUPE apply when you buy a company?
Yes, it should. It applies to change of ownership or change of service provider.

[helicrazi]

Using the old Google there I would agree..


https://www.stirling-uk.com/business-sale-or-purchase-impact-of-the-tupe-regulations/

TUPE does not apply when the business transfer occurs by:-

share takeover
transfers of assets only without the business (e.g. sale of plant and equipment alone)
supply of goods or services for clients own use (i.e. no business transfer)
transfer outside the UK (check legislation of destination country)
some bankruptcy and insolvency situations




Transfer outside the UK, isnt it CHC LLC buying it?

TUPE seems to apply when they want it to apply, seems like a dark art...

[212man]

TUPE seems to apply when they want it to apply, seems like a dark art...

No denying that!

[tu154]

TUPE seems to apply when they want it to apply, seems like a dark art...

Exactly. It seems to be down to one side or the other deciding whether to contest it or not, and paying the associated costs.

[Variable Load]

A full takeover of one business by another is one of the clearest applications of TUPE. It is at the pure core of TUPE. I would be totally shocked if TUPE didn't come into play here.

[The Witret]

And hopefully the “new CHC” grabs TOTAL by the balls and significantly increases their pricing and gets the market heading back in the right direction again.

I guess Babcock onshore will still exist and also any SAR work, this is merely its offshore division.

Not True. The deal with CHC includes Oil & Gas SAR.

[The Witret]

Yes I believe 2 x AW139 in Aberdeen.

Indeed....

[KiwiNedNZ]

I think Babcock Australia will also include the H175s they have operating up in the Timor Sea.

[rrekn]

Australian fleet is 10 machines:

2 x EC175B
2 x S-92A
6 x AW139s

[Twist & Shout]

Australian fleet is 10 machines:

2 x EC175B
2 x S-92A
6 x AW139s

And CHC’s contribution. (“On contract” machines)
2 x S-92
2 x AW139
2 x AW189

[Evil Twin]

And CHC’s contribution. (“On contract” machines)
2 x S-92
2 x AW139
2 x AW189

Don’t forget the RAAF SAR 139’s

[SNI]

Thanks Ned. I thought they had some contracts in Africa
Yes, they have. Mozambique. Used to have Ghana as well but not sure they still do.

[Bravo73]

Yes, they have. Mozambique. Used to have Ghana as well but not sure they still do.

Those are Babcock Italia contracts. Nothing to do with Babcock Offshore/MCSOff.

[Twist & Shout]

Don’t forget the RAAF SAR 139’s

Quite right.
I was just comparing Babcock Off Shore machines with CHC Off Shore machines.

It seems the Babcock OS fleet will be added to the CHC OS fleet, and the CHC onshore - as you point out.
RAAF SAR AW139s
A Navy SAR AW139?
An EMS B412 in WA
Did they have a B412 with the Army in Darwin?

They, the new CHC/Babcock entity, will:
Dominate OS in OZ, at least for a little while.
Have the military contracts almost exclusively. Must “erk” Babcock a little, being their core business in a way.
Have one EMS contract?

A lot of people wondering what the structure will be. All in the same uniform, flying red and blue machines, or....?

[212man]

In Aberdeen, it doesn’t really help that Babcock and CHC are at opposite sides of the runway

Sounds like Deja vu from 2004 when CHC bought HS Group (including Bond)

[jimf671]

... ... In Aberdeen, it doesn’t really help that Babcock and CHC are at opposite sides of the runway. There are obviously two check in areas and theres not enough room for all the Babcock staff to move into CHC’s existing infrastructure so not sure how they are going to work all that. Looks like it will be a logistical nightmare to manage to be honest, too many aircraft and not enough hangar space on either side so they will have to either work from both locations or start expanding on the CHC side of the runway.

Well, lets see. Easy walking distance from a railway station, hotels, B&B and shops on the East side. I always found it a far simpler experience, not least because of Bond's superior communication skills.

[SNI]

Well, lets see. Easy walking distance from a railway station, hotels, B&B and shops on the East side. I always found it a far simpler experience, not least because of Bond's superior communication skills.

I think on which side the airport main terminal is far more important than whether it has a crappy BNB/hotel and Asda closer by 🤣. Also, way more hotels and better bus connections on the other side than Babcock side... Not to mention superior facilities over at CHC. Everything shiny new and more spacious, but definitely not big enough to house all of Babcock.

Let's see how this plays out, could go anywhere. If it's merely a share purchase, nothing much will change, neither will Tupe apply (the easiest way). The difficult way would be to have bought it entirely, in which case it's all a very complex endeavour: rebranding, repainting, Tupe, T&C's, re-alignment of OPS (will take a very long time seeing CHC operates in a completely different way than Babcock) etc etc.

[PPI Zulu]

Well, lets see. Easy walking distance from a railway station, hotels, B&B and shops on the East side. I always found it a far simpler experience, not least because of Bond's superior communication skills.

Bond's superior communication skills?!!! I laughed so hard a bit of wee-wee came out. :O

[dustycraphopper]

Means financing two facilities if viable , alignment of policies and operating procedures ( a lengthy process - just throw one set in the shredder and keep the simplest :ok:) , ref IT - keep it simple

[The Witret]

Unfortunately there will always be some casualties. Senior management, finance, HR will be in the firing line immediately. Unless, as you say, they intend to run BMCS as a separate entity. Can't see that myself though.

There will be a consultation which will affect both existing CHC staff and new or previous Babcock staff. CHC will use this as an opportunity to pick the cream from both groups.

[The Witret]

CHC have 3 x AW139 and 2 x AW189 contracted out of Karratha and then another 6 dotted around Australia for the RAAF SAR.

In answer to the last part, CHC are gaining around 30 aircraft to the 100+ they have operating already so suspect everything will become CHC. Be that the aircraft colours, uniforms, IT, procedures and policies etc etc

In Aberdeen, it doesn’t really help that Babcock and CHC are at opposite sides of the runway. There are obviously two check in areas and theres not enough room for all the Babcock staff to move into CHC’s existing infrastructure so not sure how they are going to work all that. Looks like it will be a logistical nightmare to manage to be honest, too many aircraft and not enough hangar space on either side so they will have to either work from both locations or start expanding on the CHC side of the runway.

The existing Babcock model will very likely be left untouched in the short to medium term. The transition of systems, policies, branding and of course consultation of people on both fronts will take many many months, if not at least 2 years. In essence, expect a stand alone AOC x 2 (UK) with minimal changes for a good while. Perhaps some changes to top management and support functions but even that will be minimised short/medium term to facilitate existing operations and reduce safety risk. The regulator will be watching very closely, including the change management strategy. Slow and steady.

[helicrazi]

Of these 500 being quoted, a large amount are going to be necessary to take across.

its unfortunately going to be admin and management that bear the brunt of it.

[The Witret]

Depends on whether TUPE is applicable and whether Babcock will be forced into a reduction in numbers before the takeover. I can’t see CHC taking on 500 additional staff when they have just stripped their own company to the bare bones (Where Babcock presumably haven’t and are themselves bloated)

It would be very harsh on CHC employees to be at risk in this case especially having just survived numerous rounds of redundancies over the last few years themselves. CHC’s staff will already be the cream of what they had.

The fact that it’s CHC LLC (Based in the Cayman Islands) I would say that TUPE is probably not applicable here as it has no obligation to honour U.K TUPE.

I think it’s more likely Babcock will be told to cut their numbers to bare bones before the “official” takeover. If CHC have had to do it recently then it would be only fair that Babcock too were stripped to the bare bones.

Saying that, I am sure that this will be one of the very first questions asked when Mark Abbey has his regular town halls. CHC Employees will naturally be concerned if they are having to go through yet another round of redundancies to possibly make way for Babcock employees to replace them. Naturally the Babcock guys could be seen at a disadvantage in consultations as they wouldn’t have the same level of “CHC know how” as their CHC counterparts will have moving forward.

Lots of unknowns.j

Hello. Wrong. “I can’t see CHC taking on 500 additional staff when they have just stripped their own company to the bare bones (Where Babcock presumably haven’t and are themselves bloated”

You clearly know little facts. Babcock have as much fat as an anorexic butcher’s pencil. CHC are equally skinny. To make this work there will be casualties and gains in both sides. CHC for example have virtually zero 175 capability or experience and their facilities are only shiny and new in part. Wisdom will be required to make this work. To suggest CHC employees have been treated worse that Babcock is preposterous. All parties deserve a break and I hope that happens. TW.

[malabo]

More likely Scotia will die on the vine (no more 51% bleed) and CHC Babcock flourish. Taking on whatever pilots or admin it requires from Scotia, of course.

[helicrazi]

I'm sure the 'eye' will be further off the ball than it already has been, with all this now unfolding. This leaving further opportunity for competitors to get a piece of the action. As is already happening on a number of babcocks contracts.

Sometimes you can just simply take on too much!

[The Witret]

Sure, the main bulk will be Pilots and Engineering staff. CHC will have a Pilot/Engineer/Aircraft ratio they will need to maintain. That will just be a natural transition and not much real thought needs to be put into that.

The rest however will be the “Duplicate staff” that make up an AOC.


CHC would do well to take time and consider the experience and tenacity of the Babcock/Ex Bond team. It’s takes more than engineers and pilots to make business work. And let’s face it, those two factions are somewhat less than optimal when it comes to loyalty, especially in Aberdeen where endless demands of more money is king. Money driven mini despots. CHC bought their way back, Babcock survived and prospered through endless nights of hard graft, despite being owned by a parent company who had no interest in oil & gas and treated there staff in this area with contempt.

[Granite City Flyer]

Does this mean in a few years time we'll see some red helicopters with Bond written on the side reappear?

[The Witret]

Clearly the top heavy management structures in Dallas and Houston are to blame for both CHC and Bristow’s demise, no doubt about that. The profits made in the regions are used to fund extortionate salaries for clueless senior managers/directors and upto the CEO’s.

It would be an interesting prospect to ditch the Yanks and leave the companies to people that actually understand front line aviation. One or two UK/European super aviation companies I’m sure would do a lot better.

It looks like CHC are doing well to thin that structure out and going by the Apache news above, Bristows cost structure is still far too high to compete. (Couldn’t match CHC’s costs)

Time to adapt and cut the fat. Managers don’t need managers that then need senior managers that then need directors that then need Assistant Chiefs that then report to the CEO. Cut out the waste in the middle and these companies should start turning profits.


Cut out soulless pilots and engineers who have clearly demonstrated a lack of humanity only previously seen in the dark ages. A good manager is gold dust. A greedy pilot is well a pilot. Buy a mirror and look deep. Both CHC and Babcock have shocking morale issues brought on by greed by core staff and terrible leadership at corporate level and in some aspects local level. Babcock’s safety performance and OTD over the past few years is the top drawer. CHC’s not so much. ABZ is a hellhole of a workplace, not caused by managers, rather damn right greed. I hope for better days.

[2papabravo]

Cut out soulless pilots and engineers who have clearly demonstrated a lack of humanity only previously seen in the dark ages. A good manager is gold dust. A greedy pilot is well a pilot. Buy a mirror and look deep. Both CHC and Babcock have shocking morale issues brought on by greed by core staff and terrible leadership at corporate level and in some aspects local level. Babcock’s safety performance and OTD over the past few years is the top drawer. CHC’s not so much. ABZ is a hellhole of a workplace, not caused by managers, rather damn right greed. I hope for better days.

Ha! Haha!

Cut out soulless pilots and engineers out of a helicopter company? That is one of the best lines I've ever read on here.

Greed? Could we name some more examples other than just standard pay negotiations to maintain a position within the market rate?

Sounds like someone is hanging onto the skids and is a little bitter.

[helicrazi]

CHC would do well to take time and consider the experience and tenacity of the Babcock/Ex Bond team. It’s takes more than engineers and pilots to make business work. And let’s face it, those two factions are somewhat less than optimal when it comes to loyalty, especially in Aberdeen where endless demands of more money is king. Money driven mini despots. CHC bought their way back, Babcock survived and prospered through endless nights of hard graft, despite being owned by a parent company who had no interest in oil & gas and treated there staff in this area with contempt.

The Babcock / ex-Bond Team?

there is hardly anyone, if anyone at all, left in the management structure from Bond days, either retired or been abused by the new corporate structure that is Babcock and got out of dodge.

Babcock management is like a revolving door, MD almost changes annually (number 6 ish now since Babcock) structures constantly changing because no one wants the management jobs due to the people it means working for higher up.

There is very little management in aviation experience left at Babcock.

[LesPretend]

As someone who works on the ‘other side’ I was staggered to hear that Bristow still operate a 2 tier often salary matching bonus legacy system for many ‘middle management’ staff in Aberdeen.

Even the most backward O&G companies are slowly learning that this isn’t just detrimental to morale, it’s actually totally unaffordable in the age we now all have to operate.

Bonuses will always exist in the upper tier of management but don’t bleat about loosing contracts on cost, then say you didn’t make money on them anyway when you have constantly paid bonuses as the business contracts.

[Apate]

500+ Employees supporting just 30 aircraft is super lean is it?

CHC UK & Norway collectively are operating a similar number of aircraft. How many employees are in these two organisations?

[vee_why]

That figure of 500 for Babcock is for UK Offshore, Denmark and Australia Offshore. No word on whether Australia Onshore is included in the sale.

For UK based staff, at the end of the 2020 financial year - Babcock UK offshore had 363 staff, of which 37 were non-operational (Management, support, admin) and at the time they were operating circa 14 aircraft. Looking at CHC Scotia figures for FY20 a total of 325 staff with 95 non-operational. Average cost per head for CHC Scotia was £94,000 compared with £74,000 for Babcock UK Offshore.

Comparisons of 'costs of sales' for FY20, Babcock's UK offshore operation 'costs of sales' was £90 million against a revenue of £102 million and CHC Scotia 'cost of sales' was £134 million against revenues of £122 million.

CHC LLC has a huge opportunity to drastically reduce the cost base for their UK operation. Maybe merge the existing UK operations into a new entity called CHC Lite™?

[Apate]

I believe Scotia numbers are in the region of 250-275 but that’s baring in mind that Scotia has all the European management structure and support staff that look after other regions too. Norway is a tricky one as they act as their own separate entity, a better example would be including Den Helder ops in with the UK and IRE.

I guess you have a point though, as the aircraft fleets expand you obviously have your Pilot/Engineer Aircraft ratio to maintain but the Support and management side are already incorporated.

The relationship between Babcock UK and Denmark is similar to CHC UK and Netherlands. However the Babcock Australian AOC is very much a stand-alone organisation, which is why I thought the CHC UK/Norway equation was a valid one for comparison. You'd be shocked at how many are employed In Norway, especially when you add in the Heli-One staff.

As for what happens post-TUPE, CHC will have to treat all pilots as one group. They cannot simply state that an ex-Babcock pilot is more at risk than a CHC pilot, TUPE regulation prohibits that. If there are too many pilots, the dreaded "matrix" will be used and applied to the pilot workforce as a whole. It will get messy and cause a huge amount of stress and anxiety for everyone. I hope it doesn't come to that.

[jimf671]

The Babcock / ex-Bond Team?

there is hardly anyone, if anyone at all, left in the management structure from Bond days, either retired or been abused by the new corporate structure that is Babcock and got out of dodge.

Babcock management is like a revolving door, MD almost changes annually (number 6 ish now since Babcock) structures constantly changing because no one wants the management jobs due to the people it means working for higher up.

There is very little management in aviation experience left at Babcock.

Extremely unfortunate. Bond used to be my favourite offshore ride. They were the only ones at Dyce who could be relied upon to communicate thoroughly and respectfully with the ordinary passenger.

[havick]

Heard from couple of reliable sources that Babock have purchased CHC in the UK. Nothing official out there though,

So, circling back to the original post, were your sources fed misinformation seeing as the total opposite is occurring?

Kind of moot really, because it would be messy either way no matter who bought who.

[nowherespecial]

@ Ned, great work breaking this story.

M&A activity is almost always a construct of people, competition and timing. The likely answer here is BBK wanted to sell, the oil price is stable ish and CHC wanted to get some more scale in the UK and Australia and a deal was able to be done. Denmark is just a bonus.

The businesses are required to carry on fighting/ competing until the merger is complete as there is a chance it might get pulled by the authorities on competition grounds. Ironically NHV showing up in ABZ has made this significantly less likely. It's not likely that CHC would have gone for this without consulting a lot of experts in competition law first.

TUPE will apply to the Babcock Danish entity. Under retained law from the EU post Brexit, TUPE should apply to the UK as well (TUPE as a legal construction still exists in the UK but post Brexit this could change (albeit unlikely)). The absorption of Babcock Australia will be governed by local law in Australia. I'm not an expert on Australian labour law but I'd be surprised if there were not legal mechanisms similar to protect employees there too so you should assume all Babcock staff will come across and then, as outlined by Apate, the matrix comes out.

[Nescafe]

I'm not an expert on Australian labour law

If that’s the case, I certainly wouldn’t take your next advice.

you should assume all Babcock staff will come across and then, as outlined by Apate, the matrix comes out.

[PlasticCabDriver]

So as you do appear to know, please explain to us why not? What is it about Australian Labour Law that makes that incorrect?

[KiwiNedNZ]

Havick - "So, circling back to the original post, were your sources fed misinformation seeing as the total opposite is occurring?"

As per my previous post further back it was actually my fault that I posted it the wrong way around. Should have read my notes better :)

My sources were correct - just a screw up on my part and I said that previously.

[helicrazi]

I wont hold my breath waiting on the outcome of European Law (TUPE) applying to a LLC from a company based in UK and no longer in Europe.

However, I hope it does apply.

I am sure Prospect and Balpa are all over it :ugh::mad:

[Apate]

Mitchaa, I love your optimism and devotion to the Hummingbird.

The ultimate ownership of the UK entities is irrelevant. There are two UK companies, both registered with Companies House, that will be merged following the purchase of one by the others parent company.

The last time this happened was in 1999. Then you had a Canadian company (CHC) purchase a Norwegian company (Helikopter Services group). TUPE applied when the two UK entities were merged.

As you say, things will become clearer, but it won't be weeks. My guess is Q3 2021 before anything starts changing.

[helitr]

An operating licence (not the AOC) requires majority ownership and control from an EAA based national. Might be different for UK now with Brexit. Would they front run potential new regulations to start a new AOC/operator licence from the Cayman to fly in the UK and dispose the current Scotia AOC?

Given the financials and regulatory clearance they won't actually merge for another 15 months.

[SNI]

There will be a consultation which will affect both existing CHC staff and new or previous Babcock staff. CHC will use this as an opportunity to pick the cream from both groups.

You shouldn't make such statements unless you know this for a fact. If you would actually work for any of these companies you'd know that CHC is only just on the pilot numbers and Babcock is actually short. With Apache won by CHC apparently, they'd also be going into undermanned territory. It seems very unlikely there will be any sort of pilot redundancies. Management, HR and perhaps support staff have more to worry about though.

[SNI]

CHC would do well to take time and consider the experience and tenacity of the Babcock/Ex Bond team. It’s takes more than engineers and pilots to make business work. And let’s face it, those two factions are somewhat less than optimal when it comes to loyalty, especially in Aberdeen where endless demands of more money is king. Money driven mini despots. CHC bought their way back, Babcock survived and prospered through endless nights of hard graft, despite being owned by a parent company who had no interest in oil & gas and treated there staff in this area with contempt.

As much as I admire your almost heroic portrait of the Babcock employees (you clearly are one yourself), it made me giggle. Which company made more pilots redundant in the last 5 years? Exactly, CHC. Way more that is. To say the engineers and pilots at CHC are less than optimal 🤨 cause they've negotiated better terms and conditions than Babcock, after having been hammered way more than any Babcock employee in the last 5 years, just sounds a bit petty and quite honestly, envious. I'm sure you'd be happy to sign the new CHC's T&C's though without actually having earned them, wouldn't you? When you do though, just remind yourself who fought for those superior T&C's.

[The Witret]

You shouldn't make such statements unless you know this for a fact. If you would actually work for any of these companies you'd know that CHC is only just on the pilot numbers and Babcock is actually short. With Apache won by CHC apparently, they'd also be going into undermanned territory. It seems very unlikely there will be any sort of pilot redundancies. Management, HR and perhaps support staff have more to worry about though.


Your comment regarding not making such statements could be applied to 95% of every statement on here. However, I suspect anyone outside of flying or engineering personnel should be exploring other opportunities.

[The Witret]

As much as I admire your almost heroic portrait of the Babcock employees (you clearly are one yourself), it made me giggle. Which company made more pilots redundant in the last 5 years? Exactly, CHC. Way more that is. To say the engineers and pilots at CHC are less than optimal 🤨 cause they've negotiated better terms and conditions than Babcock, after having been hammered way more than any Babcock employee in the last 5 years, it just sounds a bit petty and quite honestly, envious. I'm sure you'd be happy to sign the new CHC's T&C's though without actually having earned them, wouldn't you? When you do though, just remind yourself who fought for those superior T&C's.


I left no so long ago my friend and will never return. The worst experience in my 27 years in aviation. A ghastly place to work, full of frightened and very tired and angry people. The only place bar one other where hope and decency was outnumbered. I’m out of here now. Goodbye and if you’re CHC ‘take care’.

[Hot_LZ]

CHC & Babcock numbers may be where they are for incumbent contracts at the moment but watch the oil companies squirm and bail to rebalance the table like they have done so many times before over previous decades...

LZ

[industry insider]

nowherespecial

I'm not an expert on Australian labour law but I'd be surprised if there were not legal mechanisms similar to protect employees there too so you should assume all Babcock staff will come across and then, as outlined by Apate, the matrix comes out.

Unlike in Europe, there is no equivalent to the Transfer of Undertakings Regulations (or TUPE). If a business is sold or outsourced, employees will only transfer if the ‘new employer’ makes an offer of employment that the employee accepts. Where employees transfer in these circumstances, the new employer may become liable for their accrued leave entitlements. In addition, any enterprise agreement covering the employees is also likely to transfer to the new employer.

[nowherespecial]

Thanks II.

I would note that while those laws do not seems very helpful for employees, at least a mechanism exists where jobs have to be offered. Businesses with no employees generally are not very successful so while fat trimming is possible, the idea that no one will get a job in a merged entity is unlikely. And of course there is the optics and union/ CBA angle as well, esp in Australia.

For everyone else asking.
Laws apply in the country the events take place in. TUPE as a law came across under Brexit so 'British TUPE' will apply to the UK entity (my last check is from Feb 2021 and the law was not amended from the EU version). The Danish entity is still subject to 'full EU' TUPE. Under EU law it was illegal for 100% foreign ownership of businesses in the EU. An EU shareholder had to have more than 50% and thus control. This is the purpose of the shareholder in Switzerland (Ivan Levy/ EAA), known as a silent shareholder. Generally these silent shareholders do nothing other than legitimise the entity for ownership rules (in exchange for a nice fee of course) and there will be management documents underneath that ownership structure which essentially neuter that shareholding to make (in this case) CHC LLC the controller of entity. Under Brexit, the UK Government might wish to change so that all businesses have to be 50% British owned and Mr Levy will be managed aside.

None of this changes that UK/ Danish/ Australian entities are subject to local law, and not Cayman/ US/ any other. The HQ of CHC LLC is irrelevant. Helitr also touched on this in post 49.

[999driver]

Has the takeover stengthened CHC's position in the SNS? Still a major contract hangs in the balance which is due to expire in May 2021. No rumours it seems as to if they wil retain it or it will go the way of a yellow livery.

[helitr]

Thanks II.

I would note that while those laws do not seems very helpful for employees, at least a mechanism exists where jobs have to be offered. Businesses with no employees generally are not very successful so while fat trimming is possible, the idea that no one will get a job in a merged entity is unlikely. And of course there is the optics and union/ CBA angle as well, esp in Australia.

For everyone else asking.
Laws apply in the country the events take place in. TUPE as a law came across under Brexit so 'British TUPE' will apply to the UK entity (my last check is from Feb 2021 and the law was not amended from the EU version). The Danish entity is still subject to 'full EU' TUPE. Under EU law it was illegal for 100% foreign ownership of businesses in the EU. An EU shareholder had to have more than 50% and thus control. This is the purpose of the shareholder in Switzerland (Ivan Levy/ EAA), known as a silent shareholder. Generally these silent shareholders do nothing other than legitimise the entity for ownership rules (in exchange for a nice fee of course) and there will be management documents underneath that ownership structure which essentially neuter that shareholding to make (in this case) CHC LLC the controller of entity. Under Brexit, the UK Government might wish to change so that all businesses have to be 50% British owned and Mr Levy will be managed aside.

None of this changes that UK/ Danish/ Australian entities are subject to local law, and not Cayman/ US/ any other. The HQ of CHC LLC is irrelevant. Helitr also touched on this in post 49.

Mr Levy actually has dual citizenship. He is both Swiss and British. How about that for a placeholder!

[Jetboxer]

“Babcock has set aside $7.285 million in the form of “an exceptional provision” for “loss-making contracts where unavoidable costs of meeting obligations under these contracts exceed the associated expected future net benefits.”

Questions need to be asked. With regard to the UK division, when bidding on the TOTAL work, these costs were not unavoidable. They could simply be avoided by not bidding, or bidding at a sensible rate.

Looking ahead, would this put TUPE into question? (A company knowingly taking on loss making contracts with the view of selling up.)

[helicrazi]

Questions need to be asked. With regard to the UK division, when bidding on the TOTAL work, these costs were not unavoidable. They could simply be avoided by not bidding, or bidding at a sensible rate.

Looking ahead, would this put TUPE into question? (A company knowingly taking on loss making contracts with the view of selling up.)

How do you know its Total that's loss making?

[Jetboxer]

How do you know its Total that's loss making?

I don't know for a fact, but have made the assumption based on the following article:

https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/north-sea/271558/babcock-total-helicopter-contract/

[LesPretend]

Taking contracts on as lost leaders isn’t anything new. In fact I’ve heard several Bristow middle managers state in the last few weeks that they made no money on Apache to try and play it down. My information is that they did make money on it.

It’s the balancing act of taking some work at near enough to cost and juggling it alongside the more profitable short term stuff (oops drilling!) and right now the gift that keeps giving is CMED evacs which despite all the good press are not being done for free.

It takes the skill of a good Accountable Manager to balance what contracts to take on and what to leave well alone if it is indeed these incumbents who actually make that call in the first place? I suspect it’s more the decision support guys in faraway offices that have a bigger call than technically they should.

[JulieAndrews]

North Sea Operator Cost Structure:
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/shopping?q=tbn:ANd9GcS6gIpPC73qKbW4sOo0_yjqRVPWPvhbYDjae7y2h s_DSKfwmZTIQbmLvgGJ9SN-6Glxg18N-x8Frv4&usqp=CAc

[dustycraphopper]

O & G companies expecting "a Rolls Royce service for the price of a knackered banger" , nothing new here , always a few contracts that turn out after initial bid then subsequent award that seem to be not as revenue rich in the long term , “golden apples turning sour” – read the label or sell by date first.

Possible scatter gun future predictions of the actual service levels and the flying requirements provided in the early stages and in the tender specifications, some customer specifications can be optimistic and sometimes thin - it’s all very crystal ball at times.

On the other hand in this case appears to be , scoop up all the available contracts however you can, build a portfolio that could be attractive to any other interested party and then sell it all on at the right time down at the local market/auction rooms, bargains are there for the entrepreneurs.

“Come on down – the price is right!”



Suitcase full of cash and order a fast taxi for a timely exit – result
.

[helicrazi]

O & G companies expecting "a Rolls Royce service for the price of a knackered banger" , nothing new here , always a few contracts that turn out after initial bid then subsequent award that seem to be not as revenue rich in the long term , “golden apples turning sour” – read the label or sell by date first.

Possible scatter gun future predictions of the actual service levels and the flying requirements provided in the early stages and in the tender specifications, some customer specifications can be optimistic and sometimes thin - it’s all very crystal ball at times.

On the other hand in this case, scoop up all the available contracts however you can, build a portfolio that could be attractive to any other interested party and then sell it all on at the right time down at the local market/auction rooms, bargains are there for the entrepreneurs.

“Come on down – the price is right!”



Suitcase full of cash and order a fast taxi for a timely exit – result
.

Isnt that what Avincis did? :E

[havick]

Isnt that what Avincis did? :E

Don’t forget Inaer!!

[rotor-rooter]

There is one guaranteed method of forcing your competition into action, grab market share at any cost and force your competitors into an existential corner. Babcock knew exactly what they were doing when they bid these contracts, and understood that any resultant losses would be short-lived, because they had already stated they wanted out of this business. Someone was going to have to step up and purchase them, or risk going under and Babcock would then grab an even greater market share and be able to drive the pricing with a changing marketplace with one less competitor - and they definitely didn't want that outcome.

As for forcing Operators to bid with profitable pricing, I'm not sure I can envision the regulatory, financial and legal framework this would require. I would suggest that at this time, none of the Operators on the North Sea might pass that test, as they are still financing expensive non-revenue generating assets and infrastructure, while the operational capacity might be significantly below that projected to fund business expenses planned sometime in the past.

Reviewing the financials of the businesses that publicly report them, none of them might meet that profitability criterion. If they were to increase rates to accommodate these expenses, what kind of rates do you think would be required - and would anyone pay them? It is only a matter of time before the market recovers adequately to fund the operators, or they will simply fail and be acquired for next to nothing by the next helicopter business genius. The current strategy appears to be that it's better to go broke slowly and still have a chance at survival, than losing the bids and associated revenue and predictably going bust. That's business.

[212man]

Seems odd timing? https://jobs.babcockinternational.com/Babcock/job/Dyce%2C-Aberdeen-Director-of-Operations-6-12-month-FTC-Aber-AB21-7DU/659689101/

[helicrazi]

Seems odd timing? https://jobs.babcockinternational.com/Babcock/job/Dyce%2C-Aberdeen-Director-of-Operations-6-12-month-FTC-Aber-AB21-7DU/659689101/

MD off sick, D of O stepped up to MD, so D of O needs replacing... not odd timing just circumstances

[Ed Winchester]

Stop throwing facts in the mix, helicrazi. Completely uncalled for and doesn’t fit in with the speculation and conspiracy theories that are the foundations we build on.

[pants on fire...]

MD off sick, D of O stepped up to MD, so D of O needs replacing... not odd timing just circumstances
That's quite the position to be offering with no previous experience required! Should make it pretty easy to fit in with the rest of the team.

[WBOne]

That's quite the position to be offering with no previous experience required! Should make it pretty easy to fit in with the rest of the team.

Experience counts less than who you know........allegedly. Most of the world has moved on from that position, others have it as a prerequisite......allegedly.

It will be a pleasure to see certain management finally fall to earth with the rest of us. Bittersweet but a pleasure nonetheless. Can't wait to work alongside them stacking shelves in Tesco's......its a wet dream of mine :)

[Medevac999]

It would be interesting to know how this purchase is being funded? Someone must be bankrolling CHC.

[helicrazi]

It would be interesting to know how this purchase is being funded? Someone must be bankrolling CHC.

Pocket change, doesnt cost much to buy debt, repaying the debt on the other hand...

[PPI Zulu]

It would be interesting to know how this purchase is being funded? Someone must be bankrolling CHC.

Babcock. Neat trick: Win big contracts (at a loss) making yourself look 'order book attractive'. Sell $30m annual losses and on-going leasing costs to whomsoever wants the market share and is willing to take on the debt.
Whoever is brave enough will be hoping that the economy of scale of their already existing operation will enable them to thin-out most of the HQ function overheads and possibly real estate and leave just the bare contracts.

[rotor-rooter]

Babcock appear to be refocusing on their core businesses, looking at disposing of all of their other helicopter investments. This will be a very interesting sale, as some of these assets if properly managed and operated have considerable market share in some significant market sectors. But like everything in this business today, who knows who will buy them and what they'll do with them.

https://dailybusinessgroup.co.uk/2021/04/babcock-axes-1000-jobs-as-company-remodelled/

The company said the Avincis acquisition in 2014 has not delivered shareholder value with low returns on high amounts of invested capital.

“We are selling our oil and gas aviation business and we are reviewing our options for the each of the aerial emergency services businesses,” it said in an update.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-13/babcock-to-write-down-2-3-billion-after-asset-review


Lockwood announced plans to sell Babcock’s offshore helicopter operations to rival CHC Group (https://www.bloomberg.com/quote/HELIQ:US) last month after launching a strategy overhaul in November, weeks after taking charge. The CEO said in an interview he’s had approaches for all remaining parts of the Avincis chopper unit and is sure the group can avoid an equity raise, even if disposals take more than a year.

“We wouldn’t say it unless we were confident,” he said. “Those assets we’ve identified as not fitting our go forward strategy are good businesses. We believe from feedback from banks and others that there will be good interest".

(https://www.bloomberg.com/live)

[industry insider]

PPI Zulu wrote

Babcock. Neat trick: Win big contracts (at a loss) making yourself look 'order book attractive'. Sell $30m annual losses and on-going leasing costs to whomsoever wants the market share and is willing to take on the debt.
Whoever is brave enough will be hoping that the economy of scale of their already existing operation will enable them to thin-out most of the HQ function overheads and possibly real estate and leave just the bare contracts.

Interesting, where did you get the $30m loss figure? I think it may be more. But with a relatively small number of helicopters in the oil and gas division of Babcock, just thinning out HQ functions will never deliver the kind of savings CHC will need to make. We know there has been a race to the contractual bottom by the helicopter operators, right now most are making operating losses, clearly evident by the published financials we can see.

There is little prospect of a turnaround until current contracts are re tendered at realistic prices, which is itself a challenge, maybe the industry consolidation will inject some financial realism into the helicopter operating business. The first job is for the helicopter operators to counter the oil and gas company expectation that every tender leads to a price reduction.

Any marketing and commercial department can win a cheap job, its been an easy life for the marketing and commercial teams for the last 10 years or so. The helicopter operator marketing and commercial teams are going to have to learn a new skill set to re define oil company expectations, raise prices back to where they need to be so the helicopter business can make a return.

[Medevac999]

So who will buy the rest of Babcock aviation? Spain,France, Italy, Scandinavia etc

[HeliboyDreamer]

So who will buy the rest of Babcock aviation? Spain,France, Italy, Scandinavia etc

I believe that only the offshore part was for sale, I don't think onshore was on the table.

[Medevac999]

They are reviewing their options. So i would presume more announcements to come over the next 12 months. Reading their statements they want out of the aviation arm completely. But time will tell

[dustycraphopper]

“We are selling our oil and gas aviation business and we are reviewing our options for the each of the aerial emergency services businesses,” it said in an update.

Direct quote from an internet news article .........

Looks like the UK Onshore division with its mixed bag of Offshore Wind Farm and Air Ambulance work may well be in the mix of items being considered ?

Will be interesting to see if another existing operator (at Staverton) and possibly the yellow outfit might be interested in certain purchases if
the "for sale" signs go up.

[The Witret]

The oil & gas companies led this debacle, not the helicopter companies. They should be hung drawn and quartered to pay for their bullish, arrogant and frankly disgusting behaviour. The management of the helicopter companies always appear to be hammered on here. Honestly, if you knew about the behaviours on show even now you would be shocked. I’m giving up soon as I honestly can’t stomach working in such a twisted rotten to the core business which ruins good people just trying to keep something afloat. I’m sickened by it all.





PPI Zulu wrote



Interesting, where did you get the $30m loss figure? I think it may be more. But with a relatively small number of helicopters in the oil and gas division of Babcock, just thinning out HQ functions will never deliver the kind of savings CHC will need to make. We know there has been a race to the contractual bottom by the helicopter operators, right now most are making operating losses, clearly evident by the published financials we can see.

There is little prospect of a turnaround until current contracts are re tendered at realistic prices, which is itself a challenge, maybe the industry consolidation will inject some financial realism into the helicopter operating business. The first job is for the helicopter operators to counter the oil and gas company expectation that every tender leads to a price reduction.




Any marketing and commercial department can win a cheap job, its been an easy life for the marketing and commercial teams for the last 10 years or so. The helicopter operator marketing and commercial teams are going to have to learn a new skill set to re define oil company expectations, raise prices back to where they need to be so the helicopter business can make a return.

[rotor-rooter]

The oil & gas companies led this debacle, not the helicopter companies. They should be hung drawn and quartered to pay for their bullish, arrogant and frankly disgusting behaviour. The management of the helicopter companies always appear to be hammered on here. Honestly, if you knew about the behaviours on show even now you would be shocked. I’m giving up soon as I honestly can’t stomach working in such a twisted rotten to the core business which ruins good people just trying to keep something afloat. I’m sickened by it all.

I think you may have this backwards? The Helicopter Operators got bigger and bolder and Offshore Helicopters became a boom business, with every carpet-bagging chancer showing up to slurp from the trough. Managing the companies, changing financial strategies, cashing out of equity, leasing everything, it all changed in the last decade. Then you need to look at the management personnel themselves - we already know the behaviours of the "leaders" who enriched themselves, hired their friends and then ran each of these companies into the ground (Quote. "They should be hung drawn and quartered to pay for their bullish, arrogant and frankly disgusting behaviour"). So which company should we consider first? CHC, PHI, Bristow, Era or Babcock as the big ones that made the biggest splash. The beneficial owners of the helicopter companies did this to themselves. They appointed people with zero knowledge, experience or interest in helicopters, then wondered why it didn't work out? And then the unthinkable happened, the bottom fell out of the oil market, (which for some of the more senior people in the industry, wasn't a first), and the entire house of cards collapsed. Manufacturers, Leasing outfits, Operators and anyone remotely involved in the offshore field watched it all fall apart.

So quite how this can be laid at the feet of the Oil Companies, doesn't compute with me. It is always easiest to blame your Customers, but if they can't pay your rates, they'll look elsewhere. And guess what? Another helicopter company is ALWAYS prepared to do the work for less money - market forces at work. You can either keep flying, or shut the doors, and we have all seen what happened as a result. The only people who won were the incompetent Boards and Managements that allowed this situation to foment, grossly enriching themselves in the process, and the losers were anyone unfortunate enough to own stock in these companies, who saw their entire investment wiped out completely, and the employees that actually make the company run and generate the revenue, who ended up unemployed.

I do agree with you about getting out; today's helicopter business is not the one that the business was built on and has very little resemblance to the past organizations filled with talented, experienced people who garnered the respect of all around them, rather than the contempt of their staff. We are not at the end of it yet, and there will be more consolidation and likely much more pain before it ends. It is almost predictable that there will be other significant failures, sales, consolidation and changes in 2021, the scale of which is undetermined at this time. If there is no change into 2022, there may be widescale collapse of the largest operators who have now committed every asset with the hope of a turnaround, as the global business returns to smaller, more competitive, regional operators.

Or, maybe something completely different will turn the World on its head.

[The Witret]

Well my friend from my own experience I simply can’t agree wholly with you. You do make some valid points, however to suggest that all management in the 4 operators have been and are incompetent buffoons is quite simply not true. Don’t get me wrong I have worked with some undeniably questionable people in my time, but to a certain extent those behaviours were born from a sickening pressure from the oil & gas operators and yes, corporate leads higher up the chain in London, Vancouver and Dallas. That is also undeniably true. My own experience is that of trauma, regret, anger and sadness. I genuinely feel sorry for some people on here who say horrible sweeping generalisations and perhaps forget that not every manager is a complete incompetent hapless fool who doesn’t care. The truth probably does not exist because these forums are never wrong and people like me never speak up because they know they will be shot down as a non entity. I’ve had my fill of this industry. It’s murders good will and generates behaviours which are monstrous. I feel sorry for Babcock Oil & Gas staff who only wanted a future and now for many there is none as CHC will never accept the existing structures due to unprecedented cost cutting across business. I personally think the worst is yet to come, an inevitable negative event that will change everything. Good luck to you, im well and truly done with it all. Last post.




I think you may have this backwards? The Helicopter Operators got bigger and bolder and Offshore Helicopters became a boom business, with every carpet-bagging chancer showing up to slurp from the trough. Managing the companies, changing financial strategies, cashing out of equity, leasing everything, it all changed in the last decade. Then you need to look at the management personnel themselves - we already know the behaviours of the "leaders" who enriched themselves, hired their friends and then ran each of these companies into the ground (Quote. "They should be hung drawn and quartered to pay for their bullish, arrogant and frankly disgusting behaviour"). So which company should we consider first? CHC, PHI, Bristow, Era or Babcock as the big ones that made the biggest splash. The beneficial owners of the helicopter companies did this to themselves. They appointed people with zero knowledge, experience or interest in helicopters, then wondered why it didn't work out? And then the unthinkable happened, the bottom fell out of the oil market, (which for some of the more senior people in the industry, wasn't a first), and the entire house of cards collapsed. Manufacturers, Leasing outfits, Operators and anyone remotely involved in the offshore field watched it all fall apart.

So quite how this can be laid at the feet of the Oil Companies, doesn't compute with me. It is always easiest to blame your Customers, but if they can't pay your rates, they'll look elsewhere. And guess what? Another helicopter company is ALWAYS prepared to do the work for less money - market forces at work. You can either keep flying, or shut the doors, and we have all seen what happened as a result. The only people who won were the incompetent Boards and Managements that allowed this situation to foment, grossly enriching themselves in the process, and the losers were anyone unfortunate enough to own stock in these companies, who saw their entire investment wiped out completely, and the employees that actually make the company run and generate the revenue, who ended up unemployed.

I do agree with you about getting out; today's helicopter business is not the one that the business was built on and has very little resemblance to the past organizations filled with talented, experienced people who garnered the respect of all around them, rather than the contempt of their staff. We are not at the end of it yet, and there will be more consolidation and likely much more pain before it ends. It is almost predictable that there will be other significant failures, sales, consolidation and changes in 2021, the scale of which is undetermined at this time. If there is no change into 2022, there may be widescale collapse of the largest operators who have now committed every asset with the hope of a turnaround, as the global business returns to smaller, more competitive, regional operators.

Or, maybe something completely different will turn the World on its head.

[WBOne]

I think you may have this backwards? The Helicopter Operators got bigger and bolder and Offshore Helicopters became a boom business, with every carpet-bagging chancer showing up to slurp from the trough. Managing the companies, changing financial strategies, cashing out of equity, leasing everything, it all changed in the last decade. Then you need to look at the management personnel themselves - we already know the behaviours of the "leaders" who enriched themselves, hired their friends and then ran each of these companies into the ground (Quote. "They should be hung drawn and quartered to pay for their bullish, arrogant and frankly disgusting behaviour"). So which company should we consider first? CHC, PHI, Bristow, Era or Babcock as the big ones that made the biggest splash. The beneficial owners of the helicopter companies did this to themselves. They appointed people with zero knowledge, experience or interest in helicopters, then wondered why it didn't work out? And then the unthinkable happened, the bottom fell out of the oil market, (which for some of the more senior people in the industry, wasn't a first), and the entire house of cards collapsed. Manufacturers, Leasing outfits, Operators and anyone remotely involved in the offshore field watched it all fall apart.

So quite how this can be laid at the feet of the Oil Companies, doesn't compute with me. It is always easiest to blame your Customers, but if they can't pay your rates, they'll look elsewhere. And guess what? Another helicopter company is ALWAYS prepared to do the work for less money - market forces at work. You can either keep flying, or shut the doors, and we have all seen what happened as a result. The only people who won were the incompetent Boards and Managements that allowed this situation to foment, grossly enriching themselves in the process, and the losers were anyone unfortunate enough to own stock in these companies, who saw their entire investment wiped out completely, and the employees that actually make the company run and generate the revenue, who ended up unemployed.

SNIP

Totally agree with every word rotor-rooter, spot on!

[jimf671]

... ... ... The beneficial owners of the helicopter companies did this to themselves. They appointed people with zero knowledge, experience or interest in helicopters, then wondered why it didn't work out? And then the unthinkable happened, the bottom fell out of the oil market, (which for some of the more senior people in the industry, wasn't a first), and the entire house of cards collapsed. ... ... ... ...

I think this is borne out by the financial forecasts and results from some of these companies.

[rotor-rooter]

Well my friend from my own experience I simply can’t agree wholly with you. You do make some valid points, however to suggest that all management in the 4 operators have been and are incompetent buffoons is quite simply not true. Don’t get me wrong I have worked with some undeniably questionable people in my time, but to a certain extent those behaviours were born from a sickening pressure from the oil & gas operators and yes, corporate leads higher up the chain in London, Vancouver and Dallas. That is also undeniably true. My own experience is that of trauma, regret, anger and sadness. I genuinely feel sorry for some people on here who say horrible sweeping generalisations and perhaps forget that not every manager is a complete incompetent hapless fool who doesn’t care. The truth probably does not exist because these forums are never wrong and people like me never speak up because they know they will be shot down as a non entity. I’ve had my fill of this industry. It’s murders good will and generates behaviours which are monstrous. I feel sorry for Babcock Oil & Gas staff who only wanted a future and now for many there is none as CHC will never accept the existing structures due to unprecedented cost cutting across business. I personally think the worst is yet to come, an inevitable negative event that will change everything. Good luck to you, im well and truly done with it all. Last post.

I would totally agree with many of your comments, particularly regarding the positive competencies of various managers within these Organizations. At the operational level, there are in fact a large number of excellent, skilled, capable and respected managers still remaining, but their numbers are dwindling through attrition, age and simply a desire to do something different. Many of these individuals have left their Organizations and taken their skills and knowledge to other operators, who in turn are preparing to challenge the status of the major operators of today. Again, the market will determine how this develops, but there is a serious likelihood that smaller, specialized, regional operators are going to inflict serious pain on the large operators, because they can offer competing levels of service (they established and maintained these standards at their previous employers), at significantly lower prices, due to the removal of a bloated corporate overhead that contributes no value to the Customer. The major operators are then left with the dilemma of starving to death or buying the competition in order to stay in business - exactly what happened with Babcock. My comments are more generally directed way up the food chain, any part of which can be read about extensively here or on Google.

The issue isn't specific to the helicopter business, it is the impact for every player in every facet of the offshore O&G industry, as it undergoes a forced evolution due to a baseline commodity repricing and a major change in market dynamics - the oil market pricing is now Customer, as opposed to Cartel, driven. If you are unable to evolve, you will simply disappear within a very short period of time. Change drives more change, and the market will simply evolve with or without you, so you had better be ready to adapt and radically alter your business model or simply shrink into irrelevance and non-existence, although unfortunately it may be a bit more dramatic than that! Small, nimble, regional and financially efficient operators with sound operating and safety practices are going to change the landscape completely, and this is a market ripe for disruption. Every remaining competitor now has the same basic business model and requirements; Leased assets, PBH support, Personnel and facilities. Great mission configured aircraft are readily available inexpensively, PBH is a fixed cost that will increase predictably, high quality trained and experienced personnel are readily available (and even more are looking), support facilities are available. So it really comes down to how efficiently and effectively you can run and manage your business, and that is where the new players will enter, or potentially the end-users establish new business models. If you look around at some of the quality people that have left the major operators, you will see them involved in other aspects of operation, but the experience and expertise is never lost. They may become the new O&G operators of the future, or be hired by them. I tend to share your view, that there is more, much more, to come.

I wish you all the best in whatever direction life takes you, Witret, and really do understand your position. There are people affected here that may be on their third employer in as many years, and they never quit a single job, but may now be left without employment through no fault or decision of their own. Very sad situation.

[belly tank]

Latest is the Aus business unit was suggested to be re-named Virgin Helicopters to align with Bains holding in V Australia.

[Flightsimman]

Latest is the Aus business unit was suggested to be re-named Virgin Helicopters to align with Bains holding in V Australia.
You can't be serious?

[Apate]

As we approach the purchase date......

How mercenary will CHC be with the UK purchase? Will they simply grab anything worth having (SAR) and screw everyone else?

Airlines Investment Group - Loganair and BMI Regional. That's my forecast written in virtual stone!!!!

[JulieAndrews]

Ha - 'Virgin Helicopters' - now how did that work out before ?

[etudiant]

Hearing through the rumour mill that all is not well with the sale....
Old Wall Street adage: 'Buy on the rumor, sell on the news '.

[PPI Zulu]

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/uk-watchdog-serves-hold-separate-order-on-babcock-s-offshore-aviation-sale-271623404101

[PPI Zulu]

https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/chc-slash-babcock-merger-inquiry

[MixingUnit]

Doubt that the latest completion date of the 30th of June will be met

[Medevac999]

https://helihub.com/2021/06/14/babcock-lose-uk-wind-farm-contract/

[Apate]

https://helihub.com/2021/06/14/babcock-lose-uk-wind-farm-contract/

Babcock Onshore, therefore only tenuous relevance to this thread. There is an Onshore thread that would be a better location for your post.

[LesPretend]

So it seems CHC have just taken another big scalp from Bristow and landed the Taqa contract.

Slightly off topic but with Repsol apparently waiting to see how this whole merger pans out before awarding their work, what on earth have Bristow got left if they loose that one?!

[MixingUnit]

So it seems CHC have just taken another big scalp from Bristow and landed the Taqa contract.

Slightly off topic but with Repsol apparently waiting to see how this whole merger pans out before awarding their work, what on earth have Bristow got left if they loose that one?!


Repsol might have to wait as the sale has already been delayed by a month. Latest sale completion date is this week but it's been very quiet again.

[92Driver]

So it seems CHC have just taken another big scalp from Bristow and landed the Taqa contract.

Slightly off topic but with Repsol apparently waiting to see how this whole merger pans out before awarding their work, what on earth have Bristow got left if they loose that one?!
It seems like Bristow is not travelling too well. Is the Oz operation still going? Nigeria?

[Twist & Shout]

It seems like Bristow is not travelling too well. Is the Oz operation still going? Nigeria?

Bristow Australia still have some Fixed Wings in their “Air North” operation.
No Helicopters on contract, but rumour is they are tendering for OS contracts.

All, “as far as I know” (According to the refueler)

[industry insider]

Twist and Shout wrote:

but rumour is they are tendering for OS contracts.

I can only think of 2 active tenders at the moment. Not much coming up for the next 12 months. The Bristow Australia helicopter fleet comprises 2x AW139 in storage in Brisbane. AirNorth is reportedly struggling and is surviving on Covid related Government subsidies. Today's round of Covid lockdowns will be tough for all of the airlines, especially AirNorth as it is Darwin based.

[Nigerian Expat Outlaw]

Nigeria?

212man may be able to cast some informed light ? My old friends there tell me BHNL are down to half the Eket contract (shared with ADA/OAS) and the odd charter. Just about everything else is with Caverton.

NEO

[212man]

212man may be able to cast some informed light ? My old friends there tell me BHNL are down to half the Eket contract (shared with ADA/OAS) and the odd charter. Just about everything else is with Caverton.

NEO
BHNL also has an AW189 (was anyway) on contract with Total (or Total Energies as they are now). So, the spread for the IOCs looks like this (excuse possible slight changes in numbers in last year):

Caverton:
- Shell (5 AW139 + 1 DHC-6)
- Chevron deepwater (1 S92 with 1 AW139 support)
- Chevron shallow water/onshore (3 B412s + 8 B407s)
- Agip/ENI (2 S76Ds)

OAS/ADA:
- Exxon/Mobil deepwater (3 AW139s)

BHNL:
- Exxon/Mobil shallow water (4 S76Ds)
- Total (1 AW189)
- 1 ERJ145 mainly supporting Exxon/Mobil

There are numerous smaller local company contracts too.

[Nescafe]

BHNL:
- Exxon/Mobil shallow water (4 S76Ds)
- Total (1 AW189)
- 1 ERJ145 mainly supporting Exxon/Mobil


Really? No 92s? The apron at PH used to look like a used helicopter lot, what happened!

[Nigerian Expat Outlaw]

How the mighty have fallen. Bristow Aberdeen soon down to 6 or 7 aircraft from what used to be the busiest heliport in the world, Nigeria slowly dying, Australia dead in the water. Surely the notorious "inverted triangle" of management must be asking themselves how things have fallen so low ?

NEO

[Twist & Shout]

Surely the notorious "inverted triangle" of management must be asking themselves how things have fallen so low ?

Maybe you don’t understand modern business process, moving forward.
The SLT will be bonused up, for achieving efficiencies in line with the KPI’s.
The expensive and troublesome Helicopters have been rationalised back to zero (in Australia) this has allowed rightsizing of pilots and engineers (to zero - the ultimate achievement.)
Helicopters/Engineers/Pilots were identified as the biggest risk to SLT remuneration, so it’s smooth sailing now.
The other encumbrance completely eliminated (in Aus) is clients. These were identified as very labour intensive. Eliminating them has allowed massive right sizing of wages staff. Creating several additional VP positions - “Senior Vice President - Right Sizing”, “Senior Vice President - Efficiencies” and “Senior Talent Acquisition Partner”)

Apart from funding the new SLT positions, with suitable packages, the savings should allow for expansion in the SQA and IT departments, as part of an ongoing Modernisation strategy.

I hope this helps you pivot into the new normal.

[212man]

Really? No 92s? The apron at PH used to look like a used helicopter lot, what happened!
Probably better on the West Africa thread, but I know 2 have gone back to Aberdeen in the last month or so. Not sure what the other 3(?) are doing now

[KiwiNedNZ]

Merger has been stopped.

CHC - Babcock Merger Stopped (https://www.heliopsmag.com/chc-and-babcock-offshore-merger-stopped)

[Ant T]

Merger has been stopped.

CHC - Babcock Merger Stopped (https://www.heliopsmag.com/chc-and-babcock-offshore-merger-stopped)

Not sure if you mean that you think it has been “stopped” as in “ruled out”?

This seems to link to the same UK gov page that PPI Zulu refers to a couple of weeks ago, (post 204 above), which appears to be a temporary enforced hold on any progress with a merger, while the Competition and Markets Authority is “considering whether to make a reference under section 22 or 33 of the Act” (the Enterprise Act 2002).

I am no expert on this at all! However, I understand that to mean that it is “stopped” as in “on hold while the authorities investigate whether it meets certain criteria”, rather than “never going to happen”.

Apologies if you already know this, but your post appeared to me to suggest the merger was off permanently.

[nowherespecial]

Overall CMA page for the merger. Updates would be here first. The enforcement notice was 11 June. No update since then.

https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/chc-slash-babcock-merger-inquiry

[Apate]

Process hasn't stopped. The share purchase is still progressing through "due dilligence" and ensuring all legal frameworks are in place. The CMA notice states that the two businesses are to continue operating and functioning as seperate entities until they make a finding.

The CMA notice does not prohibit CHC from puchasing the Babcock Offshore entities from Babcock International before the CMA make a ruling.

[helihub]

Merger has been stopped.

CHC - Babcock Merger Stopped (https://www.heliopsmag.com/chc-and-babcock-offshore-merger-stopped)

Not so. See https://helihub.com/2021/06/14/chc-merger-with-babcock-offshore-on-hold/

[KiwiNedNZ]

Helihub - Yes it is stopped, its not cancelled but is currently stopped.

[KiwiNedNZ]

Ant T - No am referring to its been stopped as in paused but not cancelled. I would have put cancelled if it was done and dusted :)

[Apate]

Helihub - Yes it is stopped, its not cancelled but is currently stopped.

OK, what has stopped?

[nowherespecial]

Maybe 'Paused pending CMA investigation' would take the heat out of this discussion.

[Apate]

Maybe 'Paused pending CMA investigation' would take the heat out of this discussion.

Except nothing has paused or stopped. However Ned just stated "it", which doesn't help bring clarity to the situation. My post a few messages ago is 100% accurate as of a few days ago, well after the CMA published it's enforcement order.

[nowherespecial]

Apate,

I'm not sure you are right on this. Why would the CMA allow a merger to complete if they thought they might block it after completion? Where would that leave Babcock Offshore which would then be owned by CHC? That doesn't seem likely.

If you read the whole Initial Enforcement Order, in my opinion the CMAs stance is relatively clear, CHC cannot influence any business as usual Babcock operations. While the DD (6(l)) is allowed (proceeding with it should not prejudice daily operations), 5(b) explicitly prohibits the ownerships structures changing without CMA approval. The businesses are to continue independently as you assert (per 5 (a) and all of 6) but if CHC are prohibited from buying the Babcock Offshore entities per 5 (b), then the merger is essentially paused while the CMA make their investigation. You cannot merge/ acquire something if you are not allowed to actually acquire it. 5(b) is also prohibiting all parties from changing their names and merging into new entities to get around the ruling/ order.

All Babcock and CHC entities involved have to show compliance with this order every 2 weeks (7, 8). Annex A-C show what CHC and Babcock entities are signing up to every 2 weeks. If you think that the merger can proceed while signing off on these Annexes, you have better lawyers than I do.

The CMA is not saying no to the merger, they are saying they will investigate, DD can proceed, business as usual fighting for contracts etc but the CMA will decide if the merger goes ahead before it gets inked.

My 5c worth anyway.

[212man]

Management of the CHC business and Babcock Offshore business until determination of proceedings
5. Except with the prior written consent of the CMA, CHC, EHOB, CHC UK and Babcock Offshore shall not, during the specified period, take any action which might prejudice a reference of the transaction under section 22 or 33 of the Act or impede the taking of any action under the Act by the CMA which may be justified by the CMA’s decisions on such a reference, including any action which might:
(a) lead to the integration of the Babcock Offshore business with the CHC business;
(b) transfer the ownership or control of the Babcock Offshore business or the CHC business or any of their subsidiaries;
or (c) otherwise impair the ability of the Babcock Offshore business or the CHC business to compete independently in any of the markets affected by the transaction.

Seems pretty clear - it's being held up pending the CMA proceedings

[Apate]

Someone better tell the bosses at Babcock and CHC then. They are stating that the share transfer can happen, just that once that is complete then no merging or convergence of the two operations can occur until the CMA process is completed.

[LesPretend]

Slightly off topic but I think relevant to the overall picture is that it appears Repsol have now given Bristow their contract renewal (although I’m told the flying hours are ‘apparently’ significantly reduced on what’s currently being flown).

It was a shade out of the blue given them telling other bidders they were holding back so perhaps spooked by this news ....

[tonkaplonka]

https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/north-sea/346820/babcock-completes-10m-sale-of-aberdeen-headquartered-helicopter-business-to-chc/
The deal is done.

[Apate]

Someone better tell the bosses at Babcock and CHC then. They are stating that the share transfer can happen, just that once that is complete then no merging or convergence of the two operations can occur until the CMA process is completed.

Am I allowed to say "I told you so"? :}

[nowherespecial]

I'm not going to pretend I'm not very surprised but the detail is important. The deal is complete pending approval. If CHC do not get approval from now on, they have to sell Babcock again and the businesses are required to operate completely separately until they get the approval. How that works in practice is anyone's guess. It's not really a merger at that stage in my opinion but then I'm not a decision maker at CMA, CHC or Babcock.

To me it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to allow the merger to proceed while investigating it - you pay for something you might have to sell again shortly after. A bizarre transaction just got even more bizarre. To be clear, my personal confusion is with the CMA, not with CHC, Babcock or anyone else. Allowing a merger to proceed without a green light is just unnecessary. If the transaction was worth investigating, then investigate it. If not, why bother?!

Let's hope they get that approval or CHC and Babcock are royally (insert expletive here).

[SimonK]

£10m.....?

[helicrazi]

£10m.....?

I thought the same. CHC Totally overpaid.

But exactly how much money did Babcock lose???

[dustycraphopper]

10 Million final purchase price ? That's some deal to get assets and existing contracts , sounds way to cheap .......

[Apate]

Let's hope they get that approval or CHC and Babcock are royally (insert expletive here).

Not Babcock. If the CMA rule against a merger then CHC have to sort out the problem. Babcock have now washed their hands.

However I agree that it is odd that the purchase was allowed, with just the merging of the two operations now being under investigation.

[nowherespecial]

True. Depends on how the sale is written I suppose. If there are obligations on Babcock if the sale is not approved then it might not be that simple. But I agree that this is overwhelmingly CHC's problem to sort out.

[Nescafe]

When you can’t win business, buy business.

[RunSCV]

When you can’t win business, buy business.

Or possibly more accurate... "when the parent company has gotten tired of subsidising you undercutting the market and generally spoiling the normal pricing mechanisms that have existed between clients and proper aviation companies since forever..."

There still seems to be a few true believers that think that the big B had the superior model in just about every way... must be why they sold?!

[nbl]

Babcock now renamed 'Offshore Helicopter Services.'

[nowherespecial]

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/helicopter-services-deal-raises-competition-concerns

The plot thickens.

[PlasticCabDriver]

“The CMA is concerned that the loss of one of these four suppliers could lead to higher prices and lower quality services for customers.”

or conversely higher prices and better services as the operators may no longer be scraping by on the dregs?

[ericferret]

“The CMA is concerned that the loss of one of these four suppliers could lead to higher prices and lower quality services for customers.”

or conversely higher prices and better services as the operators may no longer be scraping by on the dregs?

Exactly and obvious. I wonder if the CMA actually has a clue what is going on.

[212man]

“The CMA is concerned that the loss of one of these four suppliers could lead to higher prices and lower quality services for customers.”

3 Operators seemed to work pretty well for a couple of decades!

[Rigga]

I am sure that it will happen but suspect it will be a good 2yrs or so now before Babcock machines are flying with CHC colours.

LOL! Babcock are still flying in Avincis' colours!!!

[finalchecksplease]

Either that or there has been an objection made by Bristows or NHV where the merge may impact on their business models. A little like council planning permission, if a neighbour(s) object then it can be a right PITA to get approval.

I am sure that it will happen but suspect it will be a good 2yrs or so now before Babcock machines are flying with CHC colours. (6 month delay, 12-18 months amalgamation, training, procedures, infrastructure, staffing and so on)

What would be the reason for an objection from the other operators, the CMA says that this merger will lead to higher contract prices?

[ericferret]

What would be the reason for an objection from the other operators, the CMA says that this merger will lead to higher contract prices?

More likely to be the O&G companies complaining.

They have tried to maintain four operators since the late 70's hence the following additions since Bristow bought B.E.A.S.
British Caledonian, KLM E.R.A, New Bond/Babcock, N.H.V.

Without checking I believe we have had four operators for most of the time from the late 70's onwards.

Four operators is no longer sustainable in a declining market.

[Special 25]

I Think it has typically been three. Or certainly felt like three -

Bristow -
Bond / Babcock -
British International / CHC.

For a while there was two. Now there is four, all struggling to keep their heads above water.

The market has shrunk for sure. There are less flights and less passengers than there used to be.

The cost of running a helicopter operation has grown considerably. Aircraft, technology, training, overheads, vast departments having to collate stats for similar departments in Oil company offices. Safety Management systems, when in the old days it would be one guy in an office full of cigarette smoke who would be the crewing manager, safety manager, facilities chap, toilet roll orderer.

It is difficult to see with the current overheads of a modern airline, how four companies can compete for an ever decreasing pool of work. I am sure this is what the oil companies might want, but this isn't the boom years of the 1970's any more. I would agree that if anyone has put a stop to this, it will be the clients - I expect the heli operators would all want the merger to go ahead.

[ericferret]

I Think it has typically been three. Or certainly felt like three -

Bristow -
Bond / Babcock -
British International / CHC.

For a while there was two. Now there is four, all struggling to keep their heads above water.

The market has shrunk for sure. There are less flights and less passengers than there used to be.

The cost of running a helicopter operation has grown considerably. Aircraft, technology, training, overheads, vast departments having to collate stats for similar departments in Oil company offices. Safety Management systems, when in the old days it would be one guy in an office full of cigarette smoke who would be the crewing manager, safety manager, facilities chap, toilet roll orderer.

It is difficult to see with the current overheads of a modern airline, how four companies can compete for an ever decreasing pool of work. I am sure this is what the oil companies might want, but this isn't the boom years of the 1970's any more. I would agree that if anyone has put a stop to this, it will be the clients - I expect the heli operators would all want the merger to go ahead.

Taking a longer look there have been three operators consistantly from from the early 70's except for a short period betwwen approx 1999-2001. This gap was filled smartish by the resurrection of the Bond which became Babcock.
Minor operators filling the fourth operator gap. Times with only three operators appear to be 1986-1993, 1998-2010.

So in the last 45 years approx we had two operators for two years and three operators for seventeen years and now back to four operators with the market at a deep low.
Something has to give.

[Apate]

Taking a longer look there have been three operators consistantly from from the early 70's except for a short period betwwen approx 1999-2001. This gap was filled smartish by the resurrection of the Bond which became Babcock.
Minor operators filling the fourth operator gap. Times with only three operators appear to be 1986-1993, 1998-2010.

So in the last 45 years approx we had two operators for two years and three operators for seventeen years and now back to four operators with the market at a deep low.
Something has to give.

That's a great summary, however Bond Helicopters Mk.2 came on the scene in 2004. The Bond brothers had a 5 year "no-compete" clause when they sold in 1999, which resulted in only 2 operators from 1999-2004.

[Nineteen84]

If the O&G market is shrinking, what could be the reason that Bristow are on a recruitment drive for newly qualified pilots for their O&G division?

[Hot_LZ]

The management is so weak that people are continually leaving?

LZ

[ericferret]

If the O&G market is shrinking, what could be the reason that Bristow are on a recruitment drive for newly qualified pilots for their O&G division?

The clock stops for no man and the zimmer frame parking is limited.

[ericferret]

That's a great summary, however Bond Helicopters Mk.2 came on the scene in 2004. The Bond brothers had a 5 year "no-compete" clause when they sold in 1999, which resulted in only 2 operators from 1999-2004.
Thanks for the correction. To be truly accurate I would have to trawl back through endless copies of Helicopter International.

Remarkable how long we have been doing this now. A pal of mine started in the offshore business flying out from Tetney in a single engined Whirlwind during the 60's with Bristow...

[Kicking Horse]

Don't forget NHV, they are busy in the skies above the north sea too.

[industry insider]

Between 1981 and 1987 there were 4 in Aberdeen

BA / BIH
Bristow
Bond
B-Cal

[BTC8183]

The current 4 operator model, in Aberdeen, suggests the 'competition question' is ABZ-centric.



If 'energy' includes other than Oil/Gas, then other companies do also exist in the UK market area.



Wiking have single a/c bases at Wick and Beccles.


Uni-fly(partnered with CHC) operate out of Humberside.

Babcock(onshore) do operate offshore.



Ad-hoc wise, HeliService International have been operating off Cork, Bel-Air put in occasional appearances, as do Atlantic Airways, PGD and even British International.

[Cyclic Hotline]

Interresting!

UK competition authority moves CHC-Babcock to Phase 2 29-Nov-2021


UK competition authority moves CHC-Babcock to Phase 2
Source: HeliHub.comThe UK Government’s Competition and Mergers Authority (“CMA”) has referred the completed acquisition by CHC Group LLC of Offshore Helicopter Services UK Limited (“OHS”), Offshore Services Australasia Pty Ltd and Offshore Helicopter Services Denmark A/S for an in-depth investigation.

The latter three companies were previously named Babcock Mission Critical Services Offshore Limited, Babcock Offshore Services Australasia Pty Ltd, and Babcock Denmark A/S respectively. The date of reference for the inquiry is today, 29 November 2021, and the inquiry has a statutory deadline of 15 May 2022.
The CMA has appointed a board to investigate the situation consisting of the following:- Kip Meek (Chair), Juliet Lazarus, Cyrus Mehta, and Karthik Subramanya. The current situation continues to be that CHC and OHS have to continue trading at arms length, and thus cannot interfere in the running of each other’s businesses, even though CHC has technically bought OHS.
This situation has to continue until Phase 2 of the inquiry has reported its findings. On 18th November we reported that the CMA had raised concerns at the deal and given CHC five working days to respond to particular matters. It is HeliHub’s understanding that CHC did not respond in the required timescale, thus moving the inquiry to Phase 2. While the official line is that this creates a further period of nearly six months for the inquiry team to investigate and report, this also creates a longer period for CHC to come up with a plan with which they would hope to sidestep the Inquiry recommendations.
This could, for example, see some aspects of the merged operation being passed to another operator (other than their current competitors, Bristow and NHV) in order to maintain the CMA’s seemingly preferred model of four offshore operators in the UK. In their own words:- “The CMA has decided, on the information currently available to it, that it is or may be the case that this merger may be expected to result in a substantial lessening of competition within a market or markets in the United Kingdom.” Read more at https://helihub.com/2021/11/29/uk-competition-authority-moves-chc-babcock-to-phase-2/

[helihub]

Babcock(onshore) do operate offshore.

Not any longer.

The wind contract at Barrow for two 135s was terminated - reduced to one a/c in Nov20 and to zero in May21
The wind contract from Lowestoft ended a while back (at least by summer 2018)
The rig support contract off southern Ireland has stopped as the Kinsale field has been decomissioned

If Babcock do anything offshore, it's very much in your "ad hoc" list

[dustycraphopper]

Helihub , so what if any aviation support is now supporting the Walney Wind Farm operation - an amount was spent building a dedicated hangar and helipad up in the Barrow area to support the offshore wind farm , is that now officially defunct or is another operator using it on ad hoc basis as required, Is the offshore operation served by just " walk to work" vessels out of the Barrow in Furness docks.

I suppose Orsted could always "hustle" the existing Uni Fly contract support from Humberside with a 60 minute transit if winch transfer is required

[helicrazi]

Helihub , so what if any aviation support is now supporting the Walney Wind Farm operation - an amount was spent building a dedicated hangar and helipad up in the Barrow area to support the offshore wind farm , is that now officially defunct or is another operator using it on ad hoc basis as required, Is the offshore operation served by just " walk to work" vessels out of the Barrow in Furness docks.

I suppose Orsted could always "hustle" the existing Uni Fly contract support from Humberside with a 60 minute transit if winch transfer is required

The new occupants at Blackpool occasionally support the windfarm vessels.

[helihub]

Helihub , I suppose Orsted could always "hustle" the existing Uni Fly contract support from Humberside with a 60 minute transit if winch transfer is required

This quote is from Ørsted and was part of this article (https://helihub.com/2021/06/14/babcock-lose-uk-wind-farm-contract/) back in June.
“We continually assess our operations performance to ensure we deliver the highest standards across our portfolio. Thanks to the excellent reliability we have seen from the Walney Extension turbines and high-quality service provided by our technicians, we have not required the use of a helicopter as much as originally envisaged. This has in turn brought down the requirement for troubleshooting and emergency maintenance, where helicopter transfer of parts and personnel can assist in delivering significant value. Therefore, we have coordinated with Babcock to pause helicopter logistics support. As with all measures on our performance journey, we will continue to review our processes and should circumstances change we may reinstate helicopter service in the future.”

[jimf671]

Get the red paint out.

[industry insider]

I have some sympathy with CHC's view. The industry has been in a prolonged downturn which has resulted in a race to the bottom. We now have oil company nirvana, ridiculously low helicopter contract rates coupled with a record high oil price.

If the oil price remains high (>$80 per barrel), it will be economical to bring additional oil and gas capacity into production and to explore for more, renewables and electric cars are not there yet.

Helicopter contract prices will have to rise as increased activity will lead to a shortage of aircraft as the market is now quite finely balanced with aircraft and personnel capacity. Combined with supply chain disruption of some raw materials, we could see the capacity to produce new aircraft limited by cost and production constraints.

I think things may improve for offshore helicopter operators providing they can secure aircraft and people capacity to meet demand.

[SimonK]

I have some sympathy with CHC's view. The industry has been in a prolonged downturn which has resulted in a race to the bottom. We now have oil company nirvana, ridiculously low helicopter contract rates coupled with a record high oil price.

If the oil price remains high (>$80 per barrel), it will be economical to bring additional oil and gas capacity into production and to explore for more, renewables and electric cars are not there yet.

Helicopter contract prices will have to rise as increased activity will lead to a shortage of aircraft as the market is now quite finely balanced with aircraft and personnel capacity. Combined with supply chain disruption of some raw materials, we could see the capacity to produce new aircraft limited by cost and production constraints.

I think things may improve for offshore helicopter operators providing they can secure aircraft and people capacity to meet demand.

Well said....getting people in is going to be the challenge imho, if it does pick up. For what it's worth, just my opinion, but I think we operators may see an improving situation very soon. Have heard from several sources at different companies that the piles of CVs they used to get have long gone, compounded by Brexit licensing issues further reducing the pool of talent the numbers aren't coming through the door anymore. Yet pilots are still retiring, losing their licences and going off to the sandpit/police/HEMS etc. I left the military and went straight to offshore, but most of the generation after me went to airlines instead. Who knows - crazy assumption to make, but could we see improved T&Cs for pilots coincidental with an upturn in the offshore market?

[Brutal]

Mitchaa
I wouldn’t have thought so.

Declining oil market, an oil and gas hating Scottish government which is being continually influenced by the Greens. In addition to that, there is always a steady stream of military helicopter pilots that come into the offshore industry on much lower salaries that I don’t think recruitment (albeit with some training) is ever going to be a problem.

Really? We seem to be having one heck of a time finding any suitable candidates? Yes, there maybe the odd one or two ex-mil available but nowhere near where it used to be. At the moment we cannot keep up with the vast amount of retirements that is happening every year, the scenario that was highlighted years ago, as the average age of offshore (and onshore for that matter) get higher each year, with less and less newbies joining the profession.This problem of recruitment is the same across all of the operators, I witness it first hand every week. The oil and gas market is not disappearing tomorrow, and other new offshore work ( renewables) requires support in the meantime.
B.

[Brutal]

I totally agree. I would go further to say that the companies should fully sponsor cadets from scratch, and bond them accordingly.
B.

[PPI Zulu]

Get the red paint out.

Nope. Just rub back the cheap paint on OHS-UK's ND and NF...the PHI black and yellow is still underneath.

[PPI Zulu]

If companies sponsored IRs there would be no shortage of candidates.

Agreed, but companies can't sponsor IRs when the oil companies are still insisting on screwing their aviation suppliers down to the lowest of low single digit percentages.
In the current economic direction there can be no sponsorships, no investment in new technology and no (no matter what anyone says) true advances in safety.
The oil companies need to understand that there is a minimum price for a quality aviation service...and they are not meeting it. That's why it is so laughable that the CMA state that this [so called] loss of competition will result in a degradation of safety. It would do just the opposite. Fewer suppliers would result in a steady rise in margins for the aviation suppliers and that, indeed, would result in greater safety and new, safer, technology.

[jeepys]

Brutal,

are you an employer?

[PPI Zulu]

Brutal,

are you an employer?

Nope: A realist.