Bond Offshore
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I'm not sure that I agree with your assumption that the loss of contract will equal a loss of pilots for two reasons.
First, both Scotia and Bristows (the latter to a lesser extent) are understrength, so they would probably view the loss of a contract or two as a chance to consolidate, introduce new rosters, etc.
Secondly, it makes more sense to keep hold of all your pilots to deprive a third force of the chance to start up. In the meantime, all the work that Bond couldn't do would go to Scotia at ad hoc rates. The North Sea has already been through this once when Shell moved from BI to Bristows. Admittedly, BI couldn't continue this for more than about six months but times have changed. Scotia is a much bigger company, they are in the middle of an on-going demographic loadshed, and it makes eminent sense to strangle any new venture at birth, given the potential long-term rewards.
I would also say, as a footnote, that the example of pilots that jumped ship from BI to Bristows when Shell moved will not encourage anyone to do so this time around.
PS TUPE rules don't apply to individual contracts (unless there has been major changes since the last time around).
First, both Scotia and Bristows (the latter to a lesser extent) are understrength, so they would probably view the loss of a contract or two as a chance to consolidate, introduce new rosters, etc.
Secondly, it makes more sense to keep hold of all your pilots to deprive a third force of the chance to start up. In the meantime, all the work that Bond couldn't do would go to Scotia at ad hoc rates. The North Sea has already been through this once when Shell moved from BI to Bristows. Admittedly, BI couldn't continue this for more than about six months but times have changed. Scotia is a much bigger company, they are in the middle of an on-going demographic loadshed, and it makes eminent sense to strangle any new venture at birth, given the potential long-term rewards.
I would also say, as a footnote, that the example of pilots that jumped ship from BI to Bristows when Shell moved will not encourage anyone to do so this time around.
PS TUPE rules don't apply to individual contracts (unless there has been major changes since the last time around).
Ally 1897 - If CHC or BHL was to lose one (or part of) its larger contracts at Aberdeen I can assure you there would be redundancies. CHC particularly is still highly geared and will want to save cash in the event of loss of income. Neither of the parent companies on the other side of the Atlantic will care a toss about new pilot rosters. Loss of income will mean cut surplus staff to reduce the impact on the "bottom line".
I think it won't be until well into next year before there is any significant change of contracts but it will happen - no question in my mind. TUPE does indeed apply to individual contracts when there is an identifiable number of staff which can be seen to be required to support a particular contract - very easy with pilots. I suspect because of the current market share, the target for contract loss will be CHC.
As to current pay negotiations - the pilots position is going to rapidly weaken with the imminent fixed wing redundancies. I just hope our Balpa colleagues have had a successful day in London today.
I think it won't be until well into next year before there is any significant change of contracts but it will happen - no question in my mind. TUPE does indeed apply to individual contracts when there is an identifiable number of staff which can be seen to be required to support a particular contract - very easy with pilots. I suspect because of the current market share, the target for contract loss will be CHC.
As to current pay negotiations - the pilots position is going to rapidly weaken with the imminent fixed wing redundancies. I just hope our Balpa colleagues have had a successful day in London today.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I realise that both companies are driven by their bottom line, but I think you underestimate the extent to which they will defend their duopoly.
As to TUPE, give me once example of when this has ever applied at ABZ in the past.
As to TUPE, give me once example of when this has ever applied at ABZ in the past.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Caribbean
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ally1987 - I am not aware of TUPE being invoked in Aberdeen aviation dealings but the cases of Suzen v Zehnacker Gebaudereinigung GmbH Krankenhausservice [1997] IRLR 255 and Dines v. Initial Health Care Services (1) and Pall Mall Services Group Ltd. (2) [1994] IRLR 336 are worth refering to. The regulations are constantly being tested in court and there have been several precidents set over the last few years which have moved the goal posts since the original act was passed. Anyway if TUPE could be used to the employees advantage I am sure BALPA legal beagles would do their best to ensure our rights were protected in case of redundancies.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Both of which predate the loss of Shell from BI to Bristows, and of BP from Bristows to Bond in 1999. If TUPE didn't apply in the transfer of these massive contracts then I fail to see how it would in the future.
I think we will have to agree to disagree on this. However, I'd be interested in reading the cases you refer to if they are available on the web. Do you have a URL for them, please?
I think we will have to agree to disagree on this. However, I'd be interested in reading the cases you refer to if they are available on the web. Do you have a URL for them, please?
TUPE was not used as there was an unwritten agreement among the three North Sea operators not to invoke TUPE every time a contract changed although there was a rumour that Brintel was going to use TUPE when they lost Shell to BHL. I believe TUPE was invoked when Irish helicopters lost a Marathon contract to Bond. I might be wrong on this one as I was not in either Company at the time but maybe an Ex Bond or Irish pilot might confirm or deny. I don't have a link to the above cases - was told about them by a legal beagle.
Bond Air Services seem to be doing quite well without the North Sea. Their EMS and Police work is expanding rapidly and I'm sure they would be far keener to promote and expand these activities than to return to the North Sea at a time like the present.
Why would they divert their resources away from a quickly expanding sector of the market to come back to Aberdeen when the off-shore market is going to be here for quite a few years to come and there are no other competitors sitting in the wings ??
Why would they divert their resources away from a quickly expanding sector of the market to come back to Aberdeen when the off-shore market is going to be here for quite a few years to come and there are no other competitors sitting in the wings ??
Guest
Posts: n/a
Bond will return to the north sea, the finances won't be a problem as they will be backed by one of the major oil companies, (probably BP?).
It is in the oil companies best interests for there to be three operators on the north sea, to force down rates, to put these greedy pilots in their place and to allow them, (the oil companies), to continue making huge profits. After all BP have to build a new multi-million pound HQ in Aberdeen, presumably the old one is to small to keep all their money in?
Chopperman.
[ 21 September 2001: Message edited by: chopperman ]
It is in the oil companies best interests for there to be three operators on the north sea, to force down rates, to put these greedy pilots in their place and to allow them, (the oil companies), to continue making huge profits. After all BP have to build a new multi-million pound HQ in Aberdeen, presumably the old one is to small to keep all their money in?
Chopperman.
[ 21 September 2001: Message edited by: chopperman ]
roundwego et al
Just to make it clear that TUPE is the right of the individual to invoke, it has nothing to do with the Companies that lose or win contracts.
If you lose your job because of a contract change I suggest you speak to BALPA, assuming you are a member:-)
Just to make it clear that TUPE is the right of the individual to invoke, it has nothing to do with the Companies that lose or win contracts.
If you lose your job because of a contract change I suggest you speak to BALPA, assuming you are a member:-)
Guest
Posts: n/a
With regard to TUPE have a look at the following web page, especially 'Betts v. Brintell Helicopters'.
http://sol.brunel.ac.uk/~jarvis/bola/emplaw/
Chopperman.
http://sol.brunel.ac.uk/~jarvis/bola/emplaw/
Chopperman.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which (if I have read this and other material I have seen correctly) means that the transfer of a contract between either Scotia or Bristows to Bond Offshore will not fall under the TUPE legislation. Like I said.
I haven't seen anything more on BO's plans (which I believe were supposed to be made public last week) nor has anyone suggested where the pilots are coming from...
I haven't seen anything more on BO's plans (which I believe were supposed to be made public last week) nor has anyone suggested where the pilots are coming from...
'Betts v. Brintell Helicopters'did not come under TUPE as KLM did not take over the contract at Beccles. They operated put of Norwich. TUPE was originally conceived to stop the likes of cleaning companies at hospitals and airports firing and hiring every time the contract was awarded to another company. In the helicopter world the nearest analogy would be the BG contract at Blackpool where, unless circumstances have changed in the last few years, BG own the Ops/pax terminal property. If CHC was to lose the contract to someone else then TUPE would definitely apply.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, I'd agree with that. Ditto, if they took over lock stock and barrel at Blackpool, Humberside, etc. However, this thread started about Bond being a third force in the offshore market and they are not going to be that unless they get one of the major ABZ contracts. And there, TUPE _won't_ apply and so where do they get their pilots to start up an operation?
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Chilly Jocko Land
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For info,Bond Air Services Ltd [BASL] took over a division of Bond Helicopters and in that case TUPE was applied and was invoked by BASL. Where it intends to go from here is anybody's business.
This may be another thread but with BA Vigin et al laying off so many people the pull from rotary to fixed wing may not be as strong as expected...call me a devil's advocate if you like but I suspect that Scotia and BHL management may have twigged this also. Good luck.
This may be another thread but with BA Vigin et al laying off so many people the pull from rotary to fixed wing may not be as strong as expected...call me a devil's advocate if you like but I suspect that Scotia and BHL management may have twigged this also. Good luck.
Bond Back in Aberdeen
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Scotland
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hummingfrog
I hope so
Because they are in for a wake up call.
Gone are the days when they could run the pilots ragged, There is a new breed of pilots operating here now, Well organized and unionized. Anyhow another operator should mean good news to the crews if they get together and use thier heads, because any new company that wins the contracts will need to employ them and for that privalige they should be made to pay more, laws of supply and demand and all that.
There will now doubt be those that feel loyal to the bond cartell, and those that think it will be a good way to jump up a few rungs on the promotinal ladder, but they will still have to put there hands deep into thier pockets to get the numbers that they require and this can be used to the advantage of the smart ones.
Bring it on
I hope so
Because they are in for a wake up call.
Gone are the days when they could run the pilots ragged, There is a new breed of pilots operating here now, Well organized and unionized. Anyhow another operator should mean good news to the crews if they get together and use thier heads, because any new company that wins the contracts will need to employ them and for that privalige they should be made to pay more, laws of supply and demand and all that.
There will now doubt be those that feel loyal to the bond cartell, and those that think it will be a good way to jump up a few rungs on the promotinal ladder, but they will still have to put there hands deep into thier pockets to get the numbers that they require and this can be used to the advantage of the smart ones.
Bring it on
Suprise, suprise. If CHC & BHL hadn't gotten themselves in such a mess and pissed off the oil companies then maybe they would have had a chance of keeping the market to themselves.
Who are Bond going to be flying for? Two S76's won't give them much in the way of opportunity to penetrate CHC and BHL core customers.
As to Max Ng's comment about it being a "privalige" (sic) for any new company to employ a pilot - I certainly hope that when he is filling in the Bond application form after he finds himself redundant that he gets someone to check his spelling. Bond always was fussy about the standard of pilot they took.
Who are Bond going to be flying for? Two S76's won't give them much in the way of opportunity to penetrate CHC and BHL core customers.
As to Max Ng's comment about it being a "privalige" (sic) for any new company to employ a pilot - I certainly hope that when he is filling in the Bond application form after he finds himself redundant that he gets someone to check his spelling. Bond always was fussy about the standard of pilot they took.