Caladonian Airborne... Truth in the rumour?
BHPS you seem to miss the point!! It was stated that Scotia management had missed the opportunity of gaining a commercial advantage by continuing to operate from the East side and save all the congestion which seems inevitable now over on the west. My point was that the present management seem to be cutting off their nose despite their face because the East side was traditionally the Bond side. At no point during the thread does there seem to be any comment on the strengths and weaknesses of either management team, or whether they were running contracts at a loss. It seems to me that all the North Sea companies have been guilty of that at one time or another!!
A couple of points for BHPS;
You say-. .""If they were that successful, how come they allowed themselves to be sold to CHC? Surely they should have made a bid for BIH (as was)?""
Bond did make a bid for BIH after they were put up for sale by the Maxwell administrators. The purchase was banned by the monopolies and mergers commission.
You say-
"There were several stories around that Bond got contracts from the other operators at such low rates that they could never make a profit on them let alone break-even. If true, doesn't sound like a successful management to me."
A company that did this could never stay in business for any length of time. Bond grew and grew for over twenty years. It may have taken contracts at lower rates but it could afford to do so because it was efficient. The sale to HKS was a risk because Bond then became part of a plc which was then open to predatory purchase as happened with CHC.
[ 22 February 2002: Message edited by: roundwego ]</p>
You say-. .""If they were that successful, how come they allowed themselves to be sold to CHC? Surely they should have made a bid for BIH (as was)?""
Bond did make a bid for BIH after they were put up for sale by the Maxwell administrators. The purchase was banned by the monopolies and mergers commission.
You say-
"There were several stories around that Bond got contracts from the other operators at such low rates that they could never make a profit on them let alone break-even. If true, doesn't sound like a successful management to me."
A company that did this could never stay in business for any length of time. Bond grew and grew for over twenty years. It may have taken contracts at lower rates but it could afford to do so because it was efficient. The sale to HKS was a risk because Bond then became part of a plc which was then open to predatory purchase as happened with CHC.
[ 22 February 2002: Message edited by: roundwego ]</p>
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Ask the voices!
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rumours around ABZ is that they are bidding for contracts as we speak.
The ones I can remember being mentioned are:
1. BP and. .2. Schlumberger.
I am sure there were a couple more though.
They certainly do have offices in Aberdeen too.
"Some days you are the pigeon, some days you are the statue!"
The ones I can remember being mentioned are:
1. BP and. .2. Schlumberger.
I am sure there were a couple more though.
They certainly do have offices in Aberdeen too.
"Some days you are the pigeon, some days you are the statue!"
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Ask the voices!
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe they were saying a heap for S76 A+'s.
But then another one has recently surfaced that they are in talks over the S-92?????
. ."Some days you are the pigeon, some days you are the statue!"
But then another one has recently surfaced that they are in talks over the S-92?????
. ."Some days you are the pigeon, some days you are the statue!"
