Scotia
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: at the edge
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately guys, its like this:
CHC Scotia and Bristow are both reducing pilot numbers due to a down turn in North Sea work generally. Bristow has just got rid of all of its contractors (who were employees in a previous life) and Scotia is making staff positions into contract where possible.
The amount of money being offered may be incrementally more if measured on a day rate basis but overall, having contract pilots will save CHC Scotia money.
Remember, with annual leave, sick leave, pension (kind of) loss of license etc etc it cost the average employer around 30-35% more than appears a the gross figure on the pay slip.
Furthermore, once CHC Scotia have made pilots redundant as employees and brought them back as contractors, they are totally flexible to pick up and put down whenever they want, for example, when the Bond bothers start their BP operations.
It would appear that the recent wage increases awarded to senior pilots have resulted in jobs being lost and turned into contract positions. That's what happens when BALPA negotiates wage increases that are too big for management to swallow. (statement of fact not necessarily expressed as an opinion)
The North Sea pilots wanted pay parity with their Boeing 737 counterparts, unfortunately, it will be more an Easy Jet pay slip than a BA one for the fortunate or unfortunate few who are left.
CHC Scotia and Bristow are both reducing pilot numbers due to a down turn in North Sea work generally. Bristow has just got rid of all of its contractors (who were employees in a previous life) and Scotia is making staff positions into contract where possible.
The amount of money being offered may be incrementally more if measured on a day rate basis but overall, having contract pilots will save CHC Scotia money.
Remember, with annual leave, sick leave, pension (kind of) loss of license etc etc it cost the average employer around 30-35% more than appears a the gross figure on the pay slip.
Furthermore, once CHC Scotia have made pilots redundant as employees and brought them back as contractors, they are totally flexible to pick up and put down whenever they want, for example, when the Bond bothers start their BP operations.
It would appear that the recent wage increases awarded to senior pilots have resulted in jobs being lost and turned into contract positions. That's what happens when BALPA negotiates wage increases that are too big for management to swallow. (statement of fact not necessarily expressed as an opinion)
The North Sea pilots wanted pay parity with their Boeing 737 counterparts, unfortunately, it will be more an Easy Jet pay slip than a BA one for the fortunate or unfortunate few who are left.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Scotland
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is just the start at CHC Scotia.
Within the next month or three will be the ‘rationalisation exercises’.
Pleased I’m not Training Staff, Management/Chief Pilot, nor Engineering Management/Chief Engineer - particularly down south.
Watch those spaces.
Within the next month or three will be the ‘rationalisation exercises’.
Pleased I’m not Training Staff, Management/Chief Pilot, nor Engineering Management/Chief Engineer - particularly down south.
Watch those spaces.
Is it legal for employers to make people redundant then take them back on ?
The idea of saying "The post you are currently filling is no longer required, we have no other posts for you to fill therefore you're out" (the definition, as I understood it, of 'redundant') and then saying "Oooh, we need pilots, we'll take this recently-made-redundant person on" would appear to be a complete nonsense and the sort of thing that employment law was set up to prevent.
The idea of saying "The post you are currently filling is no longer required, we have no other posts for you to fill therefore you're out" (the definition, as I understood it, of 'redundant') and then saying "Oooh, we need pilots, we'll take this recently-made-redundant person on" would appear to be a complete nonsense and the sort of thing that employment law was set up to prevent.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Problemchild is quite right; Scotia can well afford to pay the going rate. Have a look at CHC's quarterly returns; they've posted record profits every quarter for the past two years, (most of it from their North Sea interests).
CHC are 'share price led' and will always try to cut costs to keep the share price and the dividend paid to investors as high as possible. Also, don't forget that CHC have massive borrowing debts which also have to be repaid.
I agree, there is also an element of spite involved in all this, the new Scotia MD is well known for his dislike of pilots. On the other hand, the pilots, and some oil companies, are also well known for their lack of respect for him, so it's a mutual thing.
As for the pilot redundancies, most of those who have gone are past the 55yr retirement age, they were still working under an agreement that put them first in the firing line should redundancies become an issue. I'm not going to go into the finer details of that one as it would take far too long and anyway, I can't be bothered, so don't ask.
I will be more interested to see just what happens next year when Scotia loose(?) all their BP work to Bond, but then, a year in the North Sea is a very long time, will BP still have any interests left in the area by then? Only BP know the answer to that one, the saga continues.
Fly safely,
Chopperman.
CHC are 'share price led' and will always try to cut costs to keep the share price and the dividend paid to investors as high as possible. Also, don't forget that CHC have massive borrowing debts which also have to be repaid.
I agree, there is also an element of spite involved in all this, the new Scotia MD is well known for his dislike of pilots. On the other hand, the pilots, and some oil companies, are also well known for their lack of respect for him, so it's a mutual thing.
As for the pilot redundancies, most of those who have gone are past the 55yr retirement age, they were still working under an agreement that put them first in the firing line should redundancies become an issue. I'm not going to go into the finer details of that one as it would take far too long and anyway, I can't be bothered, so don't ask.
I will be more interested to see just what happens next year when Scotia loose(?) all their BP work to Bond, but then, a year in the North Sea is a very long time, will BP still have any interests left in the area by then? Only BP know the answer to that one, the saga continues.
Fly safely,
Chopperman.
Pay for N Sea pilots should not be compared to fixed wing pilots' pay. We work for the oil industry as contractors. We sell our services via Scotia or Bristows. We are a skilled bunch of workers who have taken a long apprenticeship to reach a position of N Sea commander able to fly in a very weather demanding environment.
There is a pay pecking order in the N Sea which is usually based on the skill you have and how long it has taken you to gain that skill, along with the supply of people with the same skill. It would surprise you to see that a N Sea mid experience commander falls in the bottom half of this pecking order. We are below anybody who has a graduate qualification or a manual skill such as crane driver. The people I work with are amazed that we are as poorly paid as we are. They see our capabilities on a day to day basis and can assess us compared to other skills on the platform.
It is not unknown for specialist contractors to be paid £1500-2000 per day spent offshore. I personally have flown these people ashore on a special flight because they are too expensive to keep on board waiting for a normal beach flight.
The helicopter companies want to keep pilot's salaries low because their other expenses are so high. Contract pilots will always be on the payroll because they are cheaper than company pilots and can be shed easily. Experienced contractor are, however, becoming harder to find as those leaving the N Sea are not willing to come back and be treated in that way so things may change.
HF
There is a pay pecking order in the N Sea which is usually based on the skill you have and how long it has taken you to gain that skill, along with the supply of people with the same skill. It would surprise you to see that a N Sea mid experience commander falls in the bottom half of this pecking order. We are below anybody who has a graduate qualification or a manual skill such as crane driver. The people I work with are amazed that we are as poorly paid as we are. They see our capabilities on a day to day basis and can assess us compared to other skills on the platform.
It is not unknown for specialist contractors to be paid £1500-2000 per day spent offshore. I personally have flown these people ashore on a special flight because they are too expensive to keep on board waiting for a normal beach flight.
The helicopter companies want to keep pilot's salaries low because their other expenses are so high. Contract pilots will always be on the payroll because they are cheaper than company pilots and can be shed easily. Experienced contractor are, however, becoming harder to find as those leaving the N Sea are not willing to come back and be treated in that way so things may change.
HF
Guest
Posts: n/a
Just for those who think that Scotia can't afford to pay a decent salary feast your eyes on this from the Press and Journal,
[QUOTE]
RESULTS SHOW HUGE EARNINGS LIFT AT ABERDEEN HELICOPTER OPERATOR
IAN FORSYTH
09:00 - 07 June 2003
Energy editor HELICOPTER operator CHC Scotia, which is losing its lucrative contract with BP in Aberdeen to provide services for the North Sea, made pre-tax profits of more than £12million in the year to the end of April, 2002.
Figures released yesterday by Companies House showed that this figure was well ahead of the £6.2million made in the 10 months to April 30, 2001.
Turnover at the Aberdeen-based firm also surged from £92.2million in the 10-month period to £119.6million in the year to April, 2002.
A spokesman for CHC Scotia said yesterday the financial results were a consequence of post-merger cost savings, improved contract terms and internal cost savings.
The financial report also showed that directors' salaries for the latest year totalled £622,000, compared to £279,000 for the 10-month period. The highest-paid director - who has not been named - received £194,000, a huge increase on the £85,000 paid for the previous 10 months.
It also revealed the company had a net pension liability of more than £7million.
In December, it was revealed that CHC Scotia had lost the BP work.
Its existing contract will continue to run until August, 2004, but the business will then be taken over by Bond Offshore Helicopters.
The new 10-year contract is estimated to be worth more than £260million.
It is understood to be the largest of its kind worldwide in the offshore energy industry.
The news left a question mark hanging over the future of jobs at CHC Scotia as the BP contract accounted for about 40 of its North Sea business out of Aberdeen.
CHC Scotia said it would be able to redeploy its heavy helicopters, which could offer opportunities for staff elsewhere in the UK or overseas.
More than 700 people are employed by CHC Scotia, the majority of them in Aberdeen.
However, there has already been a recent round of redundancies at the group.
[QUOTE]
I realise that Scotia are going to loose the BP contract next year, but that doesn't detract from the fact that the contracts are paying the money. As I said in an earlier post, CHC have reported record profits every quarter for the past few years, most of it coming from the North Sea. Going back to the BP contract, CHC may have lost this one, but others have been renewed at higher rates than were previously paid.
Nuf said, time for bed, well, after another can of beer,
G'nite all, fly safe,
Chopperman.
[QUOTE]
RESULTS SHOW HUGE EARNINGS LIFT AT ABERDEEN HELICOPTER OPERATOR
IAN FORSYTH
09:00 - 07 June 2003
Energy editor HELICOPTER operator CHC Scotia, which is losing its lucrative contract with BP in Aberdeen to provide services for the North Sea, made pre-tax profits of more than £12million in the year to the end of April, 2002.
Figures released yesterday by Companies House showed that this figure was well ahead of the £6.2million made in the 10 months to April 30, 2001.
Turnover at the Aberdeen-based firm also surged from £92.2million in the 10-month period to £119.6million in the year to April, 2002.
A spokesman for CHC Scotia said yesterday the financial results were a consequence of post-merger cost savings, improved contract terms and internal cost savings.
The financial report also showed that directors' salaries for the latest year totalled £622,000, compared to £279,000 for the 10-month period. The highest-paid director - who has not been named - received £194,000, a huge increase on the £85,000 paid for the previous 10 months.
It also revealed the company had a net pension liability of more than £7million.
In December, it was revealed that CHC Scotia had lost the BP work.
Its existing contract will continue to run until August, 2004, but the business will then be taken over by Bond Offshore Helicopters.
The new 10-year contract is estimated to be worth more than £260million.
It is understood to be the largest of its kind worldwide in the offshore energy industry.
The news left a question mark hanging over the future of jobs at CHC Scotia as the BP contract accounted for about 40 of its North Sea business out of Aberdeen.
CHC Scotia said it would be able to redeploy its heavy helicopters, which could offer opportunities for staff elsewhere in the UK or overseas.
More than 700 people are employed by CHC Scotia, the majority of them in Aberdeen.
However, there has already been a recent round of redundancies at the group.
[QUOTE]
I realise that Scotia are going to loose the BP contract next year, but that doesn't detract from the fact that the contracts are paying the money. As I said in an earlier post, CHC have reported record profits every quarter for the past few years, most of it coming from the North Sea. Going back to the BP contract, CHC may have lost this one, but others have been renewed at higher rates than were previously paid.
Nuf said, time for bed, well, after another can of beer,
G'nite all, fly safe,
Chopperman.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Robbo Jock in his post asked the following questions:
Is it legal for employers to make people redundant then take them back on ?
The idea of saying "The post you are currently filling is no longer required, we have no other posts for you to fill therefore you're out" (the definition, as I understood it, of 'redundant') and then saying "Oooh, we need pilots, we'll take this recently-made-redundant person on" would appear to be a complete nonsense and the sort of thing that employment law was set up to prevent.
No one has answered these points on employment law. Surely there must be someone with some experience or knowledge of the legality of this aspect. What are they? Surely the union reps for Scotia must have looked at this.
Maybe it is worth re-posting Robbos question on the Rumours and News section of PPrune, as the fixed wing guys seem to have a lot more knowledge and experience of employment law aspects.
Is it legal for employers to make people redundant then take them back on ?
The idea of saying "The post you are currently filling is no longer required, we have no other posts for you to fill therefore you're out" (the definition, as I understood it, of 'redundant') and then saying "Oooh, we need pilots, we'll take this recently-made-redundant person on" would appear to be a complete nonsense and the sort of thing that employment law was set up to prevent.
No one has answered these points on employment law. Surely there must be someone with some experience or knowledge of the legality of this aspect. What are they? Surely the union reps for Scotia must have looked at this.
Maybe it is worth re-posting Robbos question on the Rumours and News section of PPrune, as the fixed wing guys seem to have a lot more knowledge and experience of employment law aspects.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I seem to remember about ten years ago when BIH lost the Shell Southern North Sea Contracts to KLM (UK) for essentially the same work, pilots from BIH were not permitted to join KLM for this work and a motley assembly of retreads had to be assembled to fly for KLM...yes, me too. At the time the talk was of TUPE and EC labour legislation. Anybody know more?
This sort of thing has blighted the lives of more good people in our industry than even pensiontheft.
Wonder how long CHC will wish to hold on to CHC Scotia after the BP contract ends. Let the music begin.
This sort of thing has blighted the lives of more good people in our industry than even pensiontheft.
Wonder how long CHC will wish to hold on to CHC Scotia after the BP contract ends. Let the music begin.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North of the Border
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is very sad news for those at Scotia who have their heads on the block.
I've seen all this before from the days I used to sit in the back of NS machines. The oil industry, especially the contracting side (ie drilling services, supply boats, diving, construction, etc etc) has always been hire and fire and always will be. It is simply because oil companies hate to see any one else make money. Scotia and Bristows and a miriad of other operators over the years were forced to cut their prices by professional negotiators in the oil companies. They cut their own throats, just like other contractors did in other fields of the oil industry. It seemed for a while that Scotia and Bristows had managed to turn the tables on that. Shame Bond went and spoilt it. But then again BP were always one for screwing the contractors.
We have to realise that the NS has had its day. Oil companies are looking to other parts of the world to invest their money where oil can be produced more cheaply. North Sea passenger numbers will continue to fall. BP have a fibre optic network in place in the north sea and automated platforms are a huge step closer. I'm worried that the Scotia redundancies are the thin edge of the wedge.
PS Hummingfrog - Nowadays Mid captains get paid more than divers over the year and divers earn more than graduate engineers. As for crane ops - the best crane ops on the NS are not paid as well as engineers - oh and divers and crane ops are almost always contractors. Besides I reckon that oil companies think that pilots are just fancy crane ops!!!!! In my experience talk of pay offshore is usually splattered with BS!
I've seen all this before from the days I used to sit in the back of NS machines. The oil industry, especially the contracting side (ie drilling services, supply boats, diving, construction, etc etc) has always been hire and fire and always will be. It is simply because oil companies hate to see any one else make money. Scotia and Bristows and a miriad of other operators over the years were forced to cut their prices by professional negotiators in the oil companies. They cut their own throats, just like other contractors did in other fields of the oil industry. It seemed for a while that Scotia and Bristows had managed to turn the tables on that. Shame Bond went and spoilt it. But then again BP were always one for screwing the contractors.
We have to realise that the NS has had its day. Oil companies are looking to other parts of the world to invest their money where oil can be produced more cheaply. North Sea passenger numbers will continue to fall. BP have a fibre optic network in place in the north sea and automated platforms are a huge step closer. I'm worried that the Scotia redundancies are the thin edge of the wedge.
PS Hummingfrog - Nowadays Mid captains get paid more than divers over the year and divers earn more than graduate engineers. As for crane ops - the best crane ops on the NS are not paid as well as engineers - oh and divers and crane ops are almost always contractors. Besides I reckon that oil companies think that pilots are just fancy crane ops!!!!! In my experience talk of pay offshore is usually splattered with BS!
Last edited by Crashondeck; 10th Jun 2003 at 07:08.
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: at the edge
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crashondeck
You are quite right about the use of professional negotiators. I have seen helicopter companies win a competitive tender and then negotiators try to reduce the prices even further. If a company is awarded a job on a competitive tender, there should be no need to negotiate, the tender should stand.
Unfortunately, as you elude, the helicopter companies think that they may either lose the job (if they are the incumbent) or win a job and it is this temptation or fear that leads them to negotiate. 2 years down the line, they are back to the oil company for a price increase which in turn may force the job out to bid again.
The cycle can then repeat itself. BP, by brini9ging Bond back into the North Sea have reduced what margins that potentially exist in a declining market. I'm glad I am not just coming into the industry and planning on a career flying on the North Sea.
LE
You are quite right about the use of professional negotiators. I have seen helicopter companies win a competitive tender and then negotiators try to reduce the prices even further. If a company is awarded a job on a competitive tender, there should be no need to negotiate, the tender should stand.
Unfortunately, as you elude, the helicopter companies think that they may either lose the job (if they are the incumbent) or win a job and it is this temptation or fear that leads them to negotiate. 2 years down the line, they are back to the oil company for a price increase which in turn may force the job out to bid again.
The cycle can then repeat itself. BP, by brini9ging Bond back into the North Sea have reduced what margins that potentially exist in a declining market. I'm glad I am not just coming into the industry and planning on a career flying on the North Sea.
LE
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Scotland
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
leading edge
Quote
"It would appear that the recent wage increases awarded to senior pilots have resulted in jobs being lost and turned into contract positions. That's what happens when BALPA negotiates wage increases that are too big for management to swallow. (statement of fact not necessarily expressed as an opinion)"
Now youve read the financial report for CHC Scotia you might want to change your name to Trailing Edge
Secondly the pay award went to ALL pilots.
Bond Bro's are relying on Retired forces pilots that are already drawing pensions and onshore wonabees that are unaware of the offshore operation and thier worth, this may play into Bonds favour for the start but when they have been up here for a while and see what there Brothers over the fence are making then they will soon become dis-heartened.
The only way to put a stop to this is to form a Offshore Pilots Association and set industry wide payscales and benifits, this would take pay out of the oil companies negotiating toolbag for good, and bring unity to operating proceedures and training.
Reducing training cost through economies of scale would save the operators tens of thousands and creat a flexible pilot workforce able to move from company to company with minimal cost penalties.
Its a case of supply and demand mate and I can asure you that if the company that you work for could get away with paying you less per month the the WOULD
Quote
"It would appear that the recent wage increases awarded to senior pilots have resulted in jobs being lost and turned into contract positions. That's what happens when BALPA negotiates wage increases that are too big for management to swallow. (statement of fact not necessarily expressed as an opinion)"
Now youve read the financial report for CHC Scotia you might want to change your name to Trailing Edge
Secondly the pay award went to ALL pilots.
Bond Bro's are relying on Retired forces pilots that are already drawing pensions and onshore wonabees that are unaware of the offshore operation and thier worth, this may play into Bonds favour for the start but when they have been up here for a while and see what there Brothers over the fence are making then they will soon become dis-heartened.
The only way to put a stop to this is to form a Offshore Pilots Association and set industry wide payscales and benifits, this would take pay out of the oil companies negotiating toolbag for good, and bring unity to operating proceedures and training.
Reducing training cost through economies of scale would save the operators tens of thousands and creat a flexible pilot workforce able to move from company to company with minimal cost penalties.
Its a case of supply and demand mate and I can asure you that if the company that you work for could get away with paying you less per month the the WOULD
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: at the edge
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Max Ng
Thanks for the name change suggestion. However, you should more closely observe how management works in these companies. CHC Scotia may have made record profits in 2002, I agree with you there. BUT, CHC Scotia are trimming for the future and the loss of the BP contract to Bond.
Furthermore, even with record profits, if these companies could legally and easily reduce their permanent pilot workforce by converting positions to contract AND in turn make even bigger profits for their shareholders, they would do it.
Just because a company makes a profit, it has little to do with their ongoing cost management, and reduction. Workforce flexibility will always be a priority.
I didn't ever say that Scotia had to reduce their workforce because of poor financial results. Regardless of how much money they are making, large rises in pilot slaries remain philosophically unpalatable to the operators.
If you want an example, watch what happens with the AirLog union contract negotiations. Their pilots want NS wages. AirLog has recently done very well financially (ignoring their recent legal requirement to fund the Bristow Pension scheme) so does that mean that AirLog will just give in to the demands of their pilot workforce?
Profits are not related to salaries for the "workers" only to management's bonuses.
LE (TE)
Thanks for the name change suggestion. However, you should more closely observe how management works in these companies. CHC Scotia may have made record profits in 2002, I agree with you there. BUT, CHC Scotia are trimming for the future and the loss of the BP contract to Bond.
Furthermore, even with record profits, if these companies could legally and easily reduce their permanent pilot workforce by converting positions to contract AND in turn make even bigger profits for their shareholders, they would do it.
Just because a company makes a profit, it has little to do with their ongoing cost management, and reduction. Workforce flexibility will always be a priority.
I didn't ever say that Scotia had to reduce their workforce because of poor financial results. Regardless of how much money they are making, large rises in pilot slaries remain philosophically unpalatable to the operators.
If you want an example, watch what happens with the AirLog union contract negotiations. Their pilots want NS wages. AirLog has recently done very well financially (ignoring their recent legal requirement to fund the Bristow Pension scheme) so does that mean that AirLog will just give in to the demands of their pilot workforce?
Profits are not related to salaries for the "workers" only to management's bonuses.
LE (TE)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk
Age: 68
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Chopperman, but you're wrong and Mr Toad right. TUPE does apply to many cases where a contract has moved from one contractor to another. I can quote you the cases if you like! For the staff concerned, it means possibly having an unfair dismissal claim if they are not taken on by the new contractor.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Justiciar,
So, BP have awarded a contract to Bond Offshore Services that CHC-Scotia serviced previously, does that mean that BOS should employ the pilots made redundant by Scotia? I see from your profile that you are in the legal trade, so how about taking the case and representing all the redundant pilots on a 'no win, no fee' basis? <VBG>
Fly safely, (and have a look at my profile before you reply),
Chopperman.
So, BP have awarded a contract to Bond Offshore Services that CHC-Scotia serviced previously, does that mean that BOS should employ the pilots made redundant by Scotia? I see from your profile that you are in the legal trade, so how about taking the case and representing all the redundant pilots on a 'no win, no fee' basis? <VBG>
Fly safely, (and have a look at my profile before you reply),
Chopperman.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk
Age: 68
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the invite chopperman. As it happens I run cases on a regular basis on no win, no fee and very successfully (achieved an award of £40k + for a client only a few weeks ago!). Modesty prevents me pushing myself forward, but I never turn down work.....
And yes, if TUPE applies BOS would have no choice in the matter - they become lumbered with those pilots who were employed on the contract with Scotia. A recent Scottish appeal case decided that the mere buying of a trading name of one taxi firm by another was sufficient for TUPE to apply and the company ended up with radio operators it didn't want!
It may be practice in the industry to role over and accept this, or maybe the redundancy payments are too good to turn down, but if not maybe someone should be taking a stand!
And yes, if TUPE applies BOS would have no choice in the matter - they become lumbered with those pilots who were employed on the contract with Scotia. A recent Scottish appeal case decided that the mere buying of a trading name of one taxi firm by another was sufficient for TUPE to apply and the company ended up with radio operators it didn't want!
It may be practice in the industry to role over and accept this, or maybe the redundancy payments are too good to turn down, but if not maybe someone should be taking a stand!
