Own Goal by BALPA
Guest
Posts: n/a
DV - that is one of the most accurate and well considered posts I have seen in a long time.
Your comments about the possibility of a third operator are well founded. For those who weren't around at the time, in 1979 British Caledonian were actively encouraged by the oil companies - in particular BP - to start up in Aberdeen, and they arrived up there in 1980. The scenario now is the same as it was then - just two major helicopter operators.
I'd bet my pension that a third operator will be enticed into the market place to break up the threat of any cosy deals between Bristow and Scotia.
Your comments about the possibility of a third operator are well founded. For those who weren't around at the time, in 1979 British Caledonian were actively encouraged by the oil companies - in particular BP - to start up in Aberdeen, and they arrived up there in 1980. The scenario now is the same as it was then - just two major helicopter operators.
I'd bet my pension that a third operator will be enticed into the market place to break up the threat of any cosy deals between Bristow and Scotia.
Guest
Posts: n/a
You are correct Speechless Two, historically the additional operators encouraged by the Oil Companies to come on to the North Sea are far more than most people recall. The Oil Companies do not like the potentiality of monopolies or comfortable cartel type operations.
In 1974/75, McAlpines (MacAlpines?)Helicopters were encouraged to break up the only two operators on the North Sea of British Airways Helicopters and Bristow Helicopters. Against a lot of opposition from these two, but encouraged by the Oil Companies, they finally received authorisation for a North Sea Air Operators Certificate (AOC). In the end they did not enter the North Sea operations.
Management Aviation/North Scottish Helicopters (later to be renamed Bond Helicopters,were then encouraged and established themselves for Conoco out of Strubby and became the Offshore Basing specialists in the Northern North Sea, with MBB 105 helicopters. With expansion it was considered that this needed competition. BEAS (British Executive Aircraft Services) were then encouraged and the path made clear for them to provide Offshore Basing competition. At the beginning they were paid in excess of four times the price of the MBB105 with a Bell 212. In fact it was such a premium price that Bristows took an interest and bought them out. Now back to three operators.
To further weaken this as no one was forthcoming, despite all sorts of opposition and lobbying to all and sundry, Occidental and Shell started using the services of Greenland Air with two and sometimes three S61s. Eventually, enough ground was covered to force Greenland Air out. Back to three operators.
This did not last long as a small Perth Operator owned by the Dixon Car organisation and only familiar with Jetranger operations were encouraged to enter the foray with Bell 212s. This operation operated under the name of Gleneagles Helicopters. They lasted until formidable opposition could be mustered in the form of British Caledonian Helicopters. Bristow then bought out British Caledonian Helicopters.
After this there was the KLM Helicopters entrance into the North Sea. Also Veritair obtained a North Sea AOC and they always threatened to be the vehicle to provide an additional operator, however, Brintel but paid to this by buying them out.
So historically the Oil Companies have always wanted more than two operators on the North Sea and in the busy periods wanted to have four operators.
What about today, who could enter? Possibilities are numerous, however the three credible possibilities that I see are the revamping of Bond Helicopters. Alternatively, with the supposed level playing field for Europe with JAR, I would not be surprised to see a European operator entering. My favourite bet is a combination of these, it will be a European based operation (more than likely with a Spanish umbrella), funded and managed by the old Bond owners/management. That would be the ideal solution for the Oil Companies and the worse combination for North Sea pilots to get themselves sorted out. Believe me, the current window will not last forever and any gains to be made must be made now, however, apathy reigns.
[This message has been edited by DV (edited 19 July 2000).]
In 1974/75, McAlpines (MacAlpines?)Helicopters were encouraged to break up the only two operators on the North Sea of British Airways Helicopters and Bristow Helicopters. Against a lot of opposition from these two, but encouraged by the Oil Companies, they finally received authorisation for a North Sea Air Operators Certificate (AOC). In the end they did not enter the North Sea operations.
Management Aviation/North Scottish Helicopters (later to be renamed Bond Helicopters,were then encouraged and established themselves for Conoco out of Strubby and became the Offshore Basing specialists in the Northern North Sea, with MBB 105 helicopters. With expansion it was considered that this needed competition. BEAS (British Executive Aircraft Services) were then encouraged and the path made clear for them to provide Offshore Basing competition. At the beginning they were paid in excess of four times the price of the MBB105 with a Bell 212. In fact it was such a premium price that Bristows took an interest and bought them out. Now back to three operators.
To further weaken this as no one was forthcoming, despite all sorts of opposition and lobbying to all and sundry, Occidental and Shell started using the services of Greenland Air with two and sometimes three S61s. Eventually, enough ground was covered to force Greenland Air out. Back to three operators.
This did not last long as a small Perth Operator owned by the Dixon Car organisation and only familiar with Jetranger operations were encouraged to enter the foray with Bell 212s. This operation operated under the name of Gleneagles Helicopters. They lasted until formidable opposition could be mustered in the form of British Caledonian Helicopters. Bristow then bought out British Caledonian Helicopters.
After this there was the KLM Helicopters entrance into the North Sea. Also Veritair obtained a North Sea AOC and they always threatened to be the vehicle to provide an additional operator, however, Brintel but paid to this by buying them out.
So historically the Oil Companies have always wanted more than two operators on the North Sea and in the busy periods wanted to have four operators.
What about today, who could enter? Possibilities are numerous, however the three credible possibilities that I see are the revamping of Bond Helicopters. Alternatively, with the supposed level playing field for Europe with JAR, I would not be surprised to see a European operator entering. My favourite bet is a combination of these, it will be a European based operation (more than likely with a Spanish umbrella), funded and managed by the old Bond owners/management. That would be the ideal solution for the Oil Companies and the worse combination for North Sea pilots to get themselves sorted out. Believe me, the current window will not last forever and any gains to be made must be made now, however, apathy reigns.
[This message has been edited by DV (edited 19 July 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
DV you have made it clear to me that the pilots on the North Sea have a lot more clout than a lot of us really realise. If the NSPA was revamped I’m sure that a lot of ground could be gained. However, it has made me also think.
The two operators on the North Sea today have allowed BALPA to be the pilots union. Therefore there is 100 percent BALPA support. This makes BALPAs bargaining position extremely powerful. If BALPA really wanted to make alterations for the pilots, they now for the first time have the strength. Why are they not doing anything about it?
Would any BALPA members care to comment as to why you are not doing anything about it. Perhaps you believe that the pilots’ conditions are satisfactory and that is why you are not proactive in improving the conditions for your members. Or has the apathy disease also hit you. A BALPA viewpoint would be appreciated.
The two operators on the North Sea today have allowed BALPA to be the pilots union. Therefore there is 100 percent BALPA support. This makes BALPAs bargaining position extremely powerful. If BALPA really wanted to make alterations for the pilots, they now for the first time have the strength. Why are they not doing anything about it?
Would any BALPA members care to comment as to why you are not doing anything about it. Perhaps you believe that the pilots’ conditions are satisfactory and that is why you are not proactive in improving the conditions for your members. Or has the apathy disease also hit you. A BALPA viewpoint would be appreciated.
Guest
Posts: n/a
DV - presumably the Veritair licence to operate offshore (is it still called an ATL7?) remains active with the "new" Brintel under Tony Jones?
If I had been the Scotia management I would have ensured that part of the agreement of the buy-out by him contained clauses to stop his Company operating offshore in the UK for a period of some years - much like the requirement for BA neither to own nor operate a helicopter company for a period of seven years after they sold BAH to Maxwell.
Hence the urgent requirement for BCAL to sell off their helicopter arm before they themselves could be purchased by BA.
One point about reinstating the NSPA. If pilots are so apathetic that they cannot forcibly make their point to BALPA that they are not being adequately represented, how on earth can they expect to resurrect the NSPA in order to forcibly put their points to management? Whichever course is taken, neither BALPA nor the NSPA will be effective in the North Sea unless the members themselves become actively involved as a group, rather than the majority just paying their subscriptions and expecting miracles.
Oh hell - the spelling police are on patrol so I've looked up ressur....resurrect!
[This message has been edited by Speechless Two (edited 19 July 2000).]
If I had been the Scotia management I would have ensured that part of the agreement of the buy-out by him contained clauses to stop his Company operating offshore in the UK for a period of some years - much like the requirement for BA neither to own nor operate a helicopter company for a period of seven years after they sold BAH to Maxwell.
Hence the urgent requirement for BCAL to sell off their helicopter arm before they themselves could be purchased by BA.
One point about reinstating the NSPA. If pilots are so apathetic that they cannot forcibly make their point to BALPA that they are not being adequately represented, how on earth can they expect to resurrect the NSPA in order to forcibly put their points to management? Whichever course is taken, neither BALPA nor the NSPA will be effective in the North Sea unless the members themselves become actively involved as a group, rather than the majority just paying their subscriptions and expecting miracles.
Oh hell - the spelling police are on patrol so I've looked up ressur....resurrect!
[This message has been edited by Speechless Two (edited 19 July 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
I started this thread highlighting some of the current serious misgivings about BALPAs dealings with the helicopter operations on the North Sea. I have put specific, reasonable, rational questions that I hear a lot of pilots asking in the crew rooms. I honestly had hoped that this would have given BALPA Committee members a forum to answer and account for some if not all of their decisions.
I also find it interesting that there have been others who have also asked questions. These I have thought are quite reasonable questions to ask in the current climate.
I find it remarkable, that there has not been a single comment from any BALPA Committee members. I also find it remarkable in that there has not been any postings giving any support to BALPAs decisions. This, even though there has been questions directly put to BALPA.
Why this reticence?
Come on BALPA Committee members, do you not feel that you are able to justify the decisions that you have taken?
Do you arrogantly think that you are not accountable to your members?
I also find it interesting that there have been others who have also asked questions. These I have thought are quite reasonable questions to ask in the current climate.
I find it remarkable, that there has not been a single comment from any BALPA Committee members. I also find it remarkable in that there has not been any postings giving any support to BALPAs decisions. This, even though there has been questions directly put to BALPA.
Why this reticence?
Come on BALPA Committee members, do you not feel that you are able to justify the decisions that you have taken?
Do you arrogantly think that you are not accountable to your members?
