Pilots who went on strike let go by PHI
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Albuquerque NM USA
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, so I guess there are four groups working within this thread: always pro-union, always anti-union, disseminators of pro-union information and disseminators of anti-union info.
As Gomerpilot and GLS have pointed out, a couple of posters have jumped in here with timing that looks suspicious. Don’t you agree? And while I can accept that being a “lurker” of this group is OK by me, I do have to wonder why this particular topic has brought them out of the woodwork. Pprune has a worldwide base of contributors with discussion topics equally far ranging. Why the PHI union fight and that only? I’m too old to believe in coincidences.
Regarding comments about why pro-union posters have accused these new Ppruners of anti-union bias. One of the last posts by “Industry Insider” was about flight completion rates of PHI. Something on the order of 80-85% for one size aircraft and 56%? for another. It seems like the 80%+ figure is what the company has been saying all along, literally since day one of the strike. You can read this in the local newspaper articles and from company press releases. It’s been 18 full days now with a number of pilots returning to work and the flight completion rate hasn’t climbed much if at all since this started has it? Why is that, with pilots returing to work? Now II says he’s un-biased and getting his information from company or industry sources. All well and good. What if his contacts are feeding him biased information?
Me a conspiracy nut case? Could be, but beyond the financial implications for both sides, this is a game and it is also being played with information, both true and false.
Anyway, none of that addresses how many pilots are on the line to substantiate the flight completion numbers. The last of what I consider correct information was from about a week ago. The union member who compiled that info has since gone back to work and no one has picked up the duty. At that time certainly more than 180 pilots, as someone posted on this thread, almost twice that many in actuality, were out on strike. The way the union numbers were derived was by polling all the bases and adding the numbers up. The numbers were added up from a list of all pilots, base by base, not just a seniority roster and not just union members. Ask yourself why would a striking pilot monitoring his/her base say a scab wasn’t working or visa versa to bias this list?
Back to pilots flying. The Albuquerque EMS base has never been out of service for lack of a pilot since the strike began. One pilot has worked 18 out of the last 20 day shifts and another, 12 out of the last 14 nights. In service rate – 100% - staffed by two pilots and 4 shifts covered by other local pilots. So when I see someone saying 85% business as usual, sure it’s possible, but I have to wonder how many days and more importantly how many hours they’re racking up, all done by the same pilots.
Hopefully, we can all agree that if an accident occurs and fatigue was a primary cause, it will not reflect very well on anyone.
Ron Powell
As Gomerpilot and GLS have pointed out, a couple of posters have jumped in here with timing that looks suspicious. Don’t you agree? And while I can accept that being a “lurker” of this group is OK by me, I do have to wonder why this particular topic has brought them out of the woodwork. Pprune has a worldwide base of contributors with discussion topics equally far ranging. Why the PHI union fight and that only? I’m too old to believe in coincidences.
Regarding comments about why pro-union posters have accused these new Ppruners of anti-union bias. One of the last posts by “Industry Insider” was about flight completion rates of PHI. Something on the order of 80-85% for one size aircraft and 56%? for another. It seems like the 80%+ figure is what the company has been saying all along, literally since day one of the strike. You can read this in the local newspaper articles and from company press releases. It’s been 18 full days now with a number of pilots returning to work and the flight completion rate hasn’t climbed much if at all since this started has it? Why is that, with pilots returing to work? Now II says he’s un-biased and getting his information from company or industry sources. All well and good. What if his contacts are feeding him biased information?
Me a conspiracy nut case? Could be, but beyond the financial implications for both sides, this is a game and it is also being played with information, both true and false.
Anyway, none of that addresses how many pilots are on the line to substantiate the flight completion numbers. The last of what I consider correct information was from about a week ago. The union member who compiled that info has since gone back to work and no one has picked up the duty. At that time certainly more than 180 pilots, as someone posted on this thread, almost twice that many in actuality, were out on strike. The way the union numbers were derived was by polling all the bases and adding the numbers up. The numbers were added up from a list of all pilots, base by base, not just a seniority roster and not just union members. Ask yourself why would a striking pilot monitoring his/her base say a scab wasn’t working or visa versa to bias this list?
Back to pilots flying. The Albuquerque EMS base has never been out of service for lack of a pilot since the strike began. One pilot has worked 18 out of the last 20 day shifts and another, 12 out of the last 14 nights. In service rate – 100% - staffed by two pilots and 4 shifts covered by other local pilots. So when I see someone saying 85% business as usual, sure it’s possible, but I have to wonder how many days and more importantly how many hours they’re racking up, all done by the same pilots.
Hopefully, we can all agree that if an accident occurs and fatigue was a primary cause, it will not reflect very well on anyone.
Ron Powell
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: US
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Devil 49 - Not sure how a repeat of history helps your position, if anything, it helps the market based perspective of salaries and wages. Glut of pilots = low wages. Shortage of pilots = rising and increased wages. Market economics. Does it move as fast as some of us would like? No - but the economics work and have proven in every market sector of our economy to be valid.
There is no doubt that PHI deserved the union for several reasons - crew conditions alone would have been enough. My problem is that the current leadership appears to have reached for the golden ring and in the process missed and has taken a lot of good folks down with them. Was it the right time and the right issue to cause the company to strike? Only the membership can make that decision. They did not have that chance. Local 108's answer was that the 'best, last & final" did not address all issues is weak at best. The company said no to the EC's issues and the EC chose not to let the membership make the decision. Thus, less than stellar support (can we at least agree on that?).
Given the numbers - the union has an uphill battle. Even if I were a union supporter -- it is easy to see that the lack of support from more than 50% of the pilots associated with the company makes for a very hard ride (contract, temp, scabs, non-union members etc).
Ron - I make no bones about the fact that I am a non-union supporter. I think it is the wrong road. Can you point to improvements? Absolutely. But for the long run, I believe it is the wrong decision. Is there one industry (except goverment) that has a long history with union activity, that is prospering? I'm not sure I can point to one (not saying there isn't, just that I can't identify easily).
Unions tend to get greedy - if this strike was only about the safety issues related to workover - they I would say you have a valid cause for the strike. However, if that was the only issue - I find it hard to believe that issue could not be resolved.
By the way - as previously stated, I have only posted on union topics on this board. My position is that union activity is not in the long term best interest of the pilot. I am not associatd with PHI, AMC, or Air Log. I am very vested in the HEMS side of the business and believe that union activity in this sector would and will be the cause of a major reduction in pilot opportunities in the long term. AMC will begin to see that fact as they begin the next round of vendor negotiated contracts. Combine that with the amount of money Medicare pays out for HEMS and we have a perfect storm brewing on the horizon. Cuts are coming in reimbursement. With that will be a reduction in programs. HEMS needs to enjoy the ride as the healthcare cycle will start the down turn in the very near future.
There is no doubt that PHI deserved the union for several reasons - crew conditions alone would have been enough. My problem is that the current leadership appears to have reached for the golden ring and in the process missed and has taken a lot of good folks down with them. Was it the right time and the right issue to cause the company to strike? Only the membership can make that decision. They did not have that chance. Local 108's answer was that the 'best, last & final" did not address all issues is weak at best. The company said no to the EC's issues and the EC chose not to let the membership make the decision. Thus, less than stellar support (can we at least agree on that?).
Given the numbers - the union has an uphill battle. Even if I were a union supporter -- it is easy to see that the lack of support from more than 50% of the pilots associated with the company makes for a very hard ride (contract, temp, scabs, non-union members etc).
Ron - I make no bones about the fact that I am a non-union supporter. I think it is the wrong road. Can you point to improvements? Absolutely. But for the long run, I believe it is the wrong decision. Is there one industry (except goverment) that has a long history with union activity, that is prospering? I'm not sure I can point to one (not saying there isn't, just that I can't identify easily).
Unions tend to get greedy - if this strike was only about the safety issues related to workover - they I would say you have a valid cause for the strike. However, if that was the only issue - I find it hard to believe that issue could not be resolved.
By the way - as previously stated, I have only posted on union topics on this board. My position is that union activity is not in the long term best interest of the pilot. I am not associatd with PHI, AMC, or Air Log. I am very vested in the HEMS side of the business and believe that union activity in this sector would and will be the cause of a major reduction in pilot opportunities in the long term. AMC will begin to see that fact as they begin the next round of vendor negotiated contracts. Combine that with the amount of money Medicare pays out for HEMS and we have a perfect storm brewing on the horizon. Cuts are coming in reimbursement. With that will be a reduction in programs. HEMS needs to enjoy the ride as the healthcare cycle will start the down turn in the very near future.
R-P
“Why the PHI union fight and that only? I’m too old to believe in coincidences” –
“So when I see someone saying 85% business as usual, sure it’s possible…”
“Why the PHI union fight and that only? I’m too old to believe in coincidences” –
- It’s not a coincidence, I posted on purpose. The PHI strike has been the ONLY topic on this forum, in the past 6 years that I have personal direct knowledge of and will be affected by its outcome!?!? So I’m sorry, there is no hidden agenda or anti-union banter. As I have said before, I got tired of only a one-side dialogue from my fellow employees and only want to see ALL the information presented here. Plain and simple.
“So when I see someone saying 85% business as usual, sure it’s possible…”
- This is an example of information I would like clarified. First you imply that company info on flight volumes could be biased, yet further down you agree the 85% is possible. Is this the game you mentioned???
- As you had mentioned only 2 pilots were covering NM and maintaining 100% - to use this ops as an example of what is happening in the GOM – when a 3rd pilot returned the 100% remains but the number of hours flown by each pilot reduces – this is what is happening in the GOM.
- Here is another example of the info I would like clarified. How can the union state accurate numbers on strike if there is no one to count them? Also, 2 X 180 = 360, based on the figures on local 108’s website (as shown by union members to myself and others) AND based on the figures posted by PHI there were never more than 332 members prior to the strike. ???
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Albuquerque NM USA
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Industry Insider misquotes me by saying:
“Ron Powell has no accurate information about flight completions because the "union member who was compiling that information went back to work"
The flight completion rate has nothing to do with the number of pilots I said were being counted by the union member who went back to work. I did not mix the two as you have done. Please re-read my post.
Wrench1 says:
“So when I see someone saying 85% business as usual, sure it’s possible…”
· This is an example of information I would like clarified. First you imply that company info on flight volumes could be biased, yet further down you agree the 85% is possible. Is this the game you mentioned???”
Sure 85% is possible. Is it measured against pre-strike levels? Is it measured from what the company “thinks” it can complete that day/week but only ends up with 85% of that amount with aircraft and pilots available? Industry Insider doesn’t qualify any of it and in his/her post on 10/08 admitted that the information provided to him could be wrong. That’s why I’m skeptical.
I’d also like some clarification as well as to who is in the cockpit? You know, like a B412 has two pilots. Does the company currently have 4 pilots assigned to that aircraft/job or is it the same two guys/gals flying it for the last 19 days?
Wrench1 said:
“As you had mentioned only 2 pilots were covering NM and maintaining 100% - to use this ops as an example of what is happening in the GOM – when a 3rd pilot returned the 100% remains but the number of hours flown by each pilot reduces – this is what is happening in the GOM.”
OK, I’ll take another shot at it. In NM we have 4 pilots assigned to one aircraft. Two are striking so the other two have shouldered almost the entire shift load- 2 x shift per 24 hour period. That’s why there’s four of us, so we get time off. These guys have almost no time off yet they’re always in service.
To use your 3rd pilot example, if a B412 or S76 has 4 pilots assigned, two go on strike, then one comes back, there’s still one pilot working the equivalent of full time, correct? Thirty days x 2 pilots = 60 pilot seats. Divided by 3 = 20 shifts per pilot. Five extra shifts per pilot per month = mandatory workover for someone - just one of the reasons the strike is on in the first place.
“Here is another example of the info I would like clarified. How can the union state accurate numbers on strike if there is no one to count them? Also, 2 X 180 = 360, based on the figures on local 108’s website (as shown by union members to myself and others) AND based on the figures posted by PHI there were never more than 332 members prior to the strike. ???”
As I said, the count data I had was about a week old. On 10/01, 353 pilots were counted as being on strike. Close enough? As far as these numbers being more than union membership combined, has it occurred to anyone there are non-union pilots honoring the strike? The union tallied the number of people working and subtracted that number from the total pilots on staff. This total has nothing to do with union membership. Latest data: 231 scabs observed or known to be working. I’ll also be generous and add 10% to that number, call it 254 scabs.
I’ll do the math for you: Approx. 550 – 254 scabs = 296 pilots striking.
Ron Powell
“Ron Powell has no accurate information about flight completions because the "union member who was compiling that information went back to work"
The flight completion rate has nothing to do with the number of pilots I said were being counted by the union member who went back to work. I did not mix the two as you have done. Please re-read my post.
Wrench1 says:
“So when I see someone saying 85% business as usual, sure it’s possible…”
· This is an example of information I would like clarified. First you imply that company info on flight volumes could be biased, yet further down you agree the 85% is possible. Is this the game you mentioned???”
Sure 85% is possible. Is it measured against pre-strike levels? Is it measured from what the company “thinks” it can complete that day/week but only ends up with 85% of that amount with aircraft and pilots available? Industry Insider doesn’t qualify any of it and in his/her post on 10/08 admitted that the information provided to him could be wrong. That’s why I’m skeptical.
I’d also like some clarification as well as to who is in the cockpit? You know, like a B412 has two pilots. Does the company currently have 4 pilots assigned to that aircraft/job or is it the same two guys/gals flying it for the last 19 days?
Wrench1 said:
“As you had mentioned only 2 pilots were covering NM and maintaining 100% - to use this ops as an example of what is happening in the GOM – when a 3rd pilot returned the 100% remains but the number of hours flown by each pilot reduces – this is what is happening in the GOM.”
OK, I’ll take another shot at it. In NM we have 4 pilots assigned to one aircraft. Two are striking so the other two have shouldered almost the entire shift load- 2 x shift per 24 hour period. That’s why there’s four of us, so we get time off. These guys have almost no time off yet they’re always in service.
To use your 3rd pilot example, if a B412 or S76 has 4 pilots assigned, two go on strike, then one comes back, there’s still one pilot working the equivalent of full time, correct? Thirty days x 2 pilots = 60 pilot seats. Divided by 3 = 20 shifts per pilot. Five extra shifts per pilot per month = mandatory workover for someone - just one of the reasons the strike is on in the first place.
“Here is another example of the info I would like clarified. How can the union state accurate numbers on strike if there is no one to count them? Also, 2 X 180 = 360, based on the figures on local 108’s website (as shown by union members to myself and others) AND based on the figures posted by PHI there were never more than 332 members prior to the strike. ???”
As I said, the count data I had was about a week old. On 10/01, 353 pilots were counted as being on strike. Close enough? As far as these numbers being more than union membership combined, has it occurred to anyone there are non-union pilots honoring the strike? The union tallied the number of people working and subtracted that number from the total pilots on staff. This total has nothing to do with union membership. Latest data: 231 scabs observed or known to be working. I’ll also be generous and add 10% to that number, call it 254 scabs.
I’ll do the math for you: Approx. 550 – 254 scabs = 296 pilots striking.
Ron Powell
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Industry Insider tries to report what is said by the customers who use PHI and tries not to tolerate distortion and spin.
Your numbers are pure company spin. You're either clueless or lying. I'll let others decide which. The vast majority of the pilots who went back to work were never union members. The 550 number is not the total number of pilots employed by PHI, just the number eligible for union membership. All pilots working foreign assignments, mostly Africa and Antarctica, and those in management, are not in that number. Your spin on the number on strike is simply untrue. Again, I don't know if you're lying or simply lied to, but you are not telling the truth in either case.
R-P,
Good post, but let’s leave out the name calling, it doesn't serve anybody and actually brings OUR profession down a notch.
I guess we can play the numbers game all day long but 296 on strike !?!?!? Now who is BS’n who… Time will tell but my money is on 180 and less.
My comment on the percentage of flight volume had nothing to do with WHO was flying - that is a separate item. My contention is the union publicly states 80% of the fleet is on the ground – which is not true. Period.
Your second question was if all these pilots are crossing the line then why haven’t the flight times gone up. You are correct pilots are flying more – BUT the reason the times are not up is because they are picking up some of the present flight load – as my example shows.
However, while you were making a valid point of individual pilot flight times you made interesting remark – which I will quote “…mandatory workover for someone - just one of the reasons the strike is on in the first place.” According to most media accounts and quoted by the union this was one of the MAIN reasons they went on strike.
If you can, please answer this question for all of us here – Article 24, paragraph 3 of your last contract states… “When the workover lists are exhausted, the Employer may fill the position with any qualified pilot who is employed by the Employer.” If this was such an ISSUE why did you and the union membership accept, vote , and ratify this provision in YOUR previous contract?
I’m sorry Ron, but you cannot blame me, PHI, BP, Industry Insider, or whoever else on that one.
GLS,
The issue is not the total number of pilots employed by PHI but the number currently on strike. The foreign guys and management have no bearing on the NUMBER of pilots on strike.
Like I said above we can play number games all day long, but what gets me is R-P first states “As far as these numbers being more than union membership combined, has it occurred to anyone there are non-union pilots honoring the strike” – then you say “The vast majority of the pilots who went back to work were never union members” .
Which way is it – did they stay out or did they come back? I might give you one or two who did it on principal, but over 100 !?!? I don’t think a person is that naïve to first walkout on his job and then do it for a union who can’t help him because he is NOT a member.
Good post, but let’s leave out the name calling, it doesn't serve anybody and actually brings OUR profession down a notch.
I guess we can play the numbers game all day long but 296 on strike !?!?!? Now who is BS’n who… Time will tell but my money is on 180 and less.
My comment on the percentage of flight volume had nothing to do with WHO was flying - that is a separate item. My contention is the union publicly states 80% of the fleet is on the ground – which is not true. Period.
Your second question was if all these pilots are crossing the line then why haven’t the flight times gone up. You are correct pilots are flying more – BUT the reason the times are not up is because they are picking up some of the present flight load – as my example shows.
However, while you were making a valid point of individual pilot flight times you made interesting remark – which I will quote “…mandatory workover for someone - just one of the reasons the strike is on in the first place.” According to most media accounts and quoted by the union this was one of the MAIN reasons they went on strike.
If you can, please answer this question for all of us here – Article 24, paragraph 3 of your last contract states… “When the workover lists are exhausted, the Employer may fill the position with any qualified pilot who is employed by the Employer.” If this was such an ISSUE why did you and the union membership accept, vote , and ratify this provision in YOUR previous contract?
I’m sorry Ron, but you cannot blame me, PHI, BP, Industry Insider, or whoever else on that one.
GLS,
The issue is not the total number of pilots employed by PHI but the number currently on strike. The foreign guys and management have no bearing on the NUMBER of pilots on strike.
Like I said above we can play number games all day long, but what gets me is R-P first states “As far as these numbers being more than union membership combined, has it occurred to anyone there are non-union pilots honoring the strike” – then you say “The vast majority of the pilots who went back to work were never union members” .
Which way is it – did they stay out or did they come back? I might give you one or two who did it on principal, but over 100 !?!? I don’t think a person is that naïve to first walkout on his job and then do it for a union who can’t help him because he is NOT a member.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, technically the Antarctica pilots are not eligible. That has been the subject of a legal ruling. They work in the Gulf only a few weeks per year, if that.
Again, you claim to have very detailed knowledge of PHI inner workings for someone with no connection. I didn't say you are lying, just that you are either lying or being lied to. I stand by that assessment. I do get a little frustrated by seeing lies being broadcast, but it's really not worth the effort any more. Nothing said on this forum will have any effect on the outcome of the strike, and I'm not really sure why any of us are bothering.
Again, you claim to have very detailed knowledge of PHI inner workings for someone with no connection. I didn't say you are lying, just that you are either lying or being lied to. I stand by that assessment. I do get a little frustrated by seeing lies being broadcast, but it's really not worth the effort any more. Nothing said on this forum will have any effect on the outcome of the strike, and I'm not really sure why any of us are bothering.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: One Mile High
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GLS
Question for you, have any of the striking PHI pilots found employment with other companies yet? Since there appears to be no prospect of a negotiated settlement with PHI I wondered if any striking pilots had found work with a decent company who treats its pilots with the respect they deserve, since its unlikely that any of you will return to PHI due to them paying the lowest wages in the GOM.
Question for you, have any of the striking PHI pilots found employment with other companies yet? Since there appears to be no prospect of a negotiated settlement with PHI I wondered if any striking pilots had found work with a decent company who treats its pilots with the respect they deserve, since its unlikely that any of you will return to PHI due to them paying the lowest wages in the GOM.
Prior to this strike I honestly believed I had the best job in the company - best aircraft I've ever flown, best customer I've ever flown for, outstanding maintenance, great people to work with. I envied absolutely no one, from the owner on down. And I was well paid. But, I've said all along that when a job stops being fun, it's time to leave. The way my company's management has dealt with us prior to and during this fiasco has made me reconsider my relationship with PHI in a very harsh light. I'm just not very optimistic I'll enjoy working in the environment that will exist after this strike.
In reality, there is no guarantee that I won't have the same or worse complaints about my next employer. However, which makes more sense, walking back into a known bad situation, or making an honest effort at something new? While it will undoubtedly be inconvenient to start over, and the pay will certainly be less, I still have options open to me at this point that look more attractive than the alternative.
We pilots are often painted as greedy whores by our detractors, and apparently still thought of in that way by our management (witness the exorbitant bonuses and supplementary pay being thrown at those who were "loyal" to the company). However, our complaints about the pay scale had more to do with the inequalities in the way it was applied, and the fact that other companies had the advantage over us when competing for the best new hires. There were relatively few pilots who could not live comfortably on what they were making. In fact we'd never have been able to consider striking if our finances weren't reasonably secure.
-Stan-
Last edited by slgrossman; 11th Oct 2006 at 19:27.
Stan,
For what it is worth, and I know I speak for several others, we would have no problem what so ever if you decide to return to work. While I know you are committed to your fellow pilots as a group, we do not hold you and a number of other pilots in the same company as others. You have maintained a professional stance and did not resort to name calling, threats, etc. and I respect you for that. No matter what your decision may be I wish you luck.
W1
For what it is worth, and I know I speak for several others, we would have no problem what so ever if you decide to return to work. While I know you are committed to your fellow pilots as a group, we do not hold you and a number of other pilots in the same company as others. You have maintained a professional stance and did not resort to name calling, threats, etc. and I respect you for that. No matter what your decision may be I wish you luck.
W1
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: US
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Suggestion
Stan - you may want to consider an alternative. Why not return to work and see what it really is like? The environment may not be as suggested. In fact, you might find it to be a fresh opportunity. Don't let the retoric or venom of the strike stop you from being able to access a very good salary structure.
There are those that may not be welcomed back as they have resorted to tactics that have burned the bridge. Those that believed in the stance but kept it on the professional level and did not make it personal will find the environment to be positive and forward looking.
If it does not work - then you can look for alternatives. It's not like you can't find a job. This way, you don't have to continue to dip into savings, but see how it goes and get paid to do so.
Just a suggestion - starting over is not fun, been there, done that.
There are those that may not be welcomed back as they have resorted to tactics that have burned the bridge. Those that believed in the stance but kept it on the professional level and did not make it personal will find the environment to be positive and forward looking.
If it does not work - then you can look for alternatives. It's not like you can't find a job. This way, you don't have to continue to dip into savings, but see how it goes and get paid to do so.
Just a suggestion - starting over is not fun, been there, done that.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Over here
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This being a rumor network, the latest rumor we're hearing over here is that Air Log is negotiating to buy PHI. That would make a very large company. It would also have a definite effect on the outcome of the strike, for the union, the scabs, and current management. In any case, it's an interesting rumor.
Since rumours are being thrown about....try this one.
ERA's parent company, SEACOR, has purchased Keystone Aviation. Does that mean ERA is now in the EMS business. If so....then if Air Log purchased PHI then Air Log would then be diversified broadly into the EMS market very quickly.
Now that gives rise to the question what the name of the new outfits would be?
ERA's parent company, SEACOR, has purchased Keystone Aviation. Does that mean ERA is now in the EMS business. If so....then if Air Log purchased PHI then Air Log would then be diversified broadly into the EMS market very quickly.
Now that gives rise to the question what the name of the new outfits would be?
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Over here
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I should clarify that what I heard was that Air Log is only negotiating for the Oil & Gas division. Again, just rumor, though. My guess on the new name would be 'PHI, a Bristow Company'. Or just 'Air Log, a Bristow Company'. Obviously details to be worked out later, if at all.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Over here
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
II, as others have noted, you claim to have very detailed inside knowledge, for someone with no association with PHI whatsoever. The ability to read Gonsoulin's mind is very impressive. I'm sure the Local 108 folks would love to be able to do that, and might be willing to pay you to do it. As a 'consultant', you would certainly be willing to take the cash, no? Demonstration of ability might be required, though.
Since we are airing out all the rumors - got an email from out west that Air Methods will become the new owners all PHI EMS.
This goes with Sasless and Gomer's rumor: From New Orleans - PHI to become sole operator for ONLY BP & Shell. Seacor / Bristow to purchase and divide remaining portions PHI. Now wouldn't that be a Coup d''etat for G.S., N.O. and G.G. !!!!!
This goes with Sasless and Gomer's rumor: From New Orleans - PHI to become sole operator for ONLY BP & Shell. Seacor / Bristow to purchase and divide remaining portions PHI. Now wouldn't that be a Coup d''etat for G.S., N.O. and G.G. !!!!!
Does that mean the S-92B will be an amphibian?
Wrench,
You have me more than a bit confused....why would Air Log and ERA each buy this imaginary "part" of PHI?
What a grand business plan...100% of your business split between two customers....oh,now that would be a treat knowing how competitive the bidding is in the GOM.
AL G may be a shrimper made good....but he is smarter than that. (I hope!)
You have me more than a bit confused....why would Air Log and ERA each buy this imaginary "part" of PHI?
What a grand business plan...100% of your business split between two customers....oh,now that would be a treat knowing how competitive the bidding is in the GOM.
AL G may be a shrimper made good....but he is smarter than that. (I hope!)
Sas,
My thoughts exactly. But what if PHI only provided service to a select group of producers, say only the top 5 in the GOM?? That is the flip side to the rumor.
So I don't think it would be a matter of "buying" the business but rather absorbing the remaining business.
Talking to friends in the industry, the current global petroleum service sector is being built on a "single vender" philosophy, so I think this is where the rumors are coming from. For example, BP signed a contract with one firm to handle ALL their crane maintenance requirements in the entire GOM - which was a first - rather than a number of local companies. Also look at the terms of the contracts being signed. What was once 3 year contracts with 2 one year options are now 7 year with 3 one year options. Who knows. And now throw the strike into the mix.
I don't know about you, but to quote a certain phrase used around here which I thinks fits this item...
Tune in next week to ... As The Rotor Turns....
My thoughts exactly. But what if PHI only provided service to a select group of producers, say only the top 5 in the GOM?? That is the flip side to the rumor.
So I don't think it would be a matter of "buying" the business but rather absorbing the remaining business.
Talking to friends in the industry, the current global petroleum service sector is being built on a "single vender" philosophy, so I think this is where the rumors are coming from. For example, BP signed a contract with one firm to handle ALL their crane maintenance requirements in the entire GOM - which was a first - rather than a number of local companies. Also look at the terms of the contracts being signed. What was once 3 year contracts with 2 one year options are now 7 year with 3 one year options. Who knows. And now throw the strike into the mix.
I don't know about you, but to quote a certain phrase used around here which I thinks fits this item...
Tune in next week to ... As The Rotor Turns....
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: All over the place
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that wrench 1 is a little off track here extrapolating the example of single vendors.
At least one of PHI's customers has concluded they made a major error in single sourcing their helicopters, specifically as a result of this strike. As a result, they are looking closely at contractual performance for escape!
Alternate vendors are already being courted, and heads are going to roll in the contracting office. A very major change in contracting strategy is about to be rolled out.
At least one of PHI's customers has concluded they made a major error in single sourcing their helicopters, specifically as a result of this strike. As a result, they are looking closely at contractual performance for escape!
Alternate vendors are already being courted, and heads are going to roll in the contracting office. A very major change in contracting strategy is about to be rolled out.