Chc Sold!!!

[902Jon]

I think you will find that everything will be transfered - no chance of getting out of your training bond I'm afraid. It is the same as if your bank has gone belly up or has merged with another. Unfortunately your mortgage or your overdraft will not disappear overnight.

Does anybody know whether this announcement will mean an end to the spending freeze that has affected recruiting/training?

[helimutt]

902jon, I have no idea where you get your info from but there has been no spending freeze on recruitment or training. Not from where i'm sitting anyway.
There is a shortage of suitable applicants for the positions available, that doesn't mean recruitment isn't happening. Also, just because the recruitment boom of the last couple of years has slowed now, that also doesn't mean that it isn't taking place.

Training continues, with probably millions being spent on sim training, new sim building in ABZ etc etc.

Hope that helps.

[Hoppit]

Not sure how mortgages and overdrafts compare to be honest, but the only way that I can view it is that the bond was signed by the employee and CHC, not First Reserve.

If you choose to join the largest helicopter company in the world, believing that you are getting job security, a long term career etc etc, then how do you stand with the uncertain future now of possibly getting broken up and sold up in parts?? After all, First Reserve can do anything they want to the various business units of CHC.

Surely that training bond is now null and void as you should have the right to move on if you are unhappy with the situation, without incurring the penalty of the original contract that you signed with CHC, who effectively no longer own you.

[steve_oc]

I should just point out that regardless of "owner" the legal entity is still CHC Scotia (in UK) so contracts are with that legal entity.

[Outwest]

Hoppit,
You still work for CHC, your pay cheques will still say CHC, the a/c will still say CHC on the side.

It is irrelevant who owns CHC.

[GKaplan]

If you choose to join the largest helicopter company in the world, believing that you are getting job security, a long term career etc etc, then how do you stand with the uncertain future now of possibly getting broken up and sold up in parts?? After all, First Reserve can do anything they want to the various business units of CHC.

This has always been true... whoever owns the company.

[SASless]

"Bond" as used in the discussion extant denotes "contract"....the contract goes with the sale young lad....the wording of the contract is the authority.

As said in the US Army years ago.....YSTFC! Live up to it....or take yer chances if you viollate it.

Now of course....depending upon where you signed it and which court holds jurisdiction might determine the feasibility of the "Company" pursuing the matter in court if you live outside that jurisdiction.

The bad news on this is when the violates a contract or agreement regarding your employment.



An example of how the game is played....perhaps it is different for CHC.


Bristow (Redhill, UK) advertises for pilots for Nigeria

Bristow(Redhill, UK) does the interview, provides accomodation, meals, and an air ticket to the interview.

Redhill provides onward transportation to Nigeria.

You sign a contract showing you are employed by Bristow but seconded to BIAGLE (a Jersey, Channel Islands firm) to work for Bristow Nigeria.

Bristow Redhill does the payroll accounting and pays your monthly sums.

The contract is bound by Jersey, Channel Islands law.

Question: As a Canadian, American, or Brazilian....and a conflict occurs regarding the contract.....just how much chance do you think you have to win in a dispute in court if you could find a court that woiuld entertain the action?

[scottishterrier]

floater

Many many thanks for the clarification of what a bond is. That has cleared it up for us all.

You did not however define a "big bond".

Do you work for the previously mentioned operation ?

[GKaplan]

First Reserve may be american but the European operations of CHC are now dutch !!

European law requires that each holder of an aviation license issued by a member state of the European Union or the European Economic Area be both majority owned and effectively controlled by member states of the EU or EEA or by nationals of such member states. Up until the acquisition by First Reserve Corporation, CHC accomplished this requirement through the Irish citizenship of the Dobbin family. Following the acquisition, Mr. xxxxx, a Dutch national has invested a 50.1% participation in CHC’s European operating entities through a Dutch Holding company named EEA Helicopter Operations BV (“EEA”) which will be the parent company of CHC Scotia Limited, CHC Ireland Limited, CHC Helikopter Service AS, CHC Denmark As and CHC Helicopters Netherlands BV.

[...]

This structural change will not impact your terms and conditions of employment, which will remain with the legal entity in which you are employed today, nor your day-to-day activities carried out to support our valued customers. The management structure of CHC Scotia Limited, CHC Ireland Limited, CHC Helikopter Service AS, CHC Denmark As and CHC Helicopters Netherlands BV remains the same and the company will continue to fly under the CHC logo working together with CHC to grow our operations. As of the close of the transaction, CHC will continue to supply the vast majority of our helicopters, and Heli-One will provide service on those helicopters.

[Hoppit]

...so contracts are with that legal entity

So how is the legal entity defined? The name on the AOC, company registration number or...??

....the contract goes with the sale....

So are you suggesting that its transferred?

What if another operator had bought CHC then? How would that be different?? Or is it only different if CHC is closed down in terms of company registration and AOC?

I appreciate the input guys/ gals.

[GKaplan]

So how is the legal entity defined? The name on the AOC, company registration number or...??

My guess is it follows the legal registration of each business.

In Europe, the legal entities forming parts of CHC are:
- CHC Scotia Ltd
- CHC Ireland Limited
- CHC Helikopter Service AS
- CHC Denmark As
- CHC Helicopters Netherlands BV

Nothing is transferred : if you signed a contract with Scotia (for instance), Scotia is still what it was and so is your contract.
The main point here is that the change of ownership affects things on a different level than your specific relationship with the company.

What if another operator had bought CHC then? How would that be different?? Or is it only different if CHC is closed down in terms of company registration and AOC?

I think you're right, it wouldn't have been any different unless there was a change in the legal terms of the registration (and even so I'm not sure you would so easily be relieved from obligations previously contracted...)

[Shell Management]

GKaplan is correct.

And so is SASless - if you sign a contract with BIAGL you have a contract with BIAGL. By the way, SAS, if you want to sue, its best to get right offshore island (remember - the G is a clue) - the legal beagles are a bit picky about that sort of detail!

Funnily enough another CHC vehicle, EEA Helicopter Operations Limited, was formed in Dublin in Jan 2006, so perhaps an earlier EU national shareholder pulled out when this whole de-Dobbification process started years ago.

The EEA arrangement is not that different to Bristow Helicopter's means of being European.

The only difference is Caladonian Investments, who 'sold' Bristow to OLOG on 1998, actually do still own a big chunk of Bristow in the UK, a more than modest chunk of Bristow in the US and have 2 seats on the board. But that little subtly seems to have missed the 206jocks still sobbing into their frozen daquaris as the 'better' (ha-ha) helicopter company now becomes the new Bristow Offshore Helicopters Inc at long last.

Another possibility though is that FR maybe start to back European thinking (i.e. Norweigian) now over the Canadian thinking in the same way that trend has happened in Bristow.

[loav8r]

Recruitment

There was a comment made earlier asking about recruitment freezes. I would like more comments on this topic if possible. I was to fly to Vancouver this past summer and conduct part two of the interview for an S-76 IFR PIC job overseas; however, one week prior to interview it was suspended until further notice. After speaking with the new H/R person in Vancouver (recently) I was told the hiring "should" begin again at the first of the new year. I am crossing my fingers but with a little anxiety. I truly want the opportunity to fly with CHC but am a little concerned about the reality in when the recruitment will start again. Can anyone add to this? Do you guys at CHC see the hiring to begin again in the "near" future?

Thanks in advance.

[the delaminator]

It seems to be related to the problems in Nigeria. Once they get that sorted out and assuming it doesn't end up with CHC/ANC leaving Nigeria completely then the hiring will commence.

Also assuming of course that the world economy doesn't slide right into the loo in the meantime.

[loav8r]

What exactly is the problem with CHC in Nigeria? Is this the only area where CHC is stumbling or are there problems elsewhere? Whatever the problems are, I hope they are resolved soon so I can get back to the hiring process.

[SASless]

Shells,

I was a realist....suing BIAGLE would be a waste of effort and money. Suing BHL in the UK is a lead pipe cinch based upon past actions as I recall.

Did the company ever win in an action brought against it by an employee?

[rwm]

for more info about CHC woes check out the thread in Africa Aviation forum.

http://www.pprune.org/african-aviati...sing-down.html