Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Rotorheads
Reload this Page >

The future of UK SAR, post SAR-H

Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them

The future of UK SAR, post SAR-H

Old 22nd Dec 2012, 10:20
  #821 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Aer
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I would suggest that Mr. Peter Bartolotta institutes a top down look at CHC's cost structure very soon.

I have been involved quite closely with other recent CHC bids and this is not the only tender where CHC has been 15-20% above both other bidders.

Last edited by terminus mos; 22nd Dec 2012 at 10:27.
terminus mos is offline  
Old 22nd Dec 2012, 11:59
  #822 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 3,680
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Maybe what goes round comes round for CHC. Maybe the DfT are still pissed about CHC's last unethical attempt at winning the competition, Maybe CHC are finally staring their future in the face..........................

Senior Pilot is this thread worth amalgamating with the SARH thread?

Last edited by Thomas coupling; 22nd Dec 2012 at 12:07.
Thomas coupling is offline  
Old 22nd Dec 2012, 12:04
  #823 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Royal Leamington Spa
Age: 78
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
T.C. I wish you were right but - Norway – CHC Helikopter Service secured nine contracts in 2012 | Helihub - the Helicopter Industry Data Source
Anthony Supplebottom is offline  
Old 22nd Dec 2012, 12:23
  #824 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: England
Posts: 1,466
Received 34 Likes on 20 Posts
I went to a dinner party last week which was attended by a senior oil company man who I have known since the early eighties. While I have continued to bend spanners he has risen to the dizzy heights.

He said he could not understand why the helicopter operators continued to cut each others throats particularly on price.

In their defence I pointed out that whenever the oil companies shouted jump the operators reply was how high. Each jump increasing costs till the point when overheads became massive.

Next stage is a new kid on the block (Bond, NHV, Dancopter e.t.c) leaner and less top heavy.

Then the whole cycle of jump/how high starts all over again.

Last edited by ericferret; 22nd Dec 2012 at 12:35.
ericferret is offline  
Old 22nd Dec 2012, 14:44
  #825 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I really am not a fan of Crab, but I do fear this decision. If the sole driver behind this is cost, then it is bad for the UK and SAR in particular. Whilst I fully appreciate SAR(H) would have been a very sensible and reasonably economically sound programme with excellent platforms, this decision makes me think of a poorly funded and supported contract that will be regretted in the future. How can a company with CHC's experience be out by 20%? The DfT also do not have a good record- East Coast Mainline for example.
Norfolk Inchance is offline  
Old 22nd Dec 2012, 14:58
  #826 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Inverness-shire, Ross-shire
Posts: 1,475
Received 29 Likes on 21 Posts
I think Jim's (and my) underlying point is that if the contract isn't perfectly written to ensure corners can't be cut, then the SAR service as a whole in UK will suffer.

"Successful equipment fits and methods of deployment under private contracts are highly dependent upon contract conditions. It is difficult to match the evolutionary complexity and suitability of the previous arrangements.

There may be less scope for improvisation during operational conditions under civilian flying rules thus amplifying contract shortcomings. "

JF
May 2010
(to my MP)
jimf671 is offline  
Old 22nd Dec 2012, 15:03
  #827 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
It would be interesting to know where the 20% difference in cost lies, not that we ever will. I imagine the majority of costs to the potential Operators would be broadly similar over the life of the contract (assuming similar types of aircraft/similar operating costs). To my mind that leaves salaries and amount of training as two of the possible variable costs, a touch worrying I fear.
llamaman is offline  
Old 22nd Dec 2012, 15:08
  #828 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 2,973
Received 31 Likes on 19 Posts
Originally Posted by llamaman
To my mind that leaves salaries and amount of training as two of the possible variable costs, a touch worrying I fear.
Or maybe the CHC bid included a provision to pay for the Directors' new Astons and Rollers...
Bravo73 is online now  
Old 22nd Dec 2012, 15:10
  #829 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Royal Leamington Spa
Age: 78
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
To my mind that leaves salaries and amount of training as two of the possible variable costs,
Err yes, except for that one little matter of profit which can be worked in to a contact 1001 different ways!
Anthony Supplebottom is offline  
Old 22nd Dec 2012, 16:05
  #830 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Quote:

'Err yes, except for that one little matter of profit which can be worked in to a contact 1001 different ways!'

Profit is not a cost, it's a function of varying costs. Which was kind of my point!
llamaman is offline  
Old 22nd Dec 2012, 16:35
  #831 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Royal Leamington Spa
Age: 78
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The OP wrote:
a competitor has submitted a bid over 20% lower
So there is no direct reference to cost but even if he had worded it "a bid which cost 20% lower" we still don't know if this is contract cost or 'real costs'.

As I said, there are 1001 ways in which companies pad out their submissions for the purpose of accruing greater profit.
Anthony Supplebottom is offline  
Old 22nd Dec 2012, 19:21
  #832 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If the sole driver behind this is cost, then it is bad for the UK and SAR in particular.
What indications have there ever been that this wasn't going to be the case?
onesquaremetre is offline  
Old 22nd Dec 2012, 20:13
  #833 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
The problem is where does the 'happy medium' lie? Anyone with a sensible opinion will agree that the military over-train, which is great for the taxpayer as they can be fairly confident that if they fall off a hill or into the water they're going to get a pretty good service. Not that they don't when the non-military types turn up. This is the safe (expensive) option. The subject of what adequate training entails is an emotive one; there won't be a huge pot of training hours because it will be too expensive. How do those empowered decide what constitutes sufficiently experienced/qualified crews, how much and what type of training should be implemented and how should the whole thing be regulated so that it's a) safe and b) value for money? It's new(ish) territory as far as the UK is concerned but IF done properly should work. Probably.
llamaman is offline  
Old 22nd Dec 2012, 20:15
  #834 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Inverness-shire, Ross-shire
Posts: 1,475
Received 29 Likes on 21 Posts
... train hard fight easy ...
A Polish version.

jimf671 is offline  
Old 22nd Dec 2012, 20:45
  #835 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 4 Posts
I fully admit to having very little knowledge of the operating costs we are talking about here - I just get paid to fly the things and have never taken a close interest in the finer financial details. But given all the fixed costs of salaries, bases, spares holdings, etc - does training hours really form a significant proportion of the overall costs?
How much would (for example) a 100% increase in the proposed 50hr training figure affect the overall cost - 1%, 5%, 10% ?? I have no idea but would be interesting to know.
farsouth is offline  
Old 22nd Dec 2012, 22:26
  #836 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 3,680
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Could it be that bond have undercut so sharply because they are owned by Invaer or Anvictis or whatever they are called?? Perhaps the parent company can simply afford to absorb the cost?
I also suspect that to come in at this price, Bond will have to bias towards an airframe with cheap running costs (perhaps the 139?). Surely they wouldn't come in at this level AND bring on board a new design like the 189 etc???

Only 3 months to go now.............
Thomas coupling is offline  
Old 22nd Dec 2012, 23:19
  #837 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Inverness-shire, Ross-shire
Posts: 1,475
Received 29 Likes on 21 Posts
ONE
139 is history. One would be crazy to believe it makes it on the survivor count and it certainly can't carry the 'Standard MRT Load'.

TWO
Who says it's Bond that are the cheap one?

THREE
Who says Bond are the only one with a big(-ish) parent?

Last edited by jimf671; 22nd Dec 2012 at 23:51.
jimf671 is offline  
Old 22nd Dec 2012, 23:22
  #838 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Inverness-shire, Ross-shire
Posts: 1,475
Received 29 Likes on 21 Posts
You have to factor in that the customer is a control freak who can't get a handle on other people being allowed to control who is playing with their toys.
jimf671 is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2012, 01:16
  #839 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Aer
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Don't be so sure about the 139 being history Jimf.....

Don't be so sure about the 189 not being in the cheap mix TC

Bond will win the lights and Bristow will win the heavies. Done deal.
terminus mos is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2012, 01:17
  #840 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: OGE
Posts: 58
Received 6 Likes on 4 Posts
I imagine the majority of costs to the potential Operators would be broadly similar over the life of the contract (assuming similar types of aircraft/similar operating costs).
Don't CHCs parts cost up to 10 times the market rate?
That lights normal! is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.