CHC LLC purchases Babcock
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cut out soulless pilots and engineers who have clearly demonstrated a lack of humanity only previously seen in the dark ages. A good manager is gold dust. A greedy pilot is well a pilot. Buy a mirror and look deep. Both CHC and Babcock have shocking morale issues brought on by greed by core staff and terrible leadership at corporate level and in some aspects local level. Babcock’s safety performance and OTD over the past few years is the top drawer. CHC’s not so much. ABZ is a hellhole of a workplace, not caused by managers, rather damn right greed. I hope for better days.
Cut out soulless pilots and engineers out of a helicopter company? That is one of the best lines I've ever read on here.
Greed? Could we name some more examples other than just standard pay negotiations to maintain a position within the market rate?
Sounds like someone is hanging onto the skids and is a little bitter.
CHC would do well to take time and consider the experience and tenacity of the Babcock/Ex Bond team. It’s takes more than engineers and pilots to make business work. And let’s face it, those two factions are somewhat less than optimal when it comes to loyalty, especially in Aberdeen where endless demands of more money is king. Money driven mini despots. CHC bought their way back, Babcock survived and prospered through endless nights of hard graft, despite being owned by a parent company who had no interest in oil & gas and treated there staff in this area with contempt.
there is hardly anyone, if anyone at all, left in the management structure from Bond days, either retired or been abused by the new corporate structure that is Babcock and got out of dodge.
Babcock management is like a revolving door, MD almost changes annually (number 6 ish now since Babcock) structures constantly changing because no one wants the management jobs due to the people it means working for higher up.
There is very little management in aviation experience left at Babcock.
Last edited by helicrazi; 13th Mar 2021 at 10:51.
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As someone who works on the ‘other side’ I was staggered to hear that Bristow still operate a 2 tier often salary matching bonus legacy system for many ‘middle management’ staff in Aberdeen.
Even the most backward O&G companies are slowly learning that this isn’t just detrimental to morale, it’s actually totally unaffordable in the age we now all have to operate.
Bonuses will always exist in the upper tier of management but don’t bleat about loosing contracts on cost, then say you didn’t make money on them anyway when you have constantly paid bonuses as the business contracts.
Even the most backward O&G companies are slowly learning that this isn’t just detrimental to morale, it’s actually totally unaffordable in the age we now all have to operate.
Bonuses will always exist in the upper tier of management but don’t bleat about loosing contracts on cost, then say you didn’t make money on them anyway when you have constantly paid bonuses as the business contracts.
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: N of 49th parallel
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: amongst the clouds
Age: 53
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That figure of 500 for Babcock is for UK Offshore, Denmark and Australia Offshore. No word on whether Australia Onshore is included in the sale.
For UK based staff, at the end of the 2020 financial year - Babcock UK offshore had 363 staff, of which 37 were non-operational (Management, support, admin) and at the time they were operating circa 14 aircraft. Looking at CHC Scotia figures for FY20 a total of 325 staff with 95 non-operational. Average cost per head for CHC Scotia was £94,000 compared with £74,000 for Babcock UK Offshore.
Comparisons of 'costs of sales' for FY20, Babcock's UK offshore operation 'costs of sales' was £90 million against a revenue of £102 million and CHC Scotia 'cost of sales' was £134 million against revenues of £122 million.
CHC LLC has a huge opportunity to drastically reduce the cost base for their UK operation. Maybe merge the existing UK operations into a new entity called CHC Lite™?
For UK based staff, at the end of the 2020 financial year - Babcock UK offshore had 363 staff, of which 37 were non-operational (Management, support, admin) and at the time they were operating circa 14 aircraft. Looking at CHC Scotia figures for FY20 a total of 325 staff with 95 non-operational. Average cost per head for CHC Scotia was £94,000 compared with £74,000 for Babcock UK Offshore.
Comparisons of 'costs of sales' for FY20, Babcock's UK offshore operation 'costs of sales' was £90 million against a revenue of £102 million and CHC Scotia 'cost of sales' was £134 million against revenues of £122 million.
CHC LLC has a huge opportunity to drastically reduce the cost base for their UK operation. Maybe merge the existing UK operations into a new entity called CHC Lite™?
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: N of 49th parallel
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe Scotia numbers are in the region of 250-275 but that’s baring in mind that Scotia has all the European management structure and support staff that look after other regions too. Norway is a tricky one as they act as their own separate entity, a better example would be including Den Helder ops in with the UK and IRE.
I guess you have a point though, as the aircraft fleets expand you obviously have your Pilot/Engineer Aircraft ratio to maintain but the Support and management side are already incorporated.
I guess you have a point though, as the aircraft fleets expand you obviously have your Pilot/Engineer Aircraft ratio to maintain but the Support and management side are already incorporated.
As for what happens post-TUPE, CHC will have to treat all pilots as one group. They cannot simply state that an ex-Babcock pilot is more at risk than a CHC pilot, TUPE regulation prohibits that. If there are too many pilots, the dreaded "matrix" will be used and applied to the pilot workforce as a whole. It will get messy and cause a huge amount of stress and anxiety for everyone. I hope it doesn't come to that.
The Babcock / ex-Bond Team?
there is hardly anyone, if anyone at all, left in the management structure from Bond days, either retired or been abused by the new corporate structure that is Babcock and got out of dodge.
Babcock management is like a revolving door, MD almost changes annually (number 6 ish now since Babcock) structures constantly changing because no one wants the management jobs due to the people it means working for higher up.
There is very little management in aviation experience left at Babcock.
there is hardly anyone, if anyone at all, left in the management structure from Bond days, either retired or been abused by the new corporate structure that is Babcock and got out of dodge.
Babcock management is like a revolving door, MD almost changes annually (number 6 ish now since Babcock) structures constantly changing because no one wants the management jobs due to the people it means working for higher up.
There is very little management in aviation experience left at Babcock.
Kind of moot really, because it would be messy either way no matter who bought who.
@ Ned, great work breaking this story.
M&A activity is almost always a construct of people, competition and timing. The likely answer here is BBK wanted to sell, the oil price is stable ish and CHC wanted to get some more scale in the UK and Australia and a deal was able to be done. Denmark is just a bonus.
The businesses are required to carry on fighting/ competing until the merger is complete as there is a chance it might get pulled by the authorities on competition grounds. Ironically NHV showing up in ABZ has made this significantly less likely. It's not likely that CHC would have gone for this without consulting a lot of experts in competition law first.
TUPE will apply to the Babcock Danish entity. Under retained law from the EU post Brexit, TUPE should apply to the UK as well (TUPE as a legal construction still exists in the UK but post Brexit this could change (albeit unlikely)). The absorption of Babcock Australia will be governed by local law in Australia. I'm not an expert on Australian labour law but I'd be surprised if there were not legal mechanisms similar to protect employees there too so you should assume all Babcock staff will come across and then, as outlined by Apate, the matrix comes out.
M&A activity is almost always a construct of people, competition and timing. The likely answer here is BBK wanted to sell, the oil price is stable ish and CHC wanted to get some more scale in the UK and Australia and a deal was able to be done. Denmark is just a bonus.
The businesses are required to carry on fighting/ competing until the merger is complete as there is a chance it might get pulled by the authorities on competition grounds. Ironically NHV showing up in ABZ has made this significantly less likely. It's not likely that CHC would have gone for this without consulting a lot of experts in competition law first.
TUPE will apply to the Babcock Danish entity. Under retained law from the EU post Brexit, TUPE should apply to the UK as well (TUPE as a legal construction still exists in the UK but post Brexit this could change (albeit unlikely)). The absorption of Babcock Australia will be governed by local law in Australia. I'm not an expert on Australian labour law but I'd be surprised if there were not legal mechanisms similar to protect employees there too so you should assume all Babcock staff will come across and then, as outlined by Apate, the matrix comes out.
I'm not an expert on Australian labour law
you should assume all Babcock staff will come across and then, as outlined by Apate, the matrix comes out.
Thread Starter
Havick - "So, circling back to the original post, were your sources fed misinformation seeing as the total opposite is occurring?"
As per my previous post further back it was actually my fault that I posted it the wrong way around. Should have read my notes better
My sources were correct - just a screw up on my part and I said that previously.
As per my previous post further back it was actually my fault that I posted it the wrong way around. Should have read my notes better
My sources were correct - just a screw up on my part and I said that previously.
I wont hold my breath waiting on the outcome of European Law (TUPE) applying to a LLC from a company based in UK and no longer in Europe.
However, I hope it does apply.
I am sure Prospect and Balpa are all over it
However, I hope it does apply.
I am sure Prospect and Balpa are all over it
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: N of 49th parallel
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mitchaa, I love your optimism and devotion to the Hummingbird.
The ultimate ownership of the UK entities is irrelevant. There are two UK companies, both registered with Companies House, that will be merged following the purchase of one by the others parent company.
The last time this happened was in 1999. Then you had a Canadian company (CHC) purchase a Norwegian company (Helikopter Services group). TUPE applied when the two UK entities were merged.
As you say, things will become clearer, but it won't be weeks. My guess is Q3 2021 before anything starts changing.
The ultimate ownership of the UK entities is irrelevant. There are two UK companies, both registered with Companies House, that will be merged following the purchase of one by the others parent company.
The last time this happened was in 1999. Then you had a Canadian company (CHC) purchase a Norwegian company (Helikopter Services group). TUPE applied when the two UK entities were merged.
As you say, things will become clearer, but it won't be weeks. My guess is Q3 2021 before anything starts changing.
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: UK
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An operating licence (not the AOC) requires majority ownership and control from an EAA based national. Might be different for UK now with Brexit. Would they front run potential new regulations to start a new AOC/operator licence from the Cayman to fly in the UK and dispose the current Scotia AOC?
Given the financials and regulatory clearance they won't actually merge for another 15 months.
Given the financials and regulatory clearance they won't actually merge for another 15 months.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Home
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You shouldn't make such statements unless you know this for a fact. If you would actually work for any of these companies you'd know that CHC is only just on the pilot numbers and Babcock is actually short. With Apache won by CHC apparently, they'd also be going into undermanned territory. It seems very unlikely there will be any sort of pilot redundancies. Management, HR and perhaps support staff have more to worry about though.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Home
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CHC would do well to take time and consider the experience and tenacity of the Babcock/Ex Bond team. It’s takes more than engineers and pilots to make business work. And let’s face it, those two factions are somewhat less than optimal when it comes to loyalty, especially in Aberdeen where endless demands of more money is king. Money driven mini despots. CHC bought their way back, Babcock survived and prospered through endless nights of hard graft, despite being owned by a parent company who had no interest in oil & gas and treated there staff in this area with contempt.
Last edited by SNI; 14th Mar 2021 at 21:18.
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Scotland
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You shouldn't make such statements unless you know this for a fact. If you would actually work for any of these companies you'd know that CHC is only just on the pilot numbers and Babcock is actually short. With Apache won by CHC apparently, they'd also be going into undermanned territory. It seems very unlikely there will be any sort of pilot redundancies. Management, HR and perhaps support staff have more to worry about though.
Your comment regarding not making such statements could be applied to 95% of every statement on here. However, I suspect anyone outside of flying or engineering personnel should be exploring other opportunities.
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Scotland
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As much as I admire your almost heroic portrait of the Babcock employees (you clearly are one yourself), it made me giggle. Which company made more pilots redundant in the last 5 years? Exactly, CHC. Way more that is. To say the engineers and pilots at CHC are less than optimal 🤨 cause they've negotiated better terms and conditions than Babcock, after having been hammered way more than any Babcock employee in the last 5 years, it just sounds a bit petty and quite honestly, envious. I'm sure you'd be happy to sign the new CHC's T&C's though without actually having earned them, wouldn't you? When you do though, just remind yourself who fought for those superior T&C's.
I left no so long ago my friend and will never return. The worst experience in my 27 years in aviation. A ghastly place to work, full of frightened and very tired and angry people. The only place bar one other where hope and decency was outnumbered. I’m out of here now. Goodbye and if you’re CHC ‘take care’.
CHC & Babcock numbers may be where they are for incumbent contracts at the moment but watch the oil companies squirm and bail to rebalance the table like they have done so many times before over previous decades...
LZ
LZ
