Bond coming back to Aberdeen ?
 

Rumour is sweeping the airport that Bond might be coming back to Aberdeen to start up an operation with 7 airframes. So come on boys, whats the gen ?? :confused: :confused:

This one has been running for yonks, ever since Bond Air Services Ltd was created in fact. Seeing how BASL has just moved HQ to Staverton it seems unlikely to say the least.
Still, stranger things have happened but with the current crew shortage I severely doubt it. :cool:

Another wild rumour.
Where is/are the:
(a) real estate at ABZ?
(b) the aircraft? (7 pumas?)
(c) the pilots? (they are barely managing to crew the contracts they have: a sixth pilot has just resigned/left -- this within the last year and out of workforce of 30 odd).

AL1: I jus got a phonecall. Make that _7_ left in the last year.

Only 7! I heard more like 10 but some of those may have been through illness and several more are believed to be in the planning phase. Will the last one to leave please turn out the light............CLICK!

Bond used to be a great company, lots of love Fatman!!!

Well, it's seven at the moment, but I know of another three that _may_ go soon, two fairly likely, one less so.

So can someone tell us what is the problem??

As reported in Fridays Scotsman.


Bond brothers plan a N Sea helicopter return


Two years after they bowed out of North Sea air logistics following the takeover of their business by Canadian interests, helicopter entrepreneurs, the Bond brothers, are preparing for a comeback.

They have set up a new company named Bond Offshore Helicopters. If the brothers finally commit, the next stage would be to acquire the necessary aircraft and pitch for oil company contracts.

At the earliest, Bond could be back ferrying North Sea offshore workers next year. This would mean re-establishing a presence in Aberdeen.

It is understood that oil companies will welcome Stephen and Peter Bond back as they would restore greater competition to the UK sector of the North Sea, which is now dominated by just two companies - Bristow and Scotia, which is part of Canada’s CHC Helicopter Corporation.

Although the Competition Commission gave the $100 million 1999 CHC takeover of Bond and Norwegian parent Helicopter Service Group the green light, oil company bosses were then privately worried that the cost of North Sea air logistics services would rise because the number of providers had been cut to just two.

An industry source told The Scotsman yesterday that the Bond brothers were looking at the idea of re-entering the North Sea following approaches by oil companies. It is not known whether are also looking at developing a presence in other offshore oil and gas markets, such as West Africa, where a string of huge discoveries have been made over the past few years.

However, a spokesman for the Bonds declined to be drawn on their plans, saying only that the brothers would "clarify" their intentions next week.

The Bond Helicopters livery effectively disappeared from the North Sea when the business was merged into CHC’s, leading to around 100 job losses in Aberdeen.

Even though the Bond, which the brothers set up during the early years of the North Sea, was acquired by the Norwegian company in 1994, its aircraft retained their distinctive cheerful red livery.

Despite exiting offshore air logistics in 1999, the Bonds kept their privately-owned UK onshore business. This specialises in the provision of twin-engined helicopters for ambulance services, including in Scotland, plus police, offshore lighthouse servicing support, tanker pilotage transfers and general charter.

Of course the Oil Industry wants another player at Aberdeen. I can't however see the Bond brothers succeeding as I can't see any of the present Aberdeen captains jumping ship to join the Bonds. In fact at present pilots are leaving Bond AS to join Scotia. There are interesting times ahead in the offshore industry and it is fairly certain that a large pay award is imminent. While this may not all be reflected in the final salary scheme that most captains are on this will be a powerful disincentive for most captains not to consider leaving their present employer. Bond was a reasonable company to work for in the early 90s but having something else to compare it with shows it was not great. I would say that most ex-Bond pilots would say that they are better off under Scotia as there are now overtime payments and much better travel allowances than under Bond. So no captains no offshore company.

Yes, I agree that Bond was a good company in the early 90's and the paint scheme is still the best on the North Sea! They really lost the plot though when it came to looking after their employees - the arrogance with which they regarded the workforce was,and still is breath-taking. Nothing seems to have changed - witness the recent rapid rise in resignations! No pilot in their right mind would accept the Bond regime until they - Bond management - recognise that workers want more than a pay packet at the end of the month but some regard for the vital part they play in the industry. Perhaps they will set up in West Africa, they're welcome to it!

Fatman, Sparky, Scary Bob Bibby, Kenny's day six at the Runway Inn. Great times in the mid 80's, maybe not a fantastic company but good blokes. Where is the Fatman now?

One thing Bond did provide the pilot workforce was job security. They did this by expecting and getting flexibility from the workforce. While the other two operators went through their hire and fire cycles Bond never made a pilot reduntant despite several lean periods. What Bond never quite got right was their salaries. They always lagged behind. They did however have a good pension scheme - you got good value for your contributions.

The Bonds' sell out to HKS was the turning point in the managements ability to keep the workforce with them. The directors got very involved with building defences against "attack" from the Norwegians and took their eye off the workforce and its aspirations.

Also, it was very easy to keep moral up in an expanding Company with new a/c arriving and plenty of oportunity for promotion or change of base or a/c type. This changed when the North Sea peaked.

As to the Bonds coming back - I think they will get pilots because the Bonds (with the oil companies behind them)will pay what it takes to get them - and it might not take much because Bristow or (more likely) Scotia will have to lay off pilots when the oil companies take work away from them to give to Bond.

The Bonds will not however get the same sort of flexible workforce as they had in the early days unless they significantly improve pay and conditions and buy the flexibility and willingness they want. But if they pay the rate needed then they will get the people they want.

[ 16 September 2001: Message edited by: roundwego ]

So what if Bond do return, who is going to work for them for less than the current ongoing negotiated pay rates?

More importantly, where are they going to get the pilots from, thin air?

There is an element of unreality about all this.
Bond, at the moment, is a company that badly needs to consolidate. See above for the reports of the number of pilots that have left in the last year (a fifth of their pilot workforce in the last year and more to come). They are already looking at putting a whole heap of IR training to Bristows because they can't do them as a reult of these losses (and Bristows has a 12-15 month waiting list, according to the gossip). They are also having problems retaining/getting engineers.
I'd also like to know where they will get pilots for any UK offshore operation (if this is the sector that is being considered). To get pilots from Scotia or Bristows they will have to pay _more_ to get people to move: how will this make the North Sea a more competitive environment for the oil operators? And competition kind of misses the point -- there aren't enough pilots as it is; adding another operator will just add to the inefficiency in the system (e.g. another set of pilots skimmed off to do headquarters/training functions).
I wouldn't like to underestimate the Bond brothers (well, one of them, anyway) but I'll believe all this when I see it. It will be interesting to see the further details of their plans next week.
What and when is the next big contract up for renewal in the North Sea?

The waiting list is for Instrument Rating training. As for your assertion that pilots are always available, you are talking nonsense.

I wonder how 'The Bond Brothers' would cope with a unionised workforce? Having worked for them in the past, I imagine negotiations would be interesting to say the least.

Fair pay for helicopter pilots, don't give up the fight,
Chopperman.

PC: I don't know who Bristow's have in their queue, I'm afraid. The news was only passed to me via someone who had spoken to one of the IR candidates that Bond have.
Maybe someone else knows more?

There was a rumour floating around several months ago that Scotia were going to sell their Blackpool, Humberside, etc. operation to Bond... Maybe that, or something similar, would be an easy way back into the market for them.

Ally1987 (and many others I suspect) is missing a major issue in his post of 16 September 2001 at 11:29. Bond will only need pilots if they get work on the North Sea. As there is very little new work around, they will only get this work if an oil company terminates an existing contract with CHC or BHL and gives it to Bond ( I don't believe CHC would willingly sell anything to Bond).

I suspect one of the majors is going to give Bond a significant part of their existing work at the expense of CHC. The oil companies have been extremely dissatisfied at the poor service they have been getting and yes, we know it is mainly their fault due to them driving the rates down but the rates have been going up recently. The oil companies find themselves in the same situation as they did in the 70's - paying rising rates for a service which is not getting better. CHC is, in the oil Companies' mind inflexible, lacking in initiative and not reactive to their needs. They are desperate for more competition. I think Bond is in a good position to charge premium rates.

When CHC looses contracts it will have a surplus of pilots. TUPE rules will apply and Bond will be obliged to take on the redundant pilots. Bond will probably cherry pick but it will have to pay the going rate. That is why it is important that any pay deal is finalized sooner rather than later.

Well, I'm not sure that I agree with your assumption that the loss of contract will equal a loss of pilots for two reasons.
First, both Scotia and Bristows (the latter to a lesser extent) are understrength, so they would probably view the loss of a contract or two as a chance to consolidate, introduce new rosters, etc.
Secondly, it makes more sense to keep hold of all your pilots to deprive a third force of the chance to start up. In the meantime, all the work that Bond couldn't do would go to Scotia at ad hoc rates. The North Sea has already been through this once when Shell moved from BI to Bristows. Admittedly, BI couldn't continue this for more than about six months but times have changed. Scotia is a much bigger company, they are in the middle of an on-going demographic loadshed, and it makes eminent sense to strangle any new venture at birth, given the potential long-term rewards.
I would also say, as a footnote, that the example of pilots that jumped ship from BI to Bristows when Shell moved will not encourage anyone to do so this time around.

PS TUPE rules don't apply to individual contracts (unless there has been major changes since the last time around).

Ally 1897 - If CHC or BHL was to lose one (or part of) its larger contracts at Aberdeen I can assure you there would be redundancies. CHC particularly is still highly geared and will want to save cash in the event of loss of income. Neither of the parent companies on the other side of the Atlantic will care a toss about new pilot rosters. Loss of income will mean cut surplus staff to reduce the impact on the "bottom line".

I think it won't be until well into next year before there is any significant change of contracts but it will happen - no question in my mind. TUPE does indeed apply to individual contracts when there is an identifiable number of staff which can be seen to be required to support a particular contract - very easy with pilots. I suspect because of the current market share, the target for contract loss will be CHC.

As to current pay negotiations - the pilots position is going to rapidly weaken with the imminent fixed wing redundancies. I just hope our Balpa colleagues have had a successful day in London today.

I realise that both companies are driven by their bottom line, but I think you underestimate the extent to which they will defend their duopoly.
As to TUPE, give me once example of when this has ever applied at ABZ in the past.

Ally1987 - I am not aware of TUPE being invoked in Aberdeen aviation dealings but the cases of Suzen v Zehnacker Gebaudereinigung GmbH Krankenhausservice [1997] IRLR 255 and Dines v. Initial Health Care Services (1) and Pall Mall Services Group Ltd. (2) [1994] IRLR 336 are worth refering to. The regulations are constantly being tested in court and there have been several precidents set over the last few years which have moved the goal posts since the original act was passed. Anyway if TUPE could be used to the employees advantage I am sure BALPA legal beagles would do their best to ensure our rights were protected in case of redundancies.

Both of which predate the loss of Shell from BI to Bristows, and of BP from Bristows to Bond in 1999. If TUPE didn't apply in the transfer of these massive contracts then I fail to see how it would in the future.
I think we will have to agree to disagree on this. However, I'd be interested in reading the cases you refer to if they are available on the web. Do you have a URL for them, please?

TUPE was not used as there was an unwritten agreement among the three North Sea operators not to invoke TUPE every time a contract changed although there was a rumour that Brintel was going to use TUPE when they lost Shell to BHL. I believe TUPE was invoked when Irish helicopters lost a Marathon contract to Bond. I might be wrong on this one as I was not in either Company at the time but maybe an Ex Bond or Irish pilot might confirm or deny. I don't have a link to the above cases - was told about them by a legal beagle.

Bond Air Services seem to be doing quite well without the North Sea. Their EMS and Police work is expanding rapidly and I'm sure they would be far keener to promote and expand these activities than to return to the North Sea at a time like the present.

Why would they divert their resources away from a quickly expanding sector of the market to come back to Aberdeen when the off-shore market is going to be here for quite a few years to come and there are no other competitors sitting in the wings ??

Bond will return to the north sea, the finances won't be a problem as they will be backed by one of the major oil companies, (probably BP?).
It is in the oil companies best interests for there to be three operators on the north sea, to force down rates, to put these greedy pilots in their place and to allow them, (the oil companies), to continue making huge profits. After all BP have to build a new multi-million pound HQ in Aberdeen, presumably the old one is to small to keep all their money in?

Chopperman.

[ 21 September 2001: Message edited by: chopperman ]

roundwego et al

Just to make it clear that TUPE is the right of the individual to invoke, it has nothing to do with the Companies that lose or win contracts.

If you lose your job because of a contract change I suggest you speak to BALPA, assuming you are a member:-)

With regard to TUPE have a look at the following web page, especially 'Betts v. Brintell Helicopters'.
http://sol.brunel.ac.uk/~jarvis/bola/emplaw/
Chopperman.

Which (if I have read this and other material I have seen correctly) means that the transfer of a contract between either Scotia or Bristows to Bond Offshore will not fall under the TUPE legislation. Like I said.

I haven't seen anything more on BO's plans (which I believe were supposed to be made public last week) nor has anyone suggested where the pilots are coming from...

Ally 1987,
Agreed. As I understand TUPE, it only applies if the whole operation is transfered or aquired, not just the contract.

Chopperman.

'Betts v. Brintell Helicopters'did not come under TUPE as KLM did not take over the contract at Beccles. They operated put of Norwich. TUPE was originally conceived to stop the likes of cleaning companies at hospitals and airports firing and hiring every time the contract was awarded to another company. In the helicopter world the nearest analogy would be the BG contract at Blackpool where, unless circumstances have changed in the last few years, BG own the Ops/pax terminal property. If CHC was to lose the contract to someone else then TUPE would definitely apply.

Yeah, I'd agree with that. Ditto, if they took over lock stock and barrel at Blackpool, Humberside, etc. However, this thread started about Bond being a third force in the offshore market and they are not going to be that unless they get one of the major ABZ contracts. And there, TUPE _won't_ apply and so where do they get their pilots to start up an operation?

For info,Bond Air Services Ltd [BASL] took over a division of Bond Helicopters and in that case TUPE was applied and was invoked by BASL. Where it intends to go from here is anybody's business.
This may be another thread but with BA Vigin et al laying off so many people the pull from rotary to fixed wing may not be as strong as expected...call me a devil's advocate if you like but I suspect that Scotia and BHL management may have twigged this also. Good luck.

Bond Back in Aberdeen
 

There is a strong rumour in Aberdeen that Bond is going to appear with 2 S76s. Anybody confirm this?

HF :confused:

Hummingfrog

I hope so

Because they are in for a wake up call.

Gone are the days when they could run the pilots ragged, There is a new breed of pilots operating here now, Well organized and unionized. Anyhow another operator should mean good news to the crews if they get together and use thier heads, because any new company that wins the contracts will need to employ them and for that privalige they should be made to pay more, laws of supply and demand and all that.

There will now doubt be those that feel loyal to the bond cartell, and those that think it will be a good way to jump up a few rungs on the promotinal ladder, but they will still have to put there hands deep into thier pockets to get the numbers that they require and this can be used to the advantage of the smart ones.

Bring it on

:D

2 S76's Bond stylee
 

He He He :D

Would never have thought it eh?

CHC is the way forward (Norwegian Stylee) :cool:

Suprise, suprise. If CHC & BHL hadn't gotten themselves in such a mess and pissed off the oil companies then maybe they would have had a chance of keeping the market to themselves.

Who are Bond going to be flying for? Two S76's won't give them much in the way of opportunity to penetrate CHC and BHL core customers.

As to Max Ng's comment about it being a "privalige" (sic) for any new company to employ a pilot - I certainly hope that when he is filling in the Bond application form after he finds himself redundant that he gets someone to check his spelling. Bond always was fussy about the standard of pilot they took.