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.

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?

T.C. I wish you were right but - Norway – CHC Helikopter Service secured nine contracts in 2012 | Helihub - the Helicopter Industry Data Source

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.

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.

"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)

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.

Or maybe the CHC bid included a provision to pay for the Directors' new Astons and Rollers... :E

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

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!

The OP wrote: 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.

What indications have there ever been that this wasn't going to be the case?

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.

A Polish version.

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.

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.............

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?

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.

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.

Don't CHCs parts cost up to 10 times the market rate?