Oh Lordy Lord!!
 

Shell strike - yet again!!!!! :yuk: :yuk:

Safety - Nah!!

Cost - it's all about the buck!

If nothing else comes out of changing operator to CHC midway in the contract, it sends a clear signal to all operators in the NS (Bond, CHC, Bel Air, Bristow, NHV, Dancopter, Wiking Helicopter, etc.):

Even though you have fulfilled your part of the contract going from year XX to year YY, we have no problems in changing to another half way between XX and YY.

Ethic behaviour?

Im pretty sure all offshore contracts have a short get-out clause. If its in a contract then its perfectly acceptable from a business sense. From a moral standpoint? Well thats for the individual to decide.

I was led to believe that offshore workers wanted to spend less time in helicopters, not more, but are they now saying they want to spend less time travelling overall, hence direct helicopter trips instead of having an additional fixed-wing sector.

Lets hope Scatsta and Sumburgh can survive, if this is to be a wider industry decision.

Pilots to blame.....
 

Have no issue with a client changing contractor at any point if the contract is so loose and permits it. That's business.

The problem is that everyone knows that majority of contracts are not worth the paper etc etc. Realistically then, such contracts are for just 90-days.
So short-term mentality rules and the mindset that goes with that.
In effect, long term issues are rarely resolved and 'best practice' is just a phrase clients throw about at glossy 'safety' seminars whilst in the same breath instigating the most hazardous situation in SNS I have seen worldwide.

standby for broad-brush

Pilots are to blame as we are 'go-minded', flexible and operate under the mantra 'if we don't do it then they'll just get someone else' - Pilots are malleable and live in a precarious financial world. Pilots rarely have a credible voice and just get on with it - mumbling and moaning to each other in the cockpit and thereby poisoning the atmosphere.
If pilots were more unified and 'militant' then maybe they might be regarded as something akin to knowledgeable and skillful professionals rather than easily-replaced timid bus drivers? North Sea pilots are not as good as they think they are. They rarely raise their head above the parapet (due to perceived personal consequences) so many safety and operationally-enhancing opportunities are missed and Lady Luck is asked to work overtime in what is our everyday place of work. Pilots start with standards then soon realise that standards are not welcome so allow personal scruples to be hijacked by the fear of losing work. Pilots are reluctant to pursue their employment rights for the fear of muddying the water. The North Sea (flying) is not as 'safe' and 'proactive' as recent glossy articles suggest and lags behind some operating areas I have experienced - even in Africa ;-). We tolerate pilots - whom if they worked in any other sector - would have been laughed at or taken around the back of the bike shed and thumped. Promoted pilots think they are back at school and stop thinking rationally.
Pilots spend more time and effort on embellishing gossip than on trying to improve the situation.
What goes around comes around and if you think things will improve them you are in the wrong industry ;-)
This situation will continue because the companies have told the CAA that it does not happen......

Must be for the Shell contract:

CHC are recruting individuals who are available to commence on our go live date of 1st July 2015:

CHC are currently recruiting for talented and dedicated experienced AW139 Captains and Co Pilots, to join our highly-skilled CHC team, based in Den Helder.

You will form part of a Company-standard multi-pilot crew on a day to day basis flying for any of our customers. Responsible for such duties concerning the flight, in accordance with the Company Operations Manual, including procedures limitations and performance relating to the specific helicopter type.

Responsibilities:
• To confirm the safe navigation of the helicopter.
• To volunteer such advice, information and assistance to the Commander in order to maintain safe and efficient conduct of the flight.
• To seek such information and advice from the Commander that will enable him/her to fulfill the function.
• To maintain a high personal standard of discipline
• To support the Commander in maintaining high standards of professionalism and morale amongst the crew.
• International travel may be required.
• May perform other duties as assigned.

This role would suit individuals who are available to commence on our go live date of 1st July 2015.

Skills and Qualifications Required

Captains:
• EASA/ATPL (H) License
• IR (H) License
• Valid Class 1 Medical Certificate
• AW139 Type Rating
• Valid recurrent checks
• 3000hrs, Min Flying Hrs
• Successful completion of a company command course
• 1500hrs, Min Total Helicopter flight time
• 500hrs, Min Total Twin turbine helicopter time
• Experience of at least one winter (1st October to 31st March) as senior first
officer in a similar offshore environment
• Depending on customer contract or demands, any additional requirements as specified by customer

Co Pilot
• EASA – ATPL (H) or
• EASA CPL (H) License
• IR (H) License
• Valid Class 1 Medical Certificate
• AW139 Type Rating (preferred)
• Valid recurrent checks
• Passed the ATPL theory examination
• These experience levels may be amended to reflect current operational needs

Pre will be HUET, Firefighting, DGM, LPE-6, Aviation Security, First Aid and CRM.

Please apply online at CHC Helicopter to be considered for this position. CHC is committed to equal opportunity employment and invites applications from all qualified candidates. Our process is simple. We look through the incoming CVs to see which ones best match our criteria and contact the people we'd like to learn more about. Unfortunately, we are unable to personally speak with everyone that sends us a CV, but please don't be discouraged if you don't hear from us. We will keep your CV on file for at least six months in case a future position matches your qualifications.

It's exactly what happens.....
 

......when a Group tries to hide a CEO (who dramatically failed in his previous role playing with windmills, costing them millions) in a business he knows diddly-squat about and plays "this is the cheapest we can offer the AW139" roulette with someone like Shell.

I guess the small consolation for the pilots who originally started Dancopter (apart from cashing-in their shares) and the current ones who are looking at a vertical drawbridge back in Esbjerg - is that he and his cohorts must surely lose any prospect of employment with the latest Group who now owns them?

At least when the sanctions in Iran are lifted, the oil price will fall further as more oil is released - so we'll see more cuts.......DOH!

What is the reason for CHC taking over midway the Dancopter contract in Den Helder and Norwich?

Sik,

Why would you need to know that before posting here?!!

For obvious reasons.

CHC were cheaper Sikorsky, they simply came with a better offer. Nothing to do with Dancopter not fulfilling their obligations.

So yes, we are now in a situation, where the oilcompanys can go to any helicopter operator, and ask for a better price, then cancel the running contract with 3 months notice.

Some call that, the race to the bottom....

Tango123

That is probably the case with many contracts - would it have been actually still running beyond the date mentioned, or reached an extension / renewal date at which the oil company may choose to continue or change as it deemed fit? I am sure we would do the same with contracts in our homes / personal lives etc .....

tis

I do believe that we are seeing a new future here, not seen alike.

This is a clear signal to employees: you are hired for the next few months, not more than that. So don't go out buy a house, move the family and settle in the area. Before you know it, and before we tell you, we have lost the contract.

It wasn't just down to price, was it? There were several other factors involved.

Its called termination for convenience, Tango. 90 days would be good, some contracts are 30 days, some are 60 and one I know is even 14 days!

Other factors, yes of course, apart from the standards and aircraft etc. which all the majors basically provide, there is also the market share issue. CHC is hurting, industry doesn't want to see them disappear so they will start to win some work. Bristow is getting big and powerful, industry will re balance that.

A little birdie tells me Shell have just cancelled their African '10 year' exploration program with CHC after 2 years. 90 days notice. Maybe this is a 'sorry about that' deal?

People seem to forget that the color of the grass was not the issue for a number of guys and galls.
BHL lost the contract and folks got made redundant.


Now history repeats itself for a number of people.


Regards

My point is just terminus, that if you start by telling (before) new hired pilots that they are on a working contract (not contractor or freelance) then also tell them that the oilcontract is running for 2-3-5 years before going out to tender. That's the plan, unless the oilcompany choses otherwise, then it could be running down to 1-2-3 months. Basically, be honest to your employees, that is my point, even if that can give the helicopter company problems in the hiring process, like getting enough applications, or people who will sign the contract.

Like I mentioned: people have moved their whole family, sold the old house and bought a new one in connection with relocating. It is people we are dealing with, not just numbers, and terms of termination of a running contract.

Does TUPE (transfer of personal on change of contract) come in to play? If not why not? Is it only in UK or only when contracts are put out to tender?
My feeling on the whole thing is that Shell are changing contractors to save money. CHC are in trouble, so they will take a contract at brake-even prices. Enter Shell. They know they can get an other contractor when ever and by keeping 3 big players on the NS they will keep the prices down. Talk safety but not were it touches on the bottom line.
Thank God I've retired. Sad for all that have to still take such s++t from the oil companies.

I agree with you Tango. It's not good to have instability. I am sometimes amazed at the contract terms to which companies of all persuasions will accept.

Aircraft type is irrelevant - you could be flying them in a Cessna and Tupe would still apply as it is the same task - same passengers, same rigs and contract 'service' was changed by client before the end.
Any Google search would highlight that.
Doesn't really matter what we say here - it depends on what the learned folk say - m'lord.

All I know is that everytime I think TUPE will apply it doesn't, and everytime I think it won't apply it does.
I have given up trying to guess what will happen

Some interesting reading here, with the changes from 2014: http://www.acas.org.uk/media/pdf/t/r...ACCESSIBLE.pdf

Why is there even a discussion about TUPE? Dancopter lost a contract, CHC won a new contract.

Now, if CHC had bought Dancopter and inherited the contract, that might have been a different story. But TUPE doesn't even apply in all of those cases.

It isn't a new contract, it's only until 2017, ie a continuation of the existing contract. A bit short termist yes, but I suppose as Shell have demonstrated that they can exercise a 90 day clause for reasons of convenience, which can never be questioned, maybe CHC are happy with 2 years :mad:

From 212 man's link my bold

Pretty sure tupe will not exist as it will be a different type.

See post #392 above, this is a straightforward case and so-called industry professionals (us lot) can't agree :ugh: proves my point.

johni, did you attend a CRM course in your training or did you miss that day?

I think we have a good picture of Johni: 5 foot nothing, hand gestures in the pub, maverick pilot! Good call on the CRM comment! Probably failed the Dancopter interview and very secure in his job. Lets hope we don't lose this chap off the North sea as it would be tragic!

TUPE or not
 

This thread sums up my understanding of the TUPE rules and aligns with what I have actually seen happen on the N Sea over the last couple of decades:

http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/391...-question.html

The 2014 changes to the TUPE regulation don't seem to have changed the basic premise much. A check of the guidance material available on the ACAS website shows that TUPE will apply if:
1. The employees are deliberately organised by the employer to provide a service for a particular client.
2. If the same work is being performed, with the same equipment at the same premises.

There are other criteria, but these two indicate to me that TUPE will not apply with regard to this contractual change.

I wonder how NHV's plans are progressing with their Aberdeen base? Can't see much building work going on and they are going to be up and running by the end of the year...

Where on earth are they going to put it, when I left there was precious little space as it was?

Si

NHV planning application:

Planning and Sustainable Development

The grass can be greener......
 

......you just have to make sure you keep it watered !

It would appear that no matter of watering would have stopped DC from losing this particular contract

So not a new building at all - so before anything is said about false rumours, it's on the way!

Think yellow would be a nice colour for the Aberdeen wildlife, might put some brightness into the place!

Think on the 'bright side'! :O

Hmmm, is a certain company now regretting recently firing a number of AW139 pilots...?

Really? Billion Dollar? With a share price worth nearly 10% of the initial offer price. :E

Is this a special way of valuing a company ?

With revenue last year of $1.4bn CHC is still a billion dollar business. Investor perception and actual value are different. Shell is a $400bn revenue firm but is not valued that highly either as a business by investors.

It's rare for industrial companies to have earning multiples of more than their revenue owing to the likelihood that their revenue will be similar next year. By comparison, a tech company might be worth a lot more next year as it might grow rapidly and investors factor that into their pricing today.

Dull but largely true.

CHC is still a right sh!t show though...

Is this criticism from CHIRP unprecedented?

CHIRP Critical of an Oil Company's Commercial Practices

This is Shell and Dancopter right?

Was the TUPE claim ever resolved?

Unprecedented? I think it is but perhaps the CAA inadvertently gave them a green light in their comments in CAP 1145.