What are we talking about here?

As time goes by, is the solution a whole new GB, and if that's the case, is it mid 2014 before we see the 225s in the air?

BR Tango

EC225 to return to service in April, says Eurocopter
 

Shephard Media's Rotorhub
24 January 2013 - 17:48

EC225 to return to service in April, says Eurocopter - News - Shephard


And Wall Street Journal.
Eurocopter CEO Expects EC225 Aircraft to Be Flying Again By April - WSJ.com

Yeppers.....on the First day of the Month too I bet!:rolleyes:

April yes but what year??:):):)

EC225 update – North Sea delegation visiting Eurocopter this week | Helihub - the Helicopter Industry Data Source

This week, Eurocopter visit.

Next week, Aberdeen helicopter safety event.

Tick....Tick....Tick...Tick....Tick....Tick!

The clock is running....the question is it a Countdown Timer or not.:uhoh:

EC225s are being contractually terminated. That means no more payments to operators. They will hurt as there is no provision in the sales contracts for any compensation from EC. 3 aircraft were terminated with effect from last Sunday at midnight by one client. That client is moving to S-92s.....whatever the colour.

Communication from EC has been almost non existent recently. It appears they have not yet discovered the root cause of these failures and its also becoming evident that this failure cannot be reproduced on a test bench.

Its looking more like EC will have to bring the aircraft back to service using the band aids of increased downloads, better detection, reduced AUW and speed.

Taking a few people on a factory tour with lunch in the delivery centre and a glass of red won't fix the problem. Its just a PR stunt.

As each day passes, le 225 est plus mort.

Some good colour from the transcript of Bristow Group Q3 earnings call yesterday, not looking good for the 225:-

Bill Chiles is President and CEO of Bristow and Mark Duncan is commercial VP the questions come from a variety of 3rd parties.

<Q - James D. Crandell>: Bill, can you go into a little bit more detail on the Super Pumas suspension in the North Sea, what is your understanding of where the investigation is? When could it be lifted? And secondly, can you talk a little bit in more granularity about the impact on the financials, from losing the full contracts, still getting most of the monthly charges by bringing in other aircraft to take their place?

<A - William E. Chiles>: Yeah, let me respond to the first part of the question, then I'm going to turn it over to Mark Duncan on the second part of your question. Eurocopter has recently said that they expect operations to resume late this spring. We're all being pretty measured about that. We have to be careful what we say because we're limited to what we can say by the regulators. We are working hard. We've had several meetings with our competitors, our customers and the flying public recently, and we feel pretty confident that we'll come up with an interim way to safely fly the helicopters pending possible redesign of the shaft that's cracking. We can't say that for sure. We are confident though that if the regulators require redesign of the shaft, which could take up to a year-and-a-half, we will find a way to safely fly these helicopters through a very rigorous inspection and increased control of our health, usage and monitoring system oversight. So we're looking at probably late spring, early summer that's now what we believe, that's what's in our numbers, internal numbers. So with that, I'll let Mark Duncan respond to how the customers are reacting.


<A - Mark B. Duncan>: Yes. Jim, it's Mark. The customer situation for Bristow, this is a major impact in the North Sea and a limited impact in some of our international operations. But it is a global problem. The customers are working with us very closely and supporting our ongoing efforts both to get the helicopter back in service, as Bill described, but also to continue to support us by continuing to pay some of the MSC charges. As we bring in additional aircraft into the market to supplement the lack of EC225 capacity, the supply-demand situation in that regard is providing higher rates for those replacement aircraft and you can see that reflected in the quarter's results and that will continue to be the case as we move forward through the next two quarters probably at least. Bristow's position to bring more capacity to the market as the year progresses and the S-92 order that we made allows us to start bringing aircraft in from the middle of this year all the way through until 2014, either to supplement and backfill for 225s or actually to provide additional revenue for us because the opportunities out there are significant regardless of the 225s being suspended or otherwise, so quite a positive outlook for us.

<Q - James D. Crandell>: Okay. And Mark, just to clarify, are no operators flying Super Pumas now anywhere in the world?

<A - Mark B. Duncan>: The 225 is one version of a Super Pumas, so the other versions of Super Pumas are being flown and those are some of the aircraft that we brought back into service. The 225s are - we estimate roughly 80 aircrafts are suspended worldwide. There are 225s being flown over land by many military and governments. And in the oil and gas business, we believe there are something like 17 225s being flown in Vietnam and China under the aviation authority. They'd have chosen not to follow the UK and Norway but the CAA's have actually suspended operations. So you're actually prevented from flying. Interestingly, the oil and gas customers that we have, the majority of them
being in a group called the OGP, which is the oil and gas producers' forum, they've adopted to follow the UK and Norwegian's CAA's restrictions whatever it is in the world, wherever they are flying over water.

industry insider
That's a very important information !
In fact, you're saying that EC is doing nothing to fix the problem and to hide this reality, they're just buying with a bottle of wine, the silence of the representatives of the operators, offshore safety groups, unions and oil and gas companies. :rolleyes:
.

There would have to have some very pretty and available young Hostesses along with the Wine and Snacks to buy my vote I would think!:E

and by driving the helicopter operators into the ground they will have achieved what? You seem to portray a very limited knowledge of business in that customers are your lifeblood but you also have to look after your suppliers at the same time - without them you have nothing. Maybe some companies are cancelling contracts, I really don't know, but I would think there is a lot of discussion going on to keep the wheels of industry turning.

I may have misinterpreted your tone, but you seem to think this is a somewhat clever move by the client involved? There has always been a lack of investment in the most critical part of oil and gas (getting the workforce to work and back) and it is now that this should be sorted so that a similar situation cannot occur again, not more crazy reductions in service forced by short sighted financial punishment of service providers. The aviation costs are such a miniscule part of the overall oil and gas budget and it is time that money is spent. No oil, no tax, no recovery - simples.

Refresh my memory....whenever did an Oil Company really care about any one Helicopter Operator? My recollection is they want cheap subservient Operators and after that they could really care less. If they did not....they would tie up with one good Operator and if additional equipment was needed for short term demand they would let their "sole provider" sub contract or find other ways to lease spike demand aircraft and crews.

Or maybe the oil company just wants to have the service delivered to it that it has paid for??

Cyclic

Yes, you did misinterpret. I am not trying to express an opinion, I am trying to show you that this is serious for the helicopter industry in that some clients are terminating EC225s. Other clients are paying a % where they are being given an alternative. I see this fom both sides.

In some cases, the helicopter operators are expecting it both ways, ie. to continue to be paid for the EC225s and to charge higher rates for the replacement product based on "demand" as per Mark Duncan's statement from Bristow during their Q3 earnings call.

Where this happens, you will see clients doing what they can to mitigate their costs, fact.

I disagree, no company will continue to pay for aircraft they cannot use AND for substitute aircraft. Looking after suppliers does not mean abandoning all sense of commercial reality.

I would never say this to a customer. There are much better ways to "sell" products and services. Any organisation must manage costs no matter how "miniscule".

Todays STV news
 

Sixteen grounded Super Pumas to be 'back in air by the summer' | Aberdeen & North | News | STV

According to trusted Jim things in the North sea are quieter in Winter.....ohh really, not on any rig i ever worked on, what a tw*t:ugh:

I thought it was April the 225's were due back?

"My company is looking to S-92s and EC175s as the future fleet for our offshore support now, our plans now exclude the 225."

At the risk of being shot down in flames, I'm not indulging in customary S92 bashing; just pointing out that my source who is privy to meetings with senior helicopter managers and senior oil managers, recently got the clear message that the senior oil people don't want a world without the EC225.

Those who had no previous experience of their pax being carried long distance in the S92 are now better able to appreciate its limitations of range versus load capabilities, not to mention such factors as inordinate time spent running refuelling on helidecks.

To make matters worse for the S92, the latest models on order are hundreds of pounds heavier than the early ones, so that's another couple of pax left behind on long hauls. Now there there's not much benefit to be had from an S92 compared with the AS332L !

There was no suggestion of "get the EC225 back at any cost", but if a convincing safe interim solution can be found, there will be an ever-increasing demand to regain the marked advantages which it offers.

No doubt the passengers will have to be convinced as never before, but it would be unwise to write off the EC225, especially as there will eventually become available a re-engineered shaft.

Once the 92 is established on a Contract...having replaced the 225....how long will it take for the Customers to change back to the 225 without incurring costs that would make sticking with the 92 until the end of the contract?

Then...with the advantage of being on the contract...for those not in the North Sea Sectors...what costs would attend to changing aircraft for the new contract with the 92 already being on site and operating with the engineers, spares, and special equipment already in country?

I am sure Total and a few of the French Companies very much would prefer French machines but even they at some point have to consider costs I should think.

Colibri 49 what distances are you speaking of 225 vs 92?

Aberdeen to East Shetland basin destinations approx 250 NM plus another 100 NM or so to Bergen as diversion, when Shetland is unavailable due fog. This the EC225 does comfortably with a full 19 pax load in still air. The S92 can't even come close with a full load.

Round trips from Aberdeen to the southeast decks, like Fulmar 150 NM-ish each way and still enough fuel on return to Aberdeen to divert to Wick, Inverness, Dundee or Edinburgh depending on weather. No offshore refuel needed and 19 pax each way.

Aberdeen to well NW of Scatsta (60 + NM-ish past Scatsta), non-stop with 19 pax and straight back to ABZ with Edinburgh, Glasgow or Prestwick as alternates.

Aberdeen to 70?-ish west of Donegal full load, non-stop and same in reverse. I'm not at work so can't give precise figures, but these are the kind of trips I/we have done often and routinely. It's easy except when the weather is quite poor.

Speaking to our S92 drivers, I get the impression that with a full 19 pax the latest (heavy) S92s can't even manage three quarters of these distances.

The EC225 is near-miraculous in its capabilities and I think it is unlikely to be matched for many years yet. Of course I'm biased. Once someone has tasted chocolate, why would they want anything else? I yearn to fly it again, but that doesn't mean that I'm making up unrealistic scenarios in the foregoing paragraphs.