We had no idea things were so bad. :p

The only one in the game that doesn't have an empty wallet?


Edit:

Or ....?

In November 2017, I posted the following elsewhere when the Bristow Group bean counter numbers did not make sense in relation to the proposed rollout on the ground.

"The key related element of the earnings presentation is the order book which for UK SAR shows 4 large rotorcraft delivered in SEPTEMBER 2019. In line with that revelation are statements about a wider deferment of capital expenditure on aircraft and the possibility of not making any money in the North Sea during some of the examined periods. ... ... Their capex deferment plan runs out to 2021 and if they can put four aircraft back two years then I suspect it is simply cheaper to pay a penalty than pay for the aircraft and pay for all the training conversion. These things don't get any cheaper as we move toward 2023, so it just gets worse and worse. The next contract probably considers contractor performance on previous contracts: black mark for not completing the promised aircraft provision."

Here we are in April 2019 and the four aircraft were transferred from Leonardo to Bristow some time ago and fleet deployment is days away from completion. Multiply that discrepancy out across the entire Bristow Group world and it turns into big bucks and big trouble.

Does anyone actually know if the UK SAR contract has produced a profit when viewed in isolation, or is it simply a case of good cashflow that greases the wheels of a bankrupt company?

A difficult question when viewing from the outside. Some suggest the AW189 delay may be partly supported by Leonardo but it's still quite likely the latter case is the reality up to this point. In a few months when CG151 is in place and the transition team are gone there should be a chance to make some money. It won't be huge though since a contract estimated at £2bn to £3.3bn for 14 or 15 aircraft that was awarded at £1.6bn after revising to 22 aircraft (incumbent's bid over 20% higher!) :ugh: isn't going to be plain sailing.

The military are so broke and the training system so slow that it would take another 10 years to make it happen.

Wind the clock back to when I was consistently flamed on PPrune for saying privatising UKSAR was a crap idea...............

But as you were told meany times it's a brave new world & will be alright

yes, that's going really well.....
Fortunately, the boys and girls on the front line are doing what they do best - just constantly let down by poor management.

yes, I almost put that in my previous post - didn't say the military was perfect but we could have achieved the same service if we had just been given new aircraft.

They would probably still be in the initial stages of evaluation at Boscombe....

Thanks Jim. At least it should be very cash flow positive over the coming few years as the Capex will have all been covered.

With CHC as a recent bankrupt (And are they still holding the Black Spot?), and Babcock's parent worth the same two brass farthings as Bristow group, who you gonna call?

Not a process that is required to utilise civil aircraft on the military register.......

Sadly, the 'brave new world' still has donkeys leading the lions............

I still think that as far as UK SAR is concerned there is a good chance it will just blow over. The Americans will do what they have to do. BHL will keep cashing cheques from the DfT. Keep calm and carry on. Same as the CHC Ireland experience.

But that's for THIS contract. What happens when the DfT has to renew the contract (already working on it) and nobody with the technical ability to provide the service can demonstrate the financial competence they expect?

It would be interesting to see how a certain individual who was at the forefront of pushing the UKSAR model, and had visions of selling it to other nations, views his business plan now...........

Whatever happens in Houston, people will still get hauled out of the waters of the Minch and off rocky ledges in Kintail. I don't think anyone in an orange suit is worried about their job.

Meanwhile, there are more worries from ex-92 aircrew at Inverness about where to put everything in a 189! I expect airframes will be shuttled around the fleet in the next few days to get a couple of low hours ones up to Inverness. (You would, wouldn't you?) A week from now we'll have a completed roll-out of the original plan. It's taken a while.

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....917d4e8e66.jpg

which is almost exactly what I have said in my previous posts.

How long has it taken to actually meet the terms of the contract? And you can't blame the OEM for all of that delay.

The proof of this contract's success will be in its renewal which, looking at the rearcrew manning problems looming, could prove problematic for any future contractor - perhaps if the pay were to be set at a realistic level.................

not a failure as such, the records speak for themselves, but certainly a prime cause for the loss of military SAR - that and a desire to move it off the military budget as it wasn't 'core business':ugh:

There are a few things that some understood way back at contract award in March 2013 that affect how and where we've arrived now and where we're going with this in the future.

1. Corporate hustlers thousand of miles away are always out for themselves.
2. The AW189 SAR did not exist as an operational aircraft.
3. The contract technical spec and national SAR regulatory framework that were coming into play were about to surprise a lot of people because nobody had written all of that stuff down before.
4. SAR Technical Crew was not a licensed aviation trade and the CAA and the contractors were sleep-walking into a long-term problem in relation to how "the market" would respond to that.

Numbers 2 & 3 are fixed.

Jim - someone sold those corporate hustlers the idea of bidding for UKSAR promising them a pot of gold - not defending hustlers but someone had to push the idea through the boardroom.

BRS bid using the 189 knowing point 2.

Point 3 had been mostly covered in the doomed Soteria bid.

Point 4 is very valid but someone who doesn't value SARTC or rearcrew in general biased the salaries too heavily towards the pilots and forgot who actually takes all the risks in SAR.

Re Point 4, Service pay is due for 2019 review this month but 2018-19 PA Scales show the following.

PAS-35 = £83,581.56 (top of scale, Crab's level? :E)
PAS-30 = £77,841.12 (max for FltLt WOp/Lt Observer?)
PAS-20 = £66,010.92 (max for WO/MACR)
PAS-12 = £55,816.92 (max for Sgt)
PAS-1 = £46,222.20 (bottom of scale)

I was level 33 when I left:ok:

Even the lowest PAS spine position is higher than the BRS pay - they took on a wealth of experienced Sgts, WO/MACRs and Observers and insulted them with the pay.

Few of the pilots were on the top levels of PAS but went on to (ISTR) £95K fr Captains and £80K for co-pilots - allegedly to do with NS pay levels.

Then you are not very representative of those who I worked with in the Mil - yes, they had to fund their own IRs but those figures were what was offered at the interview stage.

Did you go straight in as a SAR captain with 5 years plus UKSAR experience?

Well, your version seems different from others - i don't know what your Ts and Cs were and are - what are you earning there now?

Did CB change the salary offer after the second stage of interview? I didn't get there thankfully but the £95K for SAR Captains was what was touted - if they didn't deliver that, I am even happier not to have got a job with them.

Those that took up the offer of employment were aware of the payscales on offer; nobody was forced into it. We live in a fairly free labour market, individuals are free to make their own choices.

No, they went for the job they loved and were spectacularly well trained for - despite the poor salary offered. The alternative for many was to return to FW or SH as there was no SAR employment left in the RAF/RN apart from 84 Sqn and SARTU (202)..

It is the best helicopter job going but just because pilots are licenced and TC are not, doesn't mean they should be so badly disadvantaged, especially as they are the ones doing the hard, dangerous and dirty work on SAR.

Crab, I don't really understand your reply, you seem to be suggesting that they had to take up employment with Bristow? The alternative you mention is part and parcel of being in the armed forces and one of the reasons, in this case, why the salaries are higher. One of the issues here is the continual comparison between military salaries and commercial - the job is not the same and that is why the salaries are different.

UK SAR TC are paid fairly well compared to their brethren on the continent --> https://www.aviationcv.com/en/ad/447...l-crew-members

And this constant whine about SAR TC having no proper License like Pilots is utter bull**** as well, especially since EASA has created many years ago the role and regcongnised certificate for HEMS which includes SAR.
Legal stuff --> https://arkisto.trafi.fi/filebank/a/...2)(ii)_eng.pdf
Training Courses --> https://atc.air-zermatt.ch/wordpress...s-course-2019/

Fake news - News found in social media often based on rumor or hearsay but peddled as fact.

Jim supplies elevated paysacles that were the exception within the MOD never mind the SARF, suggesting somehow that is what everyone in UK SAR should be on even though he has never worked in either organisation. Crab uses rumor about current pay and compares to Jim's post suggesting TC were all somehow "insulted". Once 'outed' further suggests without evidence that even a SGTs and FS pay is higher than TC pay.

Like I said fake news. But we are all impressed that you care so much.

as365 subtle but true, you made me giggle with "utter bull****". Pay for TC will not magically explode if a TC licence was introduced. Offshore, multi engine pilots pay is based on a highly competitive market and their licence has little to do with that. If it was just a case of licence then NPAS and HEMS would get the same rates. The TC market is simply not there on the same scale, unfortunate but true.

What he said.

The whole piece is driven by market forces i.e. supply and demand; you can spend all day arguing about what people are worth or what they should be paid, but it won't change anything. Either take the job or don't - no one is holding a gun to your head. Smells a bit like a sense of entitlement here crab - are you becoming a snowflake?

I do hope none of you detractors are SAR pilots - if so you clearly don't either understand or value what your SAR TC do - in UK anyway. Great to be crewed up with you............

I know how well our rearcrew were trained and they earned every pound of their non-market force pay.

You cannot deny the fact (MOD Payscales are hardly fake news) that they are paid far less in BRS for doing the same job they did in the military - whereas the pilots are paid more than they were - I believe that decision was made by ex-mil officer pilots who didn't have a huge regard for their rearcrew.

One thing that is blindingly obvious when you look into the wider world of SAR TC across the planet - you can pay what you like but the quality will reflect that pay and pretty much anyone can call themselves SAR TC but precious few wouild be able to hold a candle to UK trained SAR TC, especially the ex-mil.

BRS have queered the pitch for the next SAR contract- they had the chance to set a high standard of Ts and Cs and fell at the first hurdle. The next contractor will have fewer legacy TC and will either have to spend a lot on training new ones or just drop the standards of UKSAR.

AS365N$ - a 1 week course to be a HEMS TC.........really, do you really think that makes them any good?????? And, as pointed out earlier, do not confuse HEMS with SAR TC - very different roles.