The solution for the Bristow self-destruct calamity is simple. Fire all the expensive lawyers and bean counters and other scallywags and scoundrels of dubious competence - march all of them out the door without a tuppence - and hire SASless to take command of the situation with full authority to carry out a plan of action.

p.s. In keeping with tradition I still expect my consultants fee for my brilliance in this regard, and of course a generous on-going retainer.

Thanks but No Thank You.....I am quite happy being retired and available to go hit the bay and ocean to do my imitation of a fisherman.

Granted....a Week of it would be good fun....seeing how many Rice Bowls I could break and make the Houston Headquarters building sound like a bowling alley with all the heads rolling down the hallways.

How many VP's could you fire in a week?

How much fun would it be to sack the HR and HSE Departments?

But...Puffer Fish have left and the Bluefish are running and the Spanish Mackerel are going to be right behind them!

Thus, I shall have to pass on the offer of employment.

I wish there was a "LIKE" button on PPrune!

You miss the point dear boy.....the "function" must be taken care of....not the empire building.

HSE, HR, cease being independent Kingdoms and become part of the Company structure called "Admin".

Immediately...two Vice Presidents get canned.

The Admin staff for EACH department gets trimmed.

Lots of Computer gear becomes excess to need....far fewer Emails and Memo's are not created or have to be read before being ignored.

Less paper gets used .... less Toner gets used....fewer Cellphones must be bought and right on down the line.

Quality Control has always been an Engineering Function.....since when do you need a separate QC Department with all that involves.....the Chief Engineer should oversee that.

Contracts should be let based upon actual "quality" and not what the Corporate Organizational Chart looks like.

Ridding one's operation of "Overhead" and focusing upon adjusting manning to the operational needs is the key.

If you ain't at the coal face....you are "Overhead"....and those non-coal face jobs should always be looked at with a very sharp eye.

Overhead spends money.....Operational Staff make the money.

The Mission Statement for every Overhead Position should start out with...."My reason for being is to support, assist, and facilitate Operations in the safe, efficient, conduct its work.".

I once watched a HSE type get his lunch eaten for him by a Manager who was responsible for the production, safety, and profitability of his assigned operation.

The Safety guy informed the Manager that our Mill had entirely too much Hydraulic Fluid stored on site and that the Containers were in too large a quantity to meet OSHA guidelines and that the Mill must be rid of any container larger than One Quart Cans and could only have some small number of them on site.

The Manager, having trouble chewing his wad of tobacco and not spitting any juice on the Safety Guy, asked what the OSHA Penalty was if the Mill was caught.....to be told some paltry amount.

The Manager then asked the Safety Puke what it cost per hour in lost production for the Mill to be shut down due to a hydraulic leak on any one of the major machines....to which the Safety guy confessed ignorance.

The Manager noted it was along the lines of 20-25,000 Dollars (US) per hour and the 250 dollar OSHA fine would be considered a cost of doing business.....and by the way......the Safety Guy learned he was NOT the Manager but just a Staff Puke from Corporate who could provide advice....not issue directives.

SAS, Quality Control and Quality Assurance are 2 very different and separate roles and responsibilities, unfortunately they are often confused as each other.

CC

CC, Nit picking is trait generally seen in those who like to confuse simple issues by looking to the irrelevant while ignoring the actual issue.

Call them two different concepts....which they might be.....but the common link is one entity can carry out the dual function under a single line of command.

The end goal of both is to ensure Safety.

I seem to see folks arguing about structure....and ignoring reality.

Reality demands actual performance and meeting of requirements and goals.

The simpler the system, with the least bureaucracy possible, is the most efficient....and that is what I am talking about.....not cutting standards but ensuring standards are maintained at the least possible cost.

I can assure you my standards of safety usually exceeded most of the Operator's I worked for....and explains how I managed to make it through a flying career without any Accidents or Incidents to my account.

SASless, your spot on, ALL big companies are over run with HR, S&Q, QA etc etc etc. They contribute very little but hinder an awful lot and the bigger the company, the more Senior VP's, VP's, Deputy VP's, assistant VP's that all need bonuses, medical insurance, pensions then get business class travel, bigger hotel rooms and company credit cards dragging the company down giving bigger overheads and the company ends up with a higher operating cost when it's time to bid for work.

Ohh, and they are ALL out of touch with what the company really does to earn a crust to pay there salary and bonuses, medical insurance pensions etc etc.

I nearly slipped up and read the tee shirt thinking it was a "W" instead of a "B" but then I put my Specs on and saw it was a misprint and was in fact a "B".

Thank you so much for your efforts barbados sky but actually I think that the Bristow website piece about Don Miller says it all. To those whose life's work is gambling with other peoples money and asset stripping national treasures, Don probably looks like he's had a gold plated platinum career. What those blood suckers don't realise is that whoever wrote that makes him look like a complete tosser to real people who have to get in their aircraft, make stuff work, or fly the things.

...well today sees a further development in the saga with the investor relations page showing a submission by a major investor slating the current management including:
"GVIC believes recent events represent the culmination of years of mismanagement, poor strategic decisions, weak oversight, and reckless execution by Bristow’s board. It is GVIC’s opinion that the board has been entirely ineffective in delivering value to shareholders and has repeatedly neglected its core duty – to protect shareholders’ interests. It has overseen the severe deterioration of Bristow’s financial and operational position over several years and in the process threatened permanent impairment to Bristow’s shareholders, bondholders, employees, customers, vendors, partners, and the company’s reputation as a preeminent provider of industrial aviation services. GVIC has made numerous attempts to engage constructively with Bristow’s management and board to improve Bristow for the benefit of all stakeholders. Since November 2018, GVIC has sent six letters and made numerous requests to discuss Bristow’s operational and financial performance. Bristow has repeatedly ignored these communications, including offers to assist. In recent days, it has become clear that Bristow may seek a restructuring through a Chapter 11 process. To be clear, such a restructuring would be the wrong decision for Bristow."

Good luck to GVIC!

More extracts:
"OPERATIONAL BLUNDERS
In parallel with declining operating results and worrying balance sheet developments, Bristow’s management has been unable to implement necessary operational improvements. For example, from March 31, 2015 to December 31, 2018: - Helicopter fleet size as measured by large aircraft equivalent (LACE, a capacity-weighted measurement), remained unchanged at 167, with only minor interim fluctuations. - TTM operating expenses decreased only modestly, from $1,667.80 million on March 31, 2015 to $1,450.23 million on December 31, 2018 (-13.0%). - Bristow has projected its two fixed-wing airlines to be unprofitable on an adjusted EBITDA basis in fiscal year 2019 (which ended on March 31, 2019). - Since mid-2016, Bristow’s owned fleet of 16 model H225 helicopters has not operated commercially, following the fatal crash of another company’s helicopter of the same model. There has been no apparent effort to divest this fleet. To emphasize: it is GVIC’s opinion that even in the face of stunning declines in revenue, operating income and adjusted EBITDA, Bristow’s board failed to take even the most basic steps to rein in operating expenses or eliminate unprofitable or idled operations. The precipitous decline in the price of the common stock is a scathing indictment of the board’s inability to guide Bristow’s corporate strategy in a manner even remotely beneficial to shareholders.

CHAIN OF BAD DECISIONS
Rather than undertake the difficult and diligent work necessary to improve Bristow’s business and balance sheet, on November 9, 2018, Bristow’s board approved a self-described “transformational” acquisition of Columbia Helicopters, Inc. (“Columbia”) for $560 million. Bristow proposed funding the acquisition through the issuance of a bridge loan (with a rate of LIBOR plus 8.0%), a convertible note (converting into approximately 26.2 million newly issued shares of common stock), and the issuance of an additional 7.1 million shares of common stock – an inexplicably expensive financing package. The Columbia acquisition ultimately would have diluted existing Bristow shareholders by approximately 93%. GVIC opposed the acquisition, issuing a public letter on January 8, 2019 following repeated efforts to engage with Bristow’s board. Fortunately, Bristow and Columbia terminated the acquisition on February 11, 2019; however, the termination resulted in Bristow paying a $20 million termination fee to Columbia. In the midst of a deteriorating financial situation, and on the heels of terminating the Columbia acquisition, Bristow announced that it was unable to file its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2018 in a timely manner and further identified a material weakness in internal controls over financial reporting. Despite this announcement, on March 1, 2019, Bristow’s board promoted the CFO, L. Don Miller, to the position of CEO, filling a vacancy created by the departure of former CEO Jonathan Baliff. It is GVIC’s firm opinion that the hasty promotion of a senior executive who was intimately involved in Bristow’s failed financial undertakings is a testament to the poor business judgement and sense of timing demonstrated by Bristow’s directors."

A bit harsh. They failed to take into account that L. Don Miller is also the Chief Captain, and Chief Banker, and thus represents a significantly better value proposition to the Company as CEO than the previous incumbent.

i saw BA blew $850m on fuel hedging, management eh?

Yeah. Cathay Pacific blew billions of dollars on a bad fuel hedge. And I think those responsible for the calamity were promoted in the Swire organization, and got their bonuses paid, etc.

Promotions. Bonuses? Ah, Bristow...

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z...klands1991.jpg

That looks suspiciously like the Falklands Pantsonfire

Yes it is...

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-n...oposed-bristow

New Director Slate, Management Proposed for Bristow

by Mark Huber
- April 24, 2019, 10:03 PMWisconsin-based Global Value Investment Corp. (GVIC) continued its assault on Bristow Group’s directors and senior managers on April 24. GVIC filed a proxy statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that stated that it intended to nominate a new slate of directors at the heavily indebted helicopter services company’s next annual shareholders’ meeting, which has yet to be scheduled. GVIC maintains that Bristow’s current leadership is defective and that its anticipated future bankruptcy filing would be ill-advised. “Bristow’s current directors have overseen a remarkable destruction of value,” said GVIC CEO Jeffrey Geygan. “Improvements at Bristow are long overdue.”

The proposed slate of four directors includes Sten Gustafson, the former CEO of helicopter services company Era Group and a former director at CHC Helicopter. Gustafson, who is also an international law attorney, assisted with founding a private helicopter service in Saudi Arabia. During his tenure at Era from 2017 to 2018, Gustafson financially de-levered that company while generating record quarterly revenues. The other three proposed directors include GVIC CEO Geygan; Anthony Gray, an attorney who led helicopter maker Sikorsky’s global compliance office from 2010 to 2013; and Jonathan Meretsky, an attorney who has served as managing director at Canada’s Merit House investment firm since 2009 and is an expert on “ocean-tech” as it relates to the global oil and gas industry. Meretsky currently owns 65,602 shares of Bristow while GVIC controls 245,940 shares. The combined position amounts to approximately one percent of Bristow’s shares outstanding. GVIC took its position in Bristow in June 2017 at prices between $7 to $8 per share. Bristow had traded as high as $80 per share in 2014. Its stock is now trading in the range of 50 cents per share after trading as high as $18 per share in May 2018. Earlier this month the credit rating agency Moody’s downgraded Bristow’s debt rating to Caa3—very high credit risk.

In its filing Wednesday with the SEC, GVIC noted that Bristow’s leadership had made a “chain of bad decisions” including the “inexplicably expensive financing package” proposed for the aborted $560 million acquisition of Columbia Helicopters late last year. “GVIC believes recent events represent the culmination of years of mismanagement, poor strategic decisions, weak oversight, and reckless execution by Bristow’s board. It is GVIC’s opinion that the board has been entirely ineffective in delivering value to shareholders and has repeatedly neglected its core duty—to protect shareholders’ interests. It has overseen the severe deterioration of Bristow’s financial and operational position over several years and in the process threatened permanent impairment to Bristow’s shareholders, bondholders, employees, customers, vendors, partners, and the company’s reputation as a preeminent provider of industrial aviation services,” the company wrote in its SEC filing. GVIC again criticized the promotion of L. Don Miller from Bristow chief financial officer (CFO) to CEO on March 1, calling it a “testament to the poor business judgment and sense of timing demonstrated by Bristow’s directors.” GVIC alleges that Miller was “intimately involved in Bristow’s failed financial undertakings.”

Those included the acquisition of fixed-wing operators Eastern Airways and Airnorth, maintaining a large equity position in Brazilian operator Lider Aviacao, and failing to make timely disposal of fallow assets such as Bristow’s current fleet of 16 parked Airbus H225 class heavy helicopters, including two that are SAR provisioned.

In an interview with AIN on Wednesday, GVIC senior executives, including Jeffrey Geygan, said Bristow could cut debt and improve operating performance “outside of bankruptcy,” pointing out that the company still has $900 million in assets and roughly $202 million in cash or cash equivalents against debts of $1.4 billion. “Among the [Bristow] equity and debt holders that we have spoken with about the state of Bristow’s finances, there is a strong belief and consensus that this company can be rehabilitated outside of Chapter 11 [bankruptcy].” Geygan said that included helicopter leasing companies who are “not eager” to take Bristow helicopters back. He said the view was echoed by senior industry executives that GVIC has spoken to outside of Bristow.

Bristow could raise additional cash quickly by disposing of underperforming assets, according to GVIC vice president James Geygan. “These assets would have significant value in the hands of the correct strategic operator,” James Geygan said, adding that certain equity investors in Bristow had made written offers of additional operating capital.

https://www.bizjournals.com/houston/...llions-of.html

so dont pay a 12 million dollar loan repayment pay yourself 2 million dollars instead.

This is the full filling Changes director pay from shares to cash, large cash retainers, delays 20 odd ec175s and forecasts all debt as short term.

https://www.streetinsider.com/SEC+Fi.../15466515.html

certainly makes all the pay freezes worth while......

As was forecasted.
https://www.helis.com/database/news/nyse-bristow-stock/

Here's the same article without having to sign up to read it all: https://www.bizjournals.com/houston/news/2019/05/08/struggling-helicopter-co-issues-millions-of.html?ana=yahoo&yptr=yahoo

It’s so absurd they just might just get away with it.

Interestingly it’s not just those 4, 5 others got a retention payment too so that’s likely to be another few mil from the dwindling fire.

Surely those payments should have been made after the year was out?

Must stick in the throats of some of the workforce who have lost $1000s with the share collapse.

Investments can go up as well as down of course (unless you are in the BRS senior management team, then everything is on the up!!)

Senior management will keep milking the cash cow as hard as they can for as long as they can then, when it all goes belly-up they'll wander off saying it wasn't their fault and be offered another seat on the management merry-go-round by one of their buddies...

They are almost all, to a man, completely morally bankrupt.

As long as you view them like that from the outset you won't be disappointed sadly.

Indeed, I was with 3 oil companies yesterday, all less than impressed, none wants to deal with Bristow as with its financial situation, things don't appear to be managed properly. Bonuses are for achievement, not for running the company into the ground.

Management Material !!

Tonka Plonka wrote:

Well its wrong. BRS has been selling aircraft assets to raise cash which it has then spent on financing loss making operations and to a lesser extent, management bonuses and payouts. That is exactly why BRS is in the position it is in today. If you don't make an operating profit as a supplier of aviation services, you are on the short path to real bankruptcy, not just bankruptcy protection.

I hear strike is now off and rumor is that CC chair has also resigned from council.

I think some need to understand the difference between cashflow and profit/ loss. It certainly wouldnt be unusual to continue to trade in a loss making position if one believes it is a short term position. What is perhaps more unusual is how by mid 2019 we continue to pick over the bones of BRS when it was fairly obviously fukked a long time ago.