I stand to be corrected; after all I'm but a minion fed on company bulls:mad:t.
What should go between 'but' and 'so'. Enlighten us.

Helicrazi,

Please clarify the bit between ’ but’ and ‘so’
maybe a bit too much 2016 Pouilly Fuisse and perhaps missed something?

This is growing more arms and legs than first I thought it might.

So...you indicated that the problem with my original statement was the bit between 'but' and 'so'. To be clear that would be 'NHV couldn't start on time'. So...I indicated that, for the mutual edification of all involved, you might like to correct / juxtapose your version of events so that we might be enlightened.

BTW, I much prefer the Pouilly Fume: the Sauvignon Blanc grape holding a much higher plane in my affections. ABC, darling, ABC ;).

To helicrazi,

Did NHV have N3s available for the original start date?

Havent they had N3's available since being founded in 1997? Doesnt sound like N3 availability was the issue. Was the original contract for N3s or 169s?

Answering a question with a question? If I say 'I don't know' and your next post says 'Well, where would you find out?' then I definitely have you pegged as an instructor! :rolleyes:

So...I don't know. I thought 169 and there was a two fold issue: 1. Getting 169 into service took / was going to take longer than the time available to start on day one and 2. There was a sub-D dispensation issue for a few of the facilities that don't have a 'D' value to accommodate the 169.

Back on topic,

Awful rumours from the Babcock camp regarding this TUPE, fingers crossed to all involved

Ah, so after claiming that you knew the actual reason for NHV not starting on time, it turns out that you didn’t actually know.

It really is a good thing that this is just a rumour network.

:D...busted.

Yes, fingers crossed for the Blackpool massive.

However, Bond managed to avoid TUPE when they took the contract from CHC and that was on the re-tooling technicality of a change in aircraft model. The 169 [obviously] is a whole new Type.

Rumour has it the TUPE'd Bristow folks look to be safe but unfortunately it appears Babcock, either by error or arrogance didn't expect to have to take them on and its thrown their wage-bill out by quite a margin.

A way of filling the the gap is in motion and will impact the existing Babcock pilots who are on a lesser salary than their TUPE'd colleagues.

Babcock redundancies.
 

Babcock have been forced to run a redundancy round following the unexpected / unplanned TUPE transfer of approximately ten Bristow Scatsta pilots.

Nope. The ex-Bristow employees will be in the same pool as all the existing Babcock pilots and are therefore just as likely to find themselves being made redundant by Babcock . In fact, depending on how the selection is made, they might find themselves more likely to be made redundant??

True and true.

Ah. I wonder how the matrix will be written this time...

Oh, I love the way there are so many legal experts here. Why did you all become pilots rather than lawyers. Wasn't it this same legal arrogance that got Babcock management into this mess in the first place. Refusing to listen to their lawyers and deciding that they knew better?

TUPE rules aren't always the clearest, but they are law. You can't just pick and choose. The former Bristow pilots and the Babcock pilots are now effectively one group. Maybe get the managers at Babcock to speak to the lawyers and filter that information down to whoever keeps putting out these dopey comments

Being TUPEd does not protect you from redundancy. If you survive then your transfered rights are protected for a designated period but, just as with a contract change, economic conditions can be used as a redundancy instrument at any time.

Which bit are you highlighting as particularly 'dopey'?

Me thinks SpindleBob is the one being "dopey"? I'll add a few more simple words to my earlier comments. The ex-Bristow pilots and the existing Babcock pilots will now be treated as a single group and the company will now have to devise a selection process. This will involve the development of a "matrix", choosing evaluation items that will effectively give each pilot a score. These items have guidelines they have to fall within:

https://www.acas.org.uk/manage-staff...for-redundancy

However some will be difficult to establish for an employee that has effectively no internal records on such things as performance and attendance. Could this then disadvantage the ex-BHL pilots in some way??

That's a new and interesting spin on things. How do you know what advice was given to Babcock management by their lawyers?