There is a growing opportunity in the market for reviving lean AOC structures with minimal superfluous title holders, and using pilot/engineer led management structures who actually understand the role and needs of the workforce. The first operators to do this well (again) whilst continuing to prioritise good quality equipment, training, and workforce Ts + Cs might just have an opportunity to clean up with everyone knocking on their door. Too many self licking lollipops and toxic personnel in the current crop. That said, many of the customers could also do with a reality check. They too are increasingly ruthless and short sighted.

I’d love to think you’re right but i reckon that’s wishful thinking.

the operators only get away with such behaviour because the clients allow (encourage) it.

they’re interested in cheap, not good.

the more time and verbiage a company puts into “ sharing it’s ethos and values” the lower my expectations of them.

the race to the bottom is well advanced and one or two operators trying to reverse it will simply be overtaken.

industrial action is the only option and it will merely slow it down rather than stopping anything.

Yes, I went for brevity over clarity.

Rotor guy - there is profit in the current UKSAR contract and it is keeping the rest of the group afloat as I understand it.

However, what did they bid for the new contract? Enough to keep the profits running high enough?

The way of the world unfortunately.

Profit used to be important, but other things mattered as well: employees, clients, suppliers and company reputation. Now, there is only profit.

In aviation, most large companies are owned by entities that have no interest in Aviation, employees, clients etc.

Profit is their only interest, with massive lip service given to all the “virtue signalling” “causes”.

Common themes include massive “top heaviness”: far more managers than “front end staff” (the ones that fix/fuel/load/fly). An obsession with “out sourcing” (travel bookings/payroll). “Shifting money” to tax havens. (Lots of Aviation in the Caymans apparently.)

Question
 

Is it true that the Sar crews work well less than 100 days a year? 90 days plus or minus? How many days for O&G crews? Also hearing whispers that supplements being paid for years not earned or applicable as per the union contract. Now the cleanup has everyone in a meltdown. Can someone please clarify?

Nice trolling........:ugh:

They work well less than 100 days, but the other 90 days they work extremely well. They can also speak English well.

What we do have is SAR crews bouncing off of their 2000 hours duty limit and that’s with the application of a sharp pencil.

O&G crews are on their fixed rosters and are averaging between 5-600 flight hours a year. Duty a lot less than SAR.

Any examples of the allowances being withdrawn that is causing meltdown? I’ve not heard that one yet. What the company are suggesting is the carte blanche removal of allowances that would lead to them moving people around the U.K. at short notice to cover the gaps their planning and poor management has caused.

Looks like Bristows management has arrived on the forum.

I think they may be more literate than that

Eff. Tee. Els.

You’re welcome.

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....14fa067da6.gif

Back to the days of MilSAR when under resourcing was the name of the game and pieces (ie people) got moved around the chessboard willy nilly.

The rearcrew were constantly f***ed about as we didn't have enough of them and aircraft were robbed from the OCU to fill gaps on the front line - then senior people wondered why we weren't getting enough rear crew from the OCU!!!!!

Crap management is crap management whatever they wear to the office.

As I understand it the other major issue is the removal of the deputy posts - does that come under the heading of 'Just work harder' in management directives?

SAR should be a branch of the military and not managed by private entity. Maybe Keir Starmer will claim it back when he assumes office shortly ? Would this solve the issues ?

[QUOTE=Sir Korsky;11654221]SAR should be a branch of the military and not managed by private entity. Maybe Keir Starmer will claim it back when he assumes office shortly ? Would this solve the issues ?[/QUOTE

Definitely not.

There has been Civilian SAR in the UK continually since the 80's I think. Only once before has it got close to a strike and at that point the company involved (CHC) saw sense and went back and negotiated a week before the strikes happened. What you have at the moment is a management that doesn't want a union involved, needs to be able to redeploy people to the summer bases as and when the company needs/wants (for less than no cost to themselves) to comply with a contract they under bid on. If you look at RPI to payrises the crews were at almost 20% behind inflation last year since the SAR2G contract kicked off. Instead of just doing a paydeal in time for April, they have delayed and stalled and now trying to not give a payrise for last year when inflation was very high. Trying not to backdate it to when it was due and also trying to change every T&C to allow them to force people to work where they want them to with no notice. Oh and to save themselves lots of money by getting ride of lots of payed roles and duties and expect everyone to do them for free.

All while reporting profits and giving an outlook for the next two years just last week that caused the share Price to go up 50%.

Oh and the CEOs remuneration package went up over 20% last year (2023) alone.... so you can see why people are a bit upset.

The company made a big deal about staff living within 30 miles of bases but now wants them to go where sent and be happy with it.

All the above is In my opinion only but I think they might have slightly miss read the room, but are too pig headed to admit they have messed this up allot.... I honestly think it will take the government to force them to resolve it... but they might be happy to as they get to withold money from Bristow for the Bases being offline.

Only if it was properly resourced and manned which is very unlikely in the modern military environment.

There are probably just enough people with the skills and knowledge to restart the training machine but there won't be in a few more years time.

There's no reason a private provider can't deliver UKSAR, it was being done well up until recently, but it would be better as a not for profit arrangement to stop one contract being used to support others in the company as we see now.

Bristow management are awful and they don't care at all about their staff, local base management isn't much better, especially (what's left of) Norwich.

SAR has been a gravy train for Bristow since the beginning.

Lioncopter, you've hit the nail on the head.