In reply to JuanTinco:
> Any news on who the likely candidates for the next bid will be ... ?
These are the 'runners and riders' from 2011-13.
Bond Offshore Helicopters
Bristow Helicopters
CHC Scotia
Elbit Systems
Evergreen International Aviation
Eurocopter UK
Osprey Consortium (BIH)
FB Heliservices
NHV (Noordzee Helikopters Vlaanderen)
Lockheed Martin UK
and this is what they looked like
https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/winter_climbing/helicopters_civilian_versus_mod-484374?v=1#x6828853
USUAL SUSPECTS
In some respects, nothing has changed. We know that the usual suspects, Babcock (Bond), Bristow and CHC, have the proven capability to conduct SAR and other emergency helicopter operations in and around the UK and manage an operation of this size and complexity.
BIG BRUISERS
Some of the previous bidders were probably there in the early stages as much for intelligence gathering as anything else and did not have a real ambition to operate that contract. That's not to say Elbit or LM wouldn't have been able to pull it off. They have deep pockets and good connections and would make it happen if they found themselves stumbling into it.
AMBITION
NHV have shown persistent interest in the UK market. However, there are people out there who see NHV as the Dacia up against Mercedes and I am not convinced that they are wrong.
British International Helicopters were in the game last time during the early stages as part of the Osprey consortium. Since then, they have established a proven ability to provide SAR at this level to the UK Government in the most extraordinary circumstances. This is shown by their part in the Falkland Islands contract with the Ministry of Defence. It only involves two aircraft at one base but the standard of planning and logistics to do this 7000 miles from home promotes them to the premier league. Originally, they were doing this as a sub-contractor to AAR but I understand that BIH have now taken over the contract. Another Osprey/AAR type of arrangement would definitely put them in the frame.
Babcock International who now own, and have rebranded, Bond Helicopters, are not really an aviation company. They do not, in their bones, see SAR and its core lifesaving role as the ultimate honourable endeavour and reputation enhancer for a helicopter operator. They are far happier building frigates.
PARENT COMPANY GUARANTEE
This is a normal part of such contracts. You need somebody with deeper pockets to be there to back things up if it all starts going wrong. Well that went well didn't it? Instead of Bristow Group Inc backing up BHL, we had the Group going bust in the USA and BHL providing the only truly reliable large revenue stream to the Group during the bankruptcy process. A similar situation for CHC Ireland when it happened to CHC a bit earlier.
These companies, and Bond, started out, succeeded, and grew to prominence while being run by people who could fly. Now they are run by folks with a MBA instead of an ATPL(H) who are determined to rip as much cash out of the company as possible and pump it into the pockets of shareholders, including themselves, by the year end. Post-bankruptcy, they are run by a broadly similar set of rip-off artists. If you were a competent UK Government (A what?), you would be taking additional careful steps to protect the service. Fingers crossed.
BUSINESS AS USUAL?
Back in 2011, the UK DfT was in a really difficult place. SARH25 had collapsed at the start of the year. The people who have been rising to the top of MCA Aviation were there then working too many hours and sleeping poorly for months on end trying to put a sticking plaster over the big hole in service provision, in the form of the GAP contract 2013-2017, and restart a contract process for a long-term world-class service.
As we approach the point where a new contract process will start, the DfT/MCA-Avn can look at where we are now and be very happy with how this has become the world-class service they always intended. There are still little problems to iron out now and again, but the AW189 lateness, and stumbling start for the regulatory process, and other problems, are behind us. No sleepless nights this time round? Just do the same again, right? Just like a rail franchise (I do hope not!) or any other contract?
From our friend at FlightGlobal: '... Michael King, aviation technical lead maritime operations at the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA), says all this could change in the future.
Under the MCA’s new model, it does not intend to specify prescriptive or technical requirements, but instead will present the effects or outcomes it expects.
That will even apply to the number or type of helicopters, he says: “We are agnostic. What’s the best way of providing the effect? That would be up to the bidder to supply in their solution.”'
So this is a service-based contract. The Government take the position that they are not in the business of telling the contractor how to do the job so long as they get the correct output. So we treat SAR helicopters just the same as a rail franchise, works canteen or building maintenance (like Carillion say).
Not only will this type of contract, operating at this standard, never be simply business as usual, but we currently have a UK Government that is composed of idiots. We also have a civil service that, having been put through a series of demoralising experiences by their masters, are now being targeted by the Prime Minister's Chief Special Adviser who wants to change their world forever.
This is probably the safest country in the world. That is what we really excel at. Tell your MP we want it to stay that way.
WHAT ARE THE CHANCES?
The UK Govt have let about twenty contracts for SAR helicopter services since 1971. Contractors other than Bristow Helicopters Ltd have won four of those.
FEEDBACK
If you think I got any of this wrong, usual routine: either reply in line, or click on my name to send an email.
Post edited at 22:39