|
jshell
Original Poster
4,999 posts
74 months
|
|
|
James B
520 posts
113 months
|
Pretty devastating I'd say. It may be like rats from a sinking ship now. The issue is who else has capacity to cope with the work?
|
|
|
James B
520 posts
113 months
|
Actually, just re-reading that, Shell were just tendering the work and have simply elected not to proceed with Bond. Maybe not too bad as a business hit, still not good publicity though.
|
|
|
jshell
Original Poster
4,999 posts
74 months
|
No, they were just about to sign on the 'dotted' and backed off, probably due to excessive pressure from the guys offshore...
|
|
|
offshorematt2
639 posts
85 months
|
jshell said: No, they were just about to sign on the 'dotted' and backed off, probably due to excessive pressure from the guys offshore... Don't kid yourselves that supply chain listen to the guys offshore.  At the end of the day, the tender process will require certain metrics to be met - Bond could no longer meet those and won't have had sufficient flying hours before the contract commencement to bring the figures back 'into the green.' Under those circumstances they will be disqualified from the tender regardless of what stage it was at. To be honest I felt the P&J's headline this morning was better suited to the Sun. That said, the way they reported the Elgin leak was just as bad - apparently alarmist headlines sells papers. Thought they were above that approach to be honest.
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
jshell
Original Poster
4,999 posts
74 months
|
offshorematt2 said: jshell said: No, they were just about to sign on the 'dotted' and backed off, probably due to excessive pressure from the guys offshore... Don't kid yourselves that supply chain listen to the guys offshore. At the end of the day, the tender process will require certain metrics to be met - Bond could no longer meet those and won't have had sufficient flying hours before the contract commencement to bring the figures back 'into the green.' Under those circumstances they will be disqualified from the tender regardless of what stage it was at. To be honest I felt the P&J's headline this morning was better suited to the Sun. That said, the way they reported the Elgin leak was just as bad - apparently alarmist headlines sells papers. Thought they were above that approach to be honest. When the Chinook crashed off the Shetlands in '86 a telex (wow, before e-mail) was sent to the Aberdeen office by one of the Brent platforms saying that the next Chinook that landed there would be tipped off the helideck. They were serious and not one more Chinook flew offshore. They sometimes listen...
|
|
|
Hollowpockets
4,777 posts
85 months
|
If a brand of car you owned was involved in an unexplained accident today, you'd still get in your one and drive to work the next day.
As I would get on a bond chopper.
|
|
|
mazdajason
739 posts
41 months
|
offshorematt2 said: Don't kid yourselves that supply chain listen to the guys offshore. At the end of the day, the tender process will require certain metrics to be met - Bond could no longer meet those and won't have had sufficient flying hours before the contract commencement to bring the figures back 'into the green.' Under those circumstances they will be disqualified from the tender regardless of what stage it was at. To be honest I felt the P&J's headline this morning was better suited to the Sun. That said, the way they reported the Elgin leak was just as bad - apparently alarmist headlines sells papers. Thought they were above that approach to be honest. They used to be, until change of Editor
|
|
|
tuscan30
141 posts
125 months
|
Hollowpockets said: If a brand of car you owned was involved in an unexplained accident today, you'd still get in your one and drive to work the next day.
As I would get on a bond chopper. Agree completely.
|
|
|
JS1500
45 posts
46 months
|
James B said: Pretty devastating I'd say. It may be like rats from a sinking ship now. The issue is who else has capacity to cope with the work? Bond are the smallest of the helicopter operators in Aberdeen - CHC and Bristow being much bigger, more flexible companies. I worked for Bristow for 5 years and i'm aware they have several choppers just sitting in hangars in ABZ waiting for more work. They could also bring S92s down from Scatsta or EC155s/S76s up from Norwich. As for damaging for Bond's business - of course it is, it's a PR nightmare. Whether there's any justification for it is another matter as the three Bond accidents in the last 3 years have been completely unrelated and probably could've happened to any operator.
|
|
|
rossybee
394 posts
126 months
|
Hollowpockets said: If a brand of car you owned was involved in an unexplained accident today, you'd still get in your one and drive to work the next day.
As I would get on a bond chopper. The difference being here that if a major component on a car fails, it rolls to a halt at the side of the road...
|
|
|
scotty_d
5,652 posts
63 months
|
rossybee said: Hollowpockets said: If a brand of car you owned was involved in an unexplained accident today, you'd still get in your one and drive to work the next day.
As I would get on a bond chopper. The difference being here that if a major component on a car fails, it rolls to a halt at the side of the road... Correct 
|
|
