Current CHC EBA Proposal 11/02/08 Update 4

User avatar
eba
Have YOUR say
Posts: 299
Joined: Feb 2008

Current CHC EBA Proposal 11/02/08 Update 4

Postby eba » Sat Feb 16 2008, 00:29

TO: CHC PILOT GROUP – AFAP MEMBERS & NON MEMBERS
FROM: CHC PILOT REPS - Stefan Sincich, David Schultz, Mark
Gaudin

DATE: 11 FEBRUARY 2008

RE: EBA NEGOTIATIONS WITH COMPANY – Update 4

IN-PRINCIPLE AGREEMENT REACHED

On 8 February 2008 your Pilot Reps with David Stephens (AFAP) met with the
Company to continue our negotiations towards our 2008 CA.
By mid afternoon on Friday we came to an in-principle agreement on amendments to
our current document. The following changes will be amended to our current document
and be presented to the pilots for voting.

A. WAGES AND ALLOWANCES

1. 3 year agreement from 1 May 2008

2. Wages increased as follows:

________________28/02/08______01/05/09____01/05/10
Captain___________10%___________5%________5%
FO/SFO___________7.5%__________5%________5%

ATPL (approx 43%)$6,700__________5%_________5%
CIR (approx 43%) $8,200__________5%_________5%
CPIR (approx 25%) $4,600_________5%_________5%

This equates to an overall increase of, on average, 25%

Note also two months of back pay being paid prior to the expiry of our current agreement. This
equates to approximately an additional 2% wages over the life of the agreement. Ordinarily
increases do not apply until after the expiry of the current agreement.

We have weighted heavily the increase in the first year, and the increases in the ATPL,
CIR/CPIR need to be considered when determining the total increase.

3. EMS Allowance increased to 8% based on Year 10, when worked.

4. Overtime increased in line with headline rates

5. Night VFR increased in line with headline rates

6. Split shift, SAR Callout, WP5 and WP6 Allowance Daily rate to be increased by
headline rate. All other allowances to be increased by CPI from 1May each year.

7. Superannuation - if a member withdraws funds from the superannuation fund the
withdrawn amount and investment returns thereon will count towards the calculation of
the five times salary life insurance provisions.

8. Pay rates for SFOs years 11-18 deleted, for except in the case of career regression.

9. Check & Training, Senior Base Pilots Allowance - locked to Year 10 (up from Yr 8).

10. Tindal/Darwin Allowance – higher payments reinstated (but to be set outside of
agreement).

11. Service credits - acknowledge all command hours for new employees. Recognise
military instrument ratings.

12. Income Protection Insurance to be as Memorandum of Understanding consistent with
the Crewman’s Agreement

B. TRUSCOTT

13. Camp Allowance (approx $27 and to be increased over life of agreement by headline
increases) to be extended to Truscott to commence from1 March 2008.

14. Unsuitable Accommodation Allowance (approx $27 and to be increased over life of
agreement by headline increases) for every night spent in a room with a standard lower
than the 12 CHC rooms, as at 8 February 2008, or equivalent, effective 1 March 2008.

15. By 25 February the parties will agree on wording to define CHC accommodation
standard, including advising pilots going into Truscott they may be required to stay in a
non CHC room.

C WORK PRACTICES

16. WP1 - home base field leave 0.87 to apply to ad hoc arrangements with recognition of
right to claim alternative conditions if alternative new permanent WP is required.

17. WP4 - include wording from Statement for the Commission from last Agreement
referring to Work Practice 4 and Split Shift Duty

18. WP6 - include new wording I agreement from settlement of that dispute

19. Standing Bid System – introduce option of 3 x bases as now OR one choice of stream
(offshore, SAR or EMS)

D. 16TH DAY

20. Where return to home base before 12:00 = x1.0 Overtime Day

21 Where arrive home after 12:01 and before 18:00 = x1.5 Overtime Day

22. Where arrive home after 18:01 = x2.0 Overtime Day

E. ANNUAL LEAVE

23. Agreed to:

• introduce projected rolling 12 month period system;

• block off leave periods not available and;

• agree a clause that provides for greater predictability and certainty when a tourer can take
annual leave so as to meet his/her personal needs.

F. OTHER

24. Return of Service – introduced for new employees as follows:

• to apply from date of endorsement

• bonding period limited to 2 years.

• Applicable on resignation with discretion to waive the bond in cases of hardship; and

• amounts to be listed for different aircraft type.

25. Relocation Period – increased to 3 years between changes with current conditions.

26. Dispute Resolution Procedure – introduce comprehensive dispute settling procedure
which ensures right of arbitration by AIRC.

The precise wording of the document will be finalised over the next week or so with the
Company anticipating to be in a position to have a draft agreement ready for pilots to
vote on in the last week of February 2008.
Whilst we were unable to achieve all the requests presented to us prior to these
discussions, we believe, we were able achieve the best outcome possible and maintain
the positive relationship with Management, that both parties deserve. This, we believe,
will continue to allow a constructive relationship for our future.
While it is the view of the Pilot Reps and the AFAP that the agreement should be
endorsed, we encourage all pilots read the document when it is presented carefully, to
discuss it with other members, and to vote accordingly.

Remember you are voting on an agreement that concerns all the Pilot Group.
If any member has any query please contact any of the Pilot Reps for advice or
clarification.

Whilst this process is not yet complete, we would not have been able to achieve the
position we are in, without the outstanding assistance we have received from David
Stephens (AFAP Senior Industrial Officer)).

In order to maintain the support from the AFAP, we recommend you support the AFAP
accordingly.

The CHC Pilot Committee, Stefan Sincich, David Schultz, Mark Gaudin
User avatar
eba
Have YOUR say
Posts: 299
Joined: Feb 2008

Calculation as to NET gain

Postby eba » Sat Feb 16 2008, 00:56

This is a calculation based on forecast CPI figures using current pay scales with the proposed pay rise adjustments for 3 years.

[img]http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w269/helipaz/PayasofEBArelease.jpg[/img]
User avatar
eba
Have YOUR say
Posts: 299
Joined: Feb 2008

CPI?

Postby eba » Sat Feb 16 2008, 07:46

I think we need to ascertain if these percentage increases are on top of CPI or inclusive.

The ATPL and CIR allowance increase is a good thing, and I like the thought process behind this ie. people with more experience with the company or people joining the company with quals get rewarded.

I disagree with the difference between Captain and FO increases. Sends the wrong message in my opinion.

Of most concern is the two months back pay. What company in their right mind would give something like this away unless they were gaining in another area? Perhaps they are concerned about Bristow actually getting close to 30%?

I will be voting "no" to this offer on the basis that you never accept the first offer in any negotiations!

That the company is happy with this offer speaks volumes! Business is business. Keep the emotions out of this.
User avatar
eba
Have YOUR say
Posts: 299
Joined: Feb 2008

Strange happenings

Postby eba » Sat Feb 16 2008, 09:34

From what i have heard so far it is inclusive of CPI. I agree with you that there is some strange things going on with this negotiation.

Why is it being rushed through so quick? it can only be in an attempt to beat the Bristows EBA that is due this month. Bristows management have rejected the deal and it now looks like the Pilot group which now stands over a hundred, of which 90+% are offshore union members are to ask for even more than the 30% originally asked for. 40% has been thrown around as it equals what is being asked for again in Europe. There EBA is for 2 years also and that includes last year so they will start negotiations again next year for another pay rise.

Also the Bristows management has told its people that they will wait and see what CHC gets and then match it for their staff so as to stay "competitive".

I don't know what information is flowing around the EMS and SAR bases at CHC but i know that the offshore pilots are wanting a piece of the booming oil and gas revenue.

What has been said in the negotiations? Minutes of the meetings would be a good read, from the original expectations it all got watered down quite a lot! Did the company scare the reps into thinking contracts would be lost or have the reps resigned themselves to the fact that the CHC pilot group aren't united enough to put up much of a fight. As with the last EBA it got through 51-49%, Half the work force disagreed with the settlement and from the lack of inter company chat it seems it might go this way again.

I see the adds from CHC are constantly in the papers so there is a supply and demand issue going on. We are in demand just like when other things are in short supply our price goes up, if in the future they need to cut back wages to keep a contract then we will negotiate a pay reduction but until then inflation is a killer of the family budget and we need to stay ahead.

Don't be fooled by wage inflation scares, our inflation is being driven by overseas demand for the scares resources available in the world and until our Government deals with these issues inflation will keep going up.

I also will vote no to this deal made without negotiation.
User avatar
eba
Have YOUR say
Posts: 299
Joined: Feb 2008

Postby eba » Sat Feb 16 2008, 12:52

Just to help you guys out.
Bristow pilots are standing firm on a 30% increase in base salary for all pilots regardless of rank. The payment is straight up and they are asking for CPI increases for the remainding years of the EBA. Thats on top of extra increases to ATPL,CIR's payments etc. They have currently negotiated the exta increases, just not the 30% salary increase. They didn't get to change the Domicile policy this EBA so they are seeing that as a target for the next negotiation
They applied to the commision for industrial action on the 3rd of Feb and hope to be able to start taking action on the 28 of Feb with things like an overtime ban and a no uniform policy. Hopefully this will be enough without having to resort to actions like striking.
User avatar
eba
Have YOUR say
Posts: 299
Joined: Feb 2008

EBA

Postby eba » Mon Feb 18 2008, 11:07

All CHC pilots need to meet two criteria.

1. They need to be a member of the union

2. They need to be prepared to stop making themself available for extra duties. Ie; 16 day tours (17day tours) :x roster changes and casual days.

If they they meet 1 and 2, great.

If they don't, then their pissing into the wind :!:
User avatar
eba
Have YOUR say
Posts: 299
Joined: Feb 2008

Postby eba » Wed Feb 20 2008, 00:12

A 30% pay rise would put us on par in terms of a standard of living with our North Sea brothers. Anything less would be shooting our selfs in the foot. Bristow management have tried the old, "wait and see what CHC get" tactic before. They have used that for both pay rises and roster changes.
User avatar
eba
Have YOUR say
Posts: 299
Joined: Feb 2008

CPI

Postby eba » Wed Feb 20 2008, 04:55

"From what I have heard so far it is inclusive of CPI." To quote "Strange happenings"


Where, in the in-principal agreement, does it say that wage increases are to be increased by CPI each year? What good is "from what I have heard"? Perhaps any strong move toward industrial action is impossible from such a fragmented pilot group that thrives on rumour. Stick to the facts and take some positive action. :x
User avatar
eba
Have YOUR say
Posts: 299
Joined: Feb 2008

Postby eba » Wed Feb 20 2008, 06:46

The proposed changes to the EBA are very disappointing, the management are treating the pilot group as idiots and their attempt to ram thru a substandard offer by offering immediate payment of new wages is ridiculously transparent. 2 months pay versus 3 years of negative wage growth get serious please.

Wages exclusive of additions should be CPI plus stated figures.

The 16th day proposal must be rejected. It is the old foot in the door to create a wedge to bust it open routine, once they get a sniff of weakness on this very important issue then it will be all over. The proposal is a clear attempt to assume control of that day dont give it up for anything. It may suit now to pocket the cash but what about 5 years down the track when time at home outweighs any amount of money. As for the monetary compensation and the method of calculating it well the less said about that the better.

Does that formula apply to casual days as well?
Does the Home base principal in terms of the 16th day apply for casual days as well?
Does the use of the word home base really mean your HOME base/city or the departure from the base you are touring to.

Truscott.

This makes a total mockery of the FRMS. A few extra dollars is not going to help you sleep in a room which creaks, groans and vibrates in time with the old airconditioner . It wont stop you from hearing the person 3 doors down turning over in their bed. This is a cynical attempt to absolve the company from making any attempt to meet its accommodation standards obligation as per the current agreement. This is clearly borne out by the fact that they can advise you that you can/will be accommodated in a non CHC room and so sad too bad. No way.

WP1 beware of any attempt to remove the 15/13 clause in the agreement, it is the only protection against 16/12

WP4 beware of an attempt to remove the 2 2day time off blocks as per the FRMS in the current EBA. The current FRMS makes no mention of any time off so if it gets slipped in unnoticed all WP4 workers will get off is 1 in 7.

Darwin/Tindal allowance be removed from EBA you have got to be joking, then the company can remove the allowance altogether at their whim and at the same time renege on the policy of allowing all staff to tour to Darwin.

Annual leave, can anyone explain 'block off leave periods not available' is supposed to mean and no mention of reinstating 6 weeks for tourers.

Return of service, define hardship please.

Relocation period to 3 years, ok but where is the monetary compensation, the company save bucks but the workers are not compensated.
User avatar
eba
Have YOUR say
Posts: 299
Joined: Feb 2008

Postby eba » Thu Feb 21 2008, 07:39

It is simple if we are all part of the AFAP union we have back up and can leagally strike if we have to only if we have to or at least work to rule.
With just over half of the pilots in the union we just dont have the pull.
Come on guys, cost of living has gone up and we are more in demand than I can ever remember, this is the time to stand up for ourselves.
So join the union so the people who are fighting for us can show force only if need be. Stick together and stand up. We are so used to being used and abused as pilots especially in our early years of our careers, we some times just sit there and take what is only is given and thats it, near enough is not good enough there has not been a better time in decades to get a better deal.
Who knows what is going to happen in the future of aviation we may not get as good of a chance next time around.
Most of the Bristow pilots are in the union (somewhere in the 90% or more mark) they have far more pull to have their EBA passed.

Come on stand up and be counted and get what we want.

And no I am not from the AFAP or a representative but I am in the union. :idea:
User avatar
eba
Have YOUR say
Posts: 299
Joined: Feb 2008

Woodside Contract?

Postby eba » Thu Feb 21 2008, 11:01

I believe Woodside Contracts up for tender later this year for a start early next year, is it the case that one of the rules for tendering is that Woodside wont allow any tender from a company in the process of an industrial dispute with workers during the tendering process. Does anyone know the details of this or if this is true, I think it is.

Is this the main driving force behind CHC trying to complete its EBA negotions ahead of MAY 1st? To have a pilot body on a wage less than its competitor Bristow and enable it to bid on the Woodside contract offering a tendering advantage.

Or is it, as already stated to ensure a wage settlement before Bristows pilot body demand 30+%.

With the Bristows EBA, remember that it will expire next year and so offer the pilots the opportunity to begin negotiating a pay increase while CHC pilots enjoy the small increase above CPI until 2010.
User avatar
eba
Have YOUR say
Posts: 299
Joined: Feb 2008

SAR/EMS

Postby eba » Thu Feb 21 2008, 22:59

I think alot of contributions here are from the offshore crowd (even the password)

Is anyone letting the SAR. EMS guy's know what is happening here in the forum??

A lot of EMS pilots don't get to sit around together and discuss this, and the SAR guy's
are mostly new to the company and don't know what has happened in the past and have come
from low paying jobs and think it is chirstmas getting these wages!

So let our fellow brothers know to come on here and have there say, and stay united!
User avatar
eba
Have YOUR say
Posts: 299
Joined: Feb 2008

SAR/EMS and woodside.

Postby eba » Thu Feb 21 2008, 23:11

Sar and ems are in the loop!, you are correct they seem to be a little quite.

Woodside; Pilot wages are not the make or break of winning any contract and the difference between chc and bristow will not be of any concern to the final tender.

Re the trusscott accommodation allowance; Note; the group that achieved the overnight allowance on the Rig "had Balls" :shock:
User avatar
eba
Have YOUR say
Posts: 299
Joined: Feb 2008

%

Postby eba » Sat Feb 23 2008, 04:37

Recently Bristows were offered a pay rise based on Captains getting a Larger % pay rise than the Co-pilots, They rejected with the statement "we will not do a CHC on our guys". This is based on the last few EBA's where the pilot reps have been given a sum of money to split amongst the pilots and being Captains they have looked after there own interests.

What did this do for the moral of the people joining later. Darwin allowance became a big issue which split the company along those who joined before 2003 and after, in the end the balance was restored through action by a certain group. The 3 year SFO upgrade was another way to keep money in the Captains pool and not co-pilots. Why are our reps forgetting where they came from, accepting this half baked offer and setting us up for more years of distrust, envy and dissrespect for those that say yes to this unfair proposal. The costs of living are increasing greatly for all employees not just the Captains. If you need to offer an incentive to Captains then do it using the MECIR that is held by the Captain and which causes so much stress in this role.

Quite frankly if you cant see your worth these days with shortages and huge growth in the industry you should vote no and move on.

Dont create more problems by accepting this deal, it is pathetic in regards to CPI, it does include CPI in the figures as was confirmed yesterday. It is not reflective of todays labour market in Australia and can be payed for with the revenue from our customers with their huge after tax profits they are currently making.

Just remember, when CHC lost woodside before, people were layed off over night, thats what they think of you in a downturn so make as much as you can from them during a boom. Dont think that you will be looked after becasue you "did the right thing". Our management have shareholders to please and thats where they get their bunuses from not from keeping us happy.

VOTE NO, lets get back to the negotiation table for a fair and just Settlement in todays booming economy.
User avatar
eba
Have YOUR say
Posts: 299
Joined: Feb 2008

Postby eba » Sat Feb 23 2008, 05:14

I understand the imperative behind urging people to be members of the AFAP with regard to possible industrial action.
But the AFAP is there for more than this. We are advised that the "great" position the negotiations are in so far is because of the "outstanding assistance" provided by the AFAP senior industrial officer.
The theme of this thread would suggest that "oustanding" might not be the most accurate description of pilots reaction to the offer from the company.

The co-pilots in the company who have just been offered less than the captains must be most pleased with the outstanding assistance from the AFAP to achieve this result.

The AFAP was also involved in the negotiations which resulted in the time as FO prior to upgrade to SFO being moved from 2 years to 3 years. Many happy co-pilots after that great work.

Is the AFAP so concerned with it's 1% membership fee that is driving more at increases to Captains wages than co-pilots?
(Sorry that was a bit low, stike last comment from the record)

The point I guess I am hinting at is that the assistance from the AFAP shouldn't be given such good wraps for a performance which is clearly not at the required standard if we are trying to encourage non members to join.

Instead perhaps the other services that the AFAP provide might be better inducement to get people to join.
And yes I am a member.
User avatar
eba
Have YOUR say
Posts: 299
Joined: Feb 2008

Postby eba » Sat Feb 23 2008, 08:30

Clearly the pilot reps have done as much as they can, it is now up to and indeed the responsibility of the pilot group to back up and empower their reps but sending the company a very clear and unambiguous message. 100% No vote
User avatar
eba
Have YOUR say
Posts: 299
Joined: Feb 2008

Postby eba » Mon Feb 25 2008, 06:11

I have been here before and the only way to win is stand united and so "NO" to the current eba offer. We are already winning by having this web site to put our views down and pass info to other members. A good start ! Keep it up. Pass this web site and login to other pilots so every one is from the same song sheet and kept upto date with the latest developments. :)
User avatar
eba
Have YOUR say
Posts: 299
Joined: Feb 2008

Postby eba » Mon Feb 25 2008, 23:56

First Reserve Corporation to Acquire CHC Helicopter Corporation for Canadian $3.7 Billion in Largest-Ever Oilfield Services BuyoutGREENWICH, CONNECTICUT, HOUSTON, TEXAS, LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM, VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA --(Marketwire - Feb. 22, 2008) - CHC Helicopter Corporation ("CHC") (TSX:FLY.A)(TSX:FLY.B)(NYSE:FLI), the world's largest provider of helicopter services to the global offshore oil and gas industry, and First Reserve Corporation, the leading private equity firm that specializes in the energy industry, today announced that a fund managed by First Reserve has entered into an agreement to acquire CHC.

CHC and First Reserve believe that the all-cash transaction, which values the company at an adjusted enterprise value of Canadian $3.7 billion, is the largest-ever buyout in the oilfield services industry.

CHC's Chairman of the Board, Mark Dobbin commented, "I'm glad to see that First Reserve recognized the value that was created in CHC over the years, and was able to translate that value into a fair offer for all shareholders. I'm also very pleased to see that First Reserve will carry on CHC's legacy of entrepreneurship, as it builds upon CHC's position as a world class helicopter company."

"This partnership will help us realize our growth potential," said Sylvain Allard, President and Chief Executive Officer of CHC. "First Reserve is an investment company with deep knowledge of the energy industry and views CHC as a great investment platform. First Reserve has strong conviction in the merits of the strategy that has led to CHC's success and will work in partnership with us to continue to execute that same plan and achieve our long-term objectives."

Added Mark McComiskey, Managing Director of First Reserve Corporation, "CHC is an extraordinary company. The European and global leader in oil and gas and search and rescue helicopter services, with the world's largest independent helicopter support business, CHC has a worldwide footprint, the best safety record in the industry and a dynamic management team executing an exciting growth strategy."

Under the terms of the transaction, an affiliate of the First Reserve fund will acquire all outstanding Class A Subordinate Voting Shares and all of the outstanding Class B Multiple Voting Shares of CHC for Canadian $32.68 per Class A Share and Class B Share for an aggregate consideration of approximately Canadian $1.5 billion. Following completion of the transaction CHC's Class A shares and Class B shares will be de-listed and no longer traded publicly. CHC's headquarters will remain in Vancouver, Canada.

The board of directors of CHC has unanimously approved the entry by CHC into the agreement and recommends that shareholders vote in favour of the transaction.

Merrill Lynch Canada Inc. and Scotia Capital are financial advisors to CHC. Ogilvy Renault LLP and DLA Piper USA LLP are legal counsel to CHC. Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP and Slaughter and May are legal counsel to the First Reserve fund.

Notes on Terms of the Transaction

The transaction will be completed through a plan of arrangement under the provisions of the Canada Business Corporations Act, subject to the approval of the Supreme Court of British Columbia. Shareholders will be asked to approve the transaction at a special meeting of shareholders, to be called as directed by the Court. Details of the special meeting will be announced shortly. It is anticipated that a proxy circular will be prepared and mailed to shareholders in the month of March providing shareholders with important information about the transaction. Shareholders are urged to read the proxy circular once it is available.

The transaction will require the approval of two-thirds of the votes cast by holders of outstanding Class A Shares (1 vote per share), Class B Shares (10 votes per share) and ordinary shares (1 vote for every 10 shares), voting together as a single class. In addition, the transaction will require the approval of a majority of the Class A Shares, Class B Shares and Ordinary Shares, each voting as a separate class, and in each case excluding shares owned or over which control or direction is exercised by an "interested party" (as defined under applicable securities laws), which term includes certain members of management of CHC who may invest in an affiliate of the First Reserve Fund.

Completion of the transaction is subject to certain conditions, including obtaining approvals or confirmations from certain European aviation regulatory authorities as well as the Canada Transportation Agency regarding the granting or maintaining of required licenses and permits following completion of the transaction. The transaction will also be subject to a number of other customary conditions, including obtaining approval under the Investment Canada Act. The transaction is not subject to any financing condition.

CHC has been advised that the Estate of the late Craig L. Dobbin has entered into an agreement with the purchaser to vote the shares of CHC owned by the Estate in favour of the transaction and to otherwise support its completion, subject to the terms and conditions of such agreement. The Estate holds securities of CHC representing approximately 14%, 95% and 100%, respectively, of the outstanding Class A Shares, Class B Shares and ordinary shares respectively. The sole executor of the Estate is Mark D. Dobbin, the Chairman of CHC. Neither Mr. Dobbin nor the Estate will be entitled to invest in the affiliate of the First Reserve Fund and Mr. Dobbin will not be employed by CHC, the purchaser or any affiliate thereof.

The transaction will be financed through a combination of equity which has been committed by the First Reserve Fund and debt financing that has been committed by Morgan Stanley International and affiliates, in each case subject to the terms of those commitments. The agreement provides that in certain circumstances where the purchaser fails to complete the transaction as required, the purchaser would be required to pay to CHC a "reverse break fee" of Canadian $61.4 million. The First Reserve Fund has guaranteed certain obligations of the purchaser (including payment of the reverse break fee) to an amount not to exceed Canadian $61.4 million.

The agreement allows CHC to terminate the agreement in certain circumstances, including to allow CHC to accept a superior proposal, subject to fulfilling certain conditions, including the payment to the purchaser of a break fee of Canadian $38.5 million. This break fee would also be payable by CHC in certain other circumstances.

The closing of the transaction will take place after satisfaction or waiver of all conditions, including the approvals and confirmations from aviation regulatory authorities described above. While the timing associated with satisfying these conditions is not certain, CHC currently expects the transaction to close in the second calendar quarter of 2008, subject to the terms of the agreement.

Consummation of the transaction is not expected to require the consent of the holders of CHC's 7 3/8% senior subordinated notes due 2014. CHC may choose to make a tender offer and related consent solicitation for the senior subordinated notes prior to the completion of the transaction, conditioned on the closing of the transaction. In any event, if the transaction is completed, within 30 days of such completion, CHC will be required to offer to purchase all of the remaining issued and outstanding senior subordinated notes at a price equal to 101% of the principal amount thereof, plus accrued interest, if any, to the date of such purchase.

The purchaser also has the right to require CHC to redeem and/or discharge any or all of the senior subordinated notes in accordance with their terms, all to be effective immediately prior to completion of the transaction.

A conference call will take place today, Friday February 22, 2008 at 11:00 am EST. To listen to the conference call by phone, dial 416-641-6126 for local or overseas calls, or toll free 1-866-542-4236 for calls from within North America. To hear a replay of the conference call, dial 416-695-5800, or toll free 1-800-408-3053 and enter pass code 3253594 followed by the number sign.
User avatar
eba
Have YOUR say
Posts: 299
Joined: Feb 2008

Re: %

Postby eba » Wed Feb 27 2008, 12:12

I think it is great that people are having a say in this forum. it provides the oportunity to give your view, allows for differring views, clarification, correction and opportunity to strive for a common goal.

Clarification; I think some people are ill informed as to how Co-pilots went from 2 - 3 years, reduction in Darwin allowance,
and how the money is split! You may even fined that the reps from that EBA voted "NO" yet the agreement got up as a result of the "Pilot Group" voting yes. There were some positives to that same EBA, where even Co-Pilots benifited.

Common Goal; Why is it that we are voting NO? How much is it that we want? How are we going to achieve what we want.

Simply voting No isn't going to resolve it, everyone needs to know exactly what the target is and how we would plan to achieve it.

Keep up the dialog.

eba wrote:Recently Bristows were offered a pay rise based on Captains getting a Larger % pay rise than the Co-pilots, They rejected with the statement "we will not do a CHC on our guys". This is based on the last few EBA's where the pilot reps have been given a sum of money to split amongst the pilots and being Captains they have looked after there own interests.

What did this do for the moral of the people joining later. Darwin allowance became a big issue which split the company along those who joined before 2003 and after, in the end the balance was restored through action by a certain group. The 3 year SFO upgrade was another way to keep money in the Captains pool and not co-pilots. Why are our reps forgetting where they came from, accepting this half baked offer and setting us up for more years of distrust, envy and dissrespect for those that say yes to this unfair proposal. The costs of living are increasing greatly for all employees not just the Captains. If you need to offer an incentive to Captains then do it using the MECIR that is held by the Captain and which causes so much stress in this role.

Quite frankly if you cant see your worth these days with shortages and huge growth in the industry you should vote no and move on.

Dont create more problems by accepting this deal, it is pathetic in regards to CPI, it does include CPI in the figures as was confirmed yesterday. It is not reflective of todays labour market in Australia and can be payed for with the revenue from our customers with their huge after tax profits they are currently making.

Just remember, when CHC lost woodside before, people were layed off over night, thats what they think of you in a downturn so make as much as you can from them during a boom. Dont think that you will be looked after becasue you "did the right thing". Our management have shareholders to please and thats where they get their bunuses from not from keeping us happy.

VOTE NO, lets get back to the negotiation table for a fair and just Settlement in todays booming economy.
User avatar
eba
Have YOUR say
Posts: 299
Joined: Feb 2008

Postby eba » Thu Feb 28 2008, 07:56

ANSWERS TO YOUR QUESTIONS GUYS

Hi Guys,

I thought I might answer some questions for you guys and give you some food for thought. I myself will be voting
NO for the EBA.

CHC and Bristow are indeed both tendering for the Woodside contract this year and yes they cannot tender for the contract if their pilot body is infact taking out industrial action against the companies.

This is one of the reasons CHC want to bring our EBA forward so they can tender for contracts uniterrupted.

Bristow Pilot's as we speak, have given notice to their company that they will be working to their EBA, or, maybe even taking industrial action in order to achieve their pay rise.

Bristow reps have told me that they will accept nothing less than [b]30% straight up plus CPI every year for the remainder of their EBA.
. That is, 30%+(3.5%+3.5%+3.5%). This is infact around 40%.

Why on earth should we accept 25% which includes CPI for the life of the contract. If you assume that we achieve 3.5% CPI each year for life of our EBA, that means we receive 25%-3.5%-3.5%-3.5% which equals a 14.5% payrise. A big diference from Bristows 30% payrise.

Have a good think about your future and your families future, and if you would like to pay your mortgage off quicker. If the answer is yes, than vote NO for the proposed new EBA.

The company are saying it is a good deal and why wouldn't they. I am sure if you were buying a new car you would bargain over the price. Why not do the same for our EBA.

The company will come back after the NO vote with another proposal and you may be surprised with the second offer.

They are actually worried about the Bristow EBA, and so they should be.

The new company who have just made an offer to purchase, will have no effect on our new EBA. Don't let that be a factor in your decision to vote.

After making quite a few phone calls to both EMS, SAR and Off-shore bases it is quite apparent that nearly all pilot's will be voting "NO" for the proposed new EBA.

We should accept nothing less than a 25%-30% payrise with CPI added after the fact for the life of the EBA. That is, 30%+3.5%+3.5%+3.5%.

This is the thinking of nearlly all pilot's I have personally spoke with.

Stand tall and look forward to our future.

Regards,

One of the boys.



[/b]

Return to “EBA Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests