Home › Forums › General › Guess what I’ve just heard/read? › Subsea 7 drop West Africa Allowance
- This topic has 37 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 6 months ago by
Ray Shields.
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 10, 2009 at 12:20 pm #2384
thinsub
ParticipantSubsea 7 has just put out a letter saying that the West Africa allowance has been withdrawn except in Nigeria.
They have said that the infrastucture of the other countries has improved significantly, with the company also having significant cost challenges, UK working time regulations and on and on. Oh and the Global market is getting tougher.
I can’t see any improvement at all if anything the roads are worse with more traffic crime has gone up the airports are a nightmare, still can’t get to a phone or a computer when I get in the country or othe boat.
Subsea allowance was already less than half of what other companies pay.
Not happy, was the drop in the value of the pound not a big enough saving for them?
Thinners
April 10, 2009 at 2:47 pm #22893DJansen
ParticipantNot just Subsea 7.. Alotl the companies are trying it on.. Mumbling about ‘cost cutting’ .. Funny how they cut the costs at the coal face.. How about reducing the amount of hangers on in the office ?
Despite the ‘global downturn’ the oil companies are still in good shape and still want to get the oil/gas out of the ground.. In a few weeks time when the weather improves in Europe and the season starts there will be the usual scamble for personel. Dunno about SS& but many of the companies have new subs/vessels on order and they will need to get crew from somewhere. Offering crap rates and reducing incentives isn’t going to encourage loyalty (or interest) in their staff.. That combined with the state of the pound is hardly going to encourage crew from other regions to travel is it ?
Leave Asia/Oz to go to West Africa for 400 quid and no bonus.. Not fookin likely when you can make half as much again nearer to home with no travel or risk…
Maybe I’m wrong but I thought all the companies had enough trouble getting guys to go to W Africa anyway without lowering the pay ( th emain reason that guys agree to go) If the money is the same as working in the N Sea or the Med.. why bother ?
Maybe the companies are going to go over to cheap local labour like Saipem ? Talk about a zoo …. 😛
If I was you I’d email all the other guys you know and together say that you won’t be returning to Africa as it’s not worth it finacially..
You’ll be suprised how quick the orifice back pedals…. Despite what they want you to believe there just isn’t a huge box of ROV guys that they can simply open up… And if there was none of them would want to go to darkest Africa for the same money as a trip to UK waters..
April 10, 2009 at 4:00 pm #22894rovnumpty
ParticipantNormally, and in regards to most other companies, I’d agreed with you DJansen
But SS7 are a law unto themselves. They have an ability to brainwash their employees which is as impressive as it is frighteneing.
I can gaurentee their will be very little grumbling in the ranks as most subsea bods think there is only ONE ROV company in the world, and their working for it.
April 10, 2009 at 4:44 pm #22895JL Schnabel
Participantdoes 🙄 anyone 🙄 know, if Oceaneering have scrapped their West Africa bonus as well? (except for, of course, Nigeria… 😉 )
April 10, 2009 at 11:41 pm #22896ParticipantMaybe Subsea 7 could still afford the West Africa allowance if they had there AGM somewhere sensible instead of the Cayman Islands.
April 11, 2009 at 9:19 am #22897James McLauchlan
ParticipantWest Africa is a dangerous, insecure place. Don’t discuss it with them. Say No! unless the allowance is in place. Stick to your guns on the matter, don’t just whinge and later go anyway.
It’s worth remembering that the allowance came about to help entice people down there whom otherwise would say…. North sea or home. as used to happen. People would leave a company if they tried to force them to work down there.
I’m sure the people making this ‘cost saving’ judgements have not ventured down to that sunny part of the world so have no clue as to why a bonus is needed. They obviously don’t watch the news either!
I was never willing to go to Africa at the best of times and still wouldn’t go unless I was regular with a company, going to a good boat, and the allowance was in place. +10% on the rate.
It’s wrong! Those of you being shafted over this need to start looking for work in a safer region of the world. I for one think that any company dropping the allowance has a blind cheek… and that’s me being diplomatic 😉
Those of you that buckle, and go without an allowance, aren’t doing yourself, your family or our side of the industry any favours at all.
If you have to go without the allowance, for say financial commitments, you need to review your spending policies so that you are in a much stronger position when needing to make decisions such as this.
Companies rely on perceived weakness in individuals to help sway the majority.best regards
James McApril 11, 2009 at 10:07 am #22898ParticipantSo SS7 need to save some money eh? Cost cutting needed?
Don’t let anyone try to convince you that they are struggling in these so called difficult times. As somebody pointed out look where their AGM is to be held!Factual figures gleaned from SS7 2008 preliminary year end results for 2008 report available to the public domain at: http://www.subsea7.com/inv_forum.php?in=20&n=18&id=54
Full Year 2008
Revenue to year end:2007: USD 2,187.4 million
2008: USD 2,373.3 millionSo the revenue for last year was up USD $185.9 million over the previous year.
Also from SS7 2008 preliminary year end results for 2008:
OUTLOOK
Whilst the market outlook will retain a degree of uncertainty for the medium term as a result of the current economic climate, there has been no dramatic deterioration in the subsea market sector. Current indications are that National Oil Companies and major operators are generally maintaining spending levels. The recent announcement from
Petrobras advising of a projected increase in Exploration & Production spending over the next 5 years from USD 65 billion to USD 105 billion supports this view.However, as expected, the anticipated spending of smaller operators has been reduced and, as a consequence, a number of development plans have been re-evaluated and deferred. This has particularly affected the UK Sector of the North Sea (Norway remaining stable) and the Gulf of Mexico where a number of tie-back projects have been postponed.
There are indications of decreases in costs throughout the supply chain and, in conjunction with this, the Company is focused on reducing its costs and improving efficiencies in order to remain competitive in the current market.
So there you go…… doing well, looking after their shareholders and focused on reducing costs by also cutting out….
Let go back to discussing the Africa allowance and the reason this thread was started…..
From what I read into it, if you look at SS7 outlook (in the report) they see that activity may drop off in the UK sector of North sea. That might mean sending more of their trusted workers to Africa.
Oops.. The 10% uplift raises it’s head…. can’t be doing that…. cut it out!So they did.
Now where do I sign up 😉
April 11, 2009 at 2:13 pm #22899shaf-ted
ParticipantHow on earth can [Initials removed] say the infrastructure has improved neither him or his cronnies have been near the area.What about the malaria,long flights,threat of being robbed,food poisoning ,having to work with the smelly,theiving locals,etc , if they gave us business class well then yes it would be an improvement instead of being stuck in an economy seat with 2 fat blokes either side snoring continually,(never seem to get a pair of thin blondes).
It is just another cost cutting exercise but instead of telling the truth about the matter its the usaul [Initials removed] response trying to hide it under some other tag.
April 11, 2009 at 7:27 pm #22900ROVRatt
ParticipantLess and less expats will be working Angola soon anyway due to visa requirements.
Only 3 short term visas of 15 days at a time allowed per person. Application for long term work visa of 1 year involves submitting all documents and qualifications including police clearance not more than 6 months old.
Forget to submit ALL the docs in time for re-issue the next year and you’re banned for at least a year. Massive fines as well.
April 12, 2009 at 1:22 am #22901Participant🙄 talk about shooting yourself in the foot 🙄
they’re making it more and more difficult (on purpose of course…) for expats to work in Angola.
good luck to getting that crude to the surface 😉April 12, 2009 at 12:05 pm #22902ParticipantGood points, but can we please continue with the topic of this thread which is a discussion on SS7 dropping the uplift for Africa.
They obviously feel they can get away with in under the guise of saving on costs. When those in the office show that they are taking similar cuts then maybe they will have a point.
Until that comes about I feel it is wrong, and I would vote with my feet if I were working for SS7 or was offered agency work to go there for them without the uplift.
It’s simply not on!
April 12, 2009 at 7:08 pm #22903ParticipantHi James:
Until that comes about I feel it is wrong, and I would vote with my feet if I were working for SS7 or was offered agency work to go there for them without the uplift.
My point exactly. If you’re not working for a company there is no way you can get a 1 year visa from the Petroleum Ministry in Angola. So forget getting in on a short term visa with an agency for more than three trips of 15 days each. Afterwards you get a blue stamp in your passport denying further entry to Angola.
April 12, 2009 at 9:05 pm #22904ParticipantHi James:
Until that comes about I feel it is wrong, and I would vote with my feet if I were working for SS7 or was offered agency work to go there for them without the uplift.
……………Afterwards you get a blue stamp in your passport denying further entry to Angola.
Cheers, I get the idea, but who would want a 1 year visa for Africa? I would do it as a very rare fill in, but not a year! In 23 years I have been there twice and that was enough.
In short, I could live with a short term visa knowing that later I may not be able to go again because it is beyond my control. That way there is no reason to say no, and upset people.
I still stand by what I said though… not paying an uplift? Not even talking about going.
April 12, 2009 at 9:56 pm #22905rigwash
Participantahh once again we have all the big talkers. All fine sentiments which i agree with but the realities will always be…someone will go.
Especially if works a bit scarceThe thing that gets me is, that 1 of the guys that talks pretty big on here on subjects like this offered to go out on a job a few months back for considerably less than his usual spvsr rate. well fair enough but don’t get on here and blow ass (funny how this stuff gets out eh?)
it’s like james says, if you stack a few pingers away during the good times you can afford to say no to shite like this and you do.
a few that talk this hard ball should follow some of there own advice
April 13, 2009 at 5:37 pm #22906Scott Beveridge
ParticipantRigwash,
There’s a lot of old hands (a lot older than yourself) that are and were doing just that. Waiting for some sorry company or other to call them and ask for – ready for this? – for a reduction in dayrate…. go out and fix / repair / rebuild the systems that some young inexperienced one-year wonder supervisor made a mess of…. This industry has really gone to the dogs!
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
