Aircraft Purchase Contracts — As shown in the table below, we expect to make additional capital expenditures over the next five fiscal years to purchase additional aircraft. As of June 30, 2012, we had 17 aircraft on order and options to acquire an additional 36 aircraft. Although a similar number of our existing aircraft may be sold during the same period, the additional aircraft on order will provide incremental fleet capacity in terms of revenue and operating income.

			Nine Months Ending		Fiscal Year Ending March 31,
			March 31, 2013		2014		2015		2016		2017 and thereafter		Total
Commitments as of June 30, 2012:
	Number of aircraft:
		Large ⁽¹⁾⁽²⁾		7		4		3		2		1		17
				7		4		3		2		1		17
		Related expenditures (in thousands)	$	158,619	$	58,268	$	46,103	$	30,582	$	13,771	$	307,343

Options as of June 30, 2012:
	Number of aircraft:
		Medium		0		5		5		2		0		12
		Large		0		3		4		7		10		24
				0		8		9		9		10		36
		Related expenditures (in thousands)	$	87,062	$	170,991	$	175,707	$	184,890	$	194,487	$	813,137

⁽¹⁾	Signed client contracts are currently in place that will utilize five of these aircraft. Six aircraft expected to enter service between fiscal years 2015 and 2017 are subject to the successful development and certification of the aircraft.

⁽²⁾	Includes progress payments on aircraft scheduled to be delivered in future periods.

The following chart presents an analysis of our aircraft orders and options during the three months ended June 30, 2012:

		Orders		Options
Beginning of period			15		40
	Aircraft delivered		(2)		0
	Exercised options		4		(4)
End of period			17		36

We periodically purchase aircraft for which we have no order. During the three months ended June 30, 2012, we purchased one large aircraft which was not on order.

Operating Leases — We have non-cancelable operating leases in connection with the lease of certain equipment, land and facilities, including leases for aircraft. Rental expense incurred under all operating leases, except for those with terms of a month or less that were not renewed, was $16.3 million and $9.0 million for the three months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011, respectively.

We have initiated a new financing strategy whereby we will be using operating leases to a larger extent than in the past. As part of this operating lease strategy, in fiscal year 2012 we sold seven aircraft for $147.8 million and entered into seven separate agreements to lease back these aircraft. Additionally, in fiscal year 2012, we transferred our interest in two aircraft previously included in construction in progress within property and equipment on our consolidated balance sheet in return for $23.4 million in progress payments previously paid on these aircraft. We also signed two separate agreements to lease back these aircraft, commencing at time of delivery, which occurred July 27, 2012 for the first aircraft and is currently anticipated to occur during the second quarter of fiscal year 2013 for the second aircraft. We did not enter into any new aircraft operating leases with terms in excess of one year during the three months ended June 30, 2012.

The aircraft leases entered into in fiscal year 2012 range from base terms of 60 to 72 months with renewal options of up to 72 months in some cases, include purchase options upon expiration and some include early purchase options. The leases contain terms customary in transactions of this type, including provisions that allow the lessor to repossess the aircraft and require us to pay a stipulated amount if we default on our obligations under the agreements. The following is a summary of the terms related to aircraft leased under operating leases with original or remaining terms in excess of one year:


End of Lease Term	Number of Aircraft		Monthly Lease Payments (in thousands)
Fiscal year 2013 to fiscal year 2015		6	$	1,010
Fiscal year 2016 to fiscal year 2018		7		1,200
Fiscal year 2023		9		350
		22	$	2,560

Employee Agreements — Approximately 51% of our employees are represented by collective bargaining agreements and/or unions. These agreements generally include annual escalations of up to 12%. Periodically, certain groups of our employees who are not covered by a collective bargaining agreement consider entering into such an agreement.

During the three months ended June 30, 2012, we recognized $2.2 million in compensation expense included in direct cost related to severance costs as a result of the termination of a contract in the Southern North Sea. Also, during the three months ended June 30, 2012, we recognized approximately $2.0 million in compensation expense (including expenses recorded for the acceleration of unvested stock options and restricted stock) included in general and administrative expense related to the separation between us and our Senior Vice President and General Counsel.

Nigerian Litigation — In November 2005, two of our consolidated foreign affiliates were named in a lawsuit filed with the High Court of Lagos State, Nigeria by Mr. Benneth Osita Onwubalili and his affiliated company, Kensit Nigeria Limited, which allegedly acted as agents of our affiliates in Nigeria. The claimants allege that an agreement between the parties was terminated without justification and seek damages of $16.3 million. We responded to this claim in early 2006. There has been minimal activity on this claim since then.

Civil Class Action Lawsuit — On June 12, 2009, Superior Offshore International, Inc. v. Bristow Group Inc., et al, Case No. 1:09-cv-00438, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The purported class action complaint, which also named other providers of offshore helicopter services in the Gulf of Mexico as defendants, alleged violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Among other things, the complaint alleged that the defendants unlawfully conspired to raise and maintain the price of offshore helicopter services between January 1, 2001 and December 31, 2005. The plaintiff was seeking to represent a purported class of direct purchasers of offshore helicopter services and was asking for, among other things, unspecified treble monetary damages and injunctive relief. In September 2010, the court granted our and the other defendants' motion to dismiss the case on several grounds. The plaintiff then filed a motion seeking a rehearing and seeking leave to amend its original complaint, which was partially granted to permit limited discovery. We and the other defendants again filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit, which were granted. The plaintiff appealed the judgment in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On July 27, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled in our favor on all points and upheld the dismissal of the case. We are unable to predict whether the plaintiff will further appeal this case. If so, we will continue to defend against this lawsuit vigorously. We are currently unable to determine whether it could have a material effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Environmental Contingencies — The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, also referred to as the EPA, has in the past notified us that we are a potential responsible party, or PRP, at three former waste disposal facilities that are on the National Priorities List of contaminated sites. Under the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, also known as the Superfund law, persons who are identified as PRPs may be subject to strict, joint and several liability for the costs of cleaning up environmental contamination resulting from releases of hazardous substances at National Priorities List sites. Although we have not yet obtained a formal release of liability from the EPA with respect to any of the sites, we believe that our potential liability in connection with the sites is not likely to have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Guarantees — We had guaranteed the repayment of up to £10 million ($15.7 million) of the debt of FBS Limited, an unconsolidated affiliate, which has been repaid. Therefore, as of June 30, 2012 we are no longer a guarantor of this debt.

Other Matters — Although infrequent, aircraft accidents have occurred in the past, and the related losses and liability claims have been covered by insurance subject to deductible, self-insured retention and loss sensitive factors.

We are a defendant in certain claims and litigation arising out of operations in the normal course of business. In the opinion of management, uninsured losses, if any, will not be material to our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.