Army route checks the RAF

[ATMonkey]

I've just heard that the Army are in the process of 'route checking' all AT routes, to make sure we're doing what it says on the tin.

We have enough to worry about, without an Army Colonel demanding to know why you were 20 minutes late departing.

Good? Bad?

[OKOC]

So where did you "hear" this or is this another wind up/fishing story. I note this is your first post.:cool:

[SASless]

I've just heard that the Army are in the process of 'route checking' all AT routes, to make sure we're doing what it says on the tin.

We have enough to worry about, without an Army Colonel demanding to know why you were 20 minutes late departing.

Good? Bad?

Perhaps the "customer" is wanting his money's worth? You reckon they might suggest contracting out passenger hauls to more capable operations could follow from this?

[BEagle]

So it's a sort of 'Customer Service Survey' as SASless rightly states?

Not a bad idea - if it's conducted in the right spirit.

We used to have to submit an entry in the aircraft diary if we were more than 20 min late off blocks - I never did learn what happened to all that data though. There must have been quite a lot of it, judging by all the paperwork delays, cocked up head counts and unreasonably tight planned turn round times I saw in my brief experience of AT.

Although "We were late because we had to recover a passenger life vest stolen by some thieving squaddie" might not go down too well with Woopert of the Wedgiment.... It happened to me once after a Turnhouse to Hannover trip; the movers had worked hard in the hot weather to get the jet unloaded and loaded in the turn round time, but the ALM found that one of the pax life vests was on its way to some squaddie barracks or other - the bus was stopped by the MPs and the life vest returned.

Not the fault of the RAF, that particular delay!

[Saintsman]

I don't suppose "Unless I get some lemon for my tea, I'm not going" will go down too well either.

[Blakey875]

I heard about this yesterday and it's true - consequence of the TA MP tirade. What worries the guys on the ground is that the said 'inquisitive' pongo will head straight for the youngest airman with white knees and grill him about what is happening with the turnround.

[Widger]

Here we go........same old, "if he hasn't got two wings on a light blue chest, he couldn't possibly have a brain and will not know what he is talking about!!!:= := := :=

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

Blakey,

"What worries the guys on the ground is that the said 'inquisitive' pongo will head straight for the youngest airman with white knees and grill him about what is happening with the turnround."

As the young airman with white knees is almost certainly going to be a mover, and as movers as we all know to our cost are the main reason for AT being delayed what you allude to seems perfectly reasonable to me:p

[Blakey875]

ABIW - Always causing mischief and it must hurt to be so right all the time. Your comment is of course not true but you must get in your 5 bleats a day.... What is worrying is that a lot of young airmen are now being deployed who are straight out of training but lack experience and sometimes still don't have all the ticks in the boxes because of manpower shortages. I believe a large percentage of the RAuxAF sqn are also on the Detachments and some theatres like the Balkans are now fully manned by them. it'll be interesting to see what the Army trapper discovers! It's also amazing that one third of the JHSU who support SH are also movers but they never get slagged off - must be a fixed wing J Loadie thing only?


Roll on 2012

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

Blakey,

I think you will find that it's all to do with the units name. It's the Joint Helicopter SUPPORT Unit and in my 3 Puma tours I can vouch for the fact that SUPPORT is exactly what they do:D

Only wish the "S" in UK MAMS or the new AMS moniker stood for support:rolleyes:

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

Ratty,

"Are you suggesting that the RAF is not training its Movers to a sufficient standard to be deployed safely?"

Did the RAF ever train it's movers to a sufficient standard, especially with regards to motorised vehicels, to be safely deployed anywhere:p

[Blakey875]

Ratty - No they are trained to operate safely but some only have the basic skills and so cannot operate all the support equipment. This in turn puts pressure on the others or sadly compels the supervisor sometimes to operate the kit himself losing total control as he is operating a piece of ACHE (Air Cargo Handling Equipment) - Does that clarify?
Roll on 2012

[Blakey875]

OMG!! - RTFQ! if you are a Supervisor you should not be operating any equipment otherwise someone else is telling you what to do. He/She didn't lose control of a piece of ACHE.....
Roll on 2012

[November4]

And yet another thread about AT as a whole descends into a let's slag the movers off :bored: :bored: :bored:

[Saintsman]

Tea? Tea? Its a transport aircraft not a transport cafe!!!!!!!!!!!:rolleyes:

I heard it said from a Shiney 10 captain. Most put out he was.

[Talking Radalt]

Here we go........same old, "if he hasn't got two wings on a light blue chest, he couldn't possibly have a brain and will not know what he is talking about!!!:= := := :=

Much like the "If you're not wearing cam cream you probably never go out in the rain so we're not even gonna listen to you" :hmm:

[HEDP]

The army effectively "route checks" the AT continuously and to date AT has been found "wanting"!
I guess by giving some warning of a particular "check" it will give a chance to improve things and achieve an acceptable service.
:E
The plane no longer departing when intended will now leave...........

[Twopack]

The army effectively "route checks" the AT continuously and to date AT has been found "wanting"!


Really?

Presumably you've seen the reports by the Army and have documentary evidence to prove this?

[wg13_dummy]

Really?

Presumably you've seen the reports by the Army and have documentary evidence to prove this?


Appears Parliament have and most of the MoD hence the close eye being kept on how they operate. :hmm:

[SamCaine]

Looks like a nerve being struck. :rolleyes:

[engoal]

And yet another thread about AT as a whole descends into a let's slag the movers off :bored: :bored: :bored:

You say that like it's a bad thing........

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

Or like you can't understand why, I mean surely it's perfectly natural for the rest of the Military to do it, bearing in mind the service they offer:E

[Pontius Navigator]

Funny that, 20 years and over 5000 hrs of flying the Army around the world and unaware of any report being written on me.

Lucky old you. I have been one of the chosen report writers; a thankless task.

[wg13_dummy]

Ignorance is bliss as they say, Twopack.

[Comp Charlie]

ABIW - what a card eh? If only he dedicated some of his obviously copious amounts of free time to learning a bit about what he is so quick to slag off then maybe Movers and Loadies may be able to meet in the middle from time to time and not pull in different directions.

For every horror story a loadie has about a Movements Team I guarantee that every Mover has a horror story about an ALMs ineptitude and inflexibility.

Fortunately though we don't tend to air our dirty laundry in public (as often) as this particular character.

Now, back on topic...the Army are Route Checking RAF AT Routes eh?

Never let the Army EVER dare moan and bitch when one of their illustrious officers is nominated as the Passenger Reporting Officer in that case. Seems to me that now they are thrusting themselves forward for the job, and I for one will endeavor to oblige.

From now on I will ensure that on every flight I have any dealings with this job will go to an Army Officer. This way it saves them having to put someone specifically on the flight for Route Checking purposes and there is ALREADY a proforma that (should) be filled out with comments both good and bad and returned in the pre-paid envelope to the organisation formerly known as DTMA.

Amazing hey? A system already in place that is mis-utilised. I'm sure time, effort and money will be spent putting in place something entirely different though.

CC

ps Oh yes, as a footnote - apparently (according to ABIW) the majority of delays are down to the fault of Movers...care to back up your accusation with facts matey? Thought not...

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

CC,

I guess that will be a bit of a nibble:p

"ps Oh yes, as a footnote - apparently (according to ABIW) the majority of delays are down to the fault of Movers...care to back up your accusation with facts matey? Thought not..."

I love the Loadie/Mover banter and rarely like to "air" in public but you did ask me to substantiate my claim:(

Last year I was lucky enough to ONLY spend 8 weeks in either Basrah or Kandahar,many good folks I know spent much longer. I worked in both locations with some top movers and Atlo staff however it's a fact that in my own experience well over 50% of my trips were late departing due to some sort of movements issue.

I know that there is always a bigger picture and when Col Mustard is hopping up and down because his multi million pound four tonner is scheduled to leave with out him, or priority freight/pax turn up late or the fork's simply give up the ghost it's not always as simple as the bleedin movers again, but invariably as often very honestly admitted to by the DAMO, movers or Atlo staff it was. Head counts screwed up, baggage/freight not prep'd, paperwork not completed, shift change etc etc were all daily occurrences I am sad to say.

I know we are not BA or Virgin and simply shutting the doors and leaving on time is not an option so I am not sure what the solution is but what I do know is that from a crew point of view being late is like playing your joker, you can do it once,and once only and get away with it:eek:

PS ALM's are rarely inflexible as they know which rules can and can't be broken and are only ever accused of inflexability when they insist on having put right the mistakes of those who themselves should know better:=

[BluntedAtBirth]

The army effectively "route checks" the AT continuously and to date AT has been found "wanting"!
I guess by giving some warning of a particular "check" it will give a chance to improve things and achieve an acceptable service.
:E
The plane no longer departing when intended will now leave...........

Well there has been a battlegroup in Afganistan for nearly a year and we haven't won yet - should we send the RAF Regiment over to QA the Army/RM processes? What about Northern Ireland - Op BANNER has lasted 38 years - slackers.

We might spend out time more usefully on here understanding why there are problems than indulging in pointless inter-service or inter-trade squabbles.

On reflection, I am not sure the internet is about useful passage of one's time...

[3 bladed beast]

What I have found in my time on the AT fleet is that we are generally a bunch of good guys trying to do the best we can with massive budget cuts, lack of man power and lack of support from our government.

We have been asked to do far more than is reasonably expected and this is half the reason people are leaving in large numbers.

I have had many bad experiences with movers,police, guards etc etc BUT these guys are in the same situation as us - i.e they are under manned, over worked and stretched, and I'm sure these guys have had bad experiences with aircrew.

But like always, we have to fight amongst ourselves, slag off eachother and not look at the far bigger picture. That bigger picture, quite simply, is lack of funding, investment and support from our Government and lack of backbone from our military hierachy to say so.

[3 bladed beast]

And lets not mention the army absolutely destroying a perfectly serviceable Basrah International Airport when they took it in GW2.... ripping up the tasteful marble floor, playing dodgems with the fire engines, wrecking runway lighting etc etc....

[diginagain]

Of course, it'd be 'high-spirits' if it was perfectly servicable OM that got trashed, carpets ripped up, fire-extinguisers discharged, light-bulbs lobbed around?

[Roland Pulfrew]

Of course, it'd be 'high-spirits' if it was perfectly servicable OM that got trashed, carpets ripped up, fire-extinguisers discharged, light-bulbs lobbed around?

Only if you pitched up first thing the next morning with a cheque book in hand to pay for any damage inadvertantly caused during the outbreak of high spirits;)

[diginagain]

Fair comment.

(I wish there was a tongue-in-cheek smiley, trouble is it'd look like smiley-simulating-a-BJ).

[Talking Radalt]

One wonders how many other aspects of military operations at home and abroad would now be under scrutiny if only a TA wupert who also happened to be an MP had gained personal experience of it's short comings?
I guess if what's-his-face's house had burnt down during Fresco, the entire fleet of Green Goddi wouldn't currently be sitting in a disposal yard (yours for a couple of thousand quid each), and if he'd been kept waiting in a hospital queue, to then be seen by an Army doctor, no doubt they'd all be checked out by the Navy!

[3 bladed beast]

Din again - many apologies if you're tone is sarcastic (its hard to tell on here) but....

The impact of what the army did, which went largely unreported, was that the runway was unlit for a long time, no approach lights,inadequate fire cover and it cost millions to replace and repair!!!

They also took the pleasure of sh1tting in every single room possible, meaning alot of rooms and facilities were condemned for a very long time....:=

[diginagain]

No apology necessary, 3bb. There's no way I would condone such behaviour.

[3 bladed beast]

diginagain,

But I will apologise for getting your name wrong in my last post!

An honest mistake made by a thick aircrew mate!

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

I'm not sure what this adds to the debate but, for what it's worth, the link http://www.mercopress.com/vernoticia.do?id=7094&formato=HTML may be interesting. It's not a MoD publication and only relates to the South Atlantic but is, nonetheless, a valid insight. The salient paragraph is; "when travelling on the Airbridge if there are any points that any passenger wishes to raise they should do so with the Passenger Reporting Officer (PRO), said Captain Philippson. "The PRO is a nominated senior military officer at the Lt Cdr/Maj/Sqn Ldr/ level travelling on the flight who is tasked with monitoring the performance of the service provided and completes a written report on each flight. Any comment on the service, positive or negative, should be passed on to him or her so that feedback will be passed on to the appropriate area at the time the issues arise. During your flight the PRO can be contacted via the cabin crew".

As you will see, the PRO doesn't have to be a Brown Job; it can be any SO2. There are DLO iterations of this arrangement but the Commercial one seems more succinct. This aligns with all the current QA expectations and is part of DSCOM's (DTMA as was) performance measurement against its agreed targets.

[BluntedAtBirth]

GBZ, the PRO process was more appropiate for those kinder, gentler times when we had vaguely sufficient assest to deliver an airbridge to the Falklands and various bits of the Services to interesting and challenging exercises somewhere other than Salisbury Plain. If the cabin crew on the SA run are useless then you should certainly let the system know.

What we face today is a number of airbridges to more theatres than we are resourced to operate to, moving more pax and freight than we have for years (Berlin Airlift?), using a limited number of increasingly old (argueably obsolescent according to other, civil users) aircraft with critical limitations on er essential equipment. I am not sure there is a suitable from for registering a complaint about this, save the one you get to fill in every 4-5 years in a ballot box...

[Comp Charlie]

Exactly my point on the previous page GBF...

There is a system already in place for monitoring and reporting on RAF AT Routes, it just so happens that in my experience the SO2's nominated for it generally see it as beneath them or that they are being 'dicked' and a lot of the time the reports are not filled out. Although DTMA may disagree with this as they are obviously the ones who get the feedback when it is sent.

I can assure you though that the necessary people do act on things that are mentioned in these PRO reports if it is constructive and not just whinging.

You are correct in saying that the PRO can be nominated from any of the Services, but my point was that if the Army are deeming it necessary to invoke their own form of Route-Checking then I will endeavor to oblige and from now on always nominate an Army SO2 for the job of PRO.

As I see it there is little or no point to this latest initiative because a system already exists for it. But I wonder how many man hours are being wasted on it as we speak...?

CC

[Comp Charlie]

I am not sure there is a suitable from for registering a complaint about this, save the one you get to fill in every 4-5 years in a ballot box...

BAB - sorry our posts conflicted there...

I can assure you that it is laid down policy for a PRO to be nominated for every single RAF AT Pax route, be it Cyprus, Falklands, Gulf etc.

Now I can't vouch for the fact that all PRO's are briefed correctly but in the pack-up it explains exactly what this task entails, including procedures on unscheduled diversions, complete passenger manifests and all salient details about the flight.

One of my previous jobs was in Ascension and it was part of my duty to call the PRO forward and find out if there had been any problems on the first leg of the flight and to then back-brief the passengers on the name of the PRO and where he was sat on the aircraft so that any comments could be given directly to them and they had the necessary paperwork to fill in and send back to DTMA.

Surprisingly for the amount of bitching that goes on about the service provided not many people actually get off their arse and speak to the right people, preferring instead to air their whinges in inappropriate arenas such as web-based discussion forums.

One of the things that came out of my personal chats with the PRO's was the facilities for Pax in Ascension and the upshot of that was these comments were taken further and funds were found to provide more creature comforts (but unfortunately the alcohol ban remained - a legacy of the behaviour of British Army pax during a delay...different story)

So you see, the system can and does work if used correctly.

CC

[Ken Scott]

[SIZE=2] "The PRO is a nominated senior military officer at the Lt Cdr/Maj/Sqn Ldr/ level travelling on the flight [/FONT]

As a JO returning from the Falklands in the early 90s I was made the PRO, despite there being alot of SOs on board. I rather got the impression that it was a menial admin duty that they couldn't be bothered with, & that there was little to do provided the ac didn't divert when I would have been the liason between pax & crew for hotac etc. The job was 'sold' to me by a mover on the basis that I would get a whole row of seats to myself to sleep on! Don't remember being asked to complete any forms though, & certainly noone complained to me.

[Zoom]

Just in case anyone out there wishes that RAF AT would provide a service more like the airlines, just look at the pig's ear that BA made of the its baggage handling when the chips were down and looks like never resolving properly. We should remember that for the AT fleet, and for virtually every other part of HM Armed Forces, the chips are down for most of the time. And nobody goes on strike.

[Comp Charlie]

And therein lies the problem - the SO2's DO see it as beneath them as I mentioned above...but in my experience the quickest ones to whinge when things don't go their way. You can't have it both ways chaps...we give you a forum and method in which to comment and then you don't use it...! And go and think up half-baked plans on route-checking the RAF!!

In the absence of an SO2 (or if they refuse to do it) the task of PRO is quite often given to an SO3. Personally, I would like to see the PRO be an experienced SNCO or even WO (if any on board) as when it comes to the task of arranging HOTAC and Transport for diverted/ delayed Pax they would have a bit more clout about them than a dis-interested Major for instance. And at the end of the day if this scenario did occur then said Major is just going to nominate a SNCO to do it for him anyway!!

When I used to brief the PRO halfway into their journey at the stop off on the rock they used to go wide-eyed when I told them it was their responsibility to get involved in the event of a diversion on the next leg.

Just for the record as well, the PRO doesn't strictly have to organise HOTAC etc from scratch - the DMO at Andover is contacted and sets the wheels in motion, the PRO is just there to be the 'man on the ground' and point of contact in effect. Crew won't do it as they need their beddy-byes...(they go to get steaming in local hostelry!)

CC

[BluntedAtBirth]

As a JO returning from the Falklands in the early 90s I was made the PRO, despite there being alot of SOs on board. I rather got the impression that it was a menial admin duty that they couldn't be bothered with, & that there was little to do provided the ac didn't divert when I would have been the liason between pax & crew for hotac etc.

I think you will find that was a 'character building' activity to 'broaden your experience'...

[Wader2]

I think you will find that was a 'character building' activity to 'broaden your experience'...

Yeah, right on, one I neither needed or wanted having just spent 6 months receiving the crews in and out.

Yes it is a chore. Reporting how the system works is one thing. Sorting out a potential mess on the ground on diversion might be good experience but as a one-off suddenly expected to become OIC troops of various ranks, services and others - no thanks. They want a ground loadie - then fly one on the sortie.

[Comp Charlie]

But therein lies the problem again...

It is seen as a chore and therefore doesn't get done properly. The first time the people who can get things changed for the better get to hear about any problem is if they happen to visit this website or aarse for example...

Again I put it to the floor that there is already a forum available for checking and commenting on issues with AT but it doesn't get used. But it is not the fault of the PRO system, it is the fault of those nominated to do the job of PRO failing in their task...

If as an SO2 you gave an airman a job and he failed to do it would you take further action? Of course you would. So why in that case can responsibility be shirked in the case of PRO duties? Duty of Care to passengers is a responsibility of not only the crew but also the passengers nominated representative - the PRO.

Failing to submit that report, even if a 'nil comment' return on the form should be an offence like any other dereliction of duty IMHO.

:=

But what can you do eh?

CC

[Mr Blake]

I'm sure this ignorance is across the board, and not just vested with those fortunate enough to be selected for the task. As frequent flyers will testify, there seems to be little information about this subject in the service domain, apart from as CC rightly states in public forums. Perhaps a glossy leaflet at the airhead would alleviate the problem? And perhaps a survey to complete en-route to hand in to the PRO? It would be something to do on long flights to the various sh1tholes we seem to visit as well.

[Wader2]

But therein lies the problem again...

it is the fault of those nominated to do the job of PRO failing in their task...

If as an SO2 you gave an airman a job and he failed to do it would you take further action?

But who gives the PRO the job? Is it someone in his chain of command? Does he have command responsibility over the passengers, including those senior to him?

If he does an immaculate job, who knows, worse, who cares?

The job is dished out like a lottery to the person who moves slowest. It has no status attached like priority boarding or disembarking it is, in short, quite rightly perceived as a chore.

Why not do the job properly? Dispense with air steward and nominate 10 squaddies to wear oinnies and run up and down the aircraft - supervised of course.

Let's get rid of baggae handlers, there should be enough fit and able bodied on each flight.

No, instead of having a single joed PRO issue invididual comment forms. Can you imagine Thomas Cook pulling Joe Bloggs out of the queue at Gatwick and telling him he is responsible for collecting complaints from all the other holiday makers?

You get what you pay for and you don't pay a PRO who might have spent 6 months overseas doing G*d knows what and only wants to get home, no bull.

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

Wader:ugh:

"It has no status attached like priority boarding or disembarking it is, in short, quite rightly perceived as a chore."

Last time I looked being in the military meant when given a feckin job you bl@@dy well cracked on with it, and did'nt sit around wittering like a little school girl about how it is a chore and if I do it can I get on first:rolleyes:


As regards pongoes running up and down in pinnies doing the stewards job I assume they will also be given the pre requisite training to assist in evacuating an aircraft full of pax safely in 90 seconds, they will also be trained to operate all the onboard safety equipment, they will also be able to.......the list goes on

Have a word with yourself fella:hmm:

[EmeraldToilet]

Originally posted by BluntedAtBirth:
Well there has been a battlegroup in Afganistan for nearly a year and we haven't won yet - should we send the RAF Regiment over to QA the Army/RM processes? What about Northern Ireland - Op BANNER has lasted 38 years - slackers.
You are hardly comparing like with like there now are you. I can't believe that the RAF Regiment can even spell AQ.
In case no one has told you; Afghanistan and Northern Ireland are geographically bigger than the mortar base plate footprint of even the largest RAF Station, or is it Base now ?

[vortexadminman]

Originally posted by BluntedAtBirth:
Well there has been a battlegroup in Afganistan for nearly a year and we haven't won yet - should we send the RAF Regiment over to QA the Army/RM processes? What about Northern Ireland - Op BANNER has lasted 38 years - slackers.


Please feel free.... Forget the QA just come over and take over for a while that would be great cheers !!! Oh and OP Banner was a bit more than the odd patrol around the NAAFI bop in Aldergrove or Antrim.

[Comp Charlie]

But who gives the PRO the job? Is it someone in his chain of command? Does he have command responsibility over the passengers, including those senior to him?

I believe (and am willing to be corrected) that the task of PRO is dished out on authority and request of DTMA Pax Policy which I believe is an SO1. Not sure why you would need command responsibility unless trying to make yourself look important - at the end of the day despite the servicibility record of the AT fleet and Charter diversions do not happen all that frequently and I imagine that when it does the Operating Crew DO actually take some responsibility. Therefore the real task of the PRO on most flights is to act as a conduit for the other passengers comments about the flight and report that back to the people who need to know about any problems (or God forbid - PRAISE). Like I said before, the same people who are quick enough to put their keyboard to use bitching about RAF AT on internet message boards are probably the same people who can't be arsed to do a PRO job properly if they were ever nominated.

If he does an immaculate job, who knows, worse, who cares?

the 150 plus other passengers will probably be quite grateful, but short of a public arse-kissing and a Mummys Special Soldier medal what point are you making? Surely you're not insecure enough to need special praise for fulfiling a necessary task involving helping people out?

The job is dished out like a lottery to the person who moves slowest. It has no status attached like priority boarding or disembarking it is, in short, quite rightly perceived as a chore.

Incorrect, the nomination of the PRO is done at the Flight Editing stage. A list of pax onboard the aircraft and their ranks is scrutinised and an SO2 (or if none on board a suitable junior) is nominated. On the cntrary to what you say here, the PRO is more often than not allocated a seat at the front of the aircraft (which helps the rest of the passengers identify him/her) and IF POSSIBLE maybe a couple of extra seats as a sweetener. Not sure why on earth priority boarding and disembarking is deemed worthwhile of a mention - the PRO is not a VIP.

Why not do the job properly? Dispense with air steward and nominate 10 squaddies to wear oinnies and run up and down the aircraft - supervised of course.

Now you are just being silly. Have you seen what pongos do the rims of cups after an officer asks them to make them a cup of tea? :eek:



Let's get rid of baggae handlers, there should be enough fit and able bodied on each flight.

And lets dispense with jet fuel as well - once we learn to harness the power of whinging to make aircraft fly we will be onto a right money saver...and there would be some right moaning from those members of the forces who have spent their entire career driving a desk with the heavist thing ever lifted being a cup of coffee.

No, instead of having a single joed PRO issue invididual comment forms. Can you imagine Thomas Cook pulling Joe Bloggs out of the queue at Gatwick and telling him he is responsible for collecting complaints from all the other holiday makers?

Joe Bloggs pays for his holiday flight and therefore is entitled to expect not to be bothered with stuff like this. You, however, fly for free to these glorious sunshine destinations covered by RAF AT routes. Its not much to ask to put a bit back in is it?

You get what you pay for and you don't pay a PRO who might have spent 6 months overseas doing G*d knows what and only wants to get home, no bull.

Oh God yeah I agree - the hardship of filling in an A4 sized sheet of paper with his thoughts on the flight and those comments from his fellow passengers and popping it into a pre-paid envelope and then having to seek out a postbox will cause immeasurable effort. Worse case scenario and there is a divert then the PRO may have to - God forbid - ensure all passengers have a room at a hotel (the booking will be done in advance by the DMO staff) and ensuring they all get on the bus the next morning by checking through a manifest. After 6 months in-theatre this may be the straw that breaks the camels back...

CC

[Wyler]

I was the SO2 PRO on the Falklands Airbridge in 93. I was also given a bag containing £20,000 to be delivered to FIAW!! We got delayed for two days in Ascension. I found the staff at Ascension to be very helpful and they did their best with the crappy resources they had. What was a pain, however, was the never ending stream of whinging Pax who all thought they were more important than the rest. We had some Falkland Island Government types on board who were trying to tell the staff that they were 'Air Rank' equivalent. It turned out they were nowhere near and so ended up sharing rooms like the rest of us. The Army, of course, lectured us all about how they would do it better.:rolleyes:
Due to the delay, I actually had a fair amount of work to do and I found having the PRO as the single POC worked well (although I got my ear bashed from Dawn til Dusk).
The PRO job should not be seen as just a task. You can actually have a positive effect. I also learnt that talking to the Movers/Crew and associated staff in a polite, professional manner helped. They were all trying to do their best. It was some (most!) of the Pax who needed a good shoeing.
My reward? Extra seats all the way down and first one to be served din dins.:ok:

[Army Mover]

I....

Now you are just being silly. Have you seen what pongos do the rims of cups after an officer asks them to make them a cup of tea? :eek:

....
Probably something similar to what the RAF Movers do to the Army luggage once they get their hands on it ! :E

[Comp Charlie]

According to the RAF Careers website Movements Controllers handle the loading and unloading of personnel and equipment, both on and off transport aircraft. A bit further down a mover has this to say "Now I’m dealing with the loading and unloading of aircraft, where I get to drive aircraft handling equipment and forklift trucks. I could be building baggage or freight pallets"
Its not much to ask you to get on with what you are paid to do is it?

I think you may have misinterpreted the quote here - this was aimed at Joe Bloggs being asked by Thomas Cook to collect complaints from the other passengers (like a PRO is asked to do), not the building of baggage pallets. Quite rightly this is a job the Movers do...

As for the Mover featured on the website (the lovely Katie) - she actually PVR'ed and got out the Mob about 5 years ago due to being disillusioned with the way things were going!!! You couldn't make it up - I wonder if she knows she may be responsible for selling the trade to people still!! :ok:

Can just add that the post made above from Wyler is spot on - at least someone on here "gets" it...:D

CC

[Comp Charlie]

Probably something similar to what the RAF Movers do to the Army luggage once they get their hands on it ! :E

I don't think RAF Movers wipe their private parts on Army luggage!! Run over it with forklifts and send it to the wrong destination maybe...Ha Ha. :p

CC

[Sideshow Bob]

My personal view on passengers is, your not paying for it, if you want to go home, shut the f**k up, stop moaning and let the crews get on with what they are paid to do. You would think that we purposely delay for hours so we can do a few more hours crew duty. How would the Army like it, if everytime they had a slight difficulty with an Op, it appeared in the news. We are doing our best with limited spares, overworked and very tired crews and jets. :ugh:

[BluntedAtBirth]

You are hardly comparing like with like there now are you. I can't believe that the RAF Regiment can even spell AQ.
In case no one has told you; Afghanistan and Northern Ireland are geographically bigger than the mortar base plate footprint of even the largest RAF Station, or is it Base now ?

Well, 34 hours before it got a bite and then 2 come along at once! I am familiar with said geography and my point is that I am comparing like complaint with like complaint. If you assume that the problems in the airbridge are down to 'fat, usless truckies/movers/techies etc' who don't deliver a 'service' simply because of ignorance and laziness, then you might also question how long it takes a Land Component to resolve low(ish) intensity conflicts. The methodology is discussed below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

Now I am off for another happy morning spreading ever less military jam over ever more bread, I take it most of you will be joining me :)