First a huge thank you to groundhand and 42psi for there detailed responses (and for not having ago about how my original post could have been better structured),
Whilst both posts have improved my understanding of how this situation has come about and is as some Airports, or for certain Multi-Airport Contracts being perpetuated.
But there are a few areas where the replies have raised more questions:
In 42psi's post there is the following:
Now you come to what airlines are able/prepared to pay for the services they require and whether they actually contract for what they need.
and
Earlier I mentioned Airlines actually contracting for what they need .. I've seen many instances of airlines knowingly/unkowingly not including a requirement for somehting in the handling contract and then not being willing to pay when it's need becomes clear. This either leaves the HA to try and absorb the additional task/work (under threat of risking the contract if it tries to charge) or a "loose end" beinf fudged around.
I assumed that both parties would use the IATA Standard Ground Handling Agreement (I think the current version is 2003 and there is a major effort this year to upgrade it and to include an SLA template) as the basic template from which the Airline would build its detailed requirements and against which, when this document presented the to GHA, they could query any service/function and request clarification, including items marked as nor required. Because without this process GHA cannot cost their contract bid especially including fees for 'on demand service requests'.
The example used by psi42 was:
No turnaround Cleaning required as requirement met by Cabin Staff.
This appears to be perfectly clear. But as psi42 discovered this bald statement doesn't cover what to do with Waste Bags and also doesn't allow for the possibility of 'on demand assistance' where there is a specific requirement for dealing with an unfortunate incident resulting in a mess that must be cleared before departure.
Even if the Airline tries to just state the one line, surely any GHA negotiator is going to want that statement clarified?
Another example off service not normally required, but essential 'on demand' is the incredibly rare event of APU failure when suddenly a GPU and possibly ASU are required. These irregular events SURELY have to be costed in?
Staying with psi42 for the moment.
I am not normally a fan of 'cost plus' contracts, however from your post I must admit the GHA worked really hard to make the contract work to the benefit of both Airline and themselves. The fact that the Airline then squeezed until the contract was untenable only proves to me that 'bean counting' as the sole objective is a dangerous trait.
I have operated in a 'more with less' environment where not only were there less resources, but the Service Standards were set higher. It can (and did) work for a while (months, possibly an entire season), but in the longer term something has to give and that normally is Standard decline at an ever increasing rate, because the best staff have enough and move on.
I realized Margins were low but 3% isn't being in business it almost being a charity.
GHA not understanding Airlines and visa versa. As the supplier the GHA really does need to understand the customer, otherwise how can they translate what they wrote into what they meant. Don't get me wrong this not an easy task even if the Carrier is from an English Speaking country, but again if the GHA cannot get clarity at contract stage then the hidden problems that arise will increase costs and erode a 3% margin to zero very quickly..
Groundhand.
Thank you for explaining how the change at UK Regional Airports resulted in a paradigm shift in the GHA Environment in the UK, which was coincidently coupled with what you call the 'hackers and slashers' who trimmed to the bone and then carried on trimming.
That explains a lot (although 'Hackers and Slashers' have made guest appearance in GHAs since the 1970's, normally leaving just in time for someone else to clean up the mess).
As for the Airline side of the equation, going cheap and cheerful is always very very tempting (and it happens in every industry), but how low you consider going has to be a balancing act. For an Airline trying to project a image of High Quality Service then a cheap GHA contract which you know is untenable can ruin you reputation with Passengers using that airport, even if they have no option but to fly with you on a route, or routes. An Airline which prides itself on being Cheap and Cheerful, may think it can squeeze a GHA until the 'pips squeak'. But they also depend on minimum ground times to maximize utilization and if they go too far then delays at that Airport will increase and suddenly they are costing themselves more than they save.
In service provision there is always a trade-off between cost and quality of service, but in many industries it is recognized that the Service Provider and the Customer are also partners because overtime the Providers understanding of the Customers Requirements means that they can actually make positive suggestions on how to further improve. This it appears has been lost in the Airline/GHA relationships and Cost of Service has become almost a Holy Grail from the Airline Side.
Whilst I now understand how this 'unbalanced' relationship occurred and why it has continued to become in some cases self-perpetuating. The 'normal' factors that should have restored a sensible balance have often been nullified by circumstances either general, or specific to an Airport..
Both Groundhand and psi42 indicate in their posts that at least some GHAs are now trying to redress the imbalance, but with the Credit Crunch/Fuel etc the timing is unfortunate.
Once again thank you for your posts!