Ha Ha Ha Who Did Get Kandahar???

[Myway or the highway]

Well all

Latest news that KBR did not get awarded the Kandahar contract, therefore Safeskys did not get the geurnsey.

Question is who did?:confused:

If anyone out there knows there answer, then please enlighten us all!!

cheers

[ferris]

Of perhaps less interest is who applied.

It appears that there was an "all stations" email from Mr. Haircutter announcing the lack of a contract.

Makes interesting reading, scrolling thru the names.
Very professional, Safeskys.:cool:

[lippiatt]

Love the terse announcement of a lack of contract award on the website with regard to Kandahar. Wishing all of the applicants - most of whom have been exposed despite a promise of discretion - well in their future careers is very much like pushing the ladder away from someone who is still on it.
Also love the page selling a course for bird control operators in Sleaford at a cost of £475.
Perhaps he would like to send his own operatives on this course instead of interviewing them for a vacancy on one day and employing them the next on a live airfield with no checks made on their background.

[PPRuNe Towers]

Just had a stiff diplomatic note of protest regarding the post above from our friend gisajob who I barred from posting some time ago.

He points out that the content is peurile and off topic and asks/suggest that such tosh should be removed. Fair enough, no harm in asking, all very ho hum. Well apart from having a good go at the writer that is.

However, as a terminally dim pilot, I'd appreciate advice from you guys.

Am I being altogether too suspicious that it's paragraph one that's actually upsetting our hero by appearing to confirm the rather more cryptic note from ferris?

Was his notice to the troops CC'ed rather than BCC'ed to the applicants?

Is there now a tasty e-mail doing the rounds which could expose many to potential witch hunting?

I think we should be told.

Regards
Rob
__________________

[sandyweazels]

Actually out of interest sake, this last incident wasn't the first CC email that went out that exposed all of our names. An earlier one regarding an update of qualifications also bared all....:hmm:

Good thing my boss was on it too!! :p

[celeritas]

In reponse to your question PT; YES!!! Not only names but e-mail addresses as well. Security was always an issue for some and it would seem to be valid given that Safeskys can't even secure personal information.

[ferris]

Pprune Towers.
It is a very easy thing to demonstrate, which is why the gent in question can do no more than jump up and down. It's his own stupidity. The email is signed by him.
I was trying to be diplomatic. For anyone who is unclear:
Safeskys (via Richard Barber) announced that they were not going to Kandahar in an email written directly to all those ATCOs involved. Not even CC'd or BCC'd, just outright "TO" everyone. As even the basically computer-literate can then read ALL THE NAMES (and email addresses) ON THE LIST, I would suggest that to be unprofessional and a contravention of basic HR management. IMHO, this potentially subjects people to 'witch hunt', as many will appreciate DOES GO ON IN THIS PROFESSION- and needs no further clarification.
I would expect others to be pissed off as well. Not least of which would be those in the ME (who would be natural candidates), and don't have access to even basic legal protection from discrimination.
If Mr Barber doesn't "get it", he has no business managing people.

[lippiatt]

He has a business that survives only on the goodwill of his staff - they are denied time off in lieu if the airfield closes early and are expected to meet vehicle maintenance expenses themselves and await a cumbersome claims process to recover personal expenditure.

A national service provider affiliated to the associations proudly boasted on his website would normally allow their managers to hold a company credit card - not safskis I'm afraid - shoestring and tight are the reality.

[Catwalker]

The contract was re-awarded to Midwest ATC.

[PPRuNe Towers]

Interesting point Catwalker,

We received this follow up:

As you have banned me from pprune may I use your offices to apologise for the error of sending the email out on cc instead of bcc. It was a simple but costly error and was done in haste as we were trying to inform everyone who had shown an interest in Kandahar of the decision on the contract.

I sincerely apologise to any ATCO who has been embarrassed by my company?s actions.

Safeskys did not lose the contract, it has been delayed due to equipment procurement issues, by about 18 months.

Gisajob

[agent007]

Why was gisajob banned from PPRUNE?

[London Mil]

Probably for the same reason that a Mod isn't exactly moderating.

I guess this is my last post............................

[PPRuNe Towers]

Gisajob got the boot as he was using the site for freeby advertising on a large scale - something he wrote to us freely acknowledging.

That was done behind the scenes - it becomes very public when 10 years of offering anonymity is singlehandly destroyed by farming addresses and applications from this site and then exposing them right around the ATC world.

If London Mil does want to flounce of the site then go right ahead. Here at the Towers we are disgusted at such cheapskate, repeated, wriggling incompetence exposing our readers to the type of management many of you endure.

Regards
Rob

[agent007]

Thanks for the info Rob nice to know for future reference.

[Enlighten_Me]

On a more personal note, and from someone who has had extensive exposure to the bleatings of our friend 'Ali' (as he is called often much to our amusement).

The man is demonstrably unfit to run any kind of company. He knows neither logic or reason, and chooses to rule with an iron fist. For those of us subjected to this insanity, it is like being mauled by a lamb. Except a lamb riddled with rabies, were that possible.

He wasn't fit to play any part in kandahar, and won't play any part in it. Finally the powers that be have recognised "all of the noise coming from the jungle" as not just restless natives.

He'll continue to deny losing any contract, and will bleat on about how he "might get it in 18 months". However, as someone who consistently uses the "but if" scenario to his hardworking ground troops to deny them anything; "yes, but if I get kandahar you can have a new safeskys cap" it will just roll and roll.

Nobody likes him. Thats abundantly clear. The fact that he never stops to ponder why is a question we all ask ourselves constantly.

As my wife has said often enough, "he's just a nasty little man".

Why he chooses to be nasty all the time is anyone's guess, but ultimately what goes around comes around, he'll lose the BCU contracts soon enough, these things do take time, but 4 years to go? Tch...the vehicles provided won't last that long....neither will the hardworking guys on the ground, noone can take a constant beating all of the time for no apparent reason.

[Myway or the highway]

one can only summise here

but the fact only reached the lowly status of Flt Lt speakes volumes in my book, with a hard done by chip on ones shoulder no doubt with dulusions of grandeur thrown in.

Unfortunately, some (and I only say some) of these military types think that because they have been in the military, they know everything but in reality know next to nothing.

Need any more be said.

PS good on you mod for taking the action you did.

[Enlighten_Me]

I note with interest the bird control services offered on the "saffoskys" website. "Bird Control Training College"? Hmm, and it's residential?

Sorry, but one man, a van and a projector does not constitute a "college". If it does then could he kindly send the many sapphos who are still on-airfield without any training to platform 9 and 3/4's, where I believe the college train is arriving shortly.:ugh:

[truth b told]

i went to platform 9 3/4's low and behold you were right i was directed to a man with a van and projector. Funny thing is that on Ss website it says this course is recognised by the CAA however they have no knowledge of this course or the company that runs it. Funny that. Further more upon enquiry i have been told that a Safesky's employee did go on this course run by the CAA. Again One single employee did go on this course about 9 years ago. And now he is using these course notes to train other BCO's to work at our stations. Issuing certificates to the effect that they are given by the CAA in conjunction with safesky's. Ive seen them have a look in your BCU offices they should be displayed. Thats not even half of it. many of your BCO's were not even CTC cleared before employment commenced to the point that even the primary basic checks ie passport, driving license, are not checked before he sends them onto stations. If thats not a HIGH RISK situation what is.

So because of the above i am happy to see that he hasn't got the Kandahar gig. me being one of the ppl whose names were flaunted over the net. I can only imagine what twists of truth ill call them he would be telling me and my collegues had he got it.

And to add to enlighten me's comments because of his iron fist ruling his turnover of staff is ridiculous. How many stations can honestly say that they have got the same BCU staff that they had when Safesky's took over in May 06. Not many.


AND THE TRUTH B TOLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[SueMe]

So are you saying that Uncle Dick is making false claims over the training of his staff? Is his training course recognised/accredited by the CAA or not?

If not then there are a lot of unqualified personnel out there...

What a surprise.:ugh:

[radarman]

Surely his BCU contract with the MoD will lay down what training and standards his staff must comply with. If, as you say, his staff have no training, then he is in breach of contract. His reputation is sufficiently well known throughout both civil and military ATC that I am surprised nobody in authority has picked up on this. Maybe a quiet word in the Stn Cdr's ear might set the ball rolling.

[truth b told]

truth b told there is a hell of alot of information regarding breach of contract out there. It just seems that nothing is getting done. either the powers to be have said leave it its not worth the trouble or their saying hold on lets get him on a big one. in my eyes i always thought any breach of contract was a reason to get rid of him.

[3rd_ear]

As a complete outsider in another industry which also awards contracts, I have to say that for all the frequent reference to the apparently unsatisfactory contractor, why no complaints about the contractee?

In my line of business, we are extremely cautious about awarding contracts to those who come in with late, low bids. In fact, the financial aspect only accounts for 50% of the consideration, with the other 50% devoted to the history and known reliability of the bidder, their references (3 referees are always contacted), whether they can actually do the work and whether they can actually acheive it for the bid amount.

We have one current contractor who bid too low and was asked, twice, if they could realistically do the work at that price. They were adamant, but are now griping that they're losing money hand over fist on the deal and are not providing sufficient service. It's an isolated case, but we did ask the right questions at the time.

Were the right questions asked before the contractor mentioned here was awarded the deal? If not, why not?

Just my 2p, FWIW.