Aviance awarded Air France contract @ MAN....
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Manchester
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Best L/controller....
Please explain what difficulties Aviance are having at LBA ?? Net operating PROFIT of over 30% each month against Servisairs monthly LOSS...
Aviance staff are on a higher salary than Servisair in general but Aviance will not take a contract if it does not make a profit. Simple business sense.
For your info, Aviance LBA gained the Austrian group contract 6 weeks before the schedule started. It appears your management failed to tell you that Servisair had lost it ! Austrian is a gap filler.No extra staff required as all are on shift who would otherwise be sitting around doing nothing but now earning some revenue. Again, good business sense.
Please explain what difficulties Aviance are having at LBA ?? Net operating PROFIT of over 30% each month against Servisairs monthly LOSS...
Aviance staff are on a higher salary than Servisair in general but Aviance will not take a contract if it does not make a profit. Simple business sense.
For your info, Aviance LBA gained the Austrian group contract 6 weeks before the schedule started. It appears your management failed to tell you that Servisair had lost it ! Austrian is a gap filler.No extra staff required as all are on shift who would otherwise be sitting around doing nothing but now earning some revenue. Again, good business sense.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: West Yorkshire
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SILKMAN!!!!!
Obviousley the info I have from Aviance is from a scource their, I wouldn't know the details unless I owned the company so if my info is incorrect then I appologise,
what I do know is, that Austrian airlines was under the impression Servisair was handling them 3days before the schedule started, THAT IS FACT!!!!! so weather or not Servisair didn't inform anyone, maybe it was Aviance and Servisair between them that came up with the plan, don't know?? but Austrian definately didn't know until Thursday 18th December 2003,
Ifyou have anymore info then spill!!!!
CHEERS!!!!!!!!!!!!
what I do know is, that Austrian airlines was under the impression Servisair was handling them 3days before the schedule started, THAT IS FACT!!!!! so weather or not Servisair didn't inform anyone, maybe it was Aviance and Servisair between them that came up with the plan, don't know?? but Austrian definately didn't know until Thursday 18th December 2003,
Ifyou have anymore info then spill!!!!
CHEERS!!!!!!!!!!!!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Feltham, UK
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Good business sense"?????
Sorry Silkman, I had to nasally exhale my coffee when I saw that one. I could give you plenty of examples where Aviance not only lack business sense, but are risking peoples lives unnecessarily in order to maintain their profits.
In my experience, BMHS which effectively went on to become Aviance at LHR was in the habit of taking on new contracts and work without employing new staff or even training the ones they have. The management, past and present have always had the attitude that the staff will just have to cope. Just because they manage much of the time while the rest is covered up does not make it good business sense, unless you are endorsing the failure to comply with safety regulations as 'good business'.
When aviance first bought out BMHS at LHR, the staff was kept on the same wages for over a year, despite the promise that they would get the same as the rest of the Aviance network rates, which was considerably more than what BMHS was paying. The ramp eventually did get the increase they were promised, but the load controllers did not, meaning that many ramp workers were getting paid more than L/Cs.
It is true that Aviance were in a position of having too many staff, but that was only because they lost so many contracts. When I left, we were desperately short in ops yet they refused to recruit from check-in because they were short, and they refused to recruit outside because of budget restrictions.
They can't even provide the load plans and trim sheets for the aircraft they handle, expecting inexperienced L/Cs to trim a DC10 with an A300 trim sheet.
Good business? If they ever cause a big smoking hole (which I sincerely hope they do not), their version of 'good business' will be exposed for all to be appalled at, until then please do me the favour of NOT trying to pretend they are a professional outfit.
Sorry Silkman, I had to nasally exhale my coffee when I saw that one. I could give you plenty of examples where Aviance not only lack business sense, but are risking peoples lives unnecessarily in order to maintain their profits.
In my experience, BMHS which effectively went on to become Aviance at LHR was in the habit of taking on new contracts and work without employing new staff or even training the ones they have. The management, past and present have always had the attitude that the staff will just have to cope. Just because they manage much of the time while the rest is covered up does not make it good business sense, unless you are endorsing the failure to comply with safety regulations as 'good business'.
When aviance first bought out BMHS at LHR, the staff was kept on the same wages for over a year, despite the promise that they would get the same as the rest of the Aviance network rates, which was considerably more than what BMHS was paying. The ramp eventually did get the increase they were promised, but the load controllers did not, meaning that many ramp workers were getting paid more than L/Cs.
It is true that Aviance were in a position of having too many staff, but that was only because they lost so many contracts. When I left, we were desperately short in ops yet they refused to recruit from check-in because they were short, and they refused to recruit outside because of budget restrictions.
They can't even provide the load plans and trim sheets for the aircraft they handle, expecting inexperienced L/Cs to trim a DC10 with an A300 trim sheet.
Good business? If they ever cause a big smoking hole (which I sincerely hope they do not), their version of 'good business' will be exposed for all to be appalled at, until then please do me the favour of NOT trying to pretend they are a professional outfit.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: West Yorkshire
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TONY_EM!
BRAVO!!
They are far from a professional outfit, the dispatchers, manage some how to dispatch there a/c from the L/C office at LBA, how is this possible when the dispatcher should be driving the turn/round at the a/c side, well??????
Most of the staff who were with BMHS at LBA are the professional ones, it's the one they've taken on since!!
CHEERS!!!!!!
They are far from a professional outfit, the dispatchers, manage some how to dispatch there a/c from the L/C office at LBA, how is this possible when the dispatcher should be driving the turn/round at the a/c side, well??????
Most of the staff who were with BMHS at LBA are the professional ones, it's the one they've taken on since!!
CHEERS!!!!!!
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: THE BIG SUNNY SANDPIT
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
REDCAP
You seem to have missed the point.
Centralised load control does work for individual airlines because there is only one set of procedures to follow.
It breaks down when handling agents try to use it because each airline and airport have a slightly different interpretation of the published standards and requirements in the AHM.
Also the two examples you gave are of local load control and not true centralised load control.
Most handling agents at airports where i have been use local load control. This is where a load contol department prepares all loading instructions and loadsheets for their station and sends them to the gate for the dispatcher to collect. It works very well because if there is a question everyone knows who to contact and therefore any problems are sorted out quickly and easily.
Cenralised load control differs in that a single office at one airport does the entire load control function for every flight at every airport. The main problem with this idea is that if a loader at BHX has a question regarding a loading instruction they would have to contact the load controller at MAN (example) to get the answer. Now everyone knows that this is not going to happen, a guess will be made and hopefully it will not cause a problem. But one day it will matter and people may die as a result.
The only reason that any company would consider centralised load control a valid option is when they are in such a financial hole that the cost savings outway the risk.
Apart from Aviance i do not know of any other handling agent that has gone down this path yet and hope that none do.
You seem to have missed the point.
Centralised load control does work for individual airlines because there is only one set of procedures to follow.
It breaks down when handling agents try to use it because each airline and airport have a slightly different interpretation of the published standards and requirements in the AHM.
Also the two examples you gave are of local load control and not true centralised load control.
Most handling agents at airports where i have been use local load control. This is where a load contol department prepares all loading instructions and loadsheets for their station and sends them to the gate for the dispatcher to collect. It works very well because if there is a question everyone knows who to contact and therefore any problems are sorted out quickly and easily.
Cenralised load control differs in that a single office at one airport does the entire load control function for every flight at every airport. The main problem with this idea is that if a loader at BHX has a question regarding a loading instruction they would have to contact the load controller at MAN (example) to get the answer. Now everyone knows that this is not going to happen, a guess will be made and hopefully it will not cause a problem. But one day it will matter and people may die as a result.
The only reason that any company would consider centralised load control a valid option is when they are in such a financial hole that the cost savings outway the risk.
Apart from Aviance i do not know of any other handling agent that has gone down this path yet and hope that none do.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Feltham, UK
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sometimes, the system you learn first is the one that makes most sense, usually because of your familiarity with it.
Redcap, so you don't embarass yourself by using that debating technique against me; I have over 5 years ops experience at LHR with over 15 different airlines, 4 different wgt/bal systems and am a qualified SQ wgt/bal trainer. I also have 300hrs on a US PPL and studied AeroEng til it hurt, which gave me a solid background to learn so much about ops.
My brother was wgt/bal trained by KLM and also had 3 years experience before moving on to air traffic control and my father worked 17+ years at LHR, also for KLM.
We spent many hours discussing the various merits of dedicated despatching and CLP.
There are so many different types of CLP where the respective despatcher and gate controller have varying tasks and responsibilities, so stating that CLP is better and cheaper (or not) is a sweeping statement that depends entirely on which particular manifestation of CLP you are talking about and exactly who it saves money for over what period of time.
If you are saying that CLP, as it was originally concieved, works well, then I can't completely disagree, as long as you are talking about well trained office and gate staff that know eachothers' jobs well, because they swap regulary, and that have been well trained while retaining well defined responsibilities and authority.
If you are referring to the perverted mutation of CLP that exists in many ops depts these days, then it is you that has a lot to learn.
I had a good reputation for very short turnarounds. Why? Because I got to know the people in every company/department I worked with at a personal level. Rather than shove demands and regulations down a phone line, I could make effective decisions outside of the box in time to make a difference with the authority to carry it through. If I had to phone someone up who really did not know the deal at the gate in that particular instance and I had to waste 10 minutes describing the problem only to be given a solution that was inneffective and too late, I would not have been able to prevent as many delays as I did.
I also knew the problems of each dept as well as the merits and shortfalls of the particular staff from the various companies/depts, which made it very easy to identify where the potential problem/delay would be coming from and I was therefore able to preempt it with planning or by direct resources/effort where it was needed. I was also known for getting my hands dirty and loading bags/cargo, helping to clean planes, load catering and help boarding. Basically, whatever was threatening to delay my flight.
Now, there is no reason that CLP type ops should not be able to achieve the same, except for the fact that the drive to cut costs has perverted the circumstances creating more of a barrier for efficient planning and utilisation of resources than fascilitating short turnarounds.
It always seemed to me that if an airline wanted to cut costs, they should improve efficiency by concentrating on the ability to coordinate resources and efforts effectively and direct improvements where they will best support those goals. So saving a few pennies by having a crappy CLP system while losing ponds through the increased delays and inefficient use of resources just never made sense to me. It also confirmed that the people making such decisions where after personal praise and gain rather than looking at the operation/company as a whole.
I spent 6 months of my own time and effort studying the problem. The procedures and systems I developed where designed to increase operational efficiency and effectiveness without the need to employ more staff in the long term or buy expensive equipment. It relied on extensive training which was one-off and could then be imparted through the way that key departments would be restructured, mainly load control. The plan was also designed to prevent the appalling amount of errors that seemed to be increasing exponentially.
What happened was that the management in their infinite ignorance took elements of the plan, applied them in an abstractly stupid way, called it their own genius and proceded to blame the workforce when it didn't work.
I really do hope that you work with a CLP system that works well, but don't for a second delude yourself that every CLP system works that way. The vast majority of those that I researched were clearly less effective while a few were incompetently run to the point of being a threat to safety.
Saving a few quid in one department's budget while making other departments less efficient and the operation more costly and less safe is something only accountants and wannabe managers can like.
Good points Nibor.
We had a traffic coordinator that would sit in the despatch officemanning phones and generally supervising the staff.
There were times when I had tight turnarounds and was stuck in some hold stacking stuff to get the plane out on time,where I would radion the TC and ask him to enter last minute changes in the system and send a loadsheet to my gate. It was a useful way to cut a few more minutes off a delay.
This stopped when BMHS and Aviance saw fit to put people in this TC position that knew nothing about the airline, system or aircraft I was using. It may have saved the handling agent a few pennies in training etc, but cost the airlines so much more. An airline would never dream of doing such a stupid thing, but I think I have yet to see the depths of stupidity to which a handling company will go, and get away with.
Redcap, so you don't embarass yourself by using that debating technique against me; I have over 5 years ops experience at LHR with over 15 different airlines, 4 different wgt/bal systems and am a qualified SQ wgt/bal trainer. I also have 300hrs on a US PPL and studied AeroEng til it hurt, which gave me a solid background to learn so much about ops.
My brother was wgt/bal trained by KLM and also had 3 years experience before moving on to air traffic control and my father worked 17+ years at LHR, also for KLM.
We spent many hours discussing the various merits of dedicated despatching and CLP.
There are so many different types of CLP where the respective despatcher and gate controller have varying tasks and responsibilities, so stating that CLP is better and cheaper (or not) is a sweeping statement that depends entirely on which particular manifestation of CLP you are talking about and exactly who it saves money for over what period of time.
If you are saying that CLP, as it was originally concieved, works well, then I can't completely disagree, as long as you are talking about well trained office and gate staff that know eachothers' jobs well, because they swap regulary, and that have been well trained while retaining well defined responsibilities and authority.
If you are referring to the perverted mutation of CLP that exists in many ops depts these days, then it is you that has a lot to learn.
I had a good reputation for very short turnarounds. Why? Because I got to know the people in every company/department I worked with at a personal level. Rather than shove demands and regulations down a phone line, I could make effective decisions outside of the box in time to make a difference with the authority to carry it through. If I had to phone someone up who really did not know the deal at the gate in that particular instance and I had to waste 10 minutes describing the problem only to be given a solution that was inneffective and too late, I would not have been able to prevent as many delays as I did.
I also knew the problems of each dept as well as the merits and shortfalls of the particular staff from the various companies/depts, which made it very easy to identify where the potential problem/delay would be coming from and I was therefore able to preempt it with planning or by direct resources/effort where it was needed. I was also known for getting my hands dirty and loading bags/cargo, helping to clean planes, load catering and help boarding. Basically, whatever was threatening to delay my flight.
Now, there is no reason that CLP type ops should not be able to achieve the same, except for the fact that the drive to cut costs has perverted the circumstances creating more of a barrier for efficient planning and utilisation of resources than fascilitating short turnarounds.
It always seemed to me that if an airline wanted to cut costs, they should improve efficiency by concentrating on the ability to coordinate resources and efforts effectively and direct improvements where they will best support those goals. So saving a few pennies by having a crappy CLP system while losing ponds through the increased delays and inefficient use of resources just never made sense to me. It also confirmed that the people making such decisions where after personal praise and gain rather than looking at the operation/company as a whole.
I spent 6 months of my own time and effort studying the problem. The procedures and systems I developed where designed to increase operational efficiency and effectiveness without the need to employ more staff in the long term or buy expensive equipment. It relied on extensive training which was one-off and could then be imparted through the way that key departments would be restructured, mainly load control. The plan was also designed to prevent the appalling amount of errors that seemed to be increasing exponentially.
What happened was that the management in their infinite ignorance took elements of the plan, applied them in an abstractly stupid way, called it their own genius and proceded to blame the workforce when it didn't work.
I really do hope that you work with a CLP system that works well, but don't for a second delude yourself that every CLP system works that way. The vast majority of those that I researched were clearly less effective while a few were incompetently run to the point of being a threat to safety.
Saving a few quid in one department's budget while making other departments less efficient and the operation more costly and less safe is something only accountants and wannabe managers can like.
Good points Nibor.
We had a traffic coordinator that would sit in the despatch officemanning phones and generally supervising the staff.
There were times when I had tight turnarounds and was stuck in some hold stacking stuff to get the plane out on time,where I would radion the TC and ask him to enter last minute changes in the system and send a loadsheet to my gate. It was a useful way to cut a few more minutes off a delay.
This stopped when BMHS and Aviance saw fit to put people in this TC position that knew nothing about the airline, system or aircraft I was using. It may have saved the handling agent a few pennies in training etc, but cost the airlines so much more. An airline would never dream of doing such a stupid thing, but I think I have yet to see the depths of stupidity to which a handling company will go, and get away with.
Last edited by Tony_EM; 22nd Jan 2004 at 23:58.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tony EM
Please do not over glorify yourself!
So you was employed by BMHS/Aviance in T3 LHR!
BIG DEAL
If you claim to be an SQ trainer, you trained people on line in the proceedures of SQ. You are not employed by SQ as a trainer!
Wow we have all worked for BMHS/AVIANCE and if it was not for them then alot of people would never have been given the chance to do the job they do today!
15 different airlines? oh please T3 doesnt have that many contracted airlines! thats probably aviances total number of contracts at LHR, and im sure you do not work at all 4 terminals! you may be trained in DCS/Dplan and Kriscom/codeco....................again big deal!
And over 5 years in avaince ops.........even bigger deal! you wouldnt know true ops if it jumped up and bit you on ya ass!
Please do not over glorify yourself!
So you was employed by BMHS/Aviance in T3 LHR!
BIG DEAL
If you claim to be an SQ trainer, you trained people on line in the proceedures of SQ. You are not employed by SQ as a trainer!
Wow we have all worked for BMHS/AVIANCE and if it was not for them then alot of people would never have been given the chance to do the job they do today!
15 different airlines? oh please T3 doesnt have that many contracted airlines! thats probably aviances total number of contracts at LHR, and im sure you do not work at all 4 terminals! you may be trained in DCS/Dplan and Kriscom/codeco....................again big deal!
And over 5 years in avaince ops.........even bigger deal! you wouldnt know true ops if it jumped up and bit you on ya ass!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Feltham, UK
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trained in singapore, by Singapore Airlines and issued with an SQ licence to teach wgt/bal for their 744s and A340s in fact.
I was initially trained by Iberia and worked closely with IB ops for the first 2 years. The significance is that I worked with people who had over 30 years experience in ops.
Some of the airlines I've despatched;
Iberia
Austrian
Canadian
Royal Brunei
Singapore Airlines
Biman Bangladesh
Turkmenistan
Cyprus
South African
British Midland
Nigerian
Qatar
Manx
As you can see, they are not all based in T3.
I'm not surprised you have to jump to such rash conclusions in order to call people liars. Spoken like a true Aviance manager;
I remember in the olds days; despatchers used to get 6 month training before they were let near an aircraft. You are defending a company that sends complete novices out to full DC10s with only 2 weeks in a classroom and no support or supervision.
I may not know everything about ops, but I took it upon myself to learn as much as I could from as many sources as possible since BMHS and Aviance clearly had no intention of training me properly. The big deal is that LHR ops most experienced despatcher only had 2 years on 2 different airlines after I left. Their intention was always to get rid of people that made a fuss when corners were cut and regulations ignored. I was the last that learnt from the real professionals, enough to know real cowboy stuff when I see it which is the point I am trying to make.
Redcap...what is that, baggage porter and wheelchair pusher?
I was initially trained by Iberia and worked closely with IB ops for the first 2 years. The significance is that I worked with people who had over 30 years experience in ops.
Some of the airlines I've despatched;
Iberia
Austrian
Canadian
Royal Brunei
Singapore Airlines
Biman Bangladesh
Turkmenistan
Cyprus
South African
British Midland
Nigerian
Qatar
Manx
As you can see, they are not all based in T3.
I'm not surprised you have to jump to such rash conclusions in order to call people liars. Spoken like a true Aviance manager;
you wouldnt know true ops if it jumped up and bit you on ya ass!
I may not know everything about ops, but I took it upon myself to learn as much as I could from as many sources as possible since BMHS and Aviance clearly had no intention of training me properly. The big deal is that LHR ops most experienced despatcher only had 2 years on 2 different airlines after I left. Their intention was always to get rid of people that made a fuss when corners were cut and regulations ignored. I was the last that learnt from the real professionals, enough to know real cowboy stuff when I see it which is the point I am trying to make.
Redcap...what is that, baggage porter and wheelchair pusher?
With MY reputation?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Not fussed, as long as it's "Child Friendly"
Age: 52
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tony_EM,
Although we seem to have diversified a little from the original subject into more of a slanging match, I think it's fair to say that you know a fair bit about Dispatch and Ops.
The majority of us contributing to this thread agree that regardless of the Load Control system in use/system for Loadsheet distribution(CLP etc)/number of flights dispatched in each terminal or any other factors involved, there is NO SUBSTITUTE FOR EXPERIENCED STAFF......
Although Aviance seem to be getting a bad press here (I can't comment, I come into contact with them but don't deal directly), it's fair to say that this is the same story for any Handling Agent, who have gone down the road of providing the service the carriers want at the price they want(i.e. no profit in it,doing the job for peanuts) which means they want cheap, minimally trained staff out on the ramp a.s.a.p. to turn the aircraft around, whether they are capable of the job in hand or not. I have worked for Handling Agents (a number of years at Servisair amongst others) at a number of stations, as well as Airlines (see the recent thread regarding VS at LHR and you will realise that the Handling Agents are not alone in their plight) and no matter which station you look at, there will always be issues regarding training levels. This is not down to the individuals, much more the policies of the Management who in turn are under pressure from their superiors - Many of the Handling Agents are under pressure from the shareholders which is why costs are cut back so far in the first place.
A vicious circle???
Regards,
PHX
Although we seem to have diversified a little from the original subject into more of a slanging match, I think it's fair to say that you know a fair bit about Dispatch and Ops.
The majority of us contributing to this thread agree that regardless of the Load Control system in use/system for Loadsheet distribution(CLP etc)/number of flights dispatched in each terminal or any other factors involved, there is NO SUBSTITUTE FOR EXPERIENCED STAFF......
Although Aviance seem to be getting a bad press here (I can't comment, I come into contact with them but don't deal directly), it's fair to say that this is the same story for any Handling Agent, who have gone down the road of providing the service the carriers want at the price they want(i.e. no profit in it,doing the job for peanuts) which means they want cheap, minimally trained staff out on the ramp a.s.a.p. to turn the aircraft around, whether they are capable of the job in hand or not. I have worked for Handling Agents (a number of years at Servisair amongst others) at a number of stations, as well as Airlines (see the recent thread regarding VS at LHR and you will realise that the Handling Agents are not alone in their plight) and no matter which station you look at, there will always be issues regarding training levels. This is not down to the individuals, much more the policies of the Management who in turn are under pressure from their superiors - Many of the Handling Agents are under pressure from the shareholders which is why costs are cut back so far in the first place.
A vicious circle???
Regards,
PHX
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: england
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
can i just say it seems that everyone on this thread cares deeply about the jobs and the industry, but it is clear that in this country money is always going to come first it is a very sad fact but true. the only handling agent/airline who dnt seem to give a **** how much they spend is emirates/danata, ehich is a good think cos you get the right people an not any old tom,dick or harry of the street.
sometimes you have to f**k management and do what you know is right.
cheers!!!
p.s. Tony_EM
If I had to phone someone up who really did not know the deal at the gate in that particular instance and I had to waste 10 minutes describing the problem only to be given a solution that was inneffective and too late, I would not have been able to prevent as many delays as I did.
this is very true mate!!!!
sometimes you have to f**k management and do what you know is right.
cheers!!!
p.s. Tony_EM
If I had to phone someone up who really did not know the deal at the gate in that particular instance and I had to waste 10 minutes describing the problem only to be given a solution that was inneffective and too late, I would not have been able to prevent as many delays as I did.
this is very true mate!!!!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: the100thwindow
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not going to get too involved in the debate, i've made my feelings clear on the subject of handling agents/CLP vs dedicated dispatch already and some of the comments are just embarrassing.
Just one question:
jimbols6
Your statement about DNATA, the only handling agent who seem to want to spend lots?
I agree with the statement, yes lots spent on advertising and recruitment but I was offered a job with them, I've also spent some time in DXB and know a couple of people in the "Ground Dispatch" position. Their expansion is such that they are desperate to get people in and have even contacted people who turned them down to ask them again to join them.
It is a CLP based system for flights ex DXB the money isn't great for the GD's and from what I hear the CLP'ers are a grade lower (could be wrong on the latter???) even though they are doing the more technical part of the job - (I am not degrading thr role of co-ordination at the gate!! As I stated before i've been CLP and Load control), is this right???.
The dept appears to be run by ex UK/AUS and other expats and employ a very "diverse" workforce and from what I hear training is not up to scratch. If you are going to have paper runners at the gate communicating from there to CLP they HAD BETTER be able to interpret the information and communicate it properly or all that money means sod all.
WTD
Just one question:
jimbols6
Your statement about DNATA, the only handling agent who seem to want to spend lots?
I agree with the statement, yes lots spent on advertising and recruitment but I was offered a job with them, I've also spent some time in DXB and know a couple of people in the "Ground Dispatch" position. Their expansion is such that they are desperate to get people in and have even contacted people who turned them down to ask them again to join them.
It is a CLP based system for flights ex DXB the money isn't great for the GD's and from what I hear the CLP'ers are a grade lower (could be wrong on the latter???) even though they are doing the more technical part of the job - (I am not degrading thr role of co-ordination at the gate!! As I stated before i've been CLP and Load control), is this right???.
The dept appears to be run by ex UK/AUS and other expats and employ a very "diverse" workforce and from what I hear training is not up to scratch. If you are going to have paper runners at the gate communicating from there to CLP they HAD BETTER be able to interpret the information and communicate it properly or all that money means sod all.
WTD
Last edited by Who'stheDaddy; 23rd Jan 2004 at 07:16.
With MY reputation?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Not fussed, as long as it's "Child Friendly"
Age: 52
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WTD,
Agreed that DNATA are not afraid to spend money on recruitment etc (although the way things are organised once someone is recruited is a joke).
A friend who started as a GD just before Christmas tells me that the training lasts around 6 weeks before they even get to see an aircraft, but of course that is no guarantee of the standard of this training. Understand that once you are on line as a GD then the bulk of the work is basically as a Loading Supervisor primarily based on the Ramp overseeing Freight/baggage loading, then reporting back to CLP who produce Loadsheets (i.e. no "hands-on" W+B work). A little frustrating for someone with W+B experience to have no hand in that side of things maybe? (Still would have jumped at the chance to work in DXB if I was a few years younger!)
Regards,
PHX
Agreed that DNATA are not afraid to spend money on recruitment etc (although the way things are organised once someone is recruited is a joke).
A friend who started as a GD just before Christmas tells me that the training lasts around 6 weeks before they even get to see an aircraft, but of course that is no guarantee of the standard of this training. Understand that once you are on line as a GD then the bulk of the work is basically as a Loading Supervisor primarily based on the Ramp overseeing Freight/baggage loading, then reporting back to CLP who produce Loadsheets (i.e. no "hands-on" W+B work). A little frustrating for someone with W+B experience to have no hand in that side of things maybe? (Still would have jumped at the chance to work in DXB if I was a few years younger!)
Regards,
PHX
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tony EM
I do not want to get in a slagging match!
I am not an Aviance manager! wouldnt wanna be either! I am in Ops now, not pushing wheelchairs!
I also was offered a job with Dnata as GD, but turned them down as the money sucked.
I think some CLP work is good, some is not, so lets agree to have different views, I will go back to my Ops work, you go back and design gardens! lets get back to the original post!
I do not want to get in a slagging match!
I am not an Aviance manager! wouldnt wanna be either! I am in Ops now, not pushing wheelchairs!
I also was offered a job with Dnata as GD, but turned them down as the money sucked.
I think some CLP work is good, some is not, so lets agree to have different views, I will go back to my Ops work, you go back and design gardens! lets get back to the original post!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Feltham, UK
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, fair enough Redcap, truce offered.
I'm actually very eager to discuss the merits of CLP, especially from someone who considers it a good system, as long as they put forth a coherent arguement based on logical points or comparisons. Just attacking the people who disagree with your view will inevitably get a similar response. I see your post that inspired my initial response to you has been deleted so; water>bridge.
So, specifically, what is it about the CLP system that you like and what makes it better than having a dedicated load controller for each flight? Believe it or not, I am still willing to be convinced that it could be better since I am just keen to see the best way of getting an aircraft safely back out with an accurate loadsheet and secure load.
Please excuse the thread creep here, this may need a new one soon.
I'm actually very eager to discuss the merits of CLP, especially from someone who considers it a good system, as long as they put forth a coherent arguement based on logical points or comparisons. Just attacking the people who disagree with your view will inevitably get a similar response. I see your post that inspired my initial response to you has been deleted so; water>bridge.
So, specifically, what is it about the CLP system that you like and what makes it better than having a dedicated load controller for each flight? Believe it or not, I am still willing to be convinced that it could be better since I am just keen to see the best way of getting an aircraft safely back out with an accurate loadsheet and secure load.
Please excuse the thread creep here, this may need a new one soon.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Escaped from Aberdeen
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forgive me I am new to this forum, but cannot understand the comment below uttered by Tony_EM concerning Aviance
"They can't even provide the load plans and trim sheets for the aircraft they handle, expecting inexperienced L/Cs to trim a DC10 with an A300 trim sheet."
With his vast experience of handling numerous carriers, surely at some point he would have realised that airlines supply their handling agents with such documents and not his management.
Their only failing I can forsee is not having a system in place where one of the experienced dispatchers was made responsible for stock control.
In meantime look for the B****rd who took the last pad out and didn't tell anyone that he / she had done so.
Failing all get carrier to move onto CLC and all your problems would have been resolved.
"They can't even provide the load plans and trim sheets for the aircraft they handle, expecting inexperienced L/Cs to trim a DC10 with an A300 trim sheet."
With his vast experience of handling numerous carriers, surely at some point he would have realised that airlines supply their handling agents with such documents and not his management.
Their only failing I can forsee is not having a system in place where one of the experienced dispatchers was made responsible for stock control.
In meantime look for the B****rd who took the last pad out and didn't tell anyone that he / she had done so.
Failing all get carrier to move onto CLC and all your problems would have been resolved.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Feltham, UK
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe this particular incident happened as soon as they took the contract for that particular carrier. Yes, there should be someone allocated to moniter and ensure that all paperwork is current and in stock, but that never happens at Aviance, who would struggle to cover the flights every day, let alone have time to do office work.
The point here is that the contract was taken on without proper thought or planning, so when a despatcher went to the management and told them "we can't trim these flights because we don't have the correct trim sheets" Rather than back up their staff (and the safety regulations) by telling the customer airline the truth, they just tell the despatcher to get it done regardless. Don't for a second assume that they will take the heat if something goes wrong.
You can't really blame the staff especially when they rarely get enough notice to even ask "do we have everything we need?" before they are 'selected' to go out and despatch a flight, let alone get trained for the a/c type, L/C system and procedures.
The point here is that the contract was taken on without proper thought or planning, so when a despatcher went to the management and told them "we can't trim these flights because we don't have the correct trim sheets" Rather than back up their staff (and the safety regulations) by telling the customer airline the truth, they just tell the despatcher to get it done regardless. Don't for a second assume that they will take the heat if something goes wrong.
You can't really blame the staff especially when they rarely get enough notice to even ask "do we have everything we need?" before they are 'selected' to go out and despatch a flight, let alone get trained for the a/c type, L/C system and procedures.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Man
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It has now been confirmed that Servisair/globeground will be embarking on new CLC project at Manch, this will start with covering MAN and several other UK stations and then building up to cover all uk/euopean stations if this project is a success.
CLC will be based at MAN although not actually on the airport but nearby, I'm yet to be convinced if this will be a success..
CLC will be based at MAN although not actually on the airport but nearby, I'm yet to be convinced if this will be a success..
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: West Yorkshire
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ICEHOUSE!
Are you pulling our PISSER! this is the first I've heard of this, do you want to clarrify where you heard this from???
CHEERS!!!!!!
P.S it's not gonna work if it's true you know!!
CHEERS!!!!!!
P.S it's not gonna work if it's true you know!!