Ground Handling Nationalisation

[Magic Buff]

I believe the time has now come for the Government to seriously give consideration to the nationalisation of all Ground Handling Agents right accross the UK, the provision of services, the shoddy practices, the over stretch of staff and terrible equipment, the absolute stripping of everything to the bare bones has now reached the lowest point from what was already a very low start, it is impossible to say any one Ground handling agent is better or worse than it's competitors, they are as bad as each other, the reason being that they currently have to make a profit out of something that is inherrently a public service, the airlines play one against another to drive the price down, the handling agents have no teeth to prevent this and so whilst profits are made for shareholders, there is virtually no money invested in the essentials for the provision of that public service. The solution is to have 1 handling agent, backed by the government that is a non profit making body, that provides a high standard of service to the airlines, and is regulated by an independant government agency with teeth,
The outcome could be a world class provision of handling, at a reasonable rate, with fewer accidents, far less disruption and an improved experience for the travelling public, to make them want to fly again.
could we have a debate about this?

[sparkshy]

That would sort a few issues at our place i'm sure.

[tornadoken]

Nationalisation of anything has no link with efficiency. The motive is to capture profits for the State. Profits follow investment. Why do you want your taxes to go into an activity which risk-takers are willing to address? What other State spend will you forego to liberate your taxes to do this?

If the buyer - an Airport Authority, an airline - is dissatisfied with a contractor's service, his remedy is to fire the individual (not poss. if he is a State employeee), or the firm (not possible....)

[Skipness One Echo]

You think NATIONALISATION leads to

world class provision of handling

That's the best joke I've heard all year.

[boredcounter]

And not to forget.....

..................Jobs for life, Mon-Fri 9-5, 5 weeks leave, 2 weeks sick leave and all the other civil servent perks.

[liquid sunshine]

"the shoddy practices, the over stretch of staff and terrible equipment,". If this the case at your airport then the aerodrome licence holder at your airfield & the CAA need to be having a serious look at your operation. It is an obligation of the licence holder to ensure that all parties working on the airfield are working in a mannner which is consistent with the T & C's of the licence.(CAP 168, 642 for starters) All this before you even begin to involve the HSE (HSG 209)!

[F14]

Ground handling is always poor worlwide. Everything is run on a shoestring, staff pay is poor and therefore retention hard. Equipment is often breaking down, due to age.

I think nationalisation is not the answer, but maybe checks(like MOTs) on mechanized equipment and vehicles would be a start. All airside equipment should be electric (green) and subsidised by government grant over next 4 years.

Airports should have tried and tested procedures in place for 1) Manual check-in and 2) bagage belt breakdown.

On a seperate point. Why european Dispatchers pretty girls and UK staffed by swarthy blokes who got the job from a bloke down the pub?

[VAFFPAX]

I second the others - Nationalisation does not mean increased efficiency and better management. I would argue that it could mean quite the reverse.

By all means force handling agents to take less profit and invest more into the business, i.e. gate handlers, customer-facing staff, the equipment, but nationalisation is a sledgehammer-to-a-nut approach.

S.

[HZ123]

Magic any more talk like this and we will have no option but to sent the heavies round to your place. It is as well for you that its a free country. Be assured even when you have company GHS i.e.BA it is often no better than the privates, more expensive and bad attitude.

[Magic Buff]

World Class Provision Of Service

Have any of you travelled on a French or German train recently, and compared it to our so called system, nationalisation can be made to work, the money would not be taken from the tax payer, it would simply be a reallocation of the profits currently provided to share holders into equipment, personell and training, also we currently have massive duplication of resources, at Manchester for example, there are 5 major ground handlers, each one has a seperate ramp department, seperate ops and sepaerate pax servises for each terminal, by combining them you save on massive waste, also equipment, how many de-icing trucks do you need standing around all year doing nothing, well every GHI has to offer a de-icing facility so 5 times the cover, gpu's the same, airstairs, air starts, hi-loaders, baggage belts, push back tugs, to-bars, baggage trucks,ebt's, chocks etc etc, these are all in a poor condition, we could have half the equipment under 1 company that is in good and safe order, and yes 5 times the management could be trimmed in half, thus saving a huge amount of money that can be re-directed into better usage, on top of this, it will be impossible for the airlines to push the price down low, because there will be no alternative than to pay the price set by an independent adjudicator as the correct and reasonable rate for handling, send around the heavies if you like I am not afraid, but I think it's time the subject was raised, due to the abject failiure of free market economics in our industry, an experiment which as the banks have now found out at tremendous cost to the tax payer has failed absolutly.

[Magic Buff]

In addition

The constant hiring and firing of staff, redundancy costs, loss of experience, training costs, low moral right accross the industry as handling agents constantly come and go, simplification of proceedures, 7 airline systems to do the same job for operations and pax services, differing proceedures for all air lines, surely it makes sense to have staff retained with large experience levels, high moral, low costs in redundancy and training and simplified high standandard proceedures that are universal. All of which actually improves moral, we have good wages for good staff, leading to a high performance delivery of service at no cost whatever to the tax payer, radical yes, but I ask you how good is the system we currently have and can it be allowed to get any worse before a total meltdown happens?

[aex]

I used to work for SEA Handling in Milan Linate airport. SEA Handling is a subsidiary of SEA-Aeroporti di Milano (the airport operator). Up to 2001 we were the only ones there. When you signed a contract as passenger services agent you had a 1 month classroom training, a test, a 1 month training on the job with passenger services agent that had been in SEA since at least 5 years and then another month of half day classroom training half day on the job. When you finally passed the final test you would still check in and board with a supervisor for 1 month and then you'd be independent.

Since 2001 we have ATA Handling competition on passenger and ramp and Globeground Italia and ICTS for passenger services and the quality has gone down tremendously. The training for SEA Handling only lasts 2 weeks and no handling agent has contracts of more than 6 months and so every 6 months you see new faces in the airport. Every now and then we heard of accidents on the ramp.

The latest handling agent to arrive was Aviapartner who left Linate airport after 3 months but got quite big in Malpensa airport. In Linate the staff did not have uniforms and so worked in jeans. Furthermore they had NO classroom training. Their only customer Iberia got fed up and so issued Iberia uniforms but they did not speak a word of Spanish! In regards to ramp handling they subcontracted the services to a cooperative that did not have the licence to operate on the ramp!!! The Polizia di Frontiera (Border Police) and Guardia di Finanza (military customs police) sent a letter to Italy's civil aviation authority which opened an investigation. They said that as long as Aviapartner responded to any problems on the ramp they were allowed to subcontract the services to whomever they wanted! Later the Guardia di Finanza discovered that many people working on the ramp were illegal immigrants. At that point Aviapartner closed down activities in Linate.

What I think should be done is give ground handling to airport authorities and put the services connected to landing fees. That would simplify security and improve efficiency!

[Opssys]

Whilst Nationalisation in a British context is not the answer, much better oversight and introduction of standards where required would force improvements:

• Yearly inspection of all Airside Equipment. The inspector should work for the CAA and be Authorised to have failed equipment removed from service.
• Training Syllabus for each discipline to be submitted to and approved by the CAA.
• Training Instructors to have been on and passed a Techniques of Instruction Course.
• Inspection visits to ensure compliance with Safety and other Standards.

In the current general financial climate one of the first places Companies look to save costs is the Training Department. In the specific case of Ground Handling Agencies, some companies have, prior to the current crisis reduced training to below any reasonable level, so the only way to ensure adequate Training and Standards is regulatory enforcement.

[Magic Buff]

Fear

Come on guys, what is everyone afraid of, it's like the word nationalisation is an insult, it isnt, I do remember the 70's and many lessons have been learned sinse then about how not to do it, of course some of the senior executves out there who read this may worry about the subject, and yes I think the boat definitly needs to be rocked, out and out competition in the way we have done it has had disaterous results, we actually have Senior managers being paid bonuses not to spend money on even basic provisions when it is clear to all that massive investment is required, it is beyond creaking my freinds it is falling apart, now no amount of tinkering with the current framework is going to sort that out, each handling agent can only say to the airlines, we will be cheaper than the others, at what point does it come that there is nothing left to give? I believe that point is now reached.

If airlines truthfully want the service they keep demanding then it comes at a cost, so long as free market economics pertain then this will never be achieved, not to mention all the implications of staffing levels and experience, woful equipment, We have freedom of speach so I use it, are we saying otherwise that the constant badgering and banging on by airlines about service levels is in fact a sham, when what they are only interested in is cost.

I reiterate what I said earlier that we provide what is in effect a service to the poblic and at this time it is shambolic right accross the industry, that is not direpecting anyone, it will and can only be shambolic until the whole structure is changed.

There is no reason why we have to have 9 to 5 workers and all those other things synonemous with the past, what we need to have are proper staffing and training levels, with the right equipment to do the job, and this involves professional staff, payed a proffesional wage, investment in facilities and equipment, and not to ever decrease the handling fee when at the same time incresing the payments to share holders and senior managers, not to waste resources and personel, by dividing them between multiple ill funded Ground handling agents, get it all under one roof, get the staff payed properly, get the right tools for the job, get rid of underhand wheeling and dealing, all the cards out on the table and do the job correctly.

[call100]

Magic Buff
The argument you put does make a lot of sense. However, I'm afraid it will never happen, for a myriad of reasons. There are other ways forward...................

Opssys

Yearly inspection of all Airside Equipment. The inspector should work for the CAA and be Authorised to have failed equipment removed from service.
Training Syllabus for each discipline to be submitted to and approved by the CAA.
Training Instructors to have been on and passed a Techniques of Instruction Course.
Inspection visits to ensure compliance with Safety and other Standards.

Some of this is actually in place..(I know, I know) However individual airports tend to be lax in implementing it.
We carry out periodic inspections of equipment and have recently removed several items for disposal or repair. Inspections carried out with qualified mechanics and the Airfield Safety Unit. The Safety Unit are authorised to have any unfit equipment removed at any time.
Inspections and visits to ensure compliance with Safety and other Standards are carried out. Turnaround plan inspections are now carried out also.
Ramp trainers are trained by the Airport Safety and Compliance team.
All of this is in it's infancy but is beginning to take effect. It will never be perfect, but, we believe that big strides can be made.

[Magic Buff]

Not far enough

Hello Opssys, I agree with some of measures that you mention, however I think it is much to little and too late, we need radical change, the time for tinkering at the edges had been and gone, in the upcomming major economic downturn, the aviation industry over the next two years will change beyond how we currently recognise it, and something new and better needs to come out of it, only through nationalisation do I believe we can turn it into a world class business, the CAA is as you know a government owned organsiation, we spend millions paying to have a government organisation employed only to regulate a private business, when nothing of what that business makes comes back into the public purse, just get it all in house, it is ridiculous, that all the airlines, airports, the CAA, the DFT, and the Health and safety executive spend so much money trying (unsuccessfully) to force these private businesses to comply with the rules and standards, if you had it in house all these bodies would save money as well, because it would have to comply, as it's ultimate bosses would be the rule makers themselves.
I do believe something along these lines will happen in the future, because if it doesnt there will be no ground handling industry.

[Magic Buff]

Futhermore

In addition, I would like to add, that there are people in the upper caste of our industry, some of whom I dare say read this website, the intelligent and intellectual ones of witch probably privately agree with some of what I say, but are possibly afraid to say as much publically, there will be others who poor scorn on the idea and ridicule me for saying it, even if they secretly agree with some of it, because they will take the synical position, exactly because they are the same people who have brought us to the position we are in the money men and directors of this industry are probably the ones with the most to loose, it is actually they and their synicism that are part of the problem not part of the solution, the people futher down the chain of command are obviously the ones who will gain for the provision of a serious and proffessional industry, with the end of the synical exploitation that has been accepted as the only possible way, by those very people who currently own and run the business, it is not the only way there is an alternative for the brave.

One month ago I belive thatif anyone had written an article simular to this one pertaining to the banking industry on an equivelent banking industy web site, they would have been ridiculed, and told it will never happen, well my freinds due to the unscoupulous behavior of their senior management, the government had to buy them, in order to save the economy, they the very cornerstones of British business have been nationalised and their senior leaders in the main exposed for the unscroupulous and incompetant synics they are, they are now having a rude awakening that they have lost their power, and can no longer play Poker with the worlds money.

We need a simular sorting out in our industry, to save it from the wolves.