Airport.

[A fool and his money.....]

3 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

I don't know anything about Government contracts, but yes I understand what you are saying.

What I am saying, and the foolandhismoney doesn't get it, and I think you are agreeing with, is, there is nothing wrong with the concept.

There's nothing wrong with the concept of space travel either, should th Manx government do that too?

[Happier diner]

17 minutes ago, A fool and his money..... said:

There's nothing wrong with the concept of space travel either, should th Manx government do that too?

You are living up to your name.....again.

[Happier diner]

32 minutes ago, A fool and his money..... said:

There's nothing wrong with the concept of space travel either, should th Manx government do that too?

There is a lot wrong with the concept of Space Travel for the Isle of Man Government.

Edited February 24, 2022 by Happier diner

[Gladys]

3 hours ago, Andy Onchan said:

He was actually based at HMS Valkyrie for a while and spent a good portion of his free time treading the boards at the Gaiety and helping to establish The Service Players: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Valkyrie_(shore_establishment)

Yes, I know, interesting but little known.  He was here in the 70s opening something and I got his autograph. 

[Roger Mexico]

13 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

What I am saying, [...], is, there is nothing wrong with the concept.

But if there's nothing wrong with the concept but everything wrong with the practicality, then there's something wrong with the concept or at least it's only valid as some sort of utopian fantasy.

Even if we had competent and experienced lawyers and managers to design, write and implement watertight contracts, procedures and monitoring with all possible situations covered (and none of that is remotely likely), the companies that you are dealing with are going to specialists in their field who know every trick and have vastly more experience in dealing with contractual disputes.  And even if they are in the wrong, they are big enough and distant enough[1] just to play things out while bad situations continue.

You only have to look at this thread to see this.  People are complaining about security problems (which is outsourced) and ground-handling (which is done by Menzies under contract).  There's very little the Airport Management can do about the first (except throw more money at the contract) and nothing they can do about the second.  Spake and co may be useless and annoying balls of ego babbling the latest buzzwords incoherently, but they are powerless.

Which is fine by them.  The upper ranks of the civil service just love this sort of privatisation.  They can swan about having lots of meeting and pronouncing about strategy, while having no contact with the actual work of running the airport and no responsibility if things go wrong.  And always the possibility of some juicy directorships or consultancies after retirement.  The rest of us shouldn't be too keen to indulge them.

 

[1]  Menzies has just been taken over by a Kuwaiti company for example.

[Roger Mexico]

3 hours ago, Andy Onchan said:

[Pertwee] was actually based at HMS Valkyrie for a while and spent a good portion of his free time treading the boards at the Gaiety and helping to establish The Service Players: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Valkyrie_(shore_establishment)

Well he's definitely unsuitable then.  He'll know too much about radar.

[Happier diner]

9 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

But if there's nothing wrong with the concept but everything wrong with the practicality, then there's something wrong with the concept or at least it's only valid as some sort of utopian fantasy.

Even if we had competent and experienced lawyers and managers to design, write and implement watertight contracts, procedures and monitoring with all possible situations covered (and none of that is remotely likely), the companies that you are dealing with are going to specialists in their field who know every trick and have vastly more experience in dealing with contractual disputes.  And even if they are in the wrong, they are big enough and distant enough[1] just to play things out while bad situations continue.

You only have to look at this thread to see this.  People are complaining about security problems (which is outsourced) and ground-handling (which is done by Menzies under contract).  There's very little the Airport Management can do about the first (except throw more money at the contract) and nothing they can do about the second.  Spake and co may be useless and annoying balls of ego babbling the latest buzzwords incoherently, but they are powerless.

Which is fine by them.  The upper ranks of the civil service just love this sort of privatisation.  They can swan about having lots of meeting and pronouncing about strategy, while having no contact with the actual work of running the airport and no responsibility if things go wrong.  And always the possibility of some juicy directorships or consultancies after retirement.  The rest of us shouldn't be too keen to indulge them.

 

[1]  Menzies has just been taken over by a Kuwaiti company for example.

The exception(s) that proves the rule?

Again. Bad administration or bad concept? What was it like when they had directly employed staff?

I mean airports have been using contract staff for decades. Are they all bad? Not in my experience. The first step is realising that the contractor is there to make money. That's your starting point. You are a fool if you try to stop that because thats the deal. What you have to do is let them make a decent profit but still be cheaper than if you did it yourself.

My golden rule in this type of business is

If you can do it well, you are always going to do it and do it all the time, you have good staff, it doesn't cause you grief and you couldn't really see anyone doing it better - Do it. If any of these don't apply - Contract it out and employ a really good contracts manager.

[Non-Believer]

3 hours ago, Andy Onchan said:

He was actually based at HMS Valkyrie for a while and spent a good portion of his free time treading the boards at the Gaiety and helping to establish The Service Players: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Valkyrie_(shore_establishment)

For what it's worth, there's re-runs of old Dr Who series from the early 70s with Pertwee and Baker on the Forces TV satellite channel currently. Proper ones set on Earth with monsters that were scary enough to have you hiding behind the sofa when you were a kid 😁

[Andy Onchan]

44 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

But if there's nothing wrong with the concept but everything wrong with the practicality, then there's something wrong with the concept or at least it's only valid as some sort of utopian fantasy.

Even if we had competent and experienced lawyers and managers to design, write and implement watertight contracts, procedures and monitoring with all possible situations covered (and none of that is remotely likely), the companies that you are dealing with are going to specialists in their field who know every trick and have vastly more experience in dealing with contractual disputes.  And even if they are in the wrong, they are big enough and distant enough[1] just to play things out while bad situations continue.

You only have to look at this thread to see this.  People are complaining about security problems (which is outsourced) and ground-handling (which is done by Menzies under contract).  There's very little the Airport Management can do about the first (except throw more money at the contract) and nothing they can do about the second.  Spake and co may be useless and annoying balls of ego babbling the latest buzzwords incoherently, but they are powerless.

Which is fine by them.  The upper ranks of the civil service just love this sort of privatisation.  They can swan about having lots of meeting and pronouncing about strategy, while having no contact with the actual work of running the airport and no responsibility if things go wrong.  And always the possibility of some juicy directorships or consultancies after retirement.  The rest of us shouldn't be too keen to indulge them.

 

[1]  Menzies has just been taken over by a Kuwaiti company for example.

Aren't some of the security assets owned and maintained by DOI/airport, X-ray machine for example?

And I know we go on about the amount of money paid to public servants etc but shouldn't the head of security be an employee of IOM Airport?? Employing someone in that important post on a third party contract basis doesn't seem to be the cleverest move, ever. 

[NoTailT]

At least the pompous Russian isn't spouting his pro-Russia crap so much anymore on Twitter.

[Manxweegie]

2 minutes ago, NoTailT said:

At least the pompous Russian isn't spouting his pro-Russia crap so much anymore on Twitter.

Especially now his beloved Aeroflot has been banned by the UK gov!

[asitis]

2 hours ago, Andy Onchan said:

Aren't some of the security assets owned and maintained by DOI/airport, X-ray machine for example?

And I know we go on about the amount of money paid to public servants etc but shouldn't the head of security be an employee of IOM Airport?? Employing someone in that important post on a third party contract basis doesn't seem to be the cleverest move, ever. 

 

This is the twitter account of the IOM airport head of security.

 

 

Follow

Jules Lark

@voyagerjules

Security consultant and unintentional gypsy. Mother of dragons, recovering monogymist. Seeks laughter and kindness to relieve the stress!

Isle of Man, United KingdomBorn March 11Joined July 2010

329 Following

56 Followers

Not followed by anyone you’re following

[0bserver]

The current airport set up needs unpicking with FOI. 

How many mangers are actually employed? Who is on the government payroll and what is their purpose?

[finlo]

55 minutes ago, NoTailT said:

At least the pompous Russian isn't spouting his pro-Russia crap so much anymore on Twitter.

Maybe we should send him to Knockaloe!

[Roger Mexico]

3 hours ago, Happier diner said:

The exception(s) that proves the rule?

Again. Bad administration or bad concept? What was it like when they had directly employed staff?

I mean airports have been using contract staff for decades. Are they all bad? Not in my experience. The first step is realising that the contractor is there to make money. That's your starting point. You are a fool if you try to stop that because thats the deal. What you have to do is let them make a decent profit but still be cheaper than if you did it yourself.

It's not so much whether it was better when staff were directly employed but whether it is easier to fix things when they go wrong or improve service when you need to.  Contracted out it becomes difficult, elaborate, long-winded and expensive to do.  Especially when your contractor is a multinational with long chains of command and negotiation.

As for making money, you have to ask at whose expense.  If the outsourcer the government, then there is the danger that 'savings' are only being made at the expense of other parts of the system (see also the discussion on locums).  Some taxes, VAT, NI, profits, etc may end up off-Island and if as in this case the employees outsourced are low-paid there may be associated social security costs .  Of course these are the type of 'savings' the civil service love to make, providing their tiny silo looks good.  But others should take the wider view.