Jump to content

Airport.


Billy kettlefish

Recommended Posts

54 minutes ago, 0bserver said:

That's why it needs running commercially, outside of government like (supposedly) the Steam Packet. 

Don't want to divert the thread, but I feel the SPCO is most certainly running within Government, mainly in the xxxxxxx treasury !

Edited by asitis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, 0bserver said:

Sadly there's been a 20% airport budget cut to fund the management pay award so this option has been revised 

 

 

 

 

image.png

This is the final design. It's unproven but they got a discount for taking it. 

ladder.jpg

  • Like 2
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the Examiner this week, page 6, there's a piece about Civil Servant employments, related to Tynwald questions from Jason Moorhouse to Kate Lord-Brennan.

 

from the article:

Mr Moorhouse asked about pre-employment checks for prospective government employees during the application process. Ms Lord-Brennan said the standard checks include a collection of references, verification of essential qualifications via sight of original certificates or certified copies, identity and the right to work on island checks, in accordance with prevention of illegal working.

Mr Moorhouse followed this up with a supplementary question. He said "If concerns are raised by a third party about an employees earlier status, why can existing materials not be reviewed or checks carried out, based on informal and unnamed tip-offs? A recent inquiry suggests that it is not possible even if an employee is holding a significant role within government. Is that the case, and if it is, could it be reviewed?"

Ms Lord-Brennan said "I am not commenting on any individual case whatsoever. I can say though, if the Office of Human Resources is made aware of any concerns or discrepancies coming to light this will be investigated to verify information provided. That would be raised with the recruiting manager, if required , and any appropriate action taken".

 

What is the recent inquiry Mr Moorhouse referring to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, flaps said:

In the Examiner this week, page 6, there's a piece about Civil Servant employments, related to Tynwald questions from Jason Moorhouse to Kate Lord-Brennan.

 

from the article:

Mr Moorhouse asked about pre-employment checks for prospective government employees during the application process. Ms Lord-Brennan said the standard checks include a collection of references, verification of essential qualifications via sight of original certificates or certified copies, identity and the right to work on island checks, in accordance with prevention of illegal working.

Mr Moorhouse followed this up with a supplementary question. He said "If concerns are raised by a third party about an employees earlier status, why can existing materials not be reviewed or checks carried out, based on informal and unnamed tip-offs? A recent inquiry suggests that it is not possible even if an employee is holding a significant role within government. Is that the case, and if it is, could it be reviewed?"

Ms Lord-Brennan said "I am not commenting on any individual case whatsoever. I can say though, if the Office of Human Resources is made aware of any concerns or discrepancies coming to light this will be investigated to verify information provided. That would be raised with the recruiting manager, if required , and any appropriate action taken".

 

What is the recent inquiry Mr Moorhouse referring to?

24 people were added to the public sector payroll last September. 

Apparently none of them are qualified for the position and all made up some rubbish about how good they would be... 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, flaps said:

In the Examiner this week, page 6, there's a piece about Civil Servant employments, related to Tynwald questions from Jason Moorhouse to Kate Lord-Brennan.

 

from the article:

Mr Moorhouse asked about pre-employment checks for prospective government employees during the application process. Ms Lord-Brennan said the standard checks include a collection of references, verification of essential qualifications via sight of original certificates or certified copies, identity and the right to work on island checks, in accordance with prevention of illegal working.

Mr Moorhouse followed this up with a supplementary question. He said "If concerns are raised by a third party about an employees earlier status, why can existing materials not be reviewed or checks carried out, based on informal and unnamed tip-offs? A recent inquiry suggests that it is not possible even if an employee is holding a significant role within government. Is that the case, and if it is, could it be reviewed?"

Ms Lord-Brennan said "I am not commenting on any individual case whatsoever. I can say though, if the Office of Human Resources is made aware of any concerns or discrepancies coming to light this will be investigated to verify information provided. That would be raised with the recruiting manager, if required , and any appropriate action taken".

 

What is the recent inquiry Mr Moorhouse referring to?

God knows but on this subject.

What ever happened to the Anaesthetist at Nobles, that was sending pictures of his gonads in a S&M clamp to a Liverpool hooker?

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/2/2022 at 5:00 PM, doc.fixit said:

Staff won't make any difference unless the requirements, results and plans are clearly defined beforehand for each project and maintenance and sustainability take precedence.

I agree, but at the airport all we have employed in the two useless articles that have been running the place, is people who are not interested in the day to day operations and customer satisfaction, but solely focused on expansion and grandeur. Until we get a director that wants to run an efficient small island airport, that is welcoming and customer focused, we will continue to pee huge amounts of money away dreaming of being another Chicago O'Hare. As someone said earlier we have pissed away maybe 100 million for less services, less passengers and an experience which most people find at best trying or at worst objectionable.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/2/2022 at 3:48 PM, 0bserver said:

It's cack handed commercialisation. It's the DOI, everything is cack handed with them, they have a reverse Midas touch. 

The airport needs to sit outside of their remit. Everything of national important needs to be take out of their control. 

It's exactly the same arrangement as at airports on the adjacent island. The airline contracts with a private supplier, that private supplier provides handling facilities. This usually includes check-in staff, gate staff, baggage and passenger assistance.

As others have said, if a piece of equipment has been broken for a long time then that indicates a dispute somewhere down the chain. If there's money involved, parties will try to blame anyone but themselves. And that's the issue with any privatisation, no matter how skilled the negotiator: nobody wants anything to be their fault.

Interesting you mention penalty clauses: they just increase the risks of dispute. Google Birmingham City Council Highways PFI.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...