GATE AGENTS' LACK OF COMPETENCY WITH NEW COMPUTER SYSTEM RESULTS IN INCORRECT WEIGHT MANIFESTS. POOR TRAINING CITED.

Narrative

OUR COMPANY RECENTLY INSTITUTED A NEW COMPUTER SYS THAT WAS UNFAMILIAR TO GATE AGENTS. AS A RESULT THOUSANDS OF PAX WERE STRANDED OR VERY LATE TO THEIR DESTS. GATE AGENTS HAD NO IDEA HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE ON THE ACFT AND WERE DEPENDING UPON FLT CREWS TO 'CALL-IN' THEIR PAX LOADS TO LOAD PLANNING; TO AT LEAST HAVE AN ACCURATE WT AND BAL CALCULATION. OUR FLT WAS SUCH A FLT IN WHICH THE GATE AGENTS WERE OVERWHELMED WITH THE NEW COMPUTER SYS AND DID NOT KNOW HOW TO 'LIST' OTHER COMPANY PLTS ON THE MANIFEST THAT WISHED TO TRAVEL. AGENTS INSTRUCTED ME TO JUST PUT THEM ON BOARD AND NOT WORRY ABOUT THE 'COMPUTER WORK.' WHEN I DID SO; I WAS LATER CRITICIZED BY CHIEF PLT'S OFFICE FOR OPERATING FLT WITH INACCURATE MANIFEST; YET I HAVE NO ABILITY; NOR ACCESS TO THE COMPUTER PROGRAM THAT WOULD PERMIT ME TO 'LIST' THESE NON-REVVING PAX. I DID AS INSTRUCTED BY THE GATE AGENT AND BOARDED THE 2-UNLISTED PLTS; THEN CALLED 'LOAD CTL' TO CORRECT THE WT AND BAL; BUT AS FAR AS ENSURING THAT OUR MANIFEST IS ACCURATE; THAT'S THE GATE AGENT'S DIRECT RESPONSIBILITY. I PERSONALLY FEEL THAT THERE IS NOT ENOUGH OVERSIGHT ON THE POLICIES AND PROCS THAT OUR COMPANY IMPLEMENTS AS FAR AS THE FAA IS CONCERNED. THE EMPLOYEES ARE NOT TRAINED ADEQUATELY PRIOR TO BEGINNING NEW PROCS.