PVR & Flying Pay Halved Under JPA?

[DunMoanin]

Just heard a rumour that under JPA, if you PVR, your flying pay gets halved immediately and it doesn't matter whether you PVR'd 2 months ago or do it next week, everyone gets hit from the date JPA starts. Clearly not good news for anyone planning to scuttle off to the airlines.......has anyone got the official word on this?:eek:

[Junglie]

Yes it's true, flying pay halves from the time of acceptance of your pvr.
It says in the leaflet that this is because flying pay is there as a retention incentive which if you have pvr'd obviously hasn't worked. B:mad: :mad: :mad: ds. Anything else you want from us?
A thank you for all your hard work and service would be nice.
Instead another reason to incite the pvr..................
Loyalty is a two way thing !!:mad:

[indie cent]

The literature appears to say that once you PVR you receive half of the full-rate Flying Pay.

Thus, if you are on lower-rate flying pay and PVR, you'll get a pay rise!!!!

(errr, please don't take my word on this!)

[dessert_flyer]

And for those lucky enough to be on the pa spine, no reduction whatsoever, wonder how the lawyers would react to that one?
I believe in civvy street it is illegal to differentiate between people doing the same job, same position, for different pay when it has been decided by a select group. Anybody any thoughts??
d_f

[The Gorilla]

You are not in civvy street and the lawyers would tell you it's tough! Not a level playing field I am afraid.
:ok:

[N Arslow]

I sense a Southside interlude coming - don't forget... IGNORE HIM!

[Ginseng]

Yes, it's true. If you have a PVR in now and are on the full or 75% bands of FP (now to be caller Specialist Pay - Flying (SP(F)), then from the start of JPA your SP(F) will be reduced to 50%. The glossy booklet even says this will be backdated to the "date of application" rather than the date of approval of your PVR request. If you are currently on the 50% or 25% reserve bands, there is no immediate further reduction, but your SP(F) will taper off as per the JPA rules.

There is a specific statement that PAS will not suffer any reduction in pay on application for PVR.

Make of that what you will.

Regards

Ginseng

[dessert_flyer]

Gorrilla i sense that you are indeed correct, we are not on a level playing field, however i have seen on a previous thread that when it comes to pay we do have some sort of comeback. What that would involve i am not sure, but could be interesting if it was tested.

[L1A2 discharged]

the remedy is, therefore, to only fly half the tasking ..... :E

surely?

[Tourist]

I personally have worked my own pay related performance scheme for years:ok:

[southside]

Good call....and only work half days and do half the paperwork.. I agree with the guy who said it is probably illegal but Im sure that I have heard of people challenging it in the courts and getting nowhere....

[Touchin' Down]

I'm in the same boat mate. If yr on top rate works out about £4/day less than middle rate once PVR'ed. I'm told that there are a few things like this that got in 'under the radar' with JPA.

[Two's in]

Sadly, they have you well and truly by the nuts, as you have already signalled your intention to invoke the ultimate sanction i.e by getting out. Is this completely new? Wasn't there was a deal like this floating around the regs a few years back, clearly they now have the brass neck to enforce it under JPA.
Perhaps you could offer to fly all the outbound legs one week, and the returns the next week (bit harder to do if you're FJ). As well as doing half the (flying related) work, I would also make up for it by hogging the aircrew rats - how many Mars bars equal half a days flying pay?
Once again, the gold watch and vellum scroll in recognition of sterling service for one's country has been superseded by Tony's Cronies "face in the feces" alternative. Democracy in action indeed.

[LFFC]

Sadly, they have you well and truly by the nuts

Well, I'm not sure if that's completely true. If you pressed the test button, just how much notice of leaving would be seen to be reasonable under European law? I think I recall that when I first joined, 3 years notice was required if you asked to PVR. That reduced to 18 months quite a long time ago, and now it's only 12 months. If you're over the age of 38/40 and can thus show that you've loyally 'repaid' the cost of your training, it becomes very difficult for the RAF to argue for anything more than the usual one month notice period. Now, if you can show that you are being penalised for wanting to leave as well ...

I can see some interesting court cases coming up.

On the other hand, I wouldn't mind betting that if you're over 38 and PVR saying that you wish your exit date to be in only 4 months (that's one month terminal leave, roughly 2 months resettlement leave and a few weeks of annual leave), PMA will make things very difficult for you, but not actually contest it in court for fear of loosing and setting a precedent!

Yet again, I don't think the wheels have really thought this one through - it could well backfire on them!

[Climebear]

LFFC

You could try an challenge it in court. Others have challenge and the MOD has fought and won.

In this instance European Law (and UK Law) specifically exempts Armed Forces. Remember, when the European Member states drafted this legislation the majority of them had conscript armed forces - they were hardly likely to let them just leave when the wanted to! In the same vain, the European Convention on Human Rights (and subsequent UK Human Rights Act) prevents slavery and forced labour - but has an exemption from this clause for Armed Forces! Make of that what you will.

You could challenge the policy by seeking a judicial review. However, this is extremely costly and does not qaulify for any legal assistance. Mind you if enough PPRuNers got together an funded your challenge...

[dessert_flyer]

I believe European law exempts the military on most things, but i dont believe this is the case on pay, however i stand to be corrected

[LFFC]

Climebear,

I'm not going to be the one to challenge it. Being on the PAS and with only a few years to serve, I can't see me wanting to PVR. But I really feel for the majority of the Career Spine aircrew out there - they really have had the base-ball bat inserted, and for them, this latest revelation seems to be a final twist just to make sure they know it's fully wedged in!

The irony is that I never bothered to do ISS, OCC, ICSC, etc, and only managed to be assimilated all those years ago because they were a bit short of pilots at the time. I automatically qualified to be PAS and now it would appear that I'm gonna retire with a pension slightly larger than my wg cdr's! :O

All I would say about exemptions is that, in my time, I've seen a lot of them evaporate when challenged. I've a feeling that this one will be no different.

[DunMoanin]

Thanks very much for all your thoughts on the matter; it seems as dire as first predicted, however, a legal challenge is certainly not out of the question.

When you consider how much money is already taken from you when you PVR (up to 10% of you pension and gratuity, circa £27,000) and now a further £19 ish per day, you could stand to lose the best part of £33,000 over a 12 month period. All this for doing exactly what any civilian would do without a second thought....how could any court see it as fair and/or legal?

Maybe an employment tribunal might offer a different way of tackling the issue....anyone heard of challenges through this route? :ugh:

[Climebear]

LFFC - the exemptions you mention that have evaporated never existed in the first place. The UK (and other states) believed that the original EEC exemption for military procurement (designed to protect member states defence industries so that they could retain a home-grown capability) extended to exempting their Armed forces from all legislation. The difference now is that the exemptions are specific and enshrined within each piece of legislation (national and European). My comments relate to the waiting time required if an individual PVRs not any reduction in pay.

DunMoanin - our ability to go to an employment tribunal is also restricted. It is limited to issues ander the equal pay act (before you get too excited this relates to differences between men and women's pay), race and sex discrimination. We cannot, for example, take the MoD to an employment tribunal with a claim of constructive or unfair dismissal even though this avenue is open to civilians. Our only real avenue (outside of the redress proceedue:uhoh: ) is to seek a Judicial Review.

[DunMoanin]

Climebear: Any thoughts on whether a case could be brought in front of an ET on grounds of age discrimination?

[Climebear]

DunMoanin

Simple answer is that it cannot be bought by members of the Armed Forces. When the EU first proposed legislation (I seem to recall that this was 2001/2ish) to make discrimination on the grounds of age unlawful the UK (supported by a large number of other member states) succesfully argued that armed forces should be exempt from these requirements - just as the armed forces are exempt from the employment provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act. This exemption is enshrined in the EU legislation and, I believe, that it was/will be carried forward into any subsequent UK legislation.

I will see if I can dig out the hypelinks to the relevant documentation later and post them on here.

edited at 161330:

The relevant EU Directive is Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 'establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation'. (my strained memory was only 1-2 years out!) The text can be found here: http://europa.eu.int/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=32000L0078&model=guichett

The option for member states to provide exemptions is given in the following paragraphs:

(18) This Directive does not require, in particular, the armed forces and the police, prison or emergency services to recruit or maintain in employment persons who do not have the required capacity to carry out the range of functions that they may be called upon to perform with regard to the legitimate objective of preserving the operational capacity of those services.

(19) Moreover, in order that the Member States may continue to safeguard the combat effectiveness of their armed forces, they may choose not to apply the provisions of this Directive concerning disability and age to all or part of their armed forces. The Member States which make that choice must define the scope of that derogation.


The explanatory notes the the UK Equality Act 2006 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/en2006/2006en03.htm mentions that Legislation is also being prepared to prohibit age discrimination in these areas, as required by the Employment Directive.

Therefore the UK Governement has the power to exempt the Armed Forces from any new legislation on age discrimination. Given that the UK was the driving force for having para 19 above inserted into the EU legislation, I would imagine that they would automatically include the exemption. Of course, stranger ommissions have occured in the drafting of the legislation, so you may wish to keep you eyes on a future bill/statutory instrument as it passes through the legilature.

So to answer your question in fewer words: Not at the moment; Most probably not in the future; however, ...

[LFFC]

Climebear,

I wasn't actually thinking about exemption in the defence procurement world, I was just looking at the everyday things like sex discrimination, health and safely, TCAS, 8.33 radios etc etc.

But getting back to the point, if this were to go to a judical review, I'm sure their lordships would be quite amazed by a system that punished CS aircrew, but (in some cases) actually rewards PAS aircrew, for electing to PVR!

[Climebear]

LFFC

Climebear,

I wasn't actually thinking about exemption in the defence procurement world, I was just looking at the everyday things like sex discrimination, health and safely, TCAS, 8.33 radios etc etc.

That was my point - the UK (on legal advice) believed that the exemption for defence procurement meant that the Armed Forces were exempt from all European legislation including issues such as you mention. They were wrong.

As for your second point, you could well be correct. But until someone stumps up the (considrable amount of) cash to 'press to test' at a judicial review, we may never know.

[BATS]

Dunmoamin/Just this once

It might be hard to challenge the apparent pension reduction. The PVR rate is the normal rate of pension and you get an enhancement if you complete an engagement. Thus your pension isn't cut for leaving early, it's actually enhanced for staying !

I think you will find details in the MOD pension paperwork on the MOD website.

BT

[LFFC]

Climebear,

Thanks for taking the time to look out the relevant sections of the EU Directive on equal treatment in employment and occupation. I wouldn't have known where to start!

But surely the exemptions you've quoted don't seem to apply in this case - are there more tucked away in the document? The exemption at paragraph 18 only applies to "persons who do not have the required capacity to carry out the range of functions that they may be called upon to perform ". Most of the guys that I know who have slapped in their PVR are perfectly able to carry out all the duties that they may be called upon to undertake! They've just decided that they want to leave. Moreover, some of them are really quite young - so paragraph 19 does not seem to apply either.

So, unless there are some other caveats tucked away, I'm not convinced that there are any exemptions in this case. :cool:

Any thoughts?

[Si Clik]

Climbear,

You may be correct with regard to your statements on the PVR issue but from past experience the MoD are indeed making changes in regulation to comply with the age directive. This is because currently the MoD employs or chooses not employ and pay certain groups solely on the basis of age. This clearly does not fall into the:

who do not have the required capacity to carry out the range of functions

or

safeguard the combat effectiveness

Areas.

Specifically the RN currently base initial pay and seniority for officers joining the service purely on age. This will change shortly.

They have yet to address the 'if joined before 1 Apr 99 retirement age 50 whereas post 1 Apr 99 retirement age 55'. I suspect this will change as well or will be challenged since it does not fit the two exclusions above. It is probable that this will be dealyed as long as possible to reduce the numbers of personnel given this option.

Whilst most leglislation has these Armed Forces opt outs within them they are not as universal as some believe.

:hmm:

[Climebear]

LFFC

The references are in response to DunMoanin's question on taking an age discrimination case to an ET which I took to be in general - not relating to this case specifically. In any case, there is no age discrimination legislation on the UK statute book yet.

Getting back to the specific instance, I do not believe that there is any specific legislation that an individual can use against the MOD. This leaves the judicial review route where the regulation can be judged as being fair (as in implemented fairly not necessarily fair to the individual - life just isn't fair as I keep telling my 5-year old) and reasonable (to both parties taking into account the needs of the organization). There are no doubt lots of arguments we can all put down on here; however, what counts is how a judge would see it - for that to happen someone needs to challenge. If they do, and the MOD doesn't believe it has a strong case things could change without having to go through the full process; however, that is a gamble (and an expensive one). I would wish to be very sure of my case before challenging.

Si Clik

They will be as universal as the legislature wishes to make them as long as the scope of the derogation is defined. We await to see the passge of the legislation through parliament. Back to specific regulations, when the UK (and other member states) managed to get the option to exempt their armed forces, the MOD directed the 3-services to review their age related policies to ensure that they were there for combat effectiveness. Some services were more poractive at implementing this than others.

Just out of additional interest on age (not directly relating to the regulation you mention), the European Directive does include this at Article 6Justification of differences of treatment on grounds of age

1. Notwithstanding Article 2(2), Member States may provide that differences of treatment on grounds of age shall not constitute discrimination, if, within the context of national law, they are objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim, including legitimate employment policy, labour market and vocational training objectives, and if the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary.

Such differences of treatment may include, among others:

(a) the setting of special conditions on access to employment and vocational training, employment and occupation, including dismissal and remuneration conditions, for young people, older workers and persons with caring responsibilities in order to promote their vocational integration or ensure their protection;

(b) the fixing of minimum conditions of age, professional experience or seniority in service for access to employment or to certain advantages linked to employment;

(c) the fixing of a maximum age for recruitment which is based on the training requirements of the post in question or the need for a reasonable period of employment before retirement.


Sounds like a huge 'get out' clause to me!

[LFFC]

Climebear,

Yes, I agree that it would be very expensive, but how many aircrew are likely to PVR over the next year? How much flying pay does each stand to loose? If they worked together, maybe they could challenge.

You say that you do not believe that there is any specific legislation which applies, but what about the one we are discussing, the "Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation". Although it may have been at the forefront of their minds, I don't think this directive was written solely to counter sex discrimination. Discrimination based on religion or belief is also covered and you could, hypothetically, argue that you now wished to PVR for those reasons. Would a pay cut under those circumstances be legal under EU law?

[santiago15]

Slight aside on flying pay, following a crew room discussion today; does anybody know if people on a short service commision are entitled to receive the upper rate of flying pay?

[Climebear]

LFFC

I think you'll find that the directive lays down a framework from which members states are required to make the necessary arrangements under national law

Article 18

Implementation

Member States shall adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 2 December 2003 at the latest or may entrust the social partners, at their joint request, with the implementation of this Directive as regards provisions concerning collective agreements. In such cases, Member States shall ensure that, no later than 2 December 2003, the social partners introduce the necessary measures by agreement, the Member States concerned being required to take any necessary measures to enable them at any time to be in a position to guarantee the results imposed by this Directive. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.

In order to take account of particular conditions, Member States may, if necessary, have an additional period of 3 years from 2 December 2003, that is to say a total of 6 years, to implement the provisions of this Directive on age and disability discrimination. In that event they shall inform the Commission forthwith. Any Member State which chooses to use this additional period shall report annually to the Commission on the steps it is taking to tackle age and disability discrimination and on the progress it is making towards implementation. The Commission shall report annually to the Council.

When Member States adopt these measures, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such reference on the occasion of their official publication. The methods of making such reference shall be laid down by Member States.


The keen eyed will have noticed that the UK has not yet made all the provisions into law but we are required to by 2 Dec 06. Watch out. But also be aware of the general gotcha (for us) in the scope of the directive (Article 3) (my embolding)

Article 3

Scope

1. Within the limits of the areas of competence conferred on the Community, this Directive shall apply to all persons, as regards both the public and private sectors, including public bodies, in relation to:

(a) conditions for access to employment, to self-employment or to occupation, including selection criteria and recruitment conditions, whatever the branch of activity and at all levels of the professional hierarchy, including promotion;

(b) access to all types and to all levels of vocational guidance, vocational training, advanced vocational training and retraining, including practical work experience;

(c) employment and working conditions, including dismissals and pay;

(d) membership of, and involvement in, an organisation of workers or employers, or any organisation whose members carry on a particular profession, including the benefits provided for by such organisations.

2. This Directive does not cover differences of treatment based on nationality and is without prejudice to provisions and conditions relating to the entry into and residence of third-country nationals and stateless persons in the territory of Member States, and to any treatment which arises from the legal status of the third-country nationals and stateless persons concerned.

3. This Directive does not apply to payments of any kind made by state schemes or similar, including state social security or social protection schemes.

4. Member States may provide that this Directive, in so far as it relates to discrimination on the grounds of disability and age, shall not apply to the armed forces.

Note the lack of mention of combat effectiveness - this was only included later to explain why a member state could exempt its armed forces - This owuld be a blanket exemption (if a member state chooses) it does not imply that it has to judge each age-related policy onthe grounds of combat effectiveness.

[dessert_flyer]

Maybe im not reading this right, but does it mean there can be no discrimination with reference to pay?? If this is so, does the fact that you are not on the PAS discriminate from those who are with ref to losing pay on pvr?

[Climebear]

Df

There can be discrimination with reference to pay (just as long as you don't discriminate between men and women doing the same or comparable jobs). If you couldn't discriminate we'd all be paid the same, come the revolution brothers (and sisters).

[LFFC]

Sigh – I’m not very good at this, and I’m beginning to get confused. But let me have one more go tonight just to see if I can get this right.


The EU published Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 that established a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation.

The Directive applies to all persons, working in both the public and private sectors, including public bodies, in relation to employment and working conditions, including dismissals and pay.

The directive is designed to ensure equal treatment and to prevent discrimination based on religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation.

Member states agreed to publish their own laws that comply with that directive.

Laws regarding discrimination on the basis of age and disability do not have to be implemented until 2 Dec 06. However, because it’s important that they retain their operational capability, the armed forces will be exempt from laws that prevent discrimination on the basis of age and disability.

Laws regarding all other forms of discrimination had to be enacted by 2 Dec 03. So I assume that the UK has already adopted the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the Directive.

So if a young, perfectly fit, Career Spine pilot hands in his PVR and has his pay cut as a result, he must surely be the victim of discrimination – especially so if a colleague of equal standing (who happens to be on the Professional Aviator Spine) does not suffer the same fate.

Moreover, there must already be a UK law enacted which is designed to prevent that sort of unequal treatment.

[dessert_flyer]

I also believe it is illegal to have two people, same job, on different wage stuctures based purely on the decision of your peers, (ie the board that selects those lucky enough for the pas) and not through promotion or different contracts, terms of employment on initial enrolment.

[Grum Peace Odd]

Hmmmm.......and not through promotion or different contracts, terms of employment on initial enrolment.But PAS is a different term of employment. :ooh:
...he must surely be the victim of discrimination But would it be seen as discrimination when all CS aircrew are treated the same regardless of race/gender/religion? As are all those on the PAS. As those on the PAS have been selected for a different 'contract' (supposedly on the basis of ability!), the cross comparison probably cannot be made directly to a judge.

[dessert_flyer]

Those selected were apparantly selected in a similar way to promotion, however it would be interesting to find out if there were laid down specifications to enable you to obtain the pas. If it is done on so called merit, then i believe that is where the illegal part comes in, and contravenes some law on equal rights. I understand it was brought in to stop bosses rewarding aquantances or such like within companies, and so giving pay rises to some and not to others who do the same job. Once again though i am willing to be shot down over this one as do not have the rule book to back this up.

[Climebear]

I'm afraid this type of discrimination is lawful. Another scenario - 2 staff officers working on the same desk issues, both the same rank, both in posts that are annotated as 'flying related', however one gets paid significantly more than the other. Why? well one is (or used to be in) the Flying branch whereas the other is (or used to be in) Ops Sp/Eng/Sup/Admin branch.

I'm not complaining at this scenario, it's just a reflection that in life things like this happen.

Remember that members of the Armed Forces are not on contract and are exempt from the vast majority of employment legislation. If the individual was a civvy he could resign then take his/her employer to an Employment Tribunal claiming unfair dismissal on the grounds that his/her employer's behaviour amounted to a gross breach of his/her contract - we do not have this recourse.


So what can we do? see my earlier posts -

Our only real avenue (outside of the redress proceedure) is to seek a Judicial Review.

[dessert_flyer]

The difference climebear i believe is those were the terms agreed when the individual embarked on their career, and all knew what they were getting into. One could say that those not on the PAS knew when they signed the dotted line that they would have to pay back some of their flying pay on pvr, however with the introduction of PAS it has brought in an imbalance. Also the change in the amount having to be paid back should be looked at, as those who pvr are now being penalised even more if the new rules come into force, not something they knew when they signed the dotted line. These are all rules that affect our pay and as i have said earlier, the armed forces are not exempt the rules on pay.

[Climebear]

Df

I wouldn't be so sure of your last point ;) The Armed Forces are subject to the Equal Pay Act 1970 - however, that relates to differences in pay between men and women doing the same, or comparable, work. There is even a specific Statutory Instrument (1997 No 2162) The Equal Pay (Complaints to Industrial Tribunals) (Armed Forces) Regulations 1997 - link is here:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1997/19972162.htm

[DunMoanin]

Climebear et al.

I'm reading with great interest, many thanks for all your informed comment.

Just out of interest, how much is a judicial review likely to cost? I seem to remember a legal case against the MOD for refusing to include Flying Pay in the pesion calculation (around mid 90's?) however, i seem to remember that some high paid London Barrister recommended dropping the case as he believed it was a loser from the outset.....can anyone add some hard facts?

[The Gorilla]

Dunmoanin

I was one of those who gladly gave up a days flying pay circa 96, in order to test the legality of the non pensionable flying pay. It did indeed go to barrister level and the case was dropped on his/her advice.

A judicial review AIUI would cost six figures but there are many stages of advice before you get to that point.

The only winners would be the law professionals!

[DunMoanin]

TG

Well i guess that just leaves the Mail on Sunday!!

Why is it the bare chested REMFs get to win every time......?? Guess it's time to leave, but even then you're playing into their hands as it saves them paying you redundancy when they need to cull certain ranks/ac types/etc. :{

[Touchin' Down]

Slight aside on flying pay, following a crew room discussion today; does anybody know if people on a short service commision are entitled to receive the upper rate of flying pay?

No, on a SSC you can only get up to middle rate regardless of your length of service/flying. Caught me out too.

[Touchin' Down]

Which having read all the posts above is along the same lines as the PA/PC issue I'm thinking. I've been on a short service commission meaning that I don't get high rate flying pay, even though my peers with equal or less experience on a PC do. I wasn't aware of this when I signed on to a SSC initially unfortunately. Same job but different terms of service = less pay. Bugger!

[Ginseng]

Nothing to do with SP(Flying) or even PVR specifically, but since you were discussing age discrimination, have alook at Draft Statutary Instrument 2006 No 0000, The Employment Discrimination (Age) Regulations at:

www.opsi.gov.uk

under New Legislation/Draft Statutory Instruments/21 March 2006

Regards

Ginseng

[Hueymeister]

So, if I took PA and then decided to jump ship, say after 5 years, what implications would that have on my pension/gratuity?

[LFFC]

As I understand it, you would still get the EDP that you expect to get - based on your PAS pay - and with no cut in pay prior to your "termination".

However, you'll be very lucky to get offered PAS these days! I understand that (due to their high cost) there is a strict limit to the number of PAS allowed - and most of the slots are filled by old Specialist Aircrew geezers who automatically got offered PAS when it was brought in a few years ago. As they are unlikely to leave early (because of the new pension scheme), very few people are getting offered PAS at their IRD. It's more likely that you will be offered an extension of service on your current (Career Spine) terms.

[LFFC]

Ginseng,

Nothing to do with SP(Flying) or even PVR specifically, but since you were discussing age discrimination, have alook at Draft Statutary Instrument 2006 No 0000, The Employment Discrimination (Age) Regulations

I suppose you mean the bit that says, "These regulations do not apply to service in any of the naval, military or air forces of the Crown"?

[Climebear]

LFFC

Exactly, for those interested its in Part 6 Sub 44(4).

As predicted by my earlier posts on this thread, it looks like the legislature is using the ability to exempt the Armed Forces from the legislation (as is the European Directive permits). The SI is still in draft so it could be ammended - if people feel strongly they could always lobby their MP;)

[Ginseng]

Yes, that was the bit!

Regards

Ginseng

[Hueymeister]

I would stay on the AFPS 75 scheme. How would I be treated? Have tried AP3393 etc, but to no avail. Also as JPA is immently going live no-one can help me at PSF.

[Touchin' Down]

Also beware of PVR'ing within 5 years of transferring to a PC (not sure about PA) from a SSC. If you do, you will lose immediate non-effective benefits such as the resettlement/terminal grant. Believe you still get a pension though.