CAA Director Airspace policy - £170 000 + bonus

[astir 8]

Job advertised in the Sunday Times Business Section 08/06/08

Director Airspace Policy, Civil Aviation Authority - £130 000 - £170 000 plus bonus!!!!

The Role
Create, gain support for and ensure the implementation of the CAA Strategy for airspace policy and practice.
Influence the development of UK and European policy to meet the needs of users of UK airspace and undertake air navigation functions ......


So for are start, since all you GA pilots must clearly better off than the Director, you can all shell out £5 grand for a Mode S transponder ... then what charges can I think of next to cover my salary!!!!

Are the powers that be taking the UK taxpayer for mugs yet again? :ugh::ugh::ugh:Discuss

[S-Works]

Er no. They are trying to attract high calibre individuals for a challenging job. I would not even work for such a figure and I know of many life sucking lawyers etc who spend more on expenses.

Not everyone has to be part of the socialist 2.4 children living in a tacky 'standard' box and taking home the national wage utopia.

People who have the skills for these roles are paid the market rates. This is a director level role and it is actually on the low side for the level of responsibility but is certainly on the market rate band.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Really? I'm no socialist, but do feel that this salary is excessive (not that I'd decline it if offered!)

Most of the public sector pays about £50-£70k for a department head, and at this level a bit under £100k would be more normal. A quick search online (http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/m06.pdf) tells me that a cabinet minister is making about £102k.

So we're talking a salary around 30-70% above, say, the defence or transport minister and just a little below the Prime Minister. I really don't think that this post carries 70% more responsibility than a cabinet minister, or only 10% less than the PM.

G

[S-Works]

No Genghis, but a standard government job salary is kept low on purpose. The CAA has more latitude being a 'corporate' to pay market rates. As for the cabinet ministers etc, the make it up in the couple of million in expenses and when they leave posts the cushy directorships. It is a means to an end. Blair makes millions on his book tours and after dinner speeches.

And you have just hit the nail on the head....

(not that I'd decline it if offered!)

It is about attracting the right people into the job and really what this complaints are about is the green eyed monster. If anyone here complaining about the jobs salary believes they have the skills to fill the post, they should apply for it......

[astir 8]

Well Bosey, I'm happy for you that you are earning enough that you wouldn't consider the job.

I'm in one of your "tacky" houses (sans brats fortunately). Not noticeably socialist.


errr - you're not paid by the great British taxpayer as well by any chance?

[S-Works]

Sorry Astir not meant as a personal pop more a reflection of the socialist society that rather than promotes excellence seeks to bring everybody down to make them equal.

No I am not a government employee, I have been in the past, I am a good old fashioned private sector person, 'delivering capitalism with lead pipe brutality' - 'Gross Point Blank'

I understand the difficulty in recruiting skilled and motivated people to do a job and filling senior positions with the right people not just another faceless droid requires a significant reward. The type of candidate that this role requires would attract double that salary in the private sector. Take a look at the salary packages for senior execs in the private sector. My boss is on £4m a year to run a PLC, most board positions are between £250k and £1.25m in our company. So a senior position in a large organisation like the CAA at board level as this one is, is actually below the market rate.

Like I said, most of the anti feelings here are from the green eyed monster. Those that are upset are usually those that would never have a chance at such a job.

[PompeyPaul]

No Genghis, but a standard government job salary is kept low on purpose
Because the minister is invariably receiving cash and benefits else where due to their position ?

[S-Works]

Because the minister is invariably receiving cash and benefits else where due to their position ?

Now there is a contentious question!!!! Take a look in this weeks times for an opinion.

My point was that those in senior government know the real gravy train starts when they leave office.

[astir 8]

I wonder what the bonus will be based on? Achievement of 100% controlled airspace over the UK? Number of GA aircraft grounded?

Sorry folks, if a bloke's running a productive private business he's welcome to all he can grab.

Yet another overpaid bureaucrat shuffling memos from other overpaid bureaucrats in Brussels - all paid for by us. There are way way too many of them about

Maybe I watched too much "Yes Minister"

[Mariner9]

I wonder if the bonus is related to percentage increase in Controlled Airspace :E

[S-Works]

God you lot are so cynical. Don't get me wrong I know this lefty government wastes way to much of our money on useless people and projects but at the same time if things are going to change you have to attract the people of the ight calibre from the private sector into public sector jobs. Otherwise it just ends up as promoting from within and nothing changes.

Bonus for this type of job is calculated on performance which will be an overall evaluation of the job was performed the tasks set by the authority and how they were completed. Overall performance of the authority based on the public audit etc.

[Contacttower]

Yet another overpaid bureaucrat shuffling memos from other overpaid bureaucrats in Brussels - all paid for by us. There are way way too many of them about

I know GA-CAA relations have always been a bit fraught but I consider (and I think most people would) the CAA to be a highly professional organisation which does very important work and needs to attract good people. To label the Director of Airspace Policy as an "overpaid bureaucrat" and lump him in the same boat as the many superfluous minions who inhabit Brussels seems completely unfair.

There is rightly a lot of anger at the way public money is spent in the whole political and administrative establishment both at home and in Europe but I wouldn't target that at the salary of the CAA's top staff.

[gasax]

I know GA-CAA relations have always been a bit fraught but I consider (and I think most people would) the CAA to be a highly professional organisation which does very important work and needs to attract good people. To label the Director of Airspace Policy as an "overpaid bureaucrat" and lump him in the same boat as the many superfluous minions who inhabit Brussels seems completely unfair

Spoken like a true Sir Humphrey! Yes they should be a highly professional organisation and yes they should under very important work. So why have their efforts over the last couple of years resembled your average local council? All the bright ones leaving for EASA or just rubbish management and leadership? I'd be delighted to pay this sort of money for someone who actually was capable and had never been in the RAF or NATS! However past experience shows that is what this moeny will probably buy.

[S-Works]

gasax, bit of a circular argument you just made!!


For the regulator to be the best, they have to invest in good people as you rightly pount out many have left for greener pastures. to bring in brighter and better people you have to go outside the organisation and bring in new blood from the private sector. To do this you have to make the grass as green or greener which means offering near to private sector packages.

Senior management in this country these days is in the multiples of hundreds of thousands of pounds climbing up to the multiples of millions of pounds. It is the way life is!!!

[astir 8]

That's the way it is. Not a convincing argument.

[XX621]

I wonder if the person occupying this role really would be pro-active in reducing the amount of CAS in this country if utilisation levels dropped signficantly over the next few years? Looking at the future of oil this is not beyond imagination.

Does it really matter what calibre of person sits in this role from "our" (GA) perspective if the answer to the above questions is in the negative?

[astir 8]

Whatever happened to "Do job well, keep job" "Do job badly, get fired"


Oh sorry, my mistake, this is the Civil Service we're talking about

(Definitely been watching too much "Yes Minister")

[S-Works]

Whatever happened to "Do job well, keep job" "Do job badly, get fired"


Oh sorry, my mistake, this is the Civil Service we're talking about

(Definitely been watching too much "Yes Minister")

Because in the real world it was discovered many years ago that reward outweighs threat. If you intimidate people they do not work well for you and are always looking for greener pastures. If you nurture and reward you keep good people.

I realise as I only have a few thousand people working for me that I have little understanding of the concept but I like to think I understand the basic elements.

[Contacttower]

However past experience shows that is what this moeny will probably buy.

That may well be true but how would paying less help the situation?

[DC10RealMan]

I will guarantee that this post will go to a newly retired ex-RAF senior officer on an superannuated pension. One might think that it is the old boys network at work again?

['Chuffer' Dandridge]

I was going to reply that any civilian trained GA pilot should look elsewhere, as the job will go to an ex-Miltary senior officer, but DC10RealMan beat me to it..

Do we wonder why issues such as Mode S have got so far, when most of the policy makers at the CAA are ex-military types waiting to claim their second pension? A sizeable proportion of those in management or policy making positions at CAA-SRG are retired senior officers......

Old Boy's network? Freemasonry? Cynical? Moi......?

PS. The CAA-SRG Group Director's job is also up for grabs, but again, don't expect it to be anyone with a civilian light aircraft background.

Astir,

this is the Civil Service we're talking about

The CAA staff are not civil servants

[Contacttower]

PS. The CAA-SRG Group Director's job is also up for grabs, but again, don't expect it to be anyone with a civilian light aircraft background.

It would be interesting to see how many people with such a background actually applied though. I may be wrong but perhaps it's not the sort of job that people like that are drawn to?

[Zulu Alpha]

"Do job well, keep job" "Do job badly, get fired"

This just leads to CYA so that you are above critisism. Thats why we have all these targets for public services and public servants playing the game by chasing them rather than doing what is needed.

Give a policeman a target of 5 prosecutions per month and 5 normally law abiding citizens will get speeding tickets for doing 33 in a 30 mph zone. Much easier than catching 5 drug dealers.

What you need is respected professional people with authority to get on with their job.

[Lurking123]

Maybe the military guys get the jobs because:

a. They are the only ones who apply.
b. They are willing to take the relatively low pay for the responsibility(see Bose X's comments)
c. They are the best people for the job?

Give over. :zzz:

[PPRuNe Radar]

a) and b) I can agree with :)

[Sir George Cayley]

I didn't know John was leaving. Wonder if it's retirement or pastures neu?

Chuffer Old Chap - Keep up, we're talking about DAP up on Kingsway. You are mistaken about SRG down at Gatport Airwick, where Blue has been almost completely erased.

Funnily enough, the one person there fighting for liberalsation of GPS recently retired, and he used to wear Blue.

Sir George Cayley

And like Bose-X not looking to take on the job. How would I pay my Footman on that income?

[sketchy]

Am I the only one who is slightly shocked that people on here insinuate £170,000.00 per annum is somehow low pay? Nearly £9,000 take home per month with the possibility of a bonus on top sounds pretty decent pay to me... then again I am just a commoner according to Bose!

The argument that the job comes with a relativity high level of responsibility does not really stick with me as if they do royally fudge up, whats the worst that will happen? A "to bad old chap" and a tasty golden handshake to see them on their way, only to turn up a few months later, wounds truly licked, at some other company on another huge salary?

Gotta say I find Bose's comments pretty insulting (probably not the first to say that!). I would assume that most on here do not earn that sort of money, and this could be for any number of reasons, but I do not think this is any reason to look down on them. Bose says he manages thousands of people - how many of them earn £170k a year? If a majority, I'm def in the wrong industry!

[youngskywalker]

I wouldnt really believe everything that one reads on these forums, some people tend to stretch the truth a little! It's a bit like internet dating, if they say "a few extra pounds" under body weight then that equates roughly to mean...run away! :)

[S-Works]

Gotta say I find Bose's comments pretty insulting (probably not the first to say that!). I would assume that most on here do not earn that sort of money, and this could be for any number of reasons, but I do not think this is any reason to look down on them. Bose says he manages thousands of people - how many of them earn £170k a year? If a majority, I'm def in the wrong industry!

I am not getting into a fight over this. Of course the majority of the population do not earn senior wages, neither do a significant portion of the people that work for me. Point out where I said they did. At no point have I looked down on anyone. We all achieve in life what we are motivated to do.

My views on the current socialist government are my views and nothing to do with looking down on others.

All I have been trying to say before it sank into the usual insult hurling is that senior people need to be attracted into these type of roles by making the package match what they have to offer. Even an organisation such as the CAA recognizes to bring talent into the public sector they must make it attractive. The package on offer when compared to what is achievable in the private sector by a suitably qualified and motivated individual is low. I really don't see what is so offensive about that.

I am sorry that people are upset that there are some in this country that earn more than minimum wage. But you will find it is the highly motivated, highly capable individuals who are prepared to go the extra mile and reach high standards.

You would be surprised how many on these forums would not get out of bed for such a package. I am just the only one to point out that it is the norm for the level rather than extraordinary. I could reel of a list of forumites who I know earn a damn site more and I would run out of fingers and toes to count. I know many people that have earned tens of millions yearly.

Like I said the green eyed monster is always going to come into play.

[niknak]

Unfortunately most of the "anti" posts reflect the ignorance of most of the posters.

£170K is a comparable wage to the salary of the MD of an average company with the turnover and importance of this particular position, but most MD's in the south of England earn a lot more.

There's not a great deal more to say other than G.A is a very small part of the CAA's remit and in terms of the amount G.A contributes financially, it's on the verge of bugger all.

[astir 8]

If CAA employees are not civil servants what are they? Is the CAA a private company?

Or are we just splitting hairs over the status of so-called Quangos?

[Contacttower]

Well they aren't civil servants in the sense that they aren't in the Civil Service, although you could call them that in a broad sense of the word. Public sector employee might be an appropriate description?

[sketchy]

Not trying to throw insults around here by any means, but your first post is a little out of order. I understand that a broad spectrum of people will post on these forums and mainly because of our common interest, more people from the top 5% salary band could afford to take up the hobby and therefore post here. The point I'm making is that you have tarred all people who earn less than you as un-motivated, low caliber people living in a "tacky 'standard' box! Not meaning to sound like one of those well meaning hippy types, but there are plenty or professions that attract high caliber people but attract a lower salary than the one quoted.... including every pilot who posts on the professional forum here I would imagine!

The Mother-in-Law is the head of the biggest college in the region, in charge of nearly 8,000 staff - she only just breaks £100k a year. I mention this as one example of public sector workers who earn less than their private sector peers, why should the CAA be any different?

The thing that gets me about all this is that people (and AOPA, who your a rep for I believe Bose) never stop complaining about the charges the CAA impose and the cost to GA pilots of the regulations they pass. Even if GA is a small part of the CAA's remit, "every little helps" (to copy the commoners supermarket) and so should we not be on their case to ensure they keep their spending in check? And clearly, if most on here earn so much, they should just pay up and stop winging.

The green-eyed monster thing is just childish - as who would not love to earn that sort of money? But you coming back with "your just jealous" to a criticism is a playground tactic kids use when they have run out of ideas.

[S-Works]

If CAA employees are not civil servants what are they? Is the CAA a private company?

Or are we just splitting hairs over the status of so-called Quangos?

Please don't this as being rude, but where are you from or specifically which planet!

Do you even know what a quangos is? More specifically if you are going to complain about an organisation the least you could do is understand how it operates and it's remit.

No they are not civil servants. The CAA is a corporate body operated by the DofT and as such they are required to return a small profit. I seem to recall it is currently 6%. Non of the staff are civil servants and do not operate on civil servant grades.

[S-Works]

Not trying to throw insults around here by any means, but your first post is a little out of order. I understand that a broad spectrum of people will post on these forums and mainly because of our common interest, more people from the top 5% salary band could afford to take up the hobby and therefore post here. The point I'm making is that you have tarred all people who earn less than you as un-motivated, low caliber people living in a "tacky 'standard' box! Not meaning to sound like one of those well meaning hippy types, but there are plenty or professions that attract high caliber people but attract a lower salary than the one quoted.... including every pilot who posts on the professional forum here I would imagine!

The Mother-in-Law is the head of the biggest college in the region, in charge of nearly 8,000 staff - she only just breaks £100k a year. I mention this as one example of public sector workers who earn less than their private sector peers, why should the CAA be any different?

The thing that gets me about all this is that people (and AOPA, who your a rep for I believe Bose) never stop complaining about the charges the CAA impose and the cost to GA pilots of the regulations they pass. Even if GA is a small part of the CAA's remit, "every little helps" (to copy the commoners supermarket) and so should we not be on their case to ensure they keep their spending in check? And clearly, if most on here earn so much, they should just pay up and stop winging.

The green-eyed monster thing is just childish - as who would not love to earn that sort of money? But you coming back with "your just jealous" to a criticism is a playground tactic kids use when they have run out of ideas

Ok mate, go on, get the guns blazing if it makes you feel better. I have tried to be reasonable and told you I was not looking for a fight. If you really want to get into a war of words with me I am game. Just bear in mind that it will no doubt end up with us both being banned for awhile as I don't take crap from people like you.

So your mother in law 'only' makes £100k in charge of a college with 8,000 staff, whoopy, perhaps she should go and get another job if she wants more, or maybe she enjoys her job and thinks the salary is acceptable, who knows.


My comment about the tacky box's is a reference to the eco-towns that this government thinks is a great idea to rip up our airfields and green spaces to build tens of thousands of identical little boxes all so we can get more people on the property ladder to continue fueling the credit culture in this country (we are the only country in Europe where everyone is driven to own a home as soon as possible).

As far as CAA costs are concerned it is a chicken and egg situation, yes AOPA want to keep the costs to aviation down, the direct costs hit people in the pocket at the small end of GA more than the CAT guys. But develop sensible policy and implement it and deal with the heavyweights in the airlines (who do buy in people with clout) requires individuals that can match those that they are dealing with. You need to take your head out of the GA bucket and look at the big picture. I was one of the founding team of a well known airline and the brightest and the best were brought into to ensure the success of the start up. That included people who it was felt had the strength to put pressure on the CAA. It is good to see the CAA recruiting likewise to bring balance.

I work in the private sector because the rewards are greater for my unique skills and as the holder of a direct P&L if I get it wrong I expect to 'fall on my sword' but if I get it right I expect the rewards that go with the dedication.

And finally I think you will find that your retort to the green eyed monster is actually the last bastion of the kid on the playground who has run out of mudd to sling.......

Pissing contest over.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Hmmmm.

I've worked in the public sector most of my life (never so far for the CAA and it's not on my list of ambitions); I've twice run departments and am about to take over my third - none as large as DAP, but all involving flying machines, safety and lots of people telling me how I should do my job.

Technically speaking, working for the CAA isn't civil service - but that's a moot point. It's public sector, with variations upon the job security, service ethos, pension rights, etc. that go with it. Nowadays there's a "public sector pensions club" which transfers pension rights between old and new employers within this sector.

Head of DAP is an important post with difficult and conflicting demands upon it; our views with GA, those of the airlines, those of the military operators, those of the general public we all fly over - well you'll never keep everybody (anybody?) completely happy and without any doubt that job needs somebody of a very high quality and they should be paid well to attract the right person. It's not unlikely that this may be somebody who used to wear a military uniform - let's face it, the services (usually) recruit the best and train them better, which tends to make people with such a background very appealing to an employer like the CAA (which, and I am being critical here, has little or no tradition of training people up from the bottom). That said, the autocratic, delegatory and hierarchical management approach within the services has to be unlearned rapidly - a few managers at CAA have sometimes failed in that and have been regarded by those of us outside unfavourably as a consequence.


But, let's be honest - CAA culture is largely office based, the career risks to any employee are relatively low (ever hear of a CAA manager sacked for making a mess of things - now how many times have you heard of this in industry or even the services?). This is also a Directors job, not the Chairman, so to compare this to a company MD in terms of responsibility is not reasonable.

Major functional heads in the public sector aren't badly paid these days - head of a large college, university faculty, small research council, large housing association: they can all expect to see high 5-figure salaries, perhaps a little over £100k. By and large this seems to attract the right people who do a good job.

Personally, I'd say the same should be true of this position.

G

[Lurking123]

Look here (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/593/FOTI%20June%2008.pdf). A coal face worked within the same company (different department) who is at least 2 rungs down the responsibility ladder. "Ah but...." I hear you say.

[sketchy]

1) Jesus mate, chill out! Genuinely wasn't trying to throw insults around (not one of the "don't mean to be rude BUT" moments). Seriously I'm not looking for a war of words, just a healthy debate and, to me at least, that was pretty obvious from my last post. So don't worry you were not having to "take crap from people like" me!

2)The 'only' was to highlight that she makes £102k therefore she 'only' just breaks £100k. She doesn't want more, she is very comfortable and likes her job. That is not my point though.

3) OK, what I thought you meant by 'tacky' box was your standard suburban semi, what the majority of people on middle of the road incomes live in.

4) Thanks for the explanation, it makes sense that the CAA not a strong team to stand up to the airline 'big boys' and who should, in theory at least, stand up for GA. As an AOPA rep though, do you really believe that's going to happen based on past experience?

See, that weren't so bad was it.

[astir 8]

Mr Bose re your question

Please don't this as being rude, but where are you from or specifically which planet!

Do you even know what a quangos is? More specifically if you are going to complain about an organisation the least you could do is understand how it operates and it's remit.

Answer - I'm from Wales specifically Llangollen - now let's hear you pronounce that!

Quango

Quango (p.s. not a quangos) has been used as an acronym for

a) "Quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation

or b) Quasi non-governmental organisation

or c) Quasi-autonomous national governmental organisation

A Quango has also been described as a non-departmental public body

Personally I take the CAA to fall into the category of b) above.

Amongst other things if the CAA is not a government body, how does it get to prosecute people?

Oh and since you were being rude, it's now my turn.

Comment deleted after cooling off slightly

[PPRuNe Radar]

It doesn't take a lot of research to find out what the CAA actually is.

The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which is a public corporation, was established by Parliament in 1972 as an independent specialist aviation regulator and provider of air traffic services.


The CAA is the UK's independent specialist aviation regulator. Its activities include economic regulation, airspace policy, safety regulation and consumer protection.

The UK Government requires that the CAA’s costs are met entirely from its charges on those whom it regulates. Unlike many other countries, there is no direct Government funding of the CAA’s work.

[flaxman]

Please don't this as being rude, but where are you from or specifically which planet!

astir 8 - I wouldn't either waste bandwidth asking the question. Bose X is a sky god (here and elsewhere), and everyone else just has to fall in behind him. Any "misunderstanding" is always down to the reader, and never the result of his use of the English language :rolleyes:

[astir 8]

No worries, it was Bosey asking me which planet I come from, not vice versa.

Planet Wales innit?:ok:

['Chuffer' Dandridge]

You are mistaken about SRG down at Gatport Airwick, where Blue has been almost completely erased.


Really? I must be mistaken then. You've only got to eavesdrop on the "When I was on...." (Insert RAF/Navy types here) war stories during CAA lunch hour at Aviation House to know that this is just not the case. I've often heard the same stories twice:eek:

Not many AAC chaps in the flying posts though......

[S-Works]

Astrid....



Answer - I'm from Wales specifically Llangollen - now let's hear you pronounce that!

With ease, spent a lot of time in the area, used to have my kayaks built by Nomad who were in the warehouse building down the side of the river.

Quango

Quango (p.s. not a quangos) has been used as an acronym for

a) "Quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation

or b) Quasi non-governmental organisation

or c) Quasi-autonomous national governmental organisation

A Quango has also been described as a non-departmental public body

Personally I take the CAA to fall into the category of b) above.

Amongst other things if the CAA is not a government body, how does it get to prosecute people?

Oh and since you were being rude, it's now my turn.

Comment deleted after cooling off slightly

The CAA does not fit that description which is why I pulled you on it. PPruneRadar saved me the hassle of doing the job for you and looking it up....

Flaxman, thanks for the recognition of my status..... :ok:

[Final 3 Greens]

FWIW I think that Ghengis' post sums this up very well.

£170Kpa to be a director of a public corporation that has no competition and limited risk seems way on the high side.

Quite frankly, does it really need a world class candidate to do this job or just a very good one (this last differentiation makes quite a difference to compensation.,)

[Genghis the Engineer]

With ease, spent a lot of time in the area, used to have my kayaks built by Nomad who were in the warehouse building down the side of the river.

And still are I think. Check your PMs bose-x; I think that we probably used to race against each other.

G

[tmmorris]

I think what is missing from this discussion is the fact that we feel not that £170,000 is an outrageous amount of money, but that it's an outrageous amount of our money. Actually, I think it's the wrong target. The problem is the lack of independent scrutiny of the charging regime, and of the manning levels required to deliver the services which the CAA is obliged to provide. I.e. we all feel that the boys keep one another in nice little sinecures until retirement, paid with our fees for PPL issues, C of A and the like.

Now probably much of this is untrue. It's just that no-one really seems to know.

Tim

[shortstripper]

BOSE X

Great, you're a big earner, and good for you! Yep, there are jobs out there that attract huge salaries, but please, please don't insult us with all this bull****e about such high earners being so because they are "highly motivated" or "go the extra mile". They may very well be, but many of us do just that, but earn far more, (dare I say?) normal wages! I work in excess of 80 hours per week, and do my job to the very best of my ability. I've won prizes for my business and have improved profitability in a time that many are fleeing the industry. What do I do? I'm a farm manager. I have a degree, work bloody hard, and I'm pretty sure I'm at the top of my game. However, farming will never pay the kind of money you'd even consider. So what should we all do? Quit these sort of jobs and become the elite "essential" earners you so defend? Sorry, but in my book we're all essential and should not be considered any less motivated just because we don't aspire to your wage level :mad:

Ok, like I said, you're doing well and I'm sure you're worth it ... But how about you try not to rub our noses in it eh?

SS

[youngskywalker]

And now that you have confirmed that you are minted. I'm definatly going to try and marry your daughter! :ok:

[BartV]

You socialists are just pathetic...but I have a solution:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Rc-chipmunk-hcrcf-jmc-080330.jpg

[S-Works]

BOSE X

Great, you're a big earner, and good for you! Yep, there are jobs out there that attract huge salaries, but please, please don't insult us with all this bull****e about such high earners being so because they are "highly motivated" or "go the extra mile". They may very well be, but many of us do just that, but earn far more, (dare I say?) normal wages! I work in excess of 80 hours per week, and do my job to the very best of my ability. I've won prizes for my business and have improved profitability in a time that many are fleeing the industry. What do I do? I'm a farm manager. I have a degree, work bloody hard, and I'm pretty sure I'm at the top of my game. However, farming will never pay the kind of money you'd even consider. So what should we all do? Quit these sort of jobs and become the elite "essential" earners you so defend? Sorry, but in my book we're all essential and should not be considered any less motivated just because we don't aspire to your wage level

Ok, like I said, you're doing well and I'm sure you're worth it ... But how about you try not to rub our noses in it eh?

SS

You know what, I don't give a toss. I tried to bring some balance to the reason why these jobs are paid they way they are. I frankly don't care about your education or your chosen career and whether it is well paid or not. It was not my intention to rub anyones nose in anything, if you feel so inferior that you perceived it that way then tough luck.

But as usual it comes down to mud slinging. So go plough your field or whatever it is that keeps you happy. Out of interest who paid for your degree, mummy and daddy send you to that nice little farming university so you could learn all about land management? A few beers and some shagging whle you studied 'full time'? Before you insult me at least do me the courtesy of asking about my background and where my education came from.

I never suggested anyone quit any job, nor that anyone should change their career. All I did was try and explain to the mud slingers the logic behind the packages that these organisations offer. If you are happy working 80hrs a week for whatever remuneration you get then good on you. I would kill to have people with your work ethic.

You know **** all about me but think it perfectly acceptable to have a pop and read things into my posts that fit your own sense of inadequacy. NOWHERE have I derided or insulted anyone that does not earn a huge salary.

:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

[eharding]

You know what, I don't give a toss. I tried to bring some balance to the reason why these jobs are paid they way they are. I frankly don't care about your education or your chosen career and whether it is well paid or not. It was not my intention to rub anyones nose in anything, if you feel so inferior that you perceived it that way then tough luck.

But as usual it comes down to mud slinging. So go plough your field or whatever it is that keeps you happy. Out of interest who paid for your degree, mummy and daddy send you to that nice little farming university so you could learn all about land management? A few beers and some shagging whle you studied 'full time'? Before you insult me at least do me the courtesy of asking about my background and where my education came from.

I never suggested anyone quit any job, nor that anyone should change their career. All I did was try and explain to the mud slingers the logic behind the packages that these organisations offer. If you are happy working 80hrs a week for whatever remuneration you get then good on you. I would kill to have people with your work ethic.

You know **** all about me but think it perfectly acceptable to have a pop and read things into my posts that fit your own sense of inadequacy. NOWHERE have I derided or insulted anyone that does not earn a huge salary.


And breath.....breath...and maybe play some soothing whale-song/womb-music....light some scented candles, and maybe go off and perform the blood-pressure-reduction procedure unofficially recommended by various AMEs.

You need to relax mate. You're on the verge of being seen as....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2FhFi0FZ9Y

But more importantly, this little beauty...


But you will find it is the highly motivated, highly capable individuals who are prepared to go the extra mile and reach high standards.


Bordering on bone-fide middle-management buzzword bullsh!t b0llocks bingo - any more of that and you enter "Leveraging synergy across all platforms" territory, at which point the Pprune Terms & Conditions apparently allow us to have you keel-hauled. Under HMS Belfast. Twice.

This thread isn't about you...or what you earn. Its about what the CAA are paying themselves, and what they do for the money. Frankly, if there was an opportunity for me to start Honest Ed's Airspace Ltd, and provide a high-quality bespoke airspace service to high-quality clients such as yourself, in competition with the CAA, at half the price, then fair enough. But what we're seeing is an ineffective monopoly taking the piss with 'executive' salaries for equally ineffective time-servers. They have to advertise the post by law, but if it goes to someone not already in the Belgrano I'll eat my Gentex.

[S-Works]

This thread isn't about you...or what you earn. Its about what the CAA are paying themselves, and what they do for the money. Frankly, if there was an opportunity for me to start Honest Ed's Airspace Ltd, and provide a high-quality bespoke airspace service to high-quality clients such as yourself, in competition with the CAA, at half the price, then fair enough. But what we're seeing is an ineffective monopoly taking the piss with 'executive' salaries for equally ineffective time-servers. They have to advertise the post by law, but if it goes to someone not already in the Belgrano I'll eat my Gentex.

Exactly Ed, but it seems some people took it as an opportunity for a childish fight when all I tried to do was point out that it was a reasonable sector salary.

Whether we end up getting a candidate that proves to be value for money is a different matter.

[shortstripper]

Bose,

If you read my post again you will see that I wasn't mud slinging or insulting toward you or the salary you earn. As I said, that's good for you and as I also said, I'm sure you're worth it. What I took exception to, was the way you implied that all these high earners are there because they have the kind of motivation and hard work ethic that sets them above the rest of us. IMHO THAT is the bit of what you say that is tter ( B.... ok I'll modify my comment a bit) .... rubbish!

Just as I have no idea about your background, you have no idea of mine. However, you are clearly happy to make the same assumptions you accuse me of :hmm: Although you disguise it behind a question, you imply Mummy and Daddy payed for me to go to college? As it happens, my father was a lobster fisherman and earned enough to get by, but certainly not enough to pay my way. I've done that myself since I was 15 years old when my parents moved away ... thankyou very much! Also for your information, whilst I certainly wouldn't say no to your salary, I certainly DO NOT feel inferior to you (unless you stuck me in IMC in a ME where I would most certainly bow to your experience ;)). Actually, though I often moan about it (who doesn't?) I'm happy enough in my job, although I must admit the hours are becoming more tedious as I get older. Also, though it's probably not truely representative, watching "the apprentice" and seeing how much a.. licking and back stabbing is required to progress in the corporate world ......... I think can keep it!

I still think £170,000 is too much for the post :p

SS

[S-Works]

I still think £170,000 is too much for the post :p

You would, is it to much for your job? Is there such a thing as to much money for our own jobs?

If you answer yes then you are in the wrong field (no pun intended), may I then suggest a new career, Saint, Pope or maybe Jesus Christ.


;)

[shortstripper]

Fair point ... and whilst I think I am worth it, who would pay me £170K to manage their farm? If you know someone who would, and let me know and I'll happily consider you to be a Saint, Pope or Jesus Christ!

;)

[sketchy]

You would, is it to much for your job? Is there such a thing as to much money for our own jobs

I would say yes, considering that the post holders salary is partly being funded by GA and does not seem to be in-line with other public sector leaders who we have established, in some cases, earn far less.

And I thought it was you who currently held the position of Jesus Christ, obvioulsy you have found a more senior position.

[S-Works]

Quote:
You would, is it to much for your job? Is there such a thing as to much money for our own jobs
I would say yes, considering that the post holders salary is partly being funded by GA and does not seem to be in-line with other public sector leaders who we have established, in some cases, earn far less.

And I thought it was you who currently held the position of Jesus Christ, obvioulsy you have found a more senior position.

Show me where the post is being funded by GA to any noticeable value and we can have a different discussion. GA pays a tiny minority of the revenue generated by the CAA. This is a GREAT bone of contention to the airlines who have tried to 'even' things up over recent years but even then the GA input is tiny in the scheme of things.

I think a lot of people posting on here are just looking for a fight rather than a real understanding of how the CAA operates, how the charges made to GA from the CAA are actually made and what percentage of CAA revenues that GA actually inputs.

Don't get me wrong, I am not defending the CAA, even Jesus Christ could not do that at times with a clear conscience. But I am pragmatic enough to understand how it works.

I went through the Sunday times this morning from last weekend and looked at the public sector jobs (of which the CAA is actually private sector with a public oversight) and the salaries are in line. As far as private sector is concerned we recently employed a Head of It for one the group companies with 40 staff reporting in and the salary was £160k plus car and benefits, shares and bonus.

A band of £130-170k is not unusual I think.

[Captain Smithy]

Why all the insults back-and-forth? Completely unrelated to the thread, and like children in a playground. We're all adults aren't we? Cut it out. :rolleyes:

The only one who seems to have spoken any sort of sense in this discussion is tmmorris (Post #47).

[Lurking123]

Look here (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/286/CAA%20Report.pdf) for a start.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I think that you are a little unfair there Captain Smithy - everybody who has posted makes sense, it's just that there are two very different viewpoints here. The majority of us believe that for a senior (but not top) job in the CAA, the salary of £130-£170k is excessive, because of the level, public sector employment nature and low career risk to the employee. On the other hand bose-x expresses the alternative view that this is a critical executive job and should be remunerated in accordance with private sector practice.

Ultimately the casting vote rests with two people who, so far as I know, don't post on PPrune - they are Sir Roy McNulty, the CAA Chairman, and Des Browne, the Defence Minister. Since DAP is a joint CAA/MoD body, they must have agreed between them that the salary on offer is appropriate to the post. In other words, they agree with bose-x.

Personally I think that all three of them are wrong (and suspect that this is the majority view here) - but I doubt that'll worry any of them very much.



Now stepping sideways in the argument a bit - the armed services pay well, but not exceptionally. They also manage to attract some of the best young people this (or any other) country has to offer and keep them amongst the best for as long as they continue to serve. The CAA has virtually no tradition of bringing people in from the bottom and training them up - it's recruitment is essentially parasitic, taking people from outside and already experienced and trained. To get away with that, it does have to pay very well to lure people from the organisations that do bring people in and train them. That, possibly, is at the root of the high salary on offer for this and other CAA jobs. I imagine that somebody's done a cost benefit analysis of this and decided that the approach makes good sense - for the CAA at-least, if not for the rest of the aircraft industry.

G

[jonkil]

Great to see that your "highly" paid jobs allows you all the time to post so much crap.:zzz:
You will find that the people that matter in the scheme of things are the entrepreneurs, people who have the balls to put their money where their mouth are, and IF it succeeds, reap the rewards, and get shafted by revenue for succeeding :mad:........and the goverement in turn pay it to all the wasters that do f**k all... but hell, democracy is great ! :oh:
Maybe you should all get a hobby if you all have so much time on your hands, I hear that this flying lark is great fun. :hmm:

[PPRuNe Radar]

It's small beer when you look at what similar executive directors posts actually get in NATS, the national ATC provider, although the base salary of £170K is about the same. You can probably assume your new man in DAP will net similar bonuses and benefits.

2007

Managing Director - Paid £408K plus accrued bonus of £63K after 3 years service. Pension transfer value £158K.

Finance Director - £265K plus accrued bonus of £2K. Pension transfer value £315K

Business/Operational Performance Director - £268K plus accrued bonus of £3K. Pension transfer value £1.07M. (The post holder has been an ATC controller for many years, hence a high pension compared to the others who have only been in NATS a relatively short while).


Market forces, exactly as Bose-X states.

[Contacttower]

The CAA has virtually no tradition of bringing people in from the bottom and training them up - it's recruitment is essentially parasitic, taking people from outside and already experienced and trained.

For a body like the CAA that is probably how it should work though - it needs to take in senior figures from the aviation industry who have practical experience of the areas that they will be regulating. Not much point in training people in house to direct airspace policy when all they know is what the CAA has taught them - we'd be afflicted with "career regulators" in the same way we have career politicians.

To take one example from the list of executive members in the report:

02 JOHN ARSCOTT
He was appointed to the Board as Director,
Airspace Policy in March 2001. Prior to that he
held the post of Director, Airspace Policy, serving
as a RAF Air Vice-Marshal (1999-2001). He is a
member of the Airspace Policy Committee and
Chairman of the National Air Traffic Management
Advisory Committee. Prior to that he was Air Officer
Commanding, Headquarters Military Air Traffic
Operations for the Royal Air Force (1995-1999).

The CAA can't hope to train people like that so it has to attract them from the military/industry or wherever. The cost benefit analysis of whether it should be parasitic or not seems pretty obvious.

My initial reaction when I saw the figure was "that sounds an awful lot" but I can't see why the CAA would pay more than it had to....so unless a figure sounds outrageous I'm inclined to think well if that's what the CAA feels it needs to then so be it, I'll trust their judgement.

[IO540]

One question not yet AFAICS asked is:

What exactly does this job involve?

I am not looking for a job description. The advert would contain that. I am asking for a description of the actual tasks which need doing.

Regarding attracting ex chief air marshalls etc etc, yes you cannot convert a 16 year old apprentice into an ex chief air marshall while he is working inside the CAA :) but it does not at all follow that you need an ex chief air marshall to do this job.

If however your agenda is just a little different perhaps.... you are yourself ex RAF top brass and you want to recruit your old chums to work along side you, then suddenly it all makes sense and it is absolutely vital for the CAA to be run by ex top brass from the military.

[XX621]

IO540: I was wondering the same.

However, if the choice is someone from an civilian/airline background or the RAF I would prefer the latter - on the basis GA user's might actually get a word in, and listened to, on airspace changes (an assumption based on perception rather than fact I might add).

I would like to see more innovation and efficiency brought to airspace utilisation in the UK. Why should huge blocks of class D airspace sit there for hours on end with not a hint of aircraft to control in it for example?

Demand for CAS, in reality, must be constantly changing - and in different ways across the country. Yet all we see is more and more blue on our charts - perhaps my perception is wrong, but we just seem to be sleep walking into the UK (ok,. maybe just England) becoming one large TMA.

[Contacttower]

Yet all we see is more and more blue on our charts - perhaps my perception is wrong, but we just seem to be sleep walking into the UK (ok,. maybe just England) becoming one large TMA.

There has been some CAS lost over the years...I believe Southend and Lydd used to have CTRs as well as the decline in the number of MATZs. Although the overall trend is almost certainly up.

[Lurking123]

Is that not a statement of the bleedin' obvious? CAT passenger figures have grown exponentially. The real question, from a GA perspective, is how readily can CAS be accessed? I'm all for a countrywide blanket of CAS (how about calling it Managed Airspace?) as long as it can be managed such that people can get in. The bit that gets right under my skin is 'empty' CAS.

Oh, and I reckon the pay offer is about right considering the amount of abuse the successful applicant will get from this forum. :p

[XX621]

...The bit that gets right under my skin is 'empty' CAS.

Exactly. I would be very interested to see the data correlating CAS areas with associated airport movements - particulalry over the fothcoming next few years.

It's such a shame GA has been pushed to one side in such a haste to bend-over for the airlines; particularly given the history of aviation in this country. Well, thats how it seems anyway.