Rumours of Redundancies...

[sidewayspeak]

Friend of a friend is at AHQ. We are hearing some interesting rumours coming out of the 'starred officer discussion groups':

Surge of recruiting has been 'too successful' and trades are now being closed.

New plans to get the RAF down to 35,000.

A new round of Redundancies.

Extending leaving age to 60 to reduce the pension burden

Clearly I'm only offering completely unsubstantiated rumours. But would be interested to hear from anybody who has heard the same, especially if more substance to them.

[Tiger_mate]

The only way you could cut back numbers any further (and you are taliking about 25ish % of total) would be to significantly extend civilianisation of trades. Otherwise the role of 'Airpower' in the UK would need to be rewritten as Roles would need to be deleted.

This would also lend itself to the rumoured redundancy, otherwise the comments above are confusing and very mixed signals. Of course group ideology within a boardroom and practical reality are often continents apart.

I understand that extended service to 60 is already available and considered on an individual case by case basis. There is no way I would even mildly consider any service beyond 55 and it is quite likely I will be gone before then. Redundancy? ...Yes please!

I have heard from the chap with a pick at the coal face (RAF Regt) that recruiting for previously critically manned trades has stopped, despite the expenditure of an advertising campaign video that was not required after completion. So perhaps there is some truth in your rumour.

The system should be second guessing the economic recovery for when it happens, the PVRs presently on hold, may well prove to be a surge; and it will be 'Experience' that is leaving.

[Adam Nams]

Surge of recruiting has been 'too successful' and trades are now being closed

...which means in a years to come those trades will be 'top heavy'. I'm sorry but doesn't anyone keep an eye on the recruiters and the numbers anymore?

New plans to get the RAF down to 35,000

Great - I can just see those 'air ranks' who know that they don't have much of a job to do starting to get twitchy!

A new round of Redundancies

Another morale booster for the boys - especially if it is for Air Rank and above or 'Starred Officers'

Extending leaving age to 60 to reduce the pension burden

I don't know the calculations but don't you get a bigger pension for staying in past 55 (based on years served???).

I bet the 'starred officer discussion groups' didn't get to the bottom line -

The RAF is too 'top heavy' - make cuts there instead of the workers at the front line.

There - sorted!

[Pontius Navigator]

I make it 16% not 25% but that is just fiddling.

As for over recruiting and getting top heavy, over recruiting was a policy at one time in anticipation of increased exits at the other end.

Yes someone does keep an eye on the figures for lets say 6 years or so in advance :)

Seriously, from the RAF website it would appear that WSO are only being recruited on short service commissions. For anyone who wants a career in civvie street in their 30s it looks a good deal. For anyone who wants acareer in the RAF - dead duck.

[Biggus]

PN - I believe that WSOs have only been recruited on short service commissions for some years now. It is a trade that is rapidly shrinking. When Typhoon is fully up and running, FSTA in service, etc the main areas for WSO will be MRA4, GR4 and training (going out to civy contract). I saw a report several years ago from Innsworth identifying a need for 120 WSOs long term, with 600+ in service at that time!

As for the rumours that started this thread, mixed messages indeed. Shrink down to 35,000 with redundancies on the one hand. Extended service to 60, which will decrease your natural wastage, making 35,000 harder to reach, on the other....:ugh:

[Pontius Navigator]

biggus, quite. I know from a meeting some years ago that long term planning is pretty close to short term. IMHO this is because the staff officer levels have been refined to such an extent that the majority are operating on reactive and routine work and there is no spare capacity for 'blue sky' or 'out of the box' thinking.

Any 'off the wall' ideas would need staffing and if there is no staff then the idea will 'wither on the vine'.

Again, IMHO, it is one reason why procurement gets such a 'bad name' because there are not enough people to really 'brainstorm' a problem.

All trite buzz words but I think there is much truth in that.

[Tourist]

Pontious.

Do my eyes deceive me?
Did you just suggest that the problem with procurement was a lack of people?!!:eek:

[Pontius Navigator]

Tourist, lack of people in the right places. At the coal face you may think there are too many staff weenies. As aircrew, if you are not one for the greasey pole - CAS with 2500 hours in your log book - then you would probably cut your wrists before volunteering for a staff job.

However from my more elevated and remote position I do have time to think and plan. It is clear however that the staffs that are in place are almost wholly reactive rather than proactive and working creatively. Fire fighting rather than building fireproofing.

[RumPunch]

From an Engineering perspective I cannot see this happening. The stretch has gone too far and our guys cannot take any more overstretch . If more cuts are introduced then in my opinion you are taking the safety of aircrew out of the game and many will no longer put there names to things. Cuts were enough a few years back but it just cannot get anymore.

[Tiger_mate]

RumPunch: Nobody will argue your point when taken at face value, but the system could continue to 'cut' support staffs and replace them with civilian contractors. Vunerable trades such as Catering, Security, Admin, MTSS amongst others. Of course there are many valid arguments that make such widespread cuts undesirable, not least who is going to provide a stn guardforce in times of internal security threat, but a system focused only on cost cutting of a payroll and pension burden will turn a blind eye to a statistically unlikely drama in the future (& once the decision maker has moved on/retired).

For the fiqures quoted to be anywhere near achievable, several bases would need to close and those left behind presently doing the jobs of 3 people would need to take on the responsibility for more. Military ethos is a 'can-do-attitude' and we usually cope; I for one hope I do not witness what happens when the system really has gone too-far.

[Hueymeister]

Hmmmm ok, feast-famine..we can't get it right can we?:cool:..the sine wave we're riding does seem to be 180 deg out of phase...
Still if they make the offer worthwhile..maybe...:}

[Wader2]

RumPunch, remember what happened with the peace dividend in 1992. Whole trade groups (well part of them like Sim Techs) were made redundant even when they were employed operationally as E3 Techs. There were strong reasons why newly trained personnel in an essential job should have been allowed to remain in post, but there was no quarter and they were gone in a flash.

What you are saying is that there is no salami left to slice. I suspect that you are looking to lose a slice of the bread instead.

[Jabba_TG12]

The salami that does need slicing is at star rank. Has needed slicing for years, but funnily enough, turkeys dont vote for Xmas. Sorry, I meant "Winterval". :mad:

[Dengue_Dude]

Perhaps when the RAF reaches 35,000, each SAC can have their own Air Officer (who are in training for jobs as Health Service 'managers').

Looks like building up to leave being cancelled until morale improves soon. Glad I left when I did.

Good luck to all those serving, it just begs the question 'Who'?

[RumPunch]

Tiger - Sure thing you are right nobody will listen to safety aspect of things, I am just not a fan of further cuts and I just think things have gone too far at present but our opinion at shop floor is never really listened too.

[minigundiplomat]

Perhaps when the RAF reaches 35,000, each SAC can have their own Air Officer


There must be enough for Cpl's too!

[Dengue_Dude]

Sorry, yes there should be enough to go around . . .

[Grabbers]

Yes but..............................








Are there going to be any redundancies?

[Wrathmonk]

As daft as it sounds I don't think the MOD can afford a redundancy programme, particularly if they are aiming it at the top of the 'pyramid'. "Golden bowlers" are very expensive in the short term and any changes are likely to take a couple of years to implement (particularly for those who have a union to fight their corner!) and it is the here and now that the money is needed.

What I suspect they will look to do is sign fewer people on for extensions of service and offer less in the way of long term "contracts" (ie more SSC and less PC). The RAF will lose experienced people at one end and be replaced with fewer 'newbies' (who are cheaper) at the other (i.e replace a 2 x 22 yr service SNCO with 1 x LAC). The manning requirement will balance for less money even if it is full of people with either less than 5-8 years service or more than 25 (and locked in by the schooling allowance).

Contractorisation is not the answer either IMHO. Whilst the wage bill goes down it means (as many have said before) you have a smaller pool of deployable pers / enhanced guard force "volunteers" etc. You only have to look at the medical services (and to some extent the old Supply and MTD drivers) to see how contractorisation is not working for those left in uniform (again, IMHO).

There are 2 other ways to get the numbers down cheaply - use the admin discharge more widely for those no longer fit to do their duty (and, as uncomfortable as it may be, this may have to include those wounded in action - no flaming please, there's a whole thread on this elsewhere). And then of course they could always make life so 'uncomfortable' that it encourages people to PVR (put quarter charges up several hundred percent, remove schools allowance, reduce leave entitlement, increase OOA to 12-18 month tours etc etc - all easy to introduce as they don't change any "T&C" we may believe we have).

As always I'm bound to be proved wrong and await the missive from AHQ...:rolleyes:

[VinRouge]

Schools allowance will probably go IMHO unfortunately. Dont hear many saying these days at work "I will leave if they axe it" do you now?

[Biggus]

The need will probably be to save money in the very short term.

Closing bases costs more in the first few years than it saves. Short term savings (for the RAF) include:

Fuel costs (fly less)

Wages (if you can get rid of people without it costing too much, reduce recruiting, increase natural wastage by not signing people on, etc)

Reduce spending on short term lead items, spares, etc.

Cancel programmes where spending has not yet been committed.




See post 69 by Vin Rouge in the "Will the Tories axe the RAF" thread, it will give you some idea of how much pooh we are in as a country!!

[Tiger_mate]

IIRC the Australians saved a few bob last year by breaking up for Christmas in the first week of December. I remember Finningley once doing similar wef mid Dec in order to save on heating and electricity.

If Future Brize is sucessfull; I can forsee it being used as a model for UK Airpower Plc. Perhaps Belvedere is simply simmering on the back burner. One wonders why the rumour appears confined to the RAF and not our green and dark blue colleaques.

[charliegolf]

Wrath wrote:

"Golden bowlers" are very expensive in the short term and any changes are likely to take a couple of years to implement (particularly for those who have a union to fight their corner!)

Why does the bowler have to be golden? Is it a term or condition? I ask because it isn't everywhere.

CG

[advocatusDIABOLI]

WrathMonk- Nail, Square, Head, Hit..........

This is the best prediction of the next 2 years I have seen yet. It will be slow, it will have 'Carrot', it will be founded in logic.

It will be blatent suduction to a 'New Order'.

It will cast out the 'Old'......(What do they know?)

It will 'burn' books / regulations (Which challenge the view)

It will produce, a leaner, better.....World Order..... Eeeerhm.. Sorry, I meant RAF. Oh by the way, it will be cheaper to. (but Do the Same Job)

It will be, the final blow. Sadly.

"Ya Don't Get Nowt, For Nowt" (anon- Yorks. Trad.)


Advo

[Birdbath]

Rundancies very unlikely, and certainly not on the terms some would have seen in the last round. Less people - a certainty. 10-20% savings across the department - RAF probably more. Serious business this time, no 'bleeding stumps'. Keep speculating - some of you will be right.

[Grimweasel]

Sign me up daddy-o!! Retire to a Scottish Island and become self sufficient and stick the 'V's up to the world!!

[VinRouge]

Rundancies very unlikely, and certainly not on the terms some would have seen in the last round. Less people - a certainty. 10-20% savings across the department - RAF probably more. Serious business this time, no 'bleeding stumps'. Keep speculating - some of you will be right. Today 21:42

So, is JPA a big government conspiracy to axe 20% of us due to alleged fraud in not having the slightest clue how to put a travel claim in?

[The B Word]

I do hope my golden bowler fits...

http://www.callmefatty.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/bowler.jpg

[Wrathmonk]

CG

Good point and I don't know. At the very least I would suggest that all those on pensionable engagements, and past an ORD, would get their 3 times their pension straight away (plus some form of compensation to cater for the 'artificial' cap on their final pension due to lack of subsequent promotion). 10000-ish made redundant at say £20K lump sum a head is still a £200 million wedge that needs finding. In previous such (military) "downsizings" the redundancy offer was seen as a way of encouraging volunteers - it always plays better in the press for the government to be able to say that all those that were made redundant were volunteers rather than 'pressed men/women'.

Strange, it seems only weeks ago that this board was full of rumours of mega-bucks payments for pilots to sign on. If this is still being taken forward by Air Command as well it will make for an interesting PR battle - imagine the headlines - techies / RAFP / PTIs (or insert any other trade) made redundant to pay for pilot bonuses.

Sad times.

[TheInquisitor]

Excellent idea - a use finally found for RAFP and PTIs.......

:E

Tongue firmly in cheek, of course

[Ginger Beer]

"IF" there were another round of redundancies, the scheme has certainly changed (not for the better) from the circa 18 months of basic salary plus normal earned benefits which was available in the last tranche 1, 2 and 3 during the late 90s and early 2000s.

It is now essentially 12 months of basic salary for those with more than just a few years in. Check out -

Ministry of Defence | About Defence | Corporate Publications | Personnel Publications | Pensions | Redundancy (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/CorporatePublications/PersonnelPublications/Pensions/Redundancy/)

Ginge

[The B Word]

Ginge

I cannot find the rules for redundancy for AFPS 75 after 1 Apr 08 - they all say "to be issued". Have you any gen on this? It used to be 18months of pay...:eek:

B Word

[Ginger Beer]

http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/D9C0F095-1DD4-41B3-9BA1-F14EFEF8F885/0/redundancydin.pdf

This is the doc ref AFPS 75, issued in mid 2006.

Ginge

[The B Word]

Ginge

I've seen this - it says "expires 31 Mar 2008"!!! :eek:

This just happens to be the day before the new rules come in, so I am none the wiser...

B Word

[cazatou]

Wrathmonk

I left in the '96 Redundancy after 31+ yrs and so far I calculate that it has cost the Defence Budget in excess of £350,000 - and I still have 7 years to go to my "Three score years and ten". Costs today would be even higher because of wage inflation. Some of that money is, of course, retrieved by HMG in the form of taxation - but there is no guarantee that it will find its way back to MOD. There were, in addition, extra costs to HMG in the form of unemployment benefit at a time of high unemployment.

Then there are the hidden costs that do not appear on the balance sheet. How do you put a price on hard earned experience that prevents the Accident Rate from reaching an unacceptable level? When that experience is diluted by redundancy the Accident rate goes up.

A smaller RAF means less promotion - therefore more people leave the Service earlier and the experience level goes down even more. The result of that is an almost inevitable increase in the Accident rate. It also means an increase in extra duties for those remaining which again affects peoples attitude towards remaining in the Service. The result is a vicious circle which it is difficult to break.

Its all a far cry from 1965 when I joined and my daily rate of pay was 86.25p per day (before Tax and National Insurance).

[Wrathmonk]

Caz

Good job I'm not involved in the estimating the costs of a redundancy package then ;)! You are quite right about the loss of experience as an additional factor and I would suggest that is already being felt in some fleets and trade groups.

Still worries me that any manpower reductions will be done in a way that costs as little as possible to the budget. Compulsory redundancy with only the legal minimum as compensation. I know it is happening in the 'outside world' as the norm but that doesn't make it right.

[A2QFI]

No longer having easy access to an RAF List I can't find out how many of these worthies we have. If the answer is X than how does X relate to other RAF assets? Is it the number of Squadrons, the number of aircraft, the number of RAF stations/bases or none of the above? Hoping that any answers won't be a breach of security!

[Wrathmonk]

A2

Data as at 1 Apr 07 (because thats the latest I could find stats for all 3 [or 5]) is:

Aircraft : 740 (includes RAF SH assets, JFH assets and all military owned training aircraft (ie 140+ Viking/Vigilant but not King Airs etc). [Source (http://www.dasa.mod.uk/modintranet/UKDS2007/c3/table309.html)]

Air Officers : 135 (126 by 1 Apr 09) [Source (http://www.dasa.mod.uk/applications/newWeb/www/apps/publications/pubViewFile.php?content=90.18&date=2009-06-10&type=html&PublishTime=09:30:00)]

Flying Squadrons : 38 (includes RAF SH Sqns, JFH Sqns) [Source (http://www.dasa.mod.uk/modintranet/UKDS2007/c3/table303.html)]

Ground Squadrons : 10

RAuxAF Squadrons : 19

I'll let you do the maths! I need to go and get a life (or a beer!)

None of this is secret - what would appear to be harder to find is how many engineering officers we have in the RAF. Used to be banter about one per airframe ....;)

[5 Forward 6 Back]

A different take on the number of Air Officers; is it mandated anywhere that we have to have a certain ratio of Air Officers to squadrons/officers/ORs/aircraft?

They key thing should be whether or not these Air Officers are gainfully employed. After all, as the RAF gets smaller we might need less AOCs at the head of less Groups, but the number of MoD/exchange/NATO posts don't decrease.

As long as there's a job that requires the experience of a 1 star or 2 star, why should we be complaining that we're putting someone appropriate into it? We can't very well take a rotating NATO post that other nations allocate a 2 star to and give it to a Sqn Ldr to save money.

[A2QFI]

Many thanks for that information. It seems like a lot for a little!