PDA

View Full Version : Bye Bye CEA.


downsizer
14th Oct 2010, 18:42
Armed Forces' education allowance facing cuts - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/8061854/Armed-Forces-education-allowance-facing-cuts.html)

How many are gonna hit the button then...:ooh:

VinRouge
14th Oct 2010, 18:50
http://www.mdracing.co.uk/images/farnborough/static/pic64.jpg


I wonder how long its going to take to have Haddon-Cave part Deux due to all the senior experience walking out over the next 18 months to fill the retirement issue the airlines are facing?

Do the MAA know how many experienced individuals (and some less experienced individuals with 5 in million flying training behind them) are currently sitting groundschool exams with Bristol Aviation?

I know you are all going to say "they want people to leave" but if all the experience goes, who is going to pick up the tab once inexperience and skill fade caused by spending our lives in the desert is the cause of expensive aircraft crashes?

Could be the last?
14th Oct 2010, 19:17
The CEA is not just a MOD allowance.......... The FCO and other Govt Depts also make good use of the 'perk'; therefore, it would be interesting to see if HMT scrap it for their brothers in arms????

Another issue would be the pool of volunteers that would come forward for the few overseas postings still available. My understanding is that they (Manning) struggle now to get the right level of experience for the posts, so with the removal of CEA that pool of manpower would reduce still further.
:(

charliegolf
14th Oct 2010, 19:39
Does the allowance only apply to boarders?

Could be the last?
14th Oct 2010, 19:45
Yes, initially, and then the rules and regs allow for all forms of attendance, with a number of caveats. The rules are constantly revised and are very prescriptive, which reduces the chances of the allowance being abused.

Speak with your Admin Staff or, better still, the CS at Netheravon who administer the whole system for the MOD.

Pontius Navigator
14th Oct 2010, 20:44
CBTL, do the Services need volunteers for overseas posting?

Do they have to get your agreement to accept a posting from one end of the kingdom to the other?

Thought not.

I do know of some people who have refused postings because their wife's job was too good to move or they couldn't afford to move. I suspect that the days when the posters allowed people to refuse postings is a thing of the past.

Impiger
14th Oct 2010, 21:00
I think the Torygraph have been misinformed. I've heard from a tip top source that CEA is likely to survive because the damage caused by withdrawing it would be huge. Some other allowances are likely to take a big hit though.

Rigga
14th Oct 2010, 21:58
Not one of these statements is new, or even a worry, and especially the one about a percieved "Lack of Experience" if the "Good guys" leave - what complete tosh!

When the "Good guys" leave those who are waiting in the background will step up - and often not those you would expect.

It is obvious none of you paid any attention to the restructuring of the maintenance trades in the 90s (that continues today) where many of those Good Guys took redundancy or PVR'd - and none of you noticed.

Experience is easily found (but not normally until after you need it) and the new good guys have already learned much of it from the old good guys.

The B Word
14th Oct 2010, 22:18
Rigga

Sorry, mate, but I noticed and coupled to leaning and multi-skilling it has been a miracle that aircraft have got airborne in the meagre numbers that they have in the past 10 years.

The B Word

Blighter Pilot
15th Oct 2010, 06:40
CEA will not go due to the massive negative effect that it will have on Forces morale - not to mention screwing up the education of children already in the system.

I'd be more worried about Flying Pay in ground tours and IE if I were you.....

Pontius Navigator
15th Oct 2010, 06:48
Rigga, you are right, to a point. It is skills that are easily replaced having been taught by the experienced who now depart.

Skills are what you need at the moment but experience is what you need when your skills are inadequate, even experience to recognise your skills are inadequate.

They say that those who ignore history are condemned to make the mistakes of their forebears. Knowledge of this history is what those with experience can take with them.

Away from engineering, how many people realise just how long the PAYD issue has been going? PAYD was introduced after trials about 36 years ago! That is as far back as most long serving Servicemen will have served.

rusty_monkey
15th Oct 2010, 06:55
CEA will be reviewed with all other allowances and will be as likley for the chop as anything else. With the proposed future RAF manning model with it's "proffessional stream" staying in posts for long periods compared to the 2 years, the idea is to create stability , reduce the need for SFA and the need for CEA. The proffessional streaming will create a core of experience and continuity allowing those likely to scream up to 2* level to move around and get to the dizzy heights whilst those not so bright will have a slower promotion path with greater stability.

My words condensing information recieved from COS Pers. (Not holy writ but pretty close)

Pontius Navigator
15th Oct 2010, 07:02
With the proposed future RAF manning model with it's "proffessional stream" staying in posts for long periods. . . The proffessional streaming will create a core of experience and continuity allowing those likely to scream up to 2* level to move around and get to the dizzy heights whilst those not so bright will have a slower promotion path with greater stability.

No **** Sherlock :)

This reinforces the point. This is EXACTLY the model that the RAF had until the 70s. A professional cadre taught at apprentice schools and at Cranwell or Henlow and the bulk came from well trained people from the schools. And quite a number of apprentices made sqn ldr.

The majority of aircrew were signed on to the age or 41, later 38, with some assimilated to 55 and a lucky few being awarded a General List commission to join the Cranwell stream with some making at least gp capt and possibly higher.

nav attacking
15th Oct 2010, 08:16
For those not in the know regarding CEA.

The service most hit by a change to the levels (which have been reducing in real terms for the last 5 years at least) or rules regarding CEA would in fact be the Army with its insistance on moving people around the country at regular intervals. As far as stability goes there are still many areas of the RAF which regularly move around the country, not everyone has a totally stable future. Hence the need for stability for a child's education.

The Joint Service Regulations now clearly state that the allowance is reviewed upon re application for the service persons Mobility Eligibility Certificate (every 3 years, on posting or on child's change of school) if at that point the service person has not moved locaton after 3 successive postings then the application for the Mobility Certificate is firstly reviewed by the Stn cdr and then by the CEAS.

As far as boarding is concerned, the first child has to board for at least 1 year after which, if you are lucky enough to be posted nearby, you can opt for day school allowance on the understanding that they will need to board if you move again.

At the end of the day it is not CEA that has broken the bank it is the total mishandling of the procurement budget, an insistance on delaying projects (with the inevitable reduction in numbers of items) to "save" money and an insistance on sticking our noses into too many areas that got us to where we are.:ugh:

Red Line Entry
15th Oct 2010, 08:36
Although CEA is claimed at any one time by a relatively small percentage of personnel, there are many others who either intend to claim CEA in the future (and thus stay in), or who have claimed CEA in the past and are now past the 'golden' 35-45 age range where a second career is particularly attractive (and so stay in).

Secondly, although there is a current mood of 'make it cr@p enough for people and they'll leave, so saving us redundancy', this could backfire in spades. Although people may be unhappy, this doesn't mean they will leave - financial circumstances are unique to each family. You could just end up with a bunch of very hacked off middle ranking personnel.

Finally, CEA is there for a reason. It's not designed as a perk or a sbtle way to increase salary (contrary to the MPs' arrangements!). While personnel sign up to follow the flag in support of Her Majesty's business, they generally don't want their childrens' education to pay the price for such loyalty!

2Planks
15th Oct 2010, 08:40
At GBP280 million (ish) per year for 5500 kids this is a big ticket item that has to be reviewed. One of the few spin offs of JPA has been the ability to compare the list of those claiming CEA with the list of marital Status - hence quite a few very large invoices dropping on door mats.... Those who used to treat it as a right as opposed to something you had to qualify for have had a big shock.:ok:

Pontius Navigator
15th Oct 2010, 08:41
nav attacking, all true.

By and large aircrew, once on a type and esconced in a squadron, can expect to remain for a number of years compared with ground branch officers that move frequently. Airmen do move less frequently and I know steward who was promoted from sgt to WO but never left the Officers' Mess - he may even have been there as a JNCO.

Where the theory of aircrew stability falls down is towards the end of a particular types service live - the F3 move to Leuchars for instance or the closure of a base such as St Mawgan or Lyneham.

matkat
15th Oct 2010, 09:41
Kev, as usual spot one.
Dave

Greenielynxpilot
15th Oct 2010, 09:41
The simple fact is that most recipients of CEA are getting money that is partly a compensation for the exigencies of their service life, and partly a contribution towards an aspirational lifestyle choice for themselves and their children.

The former is entirely justified. The latter is not - both on grounds of affordability, and 'fairness'. What makes this issue complicated is that the ratio of the former (reasonable) element to the latter (unjustifiable) element will differ in each individual case, based on personal circumstances, opportunities and ambition rather than factors that are within the control of the State.

The independent schools council states that the average cost for day pupils in a fee paying school is £2,963 per term. However, this increases to £4,038 if children are day pupils at a boarding school. Average fees for boarding at those schools is £6,678 a term.

It seems to me that a fair system of compensation would be for the MOD to contribute £1,075 per child per term for parents who opt to send their children to a school in which the child is capable of boarding (to compensate for the higher costs of attending such a school), and up to an additional £2,640 (abated by the cost of feeding a child at home) for each term that the child actually boards, but only when the service person is assigned to specified out of area or designated hardship postings, and therefore cannot provide the pastoral care for their child for genuine service reasons, and not because of lifestyle choices.

This would result in a considerably lower spend on CEA than at present - however it would be demonstrably fairer in the eyes of all those, civilian and military alike, whose perception is that the unjustifiable 'perk' element of CEA far exceeds the genuine 'need' element in too many cases.

The squeals from those in receipt of this perk who recoil at at the prospect of losing it - at a time when others within the MOD are facing the very real prospect of redundancy - vividly conjures the unpalatable image of the unmeritorious with their 'snouts in the trough' just like the bankers and MPs. Defence cannot afford such a negative public perception, and so CEA must be reviewed and reduced.

Trim Stab
15th Oct 2010, 11:12
The simple fact is that most recipients of CEA are getting money that is partly a compensation for the exigencies of their service life


I don't understand that statement. CEA is to help children have a stable educational, and has absolutely nothing to do with the "exigencies of service life". If what you are claiming is true then it does need reviewing!

Wrathmonk
15th Oct 2010, 11:25
Splitting hairs a bit there Trim.

CEA is needed to help provide a stable education - the instabilities are caused by the exigencies (meaning "urgent need or demands";)) of the service.

But don't worry - it won't affect you as you won't be eligible as a FO (or capt) reservist on FSTA :E

Ken Scott
15th Oct 2010, 15:31
It seems to me that a fair system of compensation would be for the MOD to contribute £1,075 per child per term for parents who opt to send their children to a school in which the child is capable of boarding (to compensate for the higher costs of attending such a school), and up to an additional £2,640 (abated by the cost of feeding a child at home) for each term that the child actually boards, but only when the service person is assigned to specified out of area or designated hardship postings, and therefore cannot provide the pastoral care for their child for genuine service reasons, and not because of lifestyle choices.

So you'd only be entitled to more than £1075 if OOA or on a hardship posting? Not just for moving around regularly which is what CEA is designed for, to give your kids stability in education?

Average fees for boarding at those schools is £6,678 a term.


So unless someone is OOA or on a hardship posting, they will have to find £5603 per term per child to give their children stability? For the average 2 child family, £33618 per year out of net salary. Won't be much of a take-up on that, which means that alot of children would be changing schools every 2 to 3 years with all the negative effects that entails.

And why OOA? You leave your family behind & serve unaccompanied. CEA is meant to ensure you move with your spouse without affecting your kid's schooling.

Tiger_mate
15th Oct 2010, 15:45
If you think this is bad. I am deployed next week for 2 weeks travelling CivAir. I can use my own car to get to the airport as there is no MT available but I am not authorised to use Airport Parking! WTF!!

Seldomfitforpurpose
15th Oct 2010, 16:16
CEA is quite probably one of the most abused allowances out there and is invariably used to simply send ones offspring somewhere where there are no oiks.

I would bet a tidy sum of money that there are plenty of folk at both of the two RAF AT bases who are or have claimed this knowing that what they are doing is nothing short of fraud.

A thorough investigation into the whole thing would seem to be the order of the day and send some hefty bills to the thieving pikeys who have been ripping the tax payer off for all these years :=

Blighter Pilot
15th Oct 2010, 16:33
I would bet a tidy sum of money that there are plenty of folk at both of the two RAF AT bases who are or have claimed this knowing that what they are doing is nothing short of fraud


Why the RAF AT bases and not any others????

Each claimaint has to have an eligibility certificate signed by their desk officer stating that they may have to undertake a move greater than 50 miles in the next three years.

So why single out AT bases - a tour is 2 to 2.5 years so in theory every one may move at the end of tour point.

Many people I know at the AT bases have moved 3 times in 9 years, just because they move and then return doesn't mean the are swinging the lead:mad:

Neptunus Rex
15th Oct 2010, 16:36
Blighter Pilot

Unless some green-eyed scribbly, or brown-nosed Staff Officer has changed things, it used to be clearly stated in Queen's Regulations that Flying Pay was not to compensate for the rigours and dangers of flying, but was there to attract people of the right calibre into the flying branches of HM Forces. It was thus equally relevant to those on ground tours.

Seldomfitforpurpose
15th Oct 2010, 17:12
Why the RAF AT bases and not any others????

Each claimaint has to have an eligibility certificate signed by their desk officer stating that they may have to undertake a move greater than 50 miles in the next three years.

So why single out AT bases - a tour is 2 to 2.5 years so in theory every one may move at the end of tour point.

Many people I know at the AT bases have moved 3 times in 9 years, just because they move and then return doesn't mean the are swinging the lead:mad:

And many folk have been there for pretty much all of their service lives, which you and I both know is the case.

If the only criteria is a note from your deskie to say you might move is it any wonder that some folk accros the whole of the 3 services have ripped the crap out of this system :=

Trim Stab
15th Oct 2010, 17:21
Splitting hairs a bit there Trim.

CEA is needed to help provide a stable education - the instabilities are caused by the exigencies (meaning "urgent need or demands"http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif) of the service.

But don't worry - it won't affect you as you won't be eligible as a FO (or capt) reservist on FSTA http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif


I don't know why you're bitching so much. I was actually eligible for CEA in my former career. As others have pointed out, CEA is given to other government employees too, not just military employees.

How did you find out I have an offer with AT?

Training Risky
15th Oct 2010, 19:17
Let's play devil's advocate for a minute:

Let's hypothesise that a chap (serving), and a woman (civ) are parents to little Johnny and live on the patch at RAF Little Snoring.

Little Johnny reaches secondary school age, he goes to the local comp and starts preparing for GCSEs.

The chap is posted to Vegas, in order to play MS Flightsim 2010 in a portacabin for 14 hours a day, and watch strippers by night, and he naturally wants his family to come with him.

They both have choices:

1. Take the whole brood out there - Johnny's exam results may take a hit in a US private school, but they are happy enough as a family.

2. Chap goes it alone and misses his family for 2 years while the wife brings little Johnny up at a crucial school age in stable surroundings in the UK. She may find it impractical to work full-time, but that's her choice to do so or not.

3. Wife can't hack being without hubby and wants a piece of the Vegas action, packs Johnny off to a decent minor private boarding school, which they can just about afford with chap's LOA.

QED, Is there any essential requirement for a public-funded private boarding school place in the UK?

(BTW, I have a wife and 2 young kids, so I do not think I am totally out of touch!)

PPS - Replace chap (serving) with diplomat, MP, or any other public-funded post and the point stands!

FFP
15th Oct 2010, 19:56
just about afford with chap's LOA

I agree with all you say Training except one thing......

LOA is not there for that purpose. If you've been in the above situation (which it sounds like you have) you'll know that said chap will need to purchase a car on arrival, take a hit with things such as car insurance premiums and be forced to pay hand over fist for deposits due to lack of credit history. Sure, he can take an advance, but it'll take about a year or so to "break even" in my experience (;)).

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a CEA advocate, but apportioning LOA in place of CEA is a slippery slope.

Unless you want to up LOA for everyone, in which case I'm happy as my kids aren't school age !!

SirToppamHat
15th Oct 2010, 20:15
Training Risky:
(BTW, I have a wife and 2 young kids, so I do not think I am totally out of touch!)

I don't see what point you are trying to make - is it that the LOA enables the couple to afford boarding school back in the UK? Surely the LOA is there to provide for the costs of living abroad? (edited to add that that point has just been made).

You will only be in touch when your kids are on their fourth school in 5 years, are repeatedly treated as second class because they are 'temporary', go for a whole year and learn nothing (or even study Twelfth Night one year only to move to a new school and study Twelfth Night again). It's not just about education either, the social elements of a common group of friends is almost as important; I remember no 2 son at the age of 9 saying he was fed-up of having to make new friends every 5 minutes.

Two of my 3 children are at boarding school, the other at Uni now, but I reckon the true costs to us are about £1000 per child per term, albeit some of those costs are self induced by seeing them more often than the policy lunatics suggest is necessary. I have moved significant distances 11 times in 21 years, so I believe it's justified in my case, but I do think there are some who have kicked the arse out of it.

That said, there is a big difference between those who genuinely believe they will have to move and are commited to mobility (but end up not moving), and those who play the system, have roles and/or ranks that mean they really will not move for years at a time and simply use the CEA to get a better quality of education for their kids.

Having just gone through the CEA Certification Process (for the second time in 8 months), I can confirm that the rules are being tightened significantly. If JPA shows your First, Second and Third choices of area as A_Portsmouth and your choice of areas specifically to be avoided as A_The Rest of the UK, I think you may be on a sticky wicket.

What I haven't worked out though is at what point the failure to get CEA certified hits - does the child finish phase of education, or is your next application simply rejected? In the latter case, the failure to give a month's notice could leave me liable personally for about £15K !

STH

Edited Again to Add: By the way, how many people get away with not moving FQs on posting because their kids are approaching GCSEs, A-Levels or whatever and so block an FQ meaning someone has to go on SSFA? For a sqn ldr in teh London area, for example, the SSFA acceptable costs must be close to £2k per mth (they were £1.8k about 10 years ago!). That's far more than CEA for the same basic effect.

MaroonMan4
15th Oct 2010, 20:28
As someone that attempted to keep his family together and quite happily serve HM the Queen loyally and without question, I embarked on an education philosophy of moving my first son with us every 2-3 years.

Until that was we were made aware of his dyslexia that an independent specialist put down to the number of moves and subtly different curriculums that my son was forced to undertake because of my loyalty and willingness to move where I was told to serve.

He never recovered from this and sadly had some very weak exam results and is currently finding it extremely difficult to find employment in the current environment. He has also very few friends through having to uproot every 2-3 years and attempt to establish a new social set.

Having learned this lesson my second son, 5 years younger is currently coming to the end of his private education and fingers crossed will get the University of choice and has every aspiration to become officer aircrew. Whilst I have continued to be 'mobile' he has genuinely had continuity of education and is happier and more socially balanced than my other son.

It may be that my first son is as thick as mince and one of life's losers, equally I may be a bad dad in not recognising that I should have said no to the desk officer that was requiring my specialisation both overseas and in different parts of the UK.

Whatever my own particular guilt trip, HMG cannot have it all, a competiitive work force that is mobile in the interests of the service, or a work force that gets to family bearing age and either leaves or elects to be 'home based' to ensure that children have a stable upbringing (is there anymore important mission in life than your own family?).

Naturally there will be those career thrusters that will be both mobile and happily cart their family around (or leave them unaccompanied), but personally that kind of individual that does that on a permanent basis in the full knowledge of what he/she is doing to their family is not the kind of person that I want leading me or on my team.

In a nutshell, (and I am not bitter) the instability of service life has significantly reduced the education and subsequent opportunities available to one of my sons. Conversely I genuinely believe that being able to claim CEA has had the inverse affect on my other son

Unless there is some master plan afoot to ensure that service children do not suffer from their parents being forced to move every 2-3 years, then my advice to any young serving mum/dad would be to sacrifice any aspirations of a career and elect for a permanent position at your home station where your family can be given stability and continuity of education.

If your desk officer is actually looking at using the whole pensions, CEA and fallout from SDSR as a nudge for voluntary out flow (i.e. PVR) then do not jeopardise your once in a lifetime opportunity to raise and educate your family properly.

Quite simply leave, and HM Forces will soon realise that some extremely high calibre individuals (of all 3 services) will be opting for the Private Sector, and if not immediately, then as soon as the effects of the recession reduce and the Private Sector improves, then those Civil Serpents that made these decisions will look back on one of the greatest faux pas in history as from an HR perspective some of the most talented and gifted military personnel that were previously willing to sacrifice a lot (except for their family stability and education) leave or severely limit their 'reach' by electing to stay in one place.

This is all so very sad, but also makes the JPA button so very easy for so many - if not now, as soon as the Private Sector picks up and starts to offer its big bonuses and Ts&Cs come again (and yes I have been here before).
:(

Lima Juliet
15th Oct 2010, 20:41
I've seen a whole lot of horse cr@p on the cost of CEA in the previous posts when the maths (or math for our colonial cousins) doesn't stack up...

6,000 service children in CEA scheme at maximum £5833 per term = £105M per year

HOWEVER, not everyone is on maximum of £5833...

Some are on CEA(Board) Junior at £4482, CEA(Day) Junior at £2640 and CEA (Day) Senior at £3505 per term.

So if we take an average at £4000 per term for the whole CEA scheme then 6,000 service children costs £72M, which is just 533 Typhoon sorties at full cost (approx £90k per hour - DASA figures) just to put the CEA figure into perspective. 533 Typhoon sorties is about the average number of sorties in 3 months for training on a single Typhoon Squadron (assuming 8 sorties per day). I think this puts this into perspective nicely.

A lot different to some of the figures I've seen quoted on this thread!!!:ok:

Also, don't forget that there is a £4330 per term allowance within the CEA scheme for those posted to Wales who don't want their children to learn a language that is largely useless unless you visit a small area in Patagonia (and Wales, which isn't much bigger!). It's called CEA(NW) - Day School North Wales. If we bin that then there will be serious retention problem and getting people to accept posts at Valley.

ffarwel

LJ

Canadian Break
15th Oct 2010, 21:25
....and when they subsequently stipulate that what overseas postings we have left will not be for people who want their children to accompany them i.e.MOD will not pay school fees for international schools etc - what then?:=

Training Risky
15th Oct 2010, 22:04
Good points made all round. I suppose the point I was getting at was that there are lifestyle and career choices you can make without claiming public money for boarding school!

I am not the man in the example I describe above. The family Risky has been settled in SE England (1066 country) for the last 4 years, and the quality of life is excellent...for them.

I on the other hand have been taking the pain by commuting back and forth between the deepest darkest Fens/Buckinghamshire on a Friday evening/Sunday morning. I don't want my kids to board, I pay council tax - I want to use the excellent local CofE schools. I want the stability for them gained by growing up at home, with their mum and the associated circle of friends/relatives.

So I have made a choice which many claiming CEA could conceivably make too...it's hard, but it does mean that I am not a slave to staying in past 38 just for the CEA...and won't be screwed by any loss of it. I'm not saying CEA is wrong, but as parents there are other choices we can make...

(Sorry if my example was inaccurate ref LOA, it was only meant to be a quick and dirty example based on my colleagues who do that job.)

sargs
15th Oct 2010, 22:43
There are obviously two (at least) different sorts of claimants:

Those who spend decades at one base - ISK, Waddo, Lyneham, etc and use CEA as an expensive perk to put their kids through public school, and

Those who move around every three years or so, including overseas, who need the allowance to give their children a half-decent start in life.

So, target the allowance at those who need it, not the money-grabbing opportunists who, whilst simultaneously criticising MP's moat-cleaning expenses, use it as a means of buying their children an education they are otherwise not prepared to cough up for themselves.

Ken Scott
15th Oct 2010, 23:03
It is possible that with hindsight you can identify individuals that 'played the system' and educated their children privately at taxpayer's expense whilst remaining at the same place of duty. But, would their desk officer have been able to assure those individuals back at the start that they would have that longterm stability and so be able to send their children to a state school, safe in the knowledge that they wouldn't be required to move schools? They took CEA, having signed up to mobility, but as it transpired the service need was for them to remain at the same station.

By the time it could be identified that they were unlikely (but still with no guarantee) to be posted away, it was to late & withdrawing CEA and forcing them to move their children to a state school would only achieve what CEA was supposed to avoid in the first place. I don't believe that in most cases there was any deliberate attempt to defraud, individuals chose to secure their children's education without knowing what the future held - which is what CEA is for.

Seldomfitforpurpose
16th Oct 2010, 00:17
Ken,

Anyone with half a brain cell and and an ounce of integrity would know what the future holds for them and would act accordingly.

I joined my unit in the late 90's safe in the knowledge that I would be here for years to come, which funnily enough I still am.

We had 2 kids about to join the Secondary school system but I didn't claim CEA because I knew that by the letter of the law I did not qualify and I am happy with the decision I made.

I have no idea how long you have been at Lye but if you have been there for years and have used the CEA system to put your kids through private education then to the my very simple mind you have knowingly and willfully committed fraud.

The B Word
16th Oct 2010, 01:17
SFFP

Luckily, for you truckie mates you knew where you were going (most likely!). "Integrity and brain cells" have nothing to do with some of us though, here are my postings, in no particular order, over 20 years of service:

Leeming/Coningsby/Leuchars - 1st jet type

Waddington - 2nd jet type

High Wycombe - staff tour

Northwood - staff tour

??? - next aircraft type?

So, for those that served on more than one aircraft type, get promoted or have an HQ ground tour - what do you suggest?:ugh:

Finally, there are those who have spent a significant amount of time at LYE who now, or shortly will, reside at WAD - it happens!

The B Word

sargs
16th Oct 2010, 01:40
Shall we stop talking crap? Some people know they will move frequently, and use CEA to help their children get a stable education. But, some people know they're not going anywhere soon (if ever), and use the taxpayer to fund something they're not prepared to....

Ken Scott - some people are well aware of what the future holds - they know that they don't intend to go anywhere. It doesn't stop them claiming the allowance. Whilst that may be within the letter of the law, it's certainly not within the spirit. If they want to come here and try to justify it, fine - doesn't stop them being cheats in my book.

Blighter Pilot
16th Oct 2010, 05:32
CEA will not go as it will hit the Army hardest with their current trend towards moving every 2 -3 years. (I believe CGS has played the red card here)

Lye closes in 18 months so everyone there will be moving to Brize, Waddo and various other UK and overseas postings - so does that mean they can now 'legally' claim CEA:mad:

In my mind if you elect to live in in your own house then that is your choice - why should you get Home To Duty to pay you to come in to your place of work? You chose to live in private accommodation.

You can argue pros and cons for all sorts of allowances - the figures banded around for CEA are nowhere near the mark - not everyone claims the full amount and I bet it's nowhere near the total paid for HTD.

Service personnel make lifestyle choices for their families - some elect stability of education whilst moving every 2-3 years, some live in their own house and put down roots whilst commuting and maybe getting HTD - who can discriminate?

If we are not careful we will lose all sorts of allowances - don't forget many are paid to other public sector employees.

Jambo Jet
16th Oct 2010, 07:50
In my mind if you elect to live in in your own house then that is your choice - why should you get Home To Duty to pay you to come in to your place of work? You chose to live in private accommodation.

Choosing to live in your own accommodation saves the MOD millions; I don't agree with your sentiments on this one.

Moving everyone to Brize from Lyneham is a housing nightmare. It's just as well they are only a short hop from each other because there is not enough SFQs as it is. People will just have to get used to the Chippenham/Calne/Wooty B commute to Oxfordshire.

Alpha Whiskey
16th Oct 2010, 08:12
Ken Scott - well said. The certification process for CEA now clearly requires your career manager/desk officer etc to state "it is likely" you will move in the next 4 years. In that case, CEA seems a sensible insurance policy for your children's education, especially where GCSEs/A Levels are involved.

I am also rather surprised at the vehemence of many of the arguments against CEA in this thread. It is open to everyone but not something everyone would choose to do. Undoubtedly there are those that may have played the system over the years, but tighter regulation is about to put a stop to that. As for those of us who legitimately claim and move when required, please stop trying to paint us as some sort of benefit junkies. After over 20 years at sea, I for one would quite like to see my wife every night and give my kids the best possible shout at good exam results through guaranteed educational stability.

VinRouge
16th Oct 2010, 08:50
Blighter,

your arguments regarding location....

Would be great if there was actually any surplus accommodation for people to move from Lyneham to Brize to; instead of splitting the base accommodation between Faringdon, Fairford, South Cerney and whatever rabbit hutches the construct at Brize.

To make matters worse, DHE have 2 major problems next year. They have a full battalion moving to South Cerney next year, so all there will be full.There is also discussion going on at the moment about how much accommodation they are going to take up at Lyneham...

As to living in the local area, have you seen house prices in Oxford? I can barely afford to buy a decent 3 bed semi on middle rate flying pay and if you think my kids are going to be educated in an area that hasnt the additional funding to cope with an estimated 500+ families moving from lyneham, you have another thing coming. Closest affordable place I found within commuting distance of Brize was 40 miles away! :mad: Thanks to the boomer generation for that one...

Believe me, HTD (in its current reduced form) saves the MOD money... if I couldnt get paid to commute, I would either expect a room in the mess (which Brize doesnt have) or a quarter (which brize doesnt have). You might want to compare SSFA costs to HTD costs, especially considering the supply/demand issues they have in the oxford area.

Ken Scott
16th Oct 2010, 12:48
I have no idea how long you have been at Lye but if you have been there for years and have used the CEA system to put your kids through private education then to the my very simple mind you have knowingly and willfully committed fraud.

Having moved every 2-3 years I came back to Lyneham expecting one tour & off again. As it's transpired I have been here for some time. Yes, I used CEA to give my kids certainty in their education, with hindsight I probably didn't need to, but as I said, that's with hindsight. If I'd asked my desk officer how long I would stay at Lyneham, considering the 4 moves in 6 years I'd just done (including one of my children in his second school at the age of 5), he would have been reluctant to commit I'm sure.

Knowingly and willfully committed fraud? That would imply I knew I wasn't going to move, which I didn't. If I'd used the state system & then had to move my family because I was posted then I'm sure I would have, with hindsight, regretted not taking up CEA.

sargs
16th Oct 2010, 17:23
Ken Scott, maybe my words came out a little harsh (never a good idea to drink and type), but my feelings remain the same - if you knowingly collect CEA with no intention of moving you are morally wrong at least. I feel strongly about it because somebody I know claims CEA just to put his two sons through public school - he hasn't moved in his last three tours and would run screaming if he was posted away. Unfortunately, the system allows him and his upwardly-mobile wife to educate their two effectively at my expense.

Ken Scott
16th Oct 2010, 18:14
Agreed, the allowance is there to support mobility and not the social kind. All who sign up to mobility to get CEA cannot complain when they're posted. I cannot see the services becoming so static in the future that there will no longer be a requirement for CEA, people will always need to move about. Whether CEA remains is a different matter.

Pontius Navigator
17th Oct 2010, 20:04
Little Johnny reaches secondary school age, he goes to the local comp and starts preparing for GCSEs.

The chap is posted to Vegas,

They both have choices:

1. Take the whole brood out there - Johnny's exam results may take a hit in a US private school, but they are happy enough as a family.

3. packs Johnny off to a decent minor private boarding school, which they can just about afford with chap's LOA.

QED, Is there any essential requirement for a public-funded private boarding school place in the UK?

Good theory, poor in practise. Once little Johnny embarks on his GCSE (or A-level) course then putting him in to a boarding school is a non-starter as his education will not have any continuity. The purpose of the CEA is before he starts that the next stage of education and takes in to account the probability of his parent being posted.

Rather it should be the probability but in the past was the slight possibility which is a huge difference. It should be possible to look at Mr Johnny's career plot and freeze his posting for the 2-3 years of the education phase or even bring a posting forward so that Johnny can start his education in a new school.

Pontius Navigator
17th Oct 2010, 20:19
To support Ken, I was posted to a holding post for the Nimrod AEW3. It was unlikely that I would remain at my post for more than a year or so so Dau no 1who was approaching her 11+ and had moved from Scotland and therefore not likely to get a grammar school place was put in to a boarding school. Dau 2 followed a year later.

Then the Nimrod was cancelled and I was posted but as it happens it was in commuting distance - 114 miles per day. We stayed put and continued to get CEA for Dau 1. Dau 2 however won a place at the age of 13 to the local grammar and we ceased claiming CEA for her. We took a calculated risk that I would not be posted to 'Vegas' or some other highly desirable location. Dau 1 however continued to benefit from CEA as she had started her A-level course.

My commute posting could have been to somewhere else entirely such as Lyneham and we would have moved benefited from the CEA.

There really are many permutations. I mentioned above the possibility of screening postings for the education stage. What would happen is P-staff said that a posting was not probable and then you got a posting?

BEagle
17th Oct 2010, 20:26
It should be possible to look at Mr Johnny's career plot and freeze his posting for the 2-3 years of the education phase or even bring a posting forward so that Johnny can start his education in a new school.

Bolleaux. There'd just be even more tactical brat-breeders planning their next spawn around plum postings - and some singly would get joe'd for the $hit posting instead.

Sprog status should be immaterial when postings are considered - CEA should compensate accordingly.

Biggus
17th Oct 2010, 20:31
Also bolleaux because....

The RAF is incapable of running "career plots" for the average johnny now, let alone trying to do so after intoducing complications about children's ages...

Jumping_Jack
17th Oct 2010, 20:33
BEagle you normally write reasonably sensible posts, but to state that 'There'd just be even more tactical brat-breeders planning their next spawn around plum postings' is just such utter hoop. Quite rediculous. :rolleyes:

London Eye
17th Oct 2010, 20:39
Beags, I believe that personal circumstances should be material to posting priorities, but I would agree that they should not necessarily disadvantage others' needs, including those of singlies. CEA is (increasingly) not for everyone (perhaps more so later this week!) and we should consider all needs wherever possible.

I was as annoyed as anyone else at those orderly officer and QRA rosters that seemed to have feature a preponderance of the latter at the least popular times...

BEagle
17th Oct 2010, 21:14
Jumping Jack, unfortunately I've seen this happen. Three pilots due for posting from the squadron, with CFS a distinct possibility. One wasn't good enough, so was posted to Dominies. Of the other two, one suddenly announced that his wife was expecting and said that the disturbance of a CFS course and an unknown subsequent posting would cause huge problems.... So the singly was joe'd - but we all knew that the other pilot had planned things quite deliberately.... It does happen.

Still, a different RAF now - my best wishes and good luck to all those remaining after the forthcoming announcements.

Pontius Navigator
17th Oct 2010, 21:16
Bolleaux.

Sprog status should be immaterial when postings are considered - CEA should compensate accordingly.

You said it, dog's bolleaux.

The present post would be frozen or the person posted to a stability post and on the balance some would be at RAF Sh1te as well as RAF The Bizz N.

You might be at a unit you don't like, say a Welsh holiday island, and expecting a posting to Herriot's land. Brat 1 is coming up to a key educational point so you apply for CEA. The options are:

1. Expedite posting to Herriot Land and freeze for 2-3 years or

2. Extend posting on Welsh holiday island for 2-3 years.

In both case CEA is not admissible. If you happen to be at RAF The Bizz but your posting plot suggests a staff tour at RAF Rustication in a year you might suddenly find you are offered an immediate posting.

Cuts both ways and indeed can be a powerful adminstrative tool. I know an ex-VC10 sqn ldr (flt lt) who tried to get a posting to Brize; 10 didn't want him so he was offered Andovers instead. He rejected the posting because he could not afford to buy a house there and his wife was earning more than him at Retford. To my surprise his poster did not post him; they closed the station instead :}

Jumping_Jack
18th Oct 2010, 08:12
BEagle. Thanks for the clarification...so, nothing to do with CEA, just having babies?

Pontius Navigator
18th Oct 2010, 08:37
JJ, or indeed a mirrad of other excuses - the wife needs to attend hospital (as she is a fat b*st*rd) and the one at the new unit is too far and the schools . . .

We fixed both - Aberdeen centre of excellence and Scottish schools the bees knees - as we wanted shot of the guy and promotion and posting was the only way :}

'The wife's job' is another good excuse.

'The kids special needs' is another.

But that is all thread drift away from CEA.

Whenurhappy
18th Oct 2010, 10:44
I am at a remote overseas posting and there are no local English-language schools for our son. We knew that when I was told about the prospect of moving here. Accordingly our son remains at a minor Public School in England and we spend a shed-load to get him here for half-terms etc. There was not an option...or is there? Arguably the appointment could be filtered to remove those with school age children, thus saving the Department about GBP 20,000 a year (and me a lot, to boot). Some diplomatic posts are already screened because of environmental and security conditions. My previous 2 tours were in London (married unaccompanied) so we made use of CEA rather than move to London and fight to get son into a decent school. Although it was a difficult decision to send him boarding, it is a decision we would not have begun to consider without the availability of CEA. In sum, and inasmuch as I would like to defend CEA, I feel that its days are numbered for the majority of applicants. Whatever we feel about its utility, the vast majority of the great unwashed and much of the Civil Service see it as unnecessary, socially divisive and anachronistic.

Pontius Navigator
18th Oct 2010, 11:04
My previous 2 tours were in London (married unaccompanied) so we made use of CEA rather than move to London and fight to get son into a decent school.

I am missing something here. If you were unaccompanied that would suggest that your son was with your wife in the family home and could therefore attend a local school.

OTOH as you were liable to an overseas posting, as happened, then you correctly applied for and were awarded CEA.

That you were married unaccompanied in London would therefore be an irrelevance.

MaroonMan4
18th Oct 2010, 11:09
Whenurhappy,

I do agree totally if we in the Services could guarantee that our desk officer would consider our mobility with consideration for our children's stability and education without effecting our careers.

If the RAF and the MoD continue to want me to move anywhere at the drop of a hat, without question (which my friend is happening every day across all 3 services and your nirvana of finely tuned and refined postings for families is a lovely aspiration, but not reality based upon my and many's experiences) then I want to know that my children have a stable and seamless education, with social connections that do not move every 2-3 years (and less at times). If it does not want that flexibility, and I will not be career disadvantaged by electing to stay in one location once I have a a family, then I am content with that. Let me be in no doubt, if I could see my child (ren) every night when not on ops/ex and still deliver the RAF what it wants from me as a flexible resource, then I would happily remove my child (ren) from the CEA system.

But it has not and cannot guarantee this and if anything has used CEA as an HR tool to ensure that I do move when required by the RAF to fill positions that are either unpopular or appear at short notice.

On the other side of the coin, you are assuming that the desk officer can call upon a pool of childless (or those willing to weekly/bi-monthly commute) service personnel to move around as required to fulfill the postings that I/we family serving personnel may be told that we no longer need to fulfil. Lets not forget that some of these positions require certain, specialised or experienced personnel that are not always readily available to the desk officers.

And lets not also forget, do you think that the local schools of Odiham, Lyneham, Brize, wherever could cope with a sudden influx of service personnel after their parents suddenly were told that CEA was no more and to put their roots into the 'most likely' station for the next 10-15 years - and that is without the CSR also affecting the future education budget.

My solution is very simple - keep CEA, and all of the HR and service flexibility that delivers to desk officers to get the right person in the right job in the interests of the service. However, I would ensure (as now appears to be case) that the whole CEA mobility certificate is rigorously enforced as there are those that are genuinely mobile and sacrifice seeing their kids every night to ensure that the interests of the service are met. there are others that are undoubtedly in the grey area of 'may be posted' within 3-4 years, but as we all recognise there are a number of people that have absolutely no intent of leaving their 'base' station and have demonstrated absolutely no intent to move. These people should either be 'press to test' to confirm or deny their intentions or removed from the CEA register.

That to me is the fairest way - your thoughts?

Whenurhappy
18th Oct 2010, 12:08
Pontius Navigator - if one serves unaccompanied in London - even though family are in their own home in rural Loamshire - CEA is payable. I agree totally with the utility of CEA (as I have demonstrated) however I'm not sure that these arguments would survive detailed public scrutiny. That CEA is still necessary for 6000 Service children is an indication of the way we (mis) manage many of our personnel. Certainly for the RAF, most overseas posts are discretionary; there are no formed units overseas and most posts are middle-to-senior ranks appointments and thus there is generally wiggle-room with desk officers/career managers. I certainly could have got out of this post (and my previous two overeas posts) but I chose not to - and my Service expereince has been all the richer for it.

Clockwork Mouse
18th Oct 2010, 12:22
MM4
A good summary.
We had 18 moves in 4 different countries during 29 years of marriage in the Army, including 4 moves in 2 years, not uncommon in the Army. There was never any suggestion that I could choose where I was posted. We signed up to serve and that was what we did. Without BSA, as it was then, by educating the kids locally, I could have afforded a small house when we retired but the kids would have been in shreds. I received £109,000 in BSA for three kids and paid out £63,000 in top up school fees. This was during the last century of course.
Without BSA I would not have stayed in. It allowed us to make manageable decisions and have some quality of family life while serving the Queen.
If it is abolished, the effect will be enormous, catastrophic for retention and will in the end cost a great deal more that it might save on paper.
They wouldn't be that stupid, would they?

Pontius Navigator
18th Oct 2010, 12:24
Thank you.

Certainly for the RAF, most overseas posts are discretionary; there are no formed units overseas and most posts are middle-to-senior ranks appointments and thus there is generally wiggle-room with desk officers/career managers. I certainly could have got out of this post (and my previous two overeas posts) but I chose not to - and my Service expereince has been all the richer for it.

Yes you, and anyone else, could have wriggled but presumably you were boarded and selected at best-man-for-the-job from both a Service, International, and career perspective. Avoid the post and your career would probably have suffered.

It is that very flexibility that CEA gives that would have encouraged you to go and equally all the others in the competition would also have needed CEA.

Whenurhappy
18th Oct 2010, 13:11
PN: as a family - and as an individual - I enjoyed immensly our overseas tours but in the RAF of the 21st Century, most overseas tours are akin to 'career death'. In my area, unless you were on the HQ STC/PMA/Air Command treadmill, your career peaks fairly early. Overseas tours are regarded as a 'jolly' (some are) but I felt that in my last two tours, I worked harder than I had in the MOD and probably achieved more for UK PLC than being AD Strat Change Transformational Management Focal Point Cluster, or some-such ultimately futile appointment. I can also think of soem recent appointments to reasonably high profile (albeit SO1) NATO posts of some of the most inappropriate people. There can't have been much thought put in it by the desk officers.I agree, again, totally with the utility of CEA but I reiterate that is not the outside view of this 'benefit'. Similarly, overseas tours are no longer generous in terms of LOA etc and it is a real struggle to afford to live modestly here, pay additional school fees etc. But we know where sympathy sits in the dictionary...