Possible Termination of PA Spine under FAFPS15

[Mightycrewseven]

REF: 2012DIN01-175

http://defenceintranetds.diiweb.r.mil.uk/sites/polestar/cs/DocumentLibrary/21/982_2012DIN01-175.pdf

New DIN out detailing provision of accrued Pension Rights for specialist groups within the military including Chaplains, MOs, Dentists and Professional Aviators.

I reckon reading Chinese is easier than understanding pension jargon, however, if I understand the DIN correctly (p20-23 for PA) those of us on PA spine will only be paid PA spine rates up to the transfer at 2015?

Having just accepted PA spine this year my situation very closely mirrors that of Example 2: I have to complete 5 years RoS for PA (recinded PVR rights) so my the earliest I can take an EDP is 2017.

So, I will have completed 24 years pensionable Service, at the point of transfer in 2015, gaining only 3 years of PA supplements (as at example 2) but only if I serve another 2 years to my EDP in 2017. The DIN seems to imply that beyond 2015 I will not recieve any further supplements suggesting that PA spine ceases as we know it.

My concern is that I will be mandated to give a further 2 years beyond cessation of my PA pension supplements without the benefits of the scheme I had accepted! Moreover, I am not sure yet what the rules will be on commutational rights of the preserved pension under the new scheme - therefore there is a possibility I could lose out further?

At my EDP I should get a pension based on 24 years of AFPS 75 service; a supplement based on 3 years of supplements; a tax-free lump sum based on 3 times the total pension (including supplements); no mention of commutational rights and I will be entitled to pension benefits for the 2 years of pensionable service under the Future AFPS in accordance with the rules of that scheme.

Am I missing anything? I need to find out how to address the situation of having to provide a 5yr RoS for only 3 years of benefits! :\:\:\

[Mightycrewseven]

Disregard my rant on Commutation rights. Found the detail I need on page 37 (Q-1): Looks like it's safe after all! :O

[Could be the last?]

I'm not on PAS, but was considering putting an application in. I appreciate chances are slim of being offered, but you got to ask. However, what is of concern, and may stop any application being submitted, is exactly how the pension will payout when my time is up at 55.

Anyone know what the implications of going onto PAS, now that the new pension system has been 'agreed'? ( I can't access the DiN for a couple of weeks!)

[Donna K Babbs]

As far as I'm aware you can't "apply". As with promotion, it's offered and you can choose to accept or decline.

[Background Noise]

Just because the pension accrual rates for PA change after 2015 doesn't mean that the PA pay spine disappears does it?

As for 'applying' it depends on rank. For Flt Lts offered assimilation beyond 16/38, or IPP or whatever it is now, that service will be as PA (just as it was as Spec Aircrew). Single list Sqn Ldrs are boarded for transfer to the PA spine.

Either way, it is definitely worth joining the Forces Pension Society. For those who will leave on AFPS05 at or before 55, there are some interesting comparisons between leaving at 55 and choosing to leave a smidge early - thus only receiving a reduced annual income until 65 but then benefitting from a second lump sum. Also some information about inverse commutation which is all about increasing your pension beyond 65 at the expense of the second lump sum - I think!

[Uncle Ginsters]

I've mentioned this on the FAFPS thread, but following a chat with the folks at the FAFPS the key to the whole future of PAS lies within changes to the pay scheme which we have, so far, heard nothing about.

The idea of the pension is to give one scheme for all, reflecting average earnings; for PA, we now need to know how the pay will change and how those average earnings will pan out to make PA as appealing as it it once was.

All of this detail is unknown so far and makes the decision for anyone to take PA at the moment, IMHO, impossible.

[Could be the last?]

Uncle G,

Your comments are exactly what I was getting at. I'm not going to put an application in to be considered for PA, until I know exactly what it is i am applying for.

[MaroonMan4]

Uh oh......

I see trouble ahead.

No one (in Air Manning) is listening.

No one is learning from the lessons identified in the past (shortage of aircrew, FRIs and original requirement for PAS).

Of course Service Personnel are not going to sign on to PAS if they have no idea if it will (a) be there post the introduction of FAFPS (2015-17) (b) what the Terms Of Service will be.

If there is any doubt in Air Command as to what the shop floor is thinking, it is very simple (just look at the other threads on CAA accreditation etc).

People are doing their licences in droves - some overtly, many in silence unbeknown to their crew room mates or chain of command (they are still playing along with the charade as they pretend to be on a full career). It is well known that career prospects (especially for the rotary mates) is limited as the RAF rotary wing fleet reduce and the Army take over from within JHC.

If PA goes (or if there is no financial incentive to pursue the FAFPs version) and the chances of promotion are also reducing thanks to SDSR and the redundancy Tranches, then from where I sit in about 6-12 months a significant amount of experience will be gone (lost?).

We will always have our career thrusters, those that have it in their genetic DNA to have ambition and career advancement. But where will the safety and operational capability be when those young thrusters take over young Squadrons when all of the experience has pressed the JPA button. As indicated in a separate thread, of course the RAF will survive and continue, but it will look very different to what it does now....all that hard fought Iraq and Afghan experience potentially gone in a few years.

And this is now - double dip recession and all that. What about when we come out of recession, even if the 450,000 aircrew required for the airline industry over the next 20 years (*1) is way off mark and it is only say 45,000, then where will the young Command orientated career 'go getters' be then without the familiar faces of experience in the crew room to assist?

As Mark Twain said, 'History doesn't repeat itself, it just rhymes'.........

Defence Transformation and Future Force 2020 will start with aircrew FRIs, that is what my crystal ball is saying based upon what upon the rumours I am hearing.

Let's hope the rumours are not right and we can still pull through the right level of experience and talent to PA (and not those that are just too lazy to do licences or would not survive in civilian life).

(*1) = Recent Flight International article on future airline recruitment.

[VinRouge]

It's going to have to be a pretty big fekking fri. Try 130k net I calculated to make it worthwhile staying in past option instead of transitioning to ba or virgin at that point.

With the sh@t new pension, leaving after 6 year ros is a no brainer for new guys looking to the outside ( and having had half their mates laid off in training, who can blame them?) with the new exemptions, you are no better off sticking round to get the hours.

To be complely fair to manning, i don't see why they should care.The sh8t storm will hit after they have left post. It's simple damage control till then.

[Easy Street]

If only it were as easy as 'transitioning' to BA or Virgin! (where do I apply for that scheme?)

How big would the FRI have to be if you factored in a couple of years' unemployment, a couple of years' trash-hauling and a couple of years in the RHS for a charter outfit, which is probably what the majority will end up doing?

[SwitchMonkey]

To be completely fair to Manning, they have no control over the pension scheme and the treasury was never, in the current climate, going to approve an FRI right now for a problem that is a few years away.

Are Manning aware of the incoming problem? I would be bloody amazed if they weren't.

[Yozzer]

That they have not pulled the plug completely on a training pipeline that is frankly not needed for several years is indicative of somebody somewhere trying to manage the chaotic situation that we are in. Timelines that everbody knows will come eventually are notable by their absence; unless of course there are many 'in the know' operating under a caveat of 'LimDis'.

Of course the concetina effect of that theory is that the shop floor are deliberately being kept in the dark whilst high level politics run their course. Not the best ethos for HR work relations, but good for multiple PPrune threads.

The Govt went public on the military being broken down and rebuilt with a target date of 2020 and nothing that I have seen or heard convinces me that this process is ahead of schedule. The dismantling process was choreographed to be completed by 2015 and therefore the 'pain' remains extant. The baseball bat in the face will come shortly after the withdrawl from Afghanistan unless someone can find another expedition to engage in to delay things a short while.

In summary, one cannot have overt foresight without an established timeline and it is quite possible that Manning are as much in the dark as everybody else.

[MaroonMan4]

Easy Street

If the recent Flight International article that I read on the global requirement for 450,000 aircrew over the next 20 years is even 10% true, BA and Virgin will be merely small players in the scrabble to get cost effective, experienced aircrew.

Additionally if there is no future PAS (or there is absolutely no incentive to join its future version post FAFPs and/or career progression is reducing) then why hang around? Get H M Queen to fund your flying training, tick the box for school boy/school girl dream of becoming a military pilot, and then move on as soon as possible to prep for a career in aviation that is (financially) incentivised with a long term future (not being kicked out at 55 and having to wait another 10-15 years to collect your pension).

Switch Monkey and others

I would suggest that the only thing to be fair to Air Command and Air Manning about is that for the majority of them, like me, are within their 10 years so when it comes down to it within a couple of years they will have moved on, and within the relatively short period of 10 years they will have the pension that they expected, at the time that they expected to be.

I cannot find one single reason for the 'middle management' to even contemplate career continuance or extending their commitment-if I am wrong, please correct me, but what is the point?:confused:

However, maybe I am doing Air Manning a disservice (this is a rumour network after all), and maybe CAS and the Air Staff/MoD have all formally written to HMT making it 100% clear that there is a very strong likely hood that within the relatively near future there will not be a aircrew shortage, but there will be an experienced aircrew shortage.

As long as there is an audit trail that highlights that Air Command has had the moral courage to inform the MoD and HMT of the projected situation then, I agree Air Manning has done everything it can in the current political climate. It will be these formal letters from Air Command that will in future highlight the flawed policies in order for quick and short term savings that future Defence Select Committees and NAO reports will use as evidence.

I do agree Yozzer and if HMG really does believe that post Afghan there will be a peace dividends that will off set the cost to the nation in ensuring a Suitably Qualified and Experienced Navy, Army and Air Force then so be it. The current policy will ensure that the costly element of Defence (pay and pensions) is reduced dramatically as the older, more experienced (but also potentially more costly) Service Personnel all leave in the 2015-2020 time frame.

Maybe no future political appetite for an Afghan equivalent, or even an expeditionary, peace keeping, or non combatant evacuation operation, but as G4S conviently reminded the British public, remove the experience built up over many years and lets see what capability (national standby or international contingency) the military will be able to deliver.

Back to Mark Twain and history repeating itself and funny old thing arent we now in a similar situation to the early 90s and right after HMG announced peace dividends after the fall of the Warsaw Pact - and lets look where those political peace dividends and conflicts 'without a shot being fired' got us, and haven't even mentioned potential (and hopefully hypothetical) future Hurricanes, Dirty Bombs, Water and Food Security that of course will not require military experience.:rolleyes:

If everyone is aware of what they are doing, from the relevant Sqn Ldr level upwards in Air Command to senior positions in HMG/HMT, and the risks have been balanced, then fine - PAS can go, we'll run with a less experienced Air Force, accept the potential increase in accidents/incidents, accept that we might not be able to (successfully) do more with less. Is it the young whipper snappers that have historically allowed us to do pretty significant activities at home and abroad, safely and effectively,concurrently with other operations and tasks, while resources are reduced, or is it the more experienced personnel that have seen it and done it before and make the balanced and realistic judgement call to get the job done successfully and safely (so far :hmm: )

I am nervous though, and I will be gone in the timeframe we are talking about, but I am nervous as to what and who will be left.

[Easy Street]

we'll run with a less experienced Air Force

Already there. Dilution rates are a key command interest item. The only problem is that the obvious solutions (re-touring pilots at the end of their first tour, for example) are not taken because they do not fit the officer career model required to find the next CAS.

accept the potential increase in accidents/incidents

Already there. The accident rate graph has definitely taken a turn for the worse over the last couple of years. Hopefully a bit of analysis on this might prompt some action on the above point, and perhaps also on the future of PAS.

[Uncle Ginsters]

Easy Street - to pick up on that theme in today's management terms...at what point should the MAA be concerning themselves with the experience and training levels of those left in our new finely tuned military aviation wing post '15?

A key element of the FS chain and of military airworthiness is the pilot and his/her training and experience...perhaps the MAA should spend as much time badgering Manning to bolster those at the top of that experience-tree (I.e. those eligible for PAS) as they do delving into the minutiae of largely irrelevant rules.

Perhaps this is already happening but we are too lowly to know...

[Al R]

I've mentioned this on the FAFPS thread, but following a chat with the folks at the FAFPS the key to the whole future of PAS lies within changes to the pay scheme which we have, so far, heard nothing about. All of this detail is unknown so far and makes the decision for anyone to take PA at the moment, IMHO, impossible.

Agreed, although some clues about the impact of NEM on pay seem to be drifting through.

BBC News - Government urges councils to sell off high-value houses (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19311364)

It remains to be seen how 'social' the state regards military housing, and at what combined income threshold the Japanese are allowed to start to increase military rent to comparable civilian levels, but some form of consensus seems to be forming. The state announced earlier this year that the total cost of public housing subsidy for those above the £60,000 threshold was £122.4 millions and the annual subsidy for a £100,000 threshold was £21.6 millions. You can see where they are going with this.

[Ginseng]

Taking this thread back to its roots, MC7 was concerned that the latest DIN suggested that further PA Spine benefits would cease to exist from introduction of FAFPS. All the DIN example quoted is intended to indicate is that the PA Spine supplements relevant to the AFPS 75 portion of the eventual pension entitlements would be derived from the years actually spent within AFPS 75 as PA Spine, and only subject to eventual completion of the minimum 5 year RoS on the Spine to crystallise those benefits. Further benefits for years 4, 5 and beyond would accrue against the FAFPS part of the overall pension/EDP under the rules of that scheme. That's all there is to go on at the moment, but there is no need yet to predict the demise of the PA Spine, and unless special further rules are made, my current working assumption is that, after the transition date, 1/47th of each additional year's PA Spine salary (revalued) would accrue in the FAFPS "pension pot".

Regards

Ginseng

[MaroonMan4]

A bit of advice please.

I am watching with interest colleagues try and get their heads around the DINs and Defence communications on AFPS.

It appears to me that very few Service Personnel understand the Defence communications, and that no one within the military understands it to enable unbiased practical information to be passed on.

There also appears to be a potential 'bear pit' of some Independent Financial Advisors out there that either claim to understand the proposed AFPS, but then transpires that they too are also in no position to offer detailed advice. Others say that the detail is not there yet to make detailed analysis of individual cases.

So, the questions are:

Do the DINs and Defence media communications to date provide enough information to inform Service Personnel on their future pension situation, or (as many are doing) they continue to sit on their elbows and await the refresh of the Pension calculator? When is the post AFPS pension calculator available for Service Personnel to allow them to make their own informed decisions?

If Service Personnel were to join the Forces Pension Society now, would this organisation be able to explain the detail for individual circumstances now, or is this respected body also awaiting further clarification and detail before detailed advice can be given?

I know many that would love to make an informed ('last chance') comment on the proposed AFPS (and not just a rant), but sadly there are many Service Personnel of all ranks that quite simply do not understand the Defence communications so far, with no one in the admin 'support' chain able to decipher and act as a bable fish for the DINs (including the information vacuum and cul de sac of JPA/SPVA where process and and requirement formal letters replace straight forward advice over the phone/e-mails.

Are we missing something, being dull and are others in the same predicament?

[Admin_Guru]

There is a trend in the MoD at the moment of launching the Fleet before all the sailors are on board. What you describe is yet another example of this. The Regulatory Articles within MAA are another example. The pace of change is faster then the speed of administration and an admin train crash will be the conclusion.

It would have been better to have made a proposal announcement with an effective date and then bank the info until all the ducks are lined up. But even this ideology has a habit of starting of as Nimrod 2000 taking a decade and then binning it as a bad idea.

Therefore perhaps at the highest level of Govt, they should have kept this to themselves until a workable arrangement was ready for despatch. That they did not means that rumour, counter rumour, and stress will flourish. In short, you wont get a definitive answer anytime soon.

[Al R]

MaroonMan,

I'm a fence sitter, mainly because it is still just the Outline Scheme Design which is available on the Intranet and that exists to allow you to review and comment on proposed AFPS changes prior to publication of the definitive document, which will be sometime in September. I have splinters too, because NEM (and not just AFPS) is also going to have an impact of the overall picture for many people, and that detail has not yet fully emerged.

AFPS is what is is. Various decisions, such as ignoring CPI (+) and choosing the Average Weekly Earnings index as the revaluation factor to sit alongside the decent Accrual Rate, are still potential balloon deflaters, not poppers. But that impact will only emerge with time. I use the Forces Pension Society quite frequently for technical advice. I suspect they would ask you for your money and tell you to wait until September when they could help you more fully, but it is an organisation that is still definitely worth joining.

Look on it this way. The smoke still hangs heavy, there is a lull in the battle and the enemy won't show himself again until September. Use the time wisely. Take a step back and to an extent, soften your focus on AFPS right now to look on the bigger picture. AFPS is a key, core component.. but it isn't the only component.

edit: A new calculator is available sometime 'next year' and you have until 7 September to submit your thoughts. The final scheme design will then be agreed once all comments have been considered. I imagine there will be a flurry of rubber stamps.