Retention

[JTIDS]

Is it my imagination or is the RAF heading to a point where in 2015-18 pretty much every pilot with over six years experience will quit at the same time. Anyone who was on AFPS05 will have done their six years return of service and so be eligible to PVR and with no immediate pension to stay in for will head off to the airlines. Anyone who has reached their 38/16 point before April 1st 2015 will have no reason to stay in beyond that date and there will be a slow trickle of people leaving as they reach their 16 year points beyond 2015 who are just going to hang on to pick up what they can of their AFPS 75. In a very short space of time there will be no experience left, especially as PA Spine now seems to be a waste of time. (No additional real pension until you reach 68!)

Or am I missing something obvious.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

1st rule of personnel beancounting - inexperienced people are cheap.

2nd rule of personnel beancounting - never hire clever or moral people: they threaten your job or create work for you.

There are no other rules. Performance in war or aircraft losses are someone else's budget.

Those considering leaving will discover the same applies in the jobs they are thinking of moving to.

[raytofclimb]

Yes

I'm pretty certain I'm leaving at my 38/16 in Jan 2016. I'm also pretty certain a decent FRI wouldn't keep me in.

I've had a great time but I'm not prepared to gamble on the intervening years to my 44 point and will take a pension hit if I leave inbetween.

The ship is sinking.

Ray

[zedder]

Or am I missing something obvious

Don't think so. I think it is Manning that are missing something obvious, and I don't think the problem of retention will only be restricted to Pilots. I say that as someone who is seeing a lot of the youngsters (particularly GD/WSO and WSOps) I used to fly with PVR'ing at what I assume for 'the system' is an alarming rate; if I was very cynical of course, perhaps you could argue that this was always part of the Master Plan to get the RAF numbers down below whatever the latest 'target' is ASAP.

I believe what started as a trickle is now turning into a serious flood. No doubt there is lots of hand-wringing going on among various members of the Air Force Board who are seeing the situation slip beyond their control at an alarming rate. All I can say to that is "You reap what you sow you completely clueless dickheads".

Standing by for the RAF to disappear up it's own arsehole!

[Lima Juliet]

The other problem is that they have made such a complete horlicks of the flying training pipeline in the past few years there is now also a dissenchanted bunch of late 20-somethings in the system (about 3 years worth). They won't need much p!ssing off to start looking elsewhere either!

Still, I reckon we will cope with more 'capability holidays'!!! :ugh:

LJ

[NutLoose]

I must admit the thought had crossed my mind with all of those choosing to depart, what would happen if that also included the core people shuffled off around the world to maintain currency experience on the likes of Maritime airborne operations. Carrier operations.. VTOL operations etc for the future hardware coming online..

[Bob Viking]

I fear you're all correct (I said the same thing in a letter to manning when I refused PAS) but I think the reality is that no one will miss us once we've gone. The wheel will keep turning (no matter how wobbly) and those at the top will carry on blissfully unaware of the problem.
I'd love to see empirical figures to back up the feeling of a so called exodus though. I get the same impression but I wonder if its just that, as you get towards the twilight of your commission, so many of your 'generation' are leaving that it feels like an exodus. I must admit that the number of guys I know who intend to stay beyond 38 could be counted on one hand. By a teenage mutant ninja turtle (slightly obscure I know but I like to keep things light hearted whenever possible).
BV

[5 Forward 6 Back]

Bob, you can get some statistics through DASA's website. A quick look at their outflow table here shows the following numbers for voluntary outflow of trained RAF officers:

FY09/10: 420
FY10/11: 440

12 month periods ending:

31 Mar 12: 680
30 Jun 12: 680
30 Sep 12: 730
31 Dec 12: 890
31 Mar 13: 780

That's an upward trend in my book. From 420 PVRs in FY09/10 to 780 in FY12/13. Measure from 2009 to 2012 and it's almost an exact doubling in the PVR rate.

Interestingly, it shows the VW numbers as well (voluntary outflow of untrained officers, it says here)

FY09/10: 40
FY10/11: 50

12 month periods ending:

31 Mar 12: 60
30 Jun 12: 60
30 Sep 12: 230
31 Dec 12: 230
31 Mar 13: 210

So only 40 untrained officers PVR'd or VW'd in FY09/10, rising to 210 in FY12/13! That's Leon's hacked off guys in the training system, I reckon.

Of course, these aren't aircrew specific, but with so many blunties on short service commissions and happily seeing them out, I imagine the vast majority of these stats are from aircrew.

[5 Forward 6 Back]

P.S. Bob, did you receive any reply to or acknowledgement of your letter to manning when you rejected PAS, btw?

[Bob Viking]

5F6B.
Of course not. I don't even know if anyone read it.
BV

[Stanley Eevil]

And of course there will be the effects of the wonderful deal that is `NEM` to come.........

[dallas]

@zedder All I can say to that is "You reap what you sow you completely clueless dickheads". :D

@Bob The wheel will keep turning (no matter how wobbly) and those at the top will carry on blissfully unaware of the problem. I think the military 'top' are all too aware of the problem, but can't do much about it anymore; it's the politicians who are disconnected, and compare ambulance drivers to civil servants to soldiers to binmen. The difference I've always asserted is that the military has 'made do' and got on with it and not enjoyed union representation/negotiation of other govt cut targets, and the 'can do' may now bite the services in the ass when the spare has been spent earlier on. There was still some fat when I was in - the military loves projects and strategic spending - but it won't be until something very serious happens that a route and branch restructure is politically led, that sees, God forbid, the RAF generating aircraft with its resources properly aligned to do so, and starts to clear out all the detritus that has been caught up in its engines since the 90s. I hope nobody gets hurt in the process, but it might take just that sort of shock to embarrass the politicos into action - it normally does.

[ALM In Waiting]

The Gp Capt giving our NEM brief acknowledged that it was actually cheaper to retain experienced and trained personnel than recruit new ones. However, whether that is actually put into practice is another thing entirely...

[Uncle Ginsters]

The trouble is that it's an ever-decreasing circle - initially, a few walk leaving those remaining to pick up the slack. Eventually they get miffed and walk leaving even fewer working much harder, who, of course get miffed or burnt out fairly quickly and leave or get signed off.

To break the chain, someone very senior needs to publicly recognise the problem, ease off the pedal and actually fight off the bean counters enough to improve things.

The thing that worries me is not the number of my generation leaving...we're all approaching our 38/16pts. The concerning thing is the number of 1st and 2nd tourists setting up to leaving in the very near future.

Of course, until they actually 'press the button' we don't have a problem though, right?

[BEagle]

The concerning thing is the number of 1st and 2nd tourists setting up to leaving in the very near future.

Which is a natural corollary of 22Gp having dumbed-down the previously excellent 2000TT/1500PIC military pilot accreditation scheme to a mere shadow of its former self. Some people were prepared to suck it up and put up with the rough and the smooth until they hit those magic figures; now that there's no such scheme, many see absolutely no point in staying in longer than the minimum engagement term - they'll simply waste potential airline seniority by staying in a moment longer.

Quelle effing surprise!

:mad:

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Those considering leaving will discover the same applies in the jobs they are thinking of moving to


And therein lies Manning's best hope - that people still in will hear stories of leavers getting hacked off on the outside, and deciding that maybe the Flying Circus isn't so bad after all.

Reminds me of an entry in the diary of a senior Luftwaffe staff officer when the going was getting really tough for the Germans, who wrote "Our only hope is that the General Staff of the enemy air force is as scatter-brained as ours!".

Scatter-brained may have been a euphemism, perhaps equally applicable to Manning in the modern situation...

[Bob Viking]

BEagle.
There's a nail somewhere in your vicinity with a sore head!
BV

[Aynayda Pizaqvick]

Couldn't be more correct BEagle, that is exactly what I'm seeing. The so called "accreditation" system is now so poor it is directly effecting retention, let's face it, if you have to spend £20k+ to get your licence it makes sense to get out early to make the investment worthwhile.

Add that to an erosion in the quality of service life, the (comparatively) rubbish new pension and the constant deployments to desert locations and you'll find a sizeable chunk of pilots approaching the end of their 6 year return of service have already made up their minds to hit the PVR button. And our leadership can't claim to be unaware, I've told them myself!

[BEagle]

CAP 804, the CAA's pilot licensing document, has now been re-released.

Predictably, there is no improvement in the abysmal levels of accreditation now available to military pilots. The only changes concern clarification of aircraft which may be used for skill tests.

But, all in all, it's still a complete crock of $hit and won't help retention one iota.

[newt]

Sounds like they might need us to sign up again Beags!! Mind you I hope they can offer part time and a golf course on every station!!:ok:

[Wensleydale]

If I may slightly misquote a more famous speech:

The exchequer entered this ministry under the rather childish delusion that they were going to cut everything and capability loss was not going to noticed. At various pay rounds, and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naïve theory into operation. They sowed the wind and now they are going to reap the whirlwind.

[theboywide]

This is a really interesting problem.
I'm a lifer, so really I will never step out of the gate without my ID but the day is coming where a lot of experience does and the training pipelineand breadth of new generation experience falls short of filling those gaps.

FRIs need to be given out now to retain people before the airline exodus.
The problem with FRIs from a finance point of view is that it costs a lot of money and, post FRI, you can never have any concrete proof that the people that have stayed have done so because of the FRI.

I think its time the RAF looked at some lower cost preemptive options rather than the costly FRI Hail Marys.
How about transitioning people to PA spine on offer and not making them wait to their 38 point. Wouldn't cost much and people would be progressing in pay and benefits. That would keep some people.
Perhaps also a way to give people their current gratuity as an advance with a tied in RoS. How many people do you know have left because the gratuity and pension make it financially stupid to stay.

Just some thoughts

Wides

[VinRouge]

Fri will be pointless. On any measure, anything less than 150k net and it still makes sense to leave.

Even more so now the young guys have had their pensions will and truly Rodgered.

Offering 80k gross will just nark people off more.

[StopStart]

It is quite interesting from the outside looking in now. I left nearly 2 years ago now but am still involved, peripherally, as a reservist on the Herc (although I don't do as much as I should!!). I too was a lifer (or so I thought) and could never conceive of leaving the warm embrace of the RAF and entering the dull world of civil aviation. Having now done so however, part of me wishes I'd done it sooner...

Anyway, whenever I dust off the uniform and go back in I am consistently amazed/dismayed by the crushingly low levels of morale. People still seem to be keen and generally want to crack on and do the job but just seem to be being crushed by trivia, bureaucracy, change for change sake, "initiatives", huge uncertainty about the future and a lack of direction. I am constantly quizzed on the state of the airline market, what its like in the outside world, advice on licences etc etc. Now, maybe it's easier to spot the dissatisfaction now I'm not part of it but even so I do find it a rather disappointing state of affairs.

As I'm pretty much an outsider now I can't say what the cure is but I honestly don't believe that FRIs are the great panacea. FRIs in the current climate are simply an anaesthetic to temporarily take away the pain of the huge festering wound that is the current state of much of the RAF. The anaesthetic is nice thank you but the wound is still there and that pain relief can wear off quite quickly.

Rather than just chaff money at the problem the future of the RAF would be better served by stripping away the insufferable levels of niff naff and trivia that people are drowning under. I am constantly amazed by how my current employer, for whom safety, efficiency and profit are the absolute bottom line, can initiate change and development at the drop of a hat. If something is going to save us money and increase efficiency, it happens. The operational side (i.e. non-commercial side) of our HQ has a fraction of the people that it takes "run" Brize and yet it handles more flights (by a factor of 20) in a day than Brize does in a week. I've used this line many many times before (apologies) but it is so appropriate:

"I used to work for the military where we had 40 meetings a day and put 1 aircraft airborne a week. I now work for a company that puts 40 aircraft airborne a day and has one meeting a week."

Stop drowning your people in crap, strip away the unintelligible levels of bureaucracy that you have allowed to develop, make it so people actually want to go into work, just acknowledge that things are sub-par at the moment but at least try and offer a brighter future. Your people aren't stupid. Stop looking at ways to force them to stay and instead concentrate on making them want to stay in.

[Party Animal]

StopStart


crushed by trivia, bureaucracy, change for change sake, "initiatives", huge uncertainty about the future and a lack of direction


Yep, that very much sums up the current situation.

and

Stop looking at ways to force them to stay and instead concentrate on making them want to stay in.

Absolutely agree but I think it's too late. Perhaps a better option may be to re-arrange how we do business as aircrew in the RAF. Forget all the 38/16 crap and work on 9 years return of service as a planning figure. Train people, give them 6-7 years on a front-line aircraft without a break and expect them to leave at the end of it. Those that enjoy it and are good can chase the career or seek extensions. Those that go will be at the top of the flying tree and probably highly employable outside.

Of course the training system would have to be beefed up to cope with the much higher throughput of numbers but overall, it should be much more manageable and less subject to the boom and bust that commercial opportunites can present. You would probably have a better balance of experience on each sqn too.

[Roland Pulfrew]

The trouble is that it's an ever-decreasing circle - initially, a few walk leaving those remaining to pick up the slack. Eventually they get miffed and walk leaving even fewer working much harder, who, of course get miffed or burnt out fairly quickly and leave or get signed off.



The good news is that a certain very senior politician, at a speech at a recent charity dinner, stated that all we need to do is make the military much more like civilian businesses and make everyone in the military more productive! One wonders how? Does he mean we all need to drop more bombs or shoot more people? Perhaps he means that we should all work longer hours and spend less time on our personal lives. Yet our senior leadership still wonder why people are leaving!! :ugh:

[5 Forward 6 Back]

VinRouge,

Fri will be pointless. On any measure, anything less than 150k net and it still makes sense to leave.

Even more so now the young guys have had their pensions will and truly Rodgered.

Offering 80k gross will just nark people off more.

I've posted it before, but people need to remember that accepting a net £80k FRI right now will only plug the gap in your AFPS75 vs AFPS15 pension arrangements at 38/16. I'm sure that leaving at 38 would leave me short by around £100k compared to if my AFPS75 pension was honoured completely.

So if they want to make a serious difference to people, they'd need to be looking at well over £150k net, otherwise you're gaining nothing, just returning to the ToS you were on before AFPS15.

[cornish-stormrider]

Hmmm, seems to be that from you bus drivers with mucho denarii that you are hitting the "this place sucks nards" point.

Any Erks and hammer wielders care to stick your tuppence worth in?
And by that I mean what used to be TG1 and 2 - the prime aicraft generators

coz, the perspective form the outside is you are all stampeding for the gate - the button on thy magic JPA (or whatever its called today) is worn out thru overuse and you are all mightily hacked off.

Outside is hard work at the moment - salaries are ****e, but there are lots of oppertunities, if you don't fancy the dicking around and endless routines to the sandpit then try your hand.

skillsets are tranferrable - the endless wiwol stories not so, unless you work for me and will provide the coffee while swinging the lamp and talking bollox....

if you think you are reaching a F**K this point do so, don't look back.
you will miss the banter unless you end up working with other ex mil who can take a joke.

would I go back - nope.

[BEagle]

Would I go back?

To the RAF of 1973? Yes!
To the RAF of 1983? Yes!
To the RAF of 1993? Perhaps... But probably not.
To the RAF of 2003? Definitely not.
To the RAF of today? Definitely not.

[Squirrel 41]

The vexed question of FRI is really what does it buy the taxpayer? The problem that the Treasury has with these schemes is that

(i) You end up paying lots of cash to people who were going to stay anyway (dead weight costs)

(ii) Unless you have a proactive plan to fix the problem which has led to the need to use a FRI, then actually all it does is buy you (a relatively short amount of) time at which point you have to do it all again.

Sound familiar?

S41

[Canadian Break]

I blame Mr Bett............anyone remember him and his report?:\

[JliderPilot]

I too left the Herc force about one year ago, 23 years of service and enjoyed nearly all of it. Great people, job, places visited and what a laugh! Left on a high after a good final tour.

It's good to discuss the FRI question. I was selected for the lower stage 1 FRI back in 2003 (get this) while I was still in pilot training...

How does that make sense! There was no way I was going to walk back then.

Stoppers is right, it is the structure and management that needs to adapt and change.

An old crusty Sqn Ldr ALM (30 Sqn) once told me why he decided to leave early before his 55 pt, he said "it's like being nibbled to death by ducks".

I chose to leave at a time when it suited me, it was a difficult decision, manning only hindered me and the transition to a job outside takes hard work and persistence but it can be very rewarding. Most guys and gals serving would knock the socks off your average civvie. Think about it, if it suits; then go for it and you have very good chances of a successful career outside.

[Lima Juliet]

Beags

Would I go back?

To the RAF of 1973? Yes!
To the RAF of 1983? Yes!
To the RAF of 1993? Perhaps... But probably not.
To the RAF of 2003? Definitely not.
To the RAF of today? Definitely not.


I reckon the rot really set in post Strategic Defence Review (SDR) '97, that would chime with your thoughts.

In hardware and personnel terms, the planned configuration of Britain's forces to 2015 may be summarised as follows (pre SDR figures/plans in brackets):

Trident submarines 4 (4);
Trident missiles 58 (65);
Maximum nuclear warheads per Trident submarine 48 (96);
attack submarines 10 (12);
aircraft carriers 2 very large (3 smaller);
destroyers/frigates 32 (35);
roll-on roll-off container ships 6 (2);
minesweepers 22 (25);
offensive air support 154 (177);
C-17 heavy airlift planes 4 extra
tank regiments 6 larger (8);
Regular Army 112,300 (108,000)
Territorial Army 40,000 (56,000)
Air Defence Sqns 5+OCU (6+OCU)

In addition, the government pledges to go ahead with the controversial order for 232 Eurofighter aircraft, and will shortly be bringing into service a fleet of new Apache helicopters, 'smart' weapons and improved intelligence and reconnaissance equipment. Most importantly, a four-star 'Chief of Defence Logistics' is appointed to manage logistics across all three services. It was also decided to form a 400-personnel joint army/air nuclear, chemical and biological reconnaissance regiment, based with the Royal Armoured Corps.

The rot and 'capability holidays' continued after this and the force now looks nothing like this for 2015!

LJ

[Melchett01]

The good news is that a certain very senior politician, at a speech at a recent charity dinner, stated that all we need to do is make the military much more like civilian businesses and make everyone in the military more productive! One wonders how? Does he mean we all need to drop more bombs or shoot more people?

I was reading an article on the MOD homepage in the past couple of days, where the senior chap being quoted - I forget who, but someone from Centre - possibly a senior civil servant - was genuinely proud of how the MOD had been transformed by slashing budgets and numbers of personnel. There seemed to be a genuine pride that the Services had shrunk as if the military were a business and we were simply overheads.

I know we often say that we couldn't 'do another Falklands' , but frankly, I don't think we could even 'do another Libya' these days. Whilst the high paid help are sitting in their ivory towers, full of self congratulation at slashing capability - let's not beat around the bush, redundancy = reduced capability - much of our recent 'success' as it is has come from our ability to surge when required. And we have been able to surge because a degree of 'spare' capacity has existed. We no longer have that 'spare' capacity, frankly as an institution, I often get the feeling that we are now struggling to get the basics done on a daily basis.

And it's only going to get worse. Just what is the irreducible minimum to guarantee a safe and effective air capability? And when did we pass that point? People are tired. People are pissed off. We just want it all to stop, to allow us time to recover and regenerate from 12 continuous years on active operations without interference from politicians chasing votes, VSOs chasing knighthoods and Civil Servants chasing paperwork. I don't think it's too dramatic to suggest that as an Air Force, it feels rather like the state of the Puma Force in 2006-8 but on a larger scale. And we all know how that one ended.

[High_Expect]

Sadly almost no amount of money the RAF could lay its hands on would make a difference. The huge number of tax free jobs opening up in 2014 for, albeit, a select few aircrew with QFI ticks means that any £150k - £300k FRI would barely touch the sides. The guys a gals will be making that sort of cash every 18-36 months. The only thing that would keep people is a return to the level of pride we all once felt in being part of this organisation. Sadly all I hear now from my fellow pilots is how ashamed they are to be part of it all. The crewroom chat is only about opportunities outside and 95% of the guys on the Sqn will be able to tell you to the exact day when their RoS is up and which day they need to exercise their option. Someone else further up has already mentioned this but my genuine best guess is that 30-40% of my Sqn will not be getting posted out but will be leaving by their own choice.

To those thinking of staying in - good luck but take the blinkers off and perhaps set you sights a little higher.

[AutoBit]

Making it harder for people to leave, in no way encourages them to stay....a point that is all too often lost on manning.

Im not sure there is an 'exodus' on the way, but the problem is that because of the continuous stream of cuts and redundancies etc over the last few years, we are now so small in some areas that if even a few people leave it will become a major problem for the Service.

[gr4techie]

For those that said a FRI will not work. Your are
A). Mad
B). Already left the raf with a nice pension.

If you were to offer us a huge pile of cash, I'm sure we would serve the minimum return of service to qualify for the payment. You do something for me and if the price is right, I'll do something for you.

As for not being able to afford it. We are not broke when we are giving away money to the Royal Bank of Scotland and when corporations like Starbucks and Amazon don't pay tax. You, sat at home reading this, pay more tax than a lot of multi billion £ corporations.

[Toadstool]

Perhaps, despite it all, we still like It. I certainly do. Its not like the 70s but who thought it would be?

[High_Expect]

Toadstool you keep watering that grass to keep it green buddy. Fortunately some else waters mine for me ;)

[Toadstool]

I don't have to water the grass. I still like it here, and I have enormous pride in serving. Call me anal...whatever. I appreciate its not like it was 30 years ago, but I still love flying and doing my job. Perhaps I shouldnt be on this forum.

[Lockstock]

The huge number of tax free jobs opening up in 2014 for, albeit, a select few aircrew with QFI ticks means that any £150k - £300k FRI would barely touch the sides. The guys a gals will be making that sort of cash every 18-36 months.

Oh really..? Tell us more.. :eek:

[Bob Viking]

HE.
You just couldn't keep your mouth shut could you?! Now you've gone and done it.
BV ;)

[rathebelucky]

HE
2014 is just around the corner now but there are jobs out there/here now. And you are not wrong about the figures. (Well, maybe underselling it a little)

[ShotOne]

Considering the original premise of the thread was pilots with 6-7 years service, which by my reckoning, means mid to late twenties, there's much talk about pensions. Do I detect a thread hijack by the next generation?

I'm saddened if it really is true that pilots are clamouring to leave at that point. It's certainly an expensive way to run a business. No airline could ever afford to train someone for such a payback period, and I'm constantly told how short-term their outlook is.

[High_Expect]

So treat people better then..... Simples.

[Uncle Ginsters]

I'm saddened if it really is true that pilots are clamouring to leave at that point.

Indeed ShotOne, as I am saddened everything time I hear of another first-tourist co doing their ATPL.

With the mixture of (accidentally coordinated) factors - pensions, civil accreditation, redundancies, pay freezes, Op tempo - the MoD have created a monster that is yet to really bite.

Very sad indeed.

[Willard Whyte]

Training routes, European & N. American dets, rates - not having to spend 3 days finding receipts for choccy bars and packets of crisps, promoting leaders not managers, triv taking a backseat to flying, questions 'on high' when front line aircrew aren't averaging >25 hours a month (when in the UK, not some shi**y) eastern wasteland, where front-line first means focussing on flying and getting aircraft serviceable - not having to shi* in a bucket, where bosses come and talk to you - not send an email, when ops sqn doesn't refer to the flying squadrons as 'customers', the resources to train for excellence not competence (or mediocrity).

Some of the above may cost money, but there'll be a better, and happier, product (:yuk:) at the end of it.

[ShotOne]

Most of that wouldn't cost much money to fix, Willard...by contrast with Ginster's wish list! Bumping up pay and especially pension is a huge and escalating cost which def secs in 50 yrs will have to find. And will it really make your ATPL studying co stay if he wants shiny gold bars?

[Mach Two]

On the other hand, our people are expensive to train and it's necessary also to consider the financial value of, and necessity for, experience. A lot of companies found themselves "saving money" by cutting back on how well they looked after their staff, only to find that they were spending a small fortune in recruitment and training. They ended up with a transient workforce and no one with any depth of experience.

PWC make millions every year analysing companies' staff turnover and convincing them to retain - even if it seems expensive - rather than keep losing and replacing their people.

A smaller, happier, valued staff is more efficient and comes with a smaller recruitment and trining bill than one with poor retention. False economies are not good savings plans.

[Uncle Ginsters]

ShotOne,

Not a wish list...most of those are pretty much lost causes due to the pressures behind them:ugh:

Combine those with Willard's list and it's a pretty formidable prospect - just an acknowledgement and attempt to fix something/anything would help.

[MSOCS]

Uncle G,

I honestly don't expect any acknowledgement from those responsible, as to do so would likely admit irresponsibility in respect of the whole redundancy, training pipeline closure (such as WSO) situations we've seen in the recent past. I do hope that the RAF (and FAA/AAC) have a plan for when AFPS 75/05 becomes AFPS 15 in Apr 15 and a large proportion either perceive or know that it would be better to leave.

If I was recruiting for a major airline or aviation company, that date would be seared into my mind....

[Pontius Navigator]

I don't think FRI is the only issue. My Sons in Law and a daughter are all about to pull the handle too. The kicker for them is the pension.

[Melchett01]

PN,

I agree that the constant replacement of our values & ethos with civilian trivia and David Brent-esque management doesn't half chip away at morale, and that for many the new pension is the last straw. But I have to ask if people are leaving because if the pension, is it not a case of frying pan to fire? Would a civvie pension scheme be any better?

It might just be me being lucky - I certainly don't enjoy the mountain of trivia and admin that makes up most of my working day, but the pension still seems to be reasonable all things considered. But as I say, I might be lucky. My 16/38 point is before the transition and will be on mid-level sqn ldr pay as my 'starting' salary for the new scheme. I think I'm one of the few who might if not benefit, might not actually be any worse off. Whilst there are plenty of push factors, the pull factors aren't yet quite strong enough to make me pull the Y&B

[Table For 1]

It is ultimately a very personal decision...for what it is worth I left some years ago as a 2 and a half with a certain staff college date. After I turned that down, when some clowns parked aircraft in the WTC it looked like a daft move.

As things turned out, by good fortune I am now paid better than a 3-star and still fly aeroplanes....and some very nice ones at that. It is not the same as the RAF, and I would never pretend it was, but it has been a lot of fun along the way....and that is why I wanted to fly. I still have VR contact with the RAF...and I can honestly say that I know of no other organisation that has so lost its way....:=

[Melchett01]

That kind of leadership isn't going to help retention I fear.

No, that's the sort of leadership that in the past got you fragged by your own troops.

I would have hoped that sort of toxic behaviour - it doesn't warrant the word leadership - went out with the Ark. If it's true, the fact that it is doing the rounds won't reinforce his position, it will simply undermine it when everyone refuses to work with him.

[Just This Once...]

There is a strong substanciated rumour of a Sqn Ldr at a double digit ISTAR Sqn taking his troops aside and telling them, and I quote '....if you cross me I will destroy you'. A room full of Officers and SNCOs and he says that to them!!

Does this double digit ISTAR Sqn not have a wg cdr boss that any of the officers or SNCOs could talk to?

[Easy Street]

As "experienced" (=older) personnel, we tend to emphasise 'retention' in our analysis of manning issues, because 'retention' measures tend to be aimed at our ilk! What we tend to forget is the old adage that military service is a young man's game. Yes, you need a core of grizzled SNCOs and WOs to keep the raw recruits in line, and yes you need a few (very few) officers of Wg Cdr rank and above to direct the show. However I think that the RAF has quite an 'aged' feel about it compared to the other services; of course we of "experience" (age) justify this by pointing out that we are a technical service where engineering and flying expertise needs to be developed over time. But "experience" (age) comes with wife/husband, children, expectations of stability... and this in an age where spouses are less and less willing to troop dutifully from patch to patch every 2-3 years. So "experienced" personnel have become increasingly difficult to please, and expect a civilian lifestyle - which we encourage with advances of pay for deposits on property, yet which is at odds with the ultimate truth that you go where the Service needs you to go. Just look at recent issues - Tornado drawdown at Lossiemouth = mass stampede to the offshore industry rather than move south. Typhoon drawdown at Leuchars? I hear rumours of threats of mass PVR. Higher authority than the MoD decides where we need to work, and military people need to be prepared to move to where the work is.

NEM is all well and good - stability in the UK, tick - but there will always be a requirement to spend time away. And this will always get cranked up to the maximum that the seniors think they can get away with. 3-month exercises in the Middle East, anyone? Just look at the number of people going there on a regular basis at the moment that are nothing to do with HERRICK but are doing "engagement". This will continue long after 2015 because if we sit in barracks doing our day job, we will get culled. While this is wrong, it is a sad fact of life. And this means that we will need a supply of young and carefree chaps/chapesses happy to spend about 33-50% of their time away (including exercises) year in, year out, even when there is nothing much going on out there.

And so I think that in a deep dark corridor in Manning, beyond the smokescreen of NEM, is a developing policy to drive people out at their mid-career point with a piffling (by current standards) immediate pension and only keep the very best for full careers - admittedly those will need to be compensated well, but it needs to stop being the "norm" to serve a full career before advances in senior pay can be considered.

Finally - experience is important in an air force that runs old kit like Tornado, C130, Puma - the old hands know where to apply an "engineering tap" to fix snags, and know which component to replace for a particular set of systems. However ,when you run kit like Voyager and F-35, the expensive and comprehensive support arrangements mean that rectification increasingly tends towards the "Haynes manual" approach. Experience will remain important - but those with 5-10 years' experience, rather than 15-20, will be in the 'sweet spot' that Manning try to protect. After that, it will be 'thankyou and goodbye'. In my opinion!

[Biggus]

Easy,

".....Tornado drawdown at Lossiemouth = mass stampede to the offshore industry rather than move south......." - quite simply WRONG!

The main driver for the mass move to the offshore industry from Lossie has/had nothing to do with the prospect of a potential move south, indeed people from 'down south' are asking to be posted north to Lossie so they can then PVR from there and go offshore.

While your argument may have some merit at the lower skill levels, to spend £5M training someone, and then replacing them every 6 years as opposed to every 20-30, is sheer lunacy.....

Not forgetting the fact that the Defense Secretary himself has said he doesn't think the UK will have the stomach for any further expeditionary warfare for the next 10-15 years, so an increased amount of stability for individuals is expected to occur post 2015 .

Apart from that.....

[Courtney Mil]

Defense Secretary himself has said he doesn't think the UK will have the stomach for any further expeditionary warfare for the next 10-15 years

Sounds like a good line to introduce further, significant defence cuts. If Sec Def (sorry for the shorthand) says that, I see trouble coming.

[ShyTorque]

The good news is that a certain very senior politician, at a speech at a recent charity dinner, stated that all we need to do is make the military much more like civilian businesses and make everyone in the military more productive! One wonders how? Does he mean we all need to drop more bombs or shoot more people? Perhaps he means that we should all work longer hours and spend less time on our personal lives. Yet our senior leadership still wonder why people are leaving!!

I suspect the highlighted above is what will be expected.

I left almost two decades ago, because the RAF I knew and loved had gone down the tubes as far as I was concerned. The worst thing was the appalling man management shown by those desperate to climb the promotion ladder, rather than just getting the job done in a professional, properly organised way.

A good example: A certain helicopter station was trying to run an operational squadron and a separate OCU with as few as one aircraft per day between them. I was an OCU QHI at the time. Our Boss announced that to alleviate the issues the lack of aircraft caused to our unit's flying programme and throughput, there would be an early shift and a late shift.

After a couple of weeks we realised we were all working both shifts.

[Easy Street]

Biggus

Aircrew are a slightly separate case due to the training costs. My argument was more generally laid across the whole span of the RAF and training in even the most technical trades gets nowhere near the £Ms. As for the Lossie exodus, you are right about the motivation and it was sloppy of me to phrase my point that way. The point is that our experienced personnel do not feel the same ties to the service that perhaps they once did. That might be fixable through increased pay and better pensions, but rather than bend over backwards to keep people in at all costs, I think that Manning has taken the view that a younger, more pliable workforce is in the long-term interests of the service. And if you think that the end of expeditionary operations means the end of expeditionary "training", think again! On current form, we are inching towards recreation of the MEAF. Political pressures will also see our F-35 sqn(s?) spending a significant proportion of their time afloat; I can't see many being keen on back-to-back tours or extended SNCO tenures on 617 Sqn in future!

So, for the separate case of aircrew - it's a given that military aircrew salaries are not going to get massively inflated to fix retention issues. What might usefully be reviewed is the career structure. Too many fast jet pilots get only one or possibly 2 front-line tours before their exit point, with the balance of their time being taken up in instructional posts or on ground tours that could easily be filled by non-flying branches. The number of ground tours that actually need a flying badge, especially at Flt Lt level, is vanishingly small. And the number of flying instructors in the system has risen out of all proportion to the size of the front line it supports.

A great proportion of those aircrew who PVR before their first exit point are multi-engine pilots who have accumulated the necessary 500hrs multi-pilot time to ease their path into civil aviation. That problem will never go away, and will be further exacerbated by deteriorating pension terms (especially at the IPP). So, I would close the ab-initio route to multi-engine flying and make ME flying a career progression option for FJ and RW pilots. Rather than park ex-FJ and RW pilots as highly-paid OpsOs, FSOs or staff desk jockeys, why not put them in a multi for the last 5-6 years of their career and help them into civvy street at IPP with an affordable (for MoD) pension and a marketable skill? There would be an overall saving in flying training (MEXO being a fraction of the length of MELIN + MEAFT). This would allow overall aircrew numbers to be reduced (with a radical reduction in the number of expensive over-40s) and would increase retention to IPP through the 'carrot' of ME flying for those who decide that they don't want to climb the career ladder in the FJ or RW worlds. And would increase the amount of time that expensively-trained pilots actually fly during their 18 years' service. We could also stop pretending that we need to 'broaden' them in ground tours, because the assumption would be that only those seeking to climb the ladder would need to submit to said 'broadening'.

[TomJoad]

There is a strong substanciated rumour of a Sqn Ldr at a double digit ISTAR Sqn taking his troops aside and telling them, and I quote '....if you cross me I will destroy you'. A room full of Officers and SNCOs and he says that to them!!
That kind of leadership isn't going to help retention I fear.

Does he do it in the style of Darth Vader:E Sounds like a bit of a plank ,,, if true.

[Willard Whyte]

There is a strong substanciated rumour of a Sqn Ldr at a double digit ISTAR Sqn taking his troops aside and telling them, and I quote '....if you cross me I will destroy you'. A room full of Officers and SNCOs and he says that to them!!

If it's a recently formed Sqn I think I may know the chap.

A right king cnut.

[Bob Viking]

ES.
Your posts are starting to sound alarmingly sensible and revisionist. Please stop immediately. This is not the time or the place for such insightful statements.
BV ;)

[OafOrfUxAche]

I can honestly say that I know of no other organisation that has so lost its way....:=


Have you ever heard of the 'Conservative Party'?

[High_Expect]

I'm just amazed that anyone could possibly think manning have a plan..... Surely you've been round long enough.

[Evalu8ter]

HE,
Of course Manning has a plan - in fact they have two.

1. Get oneself promoted, ACSC, promoted, best job etc....

2. Identify the 1-2% of the RAF that have (in their opinion) 'legs' to 3-4* to ensure succession planning for VSOs...

Think that covers the extent of their planning......

[Just This Once...]

Nail on head.

Just need the plan that covers the other 97%.

[Courtney Mil]

Most of the people in Manning are simply doing a far less sinister job than you all seem to think. Desk officers are posted there and are generally trying to do the best they can with what they have.

I am just saying don't lump Manning into one mad heap of crap. In the multi-layered organization, it's important to separate policy-makers from operatives.

Just saying.

[Courtney Mil]

No, I don't think so. The Air Board and the VSOs need to do that. And they need to get the politicians to agree. As I said before, I think you are mistaken to believe that "Manning" is writing the rules.

[Melchett01]

CM,

Desk officers are posted there and are generally trying to do the best they can with what they have.

If I were being charitable I would say that was the problem - an organisation pared right down such that it is now unable to offer any sort of decent career management unless you happen, as Evalu8ter suggested, to be a high flyer who's path needs managing. Unfortunately, I have been on the receiving end of pretty shoddy service from Manning for most of my career, and certainly well before the recent bout of slash and burn, so I'm not convinced that recent cuts are anything more than an excuse.

I can't come up with any other explanation why an organisation would flout its own published policy on postgrad qualifications and aditional seniority (the old white PAM Air booklets that had the seniority charts in) and retrospectively remove seniority once an individual was in service because they didn't think the qualification was relevant (MSc in Meteorology - I'll leave you to mull over that one, but OC PMS' response at the time was "it's Manning, unfortunately they can do what they like"). And I think it was only after challenging the Desk Officer's interpretation of my file that I then jumped in excess of 100 places on the promotion boards in a year. His interpretation included, amongst other things, an inability to work out how long I had been in my first 2 posts despite having all the OJARs to hand. Did I really improve that much in 12 months, or did someone actually read my file properly for the first time in 12 months - he hadn't looked past the profile sheet before the career 'interview'!

I know the majority of people don't wake up in the morning determined to do a bad job, and will include Manning in that statement. But I suspect I am far from unusual in my experiences, and unless you are in the top 1-2% having their career actively and carefully managed, it can seem very hard to not to think that the motto of 'Putting bums on seats since 1918' isn't an apt one. And with morale as fragile as it currently is, that isn't a good situation for the career managers to find themselves in.

[Courtney Mil]

I take your point. But the desk officers have never been career managers. They are posters, charged with filling gaps and looking after the interests of the Service and practicing the policy that is handed down to them. None of the Armed Forces have anything in place to manage anyone's career - never have, never will. That's down to the individual with support from his or her boss and the accommodation of the desk officers when they can - if they can and when consulted. Tough love, I know, but this is a military outfit, not a loving, caring ideal employer. Show me an outfit that is.

Sometimes we expect too much. We join to serve.

[Melchett01]

Tough love, I know, but this is a military outfit, not a loving, caring ideal employer. Show me an outfit that is.

Sometimes we expect too much. We join to serve.

Absolutely. Sometimes I think that we can all be guilty of forgetting that we are a military outfit. But if it really is a case of individuals expecting too much, Manning should at least be honest and change the emphasis of their continued statements of people being our number one asset. We are the number one asset in terms of requiring people to deliver capability and effect rather than number one in terms of being fluffy and keeping people motivated and content. That's all fine, but it's disingenuous of them to pretend otherwise and probably naive of individuals to believe it.

From a personal perspective, I tend to subscribe to the idea of at least trying to keep people motivated and happy in their work, whilst being prepared to wield a big stick as required. It make for a better and and more productive unit and on the rare occassion that the stick comes out, people then realise you are serious.

[ShyTorque]

From a personal perspective, I tend to subscribe to the idea of at least trying to keep people motivated and happy in their work, whilst being prepared to wield a big stick as required. It make for a better and and more productive unit and on the rare occassion that the stick comes out, people then realise you are serious.

Couldn't agree more. Did anyone ever get their "first choice" of posting? I never did, in my 18 years. Or my second choice. At posting time it seemed to me the system was trying to screw me and my family around as often as possible. I accepted that I could be screwed around but my wife and kids hadn't signed up for that.

[Evalu8ter]

Despite my somewhat cynical last post, I do have a (albeit small...) degree of sympathy for Manning DOs. They're not helped when their own rules are openly flouted to let one of the 1-2%'ers ignore 'rules' laid down for the rest of us to advance smoothly. It can't be easy when a VSO does a bit of 'Career Management' on behalf of an ex-PSO or fellow VSO's progeny. Perhaps by coming clean over the Exec v 'Mong' stream these episodes will be more transparent. What truly worries me is that we are supposed to be getting better at Assurance, Acquisition and Airworthiness; to truly gain competency (and retain it...) in these areas Manning will not only have to understand the needs and issues (tricky if you're an ambitious 'generalist' staff officer) but identify an, admittedly truncated, promotion path to OF5/1* to keep highly qualified specialists motivated (and in).

Shytorque,
I only ever got a first choice by pointing out to Manning that I was the only qualified person for the job available in the right time...the computer system hadn't flagged it....

[Throttle Pusher]

It seems to me that for too long the Air Force have been more interested in the careers of the officers it posts in to manning, than the careers of those they are supposed to be managing. Are the “posters” given any specialist training for their new role as “HR”? Instead of having a new incumbent every couple of years who has to make his mark, why not employ a suitable retired officer who could do the job long term? As my boss once said to me, “how can it be fair that the man managing my career is in direct competition with me for promotion”?

[SVK]

Without wishing to sound like a complete apologist for Manning, I do believe it works both ways.

Manning can only work their magic if you take responsibility for your own career and give them frank and sensible options. Simply saying I want to be CR, then QWI, then promotion into a Flt Cdrs post and subsequent Staff tour is at best ambiguous and doesn't emphasise what your priorities are with regards to location, ac type etc.

Similarly, saying I want Typhoons or I'm PVRing leaves Manning with no leeway to find any alternatives that you may have overlooked or never before considered.

However, giving Manning realistic and attainable options with a sensible time frame is more likely to yield mutually acceptable results - I'd like to do a Co, then Captains tour on the same ac but I'm open to a QFI tour if there's no Captain slots. Ground tour-wise, I'd rather not, but if its service need then I'd rather remain in the south of the UK within a Cmd or 2 Gp Staff appointment and look towards promotion or switching to another multi type within 3yrs.

Apart from a couple of years of 'Service Need', I'm happily on my fourth flying tour in my 3rd frontline type and Manning know where I want to go next and when. I stay open minded to my poster but they also know where my heart lies.

I suppose my point is that you can't whinge at Manning for not managing your career if you don't have an idea of what you want for yourself.

[Foghorn Leghorn]

These sort of threads always generate the usual response, which is that of mass PVRs and it simply doesn't happen. I have heard aircrew talking about PVR'ing for years but only a small number actually go through with it.

[Melchett01]

Foghorn,

Did you see 5F6B's outflow numbers from DASA on page 1 of this thread? There's been a definite uptick in the past few years. Plus, it's not just PVRs you need to look at; there will be many who are close enough to an option point that they will hang on til then and leave then which won't necessarily flag up in the PVR numbers.

[Pontius Navigator]

close the ab-initio route to multi-engine flying and make ME flying a career progression option for FJ and RW pilots. Rather than park ex-FJ and RW pilots as highly-paid OpsOs, FSOs or staff desk jockeys, why not put them in a multi for the last 5-6 years of their career and help them into civvy street at IPP with an affordable (for MoD) pension and a marketable skill?

On my flight to Cyprus in 1970 I wandered up to the flight deck on the Brit (as friend of mine was the Nav), and chatted with the pilot. He had had 12 years on Lightnings, enjoyed every minute, but was now happy for a quieter and more sedentary job which paid well, treated him properly, and allowed him to see more of the world. I think then the pressures to go civvie were not that great.

[Roland Pulfrew]

close the ab-initio route to multi-engine flying and make ME flying a career progression option for FJ and RW pilots. Rather than park ex-FJ and RW pilots as highly-paid OpsOs, FSOs or staff desk jockeys, why not put them in a multi for the last 5-6 years of their career and help them into civvy street at IPP with an affordable (for MoD) pension and a marketable skill?



Possibly because (up until recently) the MEP requirement for the RAF was bigger than that of FJ and RW. That would be an awful lot of pilots who would have to go through the comparatively much more expensive FJ course to provide sufficient pilots to keep the ME cockpits full. There are lots of ME pilots who serve a full engagement on ME aircraft, be that to 38/16 or 44 or 55. Allied to that, who would fill the OpsO, FSO or staff desk jockey posts if you posted the highly paid, ex-FJ and RW pilots to ME? I'm afraid it doesn't make financial (or logical) sense.:hmm:

[VinRouge]

Foghorn, just watch this space.

What will hurt the RAF Op capability isn't just the number of our most experienced guys that will go, but the percentage of those remaining. With fleet sizes being much smaller, each aircrew mate that leaves leads to a much bigger dent in output.

[Whenurhappy]

In spite of being on a war footing for almost 12 years, I am constantly surprised by the number of Wg Cdrs, Gp Capts and 1* promoted in the last couple of years who have had incredibly narrow careers - very limited op tours (enough to get the 'tick'), no MB experience, no Joint tours. Without a doubt, breaking out and doing whacky out-of-branch and, worse, out-of-Service tours can be career killers, and in many cases scuppers any chance of becoming Executive Stream, irrespective of the broadening that such tours engender.

[Pontius Navigator]

. . . who would fill the OpsO, . . . posts

Are aircrew filling OpsO posts again? I must say the Flight Ops Officers impressed me (unfavouritely) although I can think of 2 exceptions, except one was an ex-flt eng and the ex-AEOp.

[Photoplanet]

Originally Posted by egdg http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/520912-retention-post8122368.html#post8122368)
"There is a strong substanciated rumour of a Sqn Ldr at a double digit ISTAR Sqn taking his troops aside and telling them, and I quote '....if you cross me I will destroy you'. A room full of Officers and SNCOs and he says that to them!!
That kind of leadership isn't going to help retention I fear."

Observe it from the other perspective, if you will..... An unpopular Sqn Ldr may find the 'chaps' play by the rules a little too much in such cases.... Result = More U/S aircraft...... Who's got more to lose, an aspiring Sqn Ldr, or an aspiring SAC ?

[BEagle]

Photoplanet, if that rumour has been substantiated, then that's bullying pure and simple.

Typical of someone with Small Man Syndrome - who needs to be reported to his superiors.

That sort of attitude is totally unacceptable in the 21st century - he's not some Victorian mill owner.

[teeteringhead]

There is a strong substanciated rumour of a Sqn Ldr at a double digit ISTAR Sqn taking his troops aside and telling them, and I quote '....if you cross me I will destroy you'. A room full of Officers and SNCOs and he says that to them!!


Absolutely and totally unacceptable - and has been for many years. A Service Complaint (née Redress) for Bullying (at least) methinks. And if not - why not?? Lots of witnesses!

[Wetstart Dryrun]

Oh dear.

My time machine has crashed again.

Hello to all in 1984.

wets

[Once A Brat]

Photoplanet....post90! Undoubtedly, years ago I had to take a young pilot to one side and point out that if actually wanted to fly that month and not suffer crew-in snag after crew-in snag that he needed to apologise to the young linies who he was extemely curt and rude to the previous week. That way, perhaps they may be able coax his aircraft through a start sucessfully. I couldn't positively prove anything (as I would have acted if I could) but suspected that they were looking harder than usual with a very black/white view on the rules..............

[Yozzer]

Every Boss has a Boss to answer to.

Every hangar has a 'behind' to it.

The P1 redress system for bullying and harassment is ineffective. In fact 'harassment' is a legal term and any potential cases are handed to CivPol. Though you have to be a person who is encompassed by a very particular list to get off the start line. Gay, disabled, none-caucasian etc.

I have been the person who by virtue of age, rank, and pension security, fought the corner of the shop floor against a 2.5 bully. Arguably I won, but the fight was a bitter one that I would not embark on again, despite my efforts at including the higher command chain in the battle. The bloke was a nasty piece of work and he is now a civvie. Good riddance.

[Party Animal]

There is a strong substanciated rumour of a Sqn Ldr at a double digit ISTAR Sqn taking his troops aside and telling them, and I quote '....if you cross me I will destroy you'. A room full of Officers and SNCOs and he says that to them!!


Perhaps someone should leave a note on his desk referring to pprune / mil / retention thread.

Then if he has enough nouse how to work out how to access this thread, he might realise that his entire sqn think he's a w@nker!

[Biggus]

Reference:

"....There is a strong substantiated rumour of a Sqn Ldr at a double digit ISTAR Sqn taking his troops aside and telling them, and I quote '....if you cross me I will destroy you'. A room full of Officers and SNCOs and he says that to them!!...."

I have the following observation to make, a point which nobody appears to have raised until now. I had the misfortune to meet several senior officers like the aforementioned Sqn Ldr during my time in the RAF. The only difference between them and him, is that at least he is being honest - and telling the troops to their face - rather than only showing his true colours later. They can't say they don't know where they stand with him!







Not that I'm saying his behaviour is in any way excusable you understand, before anyone has a "go" at me!

[JTIDS]

Committing the ultimate sin here of trying to stop thread creep...

Going back to the original point of the thread, there have been a few posts on here discussing how a first tourist who is doing his ATPL should just bugger off to the airlines as he clearly doesn't want to be in the RAF. Which would be a fair comment, except there are now Sqn's where not doing your ATPL as a first tourist makes you the exception. And these are people who have no pension to look forward too until they are 68, or whatever the retirement age is when they retire...

[BEagle]

A year or thereabouts before we secured the vastly superior military accreditation for civil pilot licences, as compared with the current dumbed-down nonsense thanks to 22Gp, people were studying in crewrooms or at home during non-flying times and leaving in large numbers. I recall one Dining-In Night at Brize at which 8 pilots were dined out for airline jobs....

Then came the 'proper' military accreditiation which had the desired retention result - and of course people still had sensible pension rights at ORD/NRD. We also had rather more varied flying to enjoy. We still had the option of QFI-ing at a UAS, for example - and the creeping cancer of contractorisation had yet to appear on the scene. In addition, there were rather more military aerodromes in the UK to which people could be posted.

Now there is virtually NO military accreditation, the RAF cannot seem to think outside the sandpit, pensions have been savaged, aerodromes have been closed and flying is become both rarer and more groundhog day in nature.

So it's hardly surprising that ATPL studies will dominate crewroom activity and that people will leave as soon as they can....

[5 Forward 6 Back]

Speaking of retention, I've just heard from a 3rd source (well, 3rd person who'd heard it independently) that following poor uptake of PAS last year, there's a new FRI being tabled, possibly before the assimilation board sits in January.

Anyone with ears closer to HQ than me heard anything...?

[Ken Scott]

Well, this is a rumour site........

Having been told of Desk Officers using terms such as 'demographic cliff' wrt future manning then it could be a wise move. It might even be a case of shutting the stable door before the horses have all bolted.

[Could be the last?]

An FRI for non-pilots or Navs, now that would be a shocker!:ok:

[Biggus]

Can the RAF just elect to go ahead with an FRI?

Doesn't it require AFPRB recommendation and treasury approval? Both of which would surely create a certain amount of inevitable bureaucratic delay.

[RandomBlah]

I believe that ultimately new FRIs have to be approved by the Treasury. You can bet in these austere times they will demand significant evidence to prove the need. Would the large number of PA offers made to JO pilots in January and associated lack of uptake be enough?

[VinRouge]

The treasury would **** bricks if I saw the size of FRI Required to actually have an impact.

[Just This Once...]

The Treasury have indeed looked for evidence of people leaving before providing the approval. Whilst the single services now have a bit more flex than they did the remaining core of aircrew is so small that requiring people to leave before grabbing the FRI stable door can leave us with significant capability holes that could take years to recover.

Some fleets are already reducing below critical mass (ie not self sustaining) and the FJ training system is not far behind.

[5 Forward 6 Back]

What fleets are struggling that much?

Are we going to have a glut of post-HERRICK aircrew as Shadow, Sentinel and Reaper either do or don't get absorbed into core, and the TGRF continues to get cut....?

[Bob Viking]

Bring it on please. As I have said previously, I am sufficiently shallow that a decent wedge of money would keep me in for another few years. It wouldn't even have to be that huge to be honest. The recently deceased 80K (minus tax) for Flt Lts would help me out enough to tempt me. Especially when added to the lump sum due shortly thereafter. However a bigger number would only serve to increase the likelihood of me staying!
BV:O

[alfred_the_great]

I think the bigger problem with FRIs now is that it comes out of the money devolved to the Single Service. Previously the sS applied to the Treasury/MoD for extra money, now they have to fund it out of their own pot. So, the question for CAS is, what you are going to sacrifice to afford the FRI? The type of money people have been mooting on here are about equivalent to 2 or 3 Junior Ranks' annual salary (at least). Are you prepared to stand up to The Sun (or Defence Select Committee) and say you're worth that?

[Biggus]

Surely the request for an FRI just a few years (is it 3 now?) after kicking out large numbers of baby pilots still in the training system (who hadn't actually failed anything), who would just have started to become productive, will take a lot of explaining to beancounters in the Treasury. :ugh:




Still, I expect someone got promoted out of "managing" the cull at the time!! :=

[Bob Viking]

The Sun will report whatever they like regardless of the facts. The numbers speak for themselves which is why FRIs can be an effective measure. You keep experienced people around for longer leading to additional manpower and a wealth of knowledge for a comparably small outlay.
BV:8

[alfred_the_great]

I know what they should use, but that's not the same as they will use....

[Pontius Navigator]

What fleets are struggling that much?

Are we going to have a glut of post-HERRICK aircrew as Shadow, Sentinel and Reaper either do or don't get absorbed into core, and the TGRF continues to get cut....?

Not all aircrew are created equal.

Your E3 driver may not want to convert to RW.

etc etc

[5 Forward 6 Back]

My replacement's training cost is well into the millions, and they wouldn't give me that as an FRI; so it's a saving! The training pipeline's often kinked, and even if it's working fine, you don't need an LCR pilot who can't do anything; you need to be able to keep your high level multi-qualified QWI/QFI guys with experience and lots of platforms under their belts.

I'm not sure there are any branches or trades where a new guy straight from training can immediately have the same effect as a guy with 20 years of experience, but in the aircrew world, that gulf is more pronounced. It's really difficult to put a price on the knowledge and experience of a 20 year FJ pilot, but considering it's going to cost you millions to get a replacement to the point where he can safely land a Typhoon or Lightning II, never mind operate it, paying him 6 figures to stay around isn't a bad option.

[5 Forward 6 Back]

PN, he may not, but are we that split between streams that we'd need to move lots of people sideways? Or could our E3 guy go fly Sentinel or Voyager instead? Could our Reaper people go back to their old fleets, bearing in mind we have very few straight-through Reaper pilots?

I remember being told we have too many people for now to 2014, but too few for 2015-2020.

[orca]

Reaper pilots...good one!;)

[5 Forward 6 Back]

Orca, the Reaper force is staffed by dozens and dozens of experienced pilots from other fleets... if we were to downsize that fleet, shouldn't we send them back there or re-use their experience somehow?

[Easy Street]

With a few honourable exceptions, most Reaper pilots are there for a very good reason!

(retires to a safe distance) :E

[Pontius Navigator]

5F5B, I only mentioned E3, the OP also mentioned Sentinel and Reaper.

Besides lots of 'aircrew' at Waddo but few aviators.

[Willard Whyte]

And flying the E-3 isn't exactly rocket science. Apart from the engineer, at least they had a job to do. The pilots, and nav especially, were grossly under-utilised.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

What fleets are struggling that much?

Are we going to have a glut of post-HERRICK aircrew as Shadow, Sentinel and Reaper either do or don't get absorbed into core, and the TGRF continues to get cut....?

From my understanding, 5F6B may well be onto something. At a Manning brief early this year, a lot was hanging on (a) Sentinel and Shadow being taken into core funding and (b) whether the VC10/TriStar/Herc K combo went out of service on time. Seeing as (a) hasn't happened yet and (b) is proceeding apace, one may surmise that there may be few to no openings in ME for current FJ or RW folks. Given that the RAF is soon to lose two of the four main RW fleets, and one of two FJ fleets is drawing down, those on high may well assume that shuffling around those who are left will suffice. Of course I'm being simplistic, but then so are our Lords and Masters!

FRI? I'm not holding my breath...

[VinRouge]

First Officer Military/Airbus at Virgin Atlantic Airways in Redhill, United Kingdom - Job | LinkedIn (http://www.linkedin.com/jobs2/view/9772216?trk=job_view_similar_jobs)

Any takers?


Job description
We’re now recruiting First Officers into our 2014 Holding Pool who have a current type rating on the Airbus or with military 'heavy' jet experience.

[Onceapilot]

Anyone with the option to take that Virgin offer would be wise to consider it IMO.

OAP

[theboywide]

Check out this months Air Forces
monthly. CAS quoted at a conference saying shadow taken into core, sentinel due to retire 2015 unless funded from another source, Reaper not confirmed but inferred to be taken into core.
This is balanced against the Tristar (maybe) going out on time.
It's a bit of a toughie for manning I'd say.

[Just This Once...]

Yep, Shadow will stay, as will Reaper but Sentinel remains in the balance.

In a way the above is a bit of a red herring as one of the problems we have is with OCU output. There are quite a few fleets with rather poor fleet availability outside of aircraft directly committed to ops. This leaves us with gaps on the frontline and aircrew waiting on or struggling to get through an OCU. In addition, some OCUs are struggling to grow or retain their instructor cadre and the frontline is not well placed to give-up its experienced personnel to instructional roles.

As a result we are unable to replace the current loss rate. We need aircrew to stay where they are for a bit whilst the post-SDSR crisis calms down - hence the growing call for an FRI. In truth, we are below critical mass on a number of fleets and we are running out of ideas on how to fix the problem with what we have left.

[JTIDS]

I'm confused. We need to get over the post SDSR crises? We are closer to the next SDSR than we are to the last one!

[Just This Once...]

Yes a 5 year training pipeline with a 5 year decision cycle is not going to be easy to manage. Some would say it is madness.

I also meant to add that we have quite a retention issue outside of cockpits/flightdecks. We always had a requirement for aircrew in non-flying roles but the advent of the DH structure increased the requirement just at the point that we hoped that the requirement would reduce. It's quite hard to get multiple ground tours out of aircrew for some unfathomable reason…

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

we are below critical mass on a number of fleets


Such as? There aren't that many fleets to begin with!

[N_1]

There are a number of aircrew (SO2/1s) who previously had a fine pair of hands who would love to get out of the desk-job-merry-go-round and get back to an aircraft. Maybe the situation will become so acute that we may have to consider the US squadron model of having additional OF-3 and 4s on squadron but without portfolio?
I am now trying to find an icon of a pig flying backwards...

[PPRuNeUser0172]

I think the bigger problem with FRIs now is that it comes out of the money devolved to the Single Service. Previously the sS applied to the Treasury/MoD for extra money, now they have to fund it out of their own pot. So, the question for CAS is, what you are going to sacrifice to afford the FRI? The type of money people have been mooting on here are about equivalent to 2 or 3 Junior Ranks' annual salary (at least). Are you prepared to stand up to The Sun (or Defence Select Committee) and say you're worth that?

I/we don't need to stand up to anyone and TELL them anything it is simple economics old bean. If it costs, for arguments sake, circa 5 Million quid to train a FJ bloke (not equip him/her with several tours of experience but just train), then surely 80 grand is a drop in the ocean to keep that experience for a bit longer. I doubt it will stop the sensationalist headlines sadly.

[Force For Good]

Originally Posted by Biggus (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/520912-retention-6.html#post8162312)

after kicking out large numbers of baby pilots still in the training system (who hadn't actually failed anything), who would just have started to become productive

The baby pilots were selected for the axe early 2011. If only they would've been productive by now...they wouldn't. Many have gone on to hold for long periods for a multitude of reasons. Some may spend 10 years in the flying training system before they pop out of an OCU.

[5 Forward 6 Back]

We need to recalibrate our costs a bit anyway. Last piece of staff work I saw that mentioned actual training costs put the price tag of producing an LCR(QRA-only) Typhoon pilot at over £10M, with a training pipeline that's a minimum of 4 years long.

There's your simple economics! A £250k FRI to retain a multi-role CR guy, a QWI, or a Flt Cdr is pennies considering your alternative is to spend 40 times as much, wait 4 years, and get a worse product at the end...!

Numbers may vary, but the same simple economics persist across all fleets, I'd bet. With Virgin recruiting, not only will that drag a lot of people away, but it'll generate holes at lots of other "stepping stone" airlines that people will fill too. Qatar Airways have even just announced a route to Scotland, to give them another foothold in the UK, haven't they?

I just can't really see many ways that manning works over the next 5 years.

[Biggus]

FFG,

Thanks for responding to my post - even if it was to point out I was wrong!

If it's taking up to 10 years from joining to exiting an OCU then the system is in big trouble - how can such a backed up training system provide sufficient output to replace losses, especially as its ability to respond to any short notice changes in outflow or requirement is non existent.

[theboywide]

The release of 200 guys was to stop the time to OCU from being 10yrs.

Check this out from the USAF. sorry if it's a repeat
USAF Pilots Pass on $225,000 Bonuses | All Things Aero (http://allthingsaero.com/military-aviation/us-air-force/article-usaf-pilots-pass-on-225-000-bonuses)

[Ken Scott]

Interesting that US article and accords with my personal feeling that the take-up of any FRI could be poor unless it was sufficiently large to offend the Daily Mail & Sun headline writers (''RAF pilots get bribes equal to five times nurses' salaries!'')

An FRI of circa £80k after tax spread over 5 years doesn't really compensate for the loss of seniority in an airline, better to get onto the ladder sooner rather than later.

[Bob Viking]

Ken Scott.
Your final point is the one that everyone always trots out when talk of FRIs comes up. The way I see it though is the jam today or jam tomorrow scenario. When most people leave (at roughly 38) they want to be finding a house if they don't already have one. The lump sum helps with this. The FRI temporarily replaces the lump sum and allows for said house purchase. I am well aware that there are past generations of guys that did very well on the housing market and now have their Goergian country estate with no mortgage before their sixtieth birthday, but there are those of us for whom that has not happened (due to the vagaries of the housing market and postings).
People should not always assume that just because an FRI wouldn't tempt them that it wouldn't tempt anyone. It would suit my circumstances very nicely and I am well aware of the whole airline seniority argument. I should also point out that circumstances change and two months from now I may change my mind and want to leave forthwith but I'm a fickle bugger. It's my prerogative.
BV

[Ken Scott]

BV,

As PAS I'm well past the window for any FRI to retain me so I wasn't speaking from a personal perspective - I had my FRI many years ago which I enjoyed spending but wasn't really a critical part of my decision to stay in, that was more down to my enjoyment of the job. I was seeing things from the perspective of someone much younger, without the prospect of advancing to Level 35 PA pay as a Flt Lt and with the rather questionable benefits of an AFPS 15 pension at whatever age it will be paid out.

If there is little point in serving until age 55 given the pension gap & the intent is only to do 5 more years to amortise the FRI then frankly it makes more sense to jump earlier & take whatever lump sum you're entitled to when you go instead of the FRI with the expectation that your 'lack of loyalty' will be rewarded through additional seniority over the coming years.

[zedder]

Rumour has it (well this is PPRuNe after all) that some Career Stream WSO Sqn Ldrs with 'specialist' skillsets (eg ASQ) who have had all previous requests to go PAS turned down flat, are now being offered the chance to transfer to PAS.

Not only that, under the NEM (New Employment Model) they are also being offered the chance to serve to age 60.

First off, I assume that this is conclusive proof that Manning has failed miserably to keep control of their 'levers'.

Secondly, wtf were the likes of me that had the same 'specialist' skillset made redundant last year!:ugh:

[Ken Scott]

zedder,

I guess timing is everything - last year your branch was presumably in surplus so even though they might have foreseen a future shortfall they had to cut numbers.

Logical or sensible it isn't!

[Just This Once...]

Rumour has it (well this is PPRuNe after all) that some Career Stream WSO Sqn Ldrs with 'specialist' skillsets (eg ASQ) who have had all previous requests to go PAS turned down flat, are now being offered the chance to transfer to PAS.

This is true. Quite a few offers were made and some were accepted whilst others were rejected buy those who were already minded to PVR, or at least could not accept the 'no PVR option for 5 years' RoS.

Not only that, under the NEM (New Employment Model) they are also being offered the chance to serve to age 60.

This is not true, at least not yet. In fact there has been some ill-judged statements from Manning specifically stating that no offers for PAS service to 60 will be made anytime soon. This has prompted some PVRs from the existing PAS cadre who are not protected by the 10 year rule.

We make it difficult for ourselves sometimes.

[Party Animal]

zedder,

JTO is correct with the exception that the PAS offer, which was pretty much available to anyone who wanted it, was still capped at age 49. I suspect this was based on so many pilots turning down the offer in the first place, leaving the WSO empire to fill those all important staff jobs!

[N_1]

As PAS do not have flying pay I assume they are not affected by the rule that if you fill a non-flying related post for over two years you lose your flying pay after the two year point.

Does it not follow then, for pilots at least, that by accepting a PAS offer you may be locking yourself into consecutive desk jobs with no immediate hope of returning to flying duties? I knew a PAS Sqn Ldr who was in his third desk job having tried to get back flying at every opportunity; he eventually got flying but only on loan-service with another Air Force.

As PAS could you not potentially become the Desk Officer's 'Joker Card' for those difficult to fill posts?

[Ken Scott]

Flt Lt PAS can only be employed in 'flying related jobs', which whilst that definition could be interpreted fairly liberally still restricts them to a flying station.

Sqn Ldr PAS however can be employed in 'non-flying related jobs' so yes, they can expect to be routinely occupying staff jobs. A discussion with the current poster some time ago ndicated that Sqn Ldr PAS can expect to be in a flying job roughly one tour in 4 as I recall, so your acquaintance's experience would be about right.

[Party Animal]

Flt Lt PAS can only be employed in 'flying related jobs', which whilst that definition could be interpreted fairly liberally still restricts them to a flying station.




Ken - not quite. I'm aware of several flt lt PAS mates who are in sh1t 'flying related' ground tours very reluctantly and not on flying stations.

One mate turned down promotion to sqn ldr several years ago specifically to avoid the situation you mention in your second paragraph. However, as Manning told him, he couldn't turn down acting rank and subsequently found himself at HQ Air doing a crap staff job as an acting sqn ldr!

[Ken Scott]

Stitching you with acting rank I can understand, just one of the ways that Manning have to get you in the end.

I struggle to see how they could post someone to an HQ & argue that the job was 'flying related'? Ultimately any job in the RAF ostensibly contributes to the role of the service & could therefore be deemed 'flying related' but the fact that they have differentiated 'flying' & 'non-flying' would imply to me at least (simple soul that I am) that the former must directly be related to the aviation task. Sim instructor? Ok. HQ Staff wallah? Not ok.

To fill Staff jobs with PAS Flt Lts would surely go against the purpose of expensively retaining experienced aircrew?

[5 Forward 6 Back]

Ken,

The point is that some of those crap staff jobs need an aircrew mate to fill them; because they need specialist knowledge. That's what marks them as "flying related," even if they're at HQ Air or Abbey Wood or somewhere miles away from the nearest runway.

They do attract flying pay though; it's a "non-flying related" ground job that puts you on the 2 year counter to reserve band. Hence why there aren't many of us volunteering to be IOT flt cdrs, or work in recruiting offices....!

[VinRouge]

Ken, its all about SQEP (suitably qualified and equipped personnel). if the appointments were not flying pic, aircrew would be pvr'ing in droves as they could be risking losing flying pay if kept in a flying appointment past manning 'guarantees'.

[Just This Once...]

suitably qualified and equipped personnel

:E


_______________

[VinRouge]

Soz meant experienced! :E

[Just This Once...]

Mate, I'm using using your version in our next document revision to see if anyone notices.

:ok:

[Pontius Navigator]

Mate, I'm using using your version in our next document revision to see if anyone notices.

:ok:

If it's on page 2 you are right.

I received a number of emails from Air with the byline 'this is the personal opinion of the originator and not . . . '

I pinched it and added '. . . therefore you may ignore all the forgoing.'

No one noticed or commented until my daughter actually read it :)

[alfred_the_great]

I once included a quote from a BR in an email signature - I was told to take it off by a Capt RN because it made the RN look bad.....

[Evalu8ter]

ATG,
More like it made the RN Capt look bad...

SQEP is an interesting point; the MAA Report last year mentioned the training and retention of SQEP in key areas was a major concern. However, the problem Manning has is that to acquire SQEP status individuals have to do several tours in the same field to first acquire then exploit their specialist knowledge. This is, of course, a planning overhead on Manning who then actually have to examine their spreadsheets rather than merely fill them. It is also a paradox as the individuals' promotion chances will be hammered by not being 'broadened' by bouncing around every 18mths. Therefore, the few genuine SQEP the RAF have all shuffle to the exit at the earliest opportunity as their credentials are better recognised outside. The NEM may well help, with extended tours and greater stability, but I'm seeing SQEP haemorrhage out of the RAF as 'generalists' with the 'right' background are promoted at their expense. Manning need to up their game to retain this experience or we risk either having an even more risk averse culture than we have now or another Haddon-Cave in 5 years time.

[Daf Hucker]

I know, why don't we introduce a system of personnel that are retained, at incremented pay rates, within their specialisation to provide a sound backbone to the various trades/branches? We called call the aircrew element, Specialist Aircrew. We could also commission SNCOs with extensive knowledge in their particular specialisation, retaining a corps of SQEP at SO2/3 level, perhaps we could call them Branch Officers.

[zedder]

About the time that Core Competencies came into being, they did introduce an Acquisition Stream. As I remember it, you had to apply to enter that stream by providing evidence that you had the necessary skills/experience and pertinent qualifications.

I was accepted into that stream on the basis of having done Aerosystems, a tour at A&AEE Boscombe Down and by being at that time mid-tour at DPA Abbey Wood where I had done the Risk Management Course.

I don't think the Acquisition Stream idea really went anywhere though, unless someone knows different, although I did subsequently bag a tour in a Systems Program Office at Naval Air Systems Command, NAS Patuxent River.