Have just received some interesting info from the Governments latest Green Paper on pensions which will motivate us all packing to go to sandy places. I'm no pensions expert, but the implications for the forces could be massive. Here's some of the highlights:

“the Government intends to set a minimum age at which
tax-privileged pension benefits can be drawn – the minimum benefit age – at 55 in 2010."

“In the new tax rules, the minimum benefit age will apply to all pension schemes which qualify for tax relief, including those special schemes for particular trades where people may retire at a relatively young age. From 2010, people in these schemes
will not be able to draw benefits until age 55, whether or not this is the point at which they stop work in this line of business."

In summary then, it appears to me that anyone retiring after 2010, who has not reached their 55th birthday will not recieve any pension until their 65th birthday. Worryingly, the green paper makes no mention of gratuities. If this will apply to the forces then I guess we will all have to "retire" at the first available option point or lose benefits worth tens of thousands of pounds. This is especially galling after MPs voted themselves a 20% increase in pension benefits. A useless MP who gets kicked out after just four years receives about £6500 per year for life. This would require a pension fund of nearly £120000. Naturally, they are not tinkering with their own security. If this does apply to the forces it will completely redefine "retention problem!!!:eek:

Round&Round

Is this measure to apply only to tax-privileged pensions? If so, it would exclude the Armed Forces schemes because these are non-contributary.

Soddim,

It is a frequent misconception that our pensions are non-contributary. This is not the case. Our salary is abated to factor in our pension contribution. The AFPRB report normally discusses this although I haven't checked this years tome.

So we do contribute to our pensions

Stan, having had my pay abated for years because of my non-contributary pension I am well aware that the forces pensions are indeed paid for by the recipient. However, they are not paid directly and therefore do not attract the tax-fovourable treatment given to contributary pension contributions. It would therefore seem to me that maybe they will not be affected by this measure.

It would in any case be grossly unfair to delay payment of forces pensions until age 55. The fighting men and women of our forces should be able to stop fighting long before that age.

round & round,

got the "circular" e-mail forwarded and passed it on too. It has also been sent to the dark blue chaps at a high level for their info and reactions ...

It looks very worrying, I (and a considerable number of colleagues) may / will have to bail out before planned dates in order to get an immediate pension.

we await developments and further enlightenment.:mad:

I think it's a good point about non-contributory or not.

The answer is that no one knows where we fall. What is worrying though is that the government has published this paper without any clarification. I know of people who have written to their MPs and PMA, but so far a stunning silence. Until the situation is clarified I think we all need to be aware, as the implications could be very severe.

Round&Round

I think that if they do tax gratuities, then this may prove to be the proverbial "straw"....I can see no reason to continue to serve with the Forces as they continually shift goalposts to suit the taxman.....

To hell with the UK Govt. Time to "contract out".

Any silver linings out there, guys?

Yet another stealth manoeuvre by this Govt who seem to be taking us for granted.

One rule for the politicians 20% pensions benefit hike and another rule for those who are willing to risk life and limb for a 3.2% before-tax pay rise!

It would be nice to think that a clear, unspun message would be issued soon, but don't hold your breath!! :mad:

My late father's wife has just been turned down for for part of his RAF pension, for various reasons that I will not go into. One of them was that his pension was "a contributary pension and therefore there were no funds available." It would seem that the RAF pension is a "Non-Contributary" one!

Thank goodness I'm out before 2010.

' opso

G

Round&Round

Could you supply a URL for the Green Paper please

As I understand it the Forces are a special case and will be one of the few professions allowed to take an immediate pension when they retire at 55. However, if you retire early, you will not be entitled to a pension until the age of 65.

Our current pension has reserved rights, therefore we should be all right. But those offered the opportunity to switch to the new pension (in 2007/8?) should look very carefully unless they know they will be staying to 55.

The switch will also possibly entail losing the tax-free gratuity, especially if you retire early. But this last point is very unclear.

Stan

Try here:

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/consultations/consult/2002/pensions/index.htm

Lorra lorra reading though.

What would be the suan for AA, not yet at 12 yr point, due to sign on (new contract?) in 2008. Will I still be able to stay on the old pension deal if I wish to?

You will have to make a positive declaration to change to the new pension. They can't make you.

RubiC Cube

Having swopped the crewroom for the City I am now working as head of personal pensions in City firm. I am working with a number of individuals to put together a considered response to the Green Paper - to make sure we get what we want in the White Paper. You may know there are actually 3 papers out, all impacting on the future pension situation. There are some major inconsistencies in the current proposal, but there is also a very clear intent by the Government to squeeze those that 'have'. Our take is that this will include the military pension in fairly short order. Probably not in the first White Paper, but the Government's avowed intent is to 'simplify' and to place the onus onto the individual.

I could go on, but doubt anyone is that interested....yet. If you would like to discuss this further, then please email me through this site.

Best wishes

Deneb

Who elected a labour government in the U.K. From my recollections they are no friends of the armed forces. Possible exception Tony Blair who likes Americans.

I too would be very worried about these proposals - were I not already resigning over the army's decision to reclaim FRI 1 & 2 back from me!

I would strongly recommend joining the Forces Pension Society, who are the only real voice for us in these matters. They have some big guns at the very top, and seem to know the right buttons to push. I have recently joined myself, over just these concerns. Have a look at them on www.forpen.co.uk (http://www.forpen.co.uk)

The letter that the Sqn Ldr from STC sent is big stuff and this thread was way down in the list - has everybody seen it or is old news?

If this A Day (in April 2004) comes about, and I take my option point say in Apr 2006, then any pension contributions made during that time is not paid immedaiately but paid when I am 55 or 65.

The MOD is keeping this one very quiet - they know the consequnces. There will be hundreds of us leaving - nobody in their right mind is going to stay as we stand to lose thousands of pounds.

PMA needs to wake up and start communicating - but its shhhhhh time, nobody needs to know by the looks of it as it is not really important!

But as somebody said - the glossy brochure about pensions said we will have reserved rights or something like that. I am not convinced that all is well.

This is all very interesting (if somewhat worrying) reading. The current pension deal for offrs on a PC is obviously quite a good one. I'm on a 12 yr SSC at the moment and wonder if I should be applying for a PC to avoid missing out on the pension if the situation changes (and reserved rights are allowed). Does anyone have any advice? From what I can tell I don't lose any rights if I transfer but have the option of the IP if I stay for 16 yrs (if the govt don't whip that away).....

Thanks

........and it came to pass that they left the Forces like rats from a sinking ship.

Best order a run on PVR papers.

Ray.:yuk:

Thanks to those highlighting this. Bit busy away at the moment and out of the loop on current issues. I'm still early on into a PC, but if there isn't the security of a pension on offer at 16/38 yrs point, I'm out. Watching this thread with interest.

TheWelshOne

On leave at the moment (yes, I know, amazing isn't it), so I haven't seen the letter "the Sqn Ldr from STC sent..". You say it is BIG STUFF! Can you/somebody please tell me briefly what it is about. Cheers!

Biggus, I'm not quite sure how you have managed not to see it, bearing in mind it's six posts above yours!!?

A little note I saw recently did specify that existing pension arrangements won't be changed, but I'm not entirely convinced. I'm watching with slightly concerned interest and just quietly investigating the options outside if we all get shafted.

Apologies everyone! Thought it was refering to something I would see at work! RTFQ as my old instructors used to say!!!!

It is amazing how much detail one notices when working on the night shift. This really could be a bat right up the ar$e. If one wants to leave before April 2004 and is OOA there might not be time to PVR and give the years notice. Any thoughts?

Go one further than that - I believe that a PVR is an application to leave and is no right. So they can make you stay if they want to...

Like I said before, PMA needs to start telling us the facts now - the 2004 deadline if it comes about allows nobody to restructure their finances, especially if you are planing to come out in 2011 say.

The letter in question was sent to a 1* in PMA and it would be good to see the reply - either in toto or just the pertinent parts.


I do not think they can stop people leaving but prob would enforce a min waiting time.

Worrying........

Attended a PLT brief today and they emphasised that personnel in the current scheme have preserved rights and that you cannot be forced to change schemes.

Well, I'm only reporting what they say. But as I'm counting the months (soon to be weeks), it won't affect me one way or the other.

RubiC Cube

Having re-read the DCCIS (or whatever) internal briefing note, the only thing that they have said the MOD has opted out of is the possibility of raising the retirement age, based on the fact that the Forces have fitness requirements that would make this unrealistic.

No mention of the MOD being exempt from the loss of immediate pension at 16yrs for officers and just a reminder that Gordon made no suggestion of taxing the gratuity in the last Budget.

This does of course raise two little points...

1. If there is no gratuity, you don't have to tax it.

2. Just because he didn't mention it last time doesn't mean he won't next time!

Still worried and watching with concern!!

If its true....get ready for the stampede!!!!!!!

After speaking with Pensions at PMA they confirmed that the Govt are trying to rush new legislation through and have it in place by next Apr 2004. I was assured!! that everyone who has already completed 16/22 qualifying yrs before the 2010 deadline would retain their present entitlements at retirement after this year. However, for those leaving after this date and not having achieved 16/22 yrs before 2010 the outcome may be uncertain.

An aside to the qualifying time is that officers need to complete 16 yrs service from age 21; I know of at least one officer who recently left at age 37yrs with his pension intact as the rules clearly state officers can go once they have completed 16 full years!! This may help personnel who are close to retiring around 2010.

Finally, give Pensions at PMA a call as they're quite happy to explain what they know in relation to particular instances, your friendly Gen Office have the relative number.

I sent a letter similar to Chutley's to my MP on Monday (24 Feb 03) and got a reply today. The letter says that he is looking into the matter and will let me know the outcome.

I shall keep you posted...Can I suggest that all those interested do the same. If you don't know who your MP is ( transient lifestyle - NI, Bosnia, Surrey etc) then have a look at www.faxyourmp.com and find out.

On further investigation, you cannot be prevented from leaving if you apply to PVR, but may have to wait a full year before being able to do so instead of doing a runner after 7 months( as WelshOne alluded to).

G :cool:

Gijoe

My words were:

"I do not think they can stop people leaving but prob would enforce a min waiting time".

I cannot find in my 2 posts where I alluded to 7 months or whatever you quoted - you said a fact and I stood by what you said - so get your facts right before typing.

Minor in nature but I hate people who misquote other people comments.


Anyway - glad that people are taking note and making enquiries and I am sure PMA will 'brief' us soon I hope.

:rolleyes:


____________________________________

The issue got mentioned in parliament on Monday and was quickly glossed over by Hoon (or it could have been Dr Moonie) saying a full report would be issued and he could not comment until then - the Govt are making fast moves on this one to introduce it before you can even say Premature............

Welshone.

Do you know who mentioned it? I 'd be very interested to see if it was my MP.

G

The WelshOne

Re Monday - what did Mr Hoon actually say about the AFPS?

Cheers!

Question was raised by Angus Robertson MP for Moray ie ISK and Lossie. Reply from Dr Moonie.

http://www.thisisnorthscotland.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=62692&command=displayContent&sourceNode=62244&contentPK=4484528

Above link is from the Press and Journal and sums it up

Well, this was one of the reasons that I decided to PVR - so that I would be able receive the promised pension and terminal grant before the government had sufficient time to threaten it with any new legislation! I simply wasn't prepared to risk waiting to see what Gordon was planning to hit us with...... Plus there was nothing in this year's AFPRB report to offer a financial retention incentive - and I couldn't transfer to the 'more advantageous' PA TOS in any case.

The question now is whether to go for Life Commutation as well. Whilst there's nothing worth investing in at present, I'm minded not to, preferring the better pension rate which is index-linked at 55.

Beagle,

I would have a serious think about Life Commutation. At 55, the rate is about £15 per pound of pension surrendered. Even invested in a savings account at 4% your are not far off recouping your intial pension reduction and off course you have access to the capital should you require it.

The reason it was stopped remember was that it was disadvantageous to the Treasury. At the rates I mentioned above, even with no interest, you would have to live to 70 before the Treasuary was in profit on the deal!

I also believe that your pension is index-linked irrespective of Life Commutation It would just be on a lower amount

The discussion on the DWP website opens today (10 Mar 03) and all interested parties are invited to voice their opinions on the Green Paper.

:ok:

gijoe

Please excuse my stupidity - but how do you get to this DWP discussion - and can still serving bods voice their concerns too?

Cheers

BEAGLE

Sorry to hear you are leaving. The question of whether or not to commute is a tricky one and irrevocable. It is worth getting specialist advice tailored to your personal circumstances. When the Banks ceased being the pay agents (years ago!) they were paid a retainer by MOD to provide financial advice to service personnel. It is (or was) free and worth taking up. Or at least pay for advice from an accountant. I say this despite the fact that Lloyds Bank in 1983 advised me to commute the maximum and become a Name at Lloyds (underwriters) - which I luckily did not take. :*

Covec,

One of the below should get you there eventually:

http://www.thepensionservice.gov.uk/

http://www.thepensionservice.gov.uk/greenpaper/

http://www.ukonline.gov.uk/Discussions/DSGroupIndex/1,1772,%7E801b22%7Efs%7Een,00.html

As far as commenting, I understand you are allowed to comment (as a taxpayer etc), to write to your MP but not allowed to sell your story to the Sun.....but Mrs Covec ( if appropriate) is quite at liberty to.

G ;)

Comments are starting to filter through on the discussion website.
It's worth a read and worth contributing to as the site says that all comments will be distilled and presented to Parliament.

Taking the bulls by the horns, this has been posted on the DWP discussion forum.

Can I urge all of you that are interested to do the same?


'Some questions for Mr Smith MP:

Are the planned reforms going to affect the Armed Forces Pension Scheme?

I, like many others, have encountered endless moves of houses, had childrens schooling disrupted and served at short notice in remotes places on the promise of a gratuity and modest immediate pension at the end of my service. This was written into my terms and conditions of service and was only 2 months ago reiterated in a brochure that was received by many servicemen.

How will your reforms affect this?

Why? I have obtained a mortgage on the strength of the promised gratuity and modest pension. Moving house so often does little to impress mortgage companies but having the promise of a tax-free lump sum in a few years time does.

What was meant by Dr Moonies comments on 3 Mar 03 in the House of Commons that implied that only those that completed their time would receive an immediate pension and that others would have to wait until 65 to receive any benefits?

How is this going to help the 40 year old soldier who has to find a second career? Soldiering is a young, healthy, fit persons vocation and is not something that can be effectively done over this age. Commissioned personnel are slightly different but will they still receive a gratuity and immediate pension after 16 years service?

This matter has been hidden well from all public sector workers that might receive benefits such as those in the Armed Forces Pension Scheme. The Fire Service, Police Service to name but two.

If the reforms affect the AFPS in the way that it is predicted I would expect 50 000 serving personnel to leave the Armed Forces - it is not worth the disruption to family life if the modest financial compensation is removed.

Finally, how do you think those personnel deployed on Op TELIC in the Middle East will react to this news when they find out about it. They have extremely serious business to think about and doubts over issues like the ones stated here should be the last of their concerns as they prepare to fight.

The servicemen of the UK have shown on many occasions in previous years their dedication and willingness to get on with the job (including during the recent firemans strike) - is this how you intend to return that loyalty?

I look forward to the debate on this matter.'


Interesting stuff.

G :suspect:

A debate? I am afraid Tony is no mood to debate such trivia on uk matters.

Following NCA FRI, I was honestly prepared to serve longer.

Not now, not if it looks as if we are going to have our gratuity taxed or delayed.

I am not the only one - and these concerns are starting to affect other service personnel, not just aircrew.

I think that the "demographic bulge" just starting to hit the forces will certainly worsen if the AFPS gratuity is changed in ANY way.

NB "Demographic bulge" = cold war recruits.

God Speed to all on Active Service. 110% support.

Whilst the UK Forces fight in the Gulf - who will fight for them against the Inland Revenue & safeguard the tradtional AFPS tax-free gratuity?

As service personnel, do we have ANYONE to fight for US?

For those interested which should mean anyone who intends to serve past their Immediate Pension Point (38/16 in Aircrew speak) , there is an update on the RAF Intranet on the subject of the government's Green Paper. I'm probably not allowed to quote from it on here, so you'll need to access the RAF Portal and look under Corporate News.

If I was staying, I'd want to know with some urgency that for those intending to leave between IPP and age 55 there would be no threat to the tax-free lump sum terminal grant at IPP - and that the 'frozen' pension would still ramp up by the overall RPI change at age 55. There is no reason to think that anyone is going to lose out, so there should be no need to be alarmed - the positive effect on retention of the current AFPS is well understood by those involved in staffing the response to the Green Paper.

Sorry BEagle but you are obviously one of these people who think that life begins and ends at Cranwell. There are many people, professional aircrew, who's IPP is not at 38/16, but at 22.

As to Covec, I am one of the "demographic bulge" that you allude to, but as I understand it, if you get out before 2010, you should be ok, reseverved rights and all that. If you chose to stay beyond 2010, then decide to leave, you are on your own, and enjoy your pension at 65.

There are many variables just now, the AFPRB report due sometime soon(?), as well as the governments pensions review, due April 04, to be implemented Apr 2010. I am just hoping that, for those of us that it directly concerns during this "in-between" period, we are given enough time and information to make the correct decisions. Unfortunately I think the correct and sensible decision is " leave at 22". If you do not, it will cost you.

There have been numerous topics discusssing pensions, time to leave etc, on PPruNe recently, and I think that the government review will force many of us to leave at 22, whether we want to or not. The good work done by the team regarding airmen aircrew retention will go to waste because of the governnent policy.

PS thanks for the money, bye bye at 22

Yeller_gait'

I was with you 100% right up to the point where you said
'The good work done by the team regarding airmen aircrew retention will go to waste because of the governnent policy'

Sorry matey, there was NO good work done as far as AA retention is concerned, as you will no doubt see over the coming 12 - 18 months. AA were 'sold down the river' yet again. eg who do you know that would leave at their 17 yr point?? no many I suggest

YG,

I too agreed with your comments other than the bit about the AA.
Do you really mean to tell me (and everyone else here) that you think AA got good deal out of the review??
Were you looking at the same review as I was, and most other AA? We did not do well out of it, indeed, on the contrary, we did very bad.

As Grob points out, it will soon become extremely apparent when we find the Helo fleet, Truckie fleet, Maritime fleet and AEW fleet devoid of the much needed AA.

Of course that only leaves the FJ fleet left, well there's a surprise! a FJ air farce, run by FJ aircrew

Nope, you were good up to that point, then you lost it old bean!
Sorry for the dig at FJ mates!
Regards
The Swinging Monkey
'Caruthers,

Sorry Y_G, yes I failed to research things fully. In the Flying Branch (as it's now known), 38/16 is the Pilot/WSO IPP.

Airmen Aircrew are officially extinct. Hot off the press, you are now going to be known collectively as 'Non-commissioned aircrew (NCA)'. DON'T SHOOT THE MESSENGER!

The question which needs to be asked is:

"What assurance can be given that neither the availability nor value of the pension and terminal grant currently payable to those retiring on or after their Immediate Pension Point will be compromised by current Green Paper discussions concerning pensions."

Yes - I know. Too long. But I never did ISS!!

Grob, Monkey,

Just to clarify a point or two, we did far better in the review than we could have done, and having recently been to a second Q & A session with the Gp Capt pilot involved, he again stated that although NCA's do not leave the service around their 17 year point, a lot of them do leave to get commissioned etc. The boards remit was to try and retain EVERYONE that leaves NCA.

Hmmmm.. so where does this leave someone like me who is a FJ Pilot with a 16yr point in 2011? Completely $hafted!! I can only thank this web site for bringing it to my attention... out here in the desert we certainly dont have our finger on that sort of pulse!

So, lets put it all into perspective.... Ive been here for months, getting shot at over the border and without the TAX FREE pay that our American and Australian friends get for being on OPS only to receive news like this! Thanks! Oh hold on I forgot the fantastic welfare package out here in Ali.... (laughable more like).

Winge aside, what will the effect really be on me? Well the carrot on the stick job that the aircrew retention scheme is/will be doing (although very very small carrot) will now fizzle into insignificance. Looks like Im going to have to worry about the thousands of pounds I will be losing.

When will this government finally get it into their heads that they can not CONTINUE to $haft the Armed Forces in this way if indeed they want a credible force to still exist? What was one of the only securities (and also main attractions) on joining looks as if it will be swept away from beneath us! Surely thousands will leave ASAP?

As for me, if all of this does come true then it looks like Ill be finishing off my min productive service and exiting stage left. Hows that for your AIRCREW RETENTION??? :} :*

Carrot and Stick?

Is that where they stick a carrot up your @<hidden> and beat you round the head with a stick? I'm off in 2008 - can't afford to stay.

Jees, am I glad I'm out already soaking up that £225 a month from my 16 year point.

But wait, I then went into a final salary scheme with an airline, and I'm about to lose that (partly my own choice, but it won't survive anyway!), and now just over eight years to sort the bloody mess out.

Still, I suppose that all the time we rely on actuaries who think we all die young to design the pensions, and a bunch of crooks in Westminster, who can vote themselves a far better deal, to set the tax rules, what can we expect?

Fries with that, sonny?

Has anyone got any definitive gen as to whether the IPP Tax-Free gratuity is really "up for grabs"?

"They" keep on talking about reserved rights wrt Full Pension. Fine, we hear you. Now what about the IPP situation?

If it ain't broke.......

"Tens of thousands of public sector workers have marched through the capital to protest against the government's proposed pension reforms"


















France, 13 May 2003

Serving members of the military beware because you may not get an immediate pension!

I understand that the gallant, serving individual who raised this matter above the parapet has been chastised thus - 'we are disappointed that this has been raised at such a sensitive time' - re Gulf 2. No denial - just disappointment! Is it now, post Gulf 2, too much to hope that these bloody 'politicians' hiding at PMA/MOD et al could show some spine and integrity and come clean with plans for current serving members pensions.

Senior officers currently serving that just tow the party line instead of making a genuine case for those that they represent make me remember why I left the mob after 20+ years.

For those of you currently serving this should be one of the top threads and, ergo, needs profile on every unit and especially on this site. It has the potential to affect you until the day you die - or your wife dies.

Perhaps the federali that read this or at least ADCs or PSOs could make sure it gets the visbility it deserves after 'morning-prayers'. The 'starred' readers could then make up their own minds, using their own consciences(please do not look up and see what your boss indicates), and then make a statement to clarify your position on this. It even affects you I think - unless it only applies to certain ranks or time served?

Look hard at yourself and the service you serve, remember the values you are supposed to represent and put YOUR head above the parapet.

Heres hoping for an unambiguous statement from the military on behalf of the treasury - yeah right.

Back to the top, then.

Does this mean that even if you are currently serving on a pensionable engagement e.g. to age 22/47/55 or 3816/55, BUT have not yet served the current 22 years, or to age 38/16, that you do NOT in fact have Reserved rights, and that you will NOT get a tax free gratuity WITH an Immediate Monthly Pension payment?

Covec.

No, as I understand it, any one in NOW will have reserved rights to the present pension scheme. You cannot lose out if the new scheme to be introduced turns out to be less favourable. So under today’s scheme you will get a tax-free gratuity and an immediate pension.

HOWEVER if the treasury decides to tax gratuities or do anything else underhand to pensions IN GENERAL then NO ONE will be exempt, civil or military and you could be worse off because of general legislation in force at the time you retire.

It has been a factor in my decision to jump ship sharpish I have to admit. The problem with pensions in the civilian world is taking on crisis proportions and it is my opinion that tax-free gratuities such as ours may well disappear within a few years.

:(

It was also a primary factor in my decision to pull the black-and-yellow ealier this year. Just hope that Brown keeps his hands off the terminal grant until after 7 Aug.....

Other factors? Too old for PA spine and no financial incentive in this years Pay Award for those between 50 and 55 in a similar position.


That and the prospect of a final tour spent answering telephones.....

Was recently at a conference where the head man from PTC spoke..I asked about our pensions etc, with regard to tax-free gratuities in particular and was told that the reply to the green paper was in hand and they were 'ring-fencing existing pension agreements for those currently serving'. Read into that what you will, but it sounded like 'til 2010 those of us serving are still covered by the original terms. Here's hoping anyway!

PS As i understand it ..they will only (in future) tax what you decide to commute BEYOND your terminal gratuity.

I've brought this topic back as I believe SirPeterHardingsLoveChild has some information regarding our pensions hot off the press! Over to you Sir Peter...

Well, lukewarm anyway.

Here at Lyneham we have been told there will be an announcement in mid-July.

A few key points from a brief that came from on high.

It is stated in the Green Paper that the Armed Forces (Fire Service & Police) are regarded as exemptions (with regard to 'common retirement age')

If, at a later date, the tax-free status of the lump sum is altered, arrangements would be needed to protect its value. Either by exemption or by increasing the sum.

The Bottom Line
'It is not in the interests.....to accept any change that will precipitate an exodus of trained manpower'

Is that July 2003, I seem to remember that the announcement of the decision to close Lyneham was to be last year, Lyneham isn't very good at timescales.

nan2002,
Seems like good news (for me anyway, don't think many people are now going to want to join!) but where is your info from? Any website or anything where I can see it wrtitten down, official like?
Cheers

So are you really saying that, after 2005, anyone joining will face:

Pension at 55 only if they serve full term and retire at 55, otherwise they'll have to wait until 65.

New 18/40 point for airmen, NCA, officers before being entitled to a taxed gratuity?

Recruiting and retention incentives? Hmmm.....

So there'll be young blades joining, flying, then PVR'ing and bogging off to the airlines as soon as they've cracked 2000 hours and have qualified for mil. accreditation, a few staying on until they're 40.....and others 'locked in' until 55 because if they tried to PVR they wouldn't get any pension at all until age 65?

Will the last person..........

:rolleyes: Bearing in mind this statement, promising us we will all be ok, has been issued by members of the "lying bas@<hidden>@<hidden>" party who assured that Soddim had WMD blah blah blah :}

With an exit point in 2012 I am preparing to bend over and take it in the "tail pipe" sometime between now and then :sad:

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

Saw a progress report today which stated that retirement age of 55 was secure as were our pension and gratuity rights.

But, if this is a progress report, how can they 100% confident.

They did say this was for current serving dudes.

:confused:

This migh help to answer a few questions - it looks as though we might all be able to rest a little easier! http://centre.defence.mod.uk/DGCC_NewsPortal/icbriefs/icb03062.htm

Thanks denzil, but all Im getting is:


"This page cannot be displayed blah bloody annoying blah"

Any chance of a new link?

Mutleyfour

Looks like the URL is for CHOtS and not a www address. I cann't find any details posted elsewhere. But someone on your station should have a copy of the RAF Briefing Note that was sent out on this topic some time last week. I've seen it and it seems to confirm that the current scheme is safe - if you are in it, you can stay in it. But after 2005(?) new recruits will have to join new scheme.

I was mightily concerned for those still serving that this matter was going to be a nightmare. When this topic was near the top of PPrune I read that official announcement would be in late July. Last post on here was 22 July - so what was the announcement please?

Fingers crossed for those serving.

I've no doubt that, at some point, we will all be offered a change to the new 'improved' pension scheme. Indeed, I seem to recall seeing some preparatory bumf appearing in the crewroom recently.

Most of the guys working with me take the view that the only reason the Gov't (Treasury) would be offering the change would be to save money. If they are saving money (and it would be a significant sum across the 3 services), then it stands to reason that we will end up with less (there is only so much in the pot) - wise words?!

The statement about 'reserved rights' for those on the existing scheme presumably assumes that their terms of service remain unchanged. I have recently assimilated to 55 (boarding school trap) and am presumably safe. However, in the unlikely event I am offered promotion in a few yrs, will I be expected/forced to join the new scheme, or will I still be considered to be serving under my original terms of Service as at 1989?

Are there any PMA people out there that can shed light?

If this is the case, promotion could carry a financial penalty for some.

:confused: :confused: :confused:

PMA people on an aviation forum - be serious!

Have yet to hear it officially, but am led to believe that promotion will not affect one's original rights. This is from a contact who attended the AFBLT shindig at Cottesmore. I seem to recall that they are visiting a secret Oxon airbase soon; hopefully that'll be on the agenda.

If they do make you change TOS, where will the new flt cdrs come from? Four more years in, probably staying flying, then a flt lt's pension at 38, or: 4 more years in, the extra work load, probable OOA detachment, ground tour to finish and no pension at the end........hmmmm, I wonder. Maybe the extra fiver a day'll make up for it.
:ok:

BBD
Does the promotion to S/L make a big difference in the pension ?

See here for the relative rates at the moment:

Armed Forces Pension Rates 2003 (http://www.hrtec.net/raf_test/pay_allowances/pensions/2003/pop_pensions_off_0203.cfm)

Of course, what we can't see is what the comparable rates would be under the new scheme. Neither do we know what the overall difference would be in total benefit.

If the current benefit is, for the sake of argument, £10K PA, payable at the 16/38 point for life, and the law changes so that you don't get anything until age 65, then for someone leaving at 40, the difference would be £250K, and that is not taking into account the index-linked rise that would kick in at 55. Assuming a 3% Index, kicking in at 55, the difference increases to £350K !!!!!!

This also assumes that I understand what the Green Paper changes would mean if applied to the military - A MAJOR ASSUMPTION!!

Similarly, the decision not to permit those with less than 5 years remaining to their NRD to transfer to PA spine plus the absence of anything to compensate them for this decision in this year's AFPRB recommendation was a major influence in my pulling the black and yellow.

The only GUARANTEED way to ensure that your pension and gratuity remains safe is to leave now!!

I have seen the weasel words from PMA that say don't worry!! You will be alright!! Assurances have been given yaddey yaddey!!

Yeah Right!!
And they never tell lies do they!!!:mad:

:ok:

I was chatting about this when doing time at Binnsworth after PVR'ing and mentioned the Green Paper content to a scribbly chum, asking his views. A DeskO happened to come into the office at the time...."Bolleaux", he said "..don't trust the bug.gers an inch. Wish I was punching out like you!"

Hmmm.........

It is simply annoying that such a large organisation does not have the respect of the motivated individuals who have [and still do] served in her!!




....does this forum still get vetted weekly by the MoD in an effort to get the cold face opinion?? - or are we all complaining up the wrong tree?



Simply stated, if there is this much mis-information or wrong [and un educated guess work] rumour about, you would recon that a PROFESSIONAL man management agency would sort it out and correct & / or educate EVERYONE as to the FACTS. So as to leave the inuendo to rest.

We have more to worry about than our futues, albeit our futre is vitally important, and should be crystal clear to all and to those who advise and manage same.

LJR has a point.

PPrune is looked at by the Corporate Comms team rather than the Service Personnel policy hoods (tri-Service staff). But the point is there is plenty of information on the proposed pension changes out there but many would rather listen to rumour and conjecture rather than read the documents.

Fundamentally pension law ensures that when the scheme changes then reserved rights to remain on the old scheme must be put in place. Individuals have to compare and contrast the benefits of each.

Given the state of the nations finances, and MODs in particular, I would be pleasantly surprised - ne gobsmacked - if the new scheme was more generous to me than the old one but I await the figures with interest.

One final point - don't confuse Serving in the RAF with being employed by the RAF. Your employer is the government - by and large the Services struggle to influence the government to maintain good employment practices. We want to attract, reward and retain. They see us as an expensive insurance policy and obviously they want to keep the cost down.

Anyone else receive the big announcement on this subject from CDS today?

I will endeavour to post it - no big shocks contained within, preserved pensions to slip from 60 to 65 on a future date tbc, those in today maintain rights and there is no mention of the tax free status being taken away.

G

http://www.ukonline.gov.uk/News/NewsArticle/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=4008912&chk=DNWsP6

Changes to the Armed Forces pension announced today will result in more benefits for widows and extend the scheme to cover unmarried partners.


The new Armed Forces pension and compensation schemes include:

A death-in-service benefit of four times pensionable pay – an increase from one and a half times
A rise of one quarter in widow(er)’s pension compared to the current scheme
An extension of dependants’ benefits to unmarried partners where there is a substantial relationship

Defence Minister Ivor Caplin said: “These changes reflect key concerns raised during consultation and address the need to make proper provision for those who are left behind when personnel are killed in service.”


The new compensation scheme will provide better focus on the severely disabled. Lump sum payments will, for the first time, be available for pain and suffering resulting from injury. A guaranteed income stream will be awarded for more serious injury where there is a loss of earnings capacity. Benefits will be extended to include unmarried partners.


"The Ministry of Defence is also, with immediate effect, extending to all deaths due to service the provisions introduced on 20 March 2003 which provided benefits to unmarried partners for deaths related to conflict,” said Mr Caplin.


The new pension scheme will be introduced in April 2005 for new entrants, and the new compensation scheme will be introduced in April 2005 for all injuries, illnesses and deaths due to service which occur on or after that date. Members of the Armed forces will be given the option of remaining in the existing pension scheme or transferring to the new scheme.


Full details at

http://www.mod.uk/issues/pensions/new_afps.htm

Buff's latest retention idea :

http://www.mod.uk/issues/pensions/new_afps.htm

Some of the small print not included for public consumption is that whilst there are reserved rights, once they set a date (unknown as yet) ALL time earned thereafter will be under the new scheme.

e.g. You are now 40 and in 2 years time they set the date for transfer. You elect to depart at 44 (as if) you will receive payment up to age 42 with the additional 2 years being added at 65. You still get your pension/gratuity but minus 2/70ths (equal to the last 2 years after the 'date')

This detail was on CHOtS today but is not in the glossy on the MOD site.

Gets my vote . . . . . . . . . best I use my feet to register. :ok:

so....if i have got this right, if say I have 12 years left to serve and for arguments sake, the new scheme starts next year (Jan 01 04).......I would be pensioned on the 10 years allready served at the old scheme rate.....but the next 12 years service would NOT be pensioned to me until I was 65???( and not 40 as currently stands?)
Have I got this right??

GW - That would appear to be the way but we've offered it to a local financial advisor to make some sense of it. He/we don't understand how it can be done if you have 'reserved rights' :confused:

If I am reading the briefing notes correctly this could be good news for those PAS pilots planning to stay until 55.

Under the current scheme, based on representative rates of pay, using 2002 pension rates with 34 years service the pension is 25971 pa. This is midway between a CS Sqn Ldr and Wg Cdr pension.

Under the new scheme, if it really is a true final salary scheme paying 50% of pay after 35 years, if you are on the top PAS increment (61473 at 2002 rates) then the pension should be 30736.
This is back to the same rate as a level 1 Gp Capt's pension which was the original rumour when PAS was first mentioned.

If I serve to 55 as a PAS pilot has my pension really improved by about 18 % under the new scheme - it seems too good to be true so it probably is.

Anyone care to comment on my figures?

So much for me getting the official opinion and briefing the squadron that it will probably never happen. I am on leave/terminal leave as of next week and had been sleepless thinking about 'was I doing the right thing?'. Answer.... Yes. Today Jayteeto is mostly saying .... Goodbye. :cool:

Two points:

First, I attended a navy briefing recently and they suggested that if you changed your terms of service, then you would have to join the new scheme.

Second, for OBD, you need to ask what happens if you loose your medical cat as PA. The current rules are fairly specific, ie you loose flying pay 91 days after a permanent downgrade, but that doesn't affect your pension. Has anyone thought about what would happen in the PA case?

jayteeto - it's hardly surprising that people simply aren't prepared to take any risks over anything to do with changes in terms of service and pensions. I smelled a large rat about this time last year and decided that, unless there was something really attractive for those who were going to be 50+ on 1 Apr 2003 announced by the AFPRB, then I'd pull the handle. There wasn't, I did. And haven't regretted it for one single minute.

It was bad enough that the RAF I joined had been so decimated; it was when the prospect of government meddling with pensions came up that I finally decided that enough was enough.

Hope that you find something good, jayteeto!

So let me get this right,...... we are knackered by pension changes if we get promoted, and obviouly change our terms of service........:*

What if you don't get promoted before 22 year point, are they going to sign to you on so that you can still earn a decent pension that you'll be able enjoy when you get older?

This civillian ground tour I have been on for 20 months may make me think about my possible re-enlistment.... chances of promotion after leaving on PVR????? mmmmmm not very high I would imagine. 7 years more service then no pension until I am 65 ....... I don't think so

:eek:

OBD

Your figures are probably right........but when will you get your packet.

55 60 or 65 ......................the paper is not clear.


Watch your 6!

I refer you honourable Gentlemen to my reply at the top of page 7. It still remains valid.

See here for how simple it is in civvie street!!

www.railwaypensions.co.uk/members/members.asp?intMemGroup=4

Go to "a guide to benefits page"

:ok:

The PA question is a big one, as the pension increases under current terms are pathetic.

Paper does say that PRESERVED pensions will slip to 65 - ie (I think!!) those (paid and index linked) pensions awarded to people leaving at 38/44 etc and which currently kick in at 55.

Also the scheme of a reduced/frozen pension, paid from exit date, will be replaced by ERD payments which will probably/definitely be less.

It does however state that the IMMEDIATE pension paid at 55 will continue under an exemption for police/ armed forces.

It isn't very clear, but as far as I can see those NOT PLANNING to stay to 55 should opt to remain (option up to Apr07) on the existing terms and then they should remain on such terms until exit.

I am staring the PA spine hard in the face, offers me a chance for some more fun flying and extra cash. Details of this pension sceme and how it affects the hairy old Spec Aircrew Branch are eagerly awaited.

As I understand it you only get a preserved pension if you leave before your initial pension point. Under the current sceme this preserved pension is paid at age 60 but is being moved to age 65 at some date in the future. However, this change does NOT affect you if you take your pension at or after your initial pension point when the rules will remain as they curently are.

Chaps and Chapesses

Thought I would just add this link to the debate. Telegraph doesn't seem to rate the new deal very much!!! Seems the average married person looses out for the minorities - again!!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2003/09/20/cmpen20.xml&menuId=244&sSheet=/money/2003/09/22/ixfrontperson.html :*

From PMS 26/03 (I Think):

"....Current members...existing pensions scheme...pension rights protected....except that, for furture service from a date yet to be decided, preserved pensions will be paid at age 65 rather than at 60."

What the F**k does that mean?

It means "Bend over, touch your toes and try this bat for size"......

Yeah, and you can bet that the 'date yet to be decided' will not allow you to get out under your present terms....when it is eventually promulgated....or am I being cynical?
To quote the great BEagle.....'I'm reaching for the black and yellow'. Apologies in advance for any mis-quote!

Beers.

If you look in the documentation for the current pension it explains clearly the difference between a pension, an initial pension and a preserved pension. A preserved pension ONLY applies if you retire before your initial pension point (38/16 or whatever) and strangely enough is the pension that is preserved (ie not paid) until 60 or 65 from TBD date. If you reach your initial pension point not of the above applies and will remain exactly as we currently know and love. Hope that helps.

Still confused...I am due to go in Jun 2008, does that mean for example that if the date they introduce for the new scheme is ,say, Jun 2006, that I will leave in Jun 2008 with only 14/16ths the pension/gratuity, as the last 2 yrs will be counted under the new scheme?

Worryingly they have not made reference to commutation of the pension for those of us under the old scheme...can we still do it tax-free.

anyone?

Not the way I understand it. It you leave in 2008 you will get what you expect to get now in 2008 - if you leave in 2007 ( ie before your 16/38 point) you will have to wait an extra 5 years until you are 65 years of age to get the preserved benefits.

:cool: