Zooker,
I won't argue with the fact that
in some cases, the training regime let trainees down - as it does at any unit - but hardly ever in recent years from TC, and AC who used to have a bad rep for training are having much more sucess nowadays in getting validations.
However the majority of people who failed at the units you mentioned did so because they were simply not good enough in the time allowed.
One of the reasons people who get moved to another unit to continue training do so well or succeed, is because they have had the benefit of 3 or 4 hundred hours at their previous unit... giving them a total training time of 7 or 8 hundred hours.
So the question is still valid, there are many people at MACC who may well havebeen out on their ear if they had not been given a second chance... whatever the reason for failing!
Stupendous Man
It is different from the WD/LAC move because, in my mind, you could still have your house/partner/kids in London and make the 2 hour commute down the M3.
Having moved before 'O' date and done the commute in reverse (not literally), I can assure you that even a one hour commute either way is not really acceptable. And the M3 is one of the worst motorways in Britain...
There is no doubt at all that the negative equity thing is not good, however playing Devils' Advocate...
As you quite rightly state
...anyone who arrived at Manch in the last 5 or so years really has no grounds for complaint...
It is these people who will be in negative equity, as someone who bought more than 5 years ago should still be in surplus (unless thay bought badly). Bearing in mind investments may go down as well as up, to quote the adverts...
If I was a hard nosed company man I
might say to someone who complained -
"Houses are not guaranteed as a cash cow, there have been price drops in the past - you knew when you were posted to MACC that you would have to move to NPC which would involve selling up... You took the decision to invest in property, that investment has, (like any investment can), just gone belly up... not our problem"
The company, although not exactly winning any friends, would be entirely in their right to take that stance.
I don't agree with it, but it is a fact.
Serious question -
To those who have brought up the very valid point about negative equity, what do you want the company to do about it?
Who will decide what, if any, level of compensation you will get?
How will it be decided?
Will it be a flat rate for everyone?
Will it be your purchase price with a percentage added on for each year since your purchase up to the beginning of the move window?
If so, what about the fact that different types of house and different areas sustain different growth?
Just curious, because like anything, it's all very well saying you have a problem, but if you can have a solution or at least a starting point for negotiations in your mind, you will fare much better when taking NATS to task.