Mr 777.
I agree that LL App is probably the only true Band 5 App function in the room.
App is different from TMA, it's not my trainset so not my place to grant it, but I would be more lenient on Approach controllers than the TMA (probably because I am a TMA controller)... I don't agree with people holding Capital and East being regarded as fulfilling MUR, and that mindset is changing. I don't think that as an App controller you would need to be given at least a chance to do LL to be considered band 5 as per your post(see below).
I think that EGKK/EGSS although not band 5/core validations per se, if they were coupled with any other function, including Luton, that would be enough to satisfy MUR.
Luton and Thames together does not, in my mind, satisfy MUR the same as Cap and East doesn't.
I would group the room as follows:
True core sectors
North
South
Heathrow
No need to do another sector (there is no requirement at the moment), but most people would (most TMA controllers do)... the only reason so few EGLL people do it is because of a shortage of EGLL controllers to enable release to train and maintain another validation.
Next group
Midlands
EGKK
EGSS
Although Mids is a core sector I don't class it the same as North or South, I think most TMA people would agree. Therefore it would be expected that if you held one of the above 3 you would need another validation to hit MUR.
Any other validation would do the trick.
The extras
Capital
East
Thames
Luton
These 4 would be supplementary validations, holding 2 of the 4 would not count as MUR.
People in the room were paid accordingly, i.e. band 5 once they meet MUR as laid out above.
You could have an interim payscale for those who didn't start with a core sector... they would stay on the interim scale and then go onto true band 5 pay as and when they met MUR.
This band 5 pay and the pay spines would be backdated to the point they would normally go onto Band 5 at the moment i.e. 2 years after leaving college, or 3 years after joining NATS (whatever the criteria is nowadays). Thus they would not be penalised for being put onto a non core sector initially, or for delays in training on a second sector.
(We would bin the current ridiculous practice of backdating peoples pay if they have failed elsewhere - that is rewarding failure
. The fact they still have a job should be reward enough and is very relevant now, when we see people being given P45's when they have failed on the hardest sectors in the room, without being given the option of training elsewhere).
Those doing extra sectors over and above what is classed as MUR within the above criteria would be rewarded for it.
As I say, not my trainset so I can't make the rules. I think the above would be pretty fair though, purely from a Band 5 perspective.
I'm sure the same exercise could be carried out within AC identifying and classifying sectors.
It doesn't, of course, solve the other Banding issues for other units i.e. the huge disparity or the possible 'under-banding' of units such as EGLF & EGPE (
Edited after Eastern Wiseguys post -
I don't really mean Inverness).
That took longer to type than it did to think up - I'm sure there's some holes in it, but not many I would say. Unfortunately it would take balls for the union and management to do something like this.
Of course, as we are primarily concerned with safety (at least the operational amongst us), there would be scope for people to do quieter sectors if they felt the need as they approached retirment age... a sensible approach to this could be easily found.