Two points,
1) Anyone facing redundancy should certainly look at the legal side of this - given so many are involved then commonsense suggests they get together and hire a small team of lawyers between them. It needn't be expensive, per capita, to discover whether or not you can vastly improve the package as you leave. (The RAF will dispose of you, no lawyer is going to make them keep you on, but there's probably a sizeable difference between the resettlement package, redundancy payout etc that the RAF want to hand out and the one that a savvy lawyer will manage to extract).
2) It's down to aircraft numbers, ultimately - argue all you like, but with an RAF that's got less aircraft than Airfix had last time they went into recievership there's no way we need the pilot numbers - or the Air ranks above them. No point in angst on pilot, WSO/Op, groundcrew numbers if the aircraft aren't there. The complaint should actually be about the way we have been cut to below effective strength, while it takes ever longer to resurrect capability. (Cameron probably imagines it's like WW2 where you could process a guy from civvy street to a Spitfire cockpit in months, unlike the years it actually takes).
My condolences to those who made it to flying training, as somebody (wisely) filtered out by OASC to be mere NCO aircrew once over I know how hard a blow it must be to succeed only to have the rug snatched out from under your feet.
To those posting with a groundcrew hat on - aircrew are selected on the basis of their egos, in part, the steady types are guided towards more mundane and useful <g> trades.... you can't select on a model based on Tom Cruise then expect an Alan Titchmarsh response to something like this.
Dave