Left One And Right: PW - firstly, profuse and abject apologies for confusing you with Gonzo – on second thoughts, I may actually have some re-wiring work (on my mother-in-law’s new chair) to put your way.
Ref the AASS. The Service has never actually been very worried about people who leave at the 22-year point. As the first IPP for NCA, 22 years is an expected source of exits and is THE major factor considered by Strategic Manpower Planners when they set annual recruiting targets. That the AFCOs have failed dismally to achieve those targets over the past 6 years or so stands as an indictment of the Service’s recruiting directorate at Cranwell. Most people serving beyond 22 years have guaranteed employment at £40k+ per year and, if not already engaged to age 55, the chance to achieve that engagement (if they’re good enough) via the annual re-engagement board. By and large then, the Service doesn’t expect to lose many of the “service to 55” mob either.
As they are in place for 3 years, the AASS measures actually target people from the 14-year point onwards. The bean-counters have focussed specifically on those individuals who, when beyond the 12-year point, opt to start new careers and tell the Service to st*ff their pension. £13k net might (just) be enough to keep some of those people in to that magical 22-year point. I could suggest an entirely cynical reason for choosing the 14-17 years (and a bit for the 18-20 year boys) group. Somewhere, someone in the Treasury has moved a (limited total amount) award “bracket” up and down a spreadsheet of the entire 12-22 year NCA cadre until the award figure roughly matches (ie does not exceed) that limited total amount……. No, forget I said that…….
I’ve not had a chance to speak to the 2 Macr on the AASS team and so do not know their personal views on the outcome of the AASS. What I do know is that the one with the same initials as you has never been anyone’s poodle. However, given that the 2 Macr enjoyed unprecedented (members of the rear crew officer cadre were not included in similar studies) access to the workings of the AASS, I begin to wonder what people actually expected them to achieve. Beyond ensuring that ALL the issues that concerned NCA were considered by the AASS, the 2 Macr, like the officers on the AASS, could only make recommendations for the AFBSC (and the Treasury) to consider - hence my phrase "under the circumstances" - also, see below for some groundrules.
Which sort of brings us back to the original subject of the thread – What did people actually expect from the AASS? Moreover, instead of picking the study apart, why not make (realistic) suggestions about what should have been done? Only 2 rules (as I’m sure the 2 Macr quickly found out) apply when making any suggestions: 1. There is little, if any new money available. 2. The minute you begin forming the words “special case for NCA” in your mind, remember that the Treasury will laugh you out of court…...
Keep Smilin’*/Moanin’*
*Delete as applicable
P.S. Once again PW – sorry for confusing you with Gonzo
P.P.S. I definitely have no need of a plumber......
