Leon J - interesting how 2 different people get 2 different views from the same presentation. This is my view on your points
It didn't sound like a savings exercise to me, rather a proper look at our offer and an attempt to try and shift it into a modern era. Numerous times it was said that any money saved would be placed back into the pot for the 'offer' - if they said that so many times I seriously doubt that they were lying.
In terms of the engagement structures it was briefed that they were just proposals at this stage. Probably like many I really am not a fan of having differing structures at the top end for officers and SNCOs, that is divisive and it would be good if it was altered. ie we all serve to 60 or something similar. Likewise I am no fan of keeping of aircrew sqn ldrs to 60 either. I appreciate that we need to retain aircrew, but the age 60 offer infers 59 year old pilots flying on the front line! Cant see that happening.
The enhanced LSAP offer makes perfect sense to me. When you actually look properly at what is being offered and get past the perceived inequality, it is all about what an individual can pay back and how that affects the mortgage offer. Basically if we gave SACs £25k for a deposit then it would affect, quite markedly, the mortgage available to them. Also we could be encouraging bad lending and potentially getting our people into the sub prime mortgage market. Not great and I am sure you would agree is irresponsible of the Service. However, the new LSAP is better than the 8.5k - the key is ensuring they get the fine detail right and that you can use the LSAP multiple times if require. Also you should get a fair remuneration if you are forced to sell a property you purchased with an LSAP, if the Service Need comes first, and you are posted to another location without a realistic prospect of being able to use your property.
I don't agree with your allowances bit - you have mixed up the Get You Home element that was briefed. They clearly said about combining LOA and Get You Home Overseas warrants at some point - for those who have been abroad that bit makes complete sense. There was no reference to UK Get You Home at all. Overall the allowances bit, from what I gather from the Odiham brief by CDP, was that the remuneration focus is on pay as that is pensionable (Allowances etc aren't), the allowances aspect is twiddling with the lack of clarity and amalgamating some that are never used. This is no bad thing.
As for Reserves, if you have been watching recently they are still working through the FR20 elements. It does say in the brief that the Reserves TACOS will move across to the NEM later in the year. This makes sense, so it is no surprise that the NEM brief is a bit short on the Reserves detail.
As I have said above, just my view on how I interpreted the brief.