Does the MoD/Treasury maths add up, ignoring the SQEP, risk to military failure blah blah, but seriously is NEM/AFPS/reduction in TACOS as cost effective to warrant these policies.
The single biggest fear of their Lordships is that we will be called upon to do something, and we won't be able to to do it*. At that point, everyone will legitimately ask what on earth they are spending 2% GDP on Defence for. Trying to explain that jets are grounded due to a 'lack of pilots', when actually those pilots are doing desk jobs any silly bugger can do, probably won't wash. Especially if it turns out they're being paid flying pay despite not actually flying. Things like SQEP, the Moral Component of Operational Capability etc are expressed, but the cliche about "use it or lose it" exists for a reason.
Someone had a post on this thread (I think, but I can't find it), that pay should be increased "to industry rates, with X Factor on top, and OOAs reduced". This line of thinking sounds a bit like the protests about paying feeding charges back in the day - you know, that it was unfair for someone to pay 7 days a week for food when they only had Monday Lunch to Thursday Dinner, and ate at home for the rest of the time. So they introduced PAYD, so that you were only charged for the food you ate. And everyone complained about the awful quality of the Food and the appalling service - but you got exactly what you asked for, forgetting that the 3 days worth of food you weren't eating cross-subsidised the 4 you were eating. If you ask for Industry standard levels of pay, expect to get treated like an Industrial workforce. If the comments on PPRUNE are anything to go by, that means little to no training for free, limited pension or medical provision, an expectation that you'll go where you're told, when you're told; but balanced by relatively high "take home" wages.
Sometimes I think our noses are in danger of our facial spite.....
*Disregard our loss in TELIC and HERRICK - at least we turned up.