Cut Backs - AFBLT Brief

[PURPLE-XD]

The AFBLT visited Halton last week and, so I am told from a usually reliable source, admitted that the latest plan was for the RAF to be at a trained strength of 37000 within "as short as possible a time-scale". No information on how that figure would be reached or what we may lose in capability but the timescale seemed to be driving factor.

Cannot vouch for veracity of the rumour, but as I said - a normally reliable source!!

:(

[November4]

Anyone want to confirm or deny the rumours that this year, compared with last year -

Cosford will be training less than 50% recruits?

Admin Trng School will be running 4 courses in teh year instead of 1 every 2 weeks?

[JessTheDog]

I have heard that in some of the Minor Units Basing Study rationalisations, redundancies will not be used to reduce numbers.

I suspect that a conscious decision has been taken somewhere that, if personnel are :mad: ed around enough, they will go of their own volition. Also, I've seen a Gp Capt post advertised as a "Volunteer Reserve Co-ordinator" or something like that.

It appears that the policy of using reservists to augment overstretched regulars will be extended....how far, is the question? Will RFA 96 be used to stick more call-out notices through letterboxes for ad-hoc operations, or even support of regular dets?

The Armed Forces Pension Scheme has passed to its third reading and makes no provision for reservist pension contributions. Cheap labour?

I sense very grim times ahead for all in defence.....

[CatpainCaveman]

No doubt we are in for a few rough years, but I also sense a light at the end of the tunnel for those with the inclination to hang on in there, and here's my thinking.

The bean-counters and their airships want to cut numbers. Sacking people means pay-offs which means cost, even if they aren't the massive pay-offs from earlier years. Best way to do it -

1. No/limited assimilation at 38/16 and few SSC-PC conversions.
2. Contractorise as much as possible.
3. P*ss people off enough with the general depressing situation
and watch them leave either at their option date or on a PVR.
4. Rationalise with their "stunning" super-base ideas.

I have a gut feeling that as always we will make a cut too far and in combination with the above factors we will be in a situation in 5-10 years time with a need to recruit and promote. For those in main stream operational flying/ops type posts that survive and at Fg Off / Flt Lt level, providing bollocks aren't dropped there's a fighting chance of coming out the other side of this monumentally stupid bit of decision making in one piece.

My suggestion, get yourself in a post that won't disappear - a nice staff job should do the trick as they never get rid of the crap jobs, keep your head down, all bollocks in one piece and ride out the storm.

[friendlyfairy]

Hurrah, redundancies all round and a speedy exit from this mickey mouse outfit!

[Descend to What Height?!?]

Latest rumours we hear doing the round of the bizzaars, is that the proposed "Super Base" concept has been dropped. Some one has realised, that putting all of ones eggs into one basket, may not be such a good idea. Tactically it makes ones eggs very vulnerable. But more importantly, the blunties have cottened on, that to operate a greatly increased number of aircraft from just a few basis will require extra runways to be built at said super bases. That it seems is just way too costly!

So it is back to the old drawing board, to take a hard look at how many and where the RN, AAC and crabs airfields of the future will be.

[Art Field]

I would have thought that even more important to the blunties would be that fewer bases would mean fewer bluntie posts, after all you still only need one admin W/C per station [ do I mean need? ] though the jock strappers would probably increase.

[QuidProQuo]

I think we all agree that there are not enough people on the front line and too many people in HQ jobs. There seems to be a very big axe hanging over "staff" jobs. But, no doubt, there will also be cuts to the frontline if the papers and rumours are to be believed. But perhaps we should be a bit circumspect about blaming blunties for everything - a quick scan of the Air Force List seems to shows that the real grown ups are all aircrew and they are the ones have make these types of decisions.

[Pontius Navigator]

Having survived at least three redundancy packages, the first was probably the best.

Fast Jet were excluded (prohibited), Canberra JOs and other heavyies could volunteer. Senior ranks could also volunteer AND be refused. The axe was well aimed at all senior airmen.

I remember a sqn ldr who thought he was going places as he had just been picked up for his scrapper. All it did was lift him into the compulsory redundancy bracket. Had he asked his fellow JOs we would have told him he was useless.

The next 'good' thing about the package was the exit date 3 years hence. In theory it gave you 3 years to sort your future. In practice it made the money numbers crap as inflation was 15% or so and the payment was based on year 0 not year 3.

We got well and truly stitched.

Oh, no blunties, just aircrew as far as I can remember and only 3 years after they introduced spec aircrew cause we had a retention problem.

[Paddy Don't Surf]

AFBLT = air farce bacon lettuce and tomato?

answers on the back of a post card to .......

[zedder]

All Full of Bulls**t Like Tony?:E