PVR = Half Flying Pay!!!!!!!

[number-cruncher]

Having recently handed in my PVR and told I would go on to half flying pay (I was expecting this anyway), it got me thinking about the rules on this.

Having asked around, I am told that flying pay is purely a retention pay and if so then I am screwed and whinge over. However if it is purely a retention payment, then why not just take the lot off me?

As I am on the bottom rate I now get just over £3 a day for being on a front line sqn and am also about to deploy to the gulf for Queen and country. (8th time) Meanwhile there are people who have been on ground tours for god knows how many years and are on middle and top rates of flying pay and they haven't seen a sandy place for some time. (excluding PA) Not really fair in my view.

Can I just do half the flights then or just refuse to do a Gulf tour? (I won't do that as I am a professional to the last day).

It's just like one last kick in the goolies for Queen and country.

[Roadster280]

flying pay is purely a retention pay and if so then I am screwed and whinge over.

Indeed.

I'd be thinking that I'd had the opportunity to serve my country, took a massive amount of training, acquired life skills that others can only dream of, and move on.

As the barrier closed behind me for the last time, I wept. But I knew it was the right thing for my family. Not for the mob though, but our time to part ways had come. It was ok.

You have time to either rescind your PVR, or adjust to what you have done.

Money is not everything. Your future is, however.

Keep safe on your last deployment.

[Dengue_Dude]

I left the mob over 14 years ago and it was the best thing I ever did.

There are times you miss the blokes you work with, but one thing you DON'T MISS is the petty bureaucracy like you're suffering at the moment.

I was always told that flying pay was risk pay (I did 24 years, 22 as aircrew).

You are still taking and accepting the same risk as everybody else but pen-pushers have decided that you will be castigated for having the temerity to decide you don't want to do this any more - I mean it's not as if you got out there first time then said - oh this is not what I joined up for.

It's treatment like this that just hardens peoples' attitudes. It's petty and so typical and you won't miss THEM.

Good luck

[Winco]

Other than aircrew, is there any other branch in the RAF that get financially penalised for PVR'ing?

Sounds like a case of aircrew discrimenation actually!

.............Gilbert Blades, are you in the office this morning old bean??

[Mr C Hinecap]

They don't get penalised - they get extra money that is over and above their basic pay. It is just many forget that and live to that extra money (sports car as soon as they get FP, that sort of thing) and then, when it isn't there (fail flying training, PVR etc) they come on here and grizzle. Bless their aircrew socks.

[Tester07]

They don't get penalised - they get extra money that is over and above their basic pay.

What a load of rubbish people speak about flying pay.

Flying pay is simply the money you have to pay aircrew to recognise their skills, and to recognise the money that they could be paid elsewhere.

As such it should be fully pensionable, and you should not be able to reduce it if someone decides to leave the service giving significantly greater notice than they would be required to give in civvy street.

Of course it will always cause resentment (buying a sports car! what depravation!) amongst those who dont have similar skills and potential earning power. :)

[Art of flight]

Flying pay is purely an incentive pay to retain experienced crew, nothing to do with risk. All of the flying services treat their PVR'ing aircrew in this way, not just the RAF.

Why not just remove yourself from flying duties (as you say you're only on first tour FP so the other £3 a day shouldn't be a great loss for the months you have left). As for your loyalty to the service, just see how they value your service when you become 'ex' forces. Loyalty to your present mates is a different issue. perhaps you could work in ops until your end date to help out the team?

Good luck with the future

[Wader2]

At least you are still flying on half pay, with a half-hearted approach to the job? :)

Back in the passed, 70s, 80s etc, when you PVR'd you were also grounded and posted to the Sim or Ops. It was argued that you were wasting training time that could be better used by those more committed.

Now of course there is no one queing up from ground tours to jump in your seat.

[Jayand]

Read the jsp instead of trying to get your information from Sqn mates and other sources like the web, it spells it out in black and white ish!! Flying pay has little to do with recognising your potential and your skills and nothing to do with the risk of flying, but is simply a tool for retention, hence why pilots get more than rear enders whilst being exposed to the same risks.
By Pvr'ing the retention incentive has clearly not worked and they take half of it off you, they could I suppose by that reckoning take the lot off you! thankfully they don't.
I can't find anywhere in the Jsp however anything about flying pay when you put in your notice to leave at your option point? anyone have a clue?

[Mr C Hinecap]

Flying pay is simply the money you have to pay aircrew to recognise their skills, and to recognise the money that they could be paid elsewhere.


So - a retention bonus then. If someone isn't being retained (PVR) then why pay them money to recognise they have transferable skills? We've not retained them, so we have the current (correct) system.

I can see you also think everyone not in a cockpit wants to be in a cockpit.

[insert ironic smiley here]

[Tester07]

Flying pay has little to do with recognising your potential and your skills

I think you miss the point. It is a recognition of skills and potential in that there is obviously a significant requirement to persuade aircrew to stay by paying them a lot more than the basic pay, which patently does not pay them enough.

In other words, when you put their basic pay and flying pay together, the MOD is paying them nothing more nor less than what they have to to employ aircrew. In fact, as we all know, aircrew earn quite a lot less in the military, which they are happy to accept for a period of time because of all the significant benefits which go with working in the services.

So all this talk of flying pay being some sort of priviledge is rubbish in my view.

with a half-hearted approach to the job?

Why do you assume this just because someone has chosen to leave the service? Unfair I would suggest. Why do people assume a massive disloyalty to the service and a 'half-hearted' attitude just because someone has made a choice to move on in their life? For what may be many very valid and honourable reasons. It is the service rules which require someone like this to PVR.

[Tester07]

So - a retention bonus then.

So can you explain to me why you might not define anybody's salary, in any walk of life, as a 'retention' bonus, and cut their pay if they signal their intention to leave their job.

Why pick on aircrew, simply because they have greater earning potential? Why not cut everyone's pay when they state that they will leave the service?

[Jayand]

Please tell me what greater earning potential an Aeo or wsop ew / aco has in civvy street than say a groundcrew cpl/sgt?
There are a lot of jobs out there that pay a damn sight more for people with "supposedly" less earning potential than aircrew.
I can think of plenty of trades that would possibly benefit from a retention bonus, then again most people have had enough and money isn't the factor that is going to keep them!

[Al R]

I'd agree with the second poster.

With regards to it being discrimination, as long as the MoD applies its thinking to all aircrew and not just short, ginger haired Scottish aircrew, I suppose the MoD isn't being discriminatory and can do what it likes with paying people above and beyond the standard wage. But does this pay adjustment on PVR now apply to all specialist payments, eg; Para Pay?

In civvy street T&Cs can be changed if someone elects to leave - the military isn't unique in that respect. You get flying pay which can get taken away - just as a civvy employee gets share options, additional pension contributions or enhanced medical insurance. And as the military pension deal is a form of occupational one, based on defined benefits, the MoD is legally within its rights to limit pensionable earnings to basic salary.

Some argued that the Service Education Allowance was a covert retention bonus. But lets not go there again.. :ok:

[Wader2]

a recognition of skills and potential in that there is obviously a significant requirement to persuade aircrew to stay by paying them a lot more than the basic pay, which patently does not pay them enough.

aircrew earn quite a lot less in the military, which they are happy to accept for a period of time because of all the significant benefits which go with working in the services.

And as student aircrew happy to receive no extra at all. Initially Flying Instructional pay was used to incentivise the recruit. In the late 80s it was expected from the numbers trying to get in that FIP was not necessary and it was stopped.

Why do you assume this just because someone has chosen to leave the service?

I assumed nothing.

Unfair I would suggest.

Agree.

Why do people assume a massive disloyalty to the service and a 'half-hearted' attitude just because someone has made a choice to move on in their life? For what may be many very valid and honourable reasons. It is the service rules which require someone like this to PVR.

Indeed, although you would be naive to expect that someone with months to do will devote as much effort to the Service as someone still climbing the greasy poll. They will be more concerned with getting the grease off.

Clearly you missed my cynicism, use of italics and the smiley. I was reporting FACT. PVR used to lead to grounding for exactly the reasons stated. Senior officers expect(ed) absolute loyalty to the Service and that included not PVRing, taking the rough with the rough and, as one CinC said, 'anyone taking more than one weeks leave was being disloyal.' IIRC it was Sir Andrew Humphrey.

[Tricorn]

I remember being told many many years ago (1970s, back in the cold war era) that flying pay was regarded as 'danger money'.

However it is now officially a retention bonus. When did it change from one to the other?:confused:

[BristolScout]

I'm going back to the 60s & 70s now, but then we were told that as, uniquely in the three services, it was only the aircrew that did the fighting in the RAF, they should have an increment over the other, essentially, non-combatant officers and SNCOs. How true it was, I don't know but it was useful for winding up the wingless wonders in the bar on Friday nights.

[Wader2]

Please tell me what greater earning potential an Aeo or wsop ew / aco has in civvy street than say a groundcrew cpl/sgt?
There are a lot of jobs out there that pay a damn sight more for people with "supposedly" less earning potential than aircrew.
I can think of plenty of trades that would possibly benefit from a retention bonus, then again most people have had enough and money isn't the factor that is going to keep them!

Jayand, I think you are saying that groundcrew are happy with less pay and that non-pilots have a lower earning potential?

If any ground trade thought they could benefit from the pay and conditions as NCA, including immediate promotion to sgt, then there is nothing to stop them applying. Many however seem content not to do so. That would suggest that neither the offer of promotion nor flying pay is sufficient inducement for everone to apply.

OTOH if both rank and flying pay was removed would those currently applying to become NCA still apply? Undoubtedly some would but equally many would not. Flying pay and NCO status are clearly pull factors but how much pay and how quickly they gain promotion are manning issues which, at an individual level, are often perceived as inadequate.

I can think of plenty of trades that would possibly benefit from a retention bonus

But this is where the larger scales manning picture comes in. You may pinch locally but not necessarily elsewhere.

most people have had enough and money isn't the factor that is going to keep them!

Quite.

[Wader2]

Tricorn, true, that was the rumour but officially it was skill recognition and for recruitment and retention.

When you consider the relative inefficiency of ejector seats in the 50s and even 60s, you can see why.

IX Sqn had a run from 1964 with Vulcan crashes and many crews killed.

Half my navigation course did not survive to age 38/16.

Bristol Scout, true. Even in the 90s one flt cdr argued thus in the bar. He agreed with the scribbly in the bar that either flying pay be abolished or all officers got flying pay. :)

Then he asked the scribbly how he would propose the selection of the appropriate number of officers to be killed each year. :}

[moosemaster]

Please tell me what greater earning potential an Aeo or wsop ew / aco has in civvy street than say a groundcrew cpl/sgt?

As an Ex-NCA I am indeed earning more in "Civvy street" than I was when I was NCA.

What made me an attractive recruit more than, say a ground tradesman of equivalent rank was not my professional qualifications, although they didn't do me any harm.

Those who understand the military, and recruit from its resources are aware of the specialist nature of military personnel in general and aircrew in particular.

I am not "dissing" groundcrew, nor "bigging up" aircrew, merely expressing that qualified aircrew have already displayed the qualities which many employers seek, rather than groundcrew who, although they may possess the skills, have not necessarily displayed or used them in a work environment, nor has the service provided them the training in order to "hone" such skills.

The skills/qualities I am talking about are the ability to work as part of a team when needed, but also take charge when required. The ability to follow instruction, but also show initiative. The ability to think outside the box, to see the big picture but also see the small picture from someone elses viewpoint. The ability to organise oneself. (NOT AN EXHAUSTIVE LIST)

All the things that aircrew generally take for granted from one another are actually quite sought after on "the outside".

Of course these are only my personal observations since leaving the service.

You may be correct that there are not as many opportunities in the field for which you are currently qualified, but by your experiences and qualities, you are possibly more able to adapt to new fields where a ground tech may not be. As I was told during resettlement;
Never turn down a job you haven't been offered!


Soapbox away, standing by for incoming.

[Mr C Hinecap]

Why pick on aircrew, simply because they have greater earning potential?

There it is again - the ego that also believes we all want to fly! If you spoke to most anyone else in the RAF, you'd find they had greater earnings potential elsewhere. Stick-wiggling isn't the only well-paid job in the universe.

it was only the aircrew that did the fighting in the RAF

Note the use of bold, Mr Cold War Warrior. Past tense.

As for moosemaster. If you are going for NCA-related work, you might have a point. If not, you are deluded. Your 'peers' on the ground would have far more extensive man management, project management and other general middle management experience than most any NCA. All IMHO of course.

[Safety_Helmut]

As for moosemaster. If you are going for NCA-related work, you might have a point. If not, you are deluded. Your 'peers' on the ground would have far more extensive man management, project management and other general middle management experience than most any NCA. All IMHO of course.

Fully agree with Mr C on this.

S_H

[Tricorn]

The skills/qualities I am talking about are the ability to work as part of a team when needed, but also take charge when required. The ability to follow instruction, but also show initiative. The ability to think outside the box, to see the big picture but also see the small picture from someone elses viewpoint. The ability to organise oneself. (NOT AN EXHAUSTIVE LIST)

Qualities that I would expect of all my groundcrew SNCOs!!:}

[moosemaster]

I would expect a groundcrew SNCO to have them as well, as would the employers "in the know" who I mentioned before.
Mr C, I was merely using the previously stated example of groundcrew Cpl/Sgt as a reference. In the eyes of a normal employer, man-management and project management can be taught, easily. The ability to think outside the box cannot. Self motivation cannot be taught. Self discipline can be taught, but why bother when applicant A has already proved they have it. That just erodes profit margins. The thing is perception. An aircrew mate is percieved to have more of these skills than a groundcrew mate. You and I know that may not be the case, but the perception among the majority of employers remains.

I think everyone will admit that more money is put into training aircrew than is put into training groundcrew, even in the "soft skills" environment and I am not entering into that.

My point is that aircrew mates, by the nature of the roles they fulfill, display the qualities that certain employers want, but do not want to invest in, or do not have the time to nurture.

For the record I was offered 4 positions whilst on resettlement.

All 4 were aviation related, but only two were NCA related.

3 of the 4 paid more than the RAF. (Granted the 2 NCA related ones were the lowest paid :rolleyes:)

Not one required my PRINCE2 qualification, nor any level of man-management skills at all other than interacting with others of different levels, which I would expect in all service personnel from LAC up to CAS, regardless of trade.

Earning potential is where one looks for it. If one looks in all the usual places, one finds the usual things. Think outside the box!:}

[moosemaster]

Re-reading the post it sounds as if I am dissing groundcrew.

I am not.

Knowing both sides of the fence as I do, I reckon it should be possible for all service leavers to increase their earnings.

I was merely stating that it might easier for an aircrew mate to do so by changing direction, whereas a groundcrew mate may be able to increase earnings while remaining within the same field.

Nothing more, nothing less.:)

[Safety_Helmut]

Not one required my PRINCE2 qualification
Oh, now there's a shock, how many people leaving the forces go and waste their time on this course ?

S_H

[Dengue_Dude]

Look at this lot above:

Now tell me that you'll miss it . . .

As for what the Publications say - they are written by some of the most slippery invertebrates on the planet and will say anything they want even if it changes what was previously written.

I SO don't miss that side of the military. That said it was still the greatest flying and bunch of blokes I've ever worked with. Tactical low level and AAR - mustard! In fairness though, nobody but the ex-wife wanted me dead!

Fly safe.

[Mr C Hinecap]

moosemaster - your post is just generally insulting to the incredibly resourceful, capable and vastly broad-skilled backbone of the ground Trades I have had the pleasure to work with. I take it you have never worked with Caterers, Suppliers, MTDs, Adminers etc.

man-management and project management can be taught, easily. The ability to think outside the box cannot. Self motivation cannot be taught. Self discipline can be taught, but why bother when applicant A has already proved they have it.

I don't know whether you equate 'proving it' to being NCA over NCO. I also don't know whether you equate the incredibly tightly regulated world of aircraft operations to the far less rigid and creative world of ground Trades, but the latitude, breadth of thought and downright low cunning I've had the pleasure of witnessing over the years are beyond reproach. These people perform minor miracles on a daily basis until it becomes the accepted norm. You evidently have no concept of the breadth of knowledge and experience needed to be a good NCO.

You do know that, away from aircraft, we don't get an OCU when we change jobs don't you?

[ZH875]

uniquely in the three services, it was only the aircrew that did the fighting in the RAF

During the early days of World War Two, 33 Sqn achieved impressive victories over the Italian fighters but by March 1941, 33 Sqn found itself fighting the Luftwaffe in Greece. By May 1941, the Allies had pushed back to Crete and it was there that 33 Squadron's ground crew distinguished themselves in battle. Alongside Australian, New Zealand and Greek troops, 33 Sqn fought to repel thousands of German paratroopers around the airfield at Maleme. After ten days, the surviving ground crew were evacuated to Egypt where they rejoined the Squadron. Source (http://www.raf.mod.uk/RAFbenson/aboutus/33history.cfm)

Should that last line read "They rejoined the aircrew that ran away, and didn't fight"?

[Tester07]

oh dear,

another thread which has degenerated into a sad slanging match.

Quote:
Why pick on aircrew, simply because they have greater earning potential?

There it is again - the ego that also believes we all want to fly!

how on earth do you infer that from my comment? :confused: I certainly do not think or assume that anyone else wants to fly and, frankly, I don't care! There are many posters on here who so obviously have deep-seated resentment just waiting to bubble to the surface, I cant imagine why they bother to look at pprune at all.

[Mr C Hinecap]

Tester07 - this 'greater earning potential' is my sticking point. There are many other people who have gone on to do very well - financially too if that flicks your switch. I'm just trying to get across that pilots are not the highest paid people in the world and military pilots don't always make a smooth transition. Why worry about your FP - you're obviously off to earn squillions more anyway.

BTW - you are the one feeling picked on right now. Bless. Hugs for all.

[Tester07]

There are many other people who have gone on to do very well

I'm sure there are! And why shouldn't they? Why are you suggesting that anyone here is trying to denigrate anyone else?? (apart from you, of course)

That is not what we are talking about at all.

We are talking about flying pay (or we are supposed to be.....) and whether or not it is fair that it gets cut when you PVR.

As usual the anti-aircrew posse come out of the woodwork and hijack the thread with '0oh you aircrew think you are so special'. It is not about that at all.

As you say I am out of it now earning my squillions, and fortunately I didnt have to PVR, but a considerable amount of the salary I earned for all of those years and paid tax on was non-pensionable........and that was not right.

[Al R]

Moosemaster said: .. qualified aircrew have already displayed the qualities which many employers seek, rather than groundcrew who, although they may possess the skills, have not necessarily displayed or used them in a work environment, nor has the service provided them the training in order to "hone" such skills.

:confused:

That is such a bizarre and random thing to say.

Tester said: but a considerable amount of the salary I earned for all of those years and paid tax on was non-pensionable........and that was not right.

Stop whinging man :ok:! You may not like it, but its perfectly legal.

Moosie again: In the eyes of a normal employer, man-management and project management can be taught, easily. The ability to think outside the box cannot. Self motivation cannot be taught. Self discipline can be taught, but why bother when applicant A has already proved they have it. That just erodes profit margins.

As a former employer and company director, I would disagree but hey.. I wasn't worthy enough to even make groundcrew coffee, so what would I know? :{

[Jayand]

The point I was trying to make was that other trades and in particular groundcrew trades could well be offered some sort of retention incentive like Aircrew, this might (doubt it) stop some of the rush to the exit gates like Aircrew flying pay is meant to do for the flying types.
The reason the service might benefit from this is that groundies at the moment are in huge demand outside in civvy street and in many cases they can double their wages for half the crap! keeping experienced men with those kinds of offers is always going to be a tough ask.
Pilots aside (who need to do their hours first anyway) Aircrew aren't IMHO nearly as employable as a good experienced groundie, what are they going to do? Mr Jobcenter man I used to be a loadie what can you offer me? I used to track submarines can you get me a job? etc etc most of these people will have to take a change of direction as there simply aren't many direct equivalents in civvy street.
Yes they might have good skills in management, self motivation, self discilpline etc etc, so will all the good Snco's Nco's Jt's and many experienced Sac's.
The thing that most impresses potential employers is experience, and that is something that you can't teach at cranwell, something that you won't get along with your brevet!
Moose I may concede you a small point on the possible perception that Aircrew have better skills, but I would still wager experienced groundies leaving will have better chances of employment than many non pilot aircrew.
And for precisely that reason the powers that be should consider some sort of incentive/retention scheme for Groundcrew before it is too late, oh yes and they had better make it a good one too for it to work.

[CrazyMonkey]

I personally see flying pay as a reward for being very capable but prejudiced for slower promotion.

For instance, an admin sec officer will get 3 tours under his/her shiny belt before a fast jet pilot reaches the front line. This, combined with the fact that aircrew are a more competitive and capable group, makes promotion to senior rank in the same timescale very unlikely. So flying pay compensates a little for this.

I know that this is not the official purpose of flying pay but that's the way it is. Aircrew flt lts, on the same pay as a blunty sqn ldr, will not consider a sqn ldr blunty to have any rank kudos whatsover as he/she would respect in an aircrew sqn ldr. I don't mean to offend...it's just a fact.

[Jayand]

Would that be the same way that a Real Sgt Views a "plastic" NCA Sgt???
Crazy monkey you are a crazy man! just because someone elses system might be quicker at promotion than yours doesn't make yours any more worthwhile I am afraid:ugh:
Just a fact? only in your head and the egotistical planet you live on.

[mad eng]

number-cruncher,

Same boat as you mate but 21 years under my belt, loosing a bit more than 3 quid a day!!
Hoped this thread would be full of ways of getting that money back but sadly it's another reflection of where we are as a service, reduced to infighting, backstabbing, petty mud slinging and pointless willy waggling. I don't give two hoots if I am superior or inferior to anyone else out there or if someone gets more or less than me, I just want to be respected and valued for the role I play in the, once great, Royal Air Force. It seems that because few of us feel that way we have developed a bully culture where putting others down makes us feel better about ourselves. Subsequently, now, we look for personal attacks in all that is said and think the worst.
Perhaps it IS time to go and watch the service self destruct from outside. If it makes someone feel superior by taking half my flying pay then so be it, I will make it up soon enough. I just hope it goes towards some useful kit for everyone left in dangerous places. (I would hate someone to fall off a perfectly good chair in Whitehall and injure themselves when my flying pay could have bought them a shiney new one.)

Yep..... time to go

Not bitter.......... just twisted

[mad eng]

I guess I'm just saying.......

"Why do we feel the need to have a pop at anyone and everyone?"

Banter.......bring it on, but some of these guys actually take it seriously.
If all aircrew are t*ssers, groundcrew w*nkers, shineys plebs and everyone else not worth a mention then where are all the good guys I joined up with?
We can all take the p*ss out of each other but it seems we have forgotten when to stop.

Please don't think I have gone soft on movers after my tree hugging tonight........I still hate them more than route queens, fast jet pukes and snowdrops..........

Sorry guys, told you.....twisted!!

time for bed

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

""plastic" NCA Sgt???"

Not heard that for such a long time but you can almost hear the envy................twit :p

[davejb]

Mad Eng has hit the nail firmly on its head,
there's no need to have a pop at anyone else - it's a sign of insecurity. You think somebody else is getting some sort of unfair advantage? Fair enough, change trade and gain the advantage for yourself.

Many will exit with highly rated skills - 'being able to make a (sensible) decision quickly, without a committee' for example, 'willing to accept responsibility' is another.

Dave
(PVR exit class of 2000!)

[Jayand]

""plastic" NCA Sgt???"

Not heard that for such a long time but you can almost hear the envy................twit :p
Envy! what envy? you don't know what I do for a living or my rank! never assume Seldom:=

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

I dont need to know your rank or job title...................:p

[Jayand]

You can buy a new mirror but the reflection never changes!

[moosemaster]

moosemaster - your post is just generally insulting to the incredibly resourceful, capable and vastly broad-skilled backbone of the ground Trades I have had the pleasure to work with. I take it you have never worked with Caterers, Suppliers, MTDs, Adminers etc.


man-management and project management can be taught, easily. The ability to think outside the box cannot. Self motivation cannot be taught. Self discipline can be taught, but why bother when applicant A has already proved they have it.

I don't know whether you equate 'proving it' to being NCA over NCO. I also don't know whether you equate the incredibly tightly regulated world of aircraft operations to the far less rigid and creative world of ground Trades, but the latitude, breadth of thought and downright low cunning I've had the pleasure of witnessing over the years are beyond reproach. These people perform minor miracles on a daily basis until it becomes the accepted norm. You evidently have no concept of the breadth of knowledge and experience needed to be a good NCO.

I see we have resorted to mud-slinging.

You may have noticed the text BEFORE the part you quoted.

In the eyes of a normal employer...

but why let what I actually said get in the way of a good rant eh?

You may also have missed the subsequent post.

Re-reading the post it sounds as if I am dissing groundcrew.

I am not.

Knowing both sides of the fence as I do, I reckon it should be possible for all service leavers to increase their earnings.

I was merely stating that it might easier for an aircrew mate to do so by changing direction, whereas a groundcrew mate may be able to increase earnings while remaining within the same field.

Nothing more, nothing less.

But again, let's ignore the facts and have a good old dig.:}

In reply to your last paragraph, I actually equate "proving it" to having been successfully employed within HM Forces, regardless of trade. I have worked with many ground trades over the years and found the majority to be extremely competent and resourceful. Traits which I'm certain employers look for and appreciate and the reason why I think every service leaver should be able to find decent employment in the civvy world. My statement about choosing someone who has "proved it" was referring to a service leaver over a civilian. It was not intended any other way.

It's not as much what I say, but how your mind interprets it, and you seem to have a few insecurites there my friend.

You evidently have no concept of the breadth of knowledge and experience needed to be a good NCO

I bow to your obvious superiority Mr C :hmm:

Jayand, I think we may be on the same page here.

I fully agree that groundies will probably find it easier to get employment within their chosen fields, and that remaining within your personal RAF field may not prove viable in civvy street for you.

I would re-iterate that service life will have provided you with enough tools to allow you to change direction if you choose to do so.

Trust me, there are opportunities out there, if you can find them.

[sisemen]

but pen-pushers have decided

....and soooo wrong! Just have a look at the MOD directory and see which branch heads up the various departments - particularly the department which sorts out flying pay.

This may come as a HUGE surprise to many - but it's your own branch that continues to f**k you over. It's all about reaching for that extra star you see (and at some point they were the fg off/flt lt/sqn ldr mate in the crew room).

[lokiukuk]

What a Nob!!!

[umbrella1]

I always thought specialist pay was because you were a specialist and sometimes doing a potentially dangerous job- or more dangerous than sitting at your desk inputting into PPrune... but here is the reg!:

06.0103. SP is paid at Departmental discretion (with the endorsement of the Armed Forces’ Pay Review Body (AFPRB)) to specific groups within the Armed Forces to assist with specific recruitment or retention requirements. It is paid in addition to the military salary. In order to achieve cost-effectiveness and appropriate targeting, the following principles apply:

a. All forms of SP (including any Reserve Band payments) cease on promotion to OF7[1] (http://www.pprune.org/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=4308223&noquote=1#_ftn1).

b. SP rates can both increase and decrease.

c. SP can be withdrawn when the requirement for the payment ceases to exist. Similarly, new forms of SP can be introduced subject to the requirements of the Services.

d. In the event of a requirement to decrease or withdraw SP, every attempt will be made to give 12 months notice to all affected recipients.

e. SP is subject to Income Tax and National Insurance, but is not pensionable.

f. Where there are different levels of SP dependent on rank, SP entitlement is determined by the paid rank:

(1) Where an individual is in receipt of Substitution Pay (SUPA) for a higher rank, they are to retain the SP applicable to their substantive rank.

(2) Where an individual holds acting paid rank they will be paid the SP applicable to that rank.

g. Where reckonable[2] (http://www.pprune.org/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=4308223&noquote=1#_ftn2) service is counted towards progression along the respective SP scales, for RAF personnel recruited on or after 6 April 2005 it is to be counted from date of enlistment. For RAF personnel recruited prior to this date, reckonable service is from age 18 or date of enlistment, whichever the later. In the case of attendance-based Reserve personnel, an individual’s balance will be credited for actual days attended and, at the end of each Reserve Year, the individual’s SP record will be credited with the remaining number of days on which the individual was available for service and qualified for SP in that year.

h. Payment of SP and any Reserve Band SP will be suspended for periods when pay is not in issue (e.g. unpaid leave). Such time will not count towards progression to the next level of SP nor will it count against the clock as part of the Reserve Band countdown period.

i. To receive SP, entitled personnel must be assigned to a SP or SP-Related post (as defined at 06.0108 – 06.0110 (http://www.pprune.org/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=4308223&noquote=1#para060108)), and meet all the qualification criteria specified for each form of SP as covered in 06.0124 – 06.0129 (http://www.pprune.org/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=4308223&noquote=1#para060124), further amplified where appropriate in the individual SP sections, except for the payment of CTB for which specific qualification requirements are detailed in the respective SP sections. To receive Reserve Band payments all criteria, less the occupation of an SP or SP-Related post, must be met.

j. Entitlement to SP will cease from the date an individual is declared professionally unsuitable for the specialist duties.

k. Entitlement to SP on a change of Branch or Trade is set out on Chapter 3 Section 10 (http://www.pprune.org/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=4308223&noquote=1#Chap3Sect10).

l. Entitlement to SP will reduce on approval of an application for Premature Release in accordance with 06.0116 (http://www.pprune.org/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=4308223&noquote=1#para060116) and is affected when an individual is medically downgraded in accordance with 06.0121 – 06.0122 (http://www.pprune.org/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=4308223&noquote=1#para060121).

[1] (http://www.pprune.org/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=4308223&noquote=1#_ftnref1) In some cases it ceases at an earlier rank – see subject sections for specific cessation details.

[2] (http://www.pprune.org/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=4308223&noquote=1#_ftnref2) i.e. total reckonable service, as opposed to qualifying service in a SP post.

Well I never...........