New Flying pay review? Or old news rehashed?

[VinRouge]

Front line troops could face pay cut on return home - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/8539018/Front-line-troops-could-face-pay-cut-on-return-home.html)

An internal Ministry of Defence document obtained by this newspaper reveals that all specialist pay across the Armed Forces is to undergo a thorough review.
As a result it is possible that fighter pilots earning a maximum extra of £60 a day or £21,900 a year could face having their wages reduced once they finish operational flying.
Similarly submariners patrolling off the Libyan coast may face a cut to their maximum £15,000 a year extra that recognises the unique skills and dangers they face.
MoD sources said that while it is possible cuts to these supplements could be made it is more likely that servicemen who are being paid to perform tasks that they no longer execute will be the first to see payments axed.
A measure has already been put forward to cut the £2,000 a year ‘Para Pay’ for members of The Parachute Regiment and airborne forces in a move that has caused uproar after it was disclosed in the Telegraph yesterday.


Gen Lord Dannatt, former head of the Army, warned that the Government would “tinker with morale at our peril” in pay cuts.
Gen Sir Mike Jackson, who also lead the Army, added: “I would personally urge caution to the bean counters seeking their money not to erode the extraordinary fighting spirit of airborne forces.”
An internal MoD paper reveals that the specialist pay cuts are likely to be much more widespread across all three Services.
Under a Defence Internal Brief paper MoD chiefs state that “each category of Specialist Pay will be reviewed and revalidated in 2011”.
The paper, titled Changes to Service Personnel Allowances, is part of a drive outlined in the defence review to recoup £250 million out of the £880 million paid in annual allowances.
“It is accepted that these changes will be unpopular and that some of them may require adjustments to lifestyle, but they are a necessary part of the Department’s contribution to the overall Government’s programme to reduce the UK deficit,” the paper said.
MoD sources said that “nothing is being ruled in and nothing is being ruled out” in terms of cuts to be made.
Under current regulations once a person leaves a post, such as a pilot taking up a desk job, he will retain his specialist pay at 100 per cent for three years gradually dropping to 25 per cent then ceasing after six years. The time span in which the specialist pay is continued could be drastically shortened, defence sources have said.
The independent Armed Forces Pay Review Body is carrying out the re-evaluation and will report to ministers later this year.
But speculation and anger is growing over pay cuts in the Armed Forces that have already suffered a two-year wage freeze.
“Specialist pay goes to the heart of motivation and morale,” said a senior officer. “If you want a damn near mutiny in the Armed Forces then targeting specialist pay is going to light the blue touch paper.
“It is petty, vindictive and puerile and the Government should look elsewhere for its cuts.”
Jim Murphy, the shadow defence secretary, said: “Increasingly it is those prepared to fight for our country who are suffering from this Government’s decision to cut the deficit too far and too fast.”
A MOD spokesman said: “While the independent Armed Forces Pay Review Body is undertaking a review of allowances, idle speculation of this sort can be very damaging to the morale of Armed Forces”.


Is this the allowances package review rehashed in a new story? Or is there an ACTUAL review going on into specialist pay going at the moment?

They must know that leaks like this are pretty dire for morale; furthermore, if they axe FP the minute you walk out of a flying job, who is going to put themselves for promotion bearing in mind that promotion now will most probably yield a pretty hefty pay CUT for more responsibility and less fun?
:ugh:

At best, the telegraph is worrying individuals unnecessarily, at worst, we are about to see a pretty major head for the exits....

[sitigeltfel]

Meanwhile, Cameron gives away hundreds of millions of taxpayers hard earned wages to countries that can find the cash to develop, manufacture and deploy nuclear weapons.

[Pontius Navigator]

With the reduction in the aircrew cadre there won't be much saving by removing flying pay from those remaining.

[ShyTorque]

There is seldom any good news for those now serving. Glad I left when I did.

Flying pay has been reviewed before, at least twice during my RAF time.

Removal of flying pay where aircrew are removed from a flying position through no fault of their own would be a severe blow, a double whammy in fact.

[BEagle]

It's not just Specialist Pay or Flying Pay; I hear a whisper that those military air-traffickers drafted in to police the Stalinist No-Fly Zone overhead the sweaty oafs running, jumping, splashing about and throwing things at the so-called London Olympics are very interested in the pay scales enjoyed by their civil colleagues.....:hmm:

[chinook240]

Is this the allowances package review rehashed in a new story? Or is there an ACTUAL review going on into specialist pay going at the moment?

Thread started 4 Dec 10: http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/435804-25-cut-allowances.html

Quotes the Torygraph then:

Qualified aeroplane and helicopter pilots, as well as specialist aircrew, can earn up to an extra £40 a day on top of their salaries even if their job does not involve flying.
Under the generous allowances scheme pilots are still paid the full "flying pay" for three years once they have left a "flying job".
The rate of specialist pay reduces to 75 per cent in the fourth year, 50 per cent in the fifth, 25 per cent in the sixth and ceases in the seventh. It is the same principle for all other recipients of specialist pay in all services.
It is understood that the Chancellor, George Osborne was said to be "staggered" to learn that extra pay annually worth millions of pounds was paid to pilots who do not fly and submariners who no longer serve at sea.

[Clearedtoroll]

This may be a non-story. The article suggests the AFPRB is carrying out the review, as they do on a rolling basis every few years for specialist pay. As they are one of the genuinely independent bodies, any recommendations for changes are likely to be relatively sensible. That doesn't mean the government has to implement them, but I don't think we are likely to see a shafting - in that area at least!

[minigundiplomat]

SP is now 'retention pay' according to Air Manning. Certainly, removing it from those who PVR supports the argument.

Then, if you are 'fortunate' to find yourself in a ground tour, and your SP is cut, the MOD feels it no longer needs to retain you.

Q. Does this mean RoS no longer apply?

Anyway, it comes down to to how much of the nutella sandwich you can stomach before PVRing!

[MrBernoulli]

Nutella? Ah, isn't spreadable squirrel **** a marvelous thing?;)

[stark12]

Meanwhile, Cameron gives away hundreds of millions of taxpayers hard earned wages to countries that can find the cash to develop, manufacture and deploy nuclear weapons.

And the RAF waste ridiculous amounts on the glorified flying club that is the Reds!

[Happy Dayz]

Apparently funding the reds is a tiny part of the defence budget, however the revenue that they actually bring into the country far out-ways the cost. Apparently!

[stark12]

Apparently there is a man in (yet) another red suit that leaves presents under millions of christmas trees each year, apparently!!

[Talk Reaction]

It would be nice if someone high up pointed out to the press and MOD if needed, that FP (and SP) is not an "allowance" and question whether BA pays it's pilots the same as it's admin clerks??? It's ridiculous that we still have one archaic pay scheme and a plethora of extra pay!

[Pelikanpete]

Talk Reaction, you don't work for a rival airline - you're in the military. There may be a crossover of skill but that's where is ends. Your attitude comes across as a little arrogant.

The BA comparison is only relevant when the forces want to retain people who might otherwise leave for the civi sector. In view of the lack of jobs out there and the redundancies in the forces there seems little reason to pay a retention incentive. It's also a flawed comparison when BA do in fact pay some of their admin staff very favourably and there are many parts of the Armed Forces where people work in far more dangerous and/or uncomfortable roles that require more commitment and at least equivalent levels of training/ability but they don't ever receive any extra pay (ie. nearly all combat arm units in the Army).

That said I'm not suggesting that everyone should be reduced to the same cr@p pay and share the poor moral but in the current climate those not in role will have their work cut out arguing why they deserve the extra pay and unfavourable comparisons might be drawn that question pay levels for those in role as well.

[Tourist]

Pelikan

"at least equivalent levels of training/ability but they don't ever receive any extra pay (ie. nearly all combat arm units in the Army)."

PC b@llocks mate.

More dangerous, definately.

Requiring more commitment, arguably.

More training/ability, what planet are you on?

The only comparable training/ability would be special forces, and they are paid more than aircrew.

Re the lack of jobs, actually there is massive recruiting drive worldwide at the moment including BA who specifically want military pilots, so any military aircrew mate can get a job if he wants.

[davejb]

Talk Reaction, you don't work for a rival airline - you're in the military

Quite right, and to continue the point 'where the differences between clerical and operational staff are even more pronounced".

Tourist is bang on, you aren't.

[Clearedtoroll]

I didn't want a rent and food rise, but equally we don't really want the assessment of quartering and food charges confused with the assessment of pay.

The method of assessing these charges is at least objective; if quarter and food charges hadn't gone up in line with civvy street, it would be a benefit that could be exploited by the government: '"Look we did our brave boys a favour!". It would confuse the real issue which is a pay cut. Also, to compensate for a real-terms pay cut by being generous with charges isn't really fair on those who don't live in etc etc...

What will be interesting is what pay rise the AFPRB recommends several years from now when they are finally able to do so again. Since it relates closely to private sector pay - that is still rising - I would imagine it could be quite sizeable.

That said, getting shafted because Brown couldn't run a piggy bank is still annoying :ugh:

[SirToppamHat]

To my way of thinking, the AFPRB no longer has any relevance. Year after year they have made recommendations that have been accepted not because the MoD actually believes in the process, but because they know in advance what will be acceptable to our Lords and Masters. How else would you explain a pay freeze at a time when the military is so widely deployed and so stretched?

[Kreuger flap]

BA who specifically want military pilots, so any military aircrew mate can get a job if he wants.

Not so with BA. I know of at least two AT Captains that have been given the "PFO" letter by BA.

[Rector16]

Sorry to butt into the civ/mil debate (which I was enjoying), but I'd like to have a go at answering the original question with some facts.

Most of this is old news - the figures being quoted (6 years to lose FP) are the old deal. The Pay & Allowances Review knocked that on the head in Spring. The new deal is 2 years not in a Flying Related job at 100% and you lose 50% in Year 3 then 100% in Year 4.

Whilst this is pretty galling if you're sent to 2 consecutive tours away from a Flying Related job, you'd have to be trying pretty hard to achieve this. So the reality is that almost everyone currently in receipt of FP is staying on 100% at the moment.

Will it stay that way until Christmas? I wouldn't bet my Flying Pay on it (but then, since I'm not in a Flying Related job at the mo; I guess that I sort of am!!):(

[Pelikanpete]

I'm desperately trying to avoid the temptation to troll here (and annoy the many good guys) but a couple of you are really asking to have your cages rattled. It may surprise Tourist and Talk Reaction but in the other services being on the ground does not automatically make you admin staff! I put your attitude down to cultural issues with your service because in the Army, if you are flying people around, you are generally thought of as being in a support role - not a combat role (regardless of whether the AAC are included as a combat arm or not).

Tourist you have obviously spent too much time in the mess with your mates telling each other how great you all are - the creme de la creme. Yes, training aircrew is expensive and takes a long time and not everyone has the aptitude. However, outside the cockpit your skills and abilities are less relied on. In many of the roles of the other services you are required to be far more of a jack of all trades but not less able or skilled. You have to be proficient in many technical and non-technical skill sets and generally be more versatile. If you sum it all up I think there are non-flying roles that require a greater level of over all ability. The handful of people i know who transferred units and successfully went on to rotary where far from being the highly talented people you are talking about - some were regarded as less able officers and not heading for a full career but are now in receipt of extra pay and a regular commission. Don't forget I've also been flown around by you guys (including the Merlin and Puma fleet extensively)and whilst many of you are very good at your jobs, some of you are suffering delusions of grandeur.

I hope you all keep your extra pay with no further reductions but for some of you please loose the arrogant and superior attitude that seems to go with it.

[Sand4Gold]

'A Lion does not concern himself with the opinions of the Sheep' - Lionel Spearman II

[Grabbers]

'Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand.' - Homer Simpson.

[cazatou]

Pelikanpete

I would just point out that there is no such thing as an "Aircrew" branch in the RAF. ALL Aircrew are "General Duties Branch". To put it simply, you can place a GD Branch Officer in an Admin job - but you can't put an Admin Branch Officer in a Flying Post.

[VinRouge]

ArNot so caz; the gd(p) branch was turned into fly(p) at around the same time jpa came in to play. Wing commander aircrew and above are rebranched to general duties on promotion to that rank as far as I understand it.

[minigundiplomat]

Caz,

NCA are an 'aircrew' branch. Your statement was not entirely correct.

[SaddamsLoveChild]

MGD - I think you will find that NCA is a trade or specialisation and that you serve on tours. Officers serve in a Branch, NCA dont, or has it changed that much in 13 years since I left it for a Branch Appointment

[minigundiplomat]

MGD - I think you will find that NCA is a trade or specialisation and that you serve on tours. Officers serve in a Branch, NCA dont, or has it changed that much in 13 years since I left it for a Branch Appointment



NCA is an aircrew branch, containing specific trades/specialisations such as Flight Eng/Crewman etc. Like everyone else, NCA serve on tours, but this is an admin related issue, as 99% of tours are flying tours, with postings often to the hangar next door.

[Jumping_Jack]

My understanding is that most GD(P) don't have the aptitude for admin jobs... :E

[Talk Reaction]

Pelikanpete

I think you've missed the point entirely, it must be the rarefied air up on your pedestal.....

You are not concerned about lawyers or doctors or dentists being paid on a different scale to reflect their professional skills, yet aren't they also in the military???? I'm afraid in the modern world you can't hope to train and retain highly qualified staff if you pay them the same as relatively unqualified staff. That is why flying pay is substantial, the issue I raised is calling it an allowance which rightly gets the tax paying public's backs up, and they want it reduced or withdrawn if said chap is on a ground tour.

Think on this as well, you get promoted= more ground tours= less money= why get promoted???? Honestly not even Gerald Ratner would pay his most able managers less than his average ones and hope to keep them. Now, if you're as wise as you'd like to think you must be able to realize that if flying pay is substantially cut, there will be an exodus of experienced aircrew (as they're the ones who pull most of the ground tours) and that will permanently break the service.

A final thought (okay a 'rise') if you have such a downer on aircrew why are you reading an aircrew forum???

[ZH875]

A final thought (okay a 'rise') if you have such a downer on aircrew why are you reading an aircrew forum???

Military Aircrew A forum for the professionals who fly the non-civilian hardware, and the backroom boys and girls without whom nothing would leave the ground. Army, Navy and Airforces of the World, all equally welcome here.


:ugh:

[Talk Reaction]

I take your point, mine wasn't about exclusion. Just why would you be here just to have a downer on aircrew?? I think it that context it stands.

[Pelikanpete]

I don't have a downer on aircrew. Many of my mates are aircrew, my dad is an ex 13 Sqn pilot and I hold a CPL/IR myself. In fact I think the vast majority of aircrew from all three services are top guys. The problem I had was that a couple of you (I suspect young ones) are talking in a manner that I consider spoilt, arrogant and full of self importance and it irked me. Long may it continue that those of you with transferable skills are paid a retention bonus. A humbler attitude might be to consider yourselves lucky now and hopeful that it will continue. As long as there is sufficient demand for you in the civi sector fingers crossed it will. However, if it's not just for retention but is because you are all considered to be worth extra pay due to your amazing abilities or the danger of the role then there is an argument that many other roles should also get paid more.

Professionally qualified officers such as doctors, dentists etc. usually skip a few ranks to get extra pay because they turn up trained and qualified in their role and frequently have a good deal of experience already (and in most cases a fat student loan/debt). Since they have usually paid to train themselves (doctors and dentists initial training is for 5 years) it's hardly surprising that they get paid extra. Military aircrew join up unqualified and once trained many have experience and qualifications that are not always directly transferable to the civi sector. As for ground based administrators - surely you realise that they can also leave for better paid civi jobs and if in sufficient numbers that might also cause a serious problem for the services.

[Justanopinion]

As for ground based administrators - surely you realise that they can also leave for better paid civi jobs and if in sufficient numbers that might also cause a serious problem for the services.

True - but it costs about £4.99 to train them.

[I'm Off!]

And qualifications/experience on JPA are not exactly clamoured for outside...

[Whenurhappy]

I am in a ground branch (though for not much longer) and although initial training (13 weeks, IIRC) was probably money not well spent, over the years the CPD I have received will have cost the Exchequer a fat sum of money - staff college, fellowship, secondment - all costs money. As a result, coupled with a very varied range of appiontments here and abroad, as well as a suite of operational deployments, I can talk (and write) bolleaux about Air Power until the cows come home.

It is regret that the Wg Cdr GD Branch business was recently abolished. I was in a multi-disciplinary team in town a couple of years ago. There were 7 Wg Cdrs from different branches; only 2 were aircrew, yet between us we produced cogent arguments on the future of air power, on novel systesm etc, briefing at Chiefs of Staff and Ministerial level. HAving that ability to theorise about air power is not the same as having the hand/eye coordination to operate an aircraft or have the memory to recall the JPT at cruise (or whatever). Unfortuantely, with the huge desire to retain Flying Pay, many posts, in my opinion, have been re-rated 'flying related', excluding a large pool of talented, expereinced (but non-aircrew) officers from a range of policy posts at Command and in MB.

WP

[Really annoyed]

I can talk (and write)

But you can't spell. 4 Spelling mistakes.:ugh:

appiontments should be appointments.
systesm should be system.
Unfortuantely should be Unfortunately.
expereinced should be experienced.


As for ground based administrators

Where else are you going to be? Does the RAF have flying administrators?

[Al-Berr]

I guess a navigator could be classed as a flying administrator! :D

[Tourist]

"with the huge desire to retain Flying Pay, many posts, in my opinion, have been re-rated 'flying related', excluding a large pool of talented, expereinced (but non-aircrew) officers from a range of policy posts at Command and in MB."

Can I just say, from the bottom of my heart.

Good.

So not all the changes are bad.

[Biggus]

Flying administrator...


Nimrod MR2 AEO? (both of which no longer exist!)









Reference the comment about Flying related posts in MOD excluding talented non aircrew from these jobs....

1) Surely, even with the demise of several flying Sqns, there aren't enough senior officer aircrew to replace all the non flying branches in MOD posts (in the example quoted another 5 aircrew Wg Cdrs would have to be found for one commitee alone!)

2) Unless they are being made redundant, and their branches down sized, these talented non-aircrew senior officers still have to be found gainful employment somewhere....