VeRR- have you experience of it?

[Thereismore]

Hello all,

I am looking at a possible SO2 engagement under VeRR having been approached on LinkedIn and would value your experience if you have been or currently are working in a role under these reserve terms.

I had not been interested in reserve work in the past due to the ‘all or nothing’ options and a few days a week under these terms might fit. Trying to find the specifics of the TCoS online has proved rather fruitless and I am awaiting response from Cranwell to my enquiries.
One of my queries is about pay as it appears that the pro-rata rate may be based on a (reserve) SO2 salary /365- making the daily rate approx £150. If so, this would be highly unattactive and way below what you would expect to attract for the cognitive capacity and skills demanded by the role. It would be very challenging to attract people into a part time role at this rate.

Any insights appreciated.

[Wensleydale]

..although it is around the main salary of a step I-step 2 full time squadron leader I believe. http://www.armedforces.co.uk/rafpayscales.php#.XHuLA_Z2uUk Welcome to military pay scales!

[PostMeHappy]

I am on VeRR as part of the BSG project run at some of our largest bases, having just left regular Service at 55.

For me the salary isn’t the attraction, more keeping in touch with what I had been doing for some 30 years along with most of my mates as well as keeping the old grey cells ticking over.

Whilst I can always say ‘no’ to any task given under VeRR, the Service will expect you to provide value in your input and I find it a happy balance, although with the current gapping I could easily find work to fill 5 days a week !!!

But it looks like your offer is a more ‘fixed’ working arrangement, so my experience may not strictly read across....good luck !!

[Chris Kebab]

Just looked at the current VeRR vacancies page https://www.raf.mod.uk/ftrs-ptvr-adc-verr/

Then spotted the final line "VeRR posts are usually created for a minimum of 10 and a maximum of 90 days per year".

Love the idea of either of those two particular SO2 posts currently listed as being capable of being undertaken effectively if only filled for those periods. They look pretty full-on to me, or are these VeRR posts "job share" with others over a full year?

[Thereismore]

Thank you for your views.

i was glad to see that there is at least an attempt at a flexible approach in engaging reserve experience and the proposal is very much along the lines ‘whatever / however we can make it work’ .

By the aounds of it, the salary equation appears about right at /365 for a daily rate which reduces a nominally acceptable salary rate to ....well... not so.

A change to making the pro-rata daily rate reflective of a 5 day working week ( which is how most of these roles are) would at least make these roles worth looking at if you are someone who is balancing a portfolio of income streams. There are plenty of us who left at sub 40 who can provide energy and value to staff roles and have flexibility to arrange our working regimes, however the rate would need to get somewhere close to opportunity cost, time and cognitive switch put into the role.

I’ll await formal responses though for now it appears that (sadly) this is not something that can attract someone like me who left at 38, has time flexibility and but has to ensure that it the income fairly compensated the energy.

[Wrathmonk]

Neither of the SO2 posts on that page are under VeRR terms - click on them and you will see they are FTRS (HC) [so full time]..

With the VeRR Scheme, as I understand it, once approved you sit on a 'waiting list' and if a job becomes available (perhaps back filling an OOA, filling a gapped post temporarily or filling a 'project' job) then it gets circulated to all those eligible. Maximum of 90 days per year (the year starts Apr 1) of which 9 days are paid leave. Not all the 'benefits' of the service are available to VeRR. It seems to me you are more a 'consultant' than a reservist!

[Chris Kebab]

...fair cop; looked at the post titles, went wibble wibble, had flashbacks to a particularly grim ground tour in MB and didn't click any further!

[Thereismore]

Neither of the SO2 posts on that page are under VeRR terms - click on them and you will see they are FTRS (HC) [so full time]..

With the VeRR Scheme, as I understand it, once approved you sit on a 'waiting list' and if a job becomes available (perhaps back filling an OOA, filling a gapped post temporarily or filling a 'project' job) then it gets circulated to all those eligible. Maximum of 90 days per year (the year starts Apr 1) of which 9 days are paid leave. Not all the 'benefits' of the service are available to VeRR. It seems to me you are more a 'consultant' than a reservist!

Yes, that is the 'deal' and I think it is a great step towards a more flexible approach at bringing in experienced people and extra capacity. The option for a short-'ish' or medium-term engagement is very much in line with how many of us work outside of the military and importantly it allows us to make this fit around our other commitments. The role I am in discussions about is SO2 and the preference is FTRS however it has been unfilled for 18 months and the augmentation of VeRR would not preclude the post being subsequently filled FT and retain the VeRR additional capacity.

Just the one snag... it isn't financially attractive enough.

[Wrathmonk]

particularly grim ground tour in MB

That doesn't narrow it down very much!

[Bing]

Neither of the SO2 posts on that page are under VeRR terms - click on them and you will see they are FTRS (HC) [so full time]..


Actually FTRS(FC) so you get pretty much all the benefits* etc. and full X-factor, so like being a regular but you can't get drafted somewhere else at short notice.

*I think there's something obscure you don't get with FC in certain circumstances.

[Thereismore]

I have the results of my research into the TCoS that are applied to VeRR engagements and wanted to share here so that others who are looking at this can take a view.

The SO2 staff post that was ‘in need’ has been gapped for 15 months and ‘all options’ were being investigated by the desk and the Dept head with the gap. In absence of a regular the preference was for FTRS however there was a genuine appetite to try and find solutions that would fit an individual’s commitment appetite; this is what attracted me.

Unfortunately it transpired that only a FTRS commitment would not jeopardise the post in the long run so a augmentation through VeRR was proposed.

Whilst a 2 day a week commitment for a number of weeks a year (30-45) would have worked the remuneration does not. At reserve (LC) payscales and abatement for number of years since leaving I would have been starting at OF3 starting annual salary equivalent of £47k.... BUT the pay is pro rata based on 365 working days a year equating to £130 a day, or £16 an hour.


For comparison - these rates are would be expected for entry level book keeping. A part time engagement for someone with the skills required of a key staff role would attract in the region of £50-80 equivalent hourly rate.


These terms will struggle to attract a mid- career individual with the skills and cognitive abilities required for such a role. At best you will get a full pension retiree who wants the socialisation and has the time. This is a shame because the service denies itself a pool of dynamic talent and there are many of us around who are part of the newer ways of working with multiple income streams and commitments.

Unfortunately I have retrenched back into my previous position; there is little that could attract me back into a service commitment because the structure has not evolved sufficiently from ‘weekend reserves’ or FTRS.

[BEagle]

Never has the expression "No bucks - no Buck Rogers" been more apposite!

[Thereismore]

Some further feedback (For anyone that cares!) During my conversations with the ‘desk’ that was looking to fill this vacancy (remember this was a short term fix contract for approx 12-18 months) I provided real world comparative examples of what such a job should be paying (they weren’t taken seriously, or rather no one could see how to change the system to fit reality). £500/ day is the current rate that such a post has to compete against - and unless they can raise it from the £150 offered it will forever fail to attract anyone except retirees. Flexible employment models are still a long way off in the MOD.

[Lima Juliet]

Mate, are you smoking the whackky baccy? How you could you pay an SO2 Reservist £500/day and then let them work 8 days a month and take home the same as a Regular does for working 22 days a month? There would be a riot!

I think you are trying to compare VERR and ADC to contract consultancy in the commercial sector - it isn’t the same. The whole idea is to offer roles/posts out to those that still want to serve, with a much reduced commitment, for a symbiotic relationship between the Service and the part-time retired workforce. If you want £500/day or much more then come knocking via the various outsourced contracts in MOD working for the likes of PWC, EY, KPMG, et al. They get paid those sorts of consultancy fees for fixed term projects/programmes.

Finally, as in commercial land, if you don’t like the rate that VERR/ADC pays then don’t do it...

[VinRouge]

Mate, are you smoking the whackky baccy? How you could you pay an SO2 Reservist £500/day and then let them work 8 days a month and take home the same as a Regular does for working 22 days a month? There would be a riot!

I think you are trying to compare VERR and ADC to contract consultancy in the commercial sector - it isn’t the same. The whole idea is to offer roles/posts out to those that still want to serve, with a much reduced commitment, for a symbiotic relationship between the Service and the part-time retired workforce. If you want £500/day or much more then come knocking via the various outsourced contracts in MOD working for the likes of PWC, EY, KPMG, et al. They get paid those sorts of consultancy fees for fixed term projects/programmes.

Finally, as in commercial land, if you don’t like the rate that VERR/ADC pays then don’t do it...
wouldn’t be a problem if service pay for regulars wasn’t so sh*te!

[Foghorn Leghorn]

Mate, are you smoking the whackky baccy? How you could you pay an SO2 Reservist £500/day and then let them work 8 days a month and take home the same as a Regular does for working 22 days a month? There would be a riot!

I think you are trying to compare VERR and ADC to contract consultancy in the commercial sector - it isn’t the same. The whole idea is to offer roles/posts out to those that still want to serve, with a much reduced commitment, for a symbiotic relationship between the Service and the part-time retired workforce. If you want £500/day or much more then come knocking via the various outsourced contracts in MOD working for the likes of PWC, EY, KPMG, et al. They get paid those sorts of consultancy fees for fixed term projects/programmes.

Finally, as in commercial land, if you don’t like the rate that VERR/ADC pays then don’t do it...


LJ, with respect, the pay is particularly poor if you want high quality individuals with experience to come back in to the Service under a reservist scheme. Whilst I agree, circa £500 per day is not feasible, the pay per day for reservists (dependant upon which reservist scheme you come back in on) when compared to similar jobs in the civilian profession, such as a pilot, is poor.

[Lima Juliet]

wouldn’t be a problem if service pay for regulars wasn’t so sh*te!

It’s not “sh*te” but then again you don’t value the pension and think that’s all a fiddle!!!

[Lima Juliet]

LJ, with respect, the pay is particularly poor if you want high quality individuals with experience to come back in to the Service under a reservist scheme. Whilst I agree, circa £500 per day is not feasible, the pay per day for reservists (dependant upon which reservist scheme you come back in on) when compared to similar jobs in the civilian profession, such as a pilot, is poor.

We haven’t got enough flying to go around for the Regulars as it is, so why would you want heaps of Reservists coming back to earn 3-4 times as much per day and take the flying? Especially, for the more complex aircraft that require you to remain competent as well as current. The flying is one of the main reasons join up and hang around - when you start to get less than 200-250/year then the idea of Reservist Aircrew (even if paid the same) just wouldn’t make sense. So to pay them more than their Regular counterparts for that pleasure would make even less sense.

[Easy Street]

We haven’t got enough flying to go around for the Regulars as it is. [...] The flying is one of the main reasons join up and hang around - when you start to get less than 200-250/year then the idea of Reservist Aircrew (even if paid the same) just wouldn’t make sense

That doesn’t really fit with the notion of a ‘next generation Air Force’ IMHO. 20-25hrs per month was the benchmark twenty years or so ago, when a sim was something you did to practice instrument flying or emergencies and not much else. The economics of the UK’s F35 commitment were predicated on more or less a 50:50 blend of live and synthetic training (it may even have favoured synthetic but I can’t be sure of the number). And OPSEC more or less mandates a lot of tactical training to be done in the sim. If any of their airships are considering the low flying rate to be a retention issue then I’d suggest that instead of flying 100-125 hours per year more than needed, they add the cost of 1 flying hour to regular pilot salaries and use the engineering capacity to grow the number (regular or reserve) of pilots to help make the exercise and deployment plot more sustainable at the individual level.

[Lima Juliet]

Easy Street

Hmmm, if you truly believe that then I suspect that we are doomed. People don’t join up to fly sims and it won’t matter what you pay - they will join up, fly a couple of tours and leave. We have a hard enough job dragging people to staff for 2-3 years, but if they hardly ever fly (apart from sims) then the excitement factor will quickly go.

[VinRouge]

It’s not “sh*te” but then again you don’t value the pension and think that’s all a fiddle!!!
sorry, 10 years, no pay rise. The pay was just about adequate before this.

The pay simply does not compare against similar civilian roles, especially bearing in mind equivalent responsibility. But keep smoking that crack pipe and telling yourself “it isn’t so!”
Personal experience, gross pay up 20k just by leaving and moving to a similar role. That’s entry level pay.

[Typhoondriver]

We haven’t got enough flying to go around for the Regulars as it is, so why would you want heaps of Reservists coming back to earn 3-4 times as much per day and take the flying

Lima Juliet - I'm rather fascinated by your statement above and I'm left wondering what Service background has led you to form this opinion. Perhaps I may offer a 'hypothetical' set of circumstances that might allow you to reconsider:-

Imagine an RAF fleet that from a Manning* perspective, is completely and utterly broken.
Imagine a fleet that through a combination of poor management, poor support and poor planning over a 10 year period, has reached the point where the 'rot' has well and truly taken hold.
Imagine a fleet where peacetime duties result in a routine 60hr working week, often surging to beyond 80hrs per week.
Imagine a fleet where the 1st tourist JPs (many of whom have spent over 8 years stagnating in a failed training system), are already plotting their escape plan, and no longer chat about QFI/QWI options at the end of their 1st tour; rather, discuss the merits of budget vs established airline.
Imagine a fleet that continues to routinely haemorrhage the 'experienced' aircrew who no longer feel able to put up with the unjust day-to-day working demands.
Imagine a fleet that has reduced beyond critical mass; that can no longer train sufficient people to make up for the exodus, having prioritised the training of foreign aircrew ahead of their own.
Imagine a fleet that has no end in sight to the 'pain', where the only certainty being that things will get a lot worse, before they get any better.
Imagine a fleet where the hierarchy seem focussed on hiding reality, prioritising their own career ambitions over what should otherwise be considered rather simple manning and welfare decisions.


If these hypothetical circumstances were ever to exist, I'm sure there might be a very good case to bring back 'heaps of Reservists', especially if they were highly capable aviators, with 1000's of hrs on type, having previously held extensive supervisory and instructional qualifications.

But I'm afraid that if you're expecting these aircrew to work in a high risk, demanding environment for a post tax monetary reward equating to approx £100 per day ( £9 per hour), then it is you who has been smoking the 'Devil's Lettuce'.

The MOD has at it's disposal, a tool to plug systemic Manning shortfalls across a wide variety of ground and airborne disciplines; it's called the 'financial lever'. Until the MOD is able to pay a 'fair day's wage, for a fair day's work' , then they will continue to suffer significant manpower shortfalls.

As a far wiser poster mentioned above, it all comes down to a very simple concept. 'No Bucks, no Buck Rogers'.

* NB - Official Manning position - 'it's all fine, there's nothing to see here, move along'.

* PS - I'm sure the comments above might be apt for a number of different current aircraft types.

[radar101]

Personal experience, gross pay up 20k just by leaving and moving to a similar role. That’s entry level pay.

And how does the pension compare? When I worked with people considering leaving the RAF I found that a lot had not factored in the cost of a replacement pension.

[Lima Juliet]

Typhoondriver

The Armageddon that you describe is hardly going to be sorted by a handful of part-time Reserves, that get paid 2-3 times the daily rate that their Regular counterparts get, with no deployments (unless they want to) and are taking what precious little flying there is to stay competent/recent/current, is it? What you describe can only really be squared away through a number of things:

1. Prioritise the OpCon for output.
2. Get more people through MFTS.
3. Reduce the workload so that the ‘quality of life’ improves.
4. Make other ‘quality of life’ improvements (there are lots for - accommodation, promotion opportunity, trusting people (rather than constant audit), bring back admin support on Sqns, guarantees of geographic stability, etc...etc...).

Or we can take your solution - pay everyone more. But then all you end up with is rich pilots, still wire-locked in the p!ssed off position, because you haven’t fixed the problems that are p!ssing them off!!! If we introduce £500/day VERR pilots then watch how really p!ssed the remaining Regulars get. Also, as Typhoon and F35 have a new complexity that we have never seen before, watch how many fail to stay on top of their game (recent Typhoon PTVRs haven’t been very successful, have they?).

You don’t need to pay Buck Rogers very much at all if you let him fly and give him a decent quality of life...

[Professor Plum]

LJ,

pay everyone more. But then all you end up with is rich pilots,

It would work for me-and stop me leaving. Simple business economics that works across the rest of the world. Why is the RAF different?? Otherwise the RAF would have to pay millions to train an unknown quantity to be simply LCR.

As for lots of flying and decent quality of life...

go on then. Whats in the pipeline?

Typhoon driver- well said.

[Thereismore]

LJ, with respect, the pay is particularly poor if you want high quality individuals with experience to come back in to the Service under a reservist scheme. Whilst I agree, circa £500 per day is not feasible, the pay per day for reservists (dependant upon which reservist scheme you come back in on) when compared to similar jobs in the civilian profession, such as a pilot, is poor.

Thank you FL - this is exactly my point and also why I spent several weeks’ worth of conversations (Altruistically !) with several MB and HW individuals in an attempt to put the realities on the table.
To re-iterate: I had many contacts over the years to entice a ‘rejoin’ but at no stage did the offer seem attractive as it was either rejoin FTRS or FT at a lower pay band than when you left AND repay your pension lump sum ..... Errrr no!

The forces deny themselves significant and very experienced (outside experience ; therein also lies a cultural challenge ) people because there is no path back into service life that is not regressive. Why would I want to rejoin at same rank (BUT lower pay band) when I have a decade of development outside the military ? This is why I embarked on a conversation when it was presented as a highly flexible ‘we will consider anything ‘ role for which there was a pressing requirement. It was not a flying role though my FJ flying experience would have been helpful.
I provided the daily rate here, and to the desks, for comparison of what someone like myself would expect here in the civilian world as a means to judge the rate on offer and to illustrate why someone like me (mid-career and very capable) could simply not put it into the ‘pot’ of options.
Anything that we take on has an opportunity cost; for clarity I was not expecting £500 a day ( please remember this is NOT the 7 day a week daily rate that FT service pers are used to) but would have considered £250-300. On offer was £150 a day for 3 days a week. Folks; let’s be quite clear - this is peanuts for a challenging role of importance.

The wider issue is that there is no path for someone who left say, as and SO2/ SO1 to rejoin as a 1 star or above. Other nations’ forces do.

[Easy Street]

Easy Street

Hmmm, if you truly believe that then I suspect that we are doomed. People don’t join up to fly sims and it won’t matter what you pay - they will join up, fly a couple of tours and leave. We have a hard enough job dragging people to staff for 2-3 years, but if they hardly ever fly (apart from sims) then the excitement factor will quickly go.

Two choices: pay enough that they stay regardless of the flying rate and secondary duties, or accept a higher turnover rate in the regular force and make more use of ex-regular aircrew. (The second option needs a training system which can cope with greater throughput :hmm:)

I’m totally on board with your points rehearsed elsewhere about the whole ‘package’, pension, healthcare and all; the trouble is that the benefits have been shunted too far into the future to retain those younger than (say) 35 who need money NOW to pay mortgages, raise children and compensate for the limitations Service life places on spouses’/partners’ careers. A great pension is all very well but it doesn’t pay the bills!

(Spousal employment is IMHO a much bigger issue than many appreciate: the whole tax system is structured to strongly favour two moderate earners over one big/one small, as seen in many aircrew families. Pretty much the most tax-efficient thing our family could do is for me to take all my valuable flying experience into a reserve role and keep my pay ticking over while the Mrs gets back on the career ladder and starts using her tax allowances.)

[Professor Plum]

Easystreet- very balanced post IMHO

[Lima Juliet]

VinRouge

sorry, 10 years, no pay rise. The pay was just about adequate before this.

I need to buy you a new Abacus! Here are the 10 years of pay awards:

2009: 2.8%
2010: 2%
2011: 0% due to austerity
2012: 0% due to austerity
2013: 1% and 0.5% X-Factor
2014: 1%
2015: 1%
2016: 1%
2017: 1% - however a new RRP(F) pay spine that pays up to £5k/pa more and a new £70k Retention Payment at OCU+7
2018: 2.9%
2019: 2.9%

Then on top of these is annual level progression and also for some transfer to PAS for more progression.

Yes, there are some years where the rise doesn’t match inflation, but for many they will have progressed. I would hardly call those percentages ‘10 years, no pay rise’ too :cool:

[Lima Juliet]

Easystreet- very balanced post IMHO

Agreed :ok:

[Lima Juliet]

LJ,



It would work for me-and stop me leaving. Simple business economics that works across the rest of the world. Why is the RAF different?? Otherwise the RAF would have to pay millions to train an unknown quantity to be simply LCR.

As for lots of flying and decent quality of life...

go on then. Whats in the pipeline?

Typhoon driver- well said.

Simple business economics? Is it? It’s like radar101 describes, some leave without really understanding that economic argument. Getting now into my 3rd decade in the Service, we seem to forget how very few served in the past more than even 16 years in the Service and we seem to be hooked on trying to get everyone to 60. Less than 10% historically serve past age 50 and less than 5% past their 55th birthday. I’ve seen people leave and come back in my time (there are lots rejoining right now and many asking to, that can’t make it work), so we must get something right? Also, we see plenty come from the RN or Army too - I can’t remember the last one to go the other way in the past 15 years.

I honestly think it’s a simple fix when recruiting is so simple:

1. Have a trg system that can deliver against the predicted historical outflow (we don’t have that).
2. Have a great ‘quality of life’ (successive ‘lean events’ and so-called ‘business efficiencies’ have stopped that).
3. Pay a fair wage (we just about have that - it could be better, maybe 10-15% outside of where it should be).
4. Have a system that will provide for you for a late 2nd career or in full retirement (we have that).
5. Have a good resettlement provision (we have that).

Military HR is pretty simple - Recruit, Retain, Resettle - and the ‘Retain’ isn’t all about money to the individual. As easystreet states, there is also spousal employment to consider too, so keeping people geographically stable is important - keep the other half and kids happy, and you will be winning half the fight. But if everything is bad, as Typhoondriver is saying, then paying people more isn’t the answer - p!ssed off people with more money are still p!ssed.

[Lima Juliet]

The wider issue is that there is no path for someone who left say, as and SO2/ SO1 to rejoin as a 1 star or above.

There aren’t many SO2s and SO1s that stay that never make 1-star or above either. Also, how is the rest of the workforce going to feel if someone leaves because they can’t get promoted and then comes back 3+ ranks higher than them? Yes, there could be exceptions, but this should surely not be the norm? Also, with many exceptional characters not getting the chance to promote within the Service these days due to the bed-blocking introduced in the Regulars by MEOS at age 60, do you really think that getting gazzumped on the promotion board by someone coming in as a ‘lateral entry’ and taking your promotion slot is going to be popular? We are likely to lose more people over that than we gain...

[Professor Plum]

LJ,

I agree with you. Except that your point 3 needs a little bit of work. Point 2 could do with a bit of beefing up to so as to keep CinC home guard on side.

[Lima Juliet]

LJ,

I agree with you. Except that your point 3 needs a little bit of work. Point 2 could do with a bit of beefing up to so as to keep CinC home guard on side.

:ok::ok: Yes, point 2 and male/female other halves in the past 20 years has been neglected too long. The days of ‘coffee morning and flower arranging wifey’ are long gone. Keep the home team happy, keep the Aircrew happy (by genuinely valuing them, allowing them to fly and have some fun) and paying a reasonable (ish) wage makes for a happy workforce. If you get that lot ‘out of trim’ without that ‘ball in the middle’ then things quickly depart...money or no money.

[SwitchMonkey]

Level 35 PAS in 2010 = £77,625. (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/228601/7799.pdf)
Level 35 PAS in 2018 = £83,582 (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/819468/AFPRB_48th_Report_2019_Web_Accessible.pdf)

Simple maths (which I always struggle with) makes that a 10.8% increase over 8 years (rounded up)

According to the Bank of England, the £100 spending power in 2010 would require £125 in 2018. (https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy/inflation/inflation-calculator)

My simple maths makes that a 25% increase in cost of living over the same period that a top rate PAS chap made an 11% wage increase.

Granted, there aren't many people who have been on level 35 for the past 9 years, but all those who have aspired to get to the top level are chasing a reduced value goal. To my mind that does mean that as a cadre we are all being paid less vs the cost of living than was the case in 2010 and It does sound a bit like we haven't actually had a pay rise to me.

A 25% increased level 35 PAS over the 2010 figures would be £97,031 and change.

Edited to add: My typing is too slow and LJ's 10-15% figure backs up my point (albeit it's the 15% end of the spectrum rather than the 10%)

I get it - there has been austerity, there's no money, we still have a pension, there's job security and free gym membership. But please let's not deceive ourselves that, as a cadre, our disposable income or buying power is actually going up.

[Typhoondriver]

Lima Juliet

Much of what you have said, I am in total agreement with. However, your rigid support of the 'money makes no difference' ideology is reminiscent of the institutionalised myopia only normally seen in individuals that have either sat on the Manning Desk, or drunk the Shrivenham tonic.

We're agreed that the solutions you have described at points 1-4 would make a near instantaneous improvement to the current sorry state of affairs. Why then, has nothing been done to resolve these issues? They've been previously highlighted and well known for close to 10 years. Why are things getting worse? How long would points 1-4 take to implement?

$$$$$$ - When I'm talking about monetary incentives, I'm not suggesting an enormous pay increase for the regulars. We all knew what we signed up for, how much we would be paid, and how long we would have to serve.

I'm talking about a targeted monetary incentive aimed at high calibre individuals who have already made the decision to leave the Service 'come what may'. MOD has the ability, through the lever of money, to persuade certain individuals to continue engagement with the Service in order to retain much needed 'on-type experience and knowledge'. They don't have to retain all of their previous high-end qualifications and currencies; even leading a simple REDAIR sortie, would create some much needed slack in the system, allowing others to take their Annual Leave for example. And if we can create some extra slack in the system, that in turn might stop things getting worse, which in turn might allow some breathing space, which might give you the 10 years you'll need for points 1 - 4. When the systemic issues have finally been resolved, you can turn the money taps off.

Bottom line:- Extra cash is the 'Quick Clot' required to stop the bleed whilst the SO's triage the patient and implement a long term treatment plan.

The alternative being that the many experienced pilots currently leaving will be lost to the Service forever. And our loss, will be Jet2/BA/TUI/BAE/Middle East's gain.

[Lima Juliet]

Typhoondriver

Yes, that’s a fair set of points too. I’ve never been in Manning (or Career Management as it’s now called) or had my brain removed at Swindon Military Polytechnic. My thoughts come from my experience as an Aircrew mate of 30+ plus years vintage, having seen a lot of change and a lot of things come around 2-3 times.

SwitchMonkey makes a good point too, Level 35 is adrift and should be closer to £95k rather than the current £85k - this 10-15% ‘in effect’ pay drop (since 2003 actually - when PAS first came in) has slowly chipped away at the deal. However, there are parts of the Flt Lt/Sqn Ldr cadre currently in their 30s that have fared better with the new RRP(F) and the £70k lump sum than their counterparts from 10-20 years ago. It’s not just the last 10 years, the slow drip-drip cut in the offer has been ongoing for the 30-odd that I’ve been in. Also, the shortages on the FL and the issues in the Fg Trg Systems have been the same too during that time. So what makes things different now, to the past 30 years? I believe it’s because we need to GROW for the first time in my 30-odd years - that’s the real difference. We had always just managed the decline in numbers, but with Typhoon sqns 7 & 8, the expansion for Protector, the new Poseidons and a new Wedgetail inbound then that is why we are now starting to squeal - it’s because we have ignored the Personnel and Trg DLODs since we decided to grow from SDSR15 that we find ourselves in a bit of a pickle. Add to that the slow drip-drip ‘death by a thousand cuts’ and you find yourself at the centre of a perfect storm.

There is a PAS and RRP(F) review due for AFPRB reports in 2021 and 2022 (1-2 years away) that might provide a mechanism to fix that. Prior to that, trying to fix the non-remunerative things might assist the ‘quality of life’ issues. But here is the real question - would everyone sooner have £5k-£10k in their pocket before tax, or have a bunch of worker assistance on the Sqns and in work to help with the trivia? It would be interesting to survey for such an answer as I’m sure it would produce a split answer. Here is an article on the USAF problem and as you can see it’s not really about salaries and more about what Gen Goldfien calls the “Value Proposition” - fly more, less trivia (by getting help), allowing innovation and ensuring families are happy: https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2019-08-08/air-force-believes-it-has-stemmed-the-pilot-shortage and here https://www.airforcetimes.com/opinion/commentary/2018/09/23/warrant-officer-study-misses-the-mark/

The Rand study identifies money as the root of the retention problem, and as such, recommends solutions based on material benefits to the pilot community. Offering more material benefits is an attractive proposal because it is simple and quantifiable. But ultimately it is not a real solution. This materialistic approach is not working now, and there is no reason to believe it will provide a fix in the future.

The long-term solution is to reform the structural problems plaguing the system. As the Mitchell Institute has reported, most former pilots “were critical of efforts made by their chain of command to reduce or postpone service demands that were affecting family and marriage stability, ability to remain collocated with working spouses, and other factors more prescient than in past generations of Air Force pilots.”


The RAF or even the UK Mil’s aviation arms are not the only ones suffering - even the mighty US war machine is having “aviator troubles”. The USAF have piled money at the problem and that hasn’t really worked. It’s not just a money problem - it’s a complex self-generated issue with lots of individuals that all have their eye on something different. I suspect it was ever thus? Just like something else going on at the moment in politics, trying to unpick 40+ years of a system is going to take a while. But on that subject, if I were a young person again, I don’t believe I would rush outside to the airline industry right now - it’s not the stable place it once was and from what I hear the crews are being worked harder and harder for less perks, as the market becomes more and more competitive.