BA to RAF

[Trumpet trousers]

Surprised nobody has picked up on this yet, perhaps it's only just appeared on the Sky News webpage?

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-british-airways-pilots-facing-the-sack-could-join-the-raf-on-secondment-11986803

[Wensleydale]

They'll get a nasty shock when they pick up their first pay cheque!

[Bob Viking]

Maybe they’ll just be grateful to be paid at all.

BV

[Herod]

Somebody hide the opener! There's a whole can of worms here.

[Pontius Navigator]

A secondment might suggest an element of loan pay from BA. And a job is perhaps better than no job.

[teeteringhead]

An interesting reversal of just post WW2, where I think RAF pilots were seconded to BOAC.

[Fareastdriver]

The RAF will pay the airline what they used to pay them. The airline will pay them what it thinks the RAF would pay them.

[Yellow Sun]

This has raised its head before, sometime in the 1970s IIRC. Nothing came of it then and; possibly apart from a small number of recent leavers; I would be surprised if anything came of it this time.

YS

[Douglas Bahada]

I dont believe that any of the younger (less experienced) BA pilots who have not been in the forces will cut the mustard. Many will be washed out at the officer training stage. If indeed it was to happen.

[turbine100]

I would assume this would be open to more than BA pilots. What about the VA, Flybe and TCX crews ...

[trim it out]

I dont believe that any of the younger (less experienced) BA pilots who have not been in the forces will cut the mustard. Many will be washed out at the officer training stage. If indeed it was to happen.
I’ve never flown for BA or the RAF so am interested to hear why they wouldn’t cut the mustard.

The article said up to 48 months secondment so presume they will only do a tarts and vicars course followed by a rapid OCU to get the most bang for the buck?

[Stitchbitch]

I dont believe that any of the younger (less experienced) BA pilots who have not been in the forces will cut the mustard. Many will be washed out at the officer training stage. If indeed it was to happen.

Surely if they can capably fly a large aircraft without crashing it into anything/anyone then they should do okay on the RAFs large aircraft without the complete officer training bit?

[overstress]

I would assume this would be open to more than BA pilots. What about the VA, Flybe and TCX crews ...

I believe this is a BACC initiative. Up to the other airlines CCs if they want to join in the approach to the RAF?

[sp6]

I dont believe that any of the younger (less experienced) BA pilots who have not been in the forces will cut the mustard. Many will be washed out at the officer training stage. If indeed it was to happen.
I would have thought that most of the young people who cut the mustard to get an ATPL and join BA could also be selected and absorb the training to become Reserve/Regular Officers. I fly with both military and ATPLs and we are not that much different in the crew room. Having also served as a military recruiter, seen selection and IOT from both sides; your sweeping statement does not reflect reality.

[Megaton]

I’ve never flown for BA or the RAF so am interested to hear why they wouldn’t cut the mustard.

The article said up to 48 months secondment so presume they will only do a tarts and vicars course followed by a rapid OCU to get the most bang for the buck?

Pilots with no military experience will have to go through 6 months officer training. Re-treads would undertake 2 week refresher course. As always, you join the military as an officer first and pilot second. There’s a lot more to the job than simply poling a large aircraft around.

[Redcarpet]

I dont believe that any of the younger (less experienced) BA pilots who have not been in the forces will cut the mustard. Many will be washed out at the officer training stage. If indeed it was to happen.
A little bit arrogant! There are probably many relatively inexperienced BA pilots who would run rings around their RAF colleagues, given how little variety and recency some people get in the military these days.

[trim it out]

Pilots with no military experience will have to go through 6 months officer training. Re-treads would undertake 2 week refresher course. As always, you join the military as an officer first and pilot second. There’s a lot more to the job than simply poling a large aircraft around.
They won’t get much of a chance to do anything other than sticks and poles in a 48 month stint. Maybe 3ic flight commander or gardening member on the committee if those jobs aren’t already filled by future CAS thrusters.

[Tay Cough]

Six months IOT followed by the standard hold would make the whole exercise pointless as there wouldn’t be any opportunity to return any productive service within the suggested timescales. Either entry requirements need to be somewhat abridged or the whole thing should be restricted to retreads.

[Megaton]

Three year Return of Service I believe.

[clvf88]

I dont believe that any of the younger (less experienced) BA pilots who have not been in the forces will cut the mustard. Many will be washed out at the officer training stage. If indeed it was to happen.

I can't tell if this is tongue-in-cheek or serious. If the later, I'm actually embarrassed for you.

[hunterboy]

I think the general idea was for recent BA joiners from the military to have the option to rejoin the RAF for a short period of time to fill vacancies. I gather that there were further opportunities for non ex military to throw their hats in the ring too, pending testing,suitability, etc. Sounds like a win-win to me?

[Fareastdriver]

How are they going to react if they are told to go somewhere and be shot at?

[Meester proach]

Forget brize, might as well hold out for an F35 !

[hunterboy]

[QUOTE]How are they going to react if they are told to go somewhere and be shot at?/QUOTE]

I should imagine that as adults,they have an idea that they are (re)joining the armed forces? What is the problem that certain people are having with the idea? That ex mil are rejoining for a short period, or that non military potentially have the opportunity to fill vacancies? After all, I can't imagine many Typhoon or F35 slots will be available for middle aged BA secondees.

[Captain Spam Can]

I heard through a BA buddy of mine BALPA are negotiating with the RAF the F35/Typhoon slots to the BA guys/girls <28 years old to entice them across as their current pay is significantly higher than what the RAF offer thus any future or current RAF trainees go multi engine/general officer duties. It would mean a short service commission though. I think if there’s any truth in it we as an industry should hang our heads in shame. Many of friend of mine worked their bollocks off to get in the pointy end of a fast jet not a fat end of a transporter.

Sad times

[Megaton]

I heard through a BA buddy of mine BALPA are negotiating with the RAF the F35/Typhoon slots to the BA guys/girls <28 years old to entice them across as their current pay is significantly higher than what the RAF offer thus any future or current RAF trainees go multi engine/general officer duties. It would mean a short service commission though. I think if there’s any truth in it we as an industry should hang our heads in shame. Many of friend of mine worked their bollocks off to get in the pointy not the fat end of a jet.


i wouldn’t believe all you hear from your buddy. List of potential slots is available and FJs aren’t amongst them.

[Captain Spam Can]

i wouldn’t believe all you hear from your buddy. List of potential slots is available and FJs aren’t amongst them.

Thats fair then, I would of thought the A330 slots would be a good fit for the programme.

[Juan Tugoh]

I heard through a BA buddy of mine BALPA are negotiating with the RAF the F35/Typhoon slots to the BA guys/girls <28 years old to entice them across as their current pay is significantly higher than what the RAF offer thus any future or current RAF trainees go multi engine/general officer duties. It would mean a short service commission though. I think if there’s any truth in it we as an industry should hang our heads in shame. Many of friend of mine worked their bollocks off to get in the pointy not the fat end of a jet.

Sad times

I doubt you'll catch many with that bait

[LS8C1]

Speaking as a current RAF FJ operator I can confirm that this is completely made up.

The problem the RAF currently has with manning is the inability to train aircrew. (Probably worthy of a whole different thread). The training system is running beyond capacity. Therefore unless a BA / VA etc secondee / rejoiner is at a standard to immediately start an Operational Conversion Unit or rejoin straight at the Front Line, then unfortunately I think the best they can hope for is an aviation related ground role.

[hunterboy]

I don't think many BA people are looking at a (fictional) FJ slot, unless they've only just left the squadron and wouldn't mind going back. As the posters above mentioned, the 330 looks a good fit, but I understand there aren't any vacancies at the moment. Personally speaking, I would have thought it would be an opportunity for somebody that has had enough of flying and would like the challenge of a ground role. I also wonder how many BA people would struggle with SC and DV clearances with slightly out of the ordinary private lives, i.e non-residency for last 3 years and/or marriage to non UK citizens.

[Homelover]

Megaton

As always, you join the military as an officer first and pilot second.

Do you actually believe that? That’s just what all the blunties at IOT tell all the (potential) aircrew isn’t it? 😂

[Yellow Sun]

This has raised its head before, sometime in the 1970s IIRC. Nothing came of it then and; possibly apart from a small number of recent leavers; I would be surprised if anything came of it this time.
YS

57
LS8C1
Speaking as a current RAF FJ operator I can confirm that this is completely made up.

The problem the RAF currently has with manning is the inability to train aircrew. (Probably worthy of a whole different thread). The training system is running beyond capacity. Therefore unless a BA / VA etc secondee / rejoiner is at a standard to immediately start an Operational Conversion Unit or rejoin straight at the Front Line, then unfortunately I think the best they can hope for is an aviation related ground role.

That’s pretty much what I said at post #8. I would also add that aviation related ground roles would probably only be open to those with some relevant service experience. The last time this sort of scheme was mooted It all fizzled out as just too difficult and of marginal benefit to the service anyway.

Reading the Sky News report, it appears clear that this is a BALPA\BACC initiative (as it was last time). The RAF will listen politely and have a look to see if there’s anything to be had out of it. As has also been pointed out, there’s also the matter of SC\DV to consider. It takes time, money and resource to process people and it’s not something you can easily expedite.

There would have to be real benefit to be gained for the treasury to approve any loan scheme.

YS

[VinRouge]

Pilots with no military experience will have to go through 6 months officer training. Re-treads would undertake 2 week refresher course. As always, you join the military as an officer first and pilot second. There’s a lot more to the job than simply poling a large aircraft around.
you won’t do tarts and vicars if you have left in the past 5 years I believe

[VinRouge]

Megaton



Do you actually believe that? That’s just what all the blunties at IOT tell all the (potential) aircrew isn’t it? 😂

Yep, I lived my Military career trying to shove two fingers up at that.

Aircraft Commander first, pilot second (tends to keep you alive) and when I need to get authoritarian (only happened twice in 16 years) I will do the “lets start that conversation again” line.

[flighthappens]

The A330 is 108% manned in the RAF. They don’t need anyone

what is the Typhoon/F-35 at? Not 108%!!

[charliegolf]

I wonder what badge they'll get? :E

CG

[rapiddescent]

The whole idea is ludicrous......HOWEVER, if it does go ahead, you'll never get another BA pilot whingeing about crew meals/food.......good luck in the mess at RAF Cranwell!

[42go]

STEWARD! Where's the cheese board?

[3 bladed beast]

I’ve never flown for BA or the RAF so am interested to hear why they wouldn’t cut the mustard.

The article said up to 48 months secondment so presume they will only do a tarts and vicars course followed by a rapid OCU to get the most bang for the buck?

Good luck with that "rapid" ocu.

Where would that leave the pilots waiting for ocu slots or on the ocu at the time?

[Douglas Bahada]

If BALPA or BACC are seriously considering this l would suggest you have wasted your subs.

[Party Animal]

There is some real crap being spouted above. For those still serving, join The Crew Room’ on Defence Gateway, where a well respected aircrew mate explains the whole story. Essentially, it is happening; no regular serving aircrew will be compromised by being stepped over etc,. Previous pilots can expect to go to the aircraft they were more familiar with including FJ and SH. QFI and QHI’s can expect to be employed in the training world. Former Sqn Ldr’s can expect crap staff jobs at HWY and potential OOA’s and finally anyone who has not done IOT will have to do the full shilling. Bottom line: this is a good deal for both sides with lots of holes in the RAF being filled - but for the BA guys, do not expect BZN or WAD by default, unless that is where you left from.

[no sponsor]

It is accurate. We all had a preliminary application form to fill out. Someone in the know gave out a list of all those areas currently in need of flying staff. Voyager is in no need of pilots! Other areas are short.

There are huge numbers of exRAF and Naval aviators in BA. Some of these are within the last 5 years and could fill gaps. Hawk QFIs for example. There’s are a few currently flying reservists in BA too. This is for them ... not for wannabe FJ pilots.

[trim it out]

Good luck with that "rapid" ocu.

Where would that leave the pilots waiting for ocu slots or on the ocu at the time?
I should have perhaps used a tongue in cheek emoji :E

[3 bladed beast]

My apologies Trim it out!

:-)

[VinRouge]

STEWARD! Where's the cheese board?
oooh don’t mention the cheese board. Front end lost that benefit to keep the Flight Eng’s on in company after the classic went. Much bone of contention as it’s a Cabin Service Director Entitlement! :rolleyes:

in all seriousness it’s going to be a godsend for many young professionals staring down the barrel of some very difficult times.

[Professor Plum]

Party animal has it spot on.

Anyone with access to defence connect please read the thread to prevent uninformed bull faeces being spread.

Great for the RAF to fill gaps, and great for those who are at least then able
to pay the mortgage etc IMHO.

[air pig]

SERE is now the third part of main course not the four weeks I did.

[air pig]

And how will others who have completed IOT and NOCs and airmen feel about that idea?

[Easyheat]

Yes Pa is right. the armed forces wants (like everyone else) the low hanging fruit, simply because is would be mad to spend money on some one, who’s priority no. 1 is to go back to BA, when seniority list calls. And lets be honest, the armed forces does not IMHO provide terms and conditions including geographical location good enough for someone living in Wimbledon. I’ve been there done that, and never looked back. Flights are few but ok, the rest no thanks.

[dr dre]

How are they going to react if they are told to go somewhere and be shot at?

Plenty of civilian pilots willingly flying in conflict zones. I’d wager there’s probably more of them than current military pilots.

[Professor Plum]

Dr dre,

great. I’m sure the RAF is looking forward to their expression of interest.

[VinRouge]

Plenty of civilian pilots willingly flying in conflict zones. I’d wager there’s probably more of them than current military pilots.
I think Fly Dubai have taken a fair few rounds over the years too!

[bringbackthe80s]

I can't tell if this is tongue-in-cheek or serious. If the later, I'm actually embarrassed for you.

clv have you ever tried officer (flight) training ?

[Lima Juliet]

As ever, well I suppose it is a rumour forum, there is a fair amount of bunkum being posted. The RAF has had a rejoiner programme for all branches and trades for the past 3 years or so. Pretty successful too. Here is the link to that website: https://www.raf.mod.uk/recruitment/how-to-apply/rejoiners-and-inter-service-transfer

So far, as I understand it, the BA BALPA announcement is effectively hanging off of the back of this programme too. So those with previous service as an officer - both as a pilot or maybe another branch with suitable flying experience - which would be a qualified entrant (which other branches already have). Finally there is the true lateral entrant - no mil flying and no military background whatsoever, but injected past the normal training pipelines. That is yet to be done, and in some ways it never will be. If you join an organisation, even BA, there will be induction, indoctrination in company ethos/practices and line training to be done; the FAA, AAC and RAF are no different. So there will just be different qualified entrant pathways, where during selection some accreditation of previous learning, knowledge and experience can be made. Again, that is already with the RAF with the AP7000 Bespoke Training Requirements (BTR) form that looks to the ‘owners’ of various training schemes to make an assessment of the training required, either waive it or reduce the amount required if able. For someone coming to the RAF with zero military experience and zero military flying, then that pathway is going to still be quite lengthy, and then you have to ask - what is the point? Especially when you consider the returns of service required to give the taxpayer the return on the cost of this training, then it is not far off what a traditional entrant would need.

Finally, I understand the bottom line to all of this is that those currently serving cannot be disadvantaged by this. We have to keep the career pathways and aspirations of those that are currently serving fully intact. I guess the Unions would call that “Workers’ Rights”? So BALPA, the other unions and the commercial companies will be fully au fait with that too. However, for both the Services, the airline companies and most importantly the poor souls caught up in this, this should be a good news story all round. Even those serving and going through the flying training pipeline right now. This is because many returning, even before this BA piece, are filling some of the instructor gaps and experience gaps, so that we can take more people faster through initial flying training pipelines, OCUs and then CR workups on the front line.

PS. Someone mentioned flying badges. Well QR727 is quite clear on this, that to get one, you have to do a recognised course of military flying training to get one - so just recently a qualified entrant to Voyager received his RAF Pilot Flying Badge having successfully met the standard to graduate from the Voyager OCU. Well done to him too. :ok:

[Parson]

Surely the starting point in this discussion is what posts the air force have current difficulty in filling. From previous posts it would appear the training system cant cope with the front line demands (perhaps someone could clarify?)
If that is indeed the case then presumably only pilots who have recently left the military and are able to slot back in with minimal refresher training would be of any use.

[flyboy146]

I heard through a BA buddy of mine BALPA are negotiating with the RAF the F35/Typhoon slots to the BA guys/girls <28 years old to entice them across as their current pay is significantly higher than what the RAF offer thus any future or current RAF trainees go multi engine/general officer duties. It would mean a short service commission though. I think if there’s any truth in it we as an industry should hang our heads in shame. Many of friend of mine worked their bollocks off to get in the pointy end of a fast jet not a fat end of a transporter.

Sad times


absolute BS and rightfully so too.

[LS8C1]

Surely the starting point in this discussion is what posts the air force have current difficulty in filling. From previous posts it would appear the training system cant cope with the front line demands (perhaps someone could clarify?)
If that is indeed the case then presumably only pilots who have recently left the military and are able to slot back in with minimal refresher training would be of any use.

From a flying role perspective, you are correct.

[Bob Viking]

If there’s one thing that is drilled into you when you join the military it is to employ initiative and problem solve.

The lateral recruitment plan may not be easy but we all know a solution can be found.

I think the involved parties should be applauded for seeing an opportunity and running with it. If it doesn’t work out then nothing ventured nothing gained.

I know many people in the civilian aviation sector and I feared for all of them when this all kicked off. Especially those that were ‘last in’.

If this scheme can keep just one of my former colleagues from claiming universal credit then it’s a job well done in my mind.

Of course it’ll be a pay cut for a BA Captain to rejoin the RAF (they know that) but for the money they’re likely to earn I guess they would gladly peel potatoes for 3-4 years rather than drive a delivery truck for 1/4 of the money.

So from me it’s a big thumbs up for those trying to make it work and a big thumbs down to all the whingers who can only see the negatives.

BV

[FullWings]

How are they going to react if they are told to go somewhere and be shot at?
We normally get sent to places where you might get shot at without being told this. I think many of us would find the candour refreshing!

Thinking of applying but my Polo is not that good; would I still stand a chance?

[Tay Cough]

Buy a Golf instead.

[Reader not a writer]

Well said BV
RNAW

[Sky Sports]

I think the biggest problem the RAF currently has - or will have - when it comes to manpower, is the current halt on recruitment. Before the whole lockdown started, the RAF was down 6% on manning. Add to that the approximately 48 people who leave every week, which is 350 people and counting. The manpower shortage will only get worse.
I appreciate that courses are still starting, but all applications to join are hold, meaning there will be a massive backlog to get through when recruiting resumes. This may have an impact on future basic courses/IOT, with courses have zero candidates loaded.

[hunterboy]

I suspect that if senior enough people want this to happen, then it will. Conversely, if it is found to be too difficult/expensive/etc, it will be quietly shelved, and a great opportunity for both parties will have been missed.

[Lima Juliet]

I think the biggest problem the RAF currently has - or will have - when it comes to manpower, is the current halt on recruitment. Before the whole lockdown started, the RAF was down 6% on manning. Add to that the approximately 48 people who leave every week, which is 350 people and counting. The manpower shortage will only get worse.
I appreciate that courses are still starting, but all applications to join are hold, meaning there will be a massive backlog to get through when recruiting resumes. This may have an impact on future basic courses/IOT, with courses have zero candidates loaded.

Actually, IOT has been effectively shut to new entrants since the start of 2020 and won’t start until Sep 20. That is nothing to do with CV19 and was totally planned - for something called Project MERCURY which is redesign of IOT to make it a modular course. That way we can tune modules for peoples’ previous experience - so a Cpl/Sgt may only need to do the 2nd and 3rd terms of IOT, as an example and a FS and WO only the final term. So actually all of the IOTs were front loaded and so CV19 has, believe it or not, had pretty much zero effect on IOT. The virus has seen short pauses in flying training and current estimates are around 3 months slip across the lot. In the grand scheme of things, not a big effect - so the FJ pipeline will still be around 5(ish) years, the helo pipeline around 4 years and the multi-engine pipeline closer to 3 years. So about 1-1.5 years longer than planned for those at the beginning of training. Sadly, for those just finishing on the FJ pipeline right now they are still the ‘6 year generation’ from the knock on effects of the SDSR10 cull and the early challenges during the fleet changeovers under UKMFTS. But CV19? Not really an impact at all from what I’ve heard. :ok:

[Bob Viking]

He’s a witch. Burn him. Buurrrnnn hhhiimmm...

Come on, you know as well as I do that you’re not allowed to let facts and reason get in the way of a good whinge.

Shame on you.

BV

[downsizer]

Important to realise that P3 recruiting outweighs P2 (and thus IOT entrants) by a significant number.

We need the P3 taps to keep flowing as well.

[Lima Juliet]

BV :p:p:p:p

[Union Jack]

If there’s one thing that is drilled into you when you join the military it is to employ initiative and problem solve.

The lateral recruitment plan may not be easy but we all know a solution can be found.

I think the involved parties should be applauded for seeing an opportunity and running with it. If it doesn’t work out then nothing ventured nothing gained.

I know many people in the civilian aviation sector and I feared for all of them when this all kicked off. Especially those that were ‘last in’.

If this scheme can keep just one of my former colleagues from claiming universal credit then it’s a job well done in my mind.

Of course it’ll be a pay cut for a BA Captain to rejoin the RAF (they know that) but for the money they’re likely to earn I guess they would gladly peel potatoes for 3-4 years rather than drive a delivery truck for 1/4 of the money.

So from me it’s a big thumbs up for those trying to make it work and a big thumbs down to all the whingers who can only see the negatives.

BV

Now why does this all confirm my feeling that BV would be a really good guy both to fly and serve with? A dark blue view I know, but I do wish that we could do something similar to what's being proposed.

Jack

[Photoplanet]

Many of the comments in this thread seem to assume that only BA pilots will be seconded, and that these personnel will be used to fly planes...

From the Daily Mail (and I do apologise for using this as a source):

"BRITISH Airways pilots and other aviation staff could be loaned to the RAF for up to four years........Staff could be seconded in flying and groundbased roles"...

So no official guarantee of a flying seat at this point.

In addition, could this move be seen as 'State Aid' to BA? The wording on any contract would have to be very carefully drafted to avoid other airlines crying foul.

[oldmansquipper]

Are there slots for pilots in the predator fleet?

Will they be allowed to wear their 4 barred BA jackets at beer calls?

What does instant expert Laura Kuensberg think about it all?

.....these and many other questions 😉

[Geordie_Expat]

What does instant expert Laura Kuensberg think about it all?



Wash your mouth out !!!:yuk:

[Chugalug2]

Many of the comments in this thread seem to assume that only BA pilots will be seconded, and that these personnel will be used to fly planes...

From the Daily Mail (and I do apologise for using this as a source):

"BRITISH Airways pilots and other aviation staff could be loaned to the RAF for up to four years........Staff could be seconded in flying and groundbased roles"...

So no official guarantee of a flying seat at this point.

In addition, could this move be seen as 'State Aid' to BA? The wording on any contract would have to be very carefully drafted to avoid other airlines crying foul.

I too would question why British Airways seems to be the centre of interest here, especially when BALPA is quoted as being heavily involved. They draw their membership from all over the UK airlines together with the attendant subscriptions, so why all this talk of British Airways rather than British Airlines? We all know the old saw of it being the British Airways Line Pilots Association but it seems there may be some truth in that from what we are being told. Obviously those who have recently left the RAF to the join the airlines may be a more practical choice for the RAF to draw from, and perhaps the majority of them joined BA. I don't know if that is the case but if it is then the emphasis should be on those in that category and not on any particular airline.

As to State Aid, BA have had more of its share of that over the years not least from not being broken up into separate long haul and short haul companies when privatised to even out more the competition with the so called 'Independents'. There is also the near monopoly of the LHR Slots of course. The combination of those two silver spoons meant that for years contractions in the industry meant that Independent pilots lost their jobs while BA ones kept theirs. Is this scheme designed to continue that process and if so, why?

Can we take it as read that when the Daily Mail is quoted a standard apology is implicit in that? I grow tired of seeing it repeated ad nauseum here...

[dook]

Who is Laura Kuensberg ?

[Juan Tugoh]

I too would question why British Airways seems to be the centre of interest here, especially when BALPA is quoted as being heavily involved. They draw their membership from all over the UK airlines together with the attendant subscriptions, so why all this talk of British Airways rather than British Airlines? We all know the old saw of it being the British Airways Line Pilots Association but it seems there may be some truth in that from what we are being told. Obviously those who have recently left the RAF to the join the airlines may be a more practical choice for the RAF to draw from, and perhaps the majority of them joined BA. I don't know if that is the case but if it is then the emphasis should be on those in that category and not on any particular airline.

As to State Aid, BA have had more of its share of that over the years not least from not being broken up into separate long haul and short haul companies when privatised to even out more the competition with the so called 'Independents'. There is also the near monopoly of the LHR Slots of course. The combination of those two silver spoons meant that for years contractions in the industry meant that Independent pilots lost their jobs while BA ones kept theirs. Is this scheme designed to continue that process and if so, why?

Can we take it as read that when the Daily Mail is quoted a standard apology is implicit in that? I grow tired of seeing it repeated ad nauseum here...

Christ on a bike, quit the bloody conspiracy bull****. The reason it is BA mentioned is because this initiative started with the BACC not with Big BALPA, ie BA pilots came up with the idea and made the approach to the MOD to test if this was even possible. It is highly unlikely that this initiative will be restricted to just BA pilots, but the right to return to BA and to maintain seniority within BA is a BACC negotiated thing with BA and will not apply to other companies who will have to negotiate with their own companies. It is at the very first tentative steps and is by no means a done deal. Why don’t we wait and see if anything comes of it before jumping in with our size 12s, ranting about stuff that isn’t decided, or true, but that fits our own prejudices. It’s almost as if you want to see fellow aviators out of a job.

[Chugalug2]

JT:-
It’s almost as if you want to see fellow aviators out of a job.

In what way pray? Just because I've suggested that this initiative is biased towards BA that means that I'm opposed to any UK airline pilots being kept employed thanks to it? How does that work then? As you say, it was devised by the BACC whose remit is to protect BA pilots. In this matter I'm sure that they are in lock-step with BA as it means their pilots will be available again to them when needed rather than having to be made redundant. You may well say that BALPA will ensure that other pilots employed by other airlines will be equally open for selection should the scheme go ahead. My reply would be that all pilots are equal under BALPA, but some are more equal than others. I would strongly suggest that other companies' PLCs start seriously lobbying BALPA now, and not wait around as you suggest to see what comes of it. It would be nice to think that at least some of their pilots might retain their jobs this time instead of the default we are all so used to.

[Juan Tugoh]

JT:-


In what way pray? Just because I've suggested that this initiative is biased towards BA that means that I'm opposed to any UK airline pilots being kept employed thanks to it? How does that work then? As you say, it was devised by the BACC whose remit is to protect BA pilots. In this matter I'm sure that they are in lock-step with BA as it means their pilots will be available again to them when needed rather than having to be made redundant. You may well say that BALPA will ensure that other pilots employed by other airlines will be equally open for selection should the scheme go ahead. My reply would be that all pilots are equal under BALPA, but some are more equal than others. I would strongly suggest that other companies' PLCs start seriously lobbying BALPA now, and not wait around as you suggest to see what comes of it. It would be nice to think that at least some of their pilots might retain their jobs this time instead of the default we are all so used to.

I'm sure they will if it suits them and their respective CCs are on the ball, but good on the BACC for developing an opportunity that may protect some BA pilots and might protect some other company's pilots. But let's not let that get in the way of having a bash at BA and the BACC part of BALPA.

BALPA is made up of the pilots in a company and its up to them to come up with ways of protecting their jobs. Unless those companies are prepared to offer a right to return then this is an irrelevant project as the opportunity to return to the military is there for any one with the right qualifications.

[BitMoreRightRudder]

Chugalug I’m not sure what your point is. You are hell bent on making this out as Big Balpa looking after only BA pilots. It has nothing to do with Big Balpa. If you read the replies you are getting, the reality of the initiative has been explained to you.

I get the feeling you just want to stir up **** about your own perceived injustices regarding Balpa and it’s motives. At a time like this I can assure you of one thing - no one cares.

[Chugalug2]

I'm quite sure that this idea wasn't the sole inspiration of the BACC. Any ex-RAF airline pilot faced with an up to date knowledge of pilot and staff shortages in the Service, and faced with likely redundancy from their own company, would have pondered about the chances of re-joining, whether on a temporary or semi-permanent basis. He or she might even have followed up on a personal basis to contacts within the RAF or via their own company PLC. The difference here is the clout of the BACC with its own company and its ability to formulate policy with it. It is interesting that you both use the term 'Big BALPA' to differentiate it from the BACC (which presumably is 'Little BALPA'?). No other PLC/CC can wield the power of the BACC, they invariably have to seek the help and advice of BALPA itself in best representing their pilots interests. But here we are led to believe that the BACC is consulting with BA and the MOD, and on behalf of who? My guess would be of BA pilots.

Can you not understand that if the PLC of any other UK airline was doing the same thing that BA pilots would be rightly outraged that a such deal was being done on behalf of the pilots of that company and not of UK airline pilots as a whole? Justice and fairness calls for this initiative to be carried on by BALPA, not the BACC, and on behalf of all UK airline pilots and not just BA ones. The real negotiation is of course not with the companies but with the MOD who will call the shots. They can choose who they please and should do. BALPA is honour bound to ensure that choice is open to all their members and not biased to any one particular company.

[VinRouge]

Despite the chat on here, I’m not 100% certain it was BACC who made the approach.

I’ve a feeling it was someone in company. Could be widely off the mark here, but there are a lot of people assuming it was the CC when it may not have been.

[Chugalug2]

Thank you VR, you may well be right. The fact remains though that the BACC will by now have made it its business. I repeat my point that BALPA should now take up the cudgels on behalf of all its members and ensure that everyone of them should have an equal opportunity to be considered in such a scheme should they so wish. It may be the preoccupation of BA pilots that by doing so they would retain their BA seniority. I suspect that it would be the preoccupation of many other pilots that they retain the chance of retaining a flying career, or failing that any career in aviation at all....

[Douglas Bahada]

I repeat my point that BALPA should now take up the cudgels on behalf of all its members and ensure that everyone of them should have an equal opportunity to be considered in such a scheme should they so wish.

Really not going to happen. You are grasping at straws if you think the MOD will consider anyone without previous.

Most pilots l know would not be able to pass army basic training. I could not run 1.5 miles in 10 min 30 now. I could do the CFT with 25kg and do 8 miles in under 2 hours. Not sure what the RAF one is but certainly less arduous.

[Ddraig Goch]

Dook Laura Kuensberg is a BBC political reporter.

[Chugalug2]

DB:-
Really not going to happen. You are grasping at straws if you think the MOD will consider anyone without previous.
Most pilots l know would not be able to pass army basic training. I could not run 1.5 miles in 10 min 30 now. I could do the CFT with 25kg and do 8 miles in under 2 hours. Not sure what the RAF one is but certainly less arduous.

You may well be right but it is up to the MOD to decide who, if anyone at all, that it will consider. If it is only interested in those with 'previous' what makes you think they are solely and uniquely presently with British Airways? If 'previous' is the starting point for consideration then BALPA should ensure that any of its members with 'previous' and who wish to be considered should be, no matter where they are now employed. I would suggest that it is BA pilots who are clutching at straws if they assume that because the BACC has this in hand then they should have first dibs at any jobs offered by the MOD. BALPA subs paid should entitle all its members to equal treatment. Will it?

[ShyTorque]

I was invited to return to the RAF as a high readiness reserve pilot. I was working overseas at the time, flying for a foreign government. The RAF wanted me to attend every month and offered me a daily rate of about forty five quid plus a bit of motor mileage from Luton airport. I would be expected to pay my own airfare to and from UK at £1200 for a return trip. Obviously, I’d need to buy a car at Luton every time I arrived there and sell it on departure.

I declined their kind offer.

[GICASI2]

Having just retired from a non-UK airline after 23 years (and a full career on FJs prior to this) a word of warning. Ex-military pilots on the big jets are completely different animals to the Hamble/cadet/self-improver types. They bring a wealth of experience with them that is not recognised by the oft-arrogant civvies. All we did (on big Boeings/Airbus) was a simple transit, made ‘difficult’ by experts: there was no low-level, refuelling, para-dropping or any of the other myriad of tasks taken on by the RAF. If this scheme were to go ahead, I would hope that only ex-military pilots would be considered. I do not think that the entrenched thinking of the civvies would meld into RAF operations easily; RAF guys might learn a few things about ILS approaches though 🤣🤣🤣. There is (are) a reason(s) that the others did not make it into the military...

[Union Jack]

Dook Laura Kuenssberg is a BBC political reporter.
Fixed that for you - and Dook, who I suspect was teasing you about your spelling anyway - although the family name was originally "von Kuenssberg".

Jack

[VinRouge]

Having just retired from a non-UK airline after 23 years (and a full career on FJs prior to this) a word of warning. Ex-military pilots on the big jets are completely different animals to the Hamble/cadet/self-improver types. They bring a wealth of experience with them that is not recognised by the oft-arrogant civvies. All we did (on big Boeings/Airbus) was a simple transit, made ‘difficult’ by experts: there was no low-level, refuelling, para-dropping or any of the other myriad of tasks taken on by the RAF. If this scheme were to go ahead, I would hope that only ex-military pilots would be considered. I do not think that the entrenched thinking of the civvies would meld into RAF operations easily; RAF guys might learn a few things about ILS approaches though 🤣🤣🤣. There is (are) a reason(s) that the others did not make it into the military...


Respectfully, I fundamentally disagree with this. To get through a self funded ATPL shows a lot of resilience. Many of the guys have faced multiple redundancy, disrupted flying as a result, yet have gotten into the sim and consistently performed, often having not been at the controls for 12 months. For anyone who hasn't completed the BA assessment sim, it isn't a trivial affair.

People also need to consider that Low Level, para, SKE, NVG, NSO TALT, are just additional skillsets. They are no different to skills required for the civvie role, customer service, disruptive passenger handling or a CAT III equipment failure below alert height or flying with 3 minutes statistical contingency fuel. Same focus, same professionalism. You function and train to a set of standards and perform to them. There will of course be a number that struggle, it is a massive culture change. But to write people off for not having the required gumption or mettle as they are "civvies", from my experience is wholly wrong. Heathrow aircraft were landing in crosswinds and conditions during the winter storms well above anything seen during my military time, with an awareness from operations of the impact with mitigations (an extra 40 mins fuel without even asking for it on the plan, well thought out diversions) put in place before crew in. How often would you have seen that from an RAF Flight ops perspective?

There are a fair few ex single seat fast jet mates who have struggled in a multi crew environment, more systems management focused environment, unable to handle the banter. Does that apply to every single seat pilot? Absolutely not. We shouldn't be applying the same myopic view of civilians who can make a genuine contribution, with a fresh set of eyes to our operation and ask "why do you do it like that"? The people in the civilian market have a vast wealth of both personal life experience as well as a deep knowledge of human factors and the aviation world. Route knowledge and nuisances about a particular approach at some unheard of diversion that you dip in with an 80 year old granny dying of a TMI is second to none, as is operational decision making processes and formal structures for emergencies handling, none of which are formally taught but assumed as "airmanship" within the military. There is a lot of potential for this to be a symbiotic relationship and if given the go-ahead, should be seen as such.

[Locked door]

Coming from a half RAF and half BA family all I can say is well said sir. Any pilot can learn something from any other pilot.

LD

[hunterboy]

I think it’s fair to say that nobody is born a SkyGod*.Surely, given the necessary training, a non mil pilot can be taught the extra skills necessary to carry out a military role? I should imagine that any interview process would test that such skills can be acquired in the required timeframe and budget?
* Harrier pilots excepted , of course 😊

[Professor Plum]

Well said Vin Rouge.

What's a better fruit;

An Apple, or a Pear?

[biddedout]

Excellent post Vin Rouge.

We have all been made aware of the awesomeness of Harrier pilots but on the whole most military people including FJ are down to earth, humble and fit in to the civillian world very easily. I have seen both sides and the humour and banter is more or lees the same, we all moan about management and can do a better job than the CEO / CAS but at the end of the day we are goal focused and just get the job done. A wild cross windy winters day on a multi sector rush-rush short-haul operation is probably far more demanding than anything a multi engine heavy fleet (E3, P8) RAF pilot is likely to experience but clearly the skill set aptitude and sheer ability to stand the training pressure to reach the front line on a F35 / Typhoon would be beyond most Airline pilots.
As for the officer first pilot second thing, I didn't meet many who truly believed that.

[Locked door]

Come on biddedout, you endorse a highly eloquent post and then contradict it by saying that civvies couldn’t fly the F35/Typhoon. For your information, an F35/Typhoon pilot is just a civilian that has passed the relevant courses.

There are outstanding individuals in all streams of aviation, just as there are some less outstanding individuals in all streams of aviation.

Can this silly willy waving contest please stop, and a sensible discussion about the mutual benefits that this proposed scheme could bring restart.

ATB

LD

[biddedout]

Fair point LD, I was waffling and missing the point. I think you said what I was trying to say.

[Tay Cough]

Well said Vin Rouge.

What's a better fruit;

An Apple, or a Pear?

A pear can fly formation.














Hat, coat, taxi....

[flighthappens]

A pear can fly formation.














Hat, coat, taxi....

must have been apples in the Phenoms then?

[Arthur1815]

@BV. Well said sir.

[YRP]

Ok if one from the colonies might ask for a clarification:

What in the blazes is a tarts and vicars course?

[whiskydrinker]

A mildly derogatory term for the short commissioning course at RAF College Cranwell for already professionally qualified candidates, eg doctors, dentists and members of the clergy. (Officially SERE - Special Entrants and Re-Entrants).

While 'Vicars' refers to the clergy, 'Tarts' is in no way a reference to the others on the course, but is purely a correlation with a well known party theme 😁.

[RetiredBA/BY]

Theres a lot of good stuff on this thread, equalled by the usual nonsense.

Speaking from personal experience, ( ex RAF QFI and Boeing training captain) many civilian pilots, if they bad chosen , would have done very well in the RAF. They chose a different lifestyle. Equally, many would not have done at all well.

That said, some FJ pilots did not do well in civil aviation. The hardest trainee on a Boeing I ever had was ex FJ and even ex WIWOLS and V force captains.have failed command courses, despite our best efforts.That said, many were excellent.

Its impossible to generalise, but in these extraordinary times, lets give it a go.

Perhaps its also time for the RAF and MOD to take a closer look at what is done in the US, the Air National Guard.

My guess is that many ex RAF/ RN pilots who have moved to civil aviation would LOVE to go back to some military flying, and it might also address the shortage in the RAF at minimal cost. Win,win?

[Professor Plum]

Retired BA/BY

Perhaps its also time for the RAF and MOD to take a closer look at what is done in the US, the Air National Guard.

I’ve often wondered the same.

I’m still in the RAF, and have had lots of experienced friends leave, and their experience is lost to the RAF for good (ok, the RAF now have their rejoiner programme-and looks like lots will rejoin now, but that won’t always be the case).

Surely there are many positives here for the RAF/RN/AAC with such a scheme whereby the experience is retained (albeit on a part time etc basis). It gives a pool of people to call on at a time of war, who are current and can be prepped for deployment quickly. It also has the added benefit of bringing experience/ideas from the airline world “you know, at (insert airline name), we do it this way..” etc.

I’m sure there would be plenty of takers too

[YOP]

'Tarts' is in no way a reference to the others on the course, but is purely a correlation with a well known party theme 😁.

Hmmm!!
Having helped run a SERE course during a ground tour many years ago I'm not so sure!

[whiskydrinker]

Hmmm!!
Having helped run a SERE course during a ground tour many years ago I'm not so sure!

Hence the '😁' 😉

[GICASI2]

Tin hat on - if, as it would seem from some posters, the old adage that ‘Officer first, pilot second’ is no longer relevant is it time to reintroduce SNCO pilots? I am sure we could identify those pilots who do not subscribe to being an Officer and invite them to remuster. Works in the Army...

[GICASI2]

Respectfully, I fundamentally disagree with this. To get through a self funded ATPL shows a lot of resilience. Many of the guys have faced multiple redundancy, disrupted flying as a result, yet have gotten into the sim and consistently performed, often having not been at the controls for 12 months. For anyone who hasn't completed the BA assessment sim, it isn't a trivial affair.

People also need to consider that Low Level, para, SKE, NVG, NSO TALT, are just additional skillsets. They are no different to skills required for the civvie role, customer service, disruptive passenger handling or a CAT III equipment failure below alert height or flying with 3 minutes statistical contingency fuel. Same focus, same professionalism. You function and train to a set of standards and perform to them. There will of course be a number that struggle, it is a massive culture change. But to write people off for not having the required gumption or mettle as they are "civvies", from my experience is wholly wrong. Heathrow aircraft were landing in crosswinds and conditions during the winter storms well above anything seen during my military time, with an awareness from operations of the impact with mitigations (an extra 40 mins fuel without even asking for it on the plan, well thought out diversions) put in place before crew in. How often would you have seen that from an RAF Flight ops perspective?

There are a fair few ex single seat fast jet mates who have struggled in a multi crew environment, more systems management focused environment, unable to handle the banter. Does that apply to every single seat pilot? Absolutely not. We shouldn't be applying the same myopic view of civilians who can make a genuine contribution, with a fresh set of eyes to our operation and ask "why do you do it like that"? The people in the civilian market have a vast wealth of both personal life experience as well as a deep knowledge of human factors and the aviation world. Route knowledge and nuisances about a particular approach at some unheard of diversion that you dip in with an 80 year old granny dying of a TMI is second to none, as is operational decision making processes and formal structures for emergencies handling, none of which are formally taught but assumed as "airmanship" within the military. There is a lot of potential for this to be a symbiotic relationship and if given the go-ahead, should be seen as such.

Great points but you perhaps miss my point. Every newby first tourist RAF pilot has jumped through hoops that no amount of money or retries would see them through. All courses enroute to that coveted seat require a mettle that the self-improver has not demonstrated - pass or get chopped. Cadets are a different case, but even they only get trained to be part of a crew and fly instrument approaches (simplified I know) - the thinking bit comes much later; perhaps their CPL course is the equivalent of the METS in old parlance. However, every RAF pilot has been taught low level NAV, formation, advanced handling etc as part of the (old-speak) Group 1 Phase 1 course. If the civvies were to be brought into the service they should be made to complete all the courses and suffer the same chop rate that we all have had to contend with.

Yes they can do all that you say but so can every ‘heavies’ pilot. FJ has its own particular problems and socio/skill outliers. I too have seen many a FJ candidate, from all (nearly) the world’s Air forces fail to make the grade at initial training and a particularly vicious Command course. It happens. My main thrust is that if this is to go ahead, the Service should choose ex-military pilots whose backgrounds are known. I should have selected flippant mode off for my initial post.

[trim it out]

is it time to reintroduce SNCO pilots?
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1536x1536/81efcbab_0d6f_4bde_a9ad_f0c34cbc4df9_3bf5335165a8873374e3f7b 67a236d4cf8882cd9.jpeg

[Herod]

is it time to reintroduce SNCO pilots

Quite possibly. I sometimes think I would have been happier that way. The best rank in the RAF had to be Master Pilot.

[Chugalug2]

Quite possibly. I sometimes think I would have been happier that way. The best rank in the RAF had to be Master Pilot.
My best instructor was a Master Pilot, and I'm sure that he was the only reason that I finally got my wings. Polite, incredibly patient and encouraging, the only banter that I ever got from him as we went our different ways at the end of yet another day of trying that patience to its very limit was to say, "I'm off for a quick pint in the Mess before going home to the wife and a home cooked meal. You'll first have to tackle your secondary duties which will be far more onerous than your flying job". Rather than be downcast at this stark differential between the lives of Commissioned and Warrant Officers (in his case), I took immeasurable satisfaction in his quiet confidence that I would graduate as an RAF pilot. Still have the treasured cartoon of a fledgling being kicked out of the nest by its parent that bears his signature after my first solo.

[VinRouge]

Tin hat on - if, as it would seem from some posters, the old adage that ‘Officer first, pilot second’ is no longer relevant is it time to reintroduce SNCO pilots? I am sure we could identify those pilots who do not subscribe to being an Officer and invite them to remuster. Works in the Army...
No, it’s not that we don’t subscribe to being an officer. It’s the suggestion that being an officer comes above all else. It doesn’t. My legal responsibility as an Aircraft Commander and not a senior officers lackey comes above all else.

[RetiredBA/BY]

. If the civvies were to be brought into the service they should be made to complete all the courses and suffer the same chop rate that we all have had to contend with.

.[/QUOTE]


My actual experience tells me that would be a waste of time, a very much abbreviated course, yes but a full course, absolutely not.

".......and my guess, is that the chop rate would very low, and because a civvie has not actually demonstrated the skills that you and I have had to acquire, do not assume they are not capable of obtaining them.

Many of the self funded, self improvers , by no means all, I have flown with, or instructed, have been very sharp, and totally committed, more than capable of passing RAF training. They chose a different life style.

.....as for low level nav. no problem, As a snotty nosed 18 year old kid. just out of school, I won the nav trophy at my FTS, 6, cant be that hard, and as for formation, again, no big deal, the skill can be taught and learnt.

[GICASI2]

Retired BA/BY

Yes, but you have completed and passed the courses. I am sure the OCU staff would be less than happy at having to spend time teaching the basics to someone who can (only) fly a perfect ILS.

If you believe the mantra ‘I decided to go the self improver route rather than join the Military because...’ then maybe your destiny should always have been as a Nigel. And it sounds as though you had some good instructors or were on a high chop rate course - last one standing gets the course wings 🤣

[GICASI2]

No, it’s not that we don’t subscribe to being an officer. It’s the suggestion that being an officer comes above all else. It doesn’t. My legal responsibility as an Aircraft Commander and not a senior officers lackey comes above all else.

If you are an example of a junior Officer of recent years, I am glad to have left when I did. You really do not understand what your Commission conferred. You have your idea of duty completely inverted - you should have been an inspiration to those junior to you. Aircraft Commander - this term belongs firmly in BA-speak ‘to fly, to serve’. Laughable. You obviously live in a different world to the very many outstanding serving and ex-RAF officers I have had the pleasure of knowing, leading and flying with.

[Bob Viking]

Is it just me or has this thread turned into dozens like it beforehand?

We seem to have lost the point of it, mainly because few people know anything and those that do won’t be speaking on the subject.

As for the infernal civvy vs military argument does anyone really think it can be resolved on here?!

BV

[GICASI2]

Is it just me or has this thread turned into dozens like it beforehand?
y
We seem to have lost the point of it, mainly because few people know anything and those that do won’t be speaking on the subject.

As for the infernal civvy vs military argument does anyone really think it can be resolved on here?!

BV


PPRUmourNEt - why spoil a good rumour with fact? Banter is what it’s all about!

[VinRouge]

If you are an example of a junior Officer of recent years, I am glad to have left when I did. You really do not understand what your Commission conferred. You have your idea of duty completely inverted - you should have been an inspiration to those junior to you. Aircraft Commander - this term belongs firmly in BA-speak ‘to fly, to serve’. Laughable. You obviously live in a different world to the very many outstanding serving and ex-RAF officers I have had the pleasure of knowing, leading and flying with.
It seemed to work well over 16 years deployed multiple times flying and into Afghanistan, Iraq and Central Africa.

I really do understand what it conferred - but nothing is more important than the role as Aircraft Commander, which with it confers leadership and motivation, esprit de corps within that role and operating as a crew. I've met a few where the triangle was the other way around and it very often led to them coming a cropper. People identify far more as Crew working together as a unit from within a Squadron. I found regularly that loyalty outside structures of the Squadron was non-existent. To be honest, I don't have an issue with that.

[3 bladed beast]

Im very happy for people to join/rejoin the RAF. However, in my humble opinion, it cannot be at the expense of people in the training systems, on the ocu or front line. Those who have chosen a career and life in the RAF.

There are so many capable people who have left that would be most welcome back. I think manning have stated it won't be to the detriment of those who are currently serving.

We shall have to see on that promise.

[beamer]

From the perspective of a retired old fart - 16 yrs Mil/25 years civil - I have thoroughly enjoyed reading the thread with equal amounts of common sense and arrogant nonsense from contributors. Please keep it going and never let the truth get in the way of good old fashioned rumour and innuendo.

nb If I could go back to 1978 and rejoin I would do it like a shot - might do a bit better second time around !

Good Luck Chaps

[GICASI2]

It seemed to work well over 16 years deployed multiple times flying and into Afghanistan, Iraq and Central Africa.

I really do understand what it conferred - but nothing is more important than the role as Aircraft Commander, which with it confers leadership and motivation, esprit de corps within that role and operating as a crew. I've met a few where the triangle was the other way around and it very often led to them coming a cropper. People identify far more as Crew working together as a unit from within a Squadron. I found regularly that loyalty outside structures of the Squadron was non-existent. To be honest, I don't have an issue with that.

And all that could be done admirably by a SNCO pilot. QED

[Juan Tugoh]

And all that could be done admirably by a SNCO pilot. QED

QED? Hardly anything demonstrated. The powers that be disagree with your position so the argument is somewhat irrelevant. As it is, in the RAF, which is the service being talked about, all pilots are officers and that first. You don’t have to like or agree with it, but it is a fact and therefore must be addressed. Not to say that I disagree with you but my opinion on this is just as irrelevant as yours. The RAF are not about to take on SNCO pilots.

[Lima Juliet]

Taking the SNCO Pilot debate out of the weeds we need to think more “Why do we have SNCO/WO Pilots?”. For starters, most kids that want to be Pilots are graduates and do not want to be SNCOs. They want a Queen’s Commission and the kudos that attracts. Further, the cost of SNCO Pilots works out more expensive in the first part of their 20 year career too - don’t forget that Officer Aircrew and NCO Pilots get exactly the same RRP(F) between OR6 rank and OF3 ranks.

OR6 Supplement 4 Sgt starting salary = £39,114
OF1 Fg Off starting salary = £32,780

So the Sgt is paid nearly £7k more

After 2.5 years the Fg Off promotes to Flt Lt
OF2 Flt Lt starting salary = £42k (For 2 years)
OR 6 Supp 4 Level 2 = £40.2k
OR 6 Supp 4 Level 3 = £41.3

So the Flt Lt slowly claws back the £18k the Sgt is paid more than the Fg Off in the first 2.5 years over the next 10 years! By then the SNCO Pilot has promoted to FS/SSgt within 6 years (on average) so the repayment gap is still narrow.

OR7 Supp 4 starting salary = £44.5k
OF2 Flt Lt Level 5 = £47.3k

Top whack for a Flt Lt is £49.9k and for a OR-9 WO1/MAcr Pilot would be £53.2k.

So when you consider the RRP(F) is the same, they both get a £70k RP and they both have PAS/PES(A) available now at same place under AFPS15 (all ranks for EDP 20/40). Then you also take into account that SNCOs pay less for the same size of married quarters and get free uniform issue.

I want to ask, as a taxpayer, why we are paying for more expensive SNCO/WO Pilots when the job can be done by cheaper Commissioned Officers and we build a better cadre of staff officers for the senior ranks? :E

[Lima Juliet]

Im very happy for people to join/rejoin the RAF. However, in my humble opinion, it cannot be at the expense of people in the training systems, on the ocu or front line. Those who have chosen a career and life in the RAF.

There are so many capable people who have left that would be most welcome back. I think manning have stated it won't be to the detriment of those who are currently serving.

We shall have to see on that promise.

That is correct :ok:

[trim it out]

Taking the SNCO Pilot debate out of the weeds we need to think more “Why do we have SNCO/WO Pilots?”. For starters, most kids that want to be Pilots are graduates and do not want to be SNCOs. They want a Queen’s Commission and the kudos that attracts. Further, the cost of SNCO Pilots works out more expensive in the first part of their 20 year career too - don’t forget that Officer Aircrew and NCO Pilots get exactly the same RRP(F) between OR6 rank and OF3 ranks.

OR6 Supplement 4 Sgt starting salary = £39,114
OF1 Fg Off starting salary = £32,780

So the Sgt is paid nearly £7k more

After 2.5 years the Fg Off promotes to Flt Lt
OF2 Flt Lt starting salary = £42k (For 2 years)
OR 6 Supp 4 Level 2 = £40.2k
OR 6 Supp 4 Level 3 = £41.3

So the Flt Lt slowly claws back the £18k the Sgt is paid more than the Fg Off in the first 2.5 years over the next 10 years! By then the SNCO Pilot has promoted to FS/SSgt within 6 years (on average) so the repayment gap is still narrow.

OR7 Supp 4 starting salary = £44.5k
OF2 Flt Lt Level 5 = £47.3k

Top whack for a Flt Lt is £49.9k and for a OR-9 WO1/MAcr Pilot would be £53.2k.

So when you consider the RRP(F) is the same, they both get a £70k RP and they both have PAS/PES(A) available now at same place under AFPS15 (all ranks for EDP 20/40). Then you also take into account that SNCOs pay less for the same size of married quarters and get free uniform issue.

I want to ask, as a taxpayer, why we are paying for more expensive SNCO/WO Pilots when the job can be done by cheaper Commissioned Officers and we build a better cadre of staff officers for the senior ranks? :E
Worth pointing out that many NCO pilots are not substantive Sgts during the course and don’t qualify for supp 4 until qualified on type so really you could only be paying ~£28k pa to train them. The Officer will promote on time, the NCO will struggle to promote on course due to lack of/weak reports meaning the commissioned one will end up costing more :E

[blind pew]

Heard a lot before..pilots are pilots good or bad from wherever.
I was turned down at Biggin Hill for a short service commision as I knew nowt about detachments and aircraft types..join ATC and come back next year as Army Cadets did not count. Turned down by some old engineer hating pilot CO, went back and was accused of being a liar and would be difficult as my father was a frog (translator for deGaulle).
So it was Hamble and three trident pilots where the consenus was military pilots don't make good crew members.
Well that was right if you judged those that learnt the handshake and went into management.
Had a good mate who resigned from Jet Provests after two of his course mates died..said the instruction was at fault.
BA and first cross transfer onto the VC10 and ex Hamble instructors... some good some rubbish.
Joined the Swiss, higher poling standards flying with mainly ex military fast jet pilots..Swiss, German, Dutch, French and the "odd" brit..odd being the operative word. The BEA myth was bollox wrt to military pilots not being any good in civil transport. It was about selecting the best.
Fast forward to a presentation at Toulouse by head of pilot requirements at Airbus who tried to sell the cadets who had been to Uni were best..rest rubbish..turned out naval architecture degree followed by sleazy jet.
But the best one for lack of common sense was at my only Irish general aviation safety meeting where after a lot of hostility I gave a precis of my experience which shut most of them up.
The only other brit was wearing a tie that I couldn't believe given the history over here...twas a Harrier RAF one. For those who haven't been bored by one of his ilk..not unlike a course mate of mine who flew concorde "of course none of you know what skilled pilots we are"..the Harrier is viewed from head on and with it's anhedral looks like an Antonov so in feigned innocence I asked him if he had flown an Antonov...was half way through his RAF harrier speil before he twigged.
For those who have never had Swiss command training after 20 years of flying jets it was around six months learning everything about the operation from the kitchens, bomb disposal, SAS equivalent, ATC....you name it.
Good luck to all of those guys in these difficult times and I have always wondered why the RAF do not do the Swiss military reserve system?

[Lima Juliet]

Worth pointing out that many NCO pilots are not substantive Sgts during the course and don’t qualify for supp 4 until qualified on type so really you could only be paying ~£28k pa to train them. The Officer will promote on time, the NCO will struggle to promote on course due to lack of/weak reports meaning the commissioned one will end up costing more :E

Thanks - although even a OR-4 Level 1 Cpl on Supp 1 starts on £31,244.76p these days. Which is pretty much the same as a Fg Off/Lt. I also found some FOI info dating back to 2014 where there were 190 NCO Pilots in the AAC trained strength - the breakdown of which is thus:

Warrant Officer Class 1 30
Warrant Officer Class 2 70
Staff Sergeant 50
Sergeant 40

With only ~1/4 at OR-6 that ain’t cheap!!

It’s a big myth that SNCO Pilots are cheaper. They just aren’t. :ok:

[trim it out]

Thanks - although even a OR-4 Level 1 Cpl on Supp 1 starts on £31,244.76p these days. Which is pretty much the same as a Fg Off/Lt. I also found some FOI info dating back to 2014 where there were 190 NCO Pilots in the AAC trained strength - the breakdown of which is thus:

Warrant Officer Class 1 30
Warrant Officer Class 2 70
Staff Sergeant 50
Sergeant 40

With only ~1/4 at OR-6 that ain’t cheap!!

It’s a big myth that SNCO Pilots are cheaper. They just aren’t. :ok:
Hmmm. If you take a LCpl (Level 3 let’s say so he has his recommend in order to qualify for the pilot course) and a FgO who start the same pilot course (assume the FgO goes RW for a side by side comparison) then the Officer will be taking home 40k plus a lot sooner than the NCO due to promoting on timelines while the NCO marks time on course. If both only stay in for the minimum RoS then the Officer works out a lot more expensive than the NCO.

Of course there are many, many caveats that could be thrown into the mix and we could end up going round in circles playing with the numbers to suit our own perspectives but one thing I have learnt is that upon investigation, WO1s and Flt Lts can only get to level 30 on PA so can’t cost more (in wage) than one another if they are both at the top of the tree 🌝

Apologies for thread drift but I’ve always been interested in the NCO vs Commission front seater piece from different service perspectives :ok:

[Imagegear]

Just to say that for ex-BA jockeys, being called upon to make the ultimate sacrifice may not be in your control.

When you take the Queen's shilling, all bets are off.

IG

[wiggy]

Just to say that for ex-BA jockeys, being called upon to make the ultimate sacrifice may not be in your control.

When you take the Queen's shilling, all bets are off.

IG

If they've been paying any attention to the war stories being told on "the other" forum they should have got that message by now...

"Three minutes notice of a six month deployment to the sandpit...you were lucky"

[wiltshireman]

Why the concentration on the Junior Service? There is another operator of fast jets - namely the Fleet Air Arm. In my own experience, airlines much prefer ex-Navy as their thinking is not so rigid and formalised.

[pr00ne]

Why the concentration on the Junior Service? There is another operator of fast jets - namely the Fleet Air Arm. In my own experience, airlines much prefer ex-Navy as their thinking is not so rigid and formalised.

Numbers dear boy, numbers. The FAA is tiny compared to the RAF and the fixed wing component miniscule. Plus RN fixed wing aircrew are trained by the RAF and operate to the exact same "rigid and formalised" procedures in Joint Force Lightning.

Anyway, this thread is about aircrew going the opposite way, from the airlines to the military. Don't think there is going to be a need for additional aircrew in the airlines for a very long time.

[beardy]

ex-Navy as their thinking is not so rigid and formalised.


The RN always saw aircraft as just another (disposable) weapons system, not as a means in itself.

[Bob Viking]

Not content with dredging up the civilian vs military and the Officers vs SNCO pilots debates, I see we have now moved onto Air Force vs Navy.

Since there are no solid facts forthcoming what other pointless arguments can we cover?

Single seat vs twin seat?

RAF Regiment vs Army?

Airbus vs Boeing?

VHS vs Betamax?

BV

[mopardave]

Not content with dredging up the civilian vs military and the Officers vs SNCO pilots debates, I see we have now moved onto Air Force vs Navy.

Since there are no solid facts forthcoming what other pointless arguments can we cover?

Single seat vs twin seat?

RAF Regiment vs Army?

Airbus vs Boeing?

VHS vs Betamax?

BV

Hmmmm......funny you should bring that up Bob! I never did get a definitive answer on the whole VHS vs Betamax thing? VHS man myself.

[Professor Plum]

BV,

I always like reading your posts-they’re always a breath of fresh air to me.

I’m surprised the whole “should RPAS Pilots wear wings/get flying suits/get inflight catering” hasn’t reared its head yet!

[alfred_the_great]

BV,

I always like reading your posts-they’re always a breath of fresh air to me.

I’m surprised the whole “should RPAS Pilots wear wings/get flying suits/get inflight catering” hasn’t reared its head yet!

Depends - do the cabin crew also have wings?

[Chugalug2]

Depends - do the cabin crew also have wings?

Round and round the same buoy yet again? The issue is not the badge they wear. Indeed, no two airlines issue the same badge for their cabin crews. What they do share with each other and with their regulator is to acknowledge the status of their cabin crew as being that of aircrew. That is in stark contrast with the RAF which, according to posts on this forum, views their status as synonymous with role equipment along with the seating that their pax would occupy, and employs them within a ground trade. The patronising and dismissive comments made here regarding RAF cabin crew speak more of a superiority complex within some RAF aircrew than the professional competence and ability of their Cabin Crew. Pride, Ladies and Gentlemen, pride....

[Bob Viking]

Bravo gentlemen. Well played. 🎣

BV

[Union Jack]

Bravo gentlemen. Well played. 🎣

BV
My thoughts exactly, especially in view of Post No 1 at https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/631813-new-flying-badges.html !

Jack

[Homelover]

Hook, line and sinker!! 😂 Too cruel!!

[charliegolf]

Bravo gentlemen. Well played. 🎣

BV

I'm really hurt. I used that bait at post 37. Nothing! Not a nibble!:(

CG

[Bob Viking]

I see you did. Wrong kind of bait it would appear.

But you can have a pat on the back for trying.

BV

[charliegolf]

I see you did. Wrong kind of bait it would appear.

But you can have a pat on the back for trying.

BV

My fave zoomie by far!:ok:

CG

[Chugalug2]

All very amusing I'm sure and may I join in congratulating everyone as well on such an excellent wheeze, but is that it? Why is my claim that RAF cabin crew are just as much aircrew as their civilian counterparts so risible? I would hope that all RAF aircrew that operate with cabin crew at least view them as fully integrated members of the crew and would have no objections to acknowledging them as aircrew should the RAF deem them to be so. Might I suggest that objection to that, raised here and in other threads, is one of semantics? Existing RAF aircrew who wear their appropriate 'brevets' (frankly my damn I don't give a dear!) with understandable pride have had to pass demanding courses in order to do so. Again understandably they object to the thought that cabin crew might share that nomenclature without having to pass such courses. The trouble is that the term aircrew is a generic term meaning simply those who are trained to crew an aircraft, including its cabin crew! Perhaps the term Flight Crew (or whatever) could be applied to those who have passed the aforementioned courses to differentiate them from aircrew who have not? I'm not much interested in badges (despite attempts to portray me as fixated by them), all I ask is that RAF cabin crew be acknowledged as aircrew and not as a flying ground trade as they are now.

[Trumpet trousers]

Chugalug: As the starter of this thread, I am dismayed that it has strayed significantly from its original topic - you have made your point several times on other threads, without (again) hijacking yet another one for your particular hobby horse. I reserve the right, as the thread starter, to pull the whole thread if this persists. Enough. Take it elsewhere

[Chugalug2]

Chugalug: As the starter of this thread, I am dismayed that it has strayed significantly from its original topic - you have made your point several times on other threads, without (again) hijacking yet another one for your particular hobby horse. I reserve the right, as the thread starter, to pull the whole thread if this persists. Enough. Take it elsewhere
Indeed you may TT, and your call of course. I would quibble with your contention of my posts being pure thread drift though. If the proposed redundancies in BA and many other airlines come to fruition (and pray God they don't!) then it won't be only pilots that will be knocking on the RAF's doors. Any cabin crew minded to do so at least need to know the present official non-aircrew status of RAF Cabin Crew. Forewarned as they say....

[Yellow Sun]

Indeed you may TT, and your call of course. I would quibble with your contention of my posts being pure thread drift though. If the proposed redundancies in BA and many other airlines come to fruition (and pray God they don't!) then it won't be only pilots that will be knocking on the RAF's doors. Any cabin crew minded to do so at least need to know the present official non-aircrew status of RAF Cabin Crew. Forewarned as they say....
:ok:
That's what the RAF needs, a few ex BA CSDs to knock them into shape. Make the SWO look like a pussycat.

YS:)

[3 bladed beast]

These last few comments have just made me think "what to have in tonight's curry?".

Chicken or beef?

[BEagle]

How is it the RAF finds itself so short of aircrew that it needs to offer inducements to mercenaries airline mates temporarily out to grass due to COVID-19?

Anyway, back to the sport of service arguments:

https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/77559-kokkinelli-kebab-darkens-stool.html ?

A question as yet to be satisfactorily answered after some 17 years.....

[4468]

A mercenary:

"An individual primarily concerned with making money at the expense of ethics."

Pretty much all of those currently considering rejoining the RAF will be taking a very considerable pay cut. Quite possibly leaving many of them in a similar position to if they simply took redundancy. (The offer is one or the other!)

You and others may well laugh, but from my discussions, whilst unexpected, some simply wish to serve, rather than sit on their arse. How does that make their ethics questionable?

I imagine none will worry too much about anything written in this place!

I generally thought a lot about your prolific postings BEagle. But that was pretty dumb language.

[Chugalug2]

(edited)...
Pretty much all of those currently considering rejoining the RAF will be taking a very considerable pay cut. Quite possibly leaving many of them in a similar position to if they simply took redundancy. (The offer is one or the other!)...
I imagine none will worry too much about anything written in this place...
Interesting post 4468 and bang on thread, so the OP will be pleased with you (if not with me!) :ok:. You mention "the offer". Whose offer is that? MOD's? BA's? BACC's? BALPA's? My concern is that if only ex RAF pilots are being sought (quite reasonably), would that be only from BA or from commercial aviation in general? Do they have to be BACC members, BALPA members, or neither? In other words is this a cosy stitch up or a transparent use of public money?

As to things written here being of little interest outside, I would politely but firmly have to disagree.

[MG]

Well done to those involved in a rather well-coordinated fishing trip, it lured the big one in nicely.

Unfortunately, that big one is as humourless as ever.

[Homelover]

Well done to those involved in a rather well-coordinated fishing trip, it lured the big one in nicely.

Unfortunately, that big one is as humourless as ever.

although I am just a teensy bit disappointed that the big one hasn’t managed to shoehorn his “self-regulation” Mantra into the debate somehow.

[MG]

Time, dear boy, give it time....

[Chugalug2]

although I am just a teensy bit disappointed that the big one hasn’t managed to shoehorn his “self-regulation” Mantra into the debate somehow.
As MG advises, patience dear boy, patience! In the meantime I'm glad to see that you are up for debate, Homelover, as will be the OP of course. So can we try that for a change?

If, and it's still a big if I guess, the RAF/MOD is interested in filling its pilot gaps albeit on a temporary basis, surely it will want to do so from as large a pool of recently left pilots as possible? That way it gets the best bang for its bucks (which are scarce enough as we all know). If this scheme is limited to those in one company alone then surely that would not be the case? If BA, the BACC, BALPA even, are not interested in casting the net wider then surely the RAF should be? Unless of course vested interests are at stake, as so often has sadly been the case in this Forum's threads....

[downsizer]

Jesus christ.

Any pilot (or indeed any branch or trade) that has recently left can, on their own, approach the RAF about rejoining. And they can discuss length of contract etc, etc. There is a successful cell processing these people already.

[beardy]

Jesus christ.

Any pilot (or indeed any branch or trade) that has recently left can, on their own, approach the RAF about rejoining. And they can discuss length of contract etc, etc. There is a successful cell processing these people already.
I think the crux is not RAF acceptance. It is more likely to be the short term nature of any appointment and the mechanism of returning to an airline. After all there is likely to be a good reason why people left the RAF in the first place.

[Chugalug2]

I think the crux is not RAF acceptance. It is more likely to be the short term nature of any appointment and the mechanism of returning to an airline. After all there is likely to be a good reason why people left the RAF in the first place.

The usual reasons for leaving are either to continue flying rather than what the RAF might have in mind for you or perhaps simply the pay and conditions. Covid 19 has driven a bus through all such considerations and many would be grateful for any job now, especially in a familiar environment. Temporary it may be but that would at least be a reprieve from any redundancy or complete company collapse that many will be facing.

As to the mechanism, it is good to know that a cell exists for dealing with individual applications to rejoin (thank you downsizer). I'm confused therefore why BA pilots should not be processed in the same way? Why should the RAF contemplate a special arrangement with one particular company, unless of course that company is offering a deal that is more advantageous to the Service. Is it?

[alfred_the_great]

If this scheme gets recently left pilots ahead of any poor bugger that is waiting to get in a cockpit, then the RAF should rightly be given a kicking.

The “local acting temporary rejoiners” should go to the back of the queue*, not leap-frog it to the front.


*which may be very short...

[Chugalug2]

If this scheme gets recently left pilots ahead of any poor bugger that is waiting to get in a cockpit, then the RAF should rightly be given a kicking.

The “local acting temporary rejoiners” should go to the back of the queue*, not leap-frog it to the front.


*which may be very short...
The problem is that some of them have been waiting for as much as 10 years according to this thread :-

https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/600630-uk-mfts-off-rails.html

The result is a shortage of pilots going through the OCUs of certain fleets. As to who exactly should be given the kicking you call for, I'll leave that to others better informed than I, but given past precedence I wouldn't hold your breath, ATG! There isn't a queue of fully qualified pilots ready to join the squadrons, that's the problem. This scheme could ameliorate that problem until there is a queue again. That will take some time...

[Juan Tugoh]

The usual reasons for leaving are either to continue flying rather than what the RAF might have in mind for you or perhaps simply the pay and conditions. Covid 19 has driven a bus through all such considerations and many would be grateful for any job now, especially in a familiar environment. Temporary it may be but that would at least be a reprieve from any redundancy or complete company collapse that many will be facing.

As to the mechanism, it is good to know that a cell exists for dealing with individual applications to rejoin (thank you downsizer). I'm confused therefore why BA pilots should not be processed in the same way? Why should the RAF contemplate a special arrangement with one particular company, unless of course that company is offering a deal that is more advantageous to the Service. Is it?i

Why do you suggest that BA pilots would be treated in any other way? The RAF (and indeed the other services) will decide who they deem to be suitable and if they want them. There is no right to join/rejoin the service, nor is there any mechanism other than the system the RAF already use. The only difference is that suddenly the RAF has access to a pool of available pilots who two months ago were not available. The RAF has a pilot shortage, and now has a way of filling some of those vacancies, anyone who rejoins may or may not stay very long but it allows the RAF to close a temporary gap until their own training system can sort itself out and provide the numbers the service needs. The system the RAF use is open to anyone who wishes to avail themselves of it, whatever airline or company they currently work for. This is a win win but some just see conspiracy, some people are never happy,

[Chugalug2]

JT, I suggest that BA pilots are being treated in a different way because media coverage suggests that only BA/BACC is devising a scheme to temporarily detach pilots to RAF service while retaining existing company seniority and having their existing jobs to return to when their detachments end. None of that is likely to be on offer to the pilots of other companies and such pilots would be applying on an individual basis and having to quit their present employment on the basis that it won't be available for much longer anyway. I don't suggest that such pilots could be dealt with by the proposed BA system but rather that BA pilots be dealt with in the same way as the pilots from any other airline, ie on an individual basis. When it is time to leave RAF service then all such pilots can apply to their previous employers or indeed others for a job. Let us hope that by then such employment is available again.

[Juan Tugoh]

JT, I suggest that BA pilots are being treated in a different way because media coverage suggests that only BA/BACC is devising a scheme to temporarily detach pilots to RAF service while retaining existing company seniority and having their existing jobs to return to when their detachments end. None of that is likely to be on offer to the pilots of other companies and such pilots would be applying on an individual basis and having to quit their present employment on the basis that it won't be available for much longer anyway. I don't suggest that such pilots could be dealt with by the proposed BA system but rather that BA pilots be dealt with in the same way as the pilots from any other airline, ie on an individual basis. When it is time to leave RAF service then all such pilots can apply to their previous employers or indeed others for a job. Let us hope that by then such employment is available again.

Ah, I get it now, you believe what you read in the newspapers. Say no more.

[Chugalug2]

Ah, I get it now, you believe what you read in the newspapers. Say no more.
You join a long queue of those who wish me to say no more JT, but why don't you say more? Why not expose the fake media news for what it is and let us all know what the BACC are proposing for this scheme?

[Bloodhound Loose]

Chugalug2,

All seems pretty straightforward to me.....

1) The RAF has a near-term shortage of pilots They have a plan to address it in the medium term through recruitment and training.

2) BA has a relationship with the RAF through the managed path scheme. And has done for decades.

3) BA has a temporary surplus of pilots and is willing to loan them out to the RAF. A win-win.

BALPA cannot order airline HR departments to set up sabbaticals for pilots. It can encourage companies to liaise with the RAF and no more. This is not a BALPA issue.

As has been said, any UK airline pilot can apply to the RAF and see how far they get through the selection process. Any ex mil pilot can apply for the rejoinders scheme. That’s not a closed shop.

Finally, are you aware of any other companies that have approached the RAF with a request to place pilots under sabbatical arrangements?

[Chugalug2]

It all rather turns on what you mean by "near term" BL. Anyone who has a relationship with BA would be well advised to regularly count the spoons. Why the RAF should wish to involve itself in a scheme with any particular company, managed path or not, is a question best reserved for another thread perhaps, but again the words Vested Interests come inexorably to mind. No-one knows how long the hit to the airlines will be post Covid-19. No-one knows how long it will take to turn around the fiasco that is UK Military Pilot Training. If the two don't coincide then either the RAF will be overstocked with surplus pilots or indeed severely short of them yet again. I say again, where is the advantage to the RAF in dealing with BA rather than with individual pilots and the individual deals it makes with them? This is a buyers market as far as employing pilots is concerned. Time the buyer started acting accordingly.

[Bloodhound Loose]

I say again, the RAF is dealing with individual pilots: via the careers office and rejoiners scheme.

In terms of temporary work, to deal with individuals then you need a pilot to be under the employment of a company willing to engage in sabbaticals. BA is the only company to have come out of the blocks publicly in that respect.

You make a secondary point that consideration needs to be given to agreements for cessation of temporary contracts. I’m sure it will be.

[Chugalug2]

BL:-
In terms of temporary work, to deal with individuals then you need a pilot to be under the employment of a company willing to engage in sabbaticals
Why? My guess is (and it's only my guess!) is that BA will be up and running well before MFTS is, though many other companies won't be (some possibly never). In that case BA (who I suspect will be topping up the salaries of their pilots who are detached to the RAF) will want them back well before the RAF wants to release them. How will that be resolved, in BA's favour or the RAF's? Better to deal with individuals, from BA and elsewhere, who are on temporary contracts which will cease, minimum notice not withstanding, when the RAF so decide. Unprecedented? We live in unprecedented times! No-one would accept such terms? Faced with the possibility of ending their flying careers entirely I suspect many will take a punt on a second RAF flying career that could well continue for some years and well beyond any planned sabbatical timescale.

[Bloodhound Loose]

Chug,

I’m not sure what you’re proposing? Bin any talk of sabbaticals and the RAF go for permanent employment options only?

You’re also viewing the problem with a lens of your own making. For a start you’re assuming that the sabbatical jobs the RAF will offer are cockpit based.

Your points about potential issues of ending sabbaticals are heard. Think it’s probably best to row back and leave those with the full picture to sort this one out - ie the relevant HR departments.

[Chugalug2]

BL, no I most definitely am not proposing anything other than a temporary arrangement, but one which will outlast any BA proposed sabbatical. No company can tolerate its pilots being unavailable to them though still employed if they are now needed on the flight line. BA most definitely won't tolerate it and will simply recall them. The RAF needs to recognise that the real world (especially BA's world!) doesn't run to plan but to events, dear boy, events. It needs to have control of the situation from the get go, ie personal contracts that are temporary and which can be ended (albeit with some compensation) or extended (by mutual agreement) as required by the RAF. That means those pilots could close the training shortage gap for as long as it exists. BA pilots on sabbatical cannot be relied on to do anything of the sort.

Row back? Yer 'avin a larf aint'cher?

[Douglas Bahada]

The RAF does not need to recognise a thing.

You join or rejoin the services it will be at their pleasure. No sabbatical from BA. You will be subject to military law. No unions. You piss them off and 6 months to a year in charge of Bog roll in Benbeccula. They won't give a **** that your position has come up again at BA and you need to leave. You take the queen's shilling and you do their bidding. You will then realise that you have been shafted by professionals. Rather you than me.

[3 bladed beast]

Juan Tugoh


Sensible comments mate. My only thoughts are where exactly these returning pilots would go? I can only talk from the Multi Engine side of things, but certain aircraft at Waddington are on their way out and the others barely fly. the Voyager fleet is full, the A400 OCU has a very low output, the C17 is well manned. And there are so many pilots in the training system waiting their turn. I would love to see some of my old mates return, but I just don't know how quickly they would get to/through an OCU and then be useful on the frontline.


There are plenty of gapped posts however......

[Chugalug2]

The RAF does not need to recognise a thing.

You join or rejoin the services it will be at their pleasure. No sabbatical from BA. You will be subject to military law. No unions. You piss them off and 6 months to a year in charge of Bog roll in Benbeccula. They won't give a **** that your position has come up again at BA and you need to leave. You take the queen's shilling and you do their bidding. You will then realise that you have been shafted by professionals. Rather you than me.
It used to be OC GD Flight Benbecula in my time but same difference I guess. :) So if there are no BA sabbaticals and you do the full period service commission, then why the need for a separate BA deal at all? Or is the BA period different from that on offer to other applicants? I'm confused and I'm sure that others are to. Why is there seemingly one system for BA pilots and another for non BA pilots? Or is there? If we could just have the t's crossed, the i's dotted, we can all see if justice is being done and seen to be done. Thank you...

[Juan Tugoh]

The RAF does not need to recognise a thing.

You join or rejoin the services it will be at their pleasure. No sabbatical from BA. You will be subject to military law. No unions. You piss them off and 6 months to a year in charge of Bog roll in Benbeccula. They won't give a **** that your position has come up again at BA and you need to leave. You take the queen's shilling and you do their bidding. You will then realise that you have been shafted by professionals. Rather you than me.

Of course once you are in the RAF you are subject to QRs and you will go where you are directed, but just like every other person in the military there will be a contract giving conditions of exit. This will all have been worked out prior to anyone, from any airline, joining or rejoining the RAF, RN or Army. Just like a normal end of contract or option point or PVR would be honoured. Silly to suggest otherwise and silly to suggest that the end of secondment and return conditions and early release or extension of service would not all be part of the agreement between the services and BA (insert any other airline that agrees secondments).

As to where any secondees/rejoiners go, that will be part of the secondment agreement. Not all the secondments would be for flying positions, but the RAF is short of pilots c150 or so.

The MOD has been sent anonymised service histories/details of experience from BA and has sought permission to approach various individuals directly about possible opportunities. This is a recruitment process and the “offer” from the RAF to those individuals will have to be acceptable, else there will be no uptake. I have no idea what those “offers” will be, but this is essentially a process similar to that of a headhunter, matching a clients skills and abilities to an employers requirements and then negotiating an acceptable contract, if it doesn’t work for both parties, it doesn’t work at all, no one side is in the driving seat or has the whip hand.

[wiggy]

The RAF does not need to recognise a thing.


As Juan as explained this a joint scheme and is being negotiated between parties all involved, so it does look like the RAF is recognising "things".

It won't simply be a case of some individuals taking the "Queen's shilling", as you put it, and thereby putting yourself in the hands of the RAF and QR's forever.

[Chugalug2]

JT:-Silly to suggest otherwise and silly to suggest that the end of secondment and return conditions and early release or extension of service would not all be part of the agreement between the services and BA (insert any other airline that agrees secondments).

As to where any secondees/rejoiners go, that will be part of the secondment agreement. Not all the secondments would be for flying positions, but the RAF is short of pilots c150 or so.

Why this emphasis on secondment (nee sabbatical)? What difference does it make to the RAF if a pilot is seconded from BA (what other airline would be able to offer secondment in today's lockdown situation?), or has been threatened with or been made redundant by their employers? They are all equally assessed and made/not made offers presumably. Or are they? No doubt the BACC attitude is that BALPA members of other airlines should approach their company CC's/PLC's for similar schemes to BA's, but we all know that isn't going to happen. What we do know is that the BACC draws its strength from the combined membership of BALPA and from their subs, and BALPA has a moral duty to all its members to ensure equal opportunities for re-employment as far as is reasonably possible .

Right, that's the soapbox oration out of the way and I'll step down from it if someone could kindly give me a hand. Thank you....

[Juan Tugoh]

JT:-

Why this emphasis on secondment (nee sabbatical)? What difference does it make to the RAF if a pilot is seconded from BA (what other airline would be able to offer secondment in today's lockdown situation?), or has been threatened with or been made redundant by their employers? They are all equally assessed and made/not made offers presumably. Or are they? No doubt the BACC attitude is that BALPA members of other airlines should approach their company CC's/PLC's for similar schemes to BA's, but we all know that isn't going to happen. What we do know is that the BACC draws its strength from the combined membership of BALPA and from their subs, and BALPA has a moral duty to all its members to ensure equal opportunities for re-employment as far as is reasonably possible .

Right, that's the soapbox oration out of the way and I'll step down from it if someone could kindly give me a hand. Thank you....

Why the emphasis on BA secondments? Simple, if you you think about it for a moment; that’s what this thread is about. The clue is that the title of the thread is “BA to RAF.”

What other CCs and the companies they are employed by is between those CCs, their respective companies and the MOD. This project is a BACC project, BA and the RAF (and other services) are engaged with it. What others do is up to them.

The BACC represents exclusively BA pilots. If BALPA and the NEC wish to try to arrange something across the industry then that is for them to do. There is no moral obligation on the BACC to represent any other group of pilots, only those of BA. Any member of BALPA is free to contact their respective CCs and try to organise something similar, the BACC were first, that is all.

Given the representation of ex service pilots in other companies I don’t doubt their respective CCs are already on it, but that is a matter for them.

Secondment because there will be a return clause for the BA pilots. Other companies will do as they see fit, but if there is no right to return, all they would be doing is acting as a recruitment portal for the services and the RAF (and I guess others) already have that.

If you feel BALPA has some kind of moral duty to level the playing field for all then write to them and lobby them.

[Chugalug2]

Thanks for the reply JT and for being so frank. I'm not very surprised of course, but it spells out the BACC position clearly so that no-one can now be in any doubt. We have here two powerful entities in UK aviation; the MOD and British Airways. It seems they are very much hand in glove with each other regarding BA pilot careers thanks to the Managed Path Scheme which now it seems is a two way highway, with pilots shuttling to and fro between the two on a supply and demand basis. Very cosy and convenient no doubt but it raises questions about why pilots trained to UK military standards at tax-payers expense should be directed by the MOD to one particular airline rather than to UK airlines in general. It may no longer be nationalised, but the irony is that then it was somewhat hostile to recruiting service pilots, preferring its home reared Hamsters instead. Its competitors are now going to shrivel up before our very eyes thanks to the effect of Covid-19 and it must be smacking its lips in gleeful anticipation. Given the twin advantages of its size and slots, we can now add the Managed Path Scheme which provides it with trained military pilots who can be off-loaded back to their origin in hard times like these. I ask again, where is the advantage to the RAF in this arrangement and to its long suffering tax-payers?

[Juan Tugoh]

Thanks for the reply JT and for being so frank. I'm not very surprised of course, but it spells out the BACC position clearly so that no-one can now be in any doubt. We have here two powerful entities in UK aviation; the MOD and British Airways. It seems they are very much hand in glove with each other regarding BA pilot careers thanks to the Managed Path Scheme which now it seems is a two way highway, with pilots shuttling to and fro between the two on a supply and demand basis. Very cosy and convenient no doubt but it raises questions about why pilots trained to UK military standards at tax-payers expense should be directed by the MOD to one particular airline rather than to UK airlines in general. It may no longer be nationalised, but the irony is that then it was somewhat hostile to recruiting service pilots, preferring its home reared Hamsters instead. Its competitors are now going to shrivel up before our very eyes thanks to the effect of Covid-19 and it must be smacking its lips in gleeful anticipation. Given the twin advantages of its size and slots, we can now add the Managed Path Scheme which provides it with trained military pilots who can be off-loaded back to their origin in hard times like these. I ask again, where is the advantage to the RAF in this arrangement and to its long suffering tax-payers?

You seem determined to see this as bad thing. If the MOD and the RAF and other Services don’t see anything in it for them, they will doubtless not take anyone in. It’s their call, no one can force them to take anyone. Indeed they are choosing who they want, not just taking people that BA want rid of. I’ll say no more on this as you can only view it through a very negatively biased lens. The MOD feel differently from you and that is what counts, your opinion far less so. Feel free to write to your MP with your dislike of this. There is no stitch up here just two organisations making a mutually beneficial arrangement. It is not exclusive, anyone from another airline can also approach the MOD with a similar offer if they feel it to be worth while for them. It is not BAs or the BACCs responsibility to protect anyone’s jobs other than those of the people they represent, BALPA on a larger basis can do whatever their members ask them to do.

[Union Jack]

You seem determined to see this as bad thing. If the MOD and the RAF and other Services don’t see anything in it for them, they will doubtless not take anyone in. It’s their call, no one can force them to take anyone. Indeed they are choosing who they want, not just taking people that BA want rid of. I’ll say no more on this as you can only view it through a very negatively biased lens. The MOD feel differently from you and that is what counts, your opinion far less so. Feel free to write to your MP with your dislike of this. There is no stitch up here just two organisations making a mutually beneficial arrangement. It is not exclusive, anyone from another airline can also approach the MOD with a similar offer if they feel it to be worth while for them. It is not BAs or the BACCs responsibility to protect anyone’s jobs other than those of the people they represent, BALPA on a larger basis can do whatever their members ask them to do.
But I can't help wondering if this would include stitching on and wearing two flying badges simultaneously, for identification purposes only of course.

Jack

[Chugalug2]

JT, I can see the benefits to BA in the Managed Path Scheme. I can see the benefits to RAF pilots who might seek a job in BA. What I can't see are any benefits to the RAF/MOD compared to a more general scheme for enabling its pilots to transition into commercial aviation as a whole. We are after all talking about a foreign owned company here. You say the MOD feels differently to me. Apparently it does, but why? A rhetorical question of course but nonetheless a real one. I am genuinely puzzled!

[Douglas Bahada]

here is no stitch up here just two organisations making a mutually beneficial arrangement

​​​​​​So this is a mutually beneficial arrangement between the state and a private company facilitated by a union.

[Lordflasheart]

...
just two THREE organisations

Well according to scuttlebutt, Virgin are telling their pilots there are 100 pilot positions available on the RAF's A330 and A400M fleets, so there should be plenty of light blue jam for everyone.

No sabbaticals for VS pilots though: only the exit door and a 'simplified entry pathway' to the RAF.

...

[Chugalug2]

So are we seeing an orderly queue forming here? Most favoured status/special relationship/managed path chums at the head, that bloody man's outfit (you only had to work his name into a conversation to see all the gathered Nigels erupt in fury, cue exit left...), then the other odds and sods who can fight over the leftover crumbs? It appears that things have change somewhat since the days of the Kidlington 'Opportunities in civil aviation' roadshow, swiftly renamed 'Lack of Opportunities...' after Chief Pilot after Chief Pilot announced that he already had an elegant sufficiency thank you very much. Somebody helpfully produced a graph showing air travel demand (and hence the need for pilots) rising inexorably to the top RH corner so no need to worry, to worry, to...

[3 bladed beast]

Has anyone mentioned timelines and training here? This is supposing pilots return to the cockpit ( which I understand isn't a given?)

1-2 week mil refresh at Halton for recent leavers? ( do none military have to start at IOT?)

Posted to an OCU? Which ones exactly as most are full or have people queued up?

OCU of many months ( A400 is averaging 18 months, Waddington is limited options now, Voyager is over manned, p8 unknown)

Arrive at Sqn with "basic" qualifications ( ie not tanker, Trail qualified, air to air, tac, nvg etc)

Can these guys deploy to Falklands and Middle East?

Unless signed up to a decent length of ROS, I don't get what putting these guys back in the cockpit achieves.

Ground related, gapped, OOA perhaps....