Enough to stay without the pay?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Lancashire, United Kingdom
Age: 53
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Enough to stay without the pay?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../25/nmod25.xml
This question applies to all three services and all of those who wear military wings or any other flying badge in the UK. (A purple thread on PPRuNe? It will never catch on!
)
If the story in the above link is correct, we may be all about to lose flying pay during the inevitable "broadening" jobs, flying related or not, where your backside is not in the sky on a daily basis. The question to the panel is this - will you and your comrades stay or will this be the best move for airline recruitment that the MoD has done?
Personally, being made to take a tour out of the cockpit and pay me less for the privilege will have the CVs flying out to Mr Branson et al.
PS Before any non aviators go on about why should we be paid extra for what we do, I refer you to my 7 late friends from 849 Squadron, and the sticky Chinook thread.
This question applies to all three services and all of those who wear military wings or any other flying badge in the UK. (A purple thread on PPRuNe? It will never catch on!
)If the story in the above link is correct, we may be all about to lose flying pay during the inevitable "broadening" jobs, flying related or not, where your backside is not in the sky on a daily basis. The question to the panel is this - will you and your comrades stay or will this be the best move for airline recruitment that the MoD has done?
Personally, being made to take a tour out of the cockpit and pay me less for the privilege will have the CVs flying out to Mr Branson et al.
PS Before any non aviators go on about why should we be paid extra for what we do, I refer you to my 7 late friends from 849 Squadron, and the sticky Chinook thread.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Lancashire, United Kingdom
Age: 53
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oooopsssss
Made a note in my diary on the way here....
simply said "BU99ER!!!!"
So sorry to all!
Mod, please ditch my double posting before the crabs accuse me of hogging the board!
On the other hand, I'm not talking about those who no longer fly but still get the pay - its those who have to take the odd tour out of the cockpit that may get the cut. So, the question still stands: who would stay or go?
simply said "BU99ER!!!!"
So sorry to all!
Mod, please ditch my double posting before the crabs accuse me of hogging the board!
On the other hand, I'm not talking about those who no longer fly but still get the pay - its those who have to take the odd tour out of the cockpit that may get the cut. So, the question still stands: who would stay or go?
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Road to Nowhere
Posts: 1,023
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ray Dahvectac
I think Jockspice's question stands on its own, and is probably worth a thread. However, I would reiterate what I said on the other thread regarding FP. It seems to me that there are 2 groups of people in ground tours:
1. Some people are forced to undertake ground tours, either to prove they have the ability for future staff tours (ie as a means of making them more rounded officers and better leaders) or because they have expertise that is needed within the HQs. These people return to flying and justify the additional pay.
2. Some people have reached an age where being put through an OCU is simply not an option. Others show neither the desire nor the willingness to return to flying duties, having settled for an 'easier' life on the ground. I have met such people and most are quite open about it. When asked about FP, they respond that they are 'available' for flying duties so should be paid.
I think Jockspice's question stands on its own, and is probably worth a thread. However, I would reiterate what I said on the other thread regarding FP. It seems to me that there are 2 groups of people in ground tours:
1. Some people are forced to undertake ground tours, either to prove they have the ability for future staff tours (ie as a means of making them more rounded officers and better leaders) or because they have expertise that is needed within the HQs. These people return to flying and justify the additional pay.
2. Some people have reached an age where being put through an OCU is simply not an option. Others show neither the desire nor the willingness to return to flying duties, having settled for an 'easier' life on the ground. I have met such people and most are quite open about it. When asked about FP, they respond that they are 'available' for flying duties so should be paid.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Andover, Hampshire
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If aircrew of any service are forced to leave flying for a desk job then they should either be paid at a higher rate (equivalent to flying pay) or allowed to receive flying pay. Should any aircrew volunteer to leave flying duties to take up a new career on the ground then the said aircrew should forfeit their flying status and subsequently lose the flying pay.
Those who choose option "B" (leave by choice) should be available for "call-up" to flying duties should the need arise (such as Gulf War III) and subsequently receive flying pay for the period that they are on aircrew duties.
Those who choose option "B" (leave by choice) should be available for "call-up" to flying duties should the need arise (such as Gulf War III) and subsequently receive flying pay for the period that they are on aircrew duties.
I still think that the Torygraph has merely been confused by the phasing out of Spec Aircrew 'Flying Pay' and the introduction of the PA spine with pensionable, enhanced pay.....
To 'call up' a significant number of aircrew in ground appointments when needed would put a large strain on the training system - remember back when there was a whole JP squadron devoted to refresher training? If you had more than about 3 months off flying, off you went to Leeming for about 15 hours of licenced hooliganism! Is there any such facility nowadays?
To 'call up' a significant number of aircrew in ground appointments when needed would put a large strain on the training system - remember back when there was a whole JP squadron devoted to refresher training? If you had more than about 3 months off flying, off you went to Leeming for about 15 hours of licenced hooliganism! Is there any such facility nowadays?
Comment coming from a non-flying but sharp end person so it should be taken in that context:
Flying pay is paid for two reasons (I understand): the retention thingy - 'cos you as aircrew can earn more outside than us mere mortals
we need to pay you more to keep you in (seems simple to me) and there is a bit of a "danger pay" element aswell. Having worked in the DPA and seen how we procure equipment you (aircrew) deserve this element of the pay.
The question is should you receive it when not flying? If you are on a ground tour and are available/likely to go back to flying then yes.
If you have effectively finished your flying career (rank, age, desire to sit behind a desk or other impediments) then no you shouldn't get the pay - there will be some who will choose to go at this point to pursue a civilian flying career.
The trouble is how do you address the problem of those high flyers (sic) who will not return to the cockpit? In that case a type of retention pay should be introduced for ALL such high achievers. It will be a b$gger to administrate but so is flying pay but it may mean that the blunties earn their pay for a change.....
On the other hand you could just eliminate flying pay altogether 'cos there will always be a ready supply of keen young bloods who want to fly Betty's aeroplanes and don't care about the pay when they sign on the dotted line......
I'll get my coat!
Flying pay is paid for two reasons (I understand): the retention thingy - 'cos you as aircrew can earn more outside than us mere mortals
we need to pay you more to keep you in (seems simple to me) and there is a bit of a "danger pay" element aswell. Having worked in the DPA and seen how we procure equipment you (aircrew) deserve this element of the pay. The question is should you receive it when not flying? If you are on a ground tour and are available/likely to go back to flying then yes.
If you have effectively finished your flying career (rank, age, desire to sit behind a desk or other impediments) then no you shouldn't get the pay - there will be some who will choose to go at this point to pursue a civilian flying career.
The trouble is how do you address the problem of those high flyers (sic) who will not return to the cockpit? In that case a type of retention pay should be introduced for ALL such high achievers. It will be a b$gger to administrate but so is flying pay but it may mean that the blunties earn their pay for a change.....
On the other hand you could just eliminate flying pay altogether 'cos there will always be a ready supply of keen young bloods who want to fly Betty's aeroplanes and don't care about the pay when they sign on the dotted line......
I'll get my coat!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: La Plage
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the other hand if aircrew had the same promotion prospects as say the Admin branch, with the inreased pay and pension that brings, then Flying pay would not be such an emotive subject. Please do not tell me all promotions are based on merit, I know far too many who have been promoted due to a shortage of candidates.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Get rid of flying pay, sea going pay, LOA, submarine pay - THE WHOLE D@MNED LOT! Then with the money saved from firing all the Shiny @rses that administer these allowances, give every man-jack/crab/pongo/bootie a pay rise. After that the MoD should persue the Government thieves (Treasury) about getting servce personell's pay free of tax while they are outwith the UK as do civvy's. (And RFA Personell)
Sory about the speling
Sory about the speling
Don't worry about the spelling - it reflects your strength of feeling on the matter.
I entirely agree that income tax should be waived for every 24 hour period spent outside the UK for the nation's service personnel. With all those computers humming away at Binnsworth et al, surely it wouldn't be very difficult to administer? They know where you are - you should therefore be paid accordingly.
But where would El Gordo recover all that lost income. Ah - but I forget. If they can waste £Bn on governmental cock ups, the few quid they raise from Income Tax extracted from Armed Forces the size of a little village would be a mere drop in the ocean.......
I entirely agree that income tax should be waived for every 24 hour period spent outside the UK for the nation's service personnel. With all those computers humming away at Binnsworth et al, surely it wouldn't be very difficult to administer? They know where you are - you should therefore be paid accordingly.
But where would El Gordo recover all that lost income. Ah - but I forget. If they can waste £Bn on governmental cock ups, the few quid they raise from Income Tax extracted from Armed Forces the size of a little village would be a mere drop in the ocean.......
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Deepest Lincolnshire
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the risk of stating the obvious, to withdraw flying pay for exisiting aircrew who have based their life's plans on always receiving flying pay would be financially crippling for the majority of individuals. If they do insist on making such a change then surely the only fair way would be to introduce another 'spine' of aircrew status for new entrants. These new aircrew types would then only get flying pay when filling flying appointments. Such a mix of flying pay recipients would be devisive and hence poor for morale, but at least the new people would have volunteered for aircrew duties knowing what they were letting themselves in for.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Just down the road from ISK
Posts: 328
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The answer is simple:
According to CAS' dit (denial) on the Telegraph article, the forces budget is based on the value of it's assets - ie the more the worth of our aircraft/ships and other green stuff the more our budget.
Just keep buying from BAES and everything will cost more - hence we get a bigger budget and can pay specialist pay!!
See, BWOS are in it to help us!!
According to CAS' dit (denial) on the Telegraph article, the forces budget is based on the value of it's assets - ie the more the worth of our aircraft/ships and other green stuff the more our budget.
Just keep buying from BAES and everything will cost more - hence we get a bigger budget and can pay specialist pay!!
See, BWOS are in it to help us!!
Why the £**k am I not surprised to be learning about this in the press before hearing about it IN ANY FORM from the powers that be. Loyalty? LOYALTY? My 4rse!
I'm already leaving, counting the months, but if I had longer to do this would be one of those straws ....... Their imperial majesties in their first class rail carriages don't have a £irkin' clue about anything.
I'm already leaving, counting the months, but if I had longer to do this would be one of those straws ....... Their imperial majesties in their first class rail carriages don't have a £irkin' clue about anything.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Trumpville; On the edge
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aah....Innsworth...................
Quote: "With all those computers humming away at Binnsworth et al, surely it wouldn't be very difficult to administer? They know where you are - you should therefore be paid accordingly."
Nice idea Beags, but the eejuts can't even do simple tasks like discern livers-out from livers-in - hence the cake 'n' arse every few months with c0ck-ups in pay........"but the computer automatically defaults you to living in sir" etc. etc.
I was taught simple logic as far as computer data is concerned.....sh1t in = sh1t out, period.
Nice idea Beags, but the eejuts can't even do simple tasks like discern livers-out from livers-in - hence the cake 'n' arse every few months with c0ck-ups in pay........"but the computer automatically defaults you to living in sir" etc. etc.
I was taught simple logic as far as computer data is concerned.....sh1t in = sh1t out, period.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Over there, behind that tree.
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TT
...as far as computer data is concerned.....sh1t in = sh1t out, period.
Computers are just a faster way of making mistakes.
Ref this flying pay thing . . . when I was "in" those that flew desks used to be able to arrange a few hours per month, somewhere, to justify their FP. When I was at Wyton in the 70s, eg, every week there was a pretty constant stream of wingcos, sqn ldrs and flt lts trogging across from Brampton to fly the Chippies and Canberra T.4s of TVASFlt. In fact it was a perk for us as well as most of those blokes would let us fly with them for an hour or so. Doesn't this happen any more? Is it not allowed in the modern RAF?
But then, we had more aircraft in those days.
...as far as computer data is concerned.....sh1t in = sh1t out, period.
Computers are just a faster way of making mistakes.
Ref this flying pay thing . . . when I was "in" those that flew desks used to be able to arrange a few hours per month, somewhere, to justify their FP. When I was at Wyton in the 70s, eg, every week there was a pretty constant stream of wingcos, sqn ldrs and flt lts trogging across from Brampton to fly the Chippies and Canberra T.4s of TVASFlt. In fact it was a perk for us as well as most of those blokes would let us fly with them for an hour or so. Doesn't this happen any more? Is it not allowed in the modern RAF?
But then, we had more aircraft in those days.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's good to see that the chiefs are all still trying to save the pennies by cutting into the heart of the workforce whilst maintaining a crass, topheavy organisation which should have been reorganised 50 yrs ago.
Considering how many 1 stars there are wasting taxpayers money and the fact that it still costs more to run the MOD than all three forces combined; shouldn't Mr Hoon (Who) get rid of the antiquated manegerial burden and slim down from the top? P.S A note to the PA to CAS who enjoys these: Yes we still think the RAF is top heavy!
Considering how many 1 stars there are wasting taxpayers money and the fact that it still costs more to run the MOD than all three forces combined; shouldn't Mr Hoon (Who) get rid of the antiquated manegerial burden and slim down from the top? P.S A note to the PA to CAS who enjoys these: Yes we still think the RAF is top heavy!
There are lots of rumours around that the RAF will be 'slimmed down' from about 55,000 to about 38,000 (i.e by about one third) in the coming years. If this turns out to be the case, it would be interesting to see the corresponding decrease in the numbers of senior officers, i.e Group Captain and above.
Don't be surprised if the reduction in senior officers if this scenario occurs is less than 10%!!!!!!
Don't be surprised if the reduction in senior officers if this scenario occurs is less than 10%!!!!!!
