Imminent strike at RAF Shawbury?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Imminent strike at RAF Shawbury?
I understand from contacts and local press that all is not well in the state of PFI that is DHFS. Apparently both the engineers and the aircrew, represented by AMICUS and BALPA respectively, are deadlocked with the employers, FBHeliservices. Be interesting to see how that one develops. Wonder how the gap will be bridged by the military if the civvies do go out on strike?
Last edited by aytoo; 10th Dec 2005 at 16:09.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: ISLE OF MAN
Posts: 780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well, this was never going to happen, was it? Another indictment of the contractorisation of the trades.
The bean counter seem to miss the point that people don't give a rat's ass these days, and are in it for themselves.
it was a lot easier when everyone worked for the Queen.
The bean counter seem to miss the point that people don't give a rat's ass these days, and are in it for themselves.
it was a lot easier when everyone worked for the Queen.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lincs
Posts: 695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its probably the wrong PC thing to say, but I hope the strike goes on, and on, and on, and on, and on!!!
Maybe then, someone will have the balls to stand up and say enough of this civilianisation or the ARMED forces.
It does NOT work, and it will never work. It is another dreadful money-saving decision by some faceless and spineless civil servant in his quest for promotion.
Kind regards
TSM
Switches back to safe, and I need a lie down desperately!!
Maybe then, someone will have the balls to stand up and say enough of this civilianisation or the ARMED forces.
It does NOT work, and it will never work. It is another dreadful money-saving decision by some faceless and spineless civil servant in his quest for promotion.
Kind regards
TSM
Switches back to safe, and I need a lie down desperately!!
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst an ex-military man may share the view that the military do it better, it is a fact that civilians do it cheaper.
Where the PFI enterprise fails to deliver it is often because somebody is either getting greedy and trying to do it on the cheap, or they are incompetant. In either case it can be solved by a change of contractor and most of the trained workforce will simply change companies.
The real test is coming later when the contractors have to train their own people from scratch. Watch the profits disappear then.
Where the PFI enterprise fails to deliver it is often because somebody is either getting greedy and trying to do it on the cheap, or they are incompetant. In either case it can be solved by a change of contractor and most of the trained workforce will simply change companies.
The real test is coming later when the contractors have to train their own people from scratch. Watch the profits disappear then.
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
PFI = Personal Fatcat Income. Surely nobody is surprised by this, and the civilian instructors are certainly not reaping the benefits of another example of Government endorsed fraud.
Two's in.
"Government endorsed fraud?"
Please explain.
Spacer,
I doubt that the military have anyone with the licences to permit them to do the work.
"Government endorsed fraud?"
Please explain.
Spacer,
I doubt that the military have anyone with the licences to permit them to do the work.
Registered User **
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hooded
I'm sure it was tongue in cheek, but the ones made redundant are not exactly upset, they couldn't wait to desert the sinking ship. Just p!ssed off I couldn't join them.
Safety_Helmut
I'm sure it was tongue in cheek, but the ones made redundant are not exactly upset, they couldn't wait to desert the sinking ship. Just p!ssed off I couldn't join them.
Safety_Helmut
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems to me and a few more ex mil friends that in fact the civvies do not do it cheaper. What is not apparently taken into account is the cost of doing the actual job. With the services one finds the whole budget divided up into so many slices to arrive at a cost for any operation. These costs include pensions, retired pay, redundancy costs, etc etc whereas the "civvie" costs will be that paid to the contractor only. It is not just the bean counters that make decisions about these things. Get the greedy "scrambled egg" guys sorted and you may have effective and efficient military once again. If you think this is not so look at the structure and you will see an inverted pyramid if you add in all the "retired" people getting paid from the military budget. How many air rank do we have compared to how many aircraft for example? The system is a huge disservice to the people actually doing the job they signed up for and being shafted every now and then. Rant over!
WorkingHard,
“These costs include pensions, retired pay, redundancy costs, etc etc whereas the "civvie" costs will be that paid to the contractor only.
Isn’t that the whole point, surely that’s why it is so much cheaper!
“These costs include pensions, retired pay, redundancy costs, etc etc whereas the "civvie" costs will be that paid to the contractor only.
Isn’t that the whole point, surely that’s why it is so much cheaper!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: northside
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Before I write anything I must declare an interest in so much as I hold a lot of shares in Cobham.
Notwithstanding that, it is clear from the results from the UKMFTS that employing civilian companies to train military operations is not only cost effective but also leads to a higher Operational Capibility. I just hope (for my accountants sake) that the Guys at Shawbs can come to a amicable agreement.
Notwithstanding that, it is clear from the results from the UKMFTS that employing civilian companies to train military operations is not only cost effective but also leads to a higher Operational Capibility. I just hope (for my accountants sake) that the Guys at Shawbs can come to a amicable agreement.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When the Tornado F.3's at St Athan were damaged by contractors exactly how was that cheaper than service people
not damaging them? If you examine the PFI's in regards to education and the health service we end up paying quite a bit more than is immediately obvious for what is provided.
not damaging them? If you examine the PFI's in regards to education and the health service we end up paying quite a bit more than is immediately obvious for what is provided.
It is easy to save costs if you ditch a job's training system. Short term planning though. Suppose that's what happens when there is no long-term accountability and Governments stay in office for less time than the fallout takes to start. Assuming someone does bid, I don't look forward to discovering what the PFI cost will be when the training has to start up again.
Mind you, Shawbs going on strike must save the Station a fortune and improve low flying complaint stats into the bargain as well. Perhaps this could be classed a new initiative and rolled out across the rest of the Mil
Mind you, Shawbs going on strike must save the Station a fortune and improve low flying complaint stats into the bargain as well. Perhaps this could be classed a new initiative and rolled out across the rest of the Mil
It must come as a helluva surprise to some to realise that any PFI contractor actually expects to make a profit!
Win the contract, get your feet under the table. Loss lead for the first few years; then, when MoD has no other option having flogged off all its own assets and pi$$ed off all its own work force, put the screws on them by telling them to pay more or do the work themselves.....
Win the contract, get your feet under the table. Loss lead for the first few years; then, when MoD has no other option having flogged off all its own assets and pi$$ed off all its own work force, put the screws on them by telling them to pay more or do the work themselves.....
southside,
How can you say;
“…..it is clear from the results from the UKMFTS that employing civilian companies to train military operations is not only cost effective……”
When UKMFTS does not even START until 2007?
(Cobham shares down 1 to 161 I see……………………………….)
propulike,
Not all contractorisation and civilianisation are PFIs.
In contracting out maintenance and overhaul of non operational functions the RAF is not ditching a training system as it is still training and employing technicians but only for front line tasks.
How can you say;
“…..it is clear from the results from the UKMFTS that employing civilian companies to train military operations is not only cost effective……”
When UKMFTS does not even START until 2007?
(Cobham shares down 1 to 161 I see……………………………….)
propulike,
Not all contractorisation and civilianisation are PFIs.
In contracting out maintenance and overhaul of non operational functions the RAF is not ditching a training system as it is still training and employing technicians but only for front line tasks.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: United States of Bradford
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Still "serving".
Seen civilianisation at various units over 26 years.
It has never worked to the planned outcome.
Seen many failures.
One question.
If we are saving cash by civilianising, why are we still having to cut???
The answer must be that we are not saving!!!
Just ask the boys on the "shopfloor".
Lyneham would be a good start.
Seen civilianisation at various units over 26 years.
It has never worked to the planned outcome.
Seen many failures.
One question.
If we are saving cash by civilianising, why are we still having to cut???
The answer must be that we are not saving!!!
Just ask the boys on the "shopfloor".
Lyneham would be a good start.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Oxfordshire
Age: 54
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This whole cost / capability issue is governed by what you think the RAF is here for.
Are we here to defend the UK from whatever the Government sees fit? (Be it a physical attack on our borders or maintaining oil supplies for our heating, cars and businesses - our economy)
Or are we here to head off abroad carrying our national flag to pop into the map next to George?
Evidence would seem to support the latter, in which case we really don't need a lot of anything. Just enough to deploy in sufficent numbers to justify baing called an 'ally'.
Are we here to defend the UK from whatever the Government sees fit? (Be it a physical attack on our borders or maintaining oil supplies for our heating, cars and businesses - our economy)
Or are we here to head off abroad carrying our national flag to pop into the map next to George?
Evidence would seem to support the latter, in which case we really don't need a lot of anything. Just enough to deploy in sufficent numbers to justify baing called an 'ally'.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe I am right in saying that all the civvy QHIs at Shawbs have to be ex-military. If that is correct, how pi$$ed off must a bunch of retired Lt Cdrs, Majors and Sqn Ldrs be to even consider sitting around a brazier at the main gate? Seems that Bristows (at the top of the FBH tree along with Cobham) have enough problems staving off the imminent strike with their North Sea fleet. Southside, you may want to think about shifting your shares somewhere safer - oil exploration on the moon, or a dotcom venture!
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...hreadid=197951
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...hreadid=197951