AFPRB Signal

[rej]

LFFC
The 3 'extra' days are nothing to do with the 15 you are carrying forward. In essence your 15 days will be carried forward at the end of Mar vice Feb.

God, I'm starting to sound like an adminner. Take me away and shoot me.

Now, do you think that all 40-odd thousand air force personnel will be able to use the 3 extra days in Mar - I think not. Will we be able to carry forward between 15 and 18 days this year .......... I think not. It is a half hearted gesture that just proves how near sighted the system is.

However, I do hope that the rumour that JPA will not allow you to carry forward up to 15 days is just that ..... a rumour or is it just another way to p155 of the natives and increase the PVR rates to get down to the magical 30,000 figure.

[Ginseng]

TBW

Don't know where you got that rumour from, but, so far as I am aware, it is complete nonsense.

Regards

Ginseng

[LFFC]

rej

Yeah - that's what I meant. Apparently, you won't get your extra 3 days if you're already carrying over 15 days. Might make the stats look bad!

The bottom line is - if you've got 15 days outstanding, take at least 3 days leave this week!

[Ginseng]

Gentlemen (and Ladies?)

Before you get carried away with rumours, I recommend a read of JSP760 - the tri-service regulations for leave and other forms of absence in the JPA era.

The 3-days leave for March is that proportion of a year's leave required to properly shift the current RAF leave year to align with the common JPA leave year. It has nothing to do with whether you have 15 days of this year's leave outstanding or not. In fact, looking on the bright side, it should be 2.54days, but as that's too difficult for anyone to administer, it has been rounded up to 3.

Ginseng

[Dirty Bleeder]

Has anyone else realised that they have omitted the phase ' unless PVR is at or after Initial Pension Point' when they discuss reductions to flying pay under JPA.
Under exsisting Regs if you PVR having served a commission beyond IPP then you do not take any reduction in Flying Pay - because you have given a reasonable service to Queen and Country.
With the omission of this phrase if you now PVR under JPA, and you were on Enhanced Flying Pay (as most people will be in that situation) you will take a £530 per month pay cut.
I don't know about you, but I feel that is a bit second eleven.
I tried to get the definitive answer from JSP753 (the new bible for Joint Pay) but apparently it has not been issued yet.
If anyone has any insight it would be greatly appreciated as there is no way I can live for a year with a pay cut of that magnitude.
Can they legally do that!!!!!!

[Almost_done]

Originally Posted by [email protected]

No, go on. Sit on the fence, why don't you.

No not sitting on the fence, just stating how I feel about the Federation/Union thingy and the military never really worked, sort of like.....

'Fellow Federation member go over the wall and attack the enemy!'
'Yes Fellow Federation Officer, but first I must check with my brothers that I can do that and that it's not an ilegal order'

As some person will try for that attitude eventually, human nature.

[cornishpixie]

some snippets that interested me

The evidence highlighted that significant manning shortages presented a management
challenge despite the drawdown of RAF personnel. Around 40 specific manning areas
were in shortfall covering a range of Aircrew, Operations Support, Engineers,
Administration, Medical and Support Branches, Non-Commissioned Aircrew and other
specific branches. The RAF regarded managing operational deployments as important
for branches with manning shortages and there were signs of improvement since the
peak of commitments in 2003

Aircrew
recruitment was healthy but the number of pilots electing to leave at their initial
retirement date had increased after three years of low exit rates. The removal of FRIs had
proved unpopular and manning required close monitoring.

The measures introduced for Non-Commissioned Aircrew,
including the FRI, the Professional Aviator Pay Spine and the non-remuneration action
plan were all considered to be having a positive effect on the cadre. However, the RAF
generally considered that all Aircrew were “keeping their options open” rather than
extending their RAF careers.

Percentage of personnel working
over 40 hours per week 73%

MOD commented that working hours were stable but remained relatively high with
many personnel working excessive hours and experiencing on duty periods far in excess
of civilians. MOD added that, with continuing operational commitments and reductions
in personnel, there was a significant risk working hours would increase further over time.

The Armed Forces have certain exemptions from the Working Time Regulations

However, after several years of stability, Voluntary Outflow (as measured by PVRs) rose
during 2004-05 and was on an upward trend during the early part of 2005-06. Of
particular concern is the noticeable rise in PVR application and exit rates among Other
Ranks – the application rate, as a statement of intention, is a warning sign for the future.

Pay plays an important part in recruitment and retention. The conclusions we draw from
our pay comparisons suggest that Armed Forces’ pay is not as competitive as it needs to
be in a tight labour market. We can already see recruitment difficulties as the supply of
young people diminishes and pay levels have a role in supporting the Services’
recruitment efforts.

MOD’s manning evidence suggested that overall SNCO manning was stable and
sustainable for the Army and RAF but deficits existed across many Royal Navy SNCO
ranks. However, the single Services noted: a large shortfall of Army Sergeants against the
Sustainable Experience Profile; a significant reduction in the RAF SNCO manning deficit –
the RAF recognised the need to carefully manage SNCOs through force restructuring;
and shortages of Royal Navy Petty Officers and Chief Petty Officers were predicted to
worsen. The Royal Navy manning “black hole” had been created as a result of
recruitment policies in the mid-1990s and the Royal Navy was considering action to
address future sustainability, including targeted extension of service. We noted earlier in
Chapter 2 that manning “black holes” lead to mounting pressure on personnel thereby
influencing retention and can be very expensive to rectify.

MOD’s evidence, and comments we received on visits, pointed to two major concerns
among SNCOs: structural issues within Pay 2000; and perception of status and value.
Pay 2000 continued to exercise and frustrate SNCOs, particularly overlapping pay bands,
incremental progression, pay on promotion and the “flop” from higher to lower pay
bands on promotion. MOD will review Pay 2000 post-JPA, including incremental levels
and pay on promotion. Some SNCOs perceive status and value to be eroded by
additional responsibilities and workload for little financial gain. However, evidence on
morale and satisfaction was not out of step with the rest of the Services and competition
for promotion remained fierce.

Aircrew Pay
4.7 In our 2005 Report, we asked MOD to consider whether the six categories of Aircrew
Pay could be streamlined as they only covered two rates of pay. MOD continued to
consider that the current structure offered sufficient flexibility and matched differing
career progression.

I have not made any comments so far but would invite yours. I suspect that comments along the lines of "No s**t Sherlock" might be appropriate

[BEagle]

"The removal of FRIs had proved unpopular......."

You don't say! Well, there's a thing.....

[The Gorilla]

It certainly hastened my departure. As I said so you want me to put up with all this Bo**ocks for £5,000 a year less. Mmmm let me think about that.

Ha ha ha!

[Baskitt Kase]

...shortfall covering a range of Aircrew, Operations Support, Engineers, Administration, Medical and Support Branches, Non-Commissioned Aircrew and other specific branches.

"The removal of FRIs had proved unpopular......."

You don't say! Well, there's a thing.....

Although not, I suspect, with the many ground crew that have been having even more pressing recruitment/retention problems than we have had over the past few years...

[Brain Potter]

Apologies for going of at a tangent, but is anyone else annoyed by the phrase "roll out" for this sort of cr*p - ie JPA. It used to mean the exciting prospect of a new aircraft prototype being rolled out of a hangar, but has been hijacked to make the mundane admin/IT projects sound sexy.

I was under the impression that the changes under JPA are supposed to align the rules for all three services. I thought that Flying Pay rules were already tri-service. Under pre-JPA rules is FP for Army or Navy personnel cut by half under PVR terms? If not, what could possibly justify this change? I suspect that JPA is an excuse for trying to reduce PVRs by making the terms more unpallatable for the individual. What next - a total loss of FP? If servicemen had any sort of protection under employment law (other than racial or sexual discrimination) then perhaps this change could be challenged. However, I fear that the only recourse would be redress - a system which supposedly substitutes for all the other employment law protection enjoyed by the rest of the workforce. Good luck to whoever tries!!

[dessert_flyer]

Flying Pay

With regard to reduction to Flying Pay on PVR. Am i to assume those of us on the PA spine will have no reduction in their pay if they PVR, as they are on a spine point and as such dont have an element of Flying pay, whilst those of us still on Flying pay will have ours cut, any thoughts anybody? and is it legal or is their some discrimination their??

[cornishpixie]

Originally Posted by dessert_flyer

With regard to reduction to Flying Pay on PVR. Am i to assume those of us on the PA spine will have no reduction in their pay if they PVR, as they are on a spine point and as such dont have an element of Flying pay, whilst those of us still on Flying pay will have ours cut, any thoughts anybody? and is it legal or is their some discrimination their??

As I understand it your absolutly correct

[Climebear]

and is it legal or is their some discrimination their??

Yes it is legal even though there is some discrimination there. The basis is the PA spine is whole salary not additional pay (for recruiting and retention). Not all discrimination is illegal. If it were, we would all be paid the same wouldn't we - Come the Revolution Comrades!

A quick scan of RAF QRs highlights the difference between Flying Pay and other forms of additional pay.

2681. Flying Pay - General Duties Officers (Flying) Branch. Sponsor:PMA(PAC)

Object

(1) The main object of flying pay is so to enhance pay as to provide in total emoluments an inducement to sufficient numbers of suitable personnel to undertake and continue with a flying career in the RAF.

All other forms of Additional Pay appear to be paid for the duration someone is actually doing a specific job/duty. In simple terms people are being paid these other forms of additional pay for doing things; whereas flying pay appears to be pain to encourage people to start flying and then not to leave.

[[email protected]]

Originally Posted by Climebear

Yes it is legal even though there is some discrimination there.

Originally Posted by Climebear

In simple terms people are being paid these other forms of additional pay for doing things; whereas flying pay appears to be pain to encourage people to start flying and then not to leave.

Yes, pay issues can be a pain.

When trying to be the spelling police ... glasshouses ... stones ... etc.

[Climebear]

[email protected]

touche, but there is a difference between a typo and not knowing the difference between there and their.

[Tourist]

Take it like a man Climebear!
Admit that you just made yourself look a d1ck.
Wingeing just makes it worse.

[Phoney Tony]

Sorry if this has been covered before on this thread.
I found out today that if you are posted into a post which is not 'Flying Associated' you lose your flying pay after the 3 year point, in 25% chunks over the next 3 years. Thus at the 6/7 year point you do not get any at all.
This was always possible under the old system. The difference with JPA is that this is now not a discretionary thing it's automatic.
Is this fair if you are posted into specific jobs for 'Service Need'.
For those of you in ground tours I suggest you check with yor deskie to see if your post has been redesignated with out your knowledge. More importantly if posted into ground slot check it's status.
I suspect there may have been a smoke and mirror job done here.
How willing are aircrew going to be to fill tours knowing their FP is at risk?
Interestingly I have checked a few PICs which state FlyXXX as mandatory competencies, but are 'Not flying related'. I suspect the answer is to post another branch into the slot......but I suspect the job holder actually wants aircrew!
Angry

[cornishpixie]

Rats Sinking Ship

Originally Posted by Phoney Tony

I found out today that if you are posted into a post which is not 'Flying Associated' you lose your flying pay after the 3 year point, in 25% chunks over the next 3 years. Thus at the 6/7 year point you do not get any at all.

On the positive side it may stop some of the ground happy war dodgers. I have to agree that Aircrew will be less inclined to volunteer for ground posts if they run the risk of losing flying pay. On the other hand accept PA and accept ground tours?

[LFFC]

Phoney Tony

I wouldn't worry about it if I were you. It's not much different from the system that's already in place and there aren't very many posts for aircrew that are not flying related. Moreover, given the shortage of sqn ldr aircrew, and the rate at which that situation is getting worse, there's really no chance of you ending up posted to a non-flying related job!