PVR & Flying Pay Halved Under JPA?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Down South
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PVR & Flying Pay Halved Under JPA?
Just heard a rumour that under JPA, if you PVR, your flying pay gets halved immediately and it doesn't matter whether you PVR'd 2 months ago or do it next week, everyone gets hit from the date JPA starts. Clearly not good news for anyone planning to scuttle off to the airlines.......has anyone got the official word on this?
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes it's true, flying pay halves from the time of acceptance of your pvr.
It says in the leaflet that this is because flying pay is there as a retention incentive which if you have pvr'd obviously hasn't worked. B
ds. Anything else you want from us?
A thank you for all your hard work and service would be nice.
Instead another reason to incite the pvr..................
Loyalty is a two way thing !!
It says in the leaflet that this is because flying pay is there as a retention incentive which if you have pvr'd obviously hasn't worked. B
ds. Anything else you want from us?A thank you for all your hard work and service would be nice.
Instead another reason to incite the pvr..................
Loyalty is a two way thing !!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The literature appears to say that once you PVR you receive half of the full-rate Flying Pay.
Thus, if you are on lower-rate flying pay and PVR, you'll get a pay rise!!!!
(errr, please don't take my word on this!)
Thus, if you are on lower-rate flying pay and PVR, you'll get a pay rise!!!!
(errr, please don't take my word on this!)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Oxon
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And for those lucky enough to be on the pa spine, no reduction whatsoever, wonder how the lawyers would react to that one?
I believe in civvy street it is illegal to differentiate between people doing the same job, same position, for different pay when it has been decided by a select group. Anybody any thoughts??
d_f
I believe in civvy street it is illegal to differentiate between people doing the same job, same position, for different pay when it has been decided by a select group. Anybody any thoughts??
d_f
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: England
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, it's true. If you have a PVR in now and are on the full or 75% bands of FP (now to be caller Specialist Pay - Flying (SP(F)), then from the start of JPA your SP(F) will be reduced to 50%. The glossy booklet even says this will be backdated to the "date of application" rather than the date of approval of your PVR request. If you are currently on the 50% or 25% reserve bands, there is no immediate further reduction, but your SP(F) will taper off as per the JPA rules.
There is a specific statement that PAS will not suffer any reduction in pay on application for PVR.
Make of that what you will.
Regards
Ginseng
There is a specific statement that PAS will not suffer any reduction in pay on application for PVR.
Make of that what you will.
Regards
Ginseng
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Oxon
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gorrilla i sense that you are indeed correct, we are not on a level playing field, however i have seen on a previous thread that when it comes to pay we do have some sort of comeback. What that would involve i am not sure, but could be interesting if it was tested.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: northside
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good call....and only work half days and do half the paperwork.. I agree with the guy who said it is probably illegal but Im sure that I have heard of people challenging it in the courts and getting nowhere....
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: LGW
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm in the same boat mate. If yr on top rate works out about £4/day less than middle rate once PVR'ed. I'm told that there are a few things like this that got in 'under the radar' with JPA.
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
Sadly, they have you well and truly by the nuts, as you have already signalled your intention to invoke the ultimate sanction i.e by getting out. Is this completely new? Wasn't there was a deal like this floating around the regs a few years back, clearly they now have the brass neck to enforce it under JPA.
Perhaps you could offer to fly all the outbound legs one week, and the returns the next week (bit harder to do if you're FJ). As well as doing half the (flying related) work, I would also make up for it by hogging the aircrew rats - how many Mars bars equal half a days flying pay?
Once again, the gold watch and vellum scroll in recognition of sterling service for one's country has been superseded by Tony's Cronies "face in the feces" alternative. Democracy in action indeed.
Perhaps you could offer to fly all the outbound legs one week, and the returns the next week (bit harder to do if you're FJ). As well as doing half the (flying related) work, I would also make up for it by hogging the aircrew rats - how many Mars bars equal half a days flying pay?
Once again, the gold watch and vellum scroll in recognition of sterling service for one's country has been superseded by Tony's Cronies "face in the feces" alternative. Democracy in action indeed.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Two's in
Sadly, they have you well and truly by the nuts
I can see some interesting court cases coming up.
On the other hand, I wouldn't mind betting that if you're over 38 and PVR saying that you wish your exit date to be in only 4 months (that's one month terminal leave, roughly 2 months resettlement leave and a few weeks of annual leave), PMA will make things very difficult for you, but not actually contest it in court for fear of loosing and setting a precedent!
Yet again, I don't think the wheels have really thought this one through - it could well backfire on them!
Last edited by LFFC; 15th Mar 2006 at 00:39.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Several miles SSW of Watford Gap
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LFFC
You could try an challenge it in court. Others have challenge and the MOD has fought and won.
In this instance European Law (and UK Law) specifically exempts Armed Forces. Remember, when the European Member states drafted this legislation the majority of them had conscript armed forces - they were hardly likely to let them just leave when the wanted to! In the same vain, the European Convention on Human Rights (and subsequent UK Human Rights Act) prevents slavery and forced labour - but has an exemption from this clause for Armed Forces! Make of that what you will.
You could challenge the policy by seeking a judicial review. However, this is extremely costly and does not qaulify for any legal assistance. Mind you if enough PPRuNers got together an funded your challenge...
You could try an challenge it in court. Others have challenge and the MOD has fought and won.
In this instance European Law (and UK Law) specifically exempts Armed Forces. Remember, when the European Member states drafted this legislation the majority of them had conscript armed forces - they were hardly likely to let them just leave when the wanted to! In the same vain, the European Convention on Human Rights (and subsequent UK Human Rights Act) prevents slavery and forced labour - but has an exemption from this clause for Armed Forces! Make of that what you will.
You could challenge the policy by seeking a judicial review. However, this is extremely costly and does not qaulify for any legal assistance. Mind you if enough PPRuNers got together an funded your challenge...
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Climebear,
I'm not going to be the one to challenge it. Being on the PAS and with only a few years to serve, I can't see me wanting to PVR. But I really feel for the majority of the Career Spine aircrew out there - they really have had the base-ball bat inserted, and for them, this latest revelation seems to be a final twist just to make sure they know it's fully wedged in!
The irony is that I never bothered to do ISS, OCC, ICSC, etc, and only managed to be assimilated all those years ago because they were a bit short of pilots at the time. I automatically qualified to be PAS and now it would appear that I'm gonna retire with a pension slightly larger than my wg cdr's!
All I would say about exemptions is that, in my time, I've seen a lot of them evaporate when challenged. I've a feeling that this one will be no different.
I'm not going to be the one to challenge it. Being on the PAS and with only a few years to serve, I can't see me wanting to PVR. But I really feel for the majority of the Career Spine aircrew out there - they really have had the base-ball bat inserted, and for them, this latest revelation seems to be a final twist just to make sure they know it's fully wedged in!
The irony is that I never bothered to do ISS, OCC, ICSC, etc, and only managed to be assimilated all those years ago because they were a bit short of pilots at the time. I automatically qualified to be PAS and now it would appear that I'm gonna retire with a pension slightly larger than my wg cdr's!
All I would say about exemptions is that, in my time, I've seen a lot of them evaporate when challenged. I've a feeling that this one will be no different.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Down South
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks very much for all your thoughts on the matter; it seems as dire as first predicted, however, a legal challenge is certainly not out of the question.
When you consider how much money is already taken from you when you PVR (up to 10% of you pension and gratuity, circa £27,000) and now a further £19 ish per day, you could stand to lose the best part of £33,000 over a 12 month period. All this for doing exactly what any civilian would do without a second thought....how could any court see it as fair and/or legal?
Maybe an employment tribunal might offer a different way of tackling the issue....anyone heard of challenges through this route?
When you consider how much money is already taken from you when you PVR (up to 10% of you pension and gratuity, circa £27,000) and now a further £19 ish per day, you could stand to lose the best part of £33,000 over a 12 month period. All this for doing exactly what any civilian would do without a second thought....how could any court see it as fair and/or legal?
Maybe an employment tribunal might offer a different way of tackling the issue....anyone heard of challenges through this route?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Several miles SSW of Watford Gap
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LFFC - the exemptions you mention that have evaporated never existed in the first place. The UK (and other states) believed that the original EEC exemption for military procurement (designed to protect member states defence industries so that they could retain a home-grown capability) extended to exempting their Armed forces from all legislation. The difference now is that the exemptions are specific and enshrined within each piece of legislation (national and European). My comments relate to the waiting time required if an individual PVRs not any reduction in pay.
DunMoanin - our ability to go to an employment tribunal is also restricted. It is limited to issues ander the equal pay act (before you get too excited this relates to differences between men and women's pay), race and sex discrimination. We cannot, for example, take the MoD to an employment tribunal with a claim of constructive or unfair dismissal even though this avenue is open to civilians. Our only real avenue (outside of the redress proceedue
) is to seek a Judicial Review.
DunMoanin - our ability to go to an employment tribunal is also restricted. It is limited to issues ander the equal pay act (before you get too excited this relates to differences between men and women's pay), race and sex discrimination. We cannot, for example, take the MoD to an employment tribunal with a claim of constructive or unfair dismissal even though this avenue is open to civilians. Our only real avenue (outside of the redress proceedue
) is to seek a Judicial Review.