WSOP PAY UPBANDING?
Hellbound
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Blighty
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying pay is not an element for recruitment and retention, it is the total pay that does that. I have said for a long time that all aircrew should be paid according to a different pay scale so we can get away from these 'my-basic-is-not-as-good-as-his-and-he-is-a-blunty' arguments.
Agree that all this down-banding stuff is barking as it suggests a loss of status and affects self-value and morale. I am agreeing with the thread, honest, just not the justification....
Agree that all this down-banding stuff is barking as it suggests a loss of status and affects self-value and morale. I am agreeing with the thread, honest, just not the justification....
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bunbury, Australia
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by South Bound
Flying pay is not an element for recruitment and retention, it is the total pay that does that.
If I (or any other NCA) was to pvr (or whatever its called now) then I would drop down a flying pay level.
PMA have been asked why and their explanation is that flying pay is a retention incentive, if you have pvr'd then the retention incentive has failed and therefore you loose some of it.
Again correct me if I'm wrong guys and feel free to ask PMA but the last person I know of who pvr'd dropped a flying pay level and was informed that flying pay is in effect retention pay.
Hellbound
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Blighty
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep, know all that, but it is not the flying pay that keeps you in, it is the total amount.
Was just arguing that base pay makes no difference (apart from pension, admittedly) in someone's decision to stay.
Hey ho, not my discussion, leave you to it now...
Was just arguing that base pay makes no difference (apart from pension, admittedly) in someone's decision to stay.
Hey ho, not my discussion, leave you to it now...
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bunbury, Australia
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SB
Its an interesting point about retention. According to the Mar 06 figures the ALM branch has exactly the same retention problems as pilots.
JO Pilots = -6%
ALM = -6%
Aeop = 0%
Aeng = +1%
Obviously the RAF is very worried about pilots leaving and everyone is making a big fuss, its a pity we don't receive half the public support.
Its an interesting point about retention. According to the Mar 06 figures the ALM branch has exactly the same retention problems as pilots.
JO Pilots = -6%
ALM = -6%
Aeop = 0%
Aeng = +1%
Obviously the RAF is very worried about pilots leaving and everyone is making a big fuss, its a pity we don't receive half the public support.
1. Under JPA, if you PVR your FP is reduced by 50% and that is for all flying trades!
2. I haven't had time to read the whole thread but factor this: The assessment is Tri-Service and so the comparisons are not purely RAF trade v trade but service v service. So, Army WO with 80 plus men under his command gets low-band. What chance does a MACR with 15 NCA under his command have of being up-banded......? And he is one of 4 MACR on the same sqn!
2. I haven't had time to read the whole thread but factor this: The assessment is Tri-Service and so the comparisons are not purely RAF trade v trade but service v service. So, Army WO with 80 plus men under his command gets low-band. What chance does a MACR with 15 NCA under his command have of being up-banded......? And he is one of 4 MACR on the same sqn!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bunbury, Australia
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CBTL
Valid point and I would hope its taken into account when pay banding is calculated.
Don't forget that the Sgt/FS/MACR will have on a regular basis a full aircraft load of passengers under his command. He will be fully responsible for their supervision and safety along with many other aspects. Depending on aircraft type this figure will vary considerably but on the shiney fleet will be a lot greater than the army WO's 80.
There are many other arguments I could put forward but on the management side of the game the ALM regularly has far more men under his command than all the other Wsop branches put together.
The fact remains that at present the ALM branch is currently the lowest paid and by some bizarre coincidence the lowest manned (not counting Wsop L for obvious reasons).
I dread to think what the effect another kick in the teeth will have on moral and exit rates.
Valid point and I would hope its taken into account when pay banding is calculated.
Don't forget that the Sgt/FS/MACR will have on a regular basis a full aircraft load of passengers under his command. He will be fully responsible for their supervision and safety along with many other aspects. Depending on aircraft type this figure will vary considerably but on the shiney fleet will be a lot greater than the army WO's 80.
There are many other arguments I could put forward but on the management side of the game the ALM regularly has far more men under his command than all the other Wsop branches put together.
The fact remains that at present the ALM branch is currently the lowest paid and by some bizarre coincidence the lowest manned (not counting Wsop L for obvious reasons).
I dread to think what the effect another kick in the teeth will have on moral and exit rates.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: here, there and everywhere
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ultimately its not just about how many people you have under you. One of our "big issues" from the last review highlighted what did a MALM / FS do different from a Sgt ALM. The answer in most cases was draw an additional 3K+ a year and fly less than the Sgt. Most people "in" more than 10 years will understand what I mean by this. Whilst there are still a few of these characters left serving, the majority of FS / MACR today fulfil multi roles such as QHTI / QHCIs / Trainers / ROs / Snr Crewman / Dep Snr Cmn / STANO and the list goes on. Whilst this list is ALM biased, Im pretty sure that its much the same across the WSOp Trade. One big thing to take onboard is that the pay scales represent High and Low, not technical / non technical as eluded to in some posts. Yes it did feel a kick in the slats to have been down banded and considered "low band", however knowing the people that were exmained by the review body on my unit, I know that they gave their all representing the trade. What is so frustrating is the fact of not knowing the result. How can I put a down payment on the new Porsche if I don't know the outcome. I bet I would have known the outcome if the money was being reduced!!!! 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems to me that we have a situation here that was supposed to be announced / resolved by last December. Sadly it hasn't. I agree that all NCA should be on the higher band. When I remustered many years ago part of the incentive was to improve myself within the RAF. As a previous electronics technician, i.e. Higher band of pay as it is these days, I would feel deceived if I or any NCA went on to the Lower band. OOps you loadies already have been which at the time and still to this day I find shocking. Would the guys or girls who were previously techies be allowed to remuster back to their old trades, I dont think so, (leaving flying pay aside as we are talking basic pay here). I am aware that years ago the loadies didnt do themselves any favours, but they did put forward a far improved case this time, so well done loadies. In the overall great scheme of things it would cost pennies to upband all FS and MACR loadies. If the concept of WSOps is to work we have to be paid the same. You cannot cross over from one WSOp specialisation to another and have people of the same rank doing the same job, albeit with different experience levels, on a different salary. The FS and MACR loadies on PAS, in my opinion have already been disadvantaged as they would have went in at a lower level than their WSOp counterparts. Incase people dont realise I am in old money terms an AEOp, but fully believe in NCA being united. Now for a couple of thoughts, leading on from previous comments.
Over the years it has struck me that AA or NCA as we are now have been a cadre that just doesnt seem to fit the Officer or Ground Airmen mould. We are assessed using the Officer format, yet have the terms and conditions of the ground airmen, well most of them as there are some discrepances. So could a solution be to abandon Pay2000 and have our own pay band. It seems like they try to fit a square peg (NCA) into a round hole (Ground Trade terms and conditions), I am sure many of you would agree with this.
At the moment we have a higher and lower band based on technical and responsibiltiy issues. So if the RAF want to save some cash, why don't the have Job Evaluations of the Officer branches. Does an Engineering Officer have the same responsibilities as say an Admin officer or Supply Officer. With JPA how many people actually work under OC Accounts or OC PSF. They are all pretty much on the same basic and Officer aircrew with vast amounts of flying pay.
So why cant we have our own separate pay band, all views greatly accepted.
Lastly, I noticed the latest figures quoted on the manpower states, obviously interested in the AEOp ones, so a bit of a history lesson forthcoming and not intended to score points or anything silly like that.
AEOp manpower was in decline, then 203 Sqn disbanded from Malta many years ago, instantaneously manpower shortage resolved.
Manpower goes in decline again, then 42 Sqn at St Mawgan disbands, all 3frontline Sqns at Kinloss suddenly get an extra crew.
This extra crew doesnt last long and we go back to 8 crews and over a period of time manpower levels beging to dwindle.
As if by magic 206 Sqn disbands and we end up with 2 super Sqns.
I am sure you see the trend here, as manpower levels start to falter again and with OCU capacity reduced where will we be in a few years if not sooner again. History can give us valuable lessons, but as things are financially driven for now with little thought about the future then I forsee more problems to come.
I get the feeling that a lot of people are coming up to natural wastage points in their service careers, whether 12 or 22 year point and with current goings on there are a lot of push factors.
Now definitely lastly, sorry for harping on, I bet it is not just AEOp's that have this trend. Certainly pilots manning levels are sruggling.
I have gone on a bit and would welcome any constuctive critisisms about my ravings, but in the end we shouldnt be bitching at each other we should have a united front to highlight the problems that do exist.
Over the years it has struck me that AA or NCA as we are now have been a cadre that just doesnt seem to fit the Officer or Ground Airmen mould. We are assessed using the Officer format, yet have the terms and conditions of the ground airmen, well most of them as there are some discrepances. So could a solution be to abandon Pay2000 and have our own pay band. It seems like they try to fit a square peg (NCA) into a round hole (Ground Trade terms and conditions), I am sure many of you would agree with this.
At the moment we have a higher and lower band based on technical and responsibiltiy issues. So if the RAF want to save some cash, why don't the have Job Evaluations of the Officer branches. Does an Engineering Officer have the same responsibilities as say an Admin officer or Supply Officer. With JPA how many people actually work under OC Accounts or OC PSF. They are all pretty much on the same basic and Officer aircrew with vast amounts of flying pay.
So why cant we have our own separate pay band, all views greatly accepted.
Lastly, I noticed the latest figures quoted on the manpower states, obviously interested in the AEOp ones, so a bit of a history lesson forthcoming and not intended to score points or anything silly like that.
AEOp manpower was in decline, then 203 Sqn disbanded from Malta many years ago, instantaneously manpower shortage resolved.
Manpower goes in decline again, then 42 Sqn at St Mawgan disbands, all 3frontline Sqns at Kinloss suddenly get an extra crew.
This extra crew doesnt last long and we go back to 8 crews and over a period of time manpower levels beging to dwindle.
As if by magic 206 Sqn disbands and we end up with 2 super Sqns.
I am sure you see the trend here, as manpower levels start to falter again and with OCU capacity reduced where will we be in a few years if not sooner again. History can give us valuable lessons, but as things are financially driven for now with little thought about the future then I forsee more problems to come.
I get the feeling that a lot of people are coming up to natural wastage points in their service careers, whether 12 or 22 year point and with current goings on there are a lot of push factors.
Now definitely lastly, sorry for harping on, I bet it is not just AEOp's that have this trend. Certainly pilots manning levels are sruggling.
I have gone on a bit and would welcome any constuctive critisisms about my ravings, but in the end we shouldnt be bitching at each other we should have a united front to highlight the problems that do exist.
Who R U?
Cant quite get my head around the shiney fleet and the 300 or so SLF! When they step off or jump, they are no longer your responsibility. Army WO2 has his 80 24/7. The WO1 has 300 approx 24/7. I'm all for the equality of trade and bands etc but there has to be an argument that can stand up between all 3 services.
Consider:
One Sqn has one MACR; 4 Flts, therefore 4 FS and so on.....
The arguments are all pointing back towards Cpl cmn. So how about this; A/Sgt min 3-5 yrs, Sgt 5 yrs, FS 5 yrs, WO2 and then MACR?
Cant quite get my head around the shiney fleet and the 300 or so SLF! When they step off or jump, they are no longer your responsibility. Army WO2 has his 80 24/7. The WO1 has 300 approx 24/7. I'm all for the equality of trade and bands etc but there has to be an argument that can stand up between all 3 services.
Consider:
One Sqn has one MACR; 4 Flts, therefore 4 FS and so on.....
The arguments are all pointing back towards Cpl cmn. So how about this; A/Sgt min 3-5 yrs, Sgt 5 yrs, FS 5 yrs, WO2 and then MACR?
It has to be about more than the number of people you are 'responsible' for. A Junior Officer in a Infantry Regiment will be 'responsible' for 50+ people, a Junior Officer Harrier pilot is responsible for 1 - himself!!!!!!!!! How does their pay (excluding flying pay) compare?
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: England
Age: 46
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought it had cock-all to do with how many you look after etc. Did they not used to call the bands technical and non-technical?!? The technical knowledge of NCA is huge!! Therefore, the FS/MACR ALM's should be upbanded!! End of comment!! 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: South of the Great Divide and West of the Greenwich Meridian
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Could be the last?
Who R U?
Cant quite get my head around the shiney fleet and the 300 or so SLF! When they step off or jump, they are no longer your responsibility. Army WO2 has his 80 24/7. The WO1 has 300 approx 24/7. I'm all for the equality of trade and bands etc but there has to be an argument that can stand up between all 3 services.
Consider:
One Sqn has one MACR; 4 Flts, therefore 4 FS and so on.....
The arguments are all pointing back towards Cpl cmn. So how about this; A/Sgt min 3-5 yrs, Sgt 5 yrs, FS 5 yrs, WO2 and then MACR?
Cant quite get my head around the shiney fleet and the 300 or so SLF! When they step off or jump, they are no longer your responsibility. Army WO2 has his 80 24/7. The WO1 has 300 approx 24/7. I'm all for the equality of trade and bands etc but there has to be an argument that can stand up between all 3 services.
Consider:
One Sqn has one MACR; 4 Flts, therefore 4 FS and so on.....
The arguments are all pointing back towards Cpl cmn. So how about this; A/Sgt min 3-5 yrs, Sgt 5 yrs, FS 5 yrs, WO2 and then MACR?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: England formerly Great Britain
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
....and then we can sack all the Sqn Ldrs not in charge of Sqns, and all the Wing Cdrs not in charge of wings etc etc, Ive heard of thread drift but this one has hit the doldrums. Back to the point in hand gents.
Fact: There are equally qualified individuals of equal rank having served exactly the same length of service who are paid differing rates of pay! ...and in fact the looser (financially) may well be the higher motivated, harder worker. (No offence meant to anybody or any trade - in old school parlance).
Aside from being unfair, this is surely a court case waiting for a time and place. Or is somebody going to throw in crown immunity, which nowadays is pretty much inapplicable.
This is not causing just a bad atmosphere between peers, it is so sour as to be positively rancid. You can put WO2 where the sun dont shine for it will complicate matters totally. I am quite sure that in the near future somebody with a slant for litigation will sort this one, probably outside of a courtroom, less there be a precident. I suspect that the upper echelons are walking on eggs over the bad management to date let alone the impending future. Where is Jackonico whgen you need him? For a Labour Party who represents the "working man" should put their money were there lies are!
Sad to say boys and girls that in a manner similar to the destruction of the RAF in 1975, we have yet again been royaly shafted, and this time he has the nerve to use us as pawns in Tonys game of 'Risk' otherwise known as the politics of world dominance. Can we really be expected to do in Afghanistan what the Russians failed to do whilst being paid less than what is rightfully ours?
Fact: There are equally qualified individuals of equal rank having served exactly the same length of service who are paid differing rates of pay! ...and in fact the looser (financially) may well be the higher motivated, harder worker. (No offence meant to anybody or any trade - in old school parlance).
Aside from being unfair, this is surely a court case waiting for a time and place. Or is somebody going to throw in crown immunity, which nowadays is pretty much inapplicable.
This is not causing just a bad atmosphere between peers, it is so sour as to be positively rancid. You can put WO2 where the sun dont shine for it will complicate matters totally. I am quite sure that in the near future somebody with a slant for litigation will sort this one, probably outside of a courtroom, less there be a precident. I suspect that the upper echelons are walking on eggs over the bad management to date let alone the impending future. Where is Jackonico whgen you need him? For a Labour Party who represents the "working man" should put their money were there lies are!
Sad to say boys and girls that in a manner similar to the destruction of the RAF in 1975, we have yet again been royaly shafted, and this time he has the nerve to use us as pawns in Tonys game of 'Risk' otherwise known as the politics of world dominance. Can we really be expected to do in Afghanistan what the Russians failed to do whilst being paid less than what is rightfully ours?
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bunbury, Australia
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hoots
Fully aware of how they have managed to frig the current manning level figures for Aeop's.
I believe it went something like this : As we are short of Aeop's lets just get rid of a sqn, disband a whole bunch of pics and hey presto problem solved overnight. I also believe that was the main reason why the Wsop branch was created in the first place, just to cover the cracks in the whole NCA manning level crises. The whole situation is a complete joke.
As for the RAF's rank structure, I'm afraid that's completely beyond me. How do they justify employing 125 AC+ or having an officer to airman ratio of 1 officer per 3.77 airmen ? I pity the poor Flt Lt's who on average have the grand total of approx 8 airmen to command each. We are talking serious managerial responsibilities here, lol.
Anyway I digress, back to the point. Come on PMA pull your finger out and let us know the outcome of the pay review.
Fully aware of how they have managed to frig the current manning level figures for Aeop's.
I believe it went something like this : As we are short of Aeop's lets just get rid of a sqn, disband a whole bunch of pics and hey presto problem solved overnight. I also believe that was the main reason why the Wsop branch was created in the first place, just to cover the cracks in the whole NCA manning level crises. The whole situation is a complete joke.
As for the RAF's rank structure, I'm afraid that's completely beyond me. How do they justify employing 125 AC+ or having an officer to airman ratio of 1 officer per 3.77 airmen ? I pity the poor Flt Lt's who on average have the grand total of approx 8 airmen to command each. We are talking serious managerial responsibilities here, lol.
Anyway I digress, back to the point. Come on PMA pull your finger out and let us know the outcome of the pay review.
Last edited by WhoAreYa; 30th Apr 2006 at 12:28.
Firstly I would like to state that all WSOp should be on the same pay banding(UPPER). I am increasingly suspicious as to the outcome of this review as my belief was that our lords and masters were meerly playing the waiting game to make the happy announcement in this tax year so the upbanding could be held off for another 12 months with the old you will get it next year routine.
The continued deafening silence from above causes me suspect that there is either going to be bad news for those already affected or the pain is going to be shared out amongst us all
Someone somewhere knows and they seem reluctant to release the information, now call me an old cynic but when was the last time the RAF witheld good morale boosting news
I really hope to be proven wrong on this.
ALWAYS assume NEVER check
The continued deafening silence from above causes me suspect that there is either going to be bad news for those already affected or the pain is going to be shared out amongst us all
Someone somewhere knows and they seem reluctant to release the information, now call me an old cynic but when was the last time the RAF witheld good morale boosting news
I really hope to be proven wrong on this.
ALWAYS assume NEVER check
Ultimately, why have different bandings at all? If you look at the pay scales for the commissioned bunch there are no differences. So why have it for other ranks? It is divisive and does nothing but create havoc and pit different trades against each other.
Split the difference and just have one band!
Split the difference and just have one band!
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Nigit
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fear in this case no news is bad news.
The RAF is always tripping over itself to announce good news, just in case it might boost morale ("hey everyone, we're getting this spangly new HR system that's been in use by top civvy companies for years" for example).
It's not known to be quite so forward in announcing bad news ("hey everyone, the new HR system is a crock of sh!te and we're going to throw loads of money at the old system so that you get paid next month"... for example).
I feel a mutiny coming on Mr Christian...
The RAF is always tripping over itself to announce good news, just in case it might boost morale ("hey everyone, we're getting this spangly new HR system that's been in use by top civvy companies for years" for example).
It's not known to be quite so forward in announcing bad news ("hey everyone, the new HR system is a crock of sh!te and we're going to throw loads of money at the old system so that you get paid next month"... for example).
I feel a mutiny coming on Mr Christian...
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: England
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by South Bound
PS
does kinda raise the question 'Why the difference?'. If Army cpls can do the job as suggested, why not make our NCO aircrew cpls instead of sgts? Couple of questions to consider:
1. Would the standard remain as high? (Works for the Army...)
2. Could we still recruit WSOps as NCOs? (Is recruitment bouyant at the moment? How much of that is related to pay?)
I suppose the age-old question crops up again - just why do our WSOps need to be sgts...?
This is not intended to start a fight, perhaps a discussion on the differences between the Services...
does kinda raise the question 'Why the difference?'. If Army cpls can do the job as suggested, why not make our NCO aircrew cpls instead of sgts? Couple of questions to consider:
1. Would the standard remain as high? (Works for the Army...)
2. Could we still recruit WSOps as NCOs? (Is recruitment bouyant at the moment? How much of that is related to pay?)
I suppose the age-old question crops up again - just why do our WSOps need to be sgts...?
This is not intended to start a fight, perhaps a discussion on the differences between the Services...
And why do pilots need to be officers??? army SNCO's fly as captains, just thought i'd throw that one in
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 1,360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"And why do pilots need to be officers??? army SNCO's fly as captains, just thought i'd throw that one in"
It's quite simple really Army SNCO's all fly pretty basic stuff because that's all they are capable of, after all if they had done better at school they would'nt have spent years digging slit trenchs etc etc and would be in the RAF flying fast pointy things
No rocket science there old chap
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced
It's quite simple really Army SNCO's all fly pretty basic stuff because that's all they are capable of, after all if they had done better at school they would'nt have spent years digging slit trenchs etc etc and would be in the RAF flying fast pointy things
No rocket science there old chap
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced