PVR - Flying Pay Cut - unjust?

[navibrator]

PVR

Hey - if you want to go early - then do so. But if you do, don't bitch you suddenly lose flying pay. That's all part of the deal. This really is a thread that shouldn't exist. The rules are there - manage with them. And just in case you argue the rules have changed, that's the empoyer's choice. If you do not like it - go. Until we get a union - of course.

[navibrator]

Originally Posted by LFFC

Look on the bright side. If PMA are so keen to retain over 50 year olds that their flying pay is now halved if they plan to leave a couple of years early, perhaps it means they will be offered this new FRI too!

Age isn't the issue. It doesn't matter how old you are when you decide to go, the fact is the retention issue has failed. Much better to keep the FP for those wishing to stay; it could be argued it isn't high enough!

[LFFC]

nav

Sounds like you're arguing against a new FRI but advocating a big raise in flying pay.

That could be a great idea as it would certainly be less divisive, but it may also be very expensive! Unless they introduce a new top band. I still can't see it happening though.

[vecvechookattack]

Until we get a union - of course

or you could use the Armed Forces Federation.... CAFFUK....they may help

[Unmissable]

RayDarr

I defend your right to be as rude as you want whilst hiding behind an anonymous forum. But please answer the question: WHY do you feel the need to be rude and obnoxious?

[Mad_Mark]

I think the big problem here, that many outsiders/non-aircrew don't seem to appreciate, is that this is not so much about the reduction in flying pay when you PVR (this has always happened as long as I can remember) but that the way the size of the cut was changed on the Q-T at the same time that JPA was introduced. I have always known that if I PVR'd then I would drop one band in FP, however the cut is now to half of your current rate. Since most FP pay does not double when you go up a band then the cut is more severe than in the past.

Several ill-informed posters have commented that we have signed up to a contract, should accept it and just get on with it. Well maybe if the so called contract that I signed up, to all those years ago, was anything like the cr@p terms that are impossed on me now then I would accept it. Hardly any of the terms of service in place when I signed on the line still exist, most having been changed for the worse, with those of us that are affected having no say (or ability to have any say) whatsoever. Imagine how Civ-air would take that? "Your terms of employment have been changed, your pay has been effected - just get on with it" - response: "Who is our local union rep - all out brothers!"

MadMark!!!

[LFFC]

You wouldn't have suffered a cut to flying pay in the past if you had PVRed at over the age of 38. so the real pain from this move will be shouldered by older CS officers - is it any wonder that they are therefore leaving in droves at their IRDs?

[SubdiFuge]

I plan to challenge the 50% cut when I submit my PVR in the New Year. It certainly wasn't a condition when I joined and was not briefed as a change being implemented under JPA by those teams that did the rounds. I will redress - what have I got to lose if I'm going anyway!

SDF

[LFFC]

It was brought in by the pay review, not by JPA. Although they may have saved a small amount by doing so, the strong push factor it has introduced at IRD has persuaded many to leave at that point who otherwise may have stayed for a few years longer. That drives the IPS up, the cost of which far outweighs the savings!

Another well thought through measure!