PVR = Half Flying Pay!!!!!!!

[number-cruncher]

Having recently handed in my PVR and told I would go on to half flying pay (I was expecting this anyway), it got me thinking about the rules on this.

Having asked around, I am told that flying pay is purely a retention pay and if so then I am screwed and whinge over. However if it is purely a retention payment, then why not just take the lot off me?

As I am on the bottom rate I now get just over £3 a day for being on a front line sqn and am also about to deploy to the gulf for Queen and country. (8th time) Meanwhile there are people who have been on ground tours for god knows how many years and are on middle and top rates of flying pay and they haven't seen a sandy place for some time. (excluding PA) Not really fair in my view.

Can I just do half the flights then or just refuse to do a Gulf tour? (I won't do that as I am a professional to the last day).

It's just like one last kick in the goolies for Queen and country.

[Roadster280]

flying pay is purely a retention pay and if so then I am screwed and whinge over.

Indeed.

I'd be thinking that I'd had the opportunity to serve my country, took a massive amount of training, acquired life skills that others can only dream of, and move on.

As the barrier closed behind me for the last time, I wept. But I knew it was the right thing for my family. Not for the mob though, but our time to part ways had come. It was ok.

You have time to either rescind your PVR, or adjust to what you have done.

Money is not everything. Your future is, however.

Keep safe on your last deployment.

[Dengue_Dude]

Stick to your guns (metaphorically only in this case)

I left the mob over 14 years ago and it was the best thing I ever did.

There are times you miss the blokes you work with, but one thing you DON'T MISS is the petty bureaucracy like you're suffering at the moment.

I was always told that flying pay was risk pay (I did 24 years, 22 as aircrew).

You are still taking and accepting the same risk as everybody else but pen-pushers have decided that you will be castigated for having the temerity to decide you don't want to do this any more - I mean it's not as if you got out there first time then said - oh this is not what I joined up for.

It's treatment like this that just hardens peoples' attitudes. It's petty and so typical and you won't miss THEM.

Good luck

[Winco]

Other than aircrew, is there any other branch in the RAF that get financially penalised for PVR'ing?

Sounds like a case of aircrew discrimenation actually!

.............Gilbert Blades, are you in the office this morning old bean??

[Mr C Hinecap]

They don't get penalised - they get extra money that is over and above their basic pay. It is just many forget that and live to that extra money (sports car as soon as they get FP, that sort of thing) and then, when it isn't there (fail flying training, PVR etc) they come on here and grizzle. Bless their aircrew socks.

[Tester07]

They don't get penalised - they get extra money that is over and above their basic pay.

What a load of rubbish people speak about flying pay.

Flying pay is simply the money you have to pay aircrew to recognise their skills, and to recognise the money that they could be paid elsewhere.

As such it should be fully pensionable, and you should not be able to reduce it if someone decides to leave the service giving significantly greater notice than they would be required to give in civvy street.

Of course it will always cause resentment (buying a sports car! what depravation!) amongst those who dont have similar skills and potential earning power.

[Art of flight]

Flying pay is purely an incentive pay to retain experienced crew, nothing to do with risk. All of the flying services treat their PVR'ing aircrew in this way, not just the RAF.

Why not just remove yourself from flying duties (as you say you're only on first tour FP so the other £3 a day shouldn't be a great loss for the months you have left). As for your loyalty to the service, just see how they value your service when you become 'ex' forces. Loyalty to your present mates is a different issue. perhaps you could work in ops until your end date to help out the team?

Good luck with the future

[Wader2]

At least you are still flying on half pay, with a half-hearted approach to the job?

Back in the passed, 70s, 80s etc, when you PVR'd you were also grounded and posted to the Sim or Ops. It was argued that you were wasting training time that could be better used by those more committed.

Now of course there is no one queing up from ground tours to jump in your seat.

[Jayand]

Read the jsp instead of trying to get your information from Sqn mates and other sources like the web, it spells it out in black and white ish!! Flying pay has little to do with recognising your potential and your skills and nothing to do with the risk of flying, but is simply a tool for retention, hence why pilots get more than rear enders whilst being exposed to the same risks.
By Pvr'ing the retention incentive has clearly not worked and they take half of it off you, they could I suppose by that reckoning take the lot off you! thankfully they don't.
I can't find anywhere in the Jsp however anything about flying pay when you put in your notice to leave at your option point? anyone have a clue?

[Mr C Hinecap]

Flying pay is simply the money you have to pay aircrew to recognise their skills, and to recognise the money that they could be paid elsewhere.

So - a retention bonus then. If someone isn't being retained (PVR) then why pay them money to recognise they have transferable skills? We've not retained them, so we have the current (correct) system.

I can see you also think everyone not in a cockpit wants to be in a cockpit.

[insert ironic smiley here]

[Tester07]

Flying pay has little to do with recognising your potential and your skills

I think you miss the point. It is a recognition of skills and potential in that there is obviously a significant requirement to persuade aircrew to stay by paying them a lot more than the basic pay, which patently does not pay them enough.

In other words, when you put their basic pay and flying pay together, the MOD is paying them nothing more nor less than what they have to to employ aircrew. In fact, as we all know, aircrew earn quite a lot less in the military, which they are happy to accept for a period of time because of all the significant benefits which go with working in the services.

So all this talk of flying pay being some sort of priviledge is rubbish in my view.

with a half-hearted approach to the job?

Why do you assume this just because someone has chosen to leave the service? Unfair I would suggest. Why do people assume a massive disloyalty to the service and a 'half-hearted' attitude just because someone has made a choice to move on in their life? For what may be many very valid and honourable reasons. It is the service rules which require someone like this to PVR.

[Tester07]

So - a retention bonus then.

So can you explain to me why you might not define anybody's salary, in any walk of life, as a 'retention' bonus, and cut their pay if they signal their intention to leave their job.

Why pick on aircrew, simply because they have greater earning potential? Why not cut everyone's pay when they state that they will leave the service?

[Jayand]

Please tell me what greater earning potential an Aeo or wsop ew / aco has in civvy street than say a groundcrew cpl/sgt?
There are a lot of jobs out there that pay a damn sight more for people with "supposedly" less earning potential than aircrew.
I can think of plenty of trades that would possibly benefit from a retention bonus, then again most people have had enough and money isn't the factor that is going to keep them!

[Al R]

I'd agree with the second poster.

With regards to it being discrimination, as long as the MoD applies its thinking to all aircrew and not just short, ginger haired Scottish aircrew, I suppose the MoD isn't being discriminatory and can do what it likes with paying people above and beyond the standard wage. But does this pay adjustment on PVR now apply to all specialist payments, eg; Para Pay?

In civvy street T&Cs can be changed if someone elects to leave - the military isn't unique in that respect. You get flying pay which can get taken away - just as a civvy employee gets share options, additional pension contributions or enhanced medical insurance. And as the military pension deal is a form of occupational one, based on defined benefits, the MoD is legally within its rights to limit pensionable earnings to basic salary.

Some argued that the Service Education Allowance was a covert retention bonus. But lets not go there again..

[Wader2]

Originally Posted by Tester07

a recognition of skills and potential in that there is obviously a significant requirement to persuade aircrew to stay by paying them a lot more than the basic pay, which patently does not pay them enough.

aircrew earn quite a lot less in the military, which they are happy to accept for a period of time because of all the significant benefits which go with working in the services.

And as student aircrew happy to receive no extra at all. Initially Flying Instructional pay was used to incentivise the recruit. In the late 80s it was expected from the numbers trying to get in that FIP was not necessary and it was stopped.

Why do you assume this just because someone has chosen to leave the service?

I assumed nothing.

Unfair I would suggest.

Agree.

Why do people assume a massive disloyalty to the service and a 'half-hearted' attitude just because someone has made a choice to move on in their life? For what may be many very valid and honourable reasons. It is the service rules which require someone like this to PVR.

Indeed, although you would be naive to expect that someone with months to do will devote as much effort to the Service as someone still climbing the greasy poll. They will be more concerned with getting the grease off.

Clearly you missed my cynicism, use of italics and the smiley. I was reporting FACT. PVR used to lead to grounding for exactly the reasons stated. Senior officers expect(ed) absolute loyalty to the Service and that included not PVRing, taking the rough with the rough and, as one CinC said, 'anyone taking more than one weeks leave was being disloyal.' IIRC it was Sir Andrew Humphrey.

[Tricorn]

I remember being told many many years ago (1970s, back in the cold war era) that flying pay was regarded as 'danger money'.

However it is now officially a retention bonus. When did it change from one to the other?

[BristolScout]

I'm going back to the 60s & 70s now, but then we were told that as, uniquely in the three services, it was only the aircrew that did the fighting in the RAF, they should have an increment over the other, essentially, non-combatant officers and SNCOs. How true it was, I don't know but it was useful for winding up the wingless wonders in the bar on Friday nights.

[Wader2]

Originally Posted by Jayand

Please tell me what greater earning potential an Aeo or wsop ew / aco has in civvy street than say a groundcrew cpl/sgt?
There are a lot of jobs out there that pay a damn sight more for people with "supposedly" less earning potential than aircrew.
I can think of plenty of trades that would possibly benefit from a retention bonus, then again most people have had enough and money isn't the factor that is going to keep them!

Jayand, I think you are saying that groundcrew are happy with less pay and that non-pilots have a lower earning potential?

If any ground trade thought they could benefit from the pay and conditions as NCA, including immediate promotion to sgt, then there is nothing to stop them applying. Many however seem content not to do so. That would suggest that neither the offer of promotion nor flying pay is sufficient inducement for everone to apply.

OTOH if both rank and flying pay was removed would those currently applying to become NCA still apply? Undoubtedly some would but equally many would not. Flying pay and NCO status are clearly pull factors but how much pay and how quickly they gain promotion are manning issues which, at an individual level, are often perceived as inadequate.

I can think of plenty of trades that would possibly benefit from a retention bonus

But this is where the larger scales manning picture comes in. You may pinch locally but not necessarily elsewhere.

most people have had enough and money isn't the factor that is going to keep them!

Quite.

[Wader2]

Tricorn, true, that was the rumour but officially it was skill recognition and for recruitment and retention.

When you consider the relative inefficiency of ejector seats in the 50s and even 60s, you can see why.

IX Sqn had a run from 1964 with Vulcan crashes and many crews killed.

Half my navigation course did not survive to age 38/16.

Bristol Scout, true. Even in the 90s one flt cdr argued thus in the bar. He agreed with the scribbly in the bar that either flying pay be abolished or all officers got flying pay.

Then he asked the scribbly how he would propose the selection of the appropriate number of officers to be killed each year.

[moosemaster]

Originally Posted by Jayand

Please tell me what greater earning potential an Aeo or wsop ew / aco has in civvy street than say a groundcrew cpl/sgt?

As an Ex-NCA I am indeed earning more in "Civvy street" than I was when I was NCA.

What made me an attractive recruit more than, say a ground tradesman of equivalent rank was not my professional qualifications, although they didn't do me any harm.

Those who understand the military, and recruit from its resources are aware of the specialist nature of military personnel in general and aircrew in particular.

I am not "dissing" groundcrew, nor "bigging up" aircrew, merely expressing that qualified aircrew have already displayed the qualities which many employers seek, rather than groundcrew who, although they may possess the skills, have not necessarily displayed or used them in a work environment, nor has the service provided them the training in order to "hone" such skills.

The skills/qualities I am talking about are the ability to work as part of a team when needed, but also take charge when required. The ability to follow instruction, but also show initiative. The ability to think outside the box, to see the big picture but also see the small picture from someone elses viewpoint. The ability to organise oneself. (NOT AN EXHAUSTIVE LIST)

All the things that aircrew generally take for granted from one another are actually quite sought after on "the outside".

Of course these are only my personal observations since leaving the service.

You may be correct that there are not as many opportunities in the field for which you are currently qualified, but by your experiences and qualities, you are possibly more able to adapt to new fields where a ground tech may not be. As I was told during resettlement;

Never turn down a job you haven't been offered!

Soapbox away, standing by for incoming.