Redundancy Delayed
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hate to say but I did get it.
Chine has portrayed himself as a military cabbage on here for as long as I can remember but one of the guys I refer to would give him a close run for his money in that dep't
Chine has portrayed himself as a military cabbage on here for as long as I can remember but one of the guys I refer to would give him a close run for his money in that dep't
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The two lots of 3 tranche redundancies in the 90's & 00's were oversubscribed with volunteers, two - threefold in the techie brackets.
I should know, I have (perverse) bragging rights to having volunteered 5 times.
I was a 'High calibre individual that the Air Force can ill afford to lose'
I know the terms have changed, but they're still generous compared to civvy street.
Seldom's spot on. We shall see when they publish the application figures
I should know, I have (perverse) bragging rights to having volunteered 5 times.
I was a 'High calibre individual that the Air Force can ill afford to lose'
I know the terms have changed, but they're still generous compared to civvy street.
Seldom's spot on. We shall see when they publish the application figures
Chiney et al
The situation is now clearer in my mind - there was a release of the DIN from AMP at 1400Z prior to the 1430Z announcement that was "RESTRICTED MANAGEMENT". That is why yours probably has headers and footers (as does mine in my DII mailbox).
However, the DIN on Airspace (the same detail as that released 30 minutes prior at 1400Z) is now UNCLASSIFIED.
No trip to Traitor's Gate for me just yet then, hurrah!
LJ
The situation is now clearer in my mind - there was a release of the DIN from AMP at 1400Z prior to the 1430Z announcement that was "RESTRICTED MANAGEMENT". That is why yours probably has headers and footers (as does mine in my DII mailbox).
However, the DIN on Airspace (the same detail as that released 30 minutes prior at 1400Z) is now UNCLASSIFIED.
No trip to Traitor's Gate for me just yet then, hurrah!
LJ
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TWUNT is right...
mra4eng said:
I'm sorry - I'm still fuming at this remark.
I'm through tranche 1. I may not be so lucky with tranche 2. If selected for redundancy, I will be leaving the service just under 5 years from my Immediate Pension point.
Calculating the difference between what I would receive up to age 55 (if I can keep my job), versus my redundancy payout: I would get almost exactly 25% of what I had banked on for my future, plus a markedly decreased pension from 60/65.
For the sake of 4-and-something years, the RAF saves itself some cash and leaves me right up sh*t creek: trying to start a new career with a pittance compared to my original pension - that I have (to all intent) paid into.
I therefore hope this meets with your approval, you vindictive, petty minded, ignorant little gnome. I pay taxes too - and I'm not the only one in this boat.
Hope your redundancy payments are no more than you guys deserve.
I'm sure the majority of taxpayers wouldn't want to see their hard-earned money wasted on over inflated (and in some cases undeserving, I'm sure) redundancy payments.
I'm sure the majority of taxpayers wouldn't want to see their hard-earned money wasted on over inflated (and in some cases undeserving, I'm sure) redundancy payments.
I'm through tranche 1. I may not be so lucky with tranche 2. If selected for redundancy, I will be leaving the service just under 5 years from my Immediate Pension point.
Calculating the difference between what I would receive up to age 55 (if I can keep my job), versus my redundancy payout: I would get almost exactly 25% of what I had banked on for my future, plus a markedly decreased pension from 60/65.
For the sake of 4-and-something years, the RAF saves itself some cash and leaves me right up sh*t creek: trying to start a new career with a pittance compared to my original pension - that I have (to all intent) paid into.
I therefore hope this meets with your approval, you vindictive, petty minded, ignorant little gnome. I pay taxes too - and I'm not the only one in this boat.
Mr C!
Tell us what is causing you to lose the love! Let's reawaken that passion that you had 'till so recently. You're far too young to become another BEagle (although I suppose you could become his alter ego, like the 'good' version of Spiderman).
Tell us what is causing you to lose the love! Let's reawaken that passion that you had 'till so recently. You're far too young to become another BEagle (although I suppose you could become his alter ego, like the 'good' version of Spiderman).
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Kingdom of UcK
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has anyone else noticed the point in the DIN which states that only if you are on (or due to go on) an OOA which attracts the Operational Allowance (OA) will you be entitled to the consideration of not being made redundant in that particular tranche.
Therefore, you could be OOA or notified of an OOA to e.g. Al Udeid, and be notified of compulsory redundancy. So, in your final 12 months you could be stitched for a 4 or 6 monther?
That'll help you resettle to civilian life?
Therefore, you could be OOA or notified of an OOA to e.g. Al Udeid, and be notified of compulsory redundancy. So, in your final 12 months you could be stitched for a 4 or 6 monther?
That'll help you resettle to civilian life?
So, in your final 12 months you could be stitched for a 4 or 6 monther?
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Kingdom of UcK
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Runaway Gun
Negative Mate. It reads specifically wrt Operational Allowance (OA) Dets i.e. if you're in/going to Afghan, you won't be made redundant however, if the OOA is not one where you will receive OA e.g. Al Udeid or the Falklands etc, then the "good will" clause doesn't apply.
As the previous poster states, hopefully they wouldn't be so insensitive to deploy someone who is due out on compulsory redundancy however, the way it is worded, they could.
Check the DIN.
Hugh
Negative Mate. It reads specifically wrt Operational Allowance (OA) Dets i.e. if you're in/going to Afghan, you won't be made redundant however, if the OOA is not one where you will receive OA e.g. Al Udeid or the Falklands etc, then the "good will" clause doesn't apply.
As the previous poster states, hopefully they wouldn't be so insensitive to deploy someone who is due out on compulsory redundancy however, the way it is worded, they could.
Check the DIN.
Hugh
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Great Britain
Age: 51
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes
on
5 Posts
I've just found a copy of the RAF list at www.thewebgeneration.com/files/20101108-Air%20Force%20List-U.xls
From that, in 2010 we had:
1,966 JO Pilots
449 Sqn Ldr Pilots
185 Wg Cdr Pilots
504 JO WSO (all types)
299 Sqn Ldr WSO (all types)
190 Wg Cdr WSO (all types)
So if we look at the DIN we can see that we are losing 18x Wg Cdr WSOs out of 190 - about 9%. We lose 44x Sqn Ldr WSOs out of 299 - about 14%. For the JO WSOs we lose 68 from a total of 504 - about 13%.
The 170 from JO Pilot cadre of 1,966 is about 9%.
However when you start to look at branch specifics for just the Wg Cdr WSOs then we lose 2 out of 5 ALMs (40% in branch), 4 out of 12 AEOs (25% in branch) and only 12 out of 171 Navs (7% in branch).
Interesting stuff, eh?
Cpl Clott
From that, in 2010 we had:
1,966 JO Pilots
449 Sqn Ldr Pilots
185 Wg Cdr Pilots
504 JO WSO (all types)
299 Sqn Ldr WSO (all types)
190 Wg Cdr WSO (all types)
So if we look at the DIN we can see that we are losing 18x Wg Cdr WSOs out of 190 - about 9%. We lose 44x Sqn Ldr WSOs out of 299 - about 14%. For the JO WSOs we lose 68 from a total of 504 - about 13%.
The 170 from JO Pilot cadre of 1,966 is about 9%.
However when you start to look at branch specifics for just the Wg Cdr WSOs then we lose 2 out of 5 ALMs (40% in branch), 4 out of 12 AEOs (25% in branch) and only 12 out of 171 Navs (7% in branch).
Interesting stuff, eh?
Cpl Clott
Well if those figures are correct then the likely number of enforced redundancies aren't half bad.
I think the interesting one is the lack of JO, Sqn Ldr and Wg Cdr PILOTS. Is this because they're expecting a bunch to PVR anyway this year as the Airlines finally start opening up again? Then they get reductions "on the cheap"?
Sounds plausible to me...
The B Word
I think the interesting one is the lack of JO, Sqn Ldr and Wg Cdr PILOTS. Is this because they're expecting a bunch to PVR anyway this year as the Airlines finally start opening up again? Then they get reductions "on the cheap"?
Sounds plausible to me...
The B Word
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Kingdom of UcK
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you add up all of the numbers in the redundancy tranche 1, it adds up to about 1100ish. Therefore, there's about another 1600 to be announced in September if they want to get away with just 2 tranches.
A third of my rank and half of the WOs in my trade are going in this tranche alone.
Whose next?
A third of my rank and half of the WOs in my trade are going in this tranche alone.
Whose next?
Originally Posted by The B Word
Well if those figures are correct then the likely number of enforced redundancies aren't half bad.
I think the interesting one is the lack of JO, Sqn Ldr and Wg Cdr PILOTS. Is this because they're expecting a bunch to PVR anyway this year as the Airlines finally start opening up again? Then they get reductions "on the cheap"?
Sounds plausible to me...
The B Word
I think the interesting one is the lack of JO, Sqn Ldr and Wg Cdr PILOTS. Is this because they're expecting a bunch to PVR anyway this year as the Airlines finally start opening up again? Then they get reductions "on the cheap"?
Sounds plausible to me...
The B Word
I could be talking complete bolleaux, of course. I did once before, many years ago.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The brief I have attended suggested that if pilot numbers remained at today's level there would be a surplus by 2013 (withdrawal of various a/c) and a balance by 2015 (introduction of new a/c). One would have to assume it allowed for natural wastage but not pvrs.