RAF Harrier pilots given £100,000 pay-off... Navy counterparts will receive nothing
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: korat thailand
Age: 83
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAF Harrier pilots given £100,000 pay-off... Navy counterparts will receive nothing
RAF Harrier pilots given £100,000 pay-off...but their Navy counterparts will receive nothing
By SIMON WALTERS
Last updated at 12:36 AM on 11th April 2011
A row has broken out over claims that sacked Harrier pilots in the RAF are being given payoffs of nearly £100,000 each – while their counterparts in the Navy receive nothing.
The jobs in both services are going as a result of the Government’s controversial decision to scrap Harrier jump jets as part of multi-billion-pound defence cuts.
Well-placed sources say there is a huge gulf in the packages offered to sacked pilots in the RAF and the Royal Navy’s Fleet Air Arm. RAF pilots are reportedly being offered 18 months’ pay plus a lump sum of £30,000. In some cases the total figure is close to £100,000.
Pilot payout: The sacked Harrier pilots in the RAF are reportedly receiving a six-figure sum - but it's not such good news for their naval counterparts
However, The Mail on Sunday understands that Harrier pilots in the Navy have been told they must accept lesser alternative jobs in the service – or leave now with nothing.
The huge difference in the two offers has led to claims that the Fleet Air Arm, tiny compared with the RAF, is the victim of discrimination.
Ministry of Defence insiders say it means that while many of the RAF pilots can afford courses costing up to £30,000 to qualify as civilian pilots, their colleagues in the Navy are denied similar means of rescuing their flying careers.
There are currently 50 Harrier pilots in the Fleet Air Arm and 135 in the RAF. Some trainee pilots were told their jobs were going just ten flying hours short of getting their pilot’s wings.
In defence: David Cameron has spoken out in favour of decommissioning Harriers
The biggest losers are about 20 trainee Navy ‘top guns’. They have spent up to five years being trained how to fly Harriers at a cost of £5 million each. A few older, qualified Navy pilots have been offered similar terms to their RAF colleagues.
‘It is very unfair and has caused a lot of resentment,’ said a source. ‘It is bad enough for the Navy pilots to be told they are not wanted. But to be thrown out without a penny is worse. The RAF guys will have enough money to train as civilian pilots but the young Navy guys won’t. Their careers are ruined.’
Defence insiders say that one of the reasons for the discrepancy is the sheer size of the RAF compared to the Fleet Air Arm.
‘So many RAF pilots are being laid off it is impossible to find other jobs for all of them, so they had to be offered redundancy packages.
‘But the number of Navy pilots being laid off is only a few dozen, so it is much easier to disperse them elsewhere in the service,’ said the source. ‘Some of the jobs being offered are low-grade desk jobs. They deserve better than that.’
Scrapping Britain’s entire Harrier force and the Navy’s flagship aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal provoked widespread protests.
David Cameron has defended the decision to decommission Harriers while retaining RAF Tornados, now in action in Libya, saying: ‘The military advice is pretty clear. It is right to keep the Tornado as our principal ground-attack aircraft and it is right to retire the Harrier.’
An MoD spokesman said all pilots were being offered similar terms.
Read more: RAF Harrier pilots given £100,000 pay-off...but their Navy counterparts will receive nothing | Mail Online
By SIMON WALTERS
Last updated at 12:36 AM on 11th April 2011
A row has broken out over claims that sacked Harrier pilots in the RAF are being given payoffs of nearly £100,000 each – while their counterparts in the Navy receive nothing.
The jobs in both services are going as a result of the Government’s controversial decision to scrap Harrier jump jets as part of multi-billion-pound defence cuts.
Well-placed sources say there is a huge gulf in the packages offered to sacked pilots in the RAF and the Royal Navy’s Fleet Air Arm. RAF pilots are reportedly being offered 18 months’ pay plus a lump sum of £30,000. In some cases the total figure is close to £100,000.
Pilot payout: The sacked Harrier pilots in the RAF are reportedly receiving a six-figure sum - but it's not such good news for their naval counterparts
However, The Mail on Sunday understands that Harrier pilots in the Navy have been told they must accept lesser alternative jobs in the service – or leave now with nothing.
The huge difference in the two offers has led to claims that the Fleet Air Arm, tiny compared with the RAF, is the victim of discrimination.
Ministry of Defence insiders say it means that while many of the RAF pilots can afford courses costing up to £30,000 to qualify as civilian pilots, their colleagues in the Navy are denied similar means of rescuing their flying careers.
There are currently 50 Harrier pilots in the Fleet Air Arm and 135 in the RAF. Some trainee pilots were told their jobs were going just ten flying hours short of getting their pilot’s wings.
In defence: David Cameron has spoken out in favour of decommissioning Harriers
The biggest losers are about 20 trainee Navy ‘top guns’. They have spent up to five years being trained how to fly Harriers at a cost of £5 million each. A few older, qualified Navy pilots have been offered similar terms to their RAF colleagues.
‘It is very unfair and has caused a lot of resentment,’ said a source. ‘It is bad enough for the Navy pilots to be told they are not wanted. But to be thrown out without a penny is worse. The RAF guys will have enough money to train as civilian pilots but the young Navy guys won’t. Their careers are ruined.’
Defence insiders say that one of the reasons for the discrepancy is the sheer size of the RAF compared to the Fleet Air Arm.
‘So many RAF pilots are being laid off it is impossible to find other jobs for all of them, so they had to be offered redundancy packages.
‘But the number of Navy pilots being laid off is only a few dozen, so it is much easier to disperse them elsewhere in the service,’ said the source. ‘Some of the jobs being offered are low-grade desk jobs. They deserve better than that.’
Scrapping Britain’s entire Harrier force and the Navy’s flagship aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal provoked widespread protests.
David Cameron has defended the decision to decommission Harriers while retaining RAF Tornados, now in action in Libya, saying: ‘The military advice is pretty clear. It is right to keep the Tornado as our principal ground-attack aircraft and it is right to retire the Harrier.’
An MoD spokesman said all pilots were being offered similar terms.
Read more: RAF Harrier pilots given £100,000 pay-off...but their Navy counterparts will receive nothing | Mail Online
More than just an ATCO
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Up someone's nose
Age: 75
Posts: 1,768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems a bit of Mail scare mongering.
If the RAF pilots are being given no alternative, fair enough.
If the Navy ones are being given an alternative, then i would assume all they will lose, financially, is flying pay. They would still have a job.
IIRC the Commission is as an Officer, not a pilot.
Subject not (yet) raised on the Mil Forum.
If the RAF pilots are being given no alternative, fair enough.
If the Navy ones are being given an alternative, then i would assume all they will lose, financially, is flying pay. They would still have a job.
IIRC the Commission is as an Officer, not a pilot.
Subject not (yet) raised on the Mil Forum.
Some of the jobs being offered are low-grade desk jobs. They deserve better than that.’
They are naval officers - they knew when they joined up that they would have to carry out the full range of duties of a naval officer during their careers. They have been offered a good job elsewhere in the RN - they should think themselves fortunate.
In any case, I would think that those who have done previous rotary wing flying could probably continue their flying careers elsewhere.
This article is made up rubbish.
The redundancy schemes for the RAF, RN and Army are identical. Not that it matters anyway as the RAF is not making a single Harrier pilot redundant, or indeed any qualified RAF pilot from any type.
The redundancy schemes for the RAF, RN and Army are identical. Not that it matters anyway as the RAF is not making a single Harrier pilot redundant, or indeed any qualified RAF pilot from any type.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JTO
I agree with much of what you say, but be careful - the CAA's definition of a Qualified Service Pilot (QSP) is:
Has that changed?
I agree with much of what you say, but be careful - the CAA's definition of a Qualified Service Pilot (QSP) is:
A QSP is defined as a pilot who has completed a recognised course of flying training and has been awarded with a pilot's flying badge in full compliance with QR (RAF) J727.
Last edited by LFFC; 11th Apr 2011 at 12:21.
The CAA's definition of a QSP for PPL purposes is different to the definition for CPL/ATPL purposes - see LASORS for the full details.
Basically you also need the CR tick (or equivalent) to be considered a QSP at other than PPL(A) or PPL(H) level.
Basically you also need the CR tick (or equivalent) to be considered a QSP at other than PPL(A) or PPL(H) level.
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
Will someone (with access!), please comment on the DM website that the article is complete b@@llocks!
I'll mak siccar
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Tir nan Og
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
they should think themselves fortunate
could have been" with the addition
Of all sad words of tongue or pen.
The saddest are these: 'It might have been'
The saddest are these: 'It might have been'
If the FAA are short of funds, they could always open a chippy. From all the letters in the papers (inc todays DT), they seem to be carrying an abundance of chips around on their shoulder.
The FAA are an exceptionally trained and motivated lot, but blaming all their ills on the RAF does them no favours.
Yes, they were stitched up by the RAF (as a defence, i would add that it was a eat or be eaten decision - and the FAA would have done exactly the same) - but Fleet offered them no support and sold them down the river on the promise of 2 new carriers.
Trying to force a review of a review through bombardment of the broadsheet letters pages and 'leaked' articles such as this one just paint them in a poor light.
They should build on what remains and show themselves to be the world class organisation they actually are.
The FAA are an exceptionally trained and motivated lot, but blaming all their ills on the RAF does them no favours.
Yes, they were stitched up by the RAF (as a defence, i would add that it was a eat or be eaten decision - and the FAA would have done exactly the same) - but Fleet offered them no support and sold them down the river on the promise of 2 new carriers.
Trying to force a review of a review through bombardment of the broadsheet letters pages and 'leaked' articles such as this one just paint them in a poor light.
They should build on what remains and show themselves to be the world class organisation they actually are.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: High in the Afghan Mountains
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do these people ever publish retractions? Something along the lines of a full-page spread headlined with 'I'm sorry about the Harrier article; it was a slow news day and I had a deadline to meet, so I made it all up' - at least that would be truthful 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: at home
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I strongly doubt this has any ring of truth. Other than the 170 trainees who are not qualified, there are no pilot redundancies on offer in tranche 1. Typical Daily Mail guff, an attempt to make the Services argue. I do agree with MGD however, the very capable and motivated FAA have always been seen off by the fisheads. Unsurprising perhaps, given the ratios of senior RN bods.
Gentleman Aviator
It's all a matter of priorities amongst Admirals/generals/Airships etc. And as MGD and I both know, if push came to shove the Airships would bin all rotary to keep lots of fast and pointed .....
..... and similarly the Admirals will happily bin FW to keep "capital ships" they can fly their flags from - apparently oblivious of the irony of flying said flags on carriers with no 'arriers .....
Now if t'Army had to choose between tanks and Apache - that might be interesting too ........
..... and similarly the Admirals will happily bin FW to keep "capital ships" they can fly their flags from - apparently oblivious of the irony of flying said flags on carriers with no 'arriers .....
Now if t'Army had to choose between tanks and Apache - that might be interesting too ........
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MGD,
I've stayed silent here, but can do so no longer.
The FAA are not carrying chips on their shoulders, they have been betrayed and are justifiably angry. They were stitched up by the RAF, and much more outrageously by CDS.
You would do well to remember that the FAA put its trust in the RAF and handed over its FW aviation assets (and highly capable assets at that) to form Joint Force Harrier - hardly 'eat or be eaten' in my view. Since then, it's been downhill traffic all the way, culminating in the SDSR.
Oh, and in case you missed it, the Navy also lost one of the carriers before it's even been finished - only one is now planned to be brough to full 'cat and trap' capability.
As I always say in posts like this, I have the highest regard for the RAF as a highly professional and well organised land based service. I have many very good friends in the RAF and enjoyed working with them for many years. However, they have absolutely no corporate or cultural commitment to the idea of maritime strike, and it was, in my view, sadly inevitable that the JFH experiment would end as it has.
Yes, the 3000nm Tornado strikes are magnificent feats of flying - but given what is happening on the ground, they are going to be of limited use. What is very probably needed now is precision medium CAS that can react in minutes, not hours. A carrier can provide that. Now the UK can't. As ever. making this point does not take away my admiration for the quite excellent RAF crews who are carrying out their missions.
Very best regards,
Engines
I've stayed silent here, but can do so no longer.
The FAA are not carrying chips on their shoulders, they have been betrayed and are justifiably angry. They were stitched up by the RAF, and much more outrageously by CDS.
You would do well to remember that the FAA put its trust in the RAF and handed over its FW aviation assets (and highly capable assets at that) to form Joint Force Harrier - hardly 'eat or be eaten' in my view. Since then, it's been downhill traffic all the way, culminating in the SDSR.
Oh, and in case you missed it, the Navy also lost one of the carriers before it's even been finished - only one is now planned to be brough to full 'cat and trap' capability.
As I always say in posts like this, I have the highest regard for the RAF as a highly professional and well organised land based service. I have many very good friends in the RAF and enjoyed working with them for many years. However, they have absolutely no corporate or cultural commitment to the idea of maritime strike, and it was, in my view, sadly inevitable that the JFH experiment would end as it has.
Yes, the 3000nm Tornado strikes are magnificent feats of flying - but given what is happening on the ground, they are going to be of limited use. What is very probably needed now is precision medium CAS that can react in minutes, not hours. A carrier can provide that. Now the UK can't. As ever. making this point does not take away my admiration for the quite excellent RAF crews who are carrying out their missions.
Very best regards,
Engines
Engines,
although I don't completely agree on everything you say, it does not detract from the eloquence and manner in which you put your point across.
Regards
MGD
although I don't completely agree on everything you say, it does not detract from the eloquence and manner in which you put your point across.
Regards
MGD
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Green and pleasant land
Posts: 658
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is the Daily Wail we are talking about and you have to remember that they care very little about letting any inconvenient truths getting in the way of a 'good story'. Which stories, completely co-incidentally of course, appeal most to the intellectually-challenged mindset of their academically-challenged readers.
Do NOT expect a retraction, let alone an apology.
As an aside, it was interesting to note that a certain gentleman felt the need to ask the courts for guaranteed protection and privacy against the press and public when he was purchasing a huge estate in Scotland.
Fortunately the judge denied Paul Dacre, editor of the Daily Mail, that right / cop-out
