Flying pay on PVR?

[Uncle Ginsters]

I hope you'll realise that you're posting like a tool in the morning.

In that i posted a non-truth about Crew Pay - yes, as mentioned above.

Flying pay is for a specialist skill

RA quotes the AFPRB report exactly above - no it isn't.

If you PVR you still have to do it- there's no protection from crappy dets/bad trips/pulling your weight

Yes you do, but your non-SP branches face that dilemma without the additional pay. That's what the X-factor is for, which you're still getting after you PVR.

I'm sorry, but in the current climate, I don't see how you can justify giving out a payment that simply cannot achieve its aim (if you've PVR'd). It's not good to lose around 1/3 of your take-home - maybe the 0% on PVR change will have greater effect on that PVR decision? It could be seen as a highly cynical measure by HMG, but I know of several that are now planning on staying to their natural exit points who may have otherwise hit the button - i may even be one of them !

RA - you quote the report definitions, do you see what i'm getting at yet?

[Biggus]

Is flying pay a retention tool, or a retention and recruitment tool? If there is an element of recruitment then surely, using Uncle G's arguement, we can reduce flying pay as soon as people have completed flying training (which I believe these days is actually when we start paying it), on the basis that you have already been recruited, therefore that element of flying pay is "no longer achieving its aim"...


Secondly, what is the PVR time for aircrew these days, is it down to 6 months like everyone else? If so, given resettlement, terminal leave, etc, you can be in a new job, being paid, inside 3-4 months. While the loss of flying pay for 3-4 months is not inconsiderable, if you really want to go, and have something planned for outside, to me the loss of flying pay will simply confirm what a mean spirited organization you actually work for.


Finally, I very much doubt that any of the "names out of CAS hat" will lose any flying pay. They have not PVR'ed, rather they are being made redundant, against their will for some of them.....

[Just This Once...]

All pay, in all its forms, is to 'attract and retain' and SP is there to address an additional need to 'attract and retain' above and beyond basic pay.

So why only target SP on PVR? Why not apply the same logic to all personnel if reducing pay on PVR makes so much sense?

We would save a bunch of cash if every doc or dentist who left outside of an option point retired on an abated standard flt lt, sqn ldr or wg cdr pay scale.

I would suggest we would cost a fortune in the long run to attract and retain such personnel in the future if we continue to behave in this way. People are always going to point at the absurdity of it all when two 43 year old sqn ldrs from the same sqn/office/det PVR. One looses all his SP and the other stays on PA Spine in receipt of all his pay - does this not sound strange?

[Uncle Ginsters]

Biggus, I see what you're saying but you can't really, can you?

If you reduced Spec Pay the instant you awarded it then no-one would ever get the full whack, in which case they would have been recruited on a bare-faced lie, a ruse!

The SP's done its job once recruited, and continues to do so until PVR, at which point no amount of 'recruit and retain' pay can make a difference. I think the two (recruit & retain) are surely intrinsically linked.

As for cutting all pay - if it wouldn't create a management nightmare, which it would, i'm sure the powers that be would love to let all PVRs go instantly. Then they would stop all pay as they'd be out

[dash2]

Uncle Ginsters,

I think Biggis may be highlighting the flaw in the reasoning behind cutting sp.

Regards,

Dash2

[Yozzer]

Allowing an individual to leave immediately on PVR has the advantage of avoiding the infectous growth of discontent that is invariably accompanied with the individual that has pressed the 7 JPA clicks. Thus everbody left behind is 'happy' until they too decide to reach down and pull. I wish I could get place a bet on staff shortages within 3 years because I would have a better chance at winning then I did on the National.

[Biggus]

dash2


.....................................

[Really annoyed]

Thus everbody left behind is 'happy' until they too decide to reach down and pull.

You mean push. You need to push the buttons on the keyboard to get JPA to work, not pull.

[Uncle Ginsters]

RA - i think Yozzer is alluding(not eluding) to pulling the big Black'n'yellow.

Dash2 - many thanks for the insight...that's what i read it as too But, as i said, i don't think it is the flaw you suggest as 'recruit' and 'retain' are intrinsically linked, IMO.

If PVR numbers did increase, then i think, as Yozzer says, the toxic element may provide a difficult challenge for local leaders. Without caution, the whole think could snowball. Of course, the same individuals could also continue to serve with the pride that they have thus far and cause no issues whatsoever as they now have an end in sight...who knows?

[MrBernoulli]

i think Yozzer is eluding to pulling the big Black'n'yellow.

elude - to escape or evade
allude - to refer to indirectly

So, is he evading, or being indirect?

[dash2]

Uncle Ginsters,

Fair enough, I misunderstood your post.

From my point of view all of the wrangling over definitions misses the main point. SP is purely there because it's a cheap way for the government to vary pay from 1 specialisation to another without having to pay a pension based on the total pay package.

All pay is for recruitment and retention, the wording is just window dressing. Do we really think that there is a 'grand plan' where the effects of this cut to flying pay on pvr have been assessed or has some bright spark just thought 'this'll save some money'.

Cheers,

Dash 2