Redundancy Tranche 2 delayed.
Isn't a delay in the Tranche 2 announcement a good thing? Unless you actually want to be made redundant, that is (or it compresses the timescale from application/selection to exit). And it is also worth remembering that the redundancies have been forced on all 3 Services in an attempt to sort out the budget - I don't suppose any of the Boards came up with this idea for fun. If the delay helps to ensure a better outcome, then it gets my vote.
I don't know what the change in accounting policy is, but suspect it may be due to the rules on how you account for manpower costs. It used to be that you could only claim half the capitation cost for the year in which someone left. Perhaps one of our RP friends could help here?
Rum Punch, I don't share your view on the need to keep recruiting. The redundancy fields will be aimed at maintaining the best possible balance across rank, trade and age profiles. The drawdown is a given, but you still have to feed people in at the lower levels or you will have a black hole appear further down the line and, in the meantime, an experience bulge that holds up promotion flow and rots people off even further. My experience of strategic manpower planning was limited (and now dated) but was enough to let me know that it is much more difficult than many people would believe - there is a reason for the huge HR industry out there in the civilian world.
I don't know what the change in accounting policy is, but suspect it may be due to the rules on how you account for manpower costs. It used to be that you could only claim half the capitation cost for the year in which someone left. Perhaps one of our RP friends could help here?
Rum Punch, I don't share your view on the need to keep recruiting. The redundancy fields will be aimed at maintaining the best possible balance across rank, trade and age profiles. The drawdown is a given, but you still have to feed people in at the lower levels or you will have a black hole appear further down the line and, in the meantime, an experience bulge that holds up promotion flow and rots people off even further. My experience of strategic manpower planning was limited (and now dated) but was enough to let me know that it is much more difficult than many people would believe - there is a reason for the huge HR industry out there in the civilian world.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: somewhere special
Age: 46
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Redundancy in 2013?
the haze of 2011 means i can't remmeber the exact details. Don't the redundancy terms change significantly in 2013? (for the worse, obviously).
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lincs, UK
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, 2013 should mark the point when those of us on AFPS 75 will receive only 3 months pay as a redundancy settlement in lieu of the current maximum of 9 months. This was set in train many years ago and the AMP Briefing Team advised the assembled masses at Cranwell last year that the intent was to ensure parity of treatment for all redundees whether they are in Tranche 1, 2 or 3. ie, Tranche 3 guys won't be worse off than Tranche 1 guys.
Intent, though, isn't the same as Promise.
Intent, though, isn't the same as Promise.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Several miles SSW of Watford Gap
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 31 March 2013 date (after which AFRS10 compensation payments were reduced from a max of 9 months pay to a max of 3 months pay) was changed to 31 December 2015 by Statutory Instrument 2011 No.208,
Details are in 2011DIN01-056.
Details are in 2011DIN01-056.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 62
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again, I am about to be unfashionable and suggest that there may be method... Rather than conspiracy... Behind this decision. The problem with reducing numbers as early as originally planned is that nobody yet knows what size and shape the services need to be in the wake of he defence reform unit studies. We can reduce numbers by redundancy but how can we be sure we have the right people left when no one knows what people we need... Joint forces command, amalgamating the air staff and air command... Defence procurement review etc. The decision to delay is actually pretty sound.
If nobody "knows what people we need", how did anybody come up with the numbers for:
The size of the RAF by 2015
The size of the fields in Tranche one.
Don't tell me, let me guess, it is all about the size of the RAF we can afford, or a straightforward % reduction of the manpower we had a few years ago?
By the way, I agree with GD107. I know of a couple of complete wasters, who could never be winkled out of their cosy little empire, who have suddenly volunteered for an OOA in the next few months - so making them safe from Tranche 1 (about to deploy) and 2 (deployed) and possibly even 3 under the old dates. Hopefully this move may scupper their plans, but I won't be holding my breath.....
The size of the RAF by 2015
The size of the fields in Tranche one.
Don't tell me, let me guess, it is all about the size of the RAF we can afford, or a straightforward % reduction of the manpower we had a few years ago?
By the way, I agree with GD107. I know of a couple of complete wasters, who could never be winkled out of their cosy little empire, who have suddenly volunteered for an OOA in the next few months - so making them safe from Tranche 1 (about to deploy) and 2 (deployed) and possibly even 3 under the old dates. Hopefully this move may scupper their plans, but I won't be holding my breath.....
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: cardboard box in't middle of t'road
Posts: 745
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Heard on an extended grapevine that the takeup of redundancy in tranche one by aircrew was so high that there may be few or none required in tranche two. Anybody with any reliable info on this?
I've heard that the Tranche 2 requirements will be released in the New Year!
Also, due to the uptake of options, redundancy and PVRs, that aircrew will not figure that highly. Who knows?
However, if your a NAV or an AEO with no ac to fly or return too, don't worry about redundancies anyway, you've a job for life............
Also, due to the uptake of options, redundancy and PVRs, that aircrew will not figure that highly. Who knows?
However, if your a NAV or an AEO with no ac to fly or return too, don't worry about redundancies anyway, you've a job for life............
Quite a few Navs who applied for Tranche 1 but didn't get it are starting to realise that PVR may be the only way out if the rumours regarding Tranche 2+ are correct.
With the 100% cut in FP on PVR on the near horizon the gentle optimism that leaving under redundancy would see them with an additional cash lump sum is becoming quite an expensive hit.
With the 100% cut in FP on PVR on the near horizon the gentle optimism that leaving under redundancy would see them with an additional cash lump sum is becoming quite an expensive hit.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: home: United Kingdom
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was slightly surprised that of the 'up to 20' gp capts that they planned to make redundant, 25 got given the boot (there were 30 volunteers!). Or is my maths (or even my English) rubbish!
Duncs
Duncs
Last edited by Duncan D'Sorderlee; 11th Nov 2011 at 16:55. Reason: spool chook - my English is rubbish!
I have heard that a number of personnel who were identified for compulsory redundancy have appealed, and have been re-instated. Something to do with the process/board using old OJARs???
So the DASA Stats and OJAR issues have raised a few questions on the credibility of the processes used for the redundancy selection criteria.
So the question now is:
If you were not eligible for redundancy in Tranche 1 (seniority/deployment) but are for Tranche 2 (subject to AirMan using similar criteria), are you now at a disadvantage and a greater risk of redundancy, because the required numbers were not achieved in Tranche 1?
So the question now is:
If you were not eligible for redundancy in Tranche 1 (seniority/deployment) but are for Tranche 2 (subject to AirMan using similar criteria), are you now at a disadvantage and a greater risk of redundancy, because the required numbers were not achieved in Tranche 1?