LOA Cut Again
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that all those flying Typhoon should get half flying pay. Typhoon's a great jet, you volunteered for it and could have said no. Only fair that those on the best aircraft tighten their belts a little.
If you work on the C-17, because it's newer than C-130, VC-10 and Tristar you should get no Home To Duty and if you live on the patch you should pay twice as much as everyone else. C-17 is a good deal and you had a choice.
After all - flying pay, HTD and MQ charges have all changed as per LOA and are therefore fair game.
Yes. Having thought it through all pay, allowances and retention bonuses should be settled on a case by case basis - by someone who thinks his life is worse than yours.
If you work on the C-17, because it's newer than C-130, VC-10 and Tristar you should get no Home To Duty and if you live on the patch you should pay twice as much as everyone else. C-17 is a good deal and you had a choice.
After all - flying pay, HTD and MQ charges have all changed as per LOA and are therefore fair game.
Yes. Having thought it through all pay, allowances and retention bonuses should be settled on a case by case basis - by someone who thinks his life is worse than yours.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Somewhere nice overseas.
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SFFP
Agreed and fully understood. The latest small cut is based on the traditional calculations of the complicated equation. However, the previous 50% cut was not. Surely you can see that point?
Innocent Man
Again surely you can see a £600 per month pay cut is also just that?
It's all part of the general erosion of pay and conditions. I can't believe you think that this is a good thing.
Agreed and fully understood. The latest small cut is based on the traditional calculations of the complicated equation. However, the previous 50% cut was not. Surely you can see that point?
Innocent Man
Again surely you can see a £600 per month pay cut is also just that?
It's all part of the general erosion of pay and conditions. I can't believe you think that this is a good thing.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Courtney
"About as 'Innocent' as Kreuger Flap, I think."
I didn't believe in re incarnation but having read his posts, I think you might be onto something.
How are you going KF ! Still the same I see.
"About as 'Innocent' as Kreuger Flap, I think."
I didn't believe in re incarnation but having read his posts, I think you might be onto something.
How are you going KF ! Still the same I see.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tennessee - Smoky Mountains
Age: 55
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Part of the problem is the whole RAF career progression thing.
Your promotion is abysmal, and the wages go with the rank. By age 30, a couple will likely have kids. But in the RAF, it wouldn't be unusual for him to be a Cpl. Or Sgt Aircrew, but definitely not FS. Or, if an officer, a Flt Lt, that he may remain as for the next 10. So a family man, but not paid particularly well. Thus the allowances become something depended on, rather than a compensatory payment for specific reasons.
However, you also get 37 year careers, so your pension will be that much higher. You can't have it both ways.
And what's this "voluntary" posting thing? What happens if you refuse the posting to Washington or Tampa or wherever? "Then thou shalt go to AFCO Basildon?"
Your promotion is abysmal, and the wages go with the rank. By age 30, a couple will likely have kids. But in the RAF, it wouldn't be unusual for him to be a Cpl. Or Sgt Aircrew, but definitely not FS. Or, if an officer, a Flt Lt, that he may remain as for the next 10. So a family man, but not paid particularly well. Thus the allowances become something depended on, rather than a compensatory payment for specific reasons.
However, you also get 37 year careers, so your pension will be that much higher. You can't have it both ways.
And what's this "voluntary" posting thing? What happens if you refuse the posting to Washington or Tampa or wherever? "Then thou shalt go to AFCO Basildon?"
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SFFP
Agreed and fully understood. The latest small cut is based on the traditional calculations of the complicated equation. However, the previous 50% cut was not. Surely you can see that point?
Innocent Man
Again surely you can see a £600 per month pay cut is also just that?
It's all part of the general erosion of pay and conditions. I can't believe you think that this is a good thing.
Agreed and fully understood. The latest small cut is based on the traditional calculations of the complicated equation. However, the previous 50% cut was not. Surely you can see that point?
Innocent Man
Again surely you can see a £600 per month pay cut is also just that?
It's all part of the general erosion of pay and conditions. I can't believe you think that this is a good thing.
1. Where did I say this was a good thing?
2. You have not had a £600 pound pay cut. Your pay, like mine and
everyone else's has been effectively frozen for 2 years, what you have had is reduction in your allowances.
3. Your LOA was based on a financial formula that has now changed and it has been calculated that you do not need over £1000 a month
to buy the specific items your LOA was intended for.
4. LOA was never intended to compensate for loss of a spouses
wages.
It's quite clear that you and others on here have a totally different outlook on LOA from me. For the 7 years we were paid LOA we fully understood what it was for and that it could change at the drop of a hat therefore never relied on it.
There seems to be a general feeling in here that LOA is some sort of compensation package for all the supposed drawbacks of overseas service but it's not, it's a specifically targeted allowance whose value goes up and comes down.
Sadly for you it has come down by a big chunk and whilst it will be of no comfort to you yours is really not the only allowance that has been hammered over the last year or two and if the worst you have to put up with is an extra £540 a month to help your annual wage fill your shopping basket etc you are hardly being hard done by.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Somewhere nice overseas.
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not calculated. That's the whole point. Just another cost cut. But you don't seem to get that. You are very lucky to have served when you did, well done. The rest of us will look forward to the continuing carnage. Or not.
It is very much part of the whole mess you see, another nail in the very naily coffin.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... I've finally got SFFP.... I knew a chap just like him on II Sqn.
Jock Sinclair was his name. A very nice chap but he was as tight as a ducks arse... He'd use the RAF issue carbolic soap to shower, washed his boot laced weekly and allowed himself £5 a month to spend "frivolously".... He was saving for a croft in the Scottish north...
Now I begin to understand SFFP's "retirement"....
He's now realizing he's going to be a pauper but can't back down on his previous claims that he's sitting pretty....
Sucks eh?
Jock Sinclair was his name. A very nice chap but he was as tight as a ducks arse... He'd use the RAF issue carbolic soap to shower, washed his boot laced weekly and allowed himself £5 a month to spend "frivolously".... He was saving for a croft in the Scottish north...
Now I begin to understand SFFP's "retirement"....
He's now realizing he's going to be a pauper but can't back down on his previous claims that he's sitting pretty....
Sucks eh?
AA,
While I am sure that SFFP doesn't feel the need to be defended, and if he did, is more than capable of doing it himself, I would point out the following:
Simple knowledge of how the pension works, coupled with looking at the PAS pay scale for 2011, confirms that a 55 MACR, who joined at 18, who is on level 20 of the pay spine, will retire with a pension of approx. £32K, and therefore a gratuity of approx £96K......
That doesn't allow for dynamising either...!
While I don't know his current financial position, housing costs, outgoings, etc, I would be surprised if SFFP won't be comfortable in his retirement!!
While I am sure that SFFP doesn't feel the need to be defended, and if he did, is more than capable of doing it himself, I would point out the following:
Simple knowledge of how the pension works, coupled with looking at the PAS pay scale for 2011, confirms that a 55 MACR, who joined at 18, who is on level 20 of the pay spine, will retire with a pension of approx. £32K, and therefore a gratuity of approx £96K......
That doesn't allow for dynamising either...!
While I don't know his current financial position, housing costs, outgoings, etc, I would be surprised if SFFP won't be comfortable in his retirement!!
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Biggus,
Many thanks for that and having joined at 16 the figures you quote are a little shy of what I hope to get and as you say comfort in our retirement is exactly what Mrs SFFP and I look forward to
Many thanks for that and having joined at 16 the figures you quote are a little shy of what I hope to get and as you say comfort in our retirement is exactly what Mrs SFFP and I look forward to
comfort in our retirement is exactly what Mrs SFFP and I look forward to
You bleated about the pay freeze that affected the increments calculating your pension. Civilians had six or seven pay freezes that affected their pension. Others lost there pension completely because of the actions of the government you are serving. Yours will be index linked and guaranteed by the government. Others, like mine, are relying on the voluntary payments, amounting to £millions, by my old employer to keep the scheme going. That stops; my pension stops.
And you begrudge somebody, who has been posted overseas, sufficient money to make ends meet.
Forces personnel are professionals. The day of the Press Gang and joining to stay out of prison are long gone. If somebody is sent overseas at the behest of the Air Force to do a professional job then they should be treated as such and compensated for the buggeration factor. Everybody else in this world is.
The last married accompanied tour I did, (in the sunshine) I received about £100/month in LOA. THAT WAS IN 1971. You will have to factor that by fifteen to get today's equivalent.
In civilian life my first LOA was eighteen years ago and the was £400/ month with everything except food found and four return flights back to the UK. My last LOA was £3,600/month but out of that I had to support myself completely and pay for my own flights. £1,000/month accomodation and food; £450 return flight. They are ball park figures worldwide, as I know, having worked worldwide.
Is that all????!!!!!!!!
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm very glad for you SFFP. I hope the government will not decide to save money and reduce your pension by 50% in a couple of years. You will not be fazed. After all you have argued that nobody should rely on what they will be given in the future so they will just have to accept it. I am on record in a previous thread saying that if what you suggest happens then what will be will be, I will simply suck it up and join the millions of others currently "sharing the pain"
You bleated about the pay freeze that affected the increments calculating your pension. Hardly a bleat just a simple response to post #25 and I actually wrote "Oh the irony of the uninformed, my pension thanks to the 2 year pay freeze is down the best park of 2k a year with not far 7k gone from my handout so my whole future as opposed to whats left of a 3 year "sunshine" tour is being affected by the current financial crisis, the main difference here is that I have not started a thread whining about it
Civilians had six or seven pay freezes that affected their pension. Others lost there pension completely because of the actions of the government you are serving. Yours will be index linked and guaranteed by the government. Others, like mine, are relying on the voluntary payments, amounting to £millions, by my old employer to keep the scheme going. That stops; my pension stops. Perhaps if you had stayed in that would not be the case, not really sure why you are criticising my 38 year commitment.
And you begrudge somebody, who has been voluntarily posted overseas, sufficient money to make ends meet, a £540 per month allowance designed specifically to help top up on essential purchases ONLY hardly seems bad.
Forces personnel are professionals. The day of the Press Gang and joining to stay out of prison are long gone. If somebody is sent overseas at the behest of the Air Force to do a professional job then they should be treated as such and compensated for the buggeration factor, they are. Everybody else in this world is.
The last married accompanied tour I did, (in the sunshine) I received about £100/month in LOA. THAT WAS IN 1971. You will have to factor that by fifteen to get today's equivalent. Cant even remember what ours was in in 81 but I seem to recall during the 90's it fluctuated between mid teens and mid 30's per day and caused us no angst.
In civilian life my first LOA was eighteen years ago and the was £400/ month with everything except food found and four return flights back to the UK. My last LOA was £3,600/month but out of that I had to support myself completely and pay for my own flights. £1,000/month accomodation and food; £450 return flight. They are ball park figures worldwide, as I know, having worked worldwide. Relevance?
That explains that comment.
You bleated about the pay freeze that affected the increments calculating your pension. Hardly a bleat just a simple response to post #25 and I actually wrote "Oh the irony of the uninformed, my pension thanks to the 2 year pay freeze is down the best park of 2k a year with not far 7k gone from my handout so my whole future as opposed to whats left of a 3 year "sunshine" tour is being affected by the current financial crisis, the main difference here is that I have not started a thread whining about it
Civilians had six or seven pay freezes that affected their pension. Others lost there pension completely because of the actions of the government you are serving. Yours will be index linked and guaranteed by the government. Others, like mine, are relying on the voluntary payments, amounting to £millions, by my old employer to keep the scheme going. That stops; my pension stops. Perhaps if you had stayed in that would not be the case, not really sure why you are criticising my 38 year commitment. And you begrudge somebody, who has been voluntarily posted overseas, sufficient money to make ends meet, a £540 per month allowance designed specifically to help top up on essential purchases ONLY hardly seems bad.
Forces personnel are professionals. The day of the Press Gang and joining to stay out of prison are long gone. If somebody is sent overseas at the behest of the Air Force to do a professional job then they should be treated as such and compensated for the buggeration factor, they are. Everybody else in this world is.
The last married accompanied tour I did, (in the sunshine) I received about £100/month in LOA. THAT WAS IN 1971. You will have to factor that by fifteen to get today's equivalent. Cant even remember what ours was in in 81 but I seem to recall during the 90's it fluctuated between mid teens and mid 30's per day and caused us no angst.
In civilian life my first LOA was eighteen years ago and the was £400/ month with everything except food found and four return flights back to the UK. My last LOA was £3,600/month but out of that I had to support myself completely and pay for my own flights. £1,000/month accomodation and food; £450 return flight. They are ball park figures worldwide, as I know, having worked worldwide. Relevance?
That explains that comment.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
stop bleating
Gents,
please stop bleating
1. In the one and only time we, as a family, got LOA during a 2 year LFS tour we decided to bank the lot and try and live in the local community therefore not paying anything more than the locals, yes this did require learning the local language ( big plus in my mind) but my salary more than covered everything and a nice little nest egg. Guess it depends how you want to live when away from base.
2. Pension - it is one of the best around so zip up your collective mansuits and smile.
3. 31 years of service and 5 to go before I am removed (not by choice) I love the service and it really grips my *h1t when people bleat !!
regards
please stop bleating
1. In the one and only time we, as a family, got LOA during a 2 year LFS tour we decided to bank the lot and try and live in the local community therefore not paying anything more than the locals, yes this did require learning the local language ( big plus in my mind) but my salary more than covered everything and a nice little nest egg. Guess it depends how you want to live when away from base.
2. Pension - it is one of the best around so zip up your collective mansuits and smile.
3. 31 years of service and 5 to go before I am removed (not by choice) I love the service and it really grips my *h1t when people bleat !!
regards
SFFP
Please excuse me if this was covered in an earlier post, but have either you or Innocent Man served on an overseas tour in the last, say, 10 years? I'm not talking RAFG in the 1980s, or Cyprus in the 1990s.
I've covered this in other post and other threads...yes it is (generally) great to serve abroad and I think less of my colleagues from my Branch who have chosen not to. However, in most cases, overseas tours (especially to NATO appointments) are career-limiting, often based on out-of-date perceptions by desk officers and senior personnel (and peers who haven't been there) of the work rate, job content and heavily coloured by 'lifestyle' aspects.
To illustrate this, a colleague of mine worked directly for a US ambassador for several years in a very niche but high profile role. His OJARs were glowing but initially sent back by the desk officer because Ambassador was not regarded as a rank (he was a 2* equivalent) so a random Gp Capt who worked many hundreds of miles away had to provide the 2RO commentary. Similarly, some of the loan service and exchange postings can be very sensitive (politically) and the 1st RO might struggle with being sufficiently effusive in English, ultimately disadvantaging the SP.
In my own case, my 2 tours in MB were directly influenced by my previous experience overseas and (I hope) defence output was enhanced by this. Subsequent foreign staff college course allowed me to become an SME on that region.
Great, you say.
Now to the money. I agree with you that LOA or COLA should be limited to covering the additional expenses of living abroad. There are many commercial assessors of global shopping baskets (as used by OGDs) but the MOD pushes its own, out of date agenda, using a team based in Glasgow to assess what it costs to maintain a similar lifestyle abroad. Added to that was a directive to substantially cut the 'benefits package' and as a result there are unbalanced and irrational decisions made, largely based on the spending habits of an Inf Cpl as a marker. Anomalies are legion: for example, if you serve on a well-found base in Germany (eg USAF Ramstein) where there are a host of heavily subsidies welfare, sporting, food and shopping outlets etc, LOA is more than if you serve in an ISODET in a major city, eg Munich, where cost of living is substantially higher.
I quote from an Army paper prepared a year ago in response to the first round of LOA cuts:
My own circumstances are changing and I won't need to worry about the vindictive cuts to LOA and to the rest of my 'package' (ooo - err), but RAF personnel serving overseas suffer the double jeopordy of jealously translated into less-competative assesments on Promotion Boards, and savagely reduced incomes.
ps: Any spelling errors are mine!
Please excuse me if this was covered in an earlier post, but have either you or Innocent Man served on an overseas tour in the last, say, 10 years? I'm not talking RAFG in the 1980s, or Cyprus in the 1990s.
I've covered this in other post and other threads...yes it is (generally) great to serve abroad and I think less of my colleagues from my Branch who have chosen not to. However, in most cases, overseas tours (especially to NATO appointments) are career-limiting, often based on out-of-date perceptions by desk officers and senior personnel (and peers who haven't been there) of the work rate, job content and heavily coloured by 'lifestyle' aspects.
To illustrate this, a colleague of mine worked directly for a US ambassador for several years in a very niche but high profile role. His OJARs were glowing but initially sent back by the desk officer because Ambassador was not regarded as a rank (he was a 2* equivalent) so a random Gp Capt who worked many hundreds of miles away had to provide the 2RO commentary. Similarly, some of the loan service and exchange postings can be very sensitive (politically) and the 1st RO might struggle with being sufficiently effusive in English, ultimately disadvantaging the SP.
In my own case, my 2 tours in MB were directly influenced by my previous experience overseas and (I hope) defence output was enhanced by this. Subsequent foreign staff college course allowed me to become an SME on that region.
Great, you say.
Now to the money. I agree with you that LOA or COLA should be limited to covering the additional expenses of living abroad. There are many commercial assessors of global shopping baskets (as used by OGDs) but the MOD pushes its own, out of date agenda, using a team based in Glasgow to assess what it costs to maintain a similar lifestyle abroad. Added to that was a directive to substantially cut the 'benefits package' and as a result there are unbalanced and irrational decisions made, largely based on the spending habits of an Inf Cpl as a marker. Anomalies are legion: for example, if you serve on a well-found base in Germany (eg USAF Ramstein) where there are a host of heavily subsidies welfare, sporting, food and shopping outlets etc, LOA is more than if you serve in an ISODET in a major city, eg Munich, where cost of living is substantially higher.
I quote from an Army paper prepared a year ago in response to the first round of LOA cuts:
The cuts seem to most to be disproportionate, unfairly targeted and with little logic or justification.
HQ 1 (UK) Armd Div show that over the period Dec 09 to May 11...the biggest overall loser proportionally will be a married SSgt who will expereince a reduction of 35% in net income over the period....the biggest monetary value reduction for a non-commissioned rank will be married WO1, who with 2 children will lose GBP 815 a month compared with Dec 09 - matched only by Lt Cols and above.
Getting on the property ladder in UK now requires two incomes to service a mortgage for the majority of SP. The limited opportunities for spousal employment overseas [read none in many places], exacerbated by cuts to civilian posts, adds to the financial pressure our people are under. The perception that LOA compensated for this in the past may have been misguided but tightening of LOA calculations has brought this issue into very sharp focus...Again, the choices are stark - stay in the UK or serve M[arried] U[naccompanied]. If we want out people to serve accompanied overseas we must ensure that they are not out of pocket.
Both of you might find it amusing to snipe at these comments, but I wager that neither of you have faced such drastic cuts to income - ever. Given that there are about 18,000 SP abroad, there are a significant number who are in penury becaue of political decisions, and, if they are Army, certainly didn't volunteer for RD in Germany. It is clear by the tone of correspondence from MPs and Ministers, those serving overseas should suck it up and be greatful!HQ 1 (UK) Armd Div show that over the period Dec 09 to May 11...the biggest overall loser proportionally will be a married SSgt who will expereince a reduction of 35% in net income over the period....the biggest monetary value reduction for a non-commissioned rank will be married WO1, who with 2 children will lose GBP 815 a month compared with Dec 09 - matched only by Lt Cols and above.
Getting on the property ladder in UK now requires two incomes to service a mortgage for the majority of SP. The limited opportunities for spousal employment overseas [read none in many places], exacerbated by cuts to civilian posts, adds to the financial pressure our people are under. The perception that LOA compensated for this in the past may have been misguided but tightening of LOA calculations has brought this issue into very sharp focus...Again, the choices are stark - stay in the UK or serve M[arried] U[naccompanied]. If we want out people to serve accompanied overseas we must ensure that they are not out of pocket.
My own circumstances are changing and I won't need to worry about the vindictive cuts to LOA and to the rest of my 'package' (ooo - err), but RAF personnel serving overseas suffer the double jeopordy of jealously translated into less-competative assesments on Promotion Boards, and savagely reduced incomes.
ps: Any spelling errors are mine!
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Back to the fold in the map
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
D'accord WURH
OK, the people who are sniping at LOA here are missing (or conveniently ignoring) the fact that it is there to enable you to live to the same standard in the country of posting as you would in the UK; the leveling process is the ubiquitous "shopping basket". I believe that the majority of those who have posted here are complaining not simply at the reduction of LOA, but the process that was behind the reduction. There was no comparison with the cost of living in other countries, it was simply an arbitrary reduction to meet a financial target - and that is the iniquity of the whole deal. It was not transparent and it is, in the round, indefensible. I posted earlier in this thread a comment about PAP and I would defy anyone on this forum to explain the morality of a SP having to pay 80-90% of the costs of a posting journey simply because he wants to take his car to the new location. I'm sure that the cleverdicks amongst you will point out that in the small (very very small) print there is, included in the daily rate of LOA, a figure that allegedly recompenses the SP for having to sell his car in the UK, purchase a new car in the new location, sell that car and purchase another vehicle on their return to the UK. Note I say allegedly - because no-one could ever tell me how much a day I received to carry out this complicated chain of purchases. Just before those that are that way inclined start banging on again, the legality of the new allowance structure was challenged by someone at the location I was serving at, and the DLS were absolutely sure that the way the new allowances were implemented would not survive a legal challenge. The Defence Board eventually decided that there was no case to answer (but they would, wouldn't they). I will say no more on this at the moment because the case is still rumbling on and may well end up in the public domain
. So, just to be crystal clear; I know there is no money left - it's not the what (cut in allowances) that is so galling, but the way in which it was done and that fact that those that did it take us all for fools allied to the fact that it is now costing the SP money from his own pocket - over and above that he would spend in the UK to simply sustain a similar lifestyle.
. So, just to be crystal clear; I know there is no money left - it's not the what (cut in allowances) that is so galling, but the way in which it was done and that fact that those that did it take us all for fools allied to the fact that it is now costing the SP money from his own pocket - over and above that he would spend in the UK to simply sustain a similar lifestyle.
To be honest I'm not quite sure what the purpose of this thread is any more...
The OP started it to make people aware that an overseas posting is now likely to end up costing you considerably, due to cuts in LOA, which I think most savy people are already aware of.
I'm not defending the cut in LOA, it was purely a cost saving measure. However, anyone who has been in for more than 5 minutes probably wasn't surprised. We are in a military that is downsizing and cost-cutting. What with a pay freeze, a worsening of pension conditions, probable reduction in married quarters provision, reduction in food standards, etc, the writing has been on the wall for some time now. The service actually provides very little loyalty downwards, but expects a lot in return. Take what you can, in terms of good jobs, AT, equivalent civy qualifications, etc, but be prepared to leave when you have had enough of the crap, which is probably well before you reach 55 these days.
As for overseas tours, don't accept one unless the plus side balances the costs, both financial and other, involved....
Edited to add - I forgot to mention MMA actually going down while the price of fuel is higher than ever, CEA not keeping pace with school fee inflation to the point where an allowance that was intended to cover up to 90% of the fees barely covers 50%, etc, etc......
The OP started it to make people aware that an overseas posting is now likely to end up costing you considerably, due to cuts in LOA, which I think most savy people are already aware of.
I'm not defending the cut in LOA, it was purely a cost saving measure. However, anyone who has been in for more than 5 minutes probably wasn't surprised. We are in a military that is downsizing and cost-cutting. What with a pay freeze, a worsening of pension conditions, probable reduction in married quarters provision, reduction in food standards, etc, the writing has been on the wall for some time now. The service actually provides very little loyalty downwards, but expects a lot in return. Take what you can, in terms of good jobs, AT, equivalent civy qualifications, etc, but be prepared to leave when you have had enough of the crap, which is probably well before you reach 55 these days.
As for overseas tours, don't accept one unless the plus side balances the costs, both financial and other, involved....
Edited to add - I forgot to mention MMA actually going down while the price of fuel is higher than ever, CEA not keeping pace with school fee inflation to the point where an allowance that was intended to cover up to 90% of the fees barely covers 50%, etc, etc......
Last edited by Biggus; 6th Mar 2012 at 18:28.