Retention
Biggus
Aircrew are a slightly separate case due to the training costs. My argument was more generally laid across the whole span of the RAF and training in even the most technical trades gets nowhere near the £Ms. As for the Lossie exodus, you are right about the motivation and it was sloppy of me to phrase my point that way. The point is that our experienced personnel do not feel the same ties to the service that perhaps they once did. That might be fixable through increased pay and better pensions, but rather than bend over backwards to keep people in at all costs, I think that Manning has taken the view that a younger, more pliable workforce is in the long-term interests of the service. And if you think that the end of expeditionary operations means the end of expeditionary "training", think again! On current form, we are inching towards recreation of the MEAF. Political pressures will also see our F-35 sqn(s?) spending a significant proportion of their time afloat; I can't see many being keen on back-to-back tours or extended SNCO tenures on 617 Sqn in future!
So, for the separate case of aircrew - it's a given that military aircrew salaries are not going to get massively inflated to fix retention issues. What might usefully be reviewed is the career structure. Too many fast jet pilots get only one or possibly 2 front-line tours before their exit point, with the balance of their time being taken up in instructional posts or on ground tours that could easily be filled by non-flying branches. The number of ground tours that actually need a flying badge, especially at Flt Lt level, is vanishingly small. And the number of flying instructors in the system has risen out of all proportion to the size of the front line it supports.
A great proportion of those aircrew who PVR before their first exit point are multi-engine pilots who have accumulated the necessary 500hrs multi-pilot time to ease their path into civil aviation. That problem will never go away, and will be further exacerbated by deteriorating pension terms (especially at the IPP). So, I would close the ab-initio route to multi-engine flying and make ME flying a career progression option for FJ and RW pilots. Rather than park ex-FJ and RW pilots as highly-paid OpsOs, FSOs or staff desk jockeys, why not put them in a multi for the last 5-6 years of their career and help them into civvy street at IPP with an affordable (for MoD) pension and a marketable skill? There would be an overall saving in flying training (MEXO being a fraction of the length of MELIN + MEAFT). This would allow overall aircrew numbers to be reduced (with a radical reduction in the number of expensive over-40s) and would increase retention to IPP through the 'carrot' of ME flying for those who decide that they don't want to climb the career ladder in the FJ or RW worlds. And would increase the amount of time that expensively-trained pilots actually fly during their 18 years' service. We could also stop pretending that we need to 'broaden' them in ground tours, because the assumption would be that only those seeking to climb the ladder would need to submit to said 'broadening'.
Aircrew are a slightly separate case due to the training costs. My argument was more generally laid across the whole span of the RAF and training in even the most technical trades gets nowhere near the £Ms. As for the Lossie exodus, you are right about the motivation and it was sloppy of me to phrase my point that way. The point is that our experienced personnel do not feel the same ties to the service that perhaps they once did. That might be fixable through increased pay and better pensions, but rather than bend over backwards to keep people in at all costs, I think that Manning has taken the view that a younger, more pliable workforce is in the long-term interests of the service. And if you think that the end of expeditionary operations means the end of expeditionary "training", think again! On current form, we are inching towards recreation of the MEAF. Political pressures will also see our F-35 sqn(s?) spending a significant proportion of their time afloat; I can't see many being keen on back-to-back tours or extended SNCO tenures on 617 Sqn in future!
So, for the separate case of aircrew - it's a given that military aircrew salaries are not going to get massively inflated to fix retention issues. What might usefully be reviewed is the career structure. Too many fast jet pilots get only one or possibly 2 front-line tours before their exit point, with the balance of their time being taken up in instructional posts or on ground tours that could easily be filled by non-flying branches. The number of ground tours that actually need a flying badge, especially at Flt Lt level, is vanishingly small. And the number of flying instructors in the system has risen out of all proportion to the size of the front line it supports.
A great proportion of those aircrew who PVR before their first exit point are multi-engine pilots who have accumulated the necessary 500hrs multi-pilot time to ease their path into civil aviation. That problem will never go away, and will be further exacerbated by deteriorating pension terms (especially at the IPP). So, I would close the ab-initio route to multi-engine flying and make ME flying a career progression option for FJ and RW pilots. Rather than park ex-FJ and RW pilots as highly-paid OpsOs, FSOs or staff desk jockeys, why not put them in a multi for the last 5-6 years of their career and help them into civvy street at IPP with an affordable (for MoD) pension and a marketable skill? There would be an overall saving in flying training (MEXO being a fraction of the length of MELIN + MEAFT). This would allow overall aircrew numbers to be reduced (with a radical reduction in the number of expensive over-40s) and would increase retention to IPP through the 'carrot' of ME flying for those who decide that they don't want to climb the career ladder in the FJ or RW worlds. And would increase the amount of time that expensively-trained pilots actually fly during their 18 years' service. We could also stop pretending that we need to 'broaden' them in ground tours, because the assumption would be that only those seeking to climb the ladder would need to submit to said 'broadening'.
Last edited by Easy Street; 28th Oct 2013 at 23:16.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a strong substanciated rumour of a Sqn Ldr at a double digit ISTAR Sqn taking his troops aside and telling them, and I quote '....if you cross me I will destroy you'. A room full of Officers and SNCOs and he says that to them!!
That kind of leadership isn't going to help retention I fear.
That kind of leadership isn't going to help retention I fear.
Sounds like a bit of a plank ,,, if true.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a strong substanciated rumour of a Sqn Ldr at a double digit ISTAR Sqn taking his troops aside and telling them, and I quote '....if you cross me I will destroy you'. A room full of Officers and SNCOs and he says that to them!!
A right king cnut.
Retention
ES.
Your posts are starting to sound alarmingly sensible and revisionist. Please stop immediately. This is not the time or the place for such insightful statements.
BV
Your posts are starting to sound alarmingly sensible and revisionist. Please stop immediately. This is not the time or the place for such insightful statements.
BV
HE,
Of course Manning has a plan - in fact they have two.
1. Get oneself promoted, ACSC, promoted, best job etc....
2. Identify the 1-2% of the RAF that have (in their opinion) 'legs' to 3-4* to ensure succession planning for VSOs...
Think that covers the extent of their planning......
Of course Manning has a plan - in fact they have two.
1. Get oneself promoted, ACSC, promoted, best job etc....
2. Identify the 1-2% of the RAF that have (in their opinion) 'legs' to 3-4* to ensure succession planning for VSOs...
Think that covers the extent of their planning......
Most of the people in Manning are simply doing a far less sinister job than you all seem to think. Desk officers are posted there and are generally trying to do the best they can with what they have.
I am just saying don't lump Manning into one mad heap of crap. In the multi-layered organization, it's important to separate policy-makers from operatives.
Just saying.
I am just saying don't lump Manning into one mad heap of crap. In the multi-layered organization, it's important to separate policy-makers from operatives.
Just saying.
No, I don't think so. The Air Board and the VSOs need to do that. And they need to get the politicians to agree. As I said before, I think you are mistaken to believe that "Manning" is writing the rules.
CM,
If I were being charitable I would say that was the problem - an organisation pared right down such that it is now unable to offer any sort of decent career management unless you happen, as Evalu8ter suggested, to be a high flyer who's path needs managing. Unfortunately, I have been on the receiving end of pretty shoddy service from Manning for most of my career, and certainly well before the recent bout of slash and burn, so I'm not convinced that recent cuts are anything more than an excuse.
I can't come up with any other explanation why an organisation would flout its own published policy on postgrad qualifications and aditional seniority (the old white PAM Air booklets that had the seniority charts in) and retrospectively remove seniority once an individual was in service because they didn't think the qualification was relevant (MSc in Meteorology - I'll leave you to mull over that one, but OC PMS' response at the time was "it's Manning, unfortunately they can do what they like"). And I think it was only after challenging the Desk Officer's interpretation of my file that I then jumped in excess of 100 places on the promotion boards in a year. His interpretation included, amongst other things, an inability to work out how long I had been in my first 2 posts despite having all the OJARs to hand. Did I really improve that much in 12 months, or did someone actually read my file properly for the first time in 12 months - he hadn't looked past the profile sheet before the career 'interview'!
I know the majority of people don't wake up in the morning determined to do a bad job, and will include Manning in that statement. But I suspect I am far from unusual in my experiences, and unless you are in the top 1-2% having their career actively and carefully managed, it can seem very hard to not to think that the motto of 'Putting bums on seats since 1918' isn't an apt one. And with morale as fragile as it currently is, that isn't a good situation for the career managers to find themselves in.
Desk officers are posted there and are generally trying to do the best they can with what they have.
I can't come up with any other explanation why an organisation would flout its own published policy on postgrad qualifications and aditional seniority (the old white PAM Air booklets that had the seniority charts in) and retrospectively remove seniority once an individual was in service because they didn't think the qualification was relevant (MSc in Meteorology - I'll leave you to mull over that one, but OC PMS' response at the time was "it's Manning, unfortunately they can do what they like"). And I think it was only after challenging the Desk Officer's interpretation of my file that I then jumped in excess of 100 places on the promotion boards in a year. His interpretation included, amongst other things, an inability to work out how long I had been in my first 2 posts despite having all the OJARs to hand. Did I really improve that much in 12 months, or did someone actually read my file properly for the first time in 12 months - he hadn't looked past the profile sheet before the career 'interview'!
I know the majority of people don't wake up in the morning determined to do a bad job, and will include Manning in that statement. But I suspect I am far from unusual in my experiences, and unless you are in the top 1-2% having their career actively and carefully managed, it can seem very hard to not to think that the motto of 'Putting bums on seats since 1918' isn't an apt one. And with morale as fragile as it currently is, that isn't a good situation for the career managers to find themselves in.
Last edited by Melchett01; 29th Oct 2013 at 22:55.
I take your point. But the desk officers have never been career managers. They are posters, charged with filling gaps and looking after the interests of the Service and practicing the policy that is handed down to them. None of the Armed Forces have anything in place to manage anyone's career - never have, never will. That's down to the individual with support from his or her boss and the accommodation of the desk officers when they can - if they can and when consulted. Tough love, I know, but this is a military outfit, not a loving, caring ideal employer. Show me an outfit that is.
Sometimes we expect too much. We join to serve.
Sometimes we expect too much. We join to serve.
Tough love, I know, but this is a military outfit, not a loving, caring ideal employer. Show me an outfit that is.
Sometimes we expect too much. We join to serve.
Sometimes we expect too much. We join to serve.
From a personal perspective, I tend to subscribe to the idea of at least trying to keep people motivated and happy in their work, whilst being prepared to wield a big stick as required. It make for a better and and more productive unit and on the rare occassion that the stick comes out, people then realise you are serious.
Last edited by Melchett01; 29th Oct 2013 at 23:35.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
From a personal perspective, I tend to subscribe to the idea of at least trying to keep people motivated and happy in their work, whilst being prepared to wield a big stick as required. It make for a better and and more productive unit and on the rare occassion that the stick comes out, people then realise you are serious.
Despite my somewhat cynical last post, I do have a (albeit small...) degree of sympathy for Manning DOs. They're not helped when their own rules are openly flouted to let one of the 1-2%'ers ignore 'rules' laid down for the rest of us to advance smoothly. It can't be easy when a VSO does a bit of 'Career Management' on behalf of an ex-PSO or fellow VSO's progeny. Perhaps by coming clean over the Exec v 'Mong' stream these episodes will be more transparent. What truly worries me is that we are supposed to be getting better at Assurance, Acquisition and Airworthiness; to truly gain competency (and retain it...) in these areas Manning will not only have to understand the needs and issues (tricky if you're an ambitious 'generalist' staff officer) but identify an, admittedly truncated, promotion path to OF5/1* to keep highly qualified specialists motivated (and in).
Shytorque,
I only ever got a first choice by pointing out to Manning that I was the only qualified person for the job available in the right time...the computer system hadn't flagged it....
Shytorque,
I only ever got a first choice by pointing out to Manning that I was the only qualified person for the job available in the right time...the computer system hadn't flagged it....
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Oxfordshire UK
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems to me that for too long the Air Force have been more interested in the careers of the officers it posts in to manning, than the careers of those they are supposed to be managing. Are the “posters” given any specialist training for their new role as “HR”? Instead of having a new incumbent every couple of years who has to make his mark, why not employ a suitable retired officer who could do the job long term? As my boss once said to me, “how can it be fair that the man managing my career is in direct competition with me for promotion”?
Without wishing to sound like a complete apologist for Manning, I do believe it works both ways.
Manning can only work their magic if you take responsibility for your own career and give them frank and sensible options. Simply saying I want to be CR, then QWI, then promotion into a Flt Cdrs post and subsequent Staff tour is at best ambiguous and doesn't emphasise what your priorities are with regards to location, ac type etc.
Similarly, saying I want Typhoons or I'm PVRing leaves Manning with no leeway to find any alternatives that you may have overlooked or never before considered.
However, giving Manning realistic and attainable options with a sensible time frame is more likely to yield mutually acceptable results - I'd like to do a Co, then Captains tour on the same ac but I'm open to a QFI tour if there's no Captain slots. Ground tour-wise, I'd rather not, but if its service need then I'd rather remain in the south of the UK within a Cmd or 2 Gp Staff appointment and look towards promotion or switching to another multi type within 3yrs.
Apart from a couple of years of 'Service Need', I'm happily on my fourth flying tour in my 3rd frontline type and Manning know where I want to go next and when. I stay open minded to my poster but they also know where my heart lies.
I suppose my point is that you can't whinge at Manning for not managing your career if you don't have an idea of what you want for yourself.
Manning can only work their magic if you take responsibility for your own career and give them frank and sensible options. Simply saying I want to be CR, then QWI, then promotion into a Flt Cdrs post and subsequent Staff tour is at best ambiguous and doesn't emphasise what your priorities are with regards to location, ac type etc.
Similarly, saying I want Typhoons or I'm PVRing leaves Manning with no leeway to find any alternatives that you may have overlooked or never before considered.
However, giving Manning realistic and attainable options with a sensible time frame is more likely to yield mutually acceptable results - I'd like to do a Co, then Captains tour on the same ac but I'm open to a QFI tour if there's no Captain slots. Ground tour-wise, I'd rather not, but if its service need then I'd rather remain in the south of the UK within a Cmd or 2 Gp Staff appointment and look towards promotion or switching to another multi type within 3yrs.
Apart from a couple of years of 'Service Need', I'm happily on my fourth flying tour in my 3rd frontline type and Manning know where I want to go next and when. I stay open minded to my poster but they also know where my heart lies.
I suppose my point is that you can't whinge at Manning for not managing your career if you don't have an idea of what you want for yourself.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Jungle
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These sort of threads always generate the usual response, which is that of mass PVRs and it simply doesn't happen. I have heard aircrew talking about PVR'ing for years but only a small number actually go through with it.
Foghorn,
Did you see 5F6B's outflow numbers from DASA on page 1 of this thread? There's been a definite uptick in the past few years. Plus, it's not just PVRs you need to look at; there will be many who are close enough to an option point that they will hang on til then and leave then which won't necessarily flag up in the PVR numbers.
Did you see 5F6B's outflow numbers from DASA on page 1 of this thread? There's been a definite uptick in the past few years. Plus, it's not just PVRs you need to look at; there will be many who are close enough to an option point that they will hang on til then and leave then which won't necessarily flag up in the PVR numbers.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
close the ab-initio route to multi-engine flying and make ME flying a career progression option for FJ and RW pilots. Rather than park ex-FJ and RW pilots as highly-paid OpsOs, FSOs or staff desk jockeys, why not put them in a multi for the last 5-6 years of their career and help them into civvy street at IPP with an affordable (for MoD) pension and a marketable skill?