RAF recruitment
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 1,077
Likes: 0
Received 145 Likes
on
28 Posts
The experienced people cost more as they are a paid a salary commensurate with that experience whereas new recruits are cheap. As far as the accountants are concerned why pay for a PAS pilot when a JP can sit in the same seat?
There's no column on the balance sheet for experience.
Not forgetting also that having cut those 6000 a significant proportion of the remainder are voting with their feet so will need replacing.
There's no column on the balance sheet for experience.
Not forgetting also that having cut those 6000 a significant proportion of the remainder are voting with their feet so will need replacing.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: in my combat underpants
Age: 53
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You have to maintain a spread of ages and experience across a Branch or Trade. You need sufficient people who are young enough to maintain a structure and who have the potential to achieve the highest rank possible and have full careers. If the pyramid (and it is a pyramid) gets to be the wrong shape (a 'bulge' around the middle just like mature ME crew when they haven't moved for a few years) then you get promotion slowing / stopping and it all goes wonky at that point. Also, if you switch off a training stream completely it is very difficult indeed to start it up again.
So. Some out of a mix of ranks and seniority, some more in at the bottom to keep things moving.
So. Some out of a mix of ranks and seniority, some more in at the bottom to keep things moving.
RAF Recruit numbers have been on the increase throughout 2013 - http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafhalton/news...1FDA6E8FD17C94
Over the past couple of years the Recruit intake has been small, but still ticking over. The problem being is that they don't want to introduce a demograaphic bulge that causes a problem later down the line where they have no-one if similar age (say within 3 years of each other). Otherwise, everyone leaves at the same time! Whilst we need fewer to maintain our 30-odd thousand, we will need more Recruits than the past few years to sustain our numbers rather than shrink them.
Make sense?
LJ
Over the past couple of years the Recruit intake has been small, but still ticking over. The problem being is that they don't want to introduce a demograaphic bulge that causes a problem later down the line where they have no-one if similar age (say within 3 years of each other). Otherwise, everyone leaves at the same time! Whilst we need fewer to maintain our 30-odd thousand, we will need more Recruits than the past few years to sustain our numbers rather than shrink them.
Make sense?
LJ
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hiq et Ubique
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It can make as much sense as you like Leon, but tell that to the guy who has his P45 thrust his way before his IPP and walks out of the gate to see the 'RAF Recruiting now' banner flapping in the wind.
In the mid 1990s the RN stopped recruiting Able Seamen for about 2 years. As a result, over the last 10 years the RN have suffered from that demographic waist right across the Service at Senior Rate and Upper Yardsmen. The RAF has, with difficulty, tried to avoid this happening.
It's a simple management problem when it comes to downsizing options:
1. Do nothing and wait for natural wastage. Not fast enough without other measures outlined. Also there is no control in protecting key capabilities.
2. Recruitment freeze. Achieves numbers quickly but if done for an extended period - say 2-5 years - then there is no-one to promote to JNCO upwards in 5 years. The recruit trg pipeline is decimated and then you have a problem looking for the non-existent JNCOs/SNCOs that you need to man it with your best people. At some point all your experienced people retire in a big blob and then you have to promote in-experienced to back-fill (great for the individual but bad for the organisation).
3. Recruitment trickle feed and then ramp up prior to achieving target. This is more controllable and leaves the employer the most options. This is what the RAF has done. Also when matched with voluntary redundancy, a small amount of targetted redundancy and a trickle of recruitment it appears as a controlled measure and doesn't panic the workforce!
4. Mass redundancy to the required number. This would be devastating to the workforce morale and also would likely overshoot. The rough rule of thumb is 'if you plan to lose 10% of your workforce by compulsary redundancy then expect to lose a further 15% in short order afterwards'. Not a good option, but the easiest to instigate. Thankfully the RAF did not use it.
LJ
1. Do nothing and wait for natural wastage. Not fast enough without other measures outlined. Also there is no control in protecting key capabilities.
2. Recruitment freeze. Achieves numbers quickly but if done for an extended period - say 2-5 years - then there is no-one to promote to JNCO upwards in 5 years. The recruit trg pipeline is decimated and then you have a problem looking for the non-existent JNCOs/SNCOs that you need to man it with your best people. At some point all your experienced people retire in a big blob and then you have to promote in-experienced to back-fill (great for the individual but bad for the organisation).
3. Recruitment trickle feed and then ramp up prior to achieving target. This is more controllable and leaves the employer the most options. This is what the RAF has done. Also when matched with voluntary redundancy, a small amount of targetted redundancy and a trickle of recruitment it appears as a controlled measure and doesn't panic the workforce!
4. Mass redundancy to the required number. This would be devastating to the workforce morale and also would likely overshoot. The rough rule of thumb is 'if you plan to lose 10% of your workforce by compulsary redundancy then expect to lose a further 15% in short order afterwards'. Not a good option, but the easiest to instigate. Thankfully the RAF did not use it.
LJ
Last edited by Lima Juliet; 9th Jan 2014 at 18:49.
Gentleman Aviator
A good summary Leon.
I would add the increased necessity of keeping the training machine ticking over (or more than!) now that much of it is civilian and/or contractor manned.
Civvies are not as easy to "flex" as blue-suited QFI/QHIs were in the past - used to be a case of post 'em to an ops job and claw them back when the studes return.....
I would add the increased necessity of keeping the training machine ticking over (or more than!) now that much of it is civilian and/or contractor manned.
Civvies are not as easy to "flex" as blue-suited QFI/QHIs were in the past - used to be a case of post 'em to an ops job and claw them back when the studes return.....
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: East Midlands
Age: 84
Posts: 1,511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have watched the adverts. They are shot in a strange harsh black and white style and, without exception, everyone featured in them looks dour and miserable. This probably accurately reflects what life is like in the RAF today.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 868
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not surprised if you are still in at 74 years old. Unless you are trying to be amusing...
The Nip
I don't think you could blob up the last 3 though. RAF Cranwell is doing Officer training, RAF Honington is doing baby Rock Ape Recruit training and RAF Halton is doing RAF Recruit training. What would you do?
1. Put Honington and Halton together? Either the poor lads/lasses would be beasted to death or you would end up with soft Rock Apes!
2. Put Cranwell and Halton together? The Recruit course is 10 weeks and the Officer course is 28 weeks for starters. There is not the room/infra at Cranwell and so you would have to build at least 6 new Barrack Blocks, a parade square for the Recruits to practice/pass out on and SLA/SFA for the instructors (of which there is a shortage of in Lincolnshire) - 100s of millions of £s. Or you could put Cranwell at Halton, plenty of infra and Halton House would make a great new College Hall...hang on, shut Cranwell, never!
3. Put them all together? Massive build program and disruption.
Only if the station closes that the basic training is currently at, does it make any sense to move it. That said, when it moves, it will probably still be a seperate course. Also, trying to blob together all 3 services officer or recruit training would be an equal disaster and need the kind of investment we had to make at Shrivenham.
Still if we cancel the carriers we'll have loads of cash to do this type of thing!
LJ
I don't think you could blob up the last 3 though. RAF Cranwell is doing Officer training, RAF Honington is doing baby Rock Ape Recruit training and RAF Halton is doing RAF Recruit training. What would you do?
1. Put Honington and Halton together? Either the poor lads/lasses would be beasted to death or you would end up with soft Rock Apes!
2. Put Cranwell and Halton together? The Recruit course is 10 weeks and the Officer course is 28 weeks for starters. There is not the room/infra at Cranwell and so you would have to build at least 6 new Barrack Blocks, a parade square for the Recruits to practice/pass out on and SLA/SFA for the instructors (of which there is a shortage of in Lincolnshire) - 100s of millions of £s. Or you could put Cranwell at Halton, plenty of infra and Halton House would make a great new College Hall...hang on, shut Cranwell, never!
3. Put them all together? Massive build program and disruption.
Only if the station closes that the basic training is currently at, does it make any sense to move it. That said, when it moves, it will probably still be a seperate course. Also, trying to blob together all 3 services officer or recruit training would be an equal disaster and need the kind of investment we had to make at Shrivenham.
Still if we cancel the carriers we'll have loads of cash to do this type of thing!
LJ