Why doesn't Spec Aircrew Flying Pay form part of RAF Pension?
Why doesn't Spec Aircrew Flying Pay form part of RAF Pension?
"If the RAF wanted to keep you after age 38 then you could sign on to be "Specialist Aircrew" which again extended your service to age 55 but instead of extra pay going onto your salary, the increments went on to your flying pay. This was fine until you retired, because your pension was calculated on your salary and your flying pay was not considered. However, the flying pay was a regular taxed payment, and therefore under EU rules, it should have been added into the pension calculation".
Please excuse me lifting this quote from the PA thread, but if it is part of EU Rules that "a regular taxed part of income is included in future pension calculations" then why have the forgotten army of RAF Spec Aircrew NOT been paid their Spec Aircrew element of pay, ie Flying Pay not had this flying pay included in their pensions?
After all, they paid tax on it every month for years and years--we need an MP to ask this question in Parliament methinks?
Please excuse me lifting this quote from the PA thread, but if it is part of EU Rules that "a regular taxed part of income is included in future pension calculations" then why have the forgotten army of RAF Spec Aircrew NOT been paid their Spec Aircrew element of pay, ie Flying Pay not had this flying pay included in their pensions?
After all, they paid tax on it every month for years and years--we need an MP to ask this question in Parliament methinks?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,560
Likes: 0
Received 45 Likes
on
30 Posts
It was challenged in court a few times and each time the MOD settled before publicity (or so crew-room gossip proposed). Rather than have to fight the case, the PAS was born - putting flying pay out of the equation rather than admit that they were wrong.
Ok, but surely the Law's The Law. Just settling a (private?) case out of court doesn't put an end to the matter, and if Spec aircrew pay is/was taxed it still remains the case that it should form part of the Spec aircrew pension. PAS solves the problem for those on it and for the future but why shouldn't those left out ie Spec Aircrew be entitled to their just deserts? I think letters to MPs are called for.
There has not to to my knowledge subsequently been any organised attempt to reopen the matter. Should anyone know differently and be able to provide either evidence or knowledge gained first hand I should be very interested to hear it.
YS
OKOC
Hang on a second. If what you’re saying has merit then why are you just thinking of your own subset? Surely the argument holds true for anyone who has ever been in receipt of flying pay (or similar taxable allowances) and subsequently drawn a pension.
Its all me, me, me isn’t it?!
For the record, I’m PAS so Jack’s onboard. Haul up the ladder.
BV
Its all me, me, me isn’t it?!
For the record, I’m PAS so Jack’s onboard. Haul up the ladder.
BV
Hang on a second. If what you’re saying has merit then why are you just thinking of your own subset? Surely the argument holds true for anyone who has ever been in receipt of flying pay (or similar taxable allowances) and subsequently drawn a pension.
Its all me, me, me isn’t it?!
For the record, I’m PAS so Jack’s onboard. Haul up the ladder.
BV
Its all me, me, me isn’t it?!
For the record, I’m PAS so Jack’s onboard. Haul up the ladder.
BV
OKOC
You were in the military once, I presume?
You call my post vitriol? You couldn’t sense the banter?
Probably best that you left when you did.
This post is also banter by the way. But then, you knew that already right?
BV
You call my post vitriol? You couldn’t sense the banter?
Probably best that you left when you did.
This post is also banter by the way. But then, you knew that already right?
BV
It's not a topic which was limited to Spec Aircrew, although clearly the flying pay element of a Spec Aircrew Flt Lt is very significant. The issue was that if you're paid and taxed £XXX, your pension should also be based on £XXX, not £(XXX - FP).
When I was promoted to Sqn Ldr Spec Aircrew, although I found myself suddenly receiving the same basic pay as a Single List 8 year Sqn Ldr, my total pay was only a few pennies different to its previous level due to the flying pay element having been reduced. Which at least improved the pensionable element....
Those who were at Cartoontown International at the time will recall that 'Rumpole' put a lot of effort into the topic, but was ultimately unsuccessful.
When I was promoted to Sqn Ldr Spec Aircrew, although I found myself suddenly receiving the same basic pay as a Single List 8 year Sqn Ldr, my total pay was only a few pennies different to its previous level due to the flying pay element having been reduced. Which at least improved the pensionable element....
Those who were at Cartoontown International at the time will recall that 'Rumpole' put a lot of effort into the topic, but was ultimately unsuccessful.
I assume the same principle would also apply to other specialists' pay too - Submariners, Clearance Divers, Parachute Jump Instructors etc......
However, in civilian life it is quite normal to have a pensionable base salary and then other additional allowances on top which are still taxed but do not get included in the pension calculations e.g. a pilot may get a TRE allowance and a location weighting. So I'm pretty sure the law is not as black and white as to say that if you pay tax you must be able to include that element in your pension.
However, in civilian life it is quite normal to have a pensionable base salary and then other additional allowances on top which are still taxed but do not get included in the pension calculations e.g. a pilot may get a TRE allowance and a location weighting. So I'm pretty sure the law is not as black and white as to say that if you pay tax you must be able to include that element in your pension.
As far as I am aware, neither the Treasury or MoD has ever been called upon to justify or defend their position. As I stated earlier, I was party to what I believe to have been the only organised and funded attempt to challenge the situation and that fell at the first hurdle, the merits of our case with respect to the law. That was the paid for opinion of counsel with experience and knowledge in the field using as their basis a test case that was typical of the affected group which had it proceeded to court and been successful could have established precedent and been applied across the board.
Naturally, those who supported the campaign were disappointed with the result but accepted that the law was not in our favour and any continuation of action was highly unlikely to be successful. I say again, that as far as I am aware, neither the Treasury or MoD have been formally challenged on the matter as with the law in their favour it would be pointless.
I feel that there is an unfair element in the situation but it can only be addressed by political not legal means. Having had subsequent dealings with the Pensions Regulator in a matter requiring a ministerial decision I am afraid that with very limited leverage available one is better finding more rewarding ways of spending ones time.
YS
Naturally, those who supported the campaign were disappointed with the result but accepted that the law was not in our favour and any continuation of action was highly unlikely to be successful. I say again, that as far as I am aware, neither the Treasury or MoD have been formally challenged on the matter as with the law in their favour it would be pointless.
I feel that there is an unfair element in the situation but it can only be addressed by political not legal means. Having had subsequent dealings with the Pensions Regulator in a matter requiring a ministerial decision I am afraid that with very limited leverage available one is better finding more rewarding ways of spending ones time.
YS
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hang on a second. If what you’re saying has merit then why are you just thinking of your own subset? Surely the argument holds true for anyone who has ever been in receipt of flying pay (or similar taxable allowances) and subsequently drawn a pension.
Its all me, me, me isn’t it?!
For the record, I’m PAS so Jack’s onboard. Haul up the ladder.
BV
Its all me, me, me isn’t it?!
For the record, I’m PAS so Jack’s onboard. Haul up the ladder.
BV
I "advanced" to Spec Aircrew in '84, automatically as an ex Flt Cdt.
Having accepted the pension arrangement I tried to make AVCs towards closing the pension gap only to be told No.
Not possible because Flying Pay is not pay it is an allowance! Your Basic is pay and is pensionable and so there is no excess to contribute to AVCs.
I think that later AVCs were allowed.
When I PVRed at 43 I had the opportunity to give my reasons.
The introduction of Spec Aircrew envisaged, that at retirement at 55, basic pay plus spec aircrew flying pay would be equivalent to that of a ground branch Wg Cdr.
However the pension would not!
The other reason was that the lump sum encouraged retirement/VR. Why not pay something to retain aircrew rather than pay them to leave.
I like to think that these reasons were my small contribution to the introduction of the PAS.
Fortunately it all worked out for me and I am, in retirement, better off than a retired ground branch Wg Cdr.
1066
Having accepted the pension arrangement I tried to make AVCs towards closing the pension gap only to be told No.
Not possible because Flying Pay is not pay it is an allowance! Your Basic is pay and is pensionable and so there is no excess to contribute to AVCs.
I think that later AVCs were allowed.
When I PVRed at 43 I had the opportunity to give my reasons.
The introduction of Spec Aircrew envisaged, that at retirement at 55, basic pay plus spec aircrew flying pay would be equivalent to that of a ground branch Wg Cdr.
However the pension would not!
The other reason was that the lump sum encouraged retirement/VR. Why not pay something to retain aircrew rather than pay them to leave.
I like to think that these reasons were my small contribution to the introduction of the PAS.
Fortunately it all worked out for me and I am, in retirement, better off than a retired ground branch Wg Cdr.
1066
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Down South
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Banter gets you dishonourably discharged in the USAF.
I am still pretty sure that the pensions of a spec aircrew Flt Lt, a single list Sqn Ldr and a Spec aircrew Sqn Ldr would be very similar. Something to do with the enhancement of the Flt Lt pension by the equivalent of mid rate flying pay. The other 2 would get no enhancement for their flying pay at all. BEags am I not right in thinking that the SA Sqn Ldr pay was made up the same way as general list. Of course my memory might be playing tricks.
In comparison with civilian reality you guys are being screwed, totally cheated out of your just entitelment.
In my airline, my additional pay as a training captain was FULLY pensionable.
Still can’t understand why the RAF employs spec. aircrew and then considers flying pay as an allowance. Bizarre !
In my airline, my additional pay as a training captain was FULLY pensionable.
Still can’t understand why the RAF employs spec. aircrew and then considers flying pay as an allowance. Bizarre !
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Why doesn't Spec Aircrew Flying Pay form part of RAF Pension?
Because although it is called 'Flying Pay' it is in fact an allowance, something added on top of pay and not pay itself. I remember there being much commotion about this in the late 1980's and 'Redress of Complaints' being fired up to Group. Nothing happened then, there was no 'satisfaction' and there is unlikely to be any now. It's an allowance with the wrong name - get over it.Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Chippenham, Wilts
Age: 75
Posts: 297
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was argued by MOD that it was in fact a Recruiting and Retention bonus/payment/allowance. However, in QR's it was always titled Flying Pay so there!
3P
3P