Ascent Flight Training Hiring At RAF Valley

[RAFEngO74to09]

(10) Ascent Flight Training on X: "Got the #MondayBlues? Considering a career change? Well, we are hiring at our RAF Valley site, and we would love you to join us! Learn more about our opportunities as BFT Qualified Flying Instructor, BFT Qualified Instructor and BFT Scheduler.

https://t.co/OonSn0fVeO #JoinUs https://t.co/XKKURSoLYg" / Twitter

[chevvron]

I thought the Hawk T2s at Valley were owned/operated by the RAF not by ASCENT,

[pr00ne]

Originally Posted by chevvron

I thought the Hawk T2s at Valley were owned/operated by the RAF not by ASCENT,

RAF/RN studes and 75% of instructors also RAF/RN.
All engineering and ground support staff civilian contract.

[Jay See]

Would be interested if it was Chivenor or Brawdy

[[email protected]]

Would be interested if it was Chivenor or Brawdy

They would be overrun with applications if it was Chivenor yet the MoD continues to ignore the airfield with the best weather factor on the West Coast.

[BEagle]

I see that salaries are listed as '£ competitive'.....

Competitive with what?

[Null Orifice]

Originally Posted by BEagle

I see that salaries are listed as '£ competitive'.....

Competitive with what?

You have to fight for a decent salary!

[[email protected]]

Competitive with what?

Slightly above what any of the other contractors at RAF Valley are offering probably - that game has been played there for many years.

[Lucifer Morningstar]

Originally Posted by [email protected]

Slightly above what any of the other contractors at RAF Valley are offering probably - that game has been played there for many years.

The term 'competitive' means in direct comparison to something else. The issue here is that Ascent can argue, with some justification, that as the role does not require a license, that is it fair pay for such a position as there is no direct comparison. I have always thought that the fact an applicant needs to be an experienced ex-military instructor significantly outweighs that argument as there are thousands of licensed pilots around, but they can't be instructors at Valley. I think they rely heavily on applicants having a pension to give them a resonable wage.

In any event, the pay as I understand it is around low to mid 60's per annum. Now, compare this to Canada, where SkyAlyne has won the Future Aircrew Training Contract and will be providing elementary, basic, rotary, multi and ACSO/AESOP training to the RCAF. They have a huge need for civilian QFI's and the salary is going to be more than double that paid by Ascent.

[[email protected]]

I think they rely heavily on applicants having a pension to give them a resonable wage.

Agreed - again a game played by many who want the military experience at lower than market prices.

[charliegolf]

Originally Posted by [email protected]

Agreed - again a game played by many who want the military experience at lower than market prices.

If only military pilots who aren't military pilots any more can do the job, then a pension top up is the market price.

CG

[BEagle]

Advice has always been never to seek employment from anyone who makes assumptions about existing pension income.

Say a potential employer knows that an applicant used to have a military income of 60 units and has retired on a pension of 20 units - and only offers salary of 40 units as a result. Walk away unless an offer of at least 60 units is forthcoming! Plus a second pension scheme!

No bucks - no Buck Rogers!!

[PPRuNeUser0211]

Originally Posted by charliegolf

If only military pilots who aren't military pilots any more can do the job, then a pension top up is the market price.

CG

Demonstrably not the case as there are plenty of employers who will employ ex-mil pilots without taking into account the fact they have a pension.

What this employer is relying on is someone who wants that kind of flying/employment specifically as opposed to a good salary I would suggest - a subtly different argument to a financial one.

[Rigga]

I did once enjoy a job where I supposed the employer had counted my pension as his bonus - and when I left there I enjoyed a 45% rise for half the task.
The wages of military work as a contractor is a sure sign of needing a leaden boost in your life.

[DuckDodgers]

Originally Posted by Lucifer Morningstar

The term 'competitive' means in direct comparison to something else. The issue here is that Ascent can argue, with some justification, that as the role does not require a license, that is it fair pay for such a position as there is no direct comparison. I have always thought that the fact an applicant needs to be an experienced ex-military instructor significantly outweighs that argument as there are thousands of licensed pilots around, but they can't be instructors at Valley. I think they rely heavily on applicants having a pension to give them a resonable wage.

In any event, the pay as I understand it is around low to mid 60's per annum. Now, compare this to Canada, where SkyAlyne has won the Future Aircrew Training Contract and will be providing elementary, basic, rotary, multi and ACSO/AESOP training to the RCAF. They have a huge need for civilian QFI's and the salary is going to be more than double that paid by Ascent.

I can categorically state that the figure stated here is, as a Canuck would say, complete hokum.

[charliegolf]

Originally Posted by pba_target

Demonstrably not the case as there are plenty of employers who will employ ex-mil pilots without taking into account the fact they have a pension.

Yeah, but Ascent isn't one of them.

CG

[BEagle]

Arse-scent needs to wake up to the fact that they need to pay for what they need!

[Lucifer Morningstar]

Originally Posted by DuckDodgers

I can categorically state that the figure stated here is, as a Canuck would say, complete hokum.

Interesting! On what do you base that statement? If you are correct then a lot of people directly involved in FAcT are telling porkies. The salary I have heard from multiple sources is around £125k UKP at today’s exchange rate. The hiring of the initial cadre of instructors will soon begin so we shall know soon enough.

However, you ‘categorically state’ the figure is wrong, so I assume you know the FAcT salary for instructors, so please enlighten us as many people on here will be interested 😁

[Professor Plum]

Originally Posted by BEagle

Arse-scent needs to wake up to the fact that they need to pay for what they need!

Agreed!

And also concur with CG’s post before (#16)

They always seem to be recruiting. I wonder why…..?

[DuckDodgers]

Originally Posted by Lucifer Morningstar

Interesting! On what do you base that statement? If you are correct then a lot of people directly involved in FAcT are telling porkies. The salary I have heard from multiple sources is around £125k UKP at today’s exchange rate. The hiring of the initial cadre of instructors will soon begin so we shall know soon enough.

However, you ‘categorically state’ the figure is wrong, so I assume you know the FAcT salary for instructors, so please enlighten us as many people on here will be interested 😁

Apologies about the confusion, I was referencing the U.K. figure quoted of low to mid £60K which is an order of magnitude off. I’d be interested to see what that £125K gets you post tax (about £81K in Saskatchewan?) then throw in cost of living. Suffice to say, there’s a shortage of IPs globally I’d suggest all looking into the same pool of talent.