JPA and PVR
 

Just had a revealing JPA brief to the masses today and the question was raised about the new clause within JPA about the drop in flying pay if you submit your notice.

The reply was that MOD lawyers had checked and said this was a fully legal line to take, although the guy who said this also used the caveat these same legal Wallahs said there would be no legal issues with females and pregnancy etc etc!

Has anyone challenged this so far? (Not the pregnancy side!) I am interested in the old line from the previous regs that stated that if you are past your pensionable point (I am) you will not receive a drop in pay. That would be my line to the court anyway.

Appreciate your thoughts

'Flying pay does not contribute towards your pension and therefore, is not subject to the same protection as pensionable pay' was the line I had thrown at me when I asked the very same question.

Admin muppets!

Thread drift - has anyone been given a reason why the 'PVR Online' button doesn't work?
Just thought it might have been useful this Monday morning............. :\

But more to the point, don't you find it slightly disconcerting that we have an employer that will allow you to resign at the push of a button rather than try and protect their investment or find out what is wrong?

If you want to PVR online just remember you won't be able to between 13th October and 24th October as that is when the navy gets it's pay fcuked up. They say they are going to do the RAF pay run early to make sure all goes swimmingly, but when has that ever happened since the implementation of the white elephant that is?

We had a brief last week. Apparently there are so many formal redresses in that they will not be able to action them all. Great, thanks...no.....really.....thanks.

It is my understanding that you actually drop to 50% of your current rate!!!!!!:eek:

I understand that a Lt Col has sent apologetic letters to those who have gone down the 'complaint' road (some submitted in May) and advised that they are 'not aone'. The back-log is huuuuuge!. Pity it didn't make it to parliament when some muppet in the commons said - on JPA implementation (in April) 'so far there has not been any complaints'.

I also understand that thousands have yet to put their posting preferences in the JPA system. Can anyone tell us how to?


....and finally, if pensionable pay is the excuse for dropping flying pay from wage post PVR, does that mean that PAS pay after PVR submission is not affected?

L J R
 

And finally ............... you are correct!

Regards

Ginseng

Pas Pay
 

I am PAS and have PVR'd - you are right, as I don't officially receive flying pay my pay has been unaffected! Just the small matter of FRI to repay now..:{

grimfixer,

Just a thought.

At the end of every Court Case at least 50 per cent of the legal teams are WRONG!!!

LJR

After some tinkering I worked out, in the location choices, that for areas of the globe (some UK as well) type A in the box and then hit the search torch. The same for counties as well (but with C).
As for type of employment if you put R then search it will give you all available job choices in the RAF, from the most humble of mover right up to CAS. Still haven't had the bottle to try that yet, CAS that is.

with regard to the dropping of flying pay, those fortunate to be on PAS do not have to suffer any reduction of pay on pvr. It does beg the question as to wether this legal??? As far as 50% reduction of flying pay, in hard cash terms, is it legal to penalise somebody more on the higher rate than it is to penalise soomebody on the middle rate of flying pay??
Just a couple of thoughts, but everything is legal until it is challenged.

Is it a coincidence that the Tranche 3 announcement is on 12 Oct?


Actually, it probably is as the alternative involves an implausible amount of forethought and planning on somebody's part...

PVR Times
 

I too am pi$$ed off with the 50% drop in FP on PVR (mine will go in Jan 07) and wondered if anybody has actually done less that a year. I think I will submit a FOI request asking how many aircew PVR'd and how long they served under PVR so I am armed for the forthcoming battle with PMA.

HPT

This has been done pretty much to death on other threads. Yes it is legal (and has been challenged many times without success) because Flying pay is a retention measure and if you PVR you are not being retained therefore you (rightly) lose a portion of that pay.

i agree that it is legal but is it legal to penalise some more than others financialy, ie half of the middle rate is less than half the higher rate?

VVHA
 

Ah yes, but .........

Introduction of the PAS was also a "retention measure"; it was apart of the overall Aircrew Retention Review. Therefore, PA Aircrew who PVR are also "failing to be retained" by their enhanced (and pensionable) basic pay. So why should they not suffer financial penalty for their PVR when other aircrew do?

Answers on a post card please.

Regards

Ginseng

I have got to say that if you have decided to leave then the cut in additional allowances should not be a surprise. This has been beaten to death on many occasions so b****r off as planned and put it behind you.
I will be submitting my PVR in the near future - with the knowledge of EDP under APFS 2005. I have only made my decision after a great deal of soul searching and many hours with a calculator!! I have looked at both the positive, such as sqn mates that are a joy to fly with, and the negative, that includes the increasing overstretch and the impact on family life.
An aircrew mate

ChezTanker
 

Granted. However, the main point here is not whether it is "legal" to reduce the pay of those who indicate an intention not to continue to fulfill their whole committment. We work for the Government, and like it or not the Government, via Parliament or other means, decides in practice what is "legal" and what is not. The issue here is one of discrimination, since there are some who suffer a financial penalty for their decision and others who do not. This Government, above all others, is vociferous in trumpeting its committment to anti-discrimination on all sorts of grounds. Yet, where it has the power to do so without risk of significant opposition, it is quite happy to write itself a blank cheque to exclude itself, as an employer, from the consequences of the legislation which it imposes so destructively on others. Where does the brunt of this burden fall? That's right, on those of its employees who are committed, by their nature as well as by their "contract" of employment, not to rebel. I would argue that a Government that so abuses its powers is morally corrupt. You, of course, are free to think otherwise.

Regards

Ginseng