With the title of this website at the top of every page, why are people spelling professional with two 'F's? Is the second one for 'F*cked Off?'

I really don't understand what all the moaning is about. SNCO Aircrew and LE Officers are all volunteers - did they not accept the terms and conditions that were on offer at the time? Or is the real truth just down to plain GREED?

AMBLER

No, we did not accept the conditions. They were forced upon us. Illegally in the EU's view.

Those with wife n kids n mortgage had little choice. Life, I guess.

SNCO Aircrew are a fact of life. Only time will tell whether each one of us will NGR as we approach our respective 22 point, instead of serving to age 55.

This thread is only the thin end of a very thick wedge of ill feeling.

Those of you who fly with SNCO Aircrew will know that we do not let things rest, and our memories are very long.

If we could earn a pension after just 16 years, instead of serving 6 years longer to 22, then already the RAF would be in an even worse state vis a vis aircrew retention.

At least the new pension consultation should, if accepted even up the "hair under your a**".

covec

You are so right.

Sad

Ambler,

Thin Ice Warning!!!

AA with more than 15 yrs service have been shafted on several occaisions. If we enjoyed the terms that were on offer when we initially enlisted, then there may not be quite so much animosity as you witness at the moment. <img src="mad.gif" border="0">

Just a couple of things to be thrown in here.

1. I for one would be more than happy if they took away my flying pay, and like the so called professional aircrew added to my basic salary to improve my pension.

2. Why should I have to serve 22 years to get my pension where someone who is younger, less experienced, and who has no intrest in staying be able to get a better pension after only 16? Give NCO Aircrew a pension at their 16/38 point and see how many stay!

3. One of our MAEOp is leaving for PMA to start a 4 month study into all of this. At first he was to be the only AA on the review panel, but as I understand it a MALM has also now been appointed, so lets hope they can gain the recognition all our hard work deserves.

4. Am I living in cloud cookoo land for hoping for even the smallest of crumbs?

C'mon, Lads. Did you expect some dosh from an Officer's pay review? -If you don't expect - then you are not dissapointed when it happens!

OK. I'm a LITTLE annoyed too. However, that's life. Am I going to give up my only job for a loss of a 2-3 grand hand-out? No. OK, back on your heads!!! - Until the NEXT arse shag!

1st Threshold

As the Wg Cdr said, emotion will not win any battles. AA have many valid contentious issues but will lose their arguement if they are just seen to be rude and ignorant. The bloke that has had to endure all the finger poking by lots of people, I think, is doing a bloody good job. He did not write the package and nor is he responsible for any perceived failings. If giving one of the better senior officers a hard time is seen as good by SNCOs, then you are certainly going to lose all credibility.

As for those younger, less experienced aircrew getting a better pension, this applies to all walks of life. If everyone is paid the same and has equal benefits where is the incentive to progress? AA do a good job, just like all the other trades in light blue. There is a big shortage in one trade but that does not change the job. When the pilots, particularly the FJ mates got fed up, they left. There were no union meetings, no ranting, the ones that decided to go, got up and went. The others that stayed got on with their lifes or just whinged on this forum. That is why there is a shortage - due to retention. AA may leave in their droves but it hasn't happened yet; perhaps it will but until that time the RAF has a recruitment problem not a retention problem. Is the job/pay so awful that a mass exodus is likely to occur?

I hope that there is some equity created from this review as regards to pensions and when they are paid, but that is part of another review that is already in print and applies to all of HM Forces and not just AA!

Winchie;

re the money: its not 2k to 3k payout. multiply by 10 and then you are in the ball park.

re your shrugged shoulders: that type of reaction simply encourages more of the same from those at the top. Sure, we can leave if we don't like it. Maybe, if we all live in S England with opportunities everywhere. In N Scotland there are no such opportunities for a married man with children at at school and the thought of selling a cheap house in scotland and buying a a 2 bed box in England is shuddering ...and thats before you get a job.

Now, no-one is saying that the Kinloss factor applies only to AEOps (we have blunties and lineys as well in similar situations). But, virtually every other trade and branch has postings of a noticeable number away from Kinloss. This vunerability within the AEOp branch is being exploited to the full by the higher ups: "give-em diddley squat, they'll stay anyway" is the attitude displayed.

The AEOps here probably know that I'm not one of them. I wouldn't object if they were in the package with the AEOs and I wasn't....they deserve something out of the review.

cyclic

"The bloke that has had to endure all the finger poking by lots of people, I think, is doing a bloody good job."

At what? Having his chest poked, listening, pouring oil on troubled waters, being a 'spokesperson', what?

ps I know you can't fly/won't fly!!!

Edited 'cos I couldn't spell lol!

[ 15 February 2002: Message edited by: Oh I See ]</p>

This is all well and good but it seems to me that the problem with the FJ pilots is being addressed anyway (Farewell 5 Sqn). Rumor has it that the SHAR will be scrapped and a GR7 Sqn may go too, so, if true, why pay out any money at all to the mighty 2 winged master race(commisioned variety of course). Maybe the money could be put into maintaing and improving what little kit we have left? Who knows with decent kit the pilots may decide to stay on after all!

--------------------------------------------------

It's dificult to soar with eagles when you work FOR turkeys!

123

Boys, you're full os s**t. The RAF is critically short of pilots now, so they're buying some more - it's (much) cheaper than training them. If the same were true of NCO aircrew, they would do the same. Crewmen have very limited job opportunities outside, so they're not a retention problem, therefore the treasury won't throw any money at them.

Pub, you're missing the point here! Yes the RAF is short of pilots, and yes I know crewmen are not as saleable on the outside, but throwing money at it ain't neccessarily the way forward. A lot of these highly skilled proffesional military pilots would rater be that! Give em decent kit to fly, less ground tours and less pen pushing and the majority would probably stay. Maybe fewer dets in the back of beyond where we're really not wanted anyway would help too. Hey I even know a few who have been with the airlines and have come back in as the job satisfaction is just not there.

123

8 years ago when the Aussies were losing F-18 pilots to quatas, they started throwing money at them to try and keep them in. Obviously it didn't work, and the RAF said it would never copy them and throw money at the pilots.

Now they've changed their minds and handed out reasonable sums of money!! But surely even this won't make that much difference! The important bits are the pension rights and all the other inequalities that AA have to face. Plus the fact that for I don't know how many years their excuse for not doing anything has been "No Money", suddenly there's a pot of it around and maybe some of it can be used to make it fairer!

Not all our issues are to do with money, as they so rightly said, but compensating the services not just AA would be a good way to go! Why do the yanks, when they deploy to a war zone, stop paying tax! <img src="frown.gif" border="0">

NGR 18 months before your 22 year exit/option point, lads. Make sure that the NGR date falls safely beyond the pensionable date, though!

"That'll learn 'em".

Re civvy street: prepare. Become marketable. You may decide to stay, and that is fine. But there is no harm in "prior preparation".

You never know how good, or bad it's gonna get....

[ 16 February 2002: Message edited by: covec ]</p>

They keep saying that there is no retention problem. Oh Really! Even the Wg Cdr that did the brief at ISK admitted that there is, and there has been for the last 4 years, but the ARR looked at the last 10 years and was able to even it out (statistics can be made to say anything you want).

Also there is not a single AA trade that isn't short, unlike O-Rearcrew or Army pilots & yet they were included. Here's an idea, we have 338 more Sqn Ldrs & above than we need <img src="eek.gif" border="0"> (seriously 338, these are the official numbers), think of how much money that would save and how it could be used.

At the end of the day they included groups that they didn't need to and excluded the AA, how else can this be viewed. I don't know how many would have benefitted, not me for a while, but that isn't the point, this has been yet another example of what the hierachy really think of us.

I no longer listen to the words, I look at the actions because they speak volumes and are a tad more truthful.

I'd like to think that the AA review will produce something, but I've been around too long and know otherwise. Unfortunately since I joined (before '89) every review or decision made upon us has been negative, who knows I might be wrong. <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

[ 16 February 2002: Message edited by: maniac55 ]

[ 16 February 2002: Message edited by: maniac55 ]</p>

I've been reading some real tripe here. Lets get something right, lads.

The revised ToS in 89 was NOT a bad decision in itself. Everybody had the choice to adopt it or not. The cock ups since then have been managerial errors in PMA. I agree it is not right that some sgts in receipt of MACR/FS pay were signed on while sticking to their reserved rights and supposedly waiving any entitlement to re-engagement, while others who accepted the promotion and waived rights to MACR pay at 17 1/2 yrs are still only receiving FS pay after 17 1/2 yrs. The '89 policy was a good one and set in stone for quite some time. In fact, it was a previous kilo staish posted to PMA in the mid nineties who overturned it and started to offer 5 yr extensions...under the duress of, guess what...retention problems at that time (I'll have to dig out the letter and send it to our man on the team).

The AEOp downbanding was terrible and I have no issues with anyone deriding that particular decision.

Pay 2000. Although sme people here see it as another knock to the AA, it forced the AEOps into the higher range. They couldn't remain in a middle band so they had to go either up or down. So, up it was. Its a shame that individual MACR, who should never have been downbanded in the first place, have now got to climb up the annual ladder to get to where they should have been years ago. FS/MACR ALMs remained where they were, in the lower range, so although pay 2000 didn't enhance their position it didn't make it worse. It is arguable that a very senior MALM will earn more basic pay than a junior FS AEOP, which would never happen without P2000, but I haven't got the figures to hand (I might be wrong - getting my excuse in early)

ARR. The AA are not leaving their branches, let alone the service, ahead of their predicted dates in any noticeable numbers. So, we DO NOT HAVE a retention problem from the viewpoint of the ARR team's terms of reference. IPS (into productive service) ie OCU graduation targets are not being met in the AEOp branch. So there is a shortage and bad feeling when AEOs and Eng Ldrs employed in an abundance throughout the RAF, are seen to each receive sufficient money to fund Rum Punch accommodation without any need to ask the Queen to ante up. This leaves us with a morale problem. To quote a scouser: money can't buy you love.

No, money can't buy you love.

But I'd rather be rich and lonely than poor and lonely!!! <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">

DP Harvey

"The revised ToS in 89 was NOT a bad decision in itself. Everybody had the choice to adopt it or not.". The '89 ToS are not what I agreed to when I joined and like everyone else offered 22 it was either sign to the new terms or leave. Hobson's Choice is no choice and if I could go back and make the decision again it would not be the same.

"The AA are not leaving their branches, let alone the service", around 75 AA have been comissioned in the last 5 years and how many took a non-flying trade? We may not PVR/NGR in numbers but there a lot of bods that take their 8, 12 or 22 option or find other ways out.

We can argue facts and figures all day but the fact is we are short, and therefore can't afford to lose experienced personnel. We don't just need to recruit & train more, we also need to keep the individuals we have. AA in general has to be made more attractive instead of being put down, which the ARR did. I personally don't believe that bonus's are the way ahead, equalise the flying pay and make it pensionable, that would make a big difference.

I'll reiterate what I said before, I'd like to see the new AA review produce the goods, but I'm not holding my breath.

Stumbled onto this thread as I'm thinking of taking the Queens Shilling and applying for NCO Aircrew (ALM). Makes interesting reading. I must of been asleep when they mentioned this at the careers office!

Any reason given why the commisioned 2 wingers get a higher rate of flying pay? Maybe because the front end is more likely to hit the mountain first? Sounds like another case of 'those that have got shall have'.

If it makes you feel any better, as civvy HEMS Paramedics we get between £17K to £19.5K pa, no increments and no flight pay. We get to fly about one week in three. The rest of the time we run the risk of being stabbed by a drunk because we're not taking his 6 week old sore throat seriously enough!

Hope you get somewhere.