I'm confused. We need to get over the post SDSR crises? We are closer to the next SDSR than we are to the last one!
|
Yes a 5 year training pipeline with a 5 year decision cycle is not going to be easy to manage. Some would say it is madness.
I also meant to add that we have quite a retention issue outside of cockpits/flightdecks. We always had a requirement for aircrew in non-flying roles but the advent of the DH structure increased the requirement just at the point that we hoped that the requirement would reduce. It's quite hard to get multiple ground tours out of aircrew for some unfathomable reason… |
we are below critical mass on a number of fleets |
There are a number of aircrew (SO2/1s) who previously had a fine pair of hands who would love to get out of the desk-job-merry-go-round and get back to an aircraft. Maybe the situation will become so acute that we may have to consider the US squadron model of having additional OF-3 and 4s on squadron but without portfolio?
I am now trying to find an icon of a pig flying backwards... |
I think the bigger problem with FRIs now is that it comes out of the money devolved to the Single Service. Previously the sS applied to the Treasury/MoD for extra money, now they have to fund it out of their own pot. So, the question for CAS is, what you are going to sacrifice to afford the FRI? The type of money people have been mooting on here are about equivalent to 2 or 3 Junior Ranks' annual salary (at least). Are you prepared to stand up to The Sun (or Defence Select Committee) and say you're worth that? |
Originally Posted by Biggus
after kicking out large numbers of baby pilots still in the training system (who hadn't actually failed anything), who would just have started to become productive |
We need to recalibrate our costs a bit anyway. Last piece of staff work I saw that mentioned actual training costs put the price tag of producing an LCR(QRA-only) Typhoon pilot at over £10M, with a training pipeline that's a minimum of 4 years long.
There's your simple economics! A £250k FRI to retain a multi-role CR guy, a QWI, or a Flt Cdr is pennies considering your alternative is to spend 40 times as much, wait 4 years, and get a worse product at the end...! Numbers may vary, but the same simple economics persist across all fleets, I'd bet. With Virgin recruiting, not only will that drag a lot of people away, but it'll generate holes at lots of other "stepping stone" airlines that people will fill too. Qatar Airways have even just announced a route to Scotland, to give them another foothold in the UK, haven't they? I just can't really see many ways that manning works over the next 5 years. |
FFG,
Thanks for responding to my post - even if it was to point out I was wrong! If it's taking up to 10 years from joining to exiting an OCU then the system is in big trouble - how can such a backed up training system provide sufficient output to replace losses, especially as its ability to respond to any short notice changes in outflow or requirement is non existent. |
The release of 200 guys was to stop the time to OCU from being 10yrs.
Check this out from the USAF. sorry if it's a repeat USAF Pilots Pass on $225,000 Bonuses | All Things Aero |
Interesting that US article and accords with my personal feeling that the take-up of any FRI could be poor unless it was sufficiently large to offend the Daily Mail & Sun headline writers (''RAF pilots get bribes equal to five times nurses' salaries!'')
An FRI of circa £80k after tax spread over 5 years doesn't really compensate for the loss of seniority in an airline, better to get onto the ladder sooner rather than later. |
Retention
Ken Scott.
Your final point is the one that everyone always trots out when talk of FRIs comes up. The way I see it though is the jam today or jam tomorrow scenario. When most people leave (at roughly 38) they want to be finding a house if they don't already have one. The lump sum helps with this. The FRI temporarily replaces the lump sum and allows for said house purchase. I am well aware that there are past generations of guys that did very well on the housing market and now have their Goergian country estate with no mortgage before their sixtieth birthday, but there are those of us for whom that has not happened (due to the vagaries of the housing market and postings). People should not always assume that just because an FRI wouldn't tempt them that it wouldn't tempt anyone. It would suit my circumstances very nicely and I am well aware of the whole airline seniority argument. I should also point out that circumstances change and two months from now I may change my mind and want to leave forthwith but I'm a fickle bugger. It's my prerogative. BV |
BV,
As PAS I'm well past the window for any FRI to retain me so I wasn't speaking from a personal perspective - I had my FRI many years ago which I enjoyed spending but wasn't really a critical part of my decision to stay in, that was more down to my enjoyment of the job. I was seeing things from the perspective of someone much younger, without the prospect of advancing to Level 35 PA pay as a Flt Lt and with the rather questionable benefits of an AFPS 15 pension at whatever age it will be paid out. If there is little point in serving until age 55 given the pension gap & the intent is only to do 5 more years to amortise the FRI then frankly it makes more sense to jump earlier & take whatever lump sum you're entitled to when you go instead of the FRI with the expectation that your 'lack of loyalty' will be rewarded through additional seniority over the coming years. |
Are The Wheels Coming Off
Rumour has it (well this is PPRuNe after all) that some Career Stream WSO Sqn Ldrs with 'specialist' skillsets (eg ASQ) who have had all previous requests to go PAS turned down flat, are now being offered the chance to transfer to PAS.
Not only that, under the NEM (New Employment Model) they are also being offered the chance to serve to age 60. First off, I assume that this is conclusive proof that Manning has failed miserably to keep control of their 'levers'. Secondly, wtf were the likes of me that had the same 'specialist' skillset made redundant last year!:ugh: |
zedder,
I guess timing is everything - last year your branch was presumably in surplus so even though they might have foreseen a future shortfall they had to cut numbers. Logical or sensible it isn't! |
Rumour has it (well this is PPRuNe after all) that some Career Stream WSO Sqn Ldrs with 'specialist' skillsets (eg ASQ) who have had all previous requests to go PAS turned down flat, are now being offered the chance to transfer to PAS. Not only that, under the NEM (New Employment Model) they are also being offered the chance to serve to age 60. We make it difficult for ourselves sometimes. |
zedder,
JTO is correct with the exception that the PAS offer, which was pretty much available to anyone who wanted it, was still capped at age 49. I suspect this was based on so many pilots turning down the offer in the first place, leaving the WSO empire to fill those all important staff jobs! |
As PAS do not have flying pay I assume they are not affected by the rule that if you fill a non-flying related post for over two years you lose your flying pay after the two year point.
Does it not follow then, for pilots at least, that by accepting a PAS offer you may be locking yourself into consecutive desk jobs with no immediate hope of returning to flying duties? I knew a PAS Sqn Ldr who was in his third desk job having tried to get back flying at every opportunity; he eventually got flying but only on loan-service with another Air Force. As PAS could you not potentially become the Desk Officer's 'Joker Card' for those difficult to fill posts? |
Flt Lt PAS can only be employed in 'flying related jobs', which whilst that definition could be interpreted fairly liberally still restricts them to a flying station.
Sqn Ldr PAS however can be employed in 'non-flying related jobs' so yes, they can expect to be routinely occupying staff jobs. A discussion with the current poster some time ago ndicated that Sqn Ldr PAS can expect to be in a flying job roughly one tour in 4 as I recall, so your acquaintance's experience would be about right. |
Flt Lt PAS can only be employed in 'flying related jobs', which whilst that definition could be interpreted fairly liberally still restricts them to a flying station. One mate turned down promotion to sqn ldr several years ago specifically to avoid the situation you mention in your second paragraph. However, as Manning told him, he couldn't turn down acting rank and subsequently found himself at HQ Air doing a crap staff job as an acting sqn ldr! |
Stitching you with acting rank I can understand, just one of the ways that Manning have to get you in the end.
I struggle to see how they could post someone to an HQ & argue that the job was 'flying related'? Ultimately any job in the RAF ostensibly contributes to the role of the service & could therefore be deemed 'flying related' but the fact that they have differentiated 'flying' & 'non-flying' would imply to me at least (simple soul that I am) that the former must directly be related to the aviation task. Sim instructor? Ok. HQ Staff wallah? Not ok. To fill Staff jobs with PAS Flt Lts would surely go against the purpose of expensively retaining experienced aircrew? |
Ken,
The point is that some of those crap staff jobs need an aircrew mate to fill them; because they need specialist knowledge. That's what marks them as "flying related," even if they're at HQ Air or Abbey Wood or somewhere miles away from the nearest runway. They do attract flying pay though; it's a "non-flying related" ground job that puts you on the 2 year counter to reserve band. Hence why there aren't many of us volunteering to be IOT flt cdrs, or work in recruiting offices....! |
Ken, its all about SQEP (suitably qualified and equipped personnel). if the appointments were not flying pic, aircrew would be pvr'ing in droves as they could be risking losing flying pay if kept in a flying appointment past manning 'guarantees'.
|
suitably qualified and equipped personnel _______________ |
Soz meant experienced! :E
|
Mate, I'm using using your version in our next document revision to see if anyone notices.
:ok: |
Originally Posted by Just This Once...
(Post 8167867)
Mate, I'm using using your version in our next document revision to see if anyone notices.
:ok: I received a number of emails from Air with the byline 'this is the personal opinion of the originator and not . . . ' I pinched it and added '. . . therefore you may ignore all the forgoing.' No one noticed or commented until my daughter actually read it :) |
I once included a quote from a BR in an email signature - I was told to take it off by a Capt RN because it made the RN look bad.....
|
ATG,
More like it made the RN Capt look bad... SQEP is an interesting point; the MAA Report last year mentioned the training and retention of SQEP in key areas was a major concern. However, the problem Manning has is that to acquire SQEP status individuals have to do several tours in the same field to first acquire then exploit their specialist knowledge. This is, of course, a planning overhead on Manning who then actually have to examine their spreadsheets rather than merely fill them. It is also a paradox as the individuals' promotion chances will be hammered by not being 'broadened' by bouncing around every 18mths. Therefore, the few genuine SQEP the RAF have all shuffle to the exit at the earliest opportunity as their credentials are better recognised outside. The NEM may well help, with extended tours and greater stability, but I'm seeing SQEP haemorrhage out of the RAF as 'generalists' with the 'right' background are promoted at their expense. Manning need to up their game to retain this experience or we risk either having an even more risk averse culture than we have now or another Haddon-Cave in 5 years time. |
I know, why don't we introduce a system of personnel that are retained, at incremented pay rates, within their specialisation to provide a sound backbone to the various trades/branches? We called call the aircrew element, Specialist Aircrew. We could also commission SNCOs with extensive knowledge in their particular specialisation, retaining a corps of SQEP at SO2/3 level, perhaps we could call them Branch Officers.
|
About the time that Core Competencies came into being, they did introduce an Acquisition Stream. As I remember it, you had to apply to enter that stream by providing evidence that you had the necessary skills/experience and pertinent qualifications.
I was accepted into that stream on the basis of having done Aerosystems, a tour at A&AEE Boscombe Down and by being at that time mid-tour at DPA Abbey Wood where I had done the Risk Management Course. I don't think the Acquisition Stream idea really went anywhere though, unless someone knows different, although I did subsequently bag a tour in a Systems Program Office at Naval Air Systems Command, NAS Patuxent River. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 17:32. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.