Nice to see they have now made the 5 year return of service from when you accept PAS (so you could get better pension from age 40) not from your 38/16. That means only one extra tour. But you are now firmly on PAS from your point of acceptance so no chance to change your mind up to 37 as there was before.

5 Year ROS
 

Hmmmm, I'm not sure that is actually a change from how it's always been. Having taken PAS back in mid 2008, my T&Cs instantly reflected the fact I had become PAS, although I didn't hit my 38 point for another year or so and my 5 years ROS hadn't started. It is, after all, a change in commission, so perhaps that is to be expected?

The change, as of this board, is an immediate transition upon acceptance of a PAS offer to the PAS pay-scale.

You, I and anyone prior to this year would have had our ToS change on acceptance but not moved up the levels until completing your original engagement. No longer the case.

Somewhat unfair on those who accepted on last years board and are still waiting to transition who will lose at least 9 months PAS seniority...

Hmmm, wonder who I have upset as my offer clearly states I will transfer to PAS when I get to my 16/38 point!!

With a 5 year ROS as soon as I accept the offer and no option point at all it seems like a very one sided offer to me as I will continue to mark time on level 9 Flt Lt for almost three years. Transferring immediately to PAS would certainly sweeten the deal but I like I said, that is not what I was offered!

Interesting M0nkfish,

Have you spoken to Manning about that specifically?

It could be interpretation, mine or theirs is at variance!

m0nkfish, my offer also states that the 5yr ROS starts immediately upon signing, but if you want the PAS pension then you will still have to 5yrs past your original 16/38 point.

But in order to qualify for the AFPS15 EDP, you would have to serve till your 20/40 point anyway - unless you have accepted the Offer to Extend in which case why wouldn't you take PAS for the extra pension it would give you anyway?

Transferring to PAS straight away would also make the offer a lot more palatable:

By my, admittedly rough, calculations; if I transferred to a PAS pay scale now as a Level 9 with Top Rate Flying Pay, then I would start on PAS Level 18ish rising to PAS Level 21 by my original 16/38 point. This would also benefit me with the 'career average' portion of AFPS15.

However by not transferring to PAS pay scale immediately, I will be a Level 9 with Enhanced Rate Flying Pay by the time of my 16/38 point and thus start the PAS payscale at Level 20. In the meantime I would have spent 2yrs ish on AFPS15 with the vastly reduced 'career average' that would have brought.

Thank Goodness for the protected rights of AFPS75 - until 2015 anyway.

Good question - does the PAS pension kick in 5 years after acceptance or five years after 38/16?. I believe the latter so the early tie in without escape option is not to my taste.

Yes that is my interpretation as well. ROS starts immediately but you have to do five years on PAS to get the pension and don't go onto it until your current engagement expiry date. The wording was not immediately obvious and it was only on reading the certificate you send back that I became aware I would not go immediately onto PAS.

Anyone know if PAS would now come with a tax hit on the annual allowance for pensions? Reading the wording in JSP 754 doesn't make things any clearer to me but then I am just a pilot!

My letter says the same as monkfish, artyhug. On acceptance, 5yr ROS starts immediately. At 38/16 point, transfer to PAS. For PAS pension, do 5 years actually on the PAS spine; i.e. 5 yrs from age 38.

The carrot this year is the fact your ROS starts immediately.

Thanks for the clarification! Not quite as annoyed as I was, merely a little peeved!

Dude,

I was made redundant in the last round (no call for an ex F3 mate with GD Aerosystems apparently!) 4 1/2 years into my 5year RoS for PAS and did not get my PAS suppliment - I get a pension as if i left as a non PAS Flt Lt who did 20 years... :mad:

There were about 4 of us who fell into that category and the FPS's response was "oh we knew there were a few of you - that's a shame tough luck" !! Nice....

Still civvy street aint too bad... at least I now can chose what hot and sunny destinations I would like to visit !!

Gloria

Gloria, that is bad. I wonder if there is any mileage in a redress that they offered you terms with a 5 year "maturity" that they chose to cut short! Or a court action? Al R might have an idea? Very rough guess, that cost you around 5k a year and 15k on the gratuity?:oh:

OAP

Gloria, I too was made redundant within the intial 5yr PAS period (2 yrs in for me). However, my pension appears to be based on the 'Specialist Aircrew' rates that were definitely above the non-aircrew Flt Lt rates. I was on AFPS75 and the relevant para in the JSP did state that this would happen. I no longer have the exact wording to hand but it quite clearly mentioned Specialist aircrew as I then had to hunt around for their pension tables which were issued separately. I think they were used to cover the retiring legacy 'spec aircrew' guys and therefore used by Manning in the case of a PAS guy not fulfilling full 5yr ROS and leaving with IP.

Just to clarify Gloria's post, what she is said is the response we received from the RAF Pay Colonel when the first redundancy tranche was announced.

We made the point to them that since it was the RAF who were curtailing these individuals’ careers and not allowing them to reach the five year point to have entitlement to the PAS supplement, then the criteria should be waived and the supplement awarded. The RAF Pay Colonel’s team at the time said that there were only going to be a couple affected and for such a small number there would be no adjustment to the rules.

So the FPS did indeed make representation about this but, as usual, it was the hard hearted centre that refused any form of compassion. Of course, what was not helpful was the fact that the redundancy tranches were all occurring when money was exceedingly tight and a major battle with the Treasury (because it is they who would have to sanction the matter) was unlikely to be won.

But surely, that only should only increase the ability and willingness to tweak things? Why are these people hiding behind the "them's the rules and rules is rules" mantra?

If the new USAF Secretary (title?) Deborah James can put the brakes on things over there a few weeks back (namely, the 'strategic pause') when it realised the redundancy detail was wrong, why can't we? Especially when it's 'only' for a few well deserving people. Maybe we need more women and/or less rear end prescriptive dogma, and certainly more of the flexibility that front line commanders and troops are constantly being exhorted to demonstrate and embrace. Time to mow the lawn.