Sandy Parts

I don't know where you get the idea that fresh graduates or apprentices are organising this maintenance. I somehow doubt that any professional company is going down that road on a multi million pound contract.

The engineers they are recruiting to carry out the maintenance are experienced licensed engineers the majority of whom will have an ex service background.

As for type training the courses are all in place starting shortly.

I too have seen the adverts for seaking supervisors (£29000). Well there are two choices and both are down to the individuals. Put in the work (and it isn't easy) and get a civvy ticket or go on a military contract and accept the wage hit. Everybody's circumstances are different and therefore their choices.

I think the numbers game civvy versus ex mil depends on where you are. Where I am we 100% ex mil our neighbours are about 80%. At my previous job the Avionics guys were 100% ex mil and the mechs were about 90%. I believe that the forces are still the main provider of "experienced" engineers. This is especially the case when you consider that most companies shut down their apprentice schemes and have belatedly realised that the predicted manpower shortage is actually here, hence the numbers of companies now offering apprenticeships..

Out of interest that pay rate I saw for the Seaking supervisor is what we pay our apprentices towards the end of their apprenticeship!!!!!!!

It's an erroneous and patronising assumption, sandy parts that greenhorn new graduates are the only alternative to ex military engineers.

Perhaps we're talking about different things; clearly a contracted out operation like the Lossie SK one you mention will attract a high (100%?) ratio of ex service personnel. This isn't representative of the wider civil airline world.

ericferret - I think we are agreeing? My point was that any ex-techies in the Brize area (including ex-lyneham) may well benefit from this new short-term contract. I was being 'tongue-in-cheek' re the apprentices etc based on shotOnes comment about industry using them.
I do wonder how much Flybe will be investing in staff if the initial contract is only for 2 years? I know that in my new world (IT), our company beancounters expect a return on all capital/staff costs within contract - not based on 'possible extension' to that contract.
Hopefully, at least some former RAF colleagues can benefit from this arrangement. It would be nice if their adaptability in acquiring new skills puts them at the top of any lists (assuming of course that as shotOne says, they don't just wish to remain 'retired').

The working model for Flybe Mil is likely to be this:

One CAT C Licenced engineer per maintenance check.

Several Maintenance Team Supervisors (e.g. Wings/Engines/Controls, etc.)who are likely to be B1 qualified but who won't actually use their AML's.

Several Team Members - perhaps up to eight mechanics - working for each Team.

Where's the panic over LAE's?

You'll only need CAT B engineers for line ops...three or four per shift for 10-12 aircraft at a main operating base.

Having worked in both civilian and military aviation I think I am able to comment on the continuing moves to making the RAF into a militia. Both systems have their strengths and weaknesses. The civil system is far more flexible than the military. Fewer people are in the decision making progress, and you have to be a current maintenance engineer to make important decisions. The military have lots of highly qualified people at certain ranks, but their practical maintenance experience is either nil or close to nil. The actual engineer who is doing or supervising a task has very little say in the ultimate decisions. That is why the military will spend weeks gazing at their navels, whilst a civilian organisation will make a decision and have an aircraft flying in a few days. What the military get from their own engineers is someone who can fix aircraft, a firefighter, a half decent first- aider, someone who can fire a rifle reasonably straight ( although the RAF Regiment will laugh their tits off at that statement), and lastly, someone who is prepared to pay the ultimate price if need be. I suppose the current decisions to civilianise the military will only be borne out when we face an adversary who not only fights back but is determined to destroy us. Then, those who made the decisions can say "We may have been beaten, but look how much we saved".

Shot one: He may have been wrong, but I don't think that Sandy was being patronising. However, when you previously suggested this (below) in response to the suggestion of ex servicemen starting a second engineering career, you possibly were being.

I apologise if you're not being patronising. Maybe you're simply erroneous, maybe you're just a bit out of touch or too willing to believe civvy stereotypical perceptions. But not all servicemen and women on immediate pensions are quite as ready to be written off or put out to pasture as you seem to think.

No intention of being patronising, Al. As an ex-serviceman myself (albeit not on a pension) there was no suggestion of such folk being "out to pasture". My point is these chaps obviously have their own reasons for becoming "ex" so why should the A400 be their cue for a Frank Sinatra comeback? Of course if that's not the case then I don't doubt Sandy is correct about their adaptability standing them in good stead.

Ain't that the truth. The military engineer isn't allowed to use his initiative any more. He's not allowed to deviate and if he comes across a problem not covered by the procedure, he has to pass it upward, even though the fix may be blindingly obvious and simple. As the problem gets passed upwards, it gets further away from the person best placed to solve it and consequently, it keeps going up until it gets to the manufacturer who charges a fortune to authorise the engineer to do the thing he wanted to do in the first place.

Concession requests in civilian aviation are dealt with speedily to minimise downtime and revenue loss. In the military world they can (and often do) take weeks.

Vendee - Don't ever think that Marham's disorganisation and blurred view of a workflow is anything near similar to anyone else's organisation. In 40 years of working the shop floor I've never ever seen that amount of burocracy. Typical of a manufacturers view of work, I think.

I once said to one of my Bosses there "This is a really naïve way of work - as though BAE has never done maintenance before"
He said "We've been doing Tornado Maintenance like this for 20 years in Saudi!"
"But did you ever think you weren't doing it right?" was my closing statement.
He never replied.

Actually Rigga, I wasn't talking about Marham. Try working for the AAC. Its amazing they get anything in the air. Some days they don't. :(

LOL! Same confusion - different venue.

Flybe Engineering.. Crikey!

They used to have a few Engineers at LGW; and then decided to get rid of them all. Sometimes had to get an Engineer up from Southampton to fix a few things and then eventually got Monarch Engineering to sort out any issues.

Not an organisation I would have approached for the A400m contract!

Oh well time will tell if their up to it!:sad: